2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th 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)

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 5

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: In the gallery today we have a couple of members of Equal Voice B.C. At the noonhour there were groups of MLAs from both sides of the House that were there to celebrate the work that Equal Voice B.C. provides to encourage women in politics. That's why we're wearing our nice little boutonnieres. I ask that the House welcome Carolyn Jack, the chair, and Janet Wiegand to the House.

Welcome.

K. Corrigan: I also would like to welcome Carolyn. The members of Equal Voice pointed out that the aim is for 50 percent women. We are at 36 percent women in this Legislature, and we lead the country in that regard. I would also note that we are 41 percent on this side of the House.

Thank you so much for hosting us, and welcome back to the Leg. It was lovely to be appreciated as a politician. We're not always. And thank you so much for the work that you do. We will all work together to reach 50 percent. Finally, thank you so much for reminding us all that International Women's Day is coming up in a couple of days and for providing these lovely boutonnieres for that purpose.

Make them welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: I have the pleasure today to acknowledge in the gallery a very good friend of mine, a strong supporter of mine and a very well-known constituent in Richmond that many here will recognize. Please join me in welcoming Rob Howard, my predecessor as MLA in Richmond Centre, the former parliamentary secretary in the Transportation Ministry and the former provincial lead in air access.

Welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the precinct today is the mayor of my community of Langford, Stew Young. Stew has been, for almost 20 years now, the mayor of the fastest and most dynamic community here on the south Island, providing innovative social housing programs, new green spaces, recreation facilities and growth that requires a great deal of assistance from the government.

Mr. Young is here today with an associate, Mr. Jim Hartshorne of the West Shore Developers Association, to talk to ministers of the Crown about the important work that's being done in Langford and how we can all work together to make it an even better place.

More importantly, though, I want to acknowledge Mr. Hartshorne because he is also the president of the Western Lacrosse Association champions, the Victoria Shamrocks.

I know that a good friend of mine, Jordan Bateman was here eating some crow some weeks back, because the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove and the member for Langley, when the Thunder went down, weren't able to pony up the bill for lunch. I know that they were heartbroken when that happened.

Would the House please make Jim very, very welcome.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise to introduce two very engaged and enlightened young people that I met with earlier today. Nick Milum is a grade 11 student at Eric Hamber Secondary in Vancouver, and he's served as the student trustee for the Vancouver board of education since last October. He's going to continue to do so until June. He has also been a member of the Vancouver District Students Council for three years now.

[1340]

Joining him is Maya Treuheit. Maya is a grade 12 student at Chatelech Secondary in the Sunshine Coast, and she's served as a student trustee there since last November. Her term will end this June as well. She's also been selected as a member of the newly formed provincial ERASE student advisory council that the Premier announced. I know that she is going to do a great job as it relates to the ERASE strategy. If the members would join me in welcoming the two of them.

M. Elmore: I have a couple of introductions. I'd like to welcome my friend, a friend to many, Ian Waddell. He's here with us. Ian is a former Member of Parliament, a former MLA. I'd like to congratulate him. He's a recently appointed Queen's Counsel, and I believe he'll be in for the ceremony tomorrow. I'd like everyone to please welcome Ian Waddell.

Then I also have a couple of high school classes visiting today. From Sir Charles Tupper Secondary high school. They are here with us — two classes from grade 11, grade 12. They are accompanied by their principal, Principal Kal Gill, as well as teachers Bonnie Burnell and Auton Lum, and accompanied by adults Dan Kramer, Thomas Howell, Joanne Power, Natalie Wai and Marcia Kube.

I'd just like to share. I asked them how they would like me to introduce them. They said they'd like to share their code of conduct and their chant, the Tupper Tigers Roars. Roars stands for respect, ownership, attitude, responsibility and safety. I ask you to please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to welcome today to the House, from the Law Society of British Columbia, Ms.
[ Page 1866 ]
Jan Lindsay, QC, president and chair. She is joined by Tim McGee, QC, who is the CEO. I should add that Tim McGee is a new QC and in fact will be welcomed tomorrow along with Mr. Waddell at Government House. We thank the Lieutenant-Governor for opening her house to this ceremony for the new QCs.

The Law Society is engaged in an interesting piece of work at the moment, to consider one professional body for the various groups who deliver legal services, including lawyers, notaries and paralegals, thus increasing access to justice for everybody in British Columbia.

I hope the House will join me in wishing them well in their work, congratulating them on their achievements and welcoming them here to the Legislature today.

M. Karagianis: My friend Jeremy Berland contacted me and asked if I could help get some family friends of his to come and enjoy the question period introductions today. So I would like to welcome from the Panorama area of Surrey Francesca Clarke and her two sons Joshua and Milo. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted today to introduce a number of members of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses that are here. The coalition was created in 1992 to represent the voices of small and medium-sized businesses in the development of British Columbia's labour and employment policies. The coalition actually represents over 50,000 small and medium-sized business that are active in all sectors of our economy.

We're very pleased today to welcome the chair, Mark von Schellwitz from Restaurants Canada; Neil Moody of the Canadian Home Builders; Phil Hochstein, Independent Contractors; Chuck Byrne, the Insurance Brokers Association of B.C.; Blair Qualey, the New Car Dealers Association; Andrew Klukas, Western Convenience Stores; Arlene Keis of go2; James Chase of the B.C. Hotel Association; Paul LaBranche of Building Owners and Managers; Thomas Foreman, the Building Supply Industry Association of B.C.; and George Higgins, who is the coalition coordinator.

I think we all recognize the important role these leaders in small and medium-sized business play in British Columbia, so please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

C. Trevena: In the gallery today are a number of guests that I hope the House will welcome. We have Tanya Poulin and Caroline Sloat. Both are care aides at New Horizons in Campbell River. They are two of the 120 who are being laid off in a mass layoff at the facility. They are joined by Barb Biley, the regional vice-president of the Hospital Employees Union based in Courtenay; Bill McMullan, the regional VP of the HEU based in Victoria; Victor Elkins, the president of the Hospital Employees Union; and Mike Old, the communications director.

They are here to witness the tabling of a very significant petition opposing the mass layoffs at New Horizons.

[1345]

M. Dalton: In the gallery we have a number of special guests. Peter Froese is the executive director of FISA, the federation of independent schools. There are 78,000 independent school students in British Columbia. The majority are members of FISA.

We also have Dr. Kathleen Forsythe. She is the principal of SelfDesign, which are, really, leaders in personalized learning. It's the second largest DL school in British Columbia. She is with Michael Maser, who is a co-founder of SelfDesign. Also, we have Karen Gledhill, who is the principal of the Traditional Learning Academy, based out of Surrey, but their students are found throughout all of our constituencies across British Columbia.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Tributes

SONJA GAUDET AND PARALYMPIC GAMES

E. Foster: I rise today to acknowledge a friend and constituent of mine, a two-time Olympic gold-medal wheelchair curler and I don't know how many times a world champion wheelchair curler.

Sonja Gaudet is a good friend. As a matter of fact, the first time I was on a stage after I was elected, I shared the stage with Sonja. Sonja yesterday was selected to carry the Canadian flag in the opening ceremonies of the Paralympic Games in Sochi the next few days.

I just wish all our Paralympians from Canada the very best of luck, and a special thank-you to my friend Sonja. She's well deserved as the flag bearer for Canada.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I'd like to introduce two people who are obviously very close to me, my mother and father, who are sitting here in the gallery today. My mother is very active in the Ukrainian community in the city of Victoria. She'll be here watching proceedings as we move forward.

I also would like to mention, if I may, quickly, hon. Speaker, to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake that in terms of gender parity, the independents in this House are 50 percent. I hope you all aspire to meet us there.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'd ask the House to welcome Athana and James Mentzelopoulos. James is visiting here from his employment with a Canadian mining company on a certain Caribbean island where they do not enjoy the freedoms that we do. Please welcome him back to our democratic Canada.
[ Page 1867 ]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, joining us in the gallery today are Mr. Kevin Carmichael, visiting from Surrey, and Mr. Everett Baker, visiting from Grand Forks. Please make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MINERAL TAX REVENUE-SHARING
AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST NATIONS

J. Tegart: An economy is successful only if all citizens benefit. As a government, it is our goal to create a prosperous economy in which all British Columbians can fully participate. We want an economy in which young people entering the workforce have the option of staying in their own communities to work and live if that's what they so choose.

In my region of Fraser-Nicola forestry and agriculture are vital sectors of the economy, but we also rely on mining as a cornerstone in many of the communities I represent. B.C. is working to ensure that First Nations communities have the opportunity to benefit from resource development on their traditional territory.

British Columbia is taking a lead role amongst all provinces in Canada as the first province to share mineral tax revenue with First Nations whose traditional territories are impacted with the new or expanded mines through negotiating economic and community development agreements.

Last October the benefits of the first-ever agreements with the Tk'emlúps, Secwepemc and Skeetchestn bands began to flow from new gold mine in Kamloops. I was pleased to join them as they received more than $730,000. In November I had the opportunity to celebrate with eight Nlaka'pamux bands as they saw more than $7 million go into a legacy trust which tax revenue from the Highland Valley Copper mine owned by Teck contributed to.

Also in November the Upper Similkameen and Lower Similkameen Indian bands shared more than $400,000 thanks to an ECDA for the Copper Mountain mine located southwest of Princeton.

[1350]

I am proud of what we've accomplished together with these First Nations, which is helping benefit not only their communities but our region as a whole.

CHINESE CANADIAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY
RECOGNITION OF
HOWARD AND LARRY GRANT

J. Kwan: "Time to tell a new story, not just about an apology but never letting it happen again." Those were the words of Howard Grant. On March 1 the member for Surrey-Whalley, the member for New Westminster and I attended the Chinese Canadian Historical Society's tenth anniversary celebration. Also in attendance were distinguished historians: Dr. Henry Yu and professors and authors Jean Barman and Patricia Roy.

It was a wonderful evening where elder Larry Grant and his brother Howard Grant were honoured. The journey that these two brothers travelled told a story of aboriginal and Chinese relations. Their mother was Musqueam, and their father came from Zhongshan county in China.

As history tells us, the First Nations people and the Chinese people both suffered enormous hardships and discrimination. Elder Larry Grant recounted how aboriginal people, as the First Peoples of this land, embraced the Chinese and worked side by side with them every day. He spoke about the determination and cooperation between these two communities and that without those relationships, many would not have survived.

This coming together in the face of discrimination is perhaps most aptly illustrated with the words from Howard Grant. "Canada was built on the backs of the Chinese, and the land that it was built on was aboriginal land."

In their commitment to their past and future generations, the Grant family visited their father's ancestral land and connected with relatives in China that they had never met.

Additionally, elder Larry Grant is the elder-in-residence at the UBC First Nations House of Learning and the adjunct professor teaching the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm language in UBC.

Howard Grant is a longtime Musqueam band councillor and is executive director at the First Nations Summit.

I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking elder Larry Grant and Howard Grant for sharing their journey and teachings and to also extend our appreciation to the Chinese Canadian Historical Society of B.C. for their work in promoting the rich history of British Columbia.

CHILLIWACK SECONDARY SCHOOL

J. Martin: Last Friday, with considerable pomp and circumstance, leaders in government, education and non-profit organizations marched into the new Chilliwack Secondary School to the sound of the CSS band. The lights went down, and we were all a little thunderstruck as AC/DC began to play, signalling that the celebration of a new era for Chilliwack was just beginning.

Throughout the opening ceremonies, one thing was very clear. Through planning and collaboration and a lot of hard work, anything is possible. Community partners in the new neighbourhood learning centre stood up to be recognized, as did those from Fraser Valley Distance Education. Mayor Sharon Gaetz, school board vice-chair Silvia Dyck and superintendent of schools Evelyn Novak
[ Page 1868 ]
all spoke of the dedication and the passion that were required for this project.

During my visit I was able to meet with students and staff and tour the unique features of this school, including a teaching kitchen for the culinary arts program, the grand hall, the aboriginal cultural centre and a spectacular new library. Other skills-and-trades-supporting features of the school include a metal workshop with 12 custom-designed welding booths and a robotics lab. A 22-station professionally equipped hairdressing salon is also on the way.

This government played an important role in supporting the school replacement project, and $56 million was contributed to developing an outstanding state-of-the-art facility for student learning in Chilliwack. For this we are incredibly grateful to former MLA John Les and the Ministry of Education for their support on this project.

I also express my sincere congratulations to the principal of Chilliwack Secondary, Rick Jones, who has been leading the high school for many years. It is because of Rick, John Les, Sylvia Dick and so many others I am proud to say that Chilliwack is now home to one of the very finest high schools in the province.

RESIDENTS AND HEALTH CARE WORKERS
AT NEW HORIZONS CARE FACILITY

C. Trevena: I rise today to talk about care and respect, two fundamental elements when we look at elder care. When seniors go to long-term care, it is — and they will often acknowledge that themselves — their last home. It is their home, where they've moved or been moved to because they do need support and care.

[1355]

Often they need personal intimate care, care from the moment they wake — using the bathroom, dressing, helping with eating, having their hair brushed or their nails clipped and also being engaged physically and mentally. Those seniors, our elders, deserve respect and to be treated with dignity.

The staff who work with seniors are committed to those in their care. It's often a very physical job. They work long hours. They're there on weekends and on holidays. For many of the seniors, these workers are as close as family. For many, they may be all the seniors have, the only person regularly there for them in their lives.

Those workers, too, deserve respect and, like those they care for, to be treated with dignity. People in Campbell River understand that. They turned up in force over the weekend to show their support for both the workers and the seniors at New Horizons care home. The owners of the facility plan to dismiss all 120 union staff. That would leave the seniors who live there with a completely new group of people working with them, which is traumatic for the workers and for the seniors for whom they work and care.

It's not that the owners are closing down the home. It would seem they think it's too expensive to have a union workforce. The unions come forward and try to offer solutions, but those overtures have been rejected. What's being missed in all of this is that seniors and staff both deserve respect. We don't live in a caring society if heartless acts such as those that are happening in Campbell River are allowed to continue unchallenged.

DIVERSITY HEALTH FAIR AND
TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

R. Lee: Last Saturday I had the opportunity to attend the opening ceremony of the tenth annual Vancouver Diversity Health Fair at the Croatian Cultural Centre, organized by AMSSA. It kicked off with a First Nations blessing and featured a full day of exhibitions from many health-related organizations, healthy cooking and free health screening for fair attendees. This health fair attracted thousands of participants.

The fair shows that in our multicultural society, the health of the body is on everybody's mind. Many people have increasingly complemented conventional medicine to care about themselves. We know the importance of exercise, healthy diet and a holistic lifestyle approach towards building up our internal strength and immune system to prevent ailments.

As many members know, acupuncture, chiropractic, massage therapy, naturopathy, physical therapy and non-surgical podiatry are recognized as supplementary benefits in our MSP system. Recently I have taken the opportunity to learn more about traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. TCM has a long history, over 2,000 years. The theory of TCM can be traced back to books such as the Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon and the Treatise on Cold Damage.

Similar systems to diagnose and cure illness have also been developed in Korea, Japan and Vietnam. TCM practitioners are regulated by the College of TCM Practitioners and Acupuncturists of B.C. Other provinces like Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador also have similar regulatory bodies. There are currently six private TCM schools in British Columbia.

I'm very pleased to see that the Kwantlen Polytechnic University is planning to establish a school of traditional Chinese medicine next year. This will provide more choices for B.C. students and diversify the choices to the public towards a healthier British Columbia.

FESTIVAL DU BOIS

S. Robinson: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to tell the members about Festival du Bois, the largest francophone festival on Canada's west coast. This past weekend they celebrated their 25th anniversary. The organizers and volunteers of this great festival com-
[ Page 1869 ]
memorated the festival's first quarter century with great music, amazing artists, outstanding performers, entertaining activities and authentic food.

The food — sucre à la crème. Cabane à Sucre supplying us with maple taffy on ice shavings reminded me of my childhood growing up in Montreal. If anybody in this House has never had that, I encourage you to come down to Maillardville next February and March when we do this festival.

That taffy, that maple syrup that has been frozen on those ice shavings — there is nothing like it in the world. And that tourtière. Of course, I would be remiss — are you all hungry now? — if I didn't talk about the poutine, the original poutine out of Quebec.

[1400]

There is a long French Canadian pioneering heritage and logging-based history in Maillardville. Festival du Bois, Festival of Wood, is aptly named for the French Canadians who came to Maillardville 100 years ago to work at Fraser Mills along the Fraser River. The strength and resilience of those who came a century ago are reflected in the culture and strength of the community today.

This year's programming at Festival du Bois reflected it all, and the festival presented an eclectic gathering of the finest Québécois francophone folk, world and roots artists performing today, the same diversity we see in Maillardville present-day.

Many thanks go out to the sponsors, coordinators and volunteers of this fabulous two-day event, hosted by Société francophone de Maillardville.

Merci beaucoup, jusqu'à l'année prochaine. Until next year, please, I invite everyone in the House to join us for fabulous food and fabulous music.

Ministerial Statements

SITUATION IN UKRAINE

Hon. C. Clark: I rise today to speak about the situation that is gripping Ukraine and the Crimea as we speak. It has grabbed the world's attention, including all of us here in British Columbia.

What started off as protests against the Ukrainian presidency led to a dramatic shake-up of the country's political landscape. I know I speak for all members of this House when I say that we have been watching this with tremendous concern. Lives have been lost, and more violence has been threatened.

This is a serious crisis that threatens to plunge that part of the world into chaos. And if history is any guide at all, chaos has a habit of spreading quickly.

In British Columbia and in Canada we pride ourselves on welcoming all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture or faith. For decades Canada and British Columbia have been a home for immigrants and their descendants from both Russia and Ukraine. We have been strengthened by their contributions — the contributions that they've made to our society, to our economy and to our communities. And we sometimes take for granted the stability and prosperity that we are so blessed to enjoy here in B.C.

While the world watches, waits and prays, Canadians are united in the hope that a peaceful and lasting resolution is found quickly. It is important for all of us to send a strong and united message that the people of Ukraine must be free — free from threat, free from intimidation and free from violence — when setting out to determine their own future.

This is no longer a simple diplomatic dispute between neighbours. One country's territory has been breached, a direct violation of international law. Like all Canadians, British Columbians are unwavering in our collective voice. The sovereignty of Ukraine and of all of its regions must be respected.

I invite all members of this House to join me in solidarity with the brave people of Ukraine and to stand behind the Prime Minister's strong support of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law.

A. Dix: I wish to support the Premier's statement — our commitment here in this House of support for the Ukrainian people.

I think not just this year but over the past decade all of us who believe in democracy, all of us who believe in the rule of law, have been inspired by the courage of the Ukrainian people to speak out, even to put their lives at risk, even to give their lives to ensure that people all over Ukraine, from Lviv to Donetsk, have the rights that we have here in Canada. It is an inspiring thing that deserves our support and the help that Canada can provide in every way to ensure a peaceful resolution that protects the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

[1405]

I think this issue touches Canadians in a profound way not just because of the deep connections between Ukraine and Canada. It's the enormous numbers of Ukrainian Canadians who have contributed so much to our country, people like the family of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and others.

Other Canadians have become very involved, like my colleague from Nelson-Creston, in observing the most recent election and speaking out and supporting democratic activity in Ukraine.

Ukraine is not a jigsaw puzzle from which pieces can be removed. We completely condemn the incursions by the Russian Federation into Ukraine and speak, I think, with one voice in this parliament. I can say, I think, in the federal parliament Mr. Mulcair, Mr. Trudeau and Prime Minister Harper have spoken with one voice in support of democracy, the rule of law.
[ Page 1870 ]

The people of Ukraine want what we want — a parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, a civil society, the right to oppose the government. That's what they want, and we should support them in their efforts, together.

A. Weaver: I seek leave to speak.

Leave granted.

A. Weaver: I just want to sincerely thank the Premier of our province and the Leader of the Official Opposition, on behalf of all Ukrainians in British Columbia, for the statements made today.

This is a deeply touching issue to me personally. Half of my family are in Ukraine. I'd like to read you the contents of an e-mail that one of my cousins sent us just recently.

The e-mail goes like this: "Guys, I'm alive and well. Cannot talk because I'm raising money and looking for bulletproof vests for doctors." This shows how serious this issue is for the people of Ukraine.

Once again, I thank the Premier and Leader of the Opposition for such a passionate, strong statement on behalf of the people of Ukraine.

Oral Questions

REPORTING OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: Kwantlen University has a legal obligation to report the total compensation of their four best-paid administrators to the Public Sector Employers Council. This body regulates salaries at universities and colleges to ensure administrators aren't overpaid.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education explain why, over 2012 and '13, Kwantlen Polytechnic University hid at least $100,000 of payments to senior administrators by recording them in their financial reports as payments to suppliers of goods and services, right alongside Future Shop and Coca-Cola, instead of including them, as the law requires, in their executive compensation reports filed with government?

Hon. A. Virk: As the member for Vancouver–Point Grey well knows and as do members of the opposition, executive salaries above $75,000 are indeed reportable and are available publicly for all to see. If there are some salaries that aren't reported, we can certainly endeavour to get back to the member opposite and provide that information to him.

But across the public sector — not only the university sector — all salaries for staff and faculty are reported, over $75,000. They're available for anybody to see on a public website.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister has personal knowledge of the executive compensation reports of the four top earners of Kwantlen University filed with the government because he was vice-chair of the Kwantlen board of governors when all of this took place, and those salaries were not reported.

He was also chair of Kwantlen's board human resources committee. It was explicitly his job in the role of chair to make complete and accurate reports to government on pay and perks for top-paid administrators. It was under the minister's watch that Kwantlen concealed over $100,000 in payments to the current president and a former vice-president.

As a policy matter, does the Minister of Advanced Education agree with reporting practices like this?

[1410]

Hon. A. Virk: There's no shortage of outlandish comments that I can attribute to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and this certainly is another one of those.

Kwantlen Polytechnic University certainly reports all their earnings. Like I said before, anything that's earned over $75,000 is reportable — reportable to the taxpayer of British Columbia, and it's available for all to see.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: These are serious questions about a report that the minister was personally responsible for in his role as chair of the human resources committee that was filed by his board with government and did not include these contracts.

Kwantlen's statement of financial information says that the school's current president received a $50,000 contract in addition to his reported compensation. That was not included by the minister in his report to government. Similarly, Kwantlen's former VP academic was awarded a $56,280 contract in addition to her reported compensation. That was not reported by the minister in his role as chair.

The failure to report these payments violates the Public Sector Employers Act. Those who received those payments could be ordered to repay tens of thousands of dollars. Is the minister confident that today payments to top executives are still not being hidden from the executive compensation reports at Kwantlen University?

Hon. A. Virk: We have an education system across British Columbia in post-secondary education with 25 post-secondary institutions that are the envy of the world. Parents across the world and my counterparts across the world choose to send their children to British Columbia because we have a system that they can trust, a system that they believe in, a system that delivers high-quality information to students.
[ Page 1871 ]

This government is absolutely committed to transparency, and this government is absolutely committed to making sure that education stays the highest quality possible.

A. Dix: Well, it's word, and it's deed. The minister just said he's absolutely committed to transparency, but in this case he wasn't. In this case the government wasn't. In this case they haven't done anything about it.

Does the Premier believe that not disclosing $100,000 in vendor payments is appropriate? Can she confirm that the minister raised this issue with her before he was appointed minister responsible for colleges and universities?

Hon. A. Virk: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway perhaps is the last person that can lecture this House on transparency.

This government is committed. As I said before, every earning over $75,000 in the entire public service is reportable on a public service website available for all to see.

A. Dix: This is a problem: one rule for senior executives. That's what we've seen in the last two days. There's one rule for senior executives who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars. They don't properly disclose an extra $100,000 in extra compensation, and all they've got is this kind of statement.

If you're a health care worker, you have the Minister of Health of British Columbia saying — if you're working hard every day and your salary's going to be cut: "Oh, you can always reapply for your job." One rule for the rich; one rule for everybody else.

The minister in his previous capacity….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Oh, the Minister of Health can participate in the debate fully. I'm sure that he will.

Hon. Speaker, $100,000 in payments not properly disclosed on his watch. Now he's in charge of all of the colleges and universities. Does he agree with me that it was inappropriate for those payments not to be disclosed? Does he believe that — yes or no?

[1415]

Hon. A. Virk: Madame Speaker, I am very proud of my service and commitment not only to this province but to this country. I look at this country, and I look at the different ways I've spilled blood to enrich the soil many a time.

My time on the university board of governors actually was equally as important, because I felt I contributed to the students of British Columbia to make their education that much more important. All across British Columbia there are men and women who are contributing to education and giving their own time and volunteering to be on boards all across the province. I give kudos and shout-outs to all those boards.

SAFETY OF STAFF AT HILLSIDE
ADULT PSYCHIATRIC CENTRE

J. Darcy: Last Thursday the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and I raised serious questions in this House about the violent attacks on nurses at the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre in Burnaby. But Maples is just one of many facilities across B.C. where violence against health care workers is not just a weekly but almost a daily occurrence.

Today the media are reporting that at the Hillside adult psychiatric facility in Kamloops there were 288 incidents of violence last year. Now we learn that a nurse at Hillside is being suspended for suggesting that staffing levels should be increased to deal with this epidemic of violent attacks.

My question to the Minister of Health is this. Why is this government punishing this nurse for speaking out instead of listening and taking action to improve safety and staffing levels at Hillside in his own community of Kamloops?

Hon. T. Lake: I know all members of this House appreciate the hard-working men and women in our health care system. Day after day, patients around this province are looked after in an exceptional way. Violence in the workplace should not be tolerated, which is why we have made great efforts over the last few years to reduce violence in the workplace.

The provincial violence prevention program — 14,000 health care workers were trained in this program. Over the last three years we've seen a reduction in code whites. That is an apprehension or a concern about violence or a violent act — reduced 13 percent. We have to do more every single day to protect the men and women who work in our health care system, and we will do that, because we appreciate what they do for each and every one of us every single day.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: I'm afraid that the minister's facts just don't jibe with reality. Maples is a youth psychiatric facility. Hillside is an adult psychiatric facility. In both cases we're talking about serious issues of violence against nurses.

The Minister of Children and Family Development has stated that no one will be disciplined for speaking out against violence at Maples. Why is there another set of rules in the Ministry of Health? Will the Minister of Health commit that no health care workers will be disciplined at Hillside or any other health care facility across
[ Page 1872 ]
the province for having the courage to speak out about safety and violence in health care across this province?

Hon. T. Lake: All health authorities have a safe reporting or whistle-blower policy in place that allows complaints to be made without concern of discipline. Let me read from the Interior Health Authority policy statement. "The authority will not take, tolerate or allow any direct or indirect reprisal, harassment or even informal pressure against the person who, in good faith, reports a perceived wrongdoing."

[1420]

We always will protect those who speak out when they think there is something wrong happening in the workplace. We will do that in this case, and in all cases, to protect health care workers across this province.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
SAFETY AT B.C. MILLS

H. Bains: Two years ago the explosions at Burns Lake and Prince George killed four workers and injured 43. This week we learned that about half of the sawmills inspected still are in non-compliance. The minister's response? "I will have some meetings with some CEOs."

She had two years to meet with those CEOs. She had two years to sit down with them to make them understand the importance of compliance. She had two years to get it right, and still we have half the sawmills failing the safety audit. It's time for the minister to act.

Will she today ensure that for non-compliance, penalties are real and they are immediate? And would she also instruct WorkSafe B.C. to use their full power and resources to make sure all those sawmills are safe and those workers' safety is the first priority?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, all of us want to be sure that workers in British Columbia, employees in British Columbia — whether they're in sawmills, whether they're in emergency wards or psychiatric nursing units — can go to work in the morning, be safe and go home at the end of the day.

WorkSafe has a responsibility to ensure that those workplaces are safe. Immediately following the Lakeland explosion — I know the member opposite is aware of this — there were orders issued to sawmill owners across British Columbia, with a series of expectations. In fact, dust mitigation, including new equipment, making sure that policies and procedures were changed — all of those orders began four days after the explosion at Lakeland.

The latest report clearly indicates there is more to be done. And the member is correct. I have met with CEOs on more than one occasion. But the moment that this report came to my attention, I contacted WorkSafe, I contacted the CEO task force and have also offered to meet with union employees so that we can actually ensure that workplaces in British Columbia are safe, as we would expect them to be.

Madame Speaker: The Member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: It's quite obvious that WorkSafe B.C. didn't get the message, those CEOs didn't get the message, and this minister is sleeping at the switch.

These explosions that killed four workers and injured 43 were tragic. What would be more tragic? If this government failed to ensure that this will never happen again, and more lives are lost. Workers' safety is a trust. It's a sacred trust of government and WorkSafe B.C.

The workers of this province put their trust of their safety in those two organizations' hands. Yet still we see, after two years, half of the sawmills still in non-compliance. It's not acceptable to…

Madame Speaker: Pose your question.

H. Bains: …those workers and their families and should not be acceptable to this House, especially to this government.

Madame Speaker: Pose your question.

H. Bains: Again to the minister, will she ensure that the safety regulations are enforced so that the next inspection, the next report, will show compliance of all and every sawmill in this province and that the workers are safe?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite has no need to remind me of the impact of an explosion that took place in my community. On the days following that explosion, the Premier and I visited with families, with health care workers, with first responders whose lives have been unalterably impacted.

I can assure the member opposite that I take the safety of workers in British Columbia as an utmost priority. I have said inside this House and out that it is not acceptable for sawmill owners to be non-compliant. I am meeting with WorkSafe to ensure that every single tool within their purview is used. We are meeting with CEOs who are part of a task force, who made a commitment to make a difference.

I can assure you, Madame Speaker, that there are few people in this House who have the personal experience of having that situation happen in their community. We are committed to ensuring workplaces are safe, and we will continue to work to do that.
[ Page 1873 ]

PERMITTING COSTS AND PROCESS
FOR SMALL MINING COMPANIES

S. Fraser: The B.C. Liberals are slapping placer miners, prospectors and others in the mining industry in British Columbia with hefty new taxes — curiously, while the Premier is saying there are no new taxes in the budget. The Chamber of Mines of Eastern British Columbia says the new mining permit tax is "fines for having the audacity to think you should work in the province of British Columbia." They note that small exploration projects are how most mines get started, saying: "If the first step is never taken due to unreasonable fees, those mines may never be found."

Can the minister explain how slamming placer miners, prospectors and small mining exploration companies with hefty new taxes will improve the global perception of the British Columbia mining industry?

Hon. B. Bennett: Certainly, with respect to the issue of fees being charged to the mining industry under the Mines Act — which is, I think, the basis of the member's question — the oil and gas industry pays fees for the permits that they receive from government. The forest industry pays for fees that they receive from government. It seems like a reasonable proposition for government to at least think about whether the mining industry should also pay fees for the permits that they receive.

We haven't made a final decision. But the galling part of the member's question is the fact that he would suggest that there is something wrong with our reputation, B.C.'s reputation, in the world of mining investment. I just returned from three days at the largest mining conference in the world. There were 30,000 delegates there, trying to match up money with prospects, and guess who looks the strongest of any jurisdiction in Canada at that conference? British Columbia.

S. Fraser: The minister needs to get a grip. The galling thing is that even the Fraser Institute…. Their annual mining report came out last week while he was back in T.O., and it said that B.C. is the worst province in Canada for attractiveness to mining investment, behind almost every other jurisdiction in the country.

[1430]

Regulatory uncertainty, a failure to address aboriginal rights and title issues and an inconsistency in addressing environmental concerns are all factors that place British Columbia at the bottom of the list. Yet the Mining Minister told his local paper, and it's a quote: "I'd say we're number one in Canada from what I've seen."

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: Applause for stating the opposite of the facts is maybe something to rethink.

Can the minister explain the contradiction between his claims about the mining industry — which he's getting applause for here by his peers — and the reality for those working on the ground, the backbone of the industry of this province?

Hon. B. Bennett: It really is a personal honour for me to work with the mining industry on behalf of the people of the province. I live in a riding that has five large operating mines, and I see every day the difference that that industry makes to real people. I see the standard of living that my constituents are able to enjoy because of the mining industry.

That's why I think I feel so passionately about the importance of the industry to the future of British Columbia. I believe that mines can play an important role in terms of our government meeting our jobs targets.

So it is an irony, at the least, for the member of the opposition to stand up and pretend to support the mining industry when that particular political party is known around the world for having chased mining out of British Columbia. There are still members on the other side of the House who were there, who helped with that.

N. Macdonald: Well, you've got Huckleberry mine, Mount Polley mine, Kemess South — all opened in the '90s, which the minister would know had he been in B.C. at the time.

I'll tell you where he was. He was at the cabinet table — listen to this; you'll be interested — when Boss mining was shut down and the government was sued; when Morrison mine was shut down, and you're being sued; when the Flathead was shut down, and you're being sued. And he is the minister responsible for championing a whole host of new taxes, so he should have a look in the mirror before he stands up and lectures anyone about mining.

It's not just the opposition or the people in your own community that are on you about this. Let's go back to the Fraser Institute — your Fraser Institute, okay? It's yours, eh? These are your buddies, right?

This is what the Fraser Institute is saying. This is a mining industry insider in a report you can look up. You'd be interested in hearing this. Here's a quote. Here's a direct quote about the government's so-called streamlining process.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

N. Macdonald: You'll be interested in hearing this. It's from your Fraser Institute, okay? So listen to the quote. It says: "The government's so-called streamlining pro-
[ Page 1874 ]
cess has been" — and I quote from the Fraser Institute directly to you — "a regulatory horror story." Those are your buddies.

So again, can the minister explain why the B.C. Liberals are slapping this tax on small miners and driving them out of British Columbia?

[1435]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, in fact, when the NDP were in government in the 1990s, for every one mine that opened, two closed. It's a good thing that the B.C. Liberals rode in to the rescue. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a mining industry in British Columbia.

The members like to always quote — when I moved to British Columbia. It was not a bad decision. I should have moved here 20 or 30 years before. The truth of the matter is that I was moving out of Ontario to get away from Bob Rae.

When the opposition had a chance to vote for something that would help mining…. When they had a chance to actually vote here in this session on something that would help mining, the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit, guess what. They voted against it.

N. Macdonald: I guess the minister started off with "rode in to the rescue." If it started like the start of a fairy tale, the minister confirmed it as he kept speaking. It's a fairy tale.

There is reality, and it's always different than what the B.C. Liberals say. So we'll go back to some quotes. These are quotes from somebody in the minister's own constituency, himself involved in the mining industry. He has to say: "You are making it financially impossible to operate with the new taxes."

His letter echoes the letter we read previously from the Liberal MLA from West Vancouver, when it says: "Junior mining companies are leaving B.C. while you are entertaining only the large-scale operations."

Prospectors, placer miners, junior mining companies are all the backbone of a healthy mining industry, so can the minister explain why the B.C. Liberal government is driving them out of our province?

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me provide some facts to the House about the current status of the mining industry in British Columbia. First of all, we have 30,000 jobs in mining, and they won't want to hear this. We have 30,000 jobs in mining today and in mineral exploration. We had less than 15,000 jobs when we were first elected in 2001.

The average salary in mining today is $121,000. It's up from $81,000 in 2001.

We have gone from a low in mineral exploration investment…. When these folks were in government, it was less than $30 million. There was zero confidence by the mining industry in this province in the year 2000. So $29 million is what was invested. In 2012 it was $680 million.

We are opening up new mines. In fact, we announced today that there is a new mine opening up on Banks Island. It's a small mine, but it's going to provide 90 jobs. Most of those jobs will go to First Nations people. It's a great success story, and it really shows the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House.

[End of question period.]

C. Trevena: I rise to table a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have a petition here with 5,783 signatures calling on the Minister of Health to intervene and stop the proposed contracting out of approximately 120 staff at New Horizons Community of Care and calling on the Minister of Health to implement the B.C. Ombudsperson's recommendations 169, 170 and 171, which address large-scale staff replacement and other substantial changes to operations in the province's care facilities through the Residential Care Regulation, to ensure that residents are protected from any adverse effects — such as disruption in continuity and quality of care before, during and after large-scale staff replacement — and that they and their families are fully informed of any impacts of any substantial changes to the operations.

[1440]

J. Horgan: I rise on a point of privilege. During question period the Minister of Energy and Mines stated that the opposition voted against the flow-through provisions in Bill 8. That's not the case. It's inaccurate. Perhaps the minister will want to reflect upon that and then rephrase his remarks.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, that does not constitute a point of privilege. That is a point of debate between members.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

The members will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, you will come to order.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the British Columbia Utilities Commission's 2012-2013 Annual Report.
[ Page 1875 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, to be followed when they are complete by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

In this chamber, Committee B, continued second reading on Bill 5, to be followed in due course by second reading on Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act.

[1445]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL
RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to close debate on Bill 5.

Just to say, first of all, that I appreciate the comments and the indications of support from the members opposite for many, many components of the bill. I appreciate the heads-up on areas that they have indicated that they will be canvassing during the committee stage of the bill.

We are working in some of those areas that they've recognized and commented on. We are working with those organizations, because in many cases, the issues raised are outside the scope of the legislation.

I also was just advised by the member for Delta South that she would have normally liked to comment on second reading, but without having a voice, she wasn't able to do that. Her voice is recovering. But as I indicated, I'm sure she'll be there in committee stage, when we get into the section-by-section debate on the bill.

With those comments, I move that the act be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, you've heard the question. All those in favour?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Madame Speaker: Opposed? Motion carried.

Minister, if you would be so kind as to move second reading. We passed the motion to refer to committee but not the motion to pass second reading.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, 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. M. Polak: I call second reading on Bill 4.

BILL 4 — PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. M. Polak: I move this bill be read a second time.

This bill provides increased clarity and certainty respecting the authorization of activities in parks with an area less than 2,023 hectares, for commercial filming and for activities related to research. These amendments to the Park Act will ensure that the ministry has adequate statutory authority to authorize activities and avoid the need for boundary modifications in some instances.

Let me be clear. These proposed amendments do not allow, promote or otherwise enable industrial projects in parks and protected areas. For lands that are currently in a park, a boundary amendment must first be made to remove those lands from the park.

Decisions to remove lands from parks are not taken lightly. There is a rigorous process in place for reviewing boundary adjustments, and the proposed amendments in Bill 4 do not change the existing requirements.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Prior to a decision being made on whether or not to remove lands from a park, First Nations, public and stakeholder consultation occurs. Alternative sites outside of parks are evaluated. Environmental, social and economic factors are all examined. It's a very serious and very well-thought-out decision. We have a well-established process for that. These amendments do not change that process.

These proposed amendments to the Park Act focus on three circumstances. First, subsection 9(5) of the Park Act is an absolute prohibition of all activities that may remove, destroy, damage, disturb or exploit a natural resource in parks that are 2,023 hectares or less. The reference to parks 2,023 hectares in size or less is being deleted.

[1450]

As a result of this amendment, parks of a similar class will be managed to the same standards regardless of their size, while allowing for compatible outdoor recreation activities.

Second, there is presently no expressed statutory authority to authorize film production in class A parks, even though this is a longstanding activity in many parks. Currently to issue this type of permit in class A parks, the minister must be of the opinion that the filming and related activities would be "necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved."

This threshold is stricter than necessary for authorizing the types of impacts resulting from commercial filming.
[ Page 1876 ]
A new provision has been added that expressly allows the minister to issue a park use permit for film production if, in the opinion of the minister, the activity is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park involved. As a result of this amendment, the ministry will have the appropriate statutory authority to allow commercial filming and related activities in class A parks.

Thirdly, a new provision is provided that gives the minister authority to issue a permit for research in a class A park or a conservancy if, in the minister's opinion, issuing the permit has value to park managers or if the research relates to a specified purpose.

Currently, to issue this type of permit in class A parks or conservancies, the minister must be of the opinion that the research and related activities would be necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved or that the impact of research on natural resources in a conservancy would not hinder the development, improvement and use of the conservancy.

These thresholds are insufficient to authorize the full range of research activities that arise, including, in particular, those associated with some forms of academic research or a boundary adjustment proposal.

Excuse me just a moment.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you mind yielding the floor for ten seconds?

I will recognize the Minister of Tourism and Small Business to seek leave to make an introduction.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We have some new guests joining us in the House at the moment. They are 27 grade 12 students from Carson Graham high school. They are here to visit the House. They're with three chaperones.

My stepdaughter, Julia Pinnock, is in grade 12 at Carson Graham right now. It's a great high school, a brand-new high school in North Vancouver. It's a pleasure to have them in the House. I hope I have a chance to speak to them, if they have some time later. Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you to the member. I appreciated a chance to get a drink of water. I apologize. I'm suffering from a bit of a cold.

These thresholds are insufficient to authorize the full range of research activities that arise, including, in particular, those associated with some forms of academic research or a boundary adjustment proposal or other investigations related to assessing proposals for commercial and industrial land uses.

As a result of this amendment, the ministry will have a clear authority to allow research activities in parks and conservancies, including low-impact geotechnical studies aimed at undertaking investigations to gain information, where appropriate, for proposals for boundary adjustments under the cabinet-approved provincial protected area boundary adjustment policy, procedures and guidelines.

To be clear, these amendments do not authorize economic and industrial projects in class A parks and conservancies. The amendments enable the collection of information so that informed and better decisions can be made.

Deputy Speaker: Minister…. Member for Vancouver–West End.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Speaker could call me Minister; I don't mind. But that would require greater responsibility and me to be on that side of the House speaking on a bill which probably wouldn't look quite like this.

Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act. I think it's important, when we talk about parks, to remember from the very beginning, when we're looking at an act like this, what our stated goal is as a province, what the B.C. Parks service says our objective is for parks. They say that we hold parks as a public trust. They are there for the protection of natural environments, for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public.

[1455]

What does "a public trust" mean? It means that not one of us in this House has the right to individually decide do something that might damage a jewel, an object, a park, a place — in this case our parks for the future — for the general public. We, whether it be the government side or the opposition side, do not have the right to proceed without involving the public.

They're not just our parks. They're not the parks of 85 MLAs in this House — of course, we are members; they are partly our parks — but they belong to the millions and millions of British Columbians who use them every year. Those are the people that we in this House are supposed to represent. The parks are their parks, and we, as individual MLAs, of course stand to speak in support and improvement for those parks.

The question I have when I look at Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, is: were any of the public, any of those millions of people whose parks we are discussing today, consulted on a process which, while not leading instantly to industrial development in the park, as the minister has stated, could?

Does it make it easier for a road, a pipeline, a transmission line, a mine or some other potential use in that park
[ Page 1877 ]
to happen? I think it does. I think this bill does makes that easier. Does it make it so that it happens instantly? No. But that's beside the point. What we're talking about here is: are we bettering protection for our parks? Are we bettering support for our parks with this bill? I would say no.

I think there are certainly aspects of Bill 4 which could be supported. But you know, I don't think it's really my place in this place right now to say: "We haven't talked to anybody in B.C., but through my own synapses in my own brain, I've decided what's best for the people." I think we need to consult with the people of B.C. when we make changes like this, and I'll be discussing that a little bit later.

So what is the bill? Is this a bill about building public trust, or is this a bill of the B.C. Liberal government saying: "Just trust us"? Is it the public trust, or is it "just trust us"? Unfortunately, this bill is "just trust us" — just trust the government to look out for you with your own parks. You know what? I don't think that's good enough. I think we need to do a better job of involving the people of B.C. in decisions like this.

There are aspects of this bill which could be supportable, but I think we need to actually involve the people in ensuring that the best level of protection for our parks exists. To date zero consultation with the people of British Columbia has occurred on this bill.

What does this bill do? As the minister mentioned, it increases the ease for commercial filming to take place in B.C. parks.

Anybody around this House will know that I'm a big fan of the film industry. I think it's a very good industry for the province with thousands upon thousands of jobs, good-paying jobs, with great spinoffs to communities all across the province. Of course, they have been filming in our parks. So increasing the ease for commercial filming to take place in our parks, changing it from necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park to permitting the activity if it's not detrimental to the recreational values of the park, I can understand that.

I know there was a challenge at Cypress Provincial Park around, I believe, Planet of the Apes. They wanted to film there one of the sequels or prequels or numerous attempts to talk about apes on a distant planet. They wanted to do that in that park, and there was a big holdup. It was challenging. I know time is money in the film industry, and it became quite difficult. Eventually they found a way to do it there. I saw the filming taking place. It was not detrimental to the park. But that's under the current act now. That's under the current legislation now. So it did occur.

Now, could it be easier? Could we make sure that that process is a little bit cleaner? I can understand that. But again, you've got to talk to the people whose parks these belong to, whose parks we're discussing today.

The second part of the bill removes additional protections for smaller parks, changing a provision which was brought in, in 1965, that gave parks that were 2,023 hectares or less additional protection compared to larger parks.

[1500]

Now, the idea behind this, as anybody who looks at ecological science, anybody who looks at habitat, is that smaller parks, when impacted — so it could be a park of a couple kilometres or so — by potential roads, transmission lines, pipelines, etc…. In those parks, when you do something like that, it has a bigger impact.

Quite often, as we've seen development occur across the province, parks become little islands where species at risk find their homes. If you start bisecting smaller parks with industrial projects or roads or things like that, you could make it so that those species are extirpated. You could make it so the ecological values of the park are under threat. So this was brought in.

I thought it was a good idea at the time, because we need to provide better protection for parks based on their ecological values. Certainly smaller parks, I think, face bigger challenges to ecological protection than larger parks. This bill removes those additional protections.

It should be noted that 70 percent of our class A parks, the parks with the greatest level of protection, are below 2,023 hectares. This change adds 70 percent of our parks to a process which could eventually lead to greater industrial activity in the parks.

The third thing this bill does is allow the minister to give permits for "research" in parks. This includes activities that might not be necessary, which actually could be detrimental to preserving or maintaining a park, which are detrimental to the recreational values of the protected area or which are not in alignment with that protected area's purpose — maybe an environmental assessment or maybe a decision or a desire to put in a road.

We have to work in the realm of the "maybe" because while the minister says today, "I might not like this," there might be a minister tomorrow — a different minister — who decides that actually they do want industrial activities to occur in the parks. Policy is policy, but legislation is the rules. Policy can be changed in an instant; for legislation you actually have to come back here and change that legislation.

The challenge with research is that research for academic reasons — to understand how a frog lives or what kinds of trees exist or maybe how to deal with pine beetle or other things like that — can be important. That can be valuable, and that could be consistent with preserving ecological integrity with parks.

Certainly, research occurs in parks today. Research goes on today. There are certain provisions where if you're not…. According to the minister's own Linear Energy Projects and Protected Areas document, some research can occur. But I understand the desire to provide greater clarity for what that means.

What kind of research are we talking about? Well, what
[ Page 1878 ]
we're adding to the legislation would be research which could include an environmental assessment, a feasibility study — looking to see whether or not you could put…. Locating, designing, constructing, use, maintenance, improvement or deactivation of one or more of the following: "(a) a road or highway; (b) a pipeline; (c) a transmission line; (d) a telecommunications project; (e) a prescribed project or a project in a prescribed class of projects" — which could be changed to mean just about anything — "(f) a structure, improvement or work related to a project described in any of paragraphs (a) to (e)."

What this could mean potentially — and I just say potentially because likely the minister, and she's already said this, does not mean this will occur; this is just research to occur — is that in a future government or a future minister…. This minister says this is not her intention, but a future minister could say, "Well, we want to allow drilling for oil in a park, just drill a few chuckhole test sites to see if this is possible" and could possibly check for digging some ore samples to see if there was good ore that could potentially be mined in a park. It could include other things, like a highway, potentially, through a park.

I think we need research, absolutely. But under this section, you could potentially open the door for mining, for cutting of trees, for a bunch of things which nobody would ever think they would want in the park.

[1505]

Now, if the minister disagrees, I would hope there would be legislation, an actual clause here explaining exactly what kind of research that means. Could you decide to say: "Let's dig for ore to see whether, under an environmental assessment process, maybe you could have a mine in a park"?

That has happened before. I think it's important to note that Strathcona Park, actually one of the very first parks in British Columbia, was changed back in the '60s to allow a mine in there. There was a change back in the '60s under that process. It was a different process, but it's important to remember that that kind of thing has occurred and could occur again, whether it's with this government or a future government.

Environmental assessments and preparing for environmental assessments, we should remember, can include many things. One recent environmental assessment process…. Proposed activities to do under that scheme were to have approximately 59 test pits to inform detailed engineering of new tailing storage facilities, ten geophysical lines along the proposed main west and south embankments of the proposed project, approximately eight geotechnical drill holes of approximately 50 to 75 metres in depth to inform detailed engineering, approximately ten diamond drill holes of up to roughly 250 metres in depth within the pit area to collect samples for confirmatory metallurgical work to be performed and approximately 23.5 kilometres of exploration trail required to access exploration sites.

Now, this didn't happen in a park — this environmental assessment. But my concern…. Certainly, I would hope that the act could be changed, or the amendments could be clarified, to say explicitly that that's not the kind of thing that could occur in a park. But unfortunately, the government insists on saying, "Just trust us" — not the public trust but: "Just trust us."

I think it would be interesting…. Back in June 2013 a document called the Linear Energy Projects and Protected Areas was sent out to potential applicants for pipelines and energy projects who might, potentially, have their projects circumvent a park. This was sent out, and the minister stated to the media that the reason that this was sent out was to provide clarity about the existing policy. The argument was that you need to know what you need to do if you are potentially applying to remove a section of park to put a pipeline through.

That was the policy in June 2013. The argument was that there is a two-stage process under the current policy — not the amended policy, not the policy proposed here. There was a two-stage process. They had to provide a high-level project description with basic information about the nature and location of the project, status of discussion with communities and First Nations, and the expected impacts and benefits of the project.

It would then go to the Minister of Environment, who could determine whether, on the face of it, sufficient public interest was associated with the proposal to merit a more detailed and rigorous application to amend the boundary of the protected area — stage 2.

If the minister decided there was no sufficient public interest, the process could be denied, and the protected area boundary could not be amended. However, it could proceed to stage 2, in which the proponent would then have to document what alternatives for the project existed. "Alternatives that would avoid the need to impact the protected area were considered and why they are deemed to be unfeasible. They must also conduct an assessment of the environmental and social impacts of the proposal on the park and its users and propose adequate mitigation to avoid or minimize those impacts."

They also have to, currently, consider how to compensate for the loss of protected area lands, either through replacement lands or through other measures to enhance the protected areas environment.

On the face of it, the current process makes sense. As much as some have said that you should never, ever amend park boundaries and are quite concerned about that, sometimes it makes sense. This House, under the current process, has amended boundaries. To suggest that we must bring this through right now, that otherwise no activity will ever occur and it's too hard for people to be involved…. I don't think it really stands up.

I think that's why a public consultation would actually be required, because it's important…. This is information that the minister provided me this morning. I appreci-
[ Page 1879 ]
ate receiving it today. This is quoting from the document the minister's staff provided me: "Since 2004 our records indicate that there have been 44 modifications to protected area boundaries to remove land for commercial or industrial uses." So 44 modifications, totalling approximately 811 hectares.

[1510]

Under the current process this has happened. Now, I think of some modifications that we've debated in this House before. We had a modification to Cape Scott Provincial Park. The idea was we needed better parking lot access there, and there were some challenges for people to be able to access that park. So some debate in this House, and that change occurred.

There have been other processes to allow changes to the boundaries. I look through here — quite a range of parks, whether it was Mount Robson Park, whether or not it was Dzawadi–Upper Klinaklini River Conservancy, Stawamus Chief Park, Elk Falls Park…. These were ones for dedicated industrial use. These things have occurred. The public has had a chance to have their say, and that's how it's gone under the current policy, not the policy that is being amended.

Industrial activity has occurred because sometimes, on balance, you get a better portion of a park added and a less important part taken away. Sometimes you actually get a better environmental benefit, based on existing policy. But that being said, existing policy could be changed. It doesn't take long for a cabinet or a minister to say: "We're changing the policy." There's no consultation with the public, and all of a sudden a whole bunch of other activity could be considered.

This legislation makes that even easier. So if a government, in future, decided they wanted to, say, put a bunch of pipelines through parks or potentially allow a mine in a park, of course, they would have to change the designation so that it wouldn't be a park. But this legislation makes that easier.

I think we need to think about what we do with our parks. Parks are important things to many of us, to all of us. They are about our health. They're about ecology. They're not just about people, but they're also about protecting the natural world which we all rely on — something that gives us such incredible wealth; something that improves our health, as I mentioned, but also improves our prosperity, improves our economy, improves our communities.

When we approach park amendments, when we approach changing how the parks structure works, we have to do that with due care. Just as we would not say to industry…. Well, unfortunately, sometimes government does say to industry: "We've changed things on you and haven't even talked to you." Many people are guilty of such things in governments and businesses and otherwise. People do not always consult as best they could. But when you make such a change to the Park Act, you actually have to talk to the groups that use our parks.

I will be moving an amendment to the motion. I would like to move, and hopefully I can get some guidance from you, hon. Speaker. I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill 4, Park Amendment Act, 2014, be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting "six months hence."]

On the amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to speak to the amendment?

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Again, why should we consider hoisting this motion, pushing this motion six months from now so we can continue to have a debate on this and vote on it? Why should we do that? Well, more heads are better than one. The people of B.C., I think, deserve better by our parks.

When you have a motion like this — which, I believe, could weaken environmental protections in our parks, could make it easier so that environmental damage could be done in our parks, could potentially damage the public trust we all hold for our parks — you've got to talk to the people of British Columbia about it.

You've got to ask them: "Does this make sense? Do we want to allow research, whether that is invasive research or not, in our parks? What should the legislation say? Should there be greater protections to say that this is the kind of research we mean? Academic research, research which doesn't damage the natural environment, research which is consistent with protecting the ecology and recreational needs of a park. Is that the kind of research you want to support, British Columbia? Is that something which is consistent with our parks?

"Or do you think research which could lead to a highway or a pipeline or something like that…? Is that the kind of research you would support? Yes or no? What kinds of safeguards would you like to have?"

[1515]

I understand that the minister has said very clearly that she believes that this bill does not threaten our parks. That's her stated point of view, and I appreciate that she's shared it very forcefully. But I think it's got to be more than just our stated points of view that inform legislation.

We look at the federal government. When they have a bill…. At least traditionally, anyway, they used to hold committees. They used to have, and sometimes still do have, sessions where the public gets the chance to inform Members of Parliament and, yes, even the senators about what should change, about what they like about a bill, what they don't like about a bill, ways to improve bills. All of that, people are given the opportunity to do.

You know, at a $44 billion budget, as the province has, we should be talking to the people. When we bring legislation, laws, that affect their lives, we should be talking to them about it.
[ Page 1880 ]

One of the oddest things about this place, this Legislature, is that we don't do a very good job of talking to the people at all. In fact, many bills get brought before this House with zero consultation. This bill had zero consultation, and this bill changes how our parks are protected.

I was on the Vancouver park board as a park commissioner. I think back about how we worked with parks in Vancouver. I think back about the many, many late nights where the public, because they cared so much about their neighbourhood parks, would come and share their thoughts about what we were doing or not doing in their parks. They would come and say….

I think of Nelson Park in the West End, in my neighbourhood, a place that I worked to get improved. It was park which was troubled. It had some challenges with drug use. It had some challenges with dogs running wild and dog waste all over the place, so not a lot of kids and parents wanted to use it.

On the park board, what did we do? We didn't just say: "We know best. Boom, here's your new park. Too bad we didn't listen to you. Now you hate it? Oh well." No, what we did was formed a committee of the public to guide the redevelopment of the park. That committee took advice from the community. The park board took advice from the community.

They brought back a plan for that park to say: "Should the washroom go here? Should it go there? Should the dog park go here? Should it go there? What about community gardens? Do you want to have that in a park?" We asked the public for their help in designing a park that would work for them all.

That's what democracy should be about. It should be about bottom-up, from the people who are impacted the most. They should be informing this debate, not from the top down, where one person or one government or one minister says: "This is the way it should be. Take it or leave it." That, to me, is not good government, and it's not good democracy.

Now, you can't do that all the time, every single time on every single little piece of a bill. It could become challenging. But you have to give the broad outline to the public, involve them, talk to them and think about it.

You might make some amendments, some changes. Certainly, we've seen more than a few bills brought back to this House after it's been pointed out that there are errors, or we've had the Supreme Court strike down certain legislation because there was no consultation and there were egregious errors that broke the law.

What did that do? Well, it enriched many lawyers. Some lawyers probably bought summer homes because of errors made in this place. Some maybe even made their careers. But the people of British Columbia lost out — in many cases, in millions upon millions of dollars — because of poor drafting of legislation, because of a lack of consultation.

By moving this amendment, what we're doing here is giving the place, giving some space so that the government can go out and do what it should be doing. It claims to be an open government that wants to hear from people. Well, then prove it.

Go out. Take this bill out. Talk to the many groups who've contacted me, the thousands of people who've sent me e-mails, who've sent the minister e-mails, who've sent their own MLAs e-mails demanding to be heard. Some of them have said: "Yes, I like this amendment around film." Others have said: "We hate this completely. We think this should be how we do this." Others have said: "Well, we like some of this. We don't like other aspects of this. If you just added an amendment here, maybe that could work."

That's how good legislation is created. That's how good government is created — when you actually listen to the people who voted you into office.

[1520]

I think this bill, the Park Amendment Act, a bill which affects approximately 13 if not 14 percent…. Well, maybe a little less, because 70 percent of that…. Some are class B; some are class A. But approximately 10 to 14 percent, let's say, a very large proportion of our province — no consultation at all. Is that acceptable? I don't think so. The opposition doesn't think so. We think you actually have to listen to the people who elected you.

Of course, you'll remember one of the most egregious examples — the HST. People were told that this wasn't going to happen, and the government brought it in. There was a massive outrage, outcry, and it tore the province up for years. Eventually the government was forced to back down, because the people were so angry about not being listened to.

Some said: "Well, maybe I like it; maybe I don't. But you know what matters most to me? The government didn't listen to me. The government said one thing and did another." I hope — and I was told this emphatically by more than a few constituents — this teaches the government a lesson about listening, about engaging, about consulting, so that they all have an opportunity to be informing this government.

When I moved this amendment, I thought about the children that I talked to — the high school students, the young adults — who say to me: "Well, that government over there" — and it doesn't matter what party they talk about; it could be municipal, federal, provincial — "they don't listen to us — that government."

They talk about the government as if it's a separate body that has no involvement in their day-to-day life. "It's those bad people over there." They're upset about this thing, and I say to them: "Well, that government is also your government. You're also part of that government, in effect, as a citizen, through your own voice, through your own vote, through your own involvement in society."

Unfortunately, I think — although, of course, the evi-
[ Page 1881 ]
dence is mixed — that part of the reason why we have declining turnout in voting is people don't feel listened to. They say: "Well, you vote for one or vote for the other. It doesn't matter. The government still gets in." Their thinking there, and they've said that to me, is: "Well, they never listen to me, and they never give me a chance to have my voice heard."

This bill, this amendment, would give people an opportunity to have their voice heard about something that is near and dear to every British Columbian — our parks and how we treat them, how we support economic activity, how we support research, how we support ecological protection, how we support our health, how we support the need for cooperation between different sectors. This would give us that opportunity.

This amendment also, I think, reminds me of how many of our parks were created. They were created through consultation. They were created through land and resource management plans, where people would be able to sit down with the government. Many of these plans were established in the early 1990s under the premiership of Mike Harcourt. They did a huge process.

It doesn't matter where I go in the province; people will still talk about the LRMP and the CORE process and other processes which involved them in developing their own region's potential — not just parks but areas for tourism, areas for forestry, areas for mining, areas for communities.

All of those discussions happened, and they weren't easy discussions. You had people debating. You had people upset. But they were all in the same room together, understanding that it was their collective ownership, their collective responsibility to work together for the best interests of their community — that not one person had the ultimate say, but they all did. They all had the say.

This is not, unfortunately, how this place works enough. We don't involve enough people in the governing of this province. I think the last time there was really a big consultation was to say: "What do you think about liquor?"

Aside from "What do you think about liquor? Should we allow people to get more of it or do it in different places…?" Well, I called for a review of the Liquor Control Act, and I called for a review of the liquor laws in B.C., because I thought they were egregious and far too antiquated. I was glad that there was at least an attempt at consultation there. People went out, and they travelled the province and talked to people.

Why can't we do this for this bill? Why can't we do this for our parks? We can ask you, "Do you want to get liquor in a supermarket?" but we can't ask you if you support potential industrial activity or research in your park? That to me is pretty flawed thinking. I don't think that's how government is done best. That's certainly not how we get the best decisions.

We should be involving the people. That's what democracy is. It's of the people so that they all have a chance to be heard and provide their best insight, their best input.

[1525]

Those land and resource management plans — they were tense situations on a number of occasions. People didn't always get what they wanted, but they said they were heard and certainly were able to influence the outcome.

So to say that we're going to make it easier for potential industrial use of parks without consulting the people who fought so hard for those parks I think is wrong. It does not do justice to those people. It does not do justice to mountain clubs, to friends-of-various-parks clubs. It does not do justice to environmental organizations that fought so hard to bring in better protections for our parks. It does not do justice to the people of British Columbia.

Just as in an election…. Yes, more people voted for the Liberals than voted for the NDP. I think it was about 3 or 4 percent. That doesn't mean the 40 percent that voted for the NDP aren't worth listening to.

I think government should be attempting to govern for everybody. Yes, you're going to have disagreements. Yes, you're going to find agreements. But you do that through talking with each other. You do that through working together.

That's how you build a province where everybody prospers. That's how you build a province where you have excellent park facilities, excellent environmental protections, an incredibly prosperous economy. It's by involving everybody.

This bill does not do that. This amendment would give the government a chance to just put a pause button. They might, after listening to the public, still decide to proceed with this bill. They still could potentially say: "Well, no. Actually, no changes are needed. We disagree with everybody who has said that they think changes are needed." They would have to make that argument.

But as we've seen in the past, they might change their mind. They might add a few more changes to the bill to make it more palatable, to increase environmental protection, to show what research really means, to say: "Does that mean that you could drill a hole for a gas well in a park as research, or not?"

They could be clear in the legislation, in the law — not just in word but in deed. They could make sure that our parks are protected from here out and into perpetuity — with the people of British Columbia, for the people of British Columbia. Not just "Trust us" but the public trust.

The public trust means engaging with the public, as that builds trust. This government, in terms of environmental conservation and environmental responsibility, is not really trusted by the public. There are a lot of people out there who do not trust the government.

I know that ministers want to be trusted. They want to be supported. They want the public to believe in what they're doing. They don't come to this place to try and sneak things through always — sometimes people do —
[ Page 1882 ]
but they come to this place because, in the best interests of their constituents, the best interests of their own hearts, they think they're doing the best job they can.

I would say that if you think you have the best interests of your constituents at heart, the best interests of the environment at heart, the best interests of our parks and our economy at heart, talk to those very people who put you in office. Talk to the people in this province who've fought so hard to establish parks and conservation areas across B.C.

I'd like to read a few notes from a few organizations who've contacted me. This is a letter that was sent to both the Minister of Environment and the Premier. It's sent by West Coast Environmental Law; the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, British Columbia chapter; the Wilderness Committee; ForestEthics Solutions; and Sierra Club of B.C.

They say here:

"Parks and protected areas hold an important place in the hearts of British Columbians. Many of us, of course, have fond memories of camping, fishing, hiking or otherwise experiencing this province's parks. We also appreciate that wilderness parks and protected areas provide a place for the province's non-human inhabitants."

I'm reading this into the record because I think that otherwise, the public may have no possibility, if the government decides to vote against this amendment, to hear some of the other organizations. Their members have dedicated their lives to protecting parks.

They go on to say:

"As the phrase 'protected area' implies, British Columbians believe that these lands are protected — the few areas of the province declared off-limits to logging, mining, the oil and gas industry and other industrial use and development. The provincial government's website refers to parks as a public trust to be managed for public benefit and not private gain, and the current Park Act requires that any developments in parks must be 'necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.'

[1530]

"Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, expressly provides for industrial activity within B.C.'s parks and protected areas and paves the way for the removal of land from those protected areas for industrial purposes. As such, we oppose the bill and believe the vast majority of British Columbians would also not support it.

"We take particular exception to section 3 of the bill, which provides that permits may be granted in provincial parks for research without any requirement whatsoever to consider the impacts of that research on recreational conservation values or the purpose of the park. The term 'research' is undefined. We have been informed by provincial staff that they consider the term broad enough to include bulk ore sampling and other large-scale industrial sampling and clearing activities that are clearly inconsistent with the park's status.

"Since these exemptions are specifically directed at research related to industrial activity and to the removal of land from parks, the provisions remove protection in respect of the activities that are most likely to compromise the integrity of the parks. By making 9.3(c) optional it specifically allows for permitting activities that would not be consistent with the purpose of the protected area."

They go on to say:

"Moreover, the fact that your government chose to introduce Bill 4 with no consultation of B.C.'s public, and," they argue, "has misrepresented the extent of the amendments in its news release and other communications with the public is not acceptable. We ask you to not pass Bill 4 and request a meeting to discuss ways to strengthen B.C.'s parks and protected areas. We urge you to manage B.C.'s parks for the benefit of the public and not for the benefit of industry and private interests."

That's the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, B.C. chapter; ForestEthics; Sierra Club B.C.; West Coast Environmental Law​; and the Wilderness Committee. These are membership-driven organizations. They have thousands upon thousands of members across British Columbia who care very much for our parks.

Does that mean that what they say is the only truth? No. Does it mean that their voice should be heard? Yes. Does it mean that they have made good arguments? I would say yes. They are arguments that I also have concerns with this bill about. Are they being consulted on this? No — zero consultation on this legislation.

If you can consult in a municipal government on whether a washroom should be in one corner of a park or another, surely you can consult on whether bulk ore sampling could be involved in a park. Or do we think that putting a washroom in a municipal park, in one corner or another, is really dangerous, so we have to consult the people? But bulk ore sampling and potential industrial activity in a provincial park — who cares? Whatever. It doesn't matter. We'll just go ahead and do it.

That, to me, seems to be the government's implication here. To them, they don't think the public cares whether or not the parks are potentially mismanaged. If they did, they would actually ask the people what they thought about this legislation. They would actually say: "Public, don't just trust us. We trust you to give us good advice. We trust you to provide the best advice to us, to fix legislation where there are errors, to right us when we make a wrong or to support us when we get it right."

This amendment would say that six months from now…. The government could come back in November, could come back in October, could come back in September. We have it right there on the parliamentary calendar that we're supposed to be in this place. We're supposed to be debating legislation for the best interests of British Columbians just as, last fall, British Columbians were upset that we were not here doing their work. Government said: "Well, there was not much to do."

We could be back here this fall to debate this bill, after consulting with the public about what they think. After we've got their best advice, we could come back here this fall, as it states in the parliamentary calendar, as the Minister of Finance has said will occur for LNG development. He has stated that we will come back in the fall for legislation relating to the LNG tax rates.

Legislation, of course, has been promised many times and not delivered. We could be here debating this, too. This bill relates to our parks, relates to our economy, relates to our community health and deserves, as I've said over and over again, our consultation with the people who represent us.
[ Page 1883 ]

I hope, out of the goodness of mind and heart, the government will take the call from thousands upon thousands of British Columbians to put a pause, take a moment, and ask people what they think — to really be open, to really engage the people who pay our salaries, to give them the chance to have their say about their favourite areas.

[1535]

For me, that would be Cape Scott. That would be Bowron Lake. That would be Garibaldi Provincial Park. Those are some of my favourite provincial parks. That would be Strathcona Park. That would be up in the far north — Muncho Lake and other places like that. Incredible, incredible places. Mount Robson Provincial Park. These are places that make our hearts beat a little faster, that make us breathe a little deeper, that provide us the wonders of the imagination, that renew the soul, that renew the spirit. That's what parks can do.

In moving my amendment, I hope the government will take this as an offer that they can govern in a non-partisan way, in a bipartisan way, in a way that engages all British Columbians for the best interests of British Columbia, for the public trust and for our parks.

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the amendment, I would argue that, in fact, the urgency here is in order to maintain the protection of our parks and wild spaces. Let me explain why an amendment like this would be so important to that process.

The member spent some time talking about the boundary adjustment process. I think, if you go back into the history of this Legislature, I would bet that since that process was established in about the year 2000, probably in every session there have been some adjustments, be they minor or major. It's a common part of the work that we do when we're managing one of the largest protected area systems in all of North America.

The member also has acknowledged that things are changing on the land base. The pressures are increasing on our wild spaces, on our parks.

I take, for example, when the member read with respect to the 44 modifications for commercial and industrial uses that have taken place since 2004…. Now, the majority of those, all but eight of them, were for reasons of administrative error, human health and safety. Only eight were actually proponent-driven — so somebody comes with an application, asking for a boundary adjustment.

Eight of them, eight amendments, were made as a result of a proponent-requested adjustment. There were only 12 requests in total. Four of them were denied; eight were granted. That's from 2004 until now.

Imagine, with the increase in resource activity that we see on the land base, with the increase in the number of environmental assessments that we are seeing in our office…. Imagine, with the pressures that are coming, if we are not able to request and receive adequate information that can help us to determine whether or not, not just should a boundary adjustment be made….

Let me provide another example. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that there is a proposal for some industrial activity adjacent to a park. Perfectly allowable, on the face of it, but it needs to go through an environmental assessment. It is absolutely critical that we be able to appropriately permit — and I'll get to that in a moment — that research activity in order to inform our decisions in the environmental assessment process.

The urgency comes here. In the time it takes for this amendment to be hoisted, and we then wait to perhaps reintroduce something, who knows how many proposals will be processed through without the benefit of the kind of research that could be permitted as a result of this amendment.

Let me deal, as well, since it's been mentioned, with the review of a permit. So a permit, and in particular with respect to this amendment…. This amendment doesn't grant a blanket approval for any activities. It authorizes the granting of a permit. A permit has a process. In fact, when it comes to parks, it has a very specific process.

Here's what needs to be reviewed. First of all, the protected area values. Second of all, the management plans. Management plans for our parks are developed in consultation with communities and First Nations. That's part of how the permit grantor adjudicates the request for a permit.

[1540]

There has to be a completion of an impact assessment. There have to be conservation risk assessments. All of these things get weighed in the balance when adjudicating a permit.

With respect to consultation, the member well knows that one cannot sit down and discuss the draft of legislation until it has been first introduced into the House. Once this had been introduced, my understanding is there were invitations out to quite a long list of environmental organizations and others to discuss not only the draft policy that would guide our decision-makers but also to discuss the bill. So as we have done with many bills in the past, there certainly will be consultation.

I should also remind the House that in the event of a permit application, those permits are very often the subject of specific consultation. In fact, we are required to fulfil our obligations to consult with First Nations.

But I am very concerned that with the increased pressure that there is on our parks and protected areas, we really do need to move quickly to ensure that we are able to have the adequate research information. The research provides us with facts and evidence. That evidence is just as likely to prove that a certain activity shouldn't take place as it is to prove that it should.

It's very important, for example, in parks where there are existing roads, existing mines. One of the parks that
[ Page 1884 ]
the member mentioned — there's a pre-existing mine there. It's very important that if activities in some of those places — for example, along a road pre-existing in a park…. It's very important that we're able to ask the proponent for information and measurement.

Some of this could be as simple as being able to install a gauge on a stream. Imagine, again, that potential project going through the EA process. Adjacent to a park, there's a stream that runs down into the park. Wouldn't we want to be able to have the proponent install a gauge on that river or stream and be able to tell us some information about whether or not the stream flows are going to be impacted positively or negatively by that activity?

It is important to remember, as well…. I won't debate the Park Amendment Act because that will come when we are through discussing the amendment.

In terms of the rationale that somehow this is going to allow much greater impact than what we are saying, I hope by what I've described…. Reminding the member that although these amendments are here, there are still a very large number of pages that continue to exist in the act and continue to guide the ways in which we manage our parks and protected areas in B.C. Those are not being removed.

In closing, I believe that it is extremely important that we move quickly to address what I think is a huge challenge for us facing development in our resource sector and the pressures that puts on our land base — that is, allowing the proper review of a permit application for the purposes of research.

I have outlined for the member and for the House the types of things that a permit must be adjudicated against. They are very stringent. Our draft policy, which anybody can look at now, is up on our website. You can see there the guidance that staff are given, but also, give consideration to the rest of the Park Act, which will continue to exist.

G. Heyman: I'd like to speak to the motion to amend the bill and to speak in favour of it and to talk to the issue, particularly, around the perception of the bill; the speed with which it's being introduced; it's potential impact, whether that's perceptual or real; and the need, because of the very special place that parks and protected areas play in the consciousness of British Columbians, to actually treat this issue very seriously.

I'm going to start from a couple of premises. First of all, as we all know, in many cases — not all, but in many cases — there were significant, sometimes almost paralyzing, public battles around the establishment of many parks and protected areas in this province. Not all, but we know very well that we went through difficult times of conflict.

[1545]

The people of British Columbia — those focused on protecting the environment and establishing parks and protected areas and meeting the provisions of the Brundtland report and those who just thought that the only priority for a British Columbia government should be the creation of more development, more extraction and more jobs — struggled through round tables, through the Commission on Resources and Environment regional tables and through land and resource management planning to find the formula by which the economy of British Columbia was built on a sound and lasting environment for the future.

I hope we all know that it's not a question, really, of balancing the economy and the environment but of understanding that without protecting our environment, without protecting biodiversity, without protecting ecosystems, our economy will ultimately fall apart or will simply be, sometime in the future, based on remediation and repair of the damage that we've done — but nothing that actually productively enhances the life of British Columbians.

These were difficult times. They were difficult arguments and struggles. British Columbia went through those. They're not entirely over, but we don't need, actually, in my view, to revisit them unnecessarily. Sometimes these conflicts are revisited not so much on facts but on perceptions because, as my colleague from Vancouver–West End has stated, we simply haven't taken the time to explain, to listen, to consult and to amend where it's advisable.

I think the minister and members opposite would agree that none of us, as wise as we may deem ourselves to be, comes up with a perfect answer the first time every time. Where things can be improved to meet the interests of the public, we should strive to do that.

The second principle that's important to me is the fact that British Columbia is touted by all of us and by our government…. That's why so many people immigrate to British Columbia from across Canada, from across North America, from across the globe. We pride ourselves on beautiful B.C., the iconic nature of British Columbia. It's not just an image or our own provincial pride. It's true.

British Columbia is home to the greatest diversity of species in Canada. It's home to very distinct and different ecosystems, all of which are inhabited by multiple species — some of which are at risk; some of which are thriving; all of which can be threatened by development that doesn't pay attention to the careful management of environmental values, the cumulative nature of impacts on the environment and also, particularly in an era of climate change, the necessity to ensure that we maintain the ability for species to adapt.

We mitigate climate change, but we also know it's ongoing and we must adapt. We have to provide for corridors and pathways. This is very complex science, and it's becoming more complex because there are many unknowns.

So when we talk about British Columbians and people
[ Page 1885 ]
who come here…. Their attachment to the iconic nature of British Columbia — our parks, our protected areas, our wild spaces — we know is real, and we know that B.C. is a very special place.

We know that almost 90 percent of British Columbians have used a provincial park at some time, and we know that about six in ten residents of British Columbia use a provincial park every year.

I've listened carefully to the minister. I've listened to her react to some of the statements from my colleague the member for Vancouver–West End. I've heard her respond about some of the misperceptions of what the implications of the act may be.

I've looked at the act. I don't necessarily agree with her, but more time to look at the act, not just by me and my colleagues but by the many people around British Columbia…. The many advocates for the environment and parks who've communicated with the government, who've communicated to our Environment critic, who've spoken out publicly in the media about their concerns about the act need to be addressed and need to be heard if we are going to proceed in British Columbia with economic development.

I will note that the minister opposite may say and the government may say, "We campaigned strongly on a development platform in the last election," and that's true. I would argue that we also, on this side of the House, talked clearly about the kinds of jobs and the vision for jobs and the economy that we had in British Columbia.

[1550]

I know it would be futile for me to say to the minister opposite that this wasn't mentioned. The issues of development were not mentioned in the last election. Certainly, the issue — the minister characterized it a moment ago that we are in a rush, and there will be damage if we don't move these amendments to the Park Act because more damage could be done — was not evident during the election campaign. It was not, to my knowledge, in the platform that this bill would come forward because it was needed on an urgent and emergent basis.

This is news to me, and it's news to the advocates for the environment and the park system throughout British Columbia.

I would argue, again, that even if, as the minister states, this is an urgent issue and the bill actually will help protect some areas that are in parks, I don't believe that passing this amendment to consult more broadly, to ensure that British Columbians understand fully the implications of the bill as presented by the minister…. Whether or not she is right that other aspects of the act, other parts of the act and other aspects of this bill provide the protection that people are seeking….

It's true that if people understand that to be the case, then they may change their mind. They may still oppose the bill, but the government may feel it has consulted and it's made or not made whatever changes are recommended by people or amendments. But at least a fulsome process will have been carried out.

The minister stated that we know on this side of the House that you can't consult on a bill before it's tabled in the Legislature. But with full respect to the minister, the minister who was in the House moments ago, responsible for natural gas development, has spoken often about consulting with proponents of the natural gas industry as the process proceeds to develop a regulatory and tax and royalty regime around the natural gas industry.

I'm not suggesting that he's actually floating a future bill by them. But certainly, consultations by his own admission…. I would say he has taken great pride in talking about meeting people to consult about the industry and the development of a royalty and tax regime that will be competitive — a source of pride to him and his government.

With respect, I simply reject the minister's statement that it was impossible to talk about this bill before it was tabled or to consult about this bill before it was tabled or to talk about the need for the bill or the purpose and impact of the bill potentially. I think it was possible to do so, and I certainly think it's possible to do so now.

I share many of the concerns that were raised by my colleague from Vancouver–West End. I would argue that this bill probably does reduce protections for small parks. I think the minister and the ministry have stated that it simply creates the same level of protection for all parks. But there are two ways to do that, as we all know. We could create a higher level of protection for all parks, or we could create a lower level of protection for those parks that had previously enjoyed a higher level.

I would simply say that this aspect of the bill, to me and to many, appears to lessen protections and lessen requirements for ensuring that any activity in a park is consistent with the highest values of biodiversity and protection of the environment and protection of park values.

I do not think this bill does that. I remain to be convinced, but I do not think that, and neither do many people who have communicated with the minister, with the government, with the Premier and with our environment critic. Myself and others on this side of the House believe that. In fact, I would argue that smaller parks require a greater degree of sensitivity, because the area in which any potential damage may be mitigated is that much smaller. Sometimes they are small parks because they are very unique and contain ecosystems that are in fact more fragile.

The ministry states that the range of activities included within research will be left up to a statutory decision-maker who is delegated decision-making authority by the minister. However, the minister can override any decision.

[1555]

To me, that does not sound like fully including in an act of this Legislature the kind of clarity, specificity and
[ Page 1886 ]
protections that the people of British Columbia would seek with respect to their parks.

This legislation has implications in many ways. Many parks and protected areas could, in fact, notwithstanding the comments of the minister, be impacted to accommodate pipelines, transmission lines, resource roads or any other number of industrial developments.

Let me simply say that it was not that long ago that the proponents of the Pacific Trail natural gas pipeline were found to be trespassing for the purposes of research and exploration within park boundaries. They were told explicitly that they should not do that, could not do that, were not allowed to do that and that they should get out of the park.

I have to ask myself, because many advocates for the environment have asked this question: could that be at the root of this bill — to expedite the ability of proponents of gas pipelines or other pipelines or resource extraction and development to simply operate and do their exploration within the park boundary? It certainly appears to me to be the case.

Let me simply say, as I attempt to wrap up here, that if in fact this proposed bill will increase protections for the environment and for parks, will make the process better, then let us take the time to consult with the many British Columbians and environmental advocates who believe otherwise and, frankly, believe otherwise very strongly.

This government has taken the time to consult on many things. This is not a matter where one should pick and choose which issues.

When we're dealing with something as substantive as changing the nature of how we protect our parks in the future, how changes are made to activity within parks and the whole process of changing park boundaries and allowing research and, potentially, exploration under the guise of research, we should approach this very carefully.

It may be that at the end of the consultation process, even if this side of the House and the independents oppose the bill, the government will carry the day, but it will not hurt the process. It will not endanger either development or environmental protection in British Columbia if this government heeds the call of many advocates and many citizens — because of the iconic nature of parks and the importance of parks and protected areas in protecting our whole web of biodiversity — to take the time to consult and get it right.

You may reject the advice, but it will never hurt you to take the advice. I do not believe that the time left in the sitting of this House is adequate.

Let me simply close by reading some strongly held opinions by advocates for the environment. From the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society of B.C., from the executive director, Nikki Hill:

"What the government must understand is that these protected areas, no matter what the size, form part of a well-thought-out pattern of land use designations, often the result of long multi-stakeholder processes that achieved a balance between a diversity of interests. Other parks were established following decades-long battles to protect wilderness and wildlife from serious harm for the benefit of everyone. They are designed to protect unique features, sensitive species and irreplaceable values.

"To open up these parks is to open up these battles and will result in serious uncertainty regarding land use planning in the province. Our province will become a very risky place to invest in.

"These changes threaten to undermine the entire concept of a park and render it a meaningless designation — an area protected only until you want to exploit it…. We call upon the B.C. government to reconsider these changes and to respect the integrity of the Park Act and the protected areas that it defends."

What Ms. Hill is saying very strongly is that parks cannot be considered in isolation.

We can't take a park that was established in relation to other parks — in relation to the overarching web of biodiversity and ecosystems in this province, the interrelationship, the migration corridors — and say: "If we take this park out, we'll simply replace it with something else." It does not work that way in the world of natural systems.

[1600]

The other thing that Ms. Hill is saying is…. We went through a period of great battles around resources, environment, parks and protected areas. We do not need to revisit that.

If, in fact, we want to ensure that we allow certain types of development that may be appropriate and allow them within the context of ensuring that environmental values are protected and that ecosystems are protected, let's take the time to consult broadly. Let's ensure that we don't leave it to policy, which, as my colleague from Vancouver–West End has said, can be changed at the stroke of a pen.

Let's ensure, listening to British Columbians and advocates, that we're very, very, very specific in the act. My colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena will know that there are many rich lawyers because legislation or laws have been drafted without the necessary specificity that they cannot, in fact, be misinterpreted. We need to get it right. We need to be specific.

Let me also briefly quote from Valerie Langer of ForestEthics Solutions. Many people will remember Ms. Langer as one of the people who was instrumental….

Deputy Speaker: I've given the member some significant leeway, but: on the amendment. If you can tie the quote to the amendment, that would be great.

G. Heyman: I can. I think the tying of the quotes is the strongly held beliefs by advocates that this legislation is flawed.

The minister has said that she intends to consult. I am arguing, on behalf of the amendment, that more time is needed. If we do not consult more broadly and heed the call for consultation of the many strong advocates supported by hundreds of thousands of British Columbians on an annual and monthly basis — and financially by volunteer labour and others — we will exacerbate a situation that will not lend itself to certainty for investors in
[ Page 1887 ]
British Columbia and will defeat the purpose of the act.

Ms. Langer has said: "You can bet that when government is about to pass legislation that would affect particular industry sectors, they have a conversation with those industrial sectors first." That is exactly my point with respect to the Minister of Natural Gas Development. "At the very least, the province should be consulting with the environmental movement who helped establish all of the parks. We request that this not go through second reading and that the ministry sit down and talk through the implications of any changes to the Park Act with the community who has been primary in establishing planning for protected areas."

Two more brief quotes in the same vein. This one from a lawyer, Andrew Gage of West Coast Environmental Law, who says: "There's a certain conflict of interest in allowing industry, albeit with government permission, to trash a part of a park in the name of research when they want to see that land removed from the park. Bill 4 seems to be premised on the idea park protection unreasonably constrains government and industry."

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

If that is not the government's intent and is not the intent of the bill, then the government needs to sit down with people who honestly believe it is, consult with them and achieve some form of social licence with respect to this proposal.

Finally, from Stephanie Goodwin, Greenpeace, B.C. director: "The proposed changes would undermine decisions based on science, international commitments and best-outcome-possible negotiations. British Columbia is proud of its parks, and we should expect to see the public vigorously defending these areas from any threats…. Greenpeace last week asked the minister not to move forward with these changes and to convene a discussion about strengthening the Park Act."

In closing, I would like to point out that a couple of weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resource Operations stood in this House and justifiably spoke with pride about the decade-long process that led to agreements in the Great Bear rainforest that balance conservation with extraction and processing of resources. I'm proud of that, as well, because I had a small role to play in that as executive director of one of the key organizations.

Sometimes these things take time. That is our point. I would ask the minister to respectfully consider our suggestion that in this case, more consultation and more time is not a bad thing for the government's purposes. It is a good thing.

[1605]

At the very minimum, it would allow people to believe they've been thoroughly heard, and it may well lead to some productive changes to the legislation that will work better for everyone — industry, government, environmental and parks advocates, ecosystems, species and the province as a whole.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to the amendment. In fact, I had prepared an identical amendment that I was going to bring to the House. Rather than speak to the bill, I'll speak to the amendment itself.

I recognize the rationale for the government bringing this bill in. I recognize, through meeting with government staff — and I thank the government for allowing me to meet with staff — the rationale for bringing this in. I understand that there are some good parts of this legislation, but fundamentally, this legislation does not have a social licence to be brought in.

I concur with everything stated by the member for Vancouver–West End in putting this amendment before the House. The Park Amendment Act, as I mentioned, has some elements to it that I could support and, I believe, warrant support. In particular, I was very happy to see the inclusion of a more streamlined and accessible park permit issue process for activities related to the film industry. The legislation will likely attract additional business in this industry to our province. I frankly applaud the government for its foresight in including film industry components to this bill.

However, I've given considerable concern and thought to the concept of "research" that is being proposed in this bill. Good research is an integral part of forming good policy. I'm frankly a firm believer in the principle of evidence-based decision-making. The problem with how this legislation uses the term research is that it does not define this term. It does not give any limiting parameters around what types of research would or would not be allowed. It provides no guidelines on how the research activity is to be conducted.

There is a definition of research, but it's in policy, not within legislation. I'm aware that there is a definition for research as well as guidelines in this policy, but therein lies the problem. Policy and regulations can be changed and modified without public input or awareness. In contrast, modifying legislation has a very clear accountability process.

The reason why we have parks in this province is to preserve and protect the most outstanding natural environments and ecologically diverse areas of our beautiful British Columbia. Our parks exist for the use and enjoyment of British Columbians today and for the future. Indeed, the mission of B.C. Parks is "to protect representative and special natural places within the province's protected areas for world-class conservation, outdoor recreation and education."

Furthermore, in its mandate B.C. Parks outlines its commitment to British Columbians through (1) protecting and managing for future generations a wide variety of outstanding parklands which represent the best natural features and diverse wilderness environments of
[ Page 1888 ]
the province; (2) providing provincewide opportunities for a diversity of high-quality and safe outdoor recreation that is compatible with protecting the natural environment; (3) maintaining British Columbia's ecological diversity through the preservation of representative and special natural ecosystems, plant and animal species, features and phenomena.

Operating on this understanding of the purpose of our parks, this bill fails to define research in a way that ensures that the mandate and underlying….

Deputy Speaker: Member, maybe you can direct your comments to the amendment.

A. Weaver: Thank you. I'm sorry.

The amendment is being proposed as this bill fails to define the research in a way that ensures that the mandate and underlying purpose of why our parks exist is not undermined.

A definition of research that I would argue is compatible with the mandate of our parks is one that's used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, otherwise known as OECD. This organization defines research as "experimental or theoretical work primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view."

[1610]

That's a direct quote from the OECD. I'd like to draw attention to that last section of this definition and highlight that research in this sense is done "without any particular application or use in view."

Being a scientist by trade, I believe this definition encompasses the spirit of what good research in our parks should entail. For example, research that is focused on understanding the endangered Vancouver Island marmot, within the….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you please focus your comments on the amendment — not about the why of the bill.

A. Weaver: Why we need to delay this bill is — as I discuss research, and as I bring forward the reason why there is no social licence for this — is that, for example, research, one example of which has not been discussed, is focused on understanding the endangered Vancouver Island marmot within the Haley Lake Ecological Reserve, which, in my opinion, is entirely acceptable as underlining motivation for research to acquire knowledge.

This type of research is directly compatible with the mandate and purpose of our parks. In comparison, exploratory drilling research or widespread ore-sampling research, could be interpreted by some in our communities as being the meaning of "research," hence, the reason more time is needed for discussion with these stakeholder groups.

But these types of researchers are not acceptable in our protected areas of our province, as they are likely for an industrial project, which would directly contradict the mandate and purpose of our parks.

In my view, this latter type of research that supports a specific application or project within our parks, and which inherently works against the purpose and mandate of our parks, is problematic. I am not alone in sharing this opinion, which is why we need to go to our stakeholders and gain further consultation insight.

The proposed legislation that's being suggested to be pushed forward will overrule previous clauses of the Park Act, which ensure park use permits are not to be granted unless it is clear that permits will not be "detrimental to the recreational values of the park." Current legislation also states that permits "must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister," it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.

By allowing park use permits to be issued around the vague concept of research, the ill-defined research, the definition of which needs to be explored further through consultation, as I mentioned, with a diversity of stakeholders, particularly research focused on undertaking "a feasibility study" for virtually any type of "prescribed project," we are opening our parks to special interests whose intentions may not align with the interests of British Columbians.

Yet we don't know at this stage whether or not these British Columbians and their interests have been taken into account, because we haven't had time to develop the social licence for this proposal.

Due to a lack of public engagement, this legislation that is being proposed to be delayed gives the perception that industrial proposals will take precedence over the preservation, the protection, of our parks in British Columbia.

Given that we are discussing protected Crown lands meant to preserve and protect places of ecological sensitivity, the habits of endangered species and places of historical natural significance, should there not at least be some basic guidelines embedded in the legislation around the type of research that can be conducted and how it must take place? How would we formulate such information? It is only through the consultation with a diversity of stakeholders in our communities.

Public trust is a critical component of why I am supporting this amendment. The public does not know why the bill is being brought forward and does not necessarily trust government to ensure that the bill will not undermine our parks. Although policies and regulations around the issuance of research permits do have specific constraints, these policies can easily be changed without going through Legislature.

Today the public is genuinely concerned about pipelines — large industrial projects going through our province. It is not surprising, therefore, that this legislation,
[ Page 1889 ]
which weakens the requirements for the issuance of park permits, has faced considerable backlash. We need time to engage British Columbians on this legislation prior to bringing it for approval.

[1615]

Indeed, this bill has gained the most significant and controversial media attention I have seen on any bill introduced into the British Columbia Legislature in a very, very long time. Six of the leading environmental organizations mentioned by the members before, which are active in this province and which have memberships representing many tens of thousands of British Columbians, have condemned this bill. They feel that their voices have not been heard.

Good governance requires outreach and consultation on controversial topics, and I encourage the government to actively engage the citizens of British Columbia in public forums before enacting this bill. The time proposed in the amendment is critical to allow for successful public buy-in of this bill.

Our parks are world-renowned and are a huge part of our tourism industry. They are enjoyed by thousands of British Columbians every year and in many ways represent the best that beautiful British Columbia has to offer. This legislation weakens the current legislation of the Park Act. There are many who fear that it paves the way for industrial projects through our parks, and their voices need to be heard.

The term "research" is not defined and does not outline what constitutes a valid research activity within the protected areas of British Columbia. I support the amendment in its entirety to give us time to solicit such input from British Columbians as to what research means to them. I know what it means to me, but I would like to hear what it means to them as well.

I ask the government to, perhaps, if this amendment fails, consider bringing a formal definition of "research" into the legislation prior to passing it here in the Legislature and to provide a definition of things like "feasibility study" to provide specific limitations and parameters, not in policy but in legislation.

Furthermore, as research will take on public lands, I support this motion because I believe that fundamentally we need more time to clarify that any research activity which receives a park use permit must be done in a manner that is consistent with the long-term health and purpose of the park. I ask that all these requests be enshrined with a revised version of this legislation that's brought forward after the extended period of time to engage consultation.

I'm opposed to the nature and direction that the legislation currently takes. I urge the government to carefully consider the long-term consequences of passing the bill after the time has passed by which consultation is sought. I think that in B.C. right now there's a general lack of public trust, at this critical juncture, for changes in the way parks are administered, particularly with the uncertainty around major pipeline projects: the Kinder Morgan proposal; the northern gateway proposal; the numerous LNG projects. There is uncertainty and a lack of trust within the public.

Despite the positive aspects that are in the bill itself, there are many that require more time to actually examine in further detail. The public deserves the time to have their input.

Finally, I don't believe that the government has obtained the necessary social licence to make the changes that they're proposing and that could contribute to streamlining the development of industrial projects in our parks, projects that in some cases many British Columbians will oppose. Hence, the government needs further time to actually engage the public on the reasons for bringing this bill forward.

I'm supporting this amendment, in summary, so that the government has the opportunity to build this social licence required for this bill and to provide the government the opportunity to directly address the concerns raised by the various stakeholders across the province, including environmental groups, people in communities, our First Nations, and industry.

G. Holman: I, too, will be supporting the amendment to the bill. The minister has stated that the basic purpose of the bill is to create certainty, and I think we've heard from a number of speakers here that, in fact, it does the opposite.

[1620]

In view of that, particularly with concerns around research and how that's defined, clearly the government needs more time to assure the public that these measures are in fact going to strengthen the parks system and not weaken it.

I believe that the public perception is out there that these measures are designed to weaken the bill, particularly in the context of numerous industrial projects being proposed for British Columbia — in particular, oil and gas pipelines, but other projects as well. In order to address that uncertainty, that lack of trust, clearly, government needs to go out and consult with the public.

The point has been made of how difficult it's been to create many of these parks. I've had a background. I played a role during the LRMP process during the '90s as an economist supporting the land use planning processes. I've had a role in establishing one or two parks as an activist on Saltspring Island — Burgoyne Bay Park. It is so hard.

As some have pointed out, it's taken decades to create these magnificent legacies for British Columbia. We shouldn't be taking them for granted and, within a period of a few weeks, changing legislation which could significantly weaken these parks.

Now, the minister argues, and I think quite articulately,
[ Page 1890 ]
that no, in fact, we don't understand the bill, that we really don't understand what's going on here. The intention of the bill is to ensure that industrial projects proposed that may require park adjustments — that we need that research to better understand what's going on. I don't disagree. But let's make that case.

Let the minister make that case. Let this government make that case with the public and with the thousands of people in this province who have expressed concern. Virtually every major environmental organization in British Columbia is expressing concern about this legislation and opposes the legislation.

In the face of that, I honestly don't see the downside for government, which has already indicated very clearly that we'll be having a fall session. What is the downside to initiating a consultation process for six months and then coming back to this Legislature being better informed by that process?

Perhaps changes will be made as a result; perhaps changes won't. But surely the public deserves to know. Environmental groups that fought so long and hard to establish these parks, communities that have fought so long and hard to establish these parks — they should have their say on this legislation.

Let government make its case around the need for the legislation. In my view, this legislation creates uncertainties. I know we agree to disagree with the other side of the House on that. But let government make its case before the public.

The devil is always in the details. The definition of "research" here — my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head spoke very clearly on that. The definition of "research" is so vague that it deserves more public scrutiny, more attention, more input from stakeholders, environmental groups and industry and business groups as well.

With little further ado, I would reiterate my support for the amendment here. I don't see a downside here for government. We're coming back to this Legislature in six months. Let government go out and inform the public, be informed by the public and create the possibility for stronger legislation, more thoughtful legislation.

N. Simons: I rise, too, to speak on the motion to hoist this bill and allow six months to transpire, during which we would expect and hope that consultation could take place and that people who have concerns about this legislation have an opportunity to have those questions and concerns answered.

It's not a huge request, really. It's not a huge ask. I don't think people would see it as a terribly difficult thing, for the most part. The question I think many people would have is: what's the rush? What's the rush for a bill like this? Who wants to push it so badly?

[1625]

Is the film industry having difficulty right now? If that's the case, that certainly is something that needs to be addressed. But I think balancing that with concerns that people have about the weakening of the protections to park protection. They deserve to have some opportunity to have their concerns reached.

The government is sometimes very selective in how it wants to consult. We've seen evidence of intense consultation around whether beer gardens can have fences around them or not. We've seen lots of consultation in that regard, and that did result in the government getting confirmation that some of their ideas had merit in the minds of many British Columbians.

On the other hand, we've seen consultation that has had absolutely no impact on government. I would reference B.C. Ferries. So consultation in itself is not necessarily the issue; it's the attention to that consultation. We would hope the government would be able to consider and to take into consideration.

Now, the minister, in her moving of the second reading of Park Amendment Act prior to the hoist motion, did manage to get her points across with respect to how this would impact on industrial activity in parks. She said: "These proposed amendments do not allow, promote or otherwise enable industrial projects in parks and protected areas." I'm not sure, then, exactly what the rush is, if that is in fact the case and if the argument made earlier was that only eight of 12 modifications were made. There seems to be two sides of the same argument. Either it's essential, or there haven't been that many modifications.

When my colleague from Vancouver–West End mentioned 44 applications for successful modifications, the minister responded by saying that the vast majority of those were administrative in nature and that they didn't really have any big, significant impact, and then continued to say that out of the eight that weren't simply administrative in nature, four had been rejected. Out of 12, four had been rejected.

It doesn't seem to me like there's a huge need for the parts of this that relate to research, especially until we can find out what exactly that research would be. If I take my textbook and sit under a tree in a park, I'm doing research in a park. At the same time, someone could come along with a big drill bit next to me and disturb my studying but also be conducting an entirely different kind of research.

I think, as my learned friend spoke earlier, the issue around research is something that probably needs a bit of definition.

We have, with this motion to delay, I think, an opportunity for everyone to sort of have a look and say: "If our interest is in passing the best possible legislation, how could delaying it by six months, when we're planning to be here in the fall, really be too detrimental?" I think it would be a very difficult argument to make for this minister to say that we can't wait six months, especially when we're talking about an issue like parks.

I think parks are places that we hold dear. I think, as British Columbians, we recognize the importance
[ Page 1891 ]
of preserving land and spaces that retain their natural beauty. I mean, we can, on one hand, be very proud of that, but I don't think if we were to do that, we should be chipping away at these parks. If that's not the intention, then I think six months would be enough time for the minister to assuage any concerns among people who have spent a lot of time ensuring that parks are created and our natural environment and biodiversity is protected.

I take a little bit of issue with this idea that we need to rush this through. I think in some cases, when legislation is necessary on an urgent basis, we can understand that shortcuts were taken, and i's might not have been dotted and t's crossed. But in this particular case, when we're dealing with parks that we, as British Columbians, own together, I do believe that the public deserves to have some questions answered.

[1630]

For the sake of restoring a little bit of faith in this whole process and that this whole debate is of any use whatsoever, one would hope that the minister would perhaps recognize that and not see it, necessarily, as a negative thing to say: "Well, some of these groups need to obviously have their minds put at ease."

If the minister is, in fact, saying that groups that have identified their concerns, such as, and I can read you a list of them — Greenpeace, Sierra Club, CPAWS, Wilderness Committee, ForestEthics, West Coast Environmental Law….

I'm not saying that they're right to have these concerns, but I have enough faith that the issues they raise are not frivolous. Nobody's intending to simply delay legislation that could benefit them if, in fact, this isn't going to do anything to promote industrial activity.

I don't quite know how the minister can say that it won't enable or in any way promote industrial activity. That's a question that I'd have, and I'd maybe need six months to figure that out. That's perhaps why we need to have this delay in pushing this through.

The amendments "do not allow, promote or otherwise enable," but then you look at the act itself, and "feasibility study" means the feasibility study "including, without limitation, the feasibility of the location, design, construction, use, maintenance, improvement or deactivation, of one or more of the following: (a) a road or highway; (b) a pipeline; (c) a transmission line; (d) a telecommunications project; (e) a prescribed project or a project in a prescribed class of projects."

Section 9.3(1) is clear that it has a lot to do with industrial activity. Little nagging questions like that, which I don't seem to be alone in having, perhaps do need some adequate response. Or at least perhaps the minister needs to address those.

We're not saying: "Throw this away." We're not saying: "Put it in the shredder." We're suggesting that in the best interests of the people of the province, the legislation should be as good as it can be. I think that we do have an opportunity to take the time necessary to ensure that the legislation is good and is sound.

Right now, I think the list of people and the list of organizations that have problems or concerns with it are sufficient to suggest that we can take a step back. We can have another look at this. We may even not make any changes.

I don't understand the urgency of passing this legislation if, in fact, it increases protection, because the system as it is right now could probably last a little bit longer, like six months. I don't think that everything will fall apart if we in fact delay the passing of this legislation for six months.

We're planning to be back here anyway. Maybe that's the issue. Maybe we can't wait till after Christmas. I don't know if that's one of the considerations that the minister needs to contemplate.

The minister has said that this is necessary and that this is required and that there's an urgency to protect. I don't think that's a very convincing argument. I know that the minister isn't primarily concerned with convincing me, although I'm sure she would really like it if she had my support. I acknowledge the acknowledgment.

At the same time, I think that I am speaking on behalf of constituents in my constituency who share the concerns and who aren't saying: "Throw the whole thing out." They're not saying: "Abandon ship."

They're saying: "Let's do what we are supposed to do in this House and give really, really good consideration to legislation that has an impact on all of us." It has an impact on our environment. It has an impact on how we do business in the province.

[1635]

I think that in the absence of adequate consultation not just with these groups that I've mentioned but with individuals and experts, we're just being cautious, as we should be in this place. We've seen examples of when we've passed legislation too hastily, and it has resulted in costly expenditures. This is not one of those, probably. We wouldn't want to have to end up in court. I don't think this one would, but who knows? I'm not the expert on the law.

I do think that as a legislator, it's my responsibility to try and influence legislation in a positive direction. I think that for us, in order to be supportive of legislation, we would have to see the evidence from the academic and professional and public folks who have a say in this. That really is my concern.

That's why I think that the member for Vancouver–West End, our critic for Environment, as well as my friends, other friends on this side of the House…. I use the term loosely. No, I don't. I like them all. We're all friends.

I think the public deserves some better consultation prior to this legislation going forward.
[ Page 1892 ]

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to add my voice to this debate.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to speak to the amendment, obviously in support of the amendment.

I stood here yesterday talking about another bill, where it appeared from comments from the members opposite, on the government side, that there were still concerns and that consultation hadn't been complete, although we had the bill tabled in front of us. At that point, I suggested that it was a prime example of taking time to consider a bill before tabling it, having a consultation before so that everybody is really up to speed on it, so that we didn't have questions.

This was a bill, yesterday, that the opposition would like to be supporting, but there was very much an acceptance that there were going to have to be amendments to make it supportable, because consultation hadn't been complete. Some of those stakeholders who needed to be consulted had come back with concerns.

On this one, we're asking for a hoist, a referral for six months. I would suggest that really, it's a sensible thing to do because of the level of concern about this bill.

A lot of people have come out and said that they are very concerned about it and have not been consulted. These are people that my colleagues have been mentioning — people from the environmental movement, very respected people; people who are not on the outside, who have worked with government on such important areas as the Great Bear rainforest. They've been able to work with government, with industry, with environmental organizations to, as the government might say, "get to yes."

Here we've got a very big no, very likely because there has been no consultation. So to get that consultation, to ensure that the people are at the table to have that discussion I think is very important.

Within this Legislature we've got the tools for that consultation. We can make it happen. We don't have to do anything strange. We are using one of the tools. By saying, "Let's hold this" — what we're calling the hoist motion — we can hold it for six months, take it off the table, bring it back in, allow that consultation.

We could use our committee system to facilitate the consultation. We have, obviously, the legislative calendar that ensures that we're going to have a fall sitting, which again will make sure that we can bring the bill back within the six months and, at that point, have the debate as legislators about whether we should or shouldn't go ahead with it.

In the 200 days that we didn't sit — effectively almost from the election, but we had those few weeks in July — the government did do extensive consultations on changes to the liquor laws.

My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast made comments about a lot of consultation — about whether we should have a fenced-in beer garden or not. But there are significant changes that have come from going out to the public, discussing concerns, discussing ideas, and likely there will be major changes in policy as a result of that.

At the moment, there have been consultations on whether or not we should change speed limits on certain roads. Again, the public has been involved, road users have been involved, stakeholders have been involved, and there is a reasoned argument for that.

[1640]

But the very failed consultations, when it gets to be bogus…. Again, my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast mentioned the alleged consultation on what we should do with B.C. Ferries when, clearly, the answer had been fixed. We were presented with the solution before the consultation began.

That's why I'm suggesting that instead of just doing it broadly — going out and doing the town hall meetings and the phone calls from Mustel Group or whoever else is calling people looking for advice — we use the tools of the Legislature to make this system work. We hoist the bill, and we take it to our committees to make sure that we do have that.

The reason I think that it's important is that this is far-reaching. We've heard from other members as they've been talking about: what do some of the terms in the bill mean? The term of research — how is that going to be defined?

I think, when we're looking at the changes this bill brings about and the import, the reason why we want to refer it for six months, to hoist it and have a further discussion, is that the bill is talking about a "feasibility study," which means "a study of the feasibility, including, without limitation, the feasibility of the location, design, construction, use, maintenance, improvement or deactivation, of one or more of the following: (a) a road or highway; (b) a pipeline; (c) a transmission line; (d) a telecommunications project; (e) a prescribed project or a project in a prescribed class of projects; (f) a structure, improvement or work related to a project described in any of" the preceding paragraphs.

This could be a vast amount, and we are talking about our parks system, which everybody in this Legislature respects and wants to ensure is maintained in the best possible way. The reason we have parks is as a legacy for our children and our children's children. This is something we want to pass on.

We have here some potentially significant changes, which have been tabled without ensuring that there has been full consultation. In my own constituency — I know it stretches over other people's constituencies: the Minister of Social Development and the member from Alberni-Qualicum — we have Strathcona Park. We're very lucky that it's there. It touches all of our constituencies.
[ Page 1893 ]

In part of that, there is an active mine. It is actually…. Most of the workers live in my constituency. The mine itself is physically in the constituency of the member for Comox Valley, the Minister of Social Development, but I'm sure he will remember. I was not around at the time but have talked to many people involved in the fights when there was the possibility of having a mine in Strathcona Park — the anger, the frustration.

Basically, people were hugely concerned that this was going to be happening. It was a very significant part of really, I would say, the growth of the environmental movement in the north Island when people stood up and said: "You should not be having a mine in Strathcona Park."

We now have a mine there. We now have sort of two separate parks. The designation of Strathcona Park is slightly different there, but I think that we have to learn from the past as well as look to where we are now, look into the future. Now we have the opportunity to look to the future and can learn from the past.

If we really want to do this properly, we do need to pull back for six months, hoist this bill and have that consultation.

We have had, very clearly, a very resounding opposition from six of the major environmental organizations on the bill. We have CPAWS B.C., West Coast Environmental Law​, Wilderness Committee, Greenpeace, ForestEthics and Sierra Club. Their view is that the legislation is about making it easier for pipelines and other industrial activity to take place within B.C. parks. It weakens the Park Act, and it is a bad idea for environments and communities.

They have the ability to have this discussion and put their voice forward if we hoist the bill and take it initially to committee. We have on the table, tabled last week by my colleague….

[1645]

The member for Juan de Fuca, the opposition House Leader, tabled a private member's bill, which we hope will get read and we hope we'll have the debate on, which is the Standing Committee Reform Act, 2014. Under this bill it would ensure that all our standing committees, instead of just being a list read out by the Premier not long after the throne speech, are active committees that are doing active work.

What better work than to take this bill — the Park Amendment Act, 2014 — and study it. Study it as a committee, as a bipartisan group of MLAs, and discuss it. Bring in experts. Bring in the stakeholders, as we call them — those who are possibly for it, those who are possibly against it, the ones who can explain just what some of this terminology means and why it might be important.

We've had boundary changes before. We've had activity in parks before. People could talk about that.

Our committee system, if it worked properly, could really deal with what we have here in this bill. We would hoist it, take it to the committee and let the committee have a thorough analysis.

It might come back that people's concerns have been ameliorated. They've had their discussion. They understand it. They've put forward their views. Both sides of the House, and possibly the independents, participated, and we've got to a position where we feel that there is a bill that can be tabled for the Legislature and tabled properly.

We actually have the time to do this. Members opposite may forget this, but we do have a fixed legislative calendar. I remember when the fixed legislative calendar came in. It was in 2001. The new Liberal government came into power, and they decided that instead of having all of the variability, we were going to have elections every four years and we were going to have sessions in the spring and sessions in the fall. When we got the sessions in the spring and the sessions in the fall, the session in the spring was supposed to be about the budget.

At the moment we've got the budget tabled. We've had the budget debate. We're starting to have the discussion in our estimates, where we go line by line through the budget. This is our opportunity to discuss the budget. That's what the spring session, under the fixed legislative calendar, was supposed to be.

It was also an opportunity to table legislation, legislation like the Park Amendment Act, legislation like we were discussing yesterday, the Missing Persons Act, and other legislation that can be tabled and then can be removed to a committee for wider discussion, for input, for proper consultation — not just the consultation where you ring your friends and hire your consultants and go out to community halls and do it that way but a consultation with a bipartisan committee.

It's consultation using the tools of this House. I think that this would really strengthen this.

We know this time…. The members opposite may forget we have the fixed sessions of the Legislature. I really can't remember when we last had a fall session. In 2011 we had a very strange one, because we had the throne speech on the radio, but we actually did sit for a short time.

The government hasn't respected the fall session, really. Since 2005, I would say, we have not had one.

Now is the perfect opportunity. Let's hoist this bill, and let's look at other bills that aren't urgent. It's not literally life or death. Let's look at other bills and say: "Okay. Which ones do we want to introduce now?" Have the initial discussion here. Have our debate. Largely, it'll be the opposition standing up and pontificating and the government sitting around looking bored. Have that sort of debate that goes on in this Legislature.

Take it out. Take it to a committee of this Legislature. Bring people in. Bring the expert witnesses in. Let it be a thorough debate, bring it back in the fall, and then get on with it.

[ Page 1894 ]
It's a strange thing to say, because it's a long time since it's happened before. We know this year that we are sitting in the fall because the government has foreshadowed that it needs to bring us back to talk about liquefied natural gas taxation systems. Apparently they were supposed to have them last year, but we're going to have them this year. But not to worry.

At least we know that we're going to be sitting for some time. We hope that it's going to be the full two-month session, because there is the opportunity to really go through legislation and not push it through in this session, not have it crammed in with the budget and everything else. Then at the end of May, when we're supposed to leave this place, we suddenly get the closure on all of these bills. We have that opportunity.

[1650]

What I would hope is that, with this bill, we could take it off the order papers, take it to a committee and have a much wider consultation. It will engage people.

We hear so often about how people are cynical, how people aren't engaging. They don't know what we do here. They don't care. They don't know whether we're sitting. Our work has been cheapened. I say a lot has been cheapened by the government's disregard of this place and disregard of the importance of this place. The fact that the government never wants to be in this place really does cheapen, in the public's eye, what we do.

This would really enable people to get engaged. It would make our Legislature work that bit better. It wouldn't solve everything, but it would make it work that bit better. People could see it. People could watch how the committee is working and, again, get engaged on how the committee is working.

On something like parks, something that is so fundamental to so many British Columbians, what better example than to say: "Okay, we want to change the Park Act. We want to make sure we do it properly. We want to bring in experts. We want people to know how we're doing it"? So Mrs. Smith from Woss can come and have her say. Mr. Jones from Nelson can come and have his say, as well as the people from the environmental organizations, the industrial organizations.

We'd have a really healthy scrutiny of this, We can see what is good, what is bad and what the implications are of the bill and be willing to make changes as a result of the committee system.

It's how mature legislatures work. Really, it's how mature legislatures work. We've been sitting in this Legislature for 100 years or more, and we're still at the stage where we haven't quite got it.

Our committee system is that once we've gone through this debate, what we call debate of second reading, we then get to committee stage. The minister sits with a couple of staff members, and the opposition member who is the designated critic sits on this side and will ask the minister questions. The minister will refer to the staff and then respond. It isn't really the way that a good, healthy committee would work.

I think that this is really an excellent opportunity to use what we have in this House, to engage people in British Columbia over a bill of import and make people realize that what we do here is valuable, that they can have a say and can have an engaged involvement.

As I say, I am definitely supporting this hoist motion. I think that it is very important that we as legislators take what we do very responsibly, very seriously. To do that, we've got to know that what we're talking about — the legislation that we are scrutinizing and the legislation we are then voting on — we know what the implications are for that. I really think that with this one we're not going to know the implications with it tabled as it is.

I think that the member for Vancouver–West End is quite right. It should be taken out of the system for six months. Bring it back in the fall. We know we're sitting in the fall. Use, in those six months, the tools that we have in the Legislature. Use an active committee system. Bring the experts in, and let's get it right. What we do on our land base has an effect not just now, not just for the industry for now, but will have a lasting impact. We want to make sure that we have done everything that we possibly can to ensure that that impact is the least possible.

With that, I will take my place in this debate and hope that the government does actually acknowledge what we're saying and does consider agreeing to hoist this bill for six months so that we can have a thoughtful consultation process.

M. Mungall: I wanted to take the time to rise and put on the record why I'm in support of the hoist motion for Bill 4. It's simply put. I've been hearing from my constituents that they have some concerns with this bill, with the implications that it may ultimately lead to for some of the parks in our area — such as Kokanee Glacier Park, which is also home to a glacier that provides the beginning point for many watersheds throughout the region.

[1655]

They're quite concerned that with the lack of a clear definition around research, this could lead to potential activities that might be damaging to that park. They would prefer to be consulted on this type of amendment to the Park Act so that they could have a better understanding of what the implications might be but, also, to provide government feedback of their concerns of what those implications might be.

I think it's very fair to do that type of work of consulting with the public. Park users, the advocates — these are people who are using the parks on a regular basis. They treasure these places all over British Columbia, and they have a real stake in the long-term sustainability of our parks — myself included. I enjoy going camping on a summer weekend at some of our many parks throughout British Columbia.
[ Page 1895 ]

It's not just users, though; it's anybody, right? We all benefit from having wild spaces, from having protected areas throughout our province so that our environment is more sustainable, so that we have greater species diversity.

This is long-term planning for generations to come, and that's why these places are protected. That's why we must ensure that whatever activity takes place there is not going to damage the long-term sustainability of our parks. I think it's only fair to say that. I don't know if anybody in this House would disagree with that.

Perhaps the minister for aboriginal affairs — he might. In the past he has certainly voted against legislation that increased park boundaries and has been noted to say that everything is just fine in parks and that we don't need any more ecological protection for parks. That's fine. That's his point of view. There are other people that share that point of view, but that point of view is not shared by everybody. Others have a different opinion.

As I have been saying, my constituents are quite concerned. They want to retain the integrity of our provincial parks. It's those types of discussions, those types of points of view, that need to be shared in a public consultation process.

I think that the hoist motion provides the government the opportunity to go out and do that. It gives the government some time to speak with the very people who use parks, the people who advocate on behalf of parks — but, most importantly, the experts, the biologists who know the integral connections that exist in our ecosystems and how any type of activity in parks impact those ecosystems. They need to be consulted more thoroughly prior to rushing into this type of amendment.

I think that if the government took the time to do that, they would feel more solid, more secure in the type of legislation that they would be putting forward. They would be able to say: "Well, this is what we mean precisely by the research, and these are the types of implications that we foresee happening as a result of that."

We know, for example, that if it was mining research, these are the types of environmental protection that need to take place based on the concerns that we heard from user groups of parks, from people who want to see our parks be sustained from generation to generation as well as from the business community, who want clear guidelines in the work that they need to do so that they can create jobs in this province. They're just looking for clarity as well.

I would hate to see us rush into legislation, that clarity at the end of the day not be there and that some of B.C.'s businesses spend countless dollars on projects that just would not be viable because they haven't been given the proper guidelines for environmental due diligence to ensure that any potential risks are mitigated or perhaps that those locations were not good locations in the first place.

I see taking the time to do this type of consultation as a good move for business. I think it's a good move for the long-term sustainability of our parks. I think it's a good move for the public to be involved at any given time on anything, of course, as that's our job here as public servants — to work with the public. I think that this hoist motion gives the government the opportunity to take the time to do just that — which is, of course, work with the public.

[1700]

The value of those types of meaningful consultations…. I believe a colleague of mine discussed doing these consultations in a bipartisan fashion so that we take the politics out of this and work collectively, jointly, for the benefit of long-term sustainability, multigenerational sustainability, in our parks. I think that's a great idea.

In fact, you see this type of bipartisan or multipartisan approach to consultation in local governments, just by their very nature. Some local governments are party-based in this province; many are not. When I served on local government for the city of Nelson, it was not a party-based system. We did a wide variety of public consultation processes that, of course, would be considered multipartisan, because we were all at the table, all of us taking in the information that the public had to share about things that they were concerned about.

For example, when we decided to develop the new Nelson and District Community Complex, we had broad public consultation, not just about the complex but about the green space that was going to go around that complex. We had many people give their input and give guidance of what they would like that green space to look like, what they would like it to be, who they would like it to serve and so on. I dare say that that process got much more public consultation for a very small portion of green space in the city of Nelson than this piece of legislation is getting for all of B.C. parks.

I think it's very important that we move towards a stronger, better, bipartisan public consultation process before we rush in. Essentially, what this bill is asking us to do…. Before we rush in to change the Park Act with these particular amendments, we should be involving the public. It's a simple concept. It's a concept that we often conduct — not often enough in this House…. If our committees sat more frequently, I'm sure we'd be engaging the public more often.

But let's start now, right? Let's start increasing our public consultation, meaningful public consultation, now. If the Minister of Environment is wondering how to conduct this, she only needs to look at her colleague the Minister of Social Development, who's presently doing public consultation for a disability white paper.

It's a lengthy process. It's engaging many people, and people are having their say. Whether the government ultimately listens to them, that's yet to be seen. I sure hope the government does listen to those people who are participating in this process, as I would hope that the government would take the opportunity with this
[ Page 1896 ]
hoist motion and open up a public consultation process, listen to what the people have to say about the proposed amendment to our parks, and then go from there. Take from the public their concerns and ensure that they're reflected in determining the long-term sustainability of activities in our parks.

I think it's a simple request. I think it's one that the government most certainly can do, so it's one that I hope that the government will take the opportunity to do.

With that, I'll wrap up my remarks. They're short, but I think it's a simple concept: go out to the public, talk to the public, hear what they have to say, learn what their concerns are and implement those concerns — and know that whatever decision that we make in this House is going to have consequences outside of this House and that those consequences, particularly in our parks, need to be better planned out than the current process right now.

K. Corrigan: I'm pleased to stand and support the amendment that has been proposed by this side of the House, and I am going to speak in support of that amendment.

[1705]

You know, we love our parks in British Columbia. There is no doubt that we love our parks. They are visceral. They are part of us, part of our character, and we are fiercely protective of our parks.

So when you have a bill or when you have a policy brought by government which is perceived to be a threat to those parks that we value so much, people react. What we have here is we have a reaction. We have real concern by a whole bunch of people, by various environmental organizations, by individuals. There've been hundreds of people e-mailing about this amendment.

If we are looking at change that is of such concern to so many people, I think it's important for us to make sure that the change is change that we can accept and that we agree with. This change does not seem to have that kind of agreement.

I noticed that the government started, I think yesterday, a response. You can go on the website, and you can respond and make comments about the proposed research permitting process. That's good.

But the problem that I see, and the problem that I think we're going to face with the amendment that we've proposed — to simply delay the process by six months so we can have a good look at whether these changes are appropriate or not and to understand better what the permitting process that is being proposed looks like — is that I don't believe that government will make a change. I don't have a lot of faith, as much as I appreciate the amendment that has been submitted by the member from the West End. As much as I appreciate that, I don't have a lot of confidence.

That's the thing that happens; that's the problem that happens when you prematurely and without consultation bring in a piece of legislation that will have such a potential impact on our parks and our communities. That's the problem that happens if you do it without consultation. That's happened in a whole variety of places with this government.

I'm dealing with another bill where the issue of consultation and where standing back and waiting would have been helpful. I'm dealing with the Missing Persons Act, which we may end up supporting. But like this act, there are real concerns that have been raised by the Privacy Commissioner — different types of concerns than the concerns that have been raised under this act, where there are many environmental groups, municipalities and others which have concerns about what the impact is.

They're different types of concerns, but they point back to the same problem. Government will save a lot of anguish and concern and negative responses if government would take the time to consult. My understanding is that when we have, for example, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, West Coast Environmental Law, Greenpeace and all of those organizations — I probably missed one of them, Wilderness — saying that they have concerns about the law, then the government hasn't done its job.

Government has not done its job. That job is to consult and to explain and to seek input. With that input, it is possible that this would not have been presented the way that it is. Of course, we know why we're doing this, suggesting this amendment. The reason we're doing that is that it's very serious when you have an amendment which allows the minister to issue permits for research in parks related to a feasibility study, related to roads or highways, pipelines, transmission lines, telecommunications or "a prescribed project" — we don't even know what that is; it may be none of the above — "or a project in a prescribed class of projects."

We're talking about research that could apply to a whole bunch of different things. The people of British Columbia — I think a large portion of the people of British Columbia — feel pretty nervous when we have worked so hard to protect and designate areas of our province to be parks.

[1710]

I don't want to get into a discussion of the bill itself. But it's the emotion behind it, the concern that's behind it because of the passion the people have for our provincial parks, that is causing this reaction when we see a piece of legislation that could impact so significantly what happens in our parks.

Another reason why we would like to see this delayed for some time is that we don't know what the definition of "research" is. I've read quickly the recent changes to the policy on research, but it doesn't answer all of my questions. I would like to see a lot more time before this bill is finalized. Maybe we'll get that. Maybe this will get shifted down the line, and maybe we will end up having
[ Page 1897 ]
months that we get to discuss it.

I would like to suggest and agree with some of my colleagues who have said that this points to another issue. What we are missing in this Legislature is a robust system of active committees. We have committees that are designated, and they're put together. Particularly, new members come, and they're so excited that they're on the — you know, whatever — committee, a variety of committees, and then those committees don't sit for years. They don't sit at all.

I've got to tell you that if you compare that system, which works well…. It would've been a perfect place to have had honest discussion that would have improved this bill and would have made this bill more defensible, I think — in a committee. It would've been a better bill. I compare it with….

For example, I sit on the Public Accounts Committee and have for many years. We get a great opportunity, both sides of the House, to sit and to discuss, honestly debate and ask questions about the public accounts of the province, about reports that the Auditor General has brought. It works. It raises issues, and it means that we have a more complete debate. The decisions, therefore, if we were going through committees, would be better decisions, because they would include more points of view and more information and would give all of us more time to consider issues that are before this House.

I know that when new members come, they're often astounded that we have bills come in…. Certainly, last parliament we'd have bills that would come in one day — bills that had a great deal of impact on the province — and within a day or two they were in second reading, and within another day they were in committee stage, often with no consultation in advance.

This is a solution, one that I have no real hope that will be acted upon by the government. This is a solution, this hoist motion, that basically says: "Let's give ourselves six months. Let's give ourselves six months to think about the impact, to learn more about it."

We may decide on this side of the House, at the end of the day, that this is a good bill and that we want to support it. But when I have many organizations and many people concerned — people who are passionate and know way more about environmental issues than I do, like all of those organizations that I talked about — and coming out, one after the other, saying this is not a good thing, then it raises issues for me. I think that those alarm bells should be listened to, at least in terms of delaying.

I am going to, certainly, support the motion. I've got to say, as well, that I support this motion because, in a way, this bill and the way that it has been brought in with a lack of consultation make me concerned as a resident of Burnaby.

I don't believe that we have in Burnaby any of the provincial parks that could be affected by this legislation, but boy, we have parks. As the Speaker knows — we live in the same community — 25 percent of the city of Burnaby is park. They're municipal parks, for the most part. Some are federal lands, but the parks are municipal parks.

[1715]

My understanding is that the rights of those municipal parks will not be affected by this particular act, but it certainly makes me concerned when we know that we are looking at plans for a major expansion — in fact, changing the route of a pipeline, to triple the capacity and have a new route that goes right through, bisects, my city of Burnaby and the Speaker's city of Burnaby.

When you see that the approach here with provincial parks is to bring in a bill that is creating concern from many different organizations but there's not support for having the consultation, then it makes me a little concerned about what this government's approach is going to be when we are looking, possibly, in the future, at this government deciding about what is going to happen with the pipeline that's going to have huge capacity.

Presumably, the same pipeline is one of the projects that could be being dealt with under this act, which is going to go through our community. How is the provincial government going to treat that? Is there going to be consultation there? Is there going to be the full discussion with municipalities?

I know that there are environmental concerns, but there are also municipal concerns. There are real municipal concerns about this act and what it means and what it foreshadows in terms of how municipalities are going to be treated and dealt with and whether there's going to be a respectful discussion of the equals. Municipalities, in my mind, are equal to — in fact, have more responsibility, in many ways, than — either the provincial or federal governments.

Are municipalities going to be dealt with appropriately and respectfully and as equals on other issues related to these types of projects that are the subject of this bill — again, highways, pipelines, transmission lines, telecommunications — or a prescribed project — roads and so on? To me, it doesn't bode well.

One of the other parts of the act…. Of course, I'm talking about the research, allowing research, and we're not sure what that is. I do have concerns about that.

In addition, with this act, we could have more impacts on smaller parks — those that are less than 2,023 hectares in size. That concerns me as well.

I think concerns about that provision — another reason to say: "Let's just step back, and let's look at it. Let's have consultation about it. Let's understand better what the act is actually saying."

For that reason, I am most pleased to support this amendment. With that, I'll take my seat.

S. Robinson: I asked to speak to this motion to amend this bill because I know how important parks are to our public. In my community of Coquitlam-Maillardville
[ Page 1898 ]
parks are considered precious community assets.

I know that there's a large number of members from both sides of this House who come from local government. As local government representatives responsible for local and regional parks, I know — and all these local government types know — just how vociferous the electorate can get about consultation about their parks.

In my community the council of the day was considering whether or not we would see a WildPlay, a tree-based adventure park and if it would be a suitable addition to Mundy Park, a well-loved, well-used park in my community. It was a park that would meet the criteria and a park that we were asked to consider for this activity.

The community didn't even wait for it to get past a preliminary consultation with council. As soon as local media noted that council was having a conversation about whether or not this activity would even be on the council agenda, just the council agenda, the public, the people that we represent, all had something to say about it.

Not everyone was against it. There were certainly people who supported this activity in the park. But everybody had an opinion. Everybody had a voice. Everybody had something to say. They were incredibly vocal about it, making sure that we knew what their position was when it came to making any changes to their parks.

Now, I've also had the pleasure to sit on the Metro Vancouver parks committee. Regional parks, just like local parks, are precious to the electorate.

[1720]

As a member of this committee, I heard from proponents interested in bringing race car driving back to the Campbell Valley Regional Park. Not only was there a split in the committee about whether or not that should happen, but the community was incredibly divided on this issue, and we had hours upon hours of presentations that came before the committee, with proponents on both sides. In fact, we had, certainly, lots of articles written about it, trying to get as many voices to the table to talk about what it would mean.

The committee was evenly split, and the public had lots to say. "'It looks sort of half-and-half right now. I'll take whatever hope I can get and continue to work towards it,' said speedway society president Murray Jones, who tabled 1,100 letters of support." A staff report warned about the sensitive ecology, and so there were others who said that no, they don't support it.

The equestrians strongly opposed the idea. "The Langley speedway is like an invasive plant that keeps trying to re-establish itself in an unsuitable environment," said one park user. The Campbell Valley Park Association chair said that park-goers who hold their weddings and other special events there wouldn't want to hear the roar of racecars shatter the tranquility.

Representatives of the Pacific Riding for Developing Abilities, which provides therapeutic horseback riding for clients with varying disabilities, said race noises would spook the horses and make riding unsafe. Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele was among the councillors who wanted to reject the proposal right then and there, saying she didn't think a park tour would change her mind, that racing is a bad fit.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let's talk about the amendment, please. Thank you.

S. Robinson: Well, I am speaking to the amendment, hon. Speaker, because this is saying that the public wants to have their say, and we need to make sure that we provide opportunities for that.

I learned from this experience. That's what I'm trying to demonstrate to this House — that we need to pay attention to what people have to say. I learned that while the public elects us to make decisions on their behalf, consulting with them, the people we represent, is critical. Their voices need to be heard, and consultation needs to happen when we look at tampering, even for samples and measurements, with their parks.

I heard the minister speak to some of the simple activities that she outlined that this bill would permit. Some of it might make sense, but taking the time to consult with the public will help to inform the minister and this government. The great risk of not taking the time to ensure that we have properly consulted with the public on this bill is that anytime we do anything with these parks, we raise the suspicion of the electorate, who already struggle to trust government, any government.

Taking the time that will permit all 85 of us to go back to our communities, to ask the electorate about what they think about this proposal, to change how decisions are made about what happens in their parks, is prudent, thoughtful and respectful of the electorate. We know how the HST, brought in without consultation, raised the ire of the electorate.

I think they deserve to be informed about this bill so that they can understand its implications and can inform us as legislators. With proper consultation, we know that the government can, with full confidence, acknowledge a good process for gathering information from those who care most about our parks and make decisions accordingly.

The minister also noted that it's critical that we move quickly. If we needed to move quickly, then I would have suspected that we would have sat this past fall, so I'm wondering why we have to move that quickly, how much damage six months would make. We'd certainly think that a six-month opportunity to consult would be worthwhile.

While I appreciate that we need to consider the balance between exploration and research with recreation and protection, I think it's important for democracy that consultation happens with the public. I think it's our duty
[ Page 1899 ]
to have the time to check in with our constituents, and I urge the minister and her government to at least support this amendment and recognize the value of consultation with the public on their parks.

D. Routley: It gives me pleasure to be able to rise in the House to speak to this amendment to hoist the legislation, which I support. Often when we rise in the House, we may be forgiven for feeling that it's a hopeless task to convince government to change their mind on legislation or a motion, but that would kind of make things a little bit pointless, wouldn't it?

[1725]

I'm not going to engage in that kind of cynicism. I'm going to hope — and I'm going to stand here and hope — that the minister across from me and that the government across from me will hear these words and perhaps even take some advice from the opposition and do itself a favour.

We're often also accused of being hyper-partisan in the political process, so I'm going to try to escape that by giving advice to the government that could help them win favour with constituents and British Columbians. I'm going to do that in the interest of constituents and British Columbians, not necessarily in the interest of the government.

I am sure that if the government were to show itself willing to listen to contrary voices and respond to the advice that it's given by people who represent hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, perhaps they might do themselves a favour, even electorally.

First of all, in order to justify the notion that we should hoist this legislation, I'd like to refresh, for a brief moment, the attachment that people feel for parks in British Columbia — how essential this issue is to British Columbians, how any attempt to change or otherwise tamper with parks in any way strikes deeply to the soul of British Columbians.

One of the great achievements of the NDP in the 1990s was to set aside 12 percent of this province as protected areas. Some of the best achievements of this current B.C. Liberal government have been when they've been able to expand on that commitment to our natural spaces.

British Columbians support the protection of parks and wilderness areas. British Columbians expect us to do our best to respect their attachment to their parks. The battles of the past over resource extraction and park boundaries should not be repeated. But this legislation threatens to revoke the social licence that has been built through decades and generations of negotiation and development in this province.

We care so deeply about our parks, but we also know that we are very dependent upon resource extraction and resource economies in this province. This sets up a natural tension. This sets up a tension even within individual British Columbians — their feelings about their attachment to nature and the economies that they depend on.

This internal struggle in British Columbians and the public struggle that results should never be a political pawn played for electoral or otherwise political benefit. I think we've seen a lot of that in the recent past in this province. Hoisting this legislation would give a chance for both sides of this House to work cooperatively in the public interest, to protect parks and rebuild the social licence necessary to protect our resource economy.

Those are really important concepts. It is so much more important than simply playing "We believe in jobs, and they don't" in an election campaign and seeing legislation come forward in a House that reflects that kind of approach to this important and sensitive and dynamic issue.

In order to build the confidence in British Columbians that this government is respecting their deep attachment to their parks, respecting that internal struggle that people feel when it comes to questions of resource extraction in our province, we need to hoist this legislation for six months.

We need to also go out and make sure that First Nations are in support of this legislation, should it pass.

[1730]

How can the government bring forward legislation that is so integral to the heart of what people care about — the land and the soul of what our communities are, including our First Nations — without authentic and inclusive consultation and partnership?

I do not see this in the preparation of this legislation. Hoisting this legislation would allow the government to make real its many words when it comes to reconciliation and respecting First Nations.

This could be a turning point for the B.C. Liberal government. This in fact could be a turning point, where the government could rebuild a confidence. We need an authentic dialogue. We don't need the waste of hasty actions. Hoisting legislation is a prudent thing to do when there is controversy, particularly when there's no particular drive that it needs to be imposed at this time.

Examples of how hasty action has cost this government and cost the people of B.C. The integrated case management system — the development and design of that system. It was a $200 million investment in a computer system to run several shared-data systems within government, particularly social ministries. It is widely seen as failing.

It went through several stages of development before the government did privacy audits, as were requested time and time again by the Privacy Commissioner. The result is extreme cost in addressing those problems after the fact. That's an example of how not being hasty could have saved this province considerable resources and saved the people of the province served by those ministries considerable grief.

The legislation that the government brought forward
[ Page 1900 ]
around septic fields and sewage treatment, legislation that was deemed to be the worst legislation ever brought forward in the B.C. Legislature, by retired legislators. The members on the other side can laugh about that, but those are the facts.

That caused huge disruption for developers and for homeowners, for people who wound up paying huge costs in order to meet the test of the legislation, and the legislation didn't do what it was intended to do in the end anyway.

This is another example where, if the government had listened to the opposition, listened to voices in the sector that they were addressing and taken the time to reflect on their actions, they could have saved this province considerable resources in both money and personal anguish.

Another example of hasty action that the government should reflect on — and, in so doing, support this motion to hoist this legislation — would be legislation that wound up being deemed to be unconstitutional. There are several examples when it comes to health care and education where not only has legislation that has failed the test of the courts wound up costing the province hundreds of millions of dollars, but it has also contributed to considerable personal costs and grief for people served in those systems, in health care and education.

Those are great examples of why the government, from pragmatic and economic and socially responsible and electorally responsible points of view, should hoist this legislation.

Poor legislation results in enormous costs. The courts depend on our debates and the thorough and complete dissection of legislation that comes forward to make adequate decisions when the legislation is challenged in courts. If we and the government don't have the ducks in a row, it will lead to enormous costs — court costs and social costs — as a result.

I support the motion to hoist this legislation for six months in order for the government to do an authentic and inclusive consultation and dialogue with the province of British Columbia, particularly with First Nations, in order to ensure that the legislation meets whatever test it might face.

[1735]

More important than simple, immediate economic consequences that might be triggered by poor legislation is the deeper question around social licence. I am going to plead with the government to hoist this legislation to save jobs. I'm going to plead with them to save jobs by maintaining and acquiring the necessary social licence to proceed with projects in this province.

We are seeing a deep division within our province, based on a government that is forcing — or at least is being perceived as forcing — the hand of British Columbians when it comes to resource industries.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

British Columbians know that their economy and their jobs depend on resource-based industries throughout this province, particularly in rural B.C., particularly in the places where this legislation will have an effect on parks in rural British Columbia. In order to provide certainty, in order to provide confidence, the government needs to hoist this legislation and go to the people and have that authentic conversation.

Investors need to know that the government of British Columbia is taking the necessary steps to have the social licence to guarantee an economy in this province that is both respectful of people and respectful and protective of our environment.

British Columbians expect us to be leaders. They expect us to apply the highest standards when it comes to these industries, when it comes to any issue that affects their parks and their protected areas. They expect us to protect their jobs at the same time. That requires a tightrope balance that is very difficult to maintain. The blunt instrument of legislation that affects those issues puts in peril thousands of jobs.

I expect this government to take whatever steps necessary so that legislation like this that will threaten people's confidence in the government's ability to manage our parks and manage the issues of resource extraction…. It needs to have the confidence of the people. I expect the government to do that. Hoisting this legislation for six months would give an opportunity for the government to do that.

British Columbians want two things. They want two things. I want two things. I want two things that are, on the surface, mutually opposing but, if we are careful and if we are sensitive, can be mutually supporting.

I want those two things for me. I want those two things for every British Columbian. I want those two things for First Nations. I want those two things for my children. I want those two things for future generations.

Those two things are these: a beautiful British Columbia — our beautiful province and its natural wonder, its natural resource, its natural wealth; and a thriving British Columbia, a thriving economy that provides equity, that provides wealth. Those two things need to be met, hand in hand.

This legislation needs to be scrutinized by the people. And the government needs to engage in an authentic dialogue with British Columbians, most particularly First Nations, in order to achieve that balance. They haven't done that.

It is so important. This is advice offered to the government. If the government were to take it, I believe the people would say: "Well, that's a really fantastic approach. This is the kind of approach that we want. We want an approach that respects our internal values. We want an approach that respects and protects our economies, our wealth, our jobs, our security."

The approach that meets that standard is the one that's
[ Page 1901 ]
recommended in this hoist motion — to hoist this legislation and allow time for British Columbians to have their say and for the government to show its sensitivity to these issues. I am certain that the government would reap great advantage by supporting this hoist motion.

[1740]

British Columbians are watching us. They're watching what happens here, and they're expecting the words of their government to be materialized in action.

First Nations are watching. They are expecting their rights to inclusion and partnership to be respected. It's not a simple matter of consultation. It's a matter of full partnership and full inclusion, and you can't do that by bringing forward legislation as important as this without the adequate partnership-building work. Six months seems a minimal commitment to take the necessary steps to achieve that standard.

Hoist this legislation for six months. Go out to the people. Make your case. Make your decisions. Don't make your decisions without consulting the people. Don't make decisions related to parks and protected areas, the essential pieces of this province that people protect, without consulting First Nations.

Don't make your decisions in cabinet and drop them on the tables of this Legislature and expect people to vote without the adequate consultation having been made. Don't do that.

Of course, if I were solely interested in the government tripping over its own feet, I wouldn't make this recommendation. I'd be happy to see this hoist motion fail and the government lose some more of the confidence of the people, in its failure.

But there's a higher principle, and the higher principle is the confidence of the people of British Columbia. The government may not care about that, but the people are watching. The world is watching. They're expecting us….

Interjection.

D. Routley: The Mines Minister says nobody's watching. I think maybe the government thinks that the people don't care, but I think the world is watching us.

I think that if the government were wise enough to hoist this legislation and go out and do the necessary consultations — go out and speak to the people and build the confidence and licence necessary for the plans they have — people would respect this government more. I would respect this government more.

I'm not holding my breath, but I'm telling this government that I have a sincere faith that people would endorse that approach.

I'll end by saying this.

Interjections.

D. Routley: You're welcome.

Government exists solely with the confidence of the people in a democracy — solely with the confidence. Markets and economies depend upon confidence, certainty. Let's hoist this legislation and build the grounds for that confidence and certainty. Let's simply hoist it.

Interjections.

D. Routley: I mean, it's okay for the government members, senior ministers, to sit back in their chairs and snicker and laugh. It contributes to the kind of cynicism that people feel around the issues that they hold to be, internally, the most important to them. Perhaps they can't see it, but I can see it — their government ministers snickering and laughing at the concept of consultation and the confidence of people. But that's what we have.

I offer the advice. I hope they take it. I sincerely do. I sincerely believe that they would benefit. I sincerely believe that people would have more confidence in them. I certainly would. My confidence in them is obviously at a very low point.

Hoisting this legislation would give people cause to say that this government is listening to them. So let's hoist the legislation.

V. Huntington: The state of my voice precludes me from any lengthy response or comments on the amendment to Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act.

[1745]

Suffice to say that I do believe language in the act has, perhaps completely unintentionally, inflamed concern throughout the province. I see no problem in hoisting this bill to enable consultation to take place and perhaps to better inform the public what the minister's comments have actually meant.

I feel that the language says one thing and one thing only. "Conduct this type of research into pipelines, etc., and that better informs a boundary adjustment application" says only one thing to me, and that is that industrial activity may be in the offing.

If the minister's words are correct, and that is not the intention, then I think that the time would afford the government to correct the misunderstanding in the public eye.

So I do support the amendment.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair. I actually think it's appropriate that you are in the chair because my remarks will touch on your current riding and a big chunk of my former riding.

It's a pleasure, anyway, to rise and speak to the amendment to Bill 4.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague across the way says the
[ Page 1902 ]
pleasure is all his. I am glad to hear that because, hopefully — you never know — after my remarks the government may see the light and may support this motion, which the opposition has put forward in a spirit of, I think, cooperation and in a spirit of trying to achieve a better bill than that which we have before us.

Bill 4, as we know, seeks to amend the process by which park boundaries can be changed. We have a process in place already in this province. It has been used on a number of occasions in this House over the years, and it has worked.

The government now feels that that process needs to change. They have put this bill before us, but the problem with the bill is that it is dealing with, I think, one of the assets British Columbians most value, which is our provincial park system.

I want to talk about that for a moment in the context of the amendment. I think it's important that we understand exactly what's taking place, why people feel that way and why I think it's important to support this amendment and hoist it for six months.

I'll just say at the outset that six months is not a long time. In fact, the government has already committed that they will be back here in the fall, dealing with legislation that will impact some industrial development in the province of British Columbia, namely LNG, so it's not out of the context of the discussion the government wants to have. That would be an appropriate place in the fall to actually deal with this particular piece of legislation.

In 1983 I ran for city council. One of the elements on my platform was the protection and preservation of Burke Mountain, which at that time was an important, growing issue in the Tri-Cities. There was considerable support for the creation of a provincial park on Burke Mountain, which is in the Chair's current riding. There was a significant community grass-roots effort to make that a reality.

Councils going back…. Well, at that time, in 1983, mayors such as Dave Driscoll in Port Moody, Lou Sekora in Coquitlam, Len Traboulay in Port Coquitlam and the councils in those communities, along with Belcarra and Anmore — all were united. Whatever their political persuasion, all were united in wanting to create a park on Burke Mountain, a class A provincial park.

In 1996 we had achieved that. John Cashore was the Environment Minister. It was a key element of our platform locally in 1991. We saw the creation of Pinecone Burke Provincial Park, a class A provincial park.

It was a community, grass-roots effort, as I've said. The councils were involved. Organizations such as the Burke Mountain Naturalists were very much involved. People in my community, such as Don and Norma Gillespie, for example, were a driving force to make that happen.

All of us in the Tri-Cities were exceedingly proud of that accomplishment. It is there for future generations from then till hundreds of years into the future — forever.

That's important in a growing region such as ours, where we know the population growth is going to be significant. No surprise to you, hon. Chair, that growth in our area is significant.

[1750]

We watch the development and the housing developments going up the slopes of Burke Mountain, but we know they will only go so far because there is that park boundary. Those park boundaries set out that land which is protected, and it is a wonderful place to visit.

Now, the importance of this can be illustrated. About seven or eight years ago…. At that time, the former member for Chilliwack-Hope, Barry Penner, was the Minister of Environment, and there was a proposal to look at run-of-river power on the Upper Pitt River. Initially it was viewed as all right, but people weren't sure exactly what was taking place up there. But as it became clear the size and the scope of the project….

Part of what they were asking for, or one of the options that they were looking at, was a way to move a transmission line through a portion of the park. It would have meant adjusting the boundary of the park.

That would have had to come here to this chamber to take place. It would have been debated openly. It would have been debated in this House. The government of the day, whoever that was, would have had to make that reason here in this House, and it would have been decided on a vote in full public view and full public scrutiny.

The size and scope of the project on the Upper Pitt concerned an awful lot of people. I have represented Port Coquitlam, with one minor exception, since 1983 at the municipal level and the provincial level. There was a meeting, a public meeting, in the Tri-Cities — actually, just across the river in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — to which 1,500 people turned out. That is the largest public meeting that I have ever attended in the Tri-Cities north of the Fraser, by far, on any issue.

I remember, at the height of the education issue in the early '90s, when about 500 people came out to publicly protest and seek action on the building of new schools, which were ultimately successful. I thought that was big. But 1,500 people came out to express their concern over what was taking place on the Upper Pitt and the potential impact on Pinecone Burke Provincial Park.

The result. Literally two days later, not more than that, in this very chamber the then Minister of Environment stated that there would be no going ahead. The government would under no circumstances approve the run-of-the-river power project on the Upper Pitt River. The minister of the day understood the depth of feeling north of the Fraser when 1,500 people came out, on little notice, representing political views right across the political spectrum.

The one thing that's interesting about the area I represent — and I know the member, the Chair, will understand this — is that it's not an area that is given to protest
[ Page 1903 ]
or to activism easily. It's generally a quiet area, unlike other parts of the province where you can have demonstrations and protests. It's not that kind of a place.

But when something, an issue, galvanizes people and when there's an issue that does get their attention, they do turn out, they do respond, and they most definitely make their opinion heard in no uncertain terms. And they did. Government understood that, and they said no. They listened, and they heard. It was, I think, a good decision.

That brings me to this particular piece of legislation. The government says that they have reasons to make the changes.

[1755]

In looking through some of those reasons, some of them — for example, unobtrusive uses of parks — I think: "Yes, let's look at it. Is it possible to do a different way of permitting or permission to use a part of a park if it's unobtrusive and you're not damaging or destroying?" That's one thing. But when you're giving the power to determine an activity within a provincial park — in the name of "research," for example — and then it's not defined but is left up, in essence, to regulation to be described as to how it can take place, then you have a problem. Then you have a real problem.

If you want a successful process and a successful piece of legislation, particularly on issues in this province that we know are divisive, and the solution and the way to resolve them is by bringing people together so you're establishing a basis of trust, as opposed to a basis of mistrust, it means ensuring that you've got a period of consultation to allow that to take place.

That's what this hoist motion will do. It will allow for the legitimate questions that are out there in the public to be asked, and it will be an opportunity for government to listen, hear and answer. There are a number of ways that we can do that. Perhaps the best, most interesting and useful would be to have one of our standing legislative committees go out and do that. That is one way.

I hear my colleague. That may not be his preferred way, but certainly….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: You just did. You confirmed it.

There are numerous ways in which you can do that, but the bottom line is this. Give people an opportunity to speak and let their questions be asked and their concerns be answered, and you'll end up with a much better bill. You'll end up with a much better piece of legislation, and you may achieve your objective by putting to rest those concerns. I think that's what's important.

If that doesn't take place, then I think you're creating a much greater problem than you're trying to solve. That is not good for our park system, and it's also not good for our economy.

The question of the definition of "research." It's interesting that it is not defined in legislation, that it is left up to regulation, because as we know, regulation is decided by cabinet behind closed doors. I think that's unfortunate. That's not the way to go.

There have been numerous examples in this House of where committees have been able to do great work in a bipartisan fashion, that have been able to achieve, I think, important results that have improved legislation. The fact that we're having a fall session, I think, gives this House and gives the government significant time, six months, to be able to go out and consult with British Columbians on an issue that matters to them, that is important to them. That is the integrity of our provincial park system — the integrity in which decisions around, for example, the uses and the boundaries of those parks exist and in the way in which they do change. And they do change from time to time.

I urge the government to support this hoist motion. I think it is an opportunity for them to show that they are listening to British Columbians. I think it's an opportunity to improve, significantly, this legislation, and it's an opportunity to build bridges. I think that that is important. That is why I and my colleagues on this side of the House will be supporting the amendment, and we urge the government members to do the same.

[1800]

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to take my place in this debate regarding a hoist motion on Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, and the hoist motion reading: "That the motion for second reading of Bill 4, Park Amendment Act, 2014, be amended by deleting the word 'now' and substituting 'six months hence.'"

I'm going to speak specifically to the hoist motion. I have a lot more comments on the bill that, perhaps, I won't have to address. If the government chooses to support this worthy motion and support the hoist motion, then we won't be proceeding further on the second reading. But I will restrict my comments more specifically to the hoist motion.

The purpose is that this will give at least six months' time to take this bill out and consult with people in the province — I don't like the word "stakeholders," but that's sometimes the term used — in different areas of the province. It's something that wasn't done before this bill was introduced to the Legislature. And then bring it back.

As my colleague before me pointed out, it is already been indicated by the government that we will be having a fall session, a sitting of the Legislature in the fall. So bring it back then. Then we've had a chance to take this out into the province and have a better idea of what people think of it. It is addressing a very important subject matter for the people of the province — a very, very dear subject matter — and that is provincial parks.

I wanted to talk a little bit about a consultation, which this hoist motion addresses. I was involved in consulta-
[ Page 1904 ]
tion around the Seven Sisters Provincial Park. That was back around 1999, when the park was created. The park is in Stikine. It's not a huge park by some of the other comparisons in Stikine and in the north. It's 39,206 hectares. It's along Highway 16, just past the junction of Highway 37. "Seven sisters" refers to the beautiful mountain range that the park centres around.

Again, the consultation process was done by the provincial government in 1999, and I was hired to conduct part of that. It shows what could be done, what this hoist motion could provide the opportunity to do. What we were able to do with the Seven Sisters was take the management plan out to the people in the area, those most affected by the park and the park management plan. Specifically, I was hired to bring that to the Gitxsan house groups, the wilp, the different house groups that most of the park covered.

We went to different communities. We went to Kitwanga — Gitwangak, in Gitksan language — and held workshops and set up displays and invited people in and asked for their comments and what they saw as appropriate use in different areas of the park. We also took that to other communities close by, in the Hazeltons, and really built a strong understanding of what the people of the area and of the region felt regarding a management plan for the Seven Sisters Provincial Park.

That was, I think, a good example of what this hoist motion could provide — strengthening the legislation by taking it to the people who actually live close by to these parks, who use these parks, who have an interest in these parks, and therefore bring back to the Legislature in the fall, in six months' time, something that reflects really what the people who live in this province would like to see in this kind of legislation, rather than bringing it as it is now, with no consultation that was done before it was presented.

To me, it makes a lot of sense, the hoist motion — being able to use it to go out and do that. I know how successful it was, because, as I said, I had a personal experience with doing a similar kind of consultation over the management plan with the Seven Sisters Provincial Park.

[1805]

In that case it was somewhat controversial, because we were talking about different areas of the park that could be used for different activities, motorized and non-motorized. Yet, because we did the consultation — "we" being the team that was hired by the provincial government at that time, in 1999 — it turned out that people bought in.

They bought in to the management plan, and they bought in to respecting the management plan. So enforcement didn't become an issue and a cost issue down the road, for instance, and people felt more of an ownership over the management plan. This is just one example of what consultation can do when you actually take it to the people.

I referenced the hoist motion being able to take this bill out to the people for what their opinions of it are, and I referenced that in the case of the process that was done with the Seven Sisters Provincial Park that I was part of. M job was specifically around First Nations, around the Gitxsan interests.

Well, I would think that with this hoist motion it could present the opportunity to use a select standing committee of the Legislature. One of the select standing committees that I've been appointed to is the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It hasn't sat since 2001, mind you. But what a great time it would be to activate it, under this hoist motion.

That committee could then go and travel to different areas of the province and hear from First Nations about what they think about this suggestion in this bill. Of course, we know how important that is. This government has said it's a priority to consult with First Nations, so it is would be a good proof of the sincerity of their words on that.

The select standing committee system is a good system to use. It hasn't been used as effectively as it could be by this government over the last 13 years. I had suggested that the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, in connection to this hoist motion, could be a great vehicle for consultation over the next six months.

I've written to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation saying the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs could be activated by him to deal with another important issue, and that's the issue of biomedical experimentation on First Nations children as well. It could be expanded from that mandate that I was suggesting to also take in this hoist motion and the consultation that could result if the government decides to support what I think is a very positive and a good amendment to Bill 4.

I think I'll get to the end of my comments around this hoist motion, which I support wholeheartedly. Again, going back to the Seven Sisters example, going back to the example of using a select standing committee, my suggestion is the one on Aboriginal Affairs that hasn't sat since 2001.

I've received quite a few comments, in comparison to other bills that get introduced at second reading, from my constituents and elsewhere in the province. I want to read a part of one because it deals directly with consultation, which this hoist motion addresses. It's from a constituent of mine that lives in the Kispiox Valley.

Part of the letter that he has sent to the Premier and to the Minister of Environment…. I'm just going to read a part of the letter that actually deals with consultation. Here's what he says. These are his words from the letter that was sent February 20 to the Premier and to the Minister of Environment on Bill 4, but it relates directly to this hoist motion. That's Graeme Pole, and he writes:
[ Page 1905 ]

"Your government" — meaning the B.C. Liberals — "has not consulted the public on this intention" — the intention of what he says is allowing further industrial development in parks — "and its promotion now is nothing less than outright deception and betrayal. If your political party had run in the last election with a platform that included these proposed amendments, which promote activities that are currently illegal, your party would have been soundly run out of the province by the electorate."

That's a constituent of mine that's writing to the Premier and to the Minister of Environment directly around consultation and a topic that this hoist motion would address directly.

[1810]

I'm very pleased to have taken this small amount of time to support the hoist motion. Again, I have a lot to say about the remainder of this bill, but I'm hoping that can wait until the fall. I'm hoping that the government will see the wisdom in actually talking to the people of the province about such a topic that's so dear to so many of us. That's our provincial park system. I will support the hoist motion and vote for it once we're done the debate on this part of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member, and caution and remind members that the use of language, whether it's quoted or direct, is the same.

Seeing no further speakers, I'll now put the amendment.

[1815]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

[1820]

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I am disappointed that a number of members, the majority of members on the Liberal side, didn't feel that their constituents should have a voice on this bill or be consulted. Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me. Too often the government thinks it knows best. Too often the government thinks might makes right. Too often the government thinks that just because they're the government, they're the geniuses that should rule the world.

I've got to say that just because you're in a government chair or an opposition chair or any chair, really, doesn't mean you're better or lesser than another. It doesn't mean that you have more intelligence than another. It means, I think — this place, this job, should suggest — that you should actually talk to the people who elect you, that you should actually consult with the people. I made that argument in the amendment to the motion, and I thank so many of the colleagues from this side of the House, including the independents, for their support on that amendment.

I think it's interesting. The Minister of Environment argued that this amendment shouldn't go ahead, that the amendment shouldn't pass, that the public shouldn't be consulted. She's arguing that it would stop science and research going on in our parks — just if there is an industrial activity right next to the park — suggesting that somehow under current rules there would be no way possible for you to provide research in the park to see what kind of impacts might occur based on developments outside of that park.

I don't understand where that's coming from. It seems to be more spin than substance. It seems to be more imagination than reality. I've got here a document. It's called "Park Use Operational Policy." The effective date is June 28, 2011. It is the policy of the government, and it talks about research in parks. It talks about what you would need to do, to do scientific research in parks — to be able to measure, let's say, a stream flow.

The minister talked about a stream coming from a park into an industrial area or from an industrial area into a park. You might want to know what the baseline data is for that stream. You might want to know what fish existed, what newts, what other creatures and things relied on that stream.
[ Page 1906 ]

The minister seems to suggest that would just be impossible under current legislation and under current policy or regulation. Far from the case. A park use permit, which you would have to apply for, for proposed research activities, allows you to do a number of things. It allows you to go into a park to sample the water. This is where no permit's even required at all. You could go into a park, you could use flagging tape, gauges, recording equipment for a season, as long as you didn't leave it over the season. You could actually measure things in a park without a permit at all right now.

The minister seems to suggest it was impossible even with permits. Well, here's one way you could do it without a permit at all. You could collect…. I'll read the policy. You could, for example, look at scat, small samples of yellow-listed plants, small water samples, loose animal hair. You could look at those things and try and measure them. You could take them out of the park and go and measure to see whether or not there were impacts on animals and what kinds of animals were there. You wouldn't even need a permit for that. So for people at home, people listening and wanting to do research in our parks, there are many ways to do it even without permits.

Now, with a permit, with notifications required, you could do much more. If you were doing research activities within provincial parks currently, you would need a permit to do any improvements to the park, access parts of the park where you can't get to through standard access points — for example, using a helicopter — any animal trapping, including fish and invertebrates. There are other permits that apply, but that is something that you could do to study and get your good scientific baseline data in order to consider other potential uses.

[1825]

So there are ways to do research in parks. There are ways to do that currently, under current legislation. To suggest that you need to bring in a policy which has no definition of research, aside from saying, "Basically, you can do whatever you want," is just wrong. This bill should not have that in there without very clear legal definitions explaining what "research" means. I think that would give people a lot more time and a lot more faith in this government.

This government has made it very clear, as they've done in previous projects, that despite what the research says, despite what the science says, they will just say: "Go ahead." They will just say: "Well, we want this to happen, and we're just going to ram it through."

That's why people are concerned. That's why they look at a bill like this and see it, effectively, as enabling legislation to allow large-scale industrial activity in and around parks.

You know, there's always a balance. You always have to find a way to balance the need for economic prosperity, for good-paying jobs, for resource extraction, etc., with the natural values that we all hold dear to our hearts, with the conservation values that we hold dear, with the public trust which the people of B.C. have placed in all of us to protect our B.C. parks.

That, indeed, is what the government claims they are doing for B.C. parks — putting the public trust first. Well, this bill puts "Just trust us" before the public trust. Just trust the Liberals before the public trust. That doesn't build faith in anybody.

To suggest, as the minister did, "Oh, we're going to do consultation now," after second reading debate is already into full force…. Really, we're going to get into third reading debate so you can pass the bill before the consultation is even done. Well, what does that do? What does that do for the public trust? We're going to ask you what you think after we've already agreed to do it, after we've already voted to say we're going to do it. Does that build public trust? Does that build faith in government? Or is that just mere window dressing?

An Hon. Member: Ready, fire, aim.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know that the former member for Surrey-Cloverdale, Kevin Falcon, suggested the Premier's approach to governing is ready, fire, aim. You get ready, you shoot the gun, and then you decide what you're aiming at. Thank you to the member for Stikine for mentioning that.

But that's not how good government is done. You don't get your gun ready, shoot it and then decide what you're targeting once the bullet has already exited the chamber. You don't decide to put a pipeline through a park without actually talking to the public, without doing all of the scientific work and all of the research and everything before you even consider doing that. You don't just say: "Go ahead. We'll pass a law. Then we'll ask you later whether it makes any sense."

We've already seen the disastrous consequences of doing that kind of thing with two courts' rejections of this government's laws on education. Maybe the government should actually get some education around how we should be consulting and how we should be appreciating the public trust.

For a bill like this to proceed without talking to people, with merely sending an e-mail…. Today, after I told the minister it was outrageous that a bill like this would go ahead without any public consultation…. Only then did they send an e-mail to people saying: "Oh jeez, maybe you might want to tell us what you think about the policy that comes after the fact." Not even the legislation. They haven't said: "Should we do this or not? Does this make sense? Legally, do the terms and the amendments make sense?"

They haven't even done that. No, they said: "Well, maybe you can tell us later what you think." The minister said that they can tell us what they think of the bill. Well, that does them a fat lot of good — saying, once the bill is
[ Page 1907 ]
approved: "Well, we actually didn't really like the bill. The bill is a bad bill." Is the government then going to bring it back and say: "Okay. You're right. We consulted after the bill, and we're going to bring it back and actually not do the bill like we said we were going to do originally"?

That's not what's going to happen. That's not how this government works. That's not how good legislation should happen. You should actually talk to the people first, and you should actually look at your e-mail in-box. If members haven't looked at the number of people communicating about the need to protect our parks, they should give it a look. Open it up. Read through the mail.

The people are concerned. These are their parks — not our parks, not Liberal MLAs' parks, not NDP MLAs' parks, not independent MLAs' parks. These are all of British Columbians' parks. We all have a stake in them.

We are 85 people in a province of millions. Surely we could decide that the millions of people in the province might have a good idea or two, might have a concern or two, might have something that could lead to better legislation, might have something that could better protect our parks, might have something that could balance those needs, that could balance the need to protect our parks as well as understanding that something like the commercial film industry could happen in a park and not be detrimental to it.

[1830]

Surely there's a way that we can balance those kinds of things. Surely there's a way we can say that research can happen in parks — because it is now; research that can inform future decisions, because it is now — without opening the gate for major ore extraction, potential drilling, etc., in parks. That would be what a good government would do. They would say, "The public trust is important to us," not just: "Trust us."

So I will be voting against the bill. I think there are ways that we could have improved the bill so that it was clear, so that it was clean, so that you could actually have a very, very clear understanding of how the process is supposed to work, rather than a "Just trust us" bill. "We're the Liberals. You don't need to worry about anything." That's not good government, and that's not good for British Columbia.

N. Simons: I was disappointed that the decision wasn't made here to let this rest for a few months so we could do some consultation, or that the government could do some consultation, just because I think that it's our job to do our best when it comes to legislation.

Clearly, this type of change to something as important as parks in British Columbia really deserves some opportunity for the public to be involved. I don't know what the rush is, but it makes me kind of curious who's pushing this, who's doing this, who's making this go through so fast. Whose interests are we meeting by pushing this through? And that question, just by asking it, makes me doubtful as to the purpose of this bill. I just don't get it — why the government has to take something as important as parks and decide to give it short shrift when it comes to negotiation.

We can talk about the thin edge of the wedge or the slippery slope or what have you, but we're talking about changing our relationship with parks, protected areas, and I think we actually owe it to the people of British Columbia to give this more consideration, to give this the kind of attention that it needs. There is so much doubt around this legislation from the public that it surprises me, in a way, that government hasn't taken this opportunity to recognize that. I don't think the public's going to be very pleased. I've heard from some people in my constituency who realize, really, what this is all about, and I think we have to recognize that the people of this province are the ones that should be asked.

It's a reflection of the needs of the public that should prompt legislative changes. I don't know how many people in this House have received complaints or concerns about the inability to conduct research in parks. I don't think that's ever been an issue raised. I don't think that the film industry considers that their challenge is so great the government needs to implement new changes to legislation. We're contemplating changes to the act that will enable the industrialization of parks beyond what the current rules protect. And I think….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Well, that's fair. The fact of the matter is that if the minister thinks I'm wrong or maybe knows I'm wrong…. I'm among many people in British Columbia who think that this government is wrong-headed. And if he's so sure and thinks the debate really involves just shaking his head no, why not have a debate? Why not bring it to the public? Instead, he wants to just sit there and shake his head.

I mean, I enjoy engaging with the minister. I won't say who it is because no one should know. No one should know that he's here now. In fact, I'd be happy to know if he wasn't here, but he is, and I'm not allowed to reference him. Well, there he is. The minister over there, shaking his head. Instead of actually engaging in debate about legislation, it's an occasional little catcall or a grumble or a curled-up lip. And you know what? That's not the way British Columbians want us to debate issues as important to us as parks.

Interjection.

N. Simons: I'm not sure what the Minister of Health said, and most people don't know what he says when he's heckling over there. I don't even think his side knows what he's talking about.

[1835]

Madame Speaker: Member, if I might draw you back to the content of the bill.

N. Simons: I would love to talk about the content of this bill. I would like to, more than probably anyone in this House, as I am standing and I have the floor, but I'm being distracted by the people who should be actually concentrating on the words that I have to say.

We have defeated the hoist motion. We don't have six months to contemplate this. We don't have six months to talk to the people who have expressed their concerns, who I think the government is just thumbing their nose at. Maybe they get to do that because they won the gold in the last election. Maybe they get to do whatever they want, and we are irrelevant. That could reflect the government's attitude.

Has the government ever really contemplated what we've suggested in terms of improving a bill? I don't know. I don't know. I think they figure they've just elected themselves to a dictatorship. I think that many people in the public figure: "Well, they got more votes than us, and they'll win every vote, so what's the point?" Well, my point is to the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who understand and respect the history of parks in this province, who understand and realize the benefits that parks and protected areas bring us.

The minister has a reputation for being angry about folks who want to protect parks. That's his problem. That might have more to do with personality than anything else, but in this particular case….

Interjections.

N. Simons: Oh, I could be talking about any one of the ministers, quite honestly. The ministers should all know, whether they're here or not, that the public is not going to be very happy when they realize that by stealth they've snuck a little piece of legislation in here that will fundamentally change our relationship to parks. I don't think that's something that we really should be taking lightly.

I'm not taking the issue lightly. I'm taking the heckles from the opposite side lightly, because they're not taking this issue seriously, and I think that they should. This is an issue that is about the public's investment in protecting biodiversity, protecting unique ecosystems, protecting water and land that we hold dear.

We've chosen those places carefully, and we've struggled with the trade-offs that exist when we do creation of parks. We recognize that we can't have a province entirely of parks, as beautiful as this province is. We've set aside 12 percent, and in some cases we have more than that. But in this particular case, the protections we've afforded the parks are now being eroded.

That's the simple truth, as much as the minister might want to say that: "Let me be clear. The amendments do not allow, promote or otherwise enable industrial projects in parks…." How could she say that, when in fact what we have in the act is a statement about feasibility studies that'll be proposed in parks: roads or highways, pipelines, transmission lines, telecommunications projects — that's probably those towers — prescribed projects, a prescribed class of projects, structures, improvement or work?

You know what? It's the beguiling nature of the debate, the charm that's exuded by government members when they speak so eloquently about this law that belies the truth underlying those words. I think that what the ministers are trying to do with this act is pretend "nothing to see here; move along; no rubbernecking," but this is our job. It's our job to stand up for what people in this province believe in, and I think that they believe strongly in the protection of parks.

We were unable to convince them to vote to prolong the process to allow even the most basic consultation to take place. Surprise, surprise, no consultation. I mean, I won't get into the consultation. I wouldn't want to rely on consultation with this government to actually improve anything. But it would be good if they would actually contemplate what we're suggesting.

My friend from Cowichan who sits right here…. I forget the riding.

D. Routley: Nanaimo–North Cowichan. It's only been nine years.

N. Simons: Well, you know, you keep changing the boundary names. I'm not going to remember.

Interjections.

N. Simons: Madame Speaker, can you call them to order?

Madame Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

N. Simons: Thank you, Madame Speaker. See? I'm not the only one that heckles.

[1840]

I would just strongly suggest that British Columbians do take parks seriously. They take the protection of parks seriously. They take the entire issue around the trade-offs that exist in this province seriously. I don't think the government did consultation that reflects that seriousness.

For that reason, I can't support this legislation. I'm not sure if you're surprised. I believe we need to do more work, and this is the place where we are supposed to do it. The opportunities exist. We're not taking advantage of those opportunities. It's too bad, because that kind of opportunity would probably get more people actually recognizing that we could do some good work in this place. Unfortunately, we're passing up on that opportunity with what seems to be an iron will to go forward, despite the problems with this legislation.
[ Page 1909 ]

G. Holman: I, too, am disappointed about the amendment to hoist the bill and provide for more public consultation. I really didn't see a downside there for government.

In terms of the trust of the public around this particular kind of bill with this government…. The government ran on a very strong, and feel they have a strong, mandate around jobs. That was their mantra during the campaign. It was all about jobs. It was all about resource development. It was all about getting to yes. They feel very strongly about that and certainly repeat it back to us as opposition.

In that context, this is part of the problem here. When your number one priority is resource development, then legislation that looks like it…. In fact, in our view and in the view of many environmental groups, it weakens the park legislation. I don't understand why government thinks that the public really has any trust with this government on this particular issue, given the mandate they had in the campaign around resource development.

If push comes to shove, what's the number one priority for this government? It's pipelines and resource development. It's not protecting parks.

In terms of government's mandate, I think it would be unwise for government to think that the value of parks in British Columbia doesn't cut across party lines. I'm sure that the majority, the vast majority, of people who voted for this Liberal government strongly support protection of parks in British Columbia.

I think it would be a mistake to think that this is just a partisan issue. The value for parks and the park system in our province — which is an incredible legacy, one of the most extensive in North America — extends well beyond party lines. That's the context. I think we should be thinking about this legislation in that context.

We've had more consultation, as has been pointed out by a couple of my colleagues on this side of the House, on selling alcohol in corner stores than we have around this legislation, which threatens the integrity of parks — at least, that's the concern. The minister argues that that's not the case, that this legislation does not threaten the integrity of parks. Given the mandate they feel they had in the campaign around resource development, it really does heighten that concern.

Anyway, it is unfortunate that we didn't agree to move ahead with a very brief consultation period, particularly given that we were sitting again in the fall. We have committed to sit again in the fall. Six months would have done no harm to this issue. In fact, it would have, as some have said here, provided the legislation with greater social licence.

With respect to the bill itself, several key issues have been raised, which hopefully we can address in committee in more detail. Who knows? Maybe government will even make some amendments to this legislation that will allow us to support the bill.

[1845]

The research permits have probably been the key issue raised over and over again, the uncertainty about what that means. The fact that it's defined in policy now and will be defined in a policy paper to be issued for public consultation, but after the bill is actually passed — this is truly the cart before the horse. The policy that defines the research activities that are to go on and to be allowed in parks…. This policy paper is to be reviewed by the public but probably after the legislation actually passes. This is surely the reverse order in which it should occur.

It's very clear, though, that if the definition of "research" is defined in a policy document that the minister can override…. It can be changed, in fact, by civil servants, not just by the minister. That policy document can be so easily changed.

I think one amendment that government should think about very carefully, and my other colleagues have mentioned this as well, is that the definition of research, as much as possible, should be included in the legislation so that it's clear and can't be revised on a whim by the minister or the minister's staff. It should be, as much as possible, defined clearly in legislation. That's one suggestion.

I've already mentioned that the policy document is going to be made available for public consultation, but not until after the legislation is passed. The fundamental concern here, aside from the nuances around how research is defined, is that the legislation appears to be intended to weaken the legislation, particularly for smaller parks.

It's my understanding, in the current legislation, that smaller parks are treated differently because they are smaller, because of the nature of the values there. Size does matter when it comes to parks, and smaller parks need greater protection, not less. This legislation appears to weaken the protection for smaller parks, in particular. That flies in the face of the current legislation, which is intended to provide more protection.

Most of our parks are smaller parks. They're less than 2,000 acres, 70 percent of all parks, so this minor change is going to have far-reaching implications. All the parks in my constituency of Saanich North and the Islands are small parks — every one of them.

A number of us spoke before about how difficult it is to have achieved this system — and it is truly a legacy that we can be proud of — and the decades that it took to achieve this protection for natural areas.

People fight so hard to establish parks, including myself, as an activist. As an economist, I supported a number of the LRMP processes, throughout the province that established parks in the 1990s. People fight so hard to protect these natural areas, yet in a matter of days, legislation can be brought in that weakens them and weakens most of the parks in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker, I do hope that government will still be open to considering amendments to this legislation. I hope they're even open to a consultation process — a real consultation process that involves key stakeholders,
[ Page 1910 ]
including most of the environmental groups in British Columbia, who are currently opposing and raising alarms about this legislation.

D. Donaldson: I'm very pleased to take my place in second reading debate of Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, 2014. I'm especially pleased because in Stikine we have a large number of parks. We have over 50 provincial parks or eco-reserves. It possibly is a reflection of the fact that Stikine is the largest constituency in the province.

[1850]

There are a number of class A parks, from Atlin Provincial Park through the Spatsizi, and some of these parks are world renowned. People come from all over to visit them and to use them — and locals, too — for all sorts of purposes. Swan Lake Provincial Park, Babine River Corridor, Mount Edziza — the list goes on and on. There are large parks and small parks. So it's an issue and a topic that's very pertinent to the people who live in Stikine, to me and to the province in general.

I mentioned that there's such a large number of class A parks, and those are the parks with the highest protective designation that we have. Class A parks, as defined by the Park Act, are "dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public." We have those kinds of parks in Stikine and around the entire province, and they really are for inspiration and for use and enjoyment of the public.

B.C. Parks service also says — this is from the B.C. Parks service — that parks and conservancies are "a public trust" and are for "the protection of natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public." Again, the same kind of wording.

These are the kinds of reasons that people hold parks in such high regard, and when people hear there's a park, that's what they expect — that they'll be protected for the natural environment and for us to use that natural environment for inspiration and other spiritual means as well.

I'll point out that what this bill does is give the minister the ability to issue park use permits that could be very detrimental to the stated purposes of a class A park without having it come before this Legislature, and I think that's a problem. When you're saying that the minister has the discretion to issue these kinds of park use permits that could really be detrimental to a class A park without having a discussion here, then it really makes the Legislature, in a way, irrelevant — that such an important topic isn't discussed.

The situation now is that anyone taking resources or disturbing land in a class A provincial park must obtain a park use permit from the minister, and the permit can't be issued unless the minister decides it's necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved and it's not going to interfere with the park in accordance with its purpose.

Now what this act has done is give the minister the ability, if it passes, to allow certain types of research, to issue permits, without any kind of legislative process here, for research. That can involve a feasibility study for a road, a highway, a pipeline, a transmission line — things that I don't think most people in the province when they hear, "Oh, that area has been preserved for your future use as a park…." Most of these kinds of activities, I don't think people would imagine would be suitable or appropriate for a park.

The other types of research that are allowed, if this bill passes, are not defined. When questioned on this, the minister's response is: "Trust us. Just trust us."

You know, the quote from earlier that the minister gave when we were debating the hoist motion and, also, in a press release is that only "after a thorough review of the protected area values, including management plans, impact assessments and conservation…assessments" would these kinds of permits be issued. So the essence is: "Trust us on this." Yet, a management plan is mentioned in that.

I'll give you an example of why we can't trust what the government says. A management plan with the Gitanyow…. The Gitanyow have signed a reconciliation agreement with the government just last November, a year ago in November, and part of it was a land use plan.

[1855]

When they were asked about consultation, the environmental assessment office wrote to them and said: "We're thinking of putting a couple of pipelines through your traditional territories. What do you think?" They said, "Well, see our land use plan" — the kind of plan the minister referenced, even though it's not in a park. "See our land use plan," because the government had actually signed that land use plan with the Gitanyow.

The environmental assessment office writes back and says, "Your land use plan has no bearing on this process" — no bearing. Now, it went back and forth, and they finally got it worked out to some degree. But the minister says, "Trust us; before issuing these permits we'll consult management plans," and then they turn around and ignore management plans that they've signed. How is the public supposed to trust their true intent when it comes to this bill?

Noting the hour, I'll move adjournment and reserve my right at the next opportunity to continue on second reading.

D. Donaldson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.
[ Page 1911 ]

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,935,671,000 (continued).

D. Eby: Starting on a new topic from yesterday, I'd like to move into the area of compensation for senior administrators at universities and colleges. In particular, there is a lot of money set aside in this budget that's used for compensation for vice-presidents and presidents at various universities. It's an expanding sector.

Can the minister advise how the public could be assured that the money in this budget allocated to universities and colleges in B.C. isn't being given away in excessive pay, perks and bonuses to senior administrators at universities and colleges? What mechanisms are there within the budget to ensure that that doesn't happen?

[1455]

Hon. A. Virk: As previously mentioned, the funding to institutions in the form of block grants is put out in that manner. Executive management salaries have been frozen since September of 2012.

For the information of the member opposite, the Public Sector Employers Act is responsible and is part of the executive compensation. It's set by guidelines, and it's approved by PSEC as well. Also, the Financial Information Act, known as the FIA, outlines quite clearly the reporting criteria for such salaries.

D. Eby: The minister mentioned the Public Sector Employers Council and their role in ensuring executive compensation is kept under control, that there's a salary freeze that PSEC is responsible for keeping an eye on.

What are the expectations of the ministry in terms of the recipients of the block grants in this budget, in terms of what they are expected to report to PSEC to make sure that the salary freeze the minister described is enforced and that the salaries are reasonable?

[1500]

Hon. A. Virk: I draw the member opposite's attention to the 2013-2014 government letter of expectations that I sent to all institutions across British Columbia. Within that government letter of expectations, it's quite clear that the policy on compensation…. And there's a referral to the July 2012 policy on Crown corporation executive compensation.

I expect, and we expect, all institutions to comply with this policy. There's also an additional requirement under the Public Sector Employers Act as well, and legislation requiring institutions to report same.

D. Eby: Can the minister clarify? Under the July 2012 executive compensation expectation in the letter of expectations, does that include being complete and accurate in the public sector executive compensation reports and being consistent with the guidelines set out by the Public Sector Employers Council in February of 2012?

[1505]

The Chair: May I ask the member for Vancouver-Fairview just to clarify if this relates to his current portfolio?

D. Eby: It's the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

This question relates directly to the budget in that a large amount of money is being handed over to post-secondary institutions. The questions relate to accountability for that money to the ministry. How do we know that the money listed as being spent on salaries for executives at these schools is in fact going properly to these agencies, and what is the accountability mechanism to ensure that these numbers in the budgets that are being presented here today are accurate?

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Hon. A. Virk: We do indeed provide guidelines in our government letter of expectations to each and every public post-secondary institution in British Columbia. We absolutely expect those institutions to meet those guidelines. The contracts for those executives within those institutions are then sent to PSECfor review after they're completed.

D. Eby: In the event that a senior administrator is overpaid and PSEC detects that through the process the minister has set out, have there been repayments or reclaimed payments that the ministry has received as credit in the last fiscal year, and is there a budget for that in this coming fiscal year in terms of recovering overpayments?

[1510]

Hon. A. Virk: I am not aware of any incidence of this happening and certainly will commit to review any case that comes forward on a case-by-case basis.

D. Eby: Does this budget, in setting the global payment amounts for universities and colleges, rely on salary caps for senior administrators, sometimes called excluded staff, at universities and colleges? And if so, what are the current salary caps for schools in B.C.?

[1515]

Hon. A. Virk: There is not a cap for all types of executive compensation, for all employment types. It's only for CEOs of the public post-secondary universities. We will provide the specific caps, because we do have a variety of different universities, institutions and colleges. We will forward that to the member.

D. Eby: Thank you to the minister for forwarding that over.

Many universities and colleges engage in tendering contracts in order to receive goods and services. Can the minister advise whether this budget relies on particular rules for tendering contracts in terms of making sure that those contracts are awarded fairly and to the most appropriate agency, and that they are properly done?

Hon. A. Virk: I would direct the member opposite back to the government letter of expectation that states "…conduct its operations and financial activities in a manner consistent with the legislation, regulatory and policy framework established by government."

D. Eby: Is there any particular statutory framework? Can the minister be more specific in terms of what he expects in terms of contracting? Is there a certain value of contract that must be tendered out, for example?

[1520]

Hon. A. Virk: The Procurement Services Act sets out the rules for appropriate procurement, and trade agreements like the Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, commonly known as TILMA, provide specific guidelines for limits on contract awards that are required to be posted publicly.

D. Eby: Is the minister aware of a practice by universities or colleges to award contracts to senior administrators in order to avoid the reporting obligations to PSEC? If so, what is he doing to contain that to make sure that this budget is adhered to?

Hon. A. Virk: It's quite clear that our expectations are that all institutions across British Columbia comply with all government guidelines.

D. Eby: I take it, then, that the minister would take steps to enforce the guideline that says if a CEO or any "O" at an institution works in another capacity for the organization during part of a fiscal year that the school would have to include details of that compensation in their executive compensation report.

Just so the member knows what I'm referencing, I'm referencing the executive compensation disclosure guidelines from PSEC.

[1525]

Hon. A. Virk: It's our expectation, as I mentioned a number of times before, that we'll comply with PSEC guidelines. If we become aware of reporting that does not comply with guidelines, we will investigate.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise whether this budget sets out money for investigations and if those investigations would be run through the ministry itself? Or would those be external investigations, where there would be an external contractor or an allocation to another ministry or perhaps the Auditor General? How does this budget incorporate what the minister suggests — that there could be an investigation?

Hon. A. Virk: The process to undertake investigations would be determined on a case-by-case basis. The budget of the ministry provides the ability to retain fee-for-service contracts, as necessary, on a case-by-case basis.
[ Page 1913 ]

D. Eby: Can the minister advise whether, in a previous fiscal or up to date in the current fiscal, there has been cause to draw down any ministry accounts in order to initiate one of these internal investigations or audits? In other words, have any of these investigations been done?

[1530]

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: I am not aware of any previous investigations concerning executive compensation.

I would like to focus the questions on the 2014-15 budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education.

D. Eby: Thank you to the minister for his advice.

In the current budget, in the event of a conflict of interest within the minister's office in one of these investigations, does the budget have funds allocated in order to transfer authority to investigate to an outside agency? If so, who would that be, and how would that be done?

Hon. A. Virk: The process to undertake any investigations for any perceived conflict of interest would be determined on a case-by-case basis. The budget of the ministry certainly provides the ability to retain fee-for-service contracts as required and as necessary on a case-by-case basis.

D. Eby: The question was more about a transfer from the ministry's budget to another ministry in order to take conduct of an investigation where there was a conflict of interest. Is there allowance for that in the budget?

[1535]

Hon. A. Virk: As I said before, the budget of the ministry provides the ability to retain fee-for-service contracts as necessary or required on a case-by-case basis. Examples include the Ministry of Finance or independent counsel or consultants.

D. Eby: Would those agencies also include an internal audit by the comptroller general to make sure that the numbers in this budget were accurate?

Hon. A. Virk: The answer is, in short, yes.

D. Eby: I understand that such investigations could follow the dollar all the way down to the school level. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Virk: On a case-by-case basis, yes.

D. Eby: The Auditor General recently released a report on governance in universities and colleges. He had a number of recommendations for improvement. Does the minister's budget take into account that report and ensure that universities and colleges have the resources they need in order to educate their boards and their subcommittees about the importance of, for example, compliance with accountability legislation?

[1540]

Hon. A. Virk: The Office of the Auditor General's report on governance certainly provides useful guidance on continuously improved governance practices. External evaluations that identify areas of improvement for opportunity to build on strengths and achievements are always welcome, and the board resourcing office has guidelines to assist board members.

D. Eby: The question was: is there anything in the budget that schools can use to make sure that their board members adhere to the rules that the minister has set out today that he expects them to…? Is there anything in the budget that makes it possible for the schools to educate their board members about the importance of the rules that the minister set out for us today?

[1545]

Hon. A. Virk: I draw the attention of the member opposite back to the government's letter of expectations, where it's quite clear that it's government's expectation that all institutions will ensure good governance. In terms of resources, we provide a broad budget of $1.8 billion in block funding to operate the institutions.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise whether there is money in the minister's budget set aside whereby a staff member in the ministry could accept whistle-blower complaints or information so that employees, faculty, students or board members that were concerned about activities taking place at schools could contact somebody and have assurance that their information would be used and that that would help the minister in his job of ensuring accountability?

Hon. A. Virk: We have no specific allocation for, as aforementioned, whistle-blower activities in the Ministry of Advanced Education.

D. Eby: Is there any money in this budget, in the event that a university or college is sued, that would be used to either immunize board members from personal damages or immunize the school from having their budget and students affected by any litigation awards?

[1550]

Hon. A. Virk: Our government institutions are responsible for their own indemnification policies, and there is no specific ministry allocation for this in the budget.

D. Eby: To the minister, does the budget include sufficient resources in the minister's office for the minister's staff to be able to review statements of financial information and contracts awarded to ensure that statements of executive compensation filed with PSEC are accurate and complete?

Hon. A. Virk: Statements of CEO executive compensation are submitted directly to PSEC.

D. Eby: Am I to understand, then, that there is no money in the Ministry of Advanced Education budget to double-check or audit or ensure completeness or accuracy in the reports — either the PSEC report or the statement of financial information reports?

[1555]

Hon. A. Virk: At the risk of being repetitive, executive compensation reports are, indeed, submitted to PSEC. The information also submitted under the Financial Information Act is reviewed by finance staff within the ministry. As previously noted, the ministry has a budget for fee-for-service contracts, as necessary, on a case-by-case basis.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise how many staff members there are in this budget whose job it would be to review that financial information within the ministry?
[ Page 1914 ]

Hon. A. Virk: There are 32 staff in the post-secondary finance group within the Ministry of Advanced Education that perform a variety of services, including reviewing information submitted by the institutions under the Financial Information Act.

D. Eby: I wonder if I might be able to have a ten-minute break, if that would be agreeable. I apologize. I didn't check with the minister in advance. Is that all right?

The Chair: Members are acceptable?

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

D. Eby: I'm going to draw the minister's attention to the small estimates book, page 20. Under the list of operating expenses for 2013-14, there's $596,000 allocated for the minister's office for total 2013-2014 operating expenses. Can the minister please break down — within reason; I'm not looking for paper clips here — the broad categories and their values that are contained within that operating expense for his office?

[1615]

Hon. A. Virk: The total of the salaries and benefits is $427,000, and a total of employee travel, systems operating, office business expenses, amortization and other expenditures is $169,000, for a sum total of $596,000. And may I add it's the same amount in the 2013-14 as well.

D. Eby: Yes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the minister's office escaped the cuts that he's imposing on universities and colleges.

I ask the minister to turn to page 190 of the large estimates book marked "Fiscal year ending March 31, 2015." Under the Ministry of Advanced Education, capital spending, there is an allocation of $504,000. Can the minister advise what this money is allotted for?

[1620]

Hon. A. Virk: The allocation of $500,000 is for information systems. The majority of this funding is to realign student financial aid systems with federal program changes, and the system supports some 65,000 students.

D. Eby: Can I clarify that that $504,000 is to adjust the current information technology system or, in plain language, the computer system to make sure it cooperates with the federal computer system? Is that what I am to understand the half a million dollars is for?

Hon. A. Virk: This budget is for both changes and ongoing maintenance of the system. It's a British Columbia computer system, but the student financial aid policy changes I referred to are federal.

D. Eby: I think I got that one.

On page 179 of the big estimates book, there is a list of capital funding for the Ministry of Advanced Education, and under it in the estimates there's $146 million allocated in, apparently, capital funding for universities and colleges in British Columbia.

Can the minister advise which projects that funding is intended for?

[1625]

Hon. A. Virk: The question about the $146,826,000 on that page — the examples of the capital are $36 million for routine capital and $110 million for capital projects. Examples: Emily Carr renewal of the new campus, Camosun trades campus and Okanagan College's new trades location as well.

D. Eby: By my math that adds up to $146 million. Are there any other projects, or is that the comprehensive list under the capital funding? I have Emily Carr, Camosun, the routine maintenance and Okanagan. Is that the extent of the capital projects under this budget area?

Hon. A. Virk: The answer is no. We are also reviewing and prioritizing capital requests from institutions all across British Columbia.

D. Eby: Is that included in the $110 million, or is there other money that's not included in this budget document?

Hon. A. Virk: Those projects would be included as part of the $110 million.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise how much, then, is in the capital fund for these other projects that universities and colleges can apply to the minister for in the fiscal year?

[1630]

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: The budget does also provide, in the next three years, for a capital expenditure of $750 million. The ministry is very much in the early stages of the allocation process for that capital funding. Analysis, as I said, is very much currently underway.

D. Eby: This may be a rookie question. But I don't understand where the $750 million comes from, if what's listed in the estimates is $146 million for capital investment. Can the minister explain the difference between those two numbers and where the additional capital
[ Page 1915 ]
funding is coming from or is contained in the budget documents?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite need not apologize for indeed being a rookie in the area of advanced education.

The $700 million is over three years. The dollar amounts are listed in the ministry service plan on page 21.

D. Eby: I'm not going to apologize for being new here, not being a career politician. I'm glad to be new here. It's very exciting.

So the $750 million is not allocated. This is wonderful news, I'm sure, for BCIT, for SFU, for all the schools that are suffering dramatically under deferred maintenance. Camosun had a window fall out of their school. There are these very serious issues around deferred maintenance.

Mr. Chair, let me give you an example. SFU estimated in a media report — September 2013, their VP of finance — that the cost of doing what's required to make sure the school is fully repaired and ready to go is $150 million to $160 million and that they've taken $75 million out of operating to try to make up some of that amount. That means that SFU students, because they're going to an older school, get less benefit of the block funding that the ministry provides.

BCIT is in a similar situation and, as I said, Camosun. But these are far from the only schools grappling with the deferred maintenance issue.

To the minister, is he prepared to allocate his $750 million fund in the service plan to solving these deferred maintenance problems once and for all at these schools?

[1635]

Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Chair, the aforementioned $750 million is for new capital projects and deferred maintenance. This fiscal year, of the $146 million aforementioned, $36 million is specifically for deferred maintenance. We have a comprehensive index — called the facility condition index, or the FCI — to prioritize deferred maintenance spending across the sector in British Columbia.

D. Eby: Certainly, I'm sure that there is a helpful index, but $36 million is not going to go the distance to deal with the crisis that schools are facing around deferred maintenance. I've done the tours of Northwest Community College, Selkirk. I know the minister has been there as well. He's seen the condition of buildings, the old equipment that is being used by students, and on and on.

It seems to me, if the minister has allocated $750 million to spend, that a wonderful use of this would be to increase that $36 million and make sure that it's used to ensure that students going to old schools and new schools have the same benefit of the operating budget that the ministry sets out for them. I certainly hope that he looks at doing that.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to turn things over to my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister some questions around the ESL funding for the post-secondary institutions. I know that there was some debate around this issue, to which the critic had asked the minister, of the questions. I've gone back to Hansard to review that. Generally, I'd like to just get an understanding of the minister's view on this or the government's view on this.

Has the government actually considered…? In light of the fact that there's going to be a reduction in funding to the post-secondary education — even in the transition funding that's being provided, there's going to be a reduction in ESL funding for the post-secondary institutions — has the government contemplated the option of finding a way to fill in that gap?

[1640]

Hon. A. Virk: I thank the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant very much for that question. This government has indeed provided transitional funding to the tune of $10.5 million to 17 institutions. We are anxiously awaiting to hear the results of the discussions that are occurring between our institutions and the federal government. We'll continue to work with those institutions going forward as we hear the results of those discussions.

J. Kwan: The $10½ million — is that about half of what the institutions used to get?

Hon. A. Virk: The member is correct. The federal government provided $17 million in flow-through funding to provide ESL, and we have provided $10.5 million as transitional funding while the federal government works through the manner in which ESL is going to be provided directly by the federal government.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can break it down for me, for these colleges. According to the government's bulletin, Vancouver Community College has got $4.67 million; Camosun, $1.43 million; Douglas, $920,000; Kwantlen, $800,000; University of the Fraser Valley, $498,000; Langara, $458,000; Capilano University, $335,000; BCIT, $314,000; Okanagan College, $208,000; Vancouver Island University, $218,000; Thompson Rivers University, $196,000; North Island College, $125,000; Northern Lights College, $117,000; Selkirk College, $83,000; College of New Caledonia, $77,000; College of the Rockies, $36,000; and Northwest Community College, $7,400.

I wonder…. The numbers that were provided in this bulletin versus what they actually received in the previous years — what is the difference? Maybe the minister
[ Page 1916 ]
can provide me with a list of figures correspondingly for these respective colleges.

Hon. A. Virk: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant indeed provided an exhaustive list. Our ministry will indeed provide the numbers that were provided to those colleges and universities and institutions through the flow-through funding, and provide that directly to the member.

[1645]

J. Kwan: I would appreciate that.

Could the minister advise, then, the institutions' block funding, correspondingly…? Is the block funding being reduced by the same amount in which the loss of CIC funding…? That would be for each of the institutions.

Hon. A. Virk: In 2014-2015 the $17.1 million that the federal government flowed through the province to the 17 different universities, that same amount, will be apportioned and varied in their budgets for all 17 of the institutions that deliver ESL.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister can provide me with a chart at a later time that actually gives me the figure, with the corresponding university or college, so that I can look at the figures by way of comparison. I appreciate that they are apportioned — I figured that much — but I would appreciate getting the number itself, if the minister can commit to providing that.

Hon. A. Virk: Yes.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much. Just so that I understand, then, how the figures were derived. For example, at VCC I think they used to get close to $10 million, and now it's $4.67 million. It's about half of what they were receiving for the ESL programming, so how did the minister arrive at these figures that I had provided according to the government's bulletin? How did that figure come to be? Where did $4.67 million come from? What formulation did the government use to come up with that figure? That would be in application to all of the universities and colleges.

[1650]

Hon. A. Virk: The ministry divided the $10.5 million that we found to be available by the number of students served by institution in fiscal 2012-2013.

J. Kwan: Is that number of students served for the ESL program?

Hon. A. Virk: Yes.

J. Kwan: Then this should be an easy question for the minister. I wonder if the minister can provide me, if he doesn't have the figures at hand, with a list of the actual number of students that receive ESL support from B.C. institutions so that we actually have a comparison to look at.

Hon. A. Virk: Yes, we can provide the number of FTEs at each of those locations in writing to the member.

J. Kwan: Yes, FTEs in terms of teaching staff, but I also need the number of students that have gone through the program.

Hon. A. Virk: Yes, we can provide the number of students.

J. Kwan: Will the minister also be able to provide the level of proficiency that these students enrolled in — because they're all at different levels, right? — just to get a sense of which level these students completed in the program so we have a sense of where they're at?

Hon. A. Virk: The ministry does not collect the student ESL level data but can certainly follow up with the institutions and see if they have that data and follow up directly with the member.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate that, if the minister would endeavour to do that. I think they do track that information in institutions. It would be easy enough, because you know how many students are enrolled and at what level and so on.

The other thing that I'd be interested in obtaining, as well…. If the minister could assist, I would greatly appreciate it. That is to say, for the students who graduated from whatever level that they enrolled in, in ESL, how many of them actually continue on into other educational programs?

There's so much about the labour market. As a former ESL student myself, although in the elementary school levels, I know that adult students go and take the ESL, and as they improve in their English, then they take other courses, usually from a college, so they can find employment opportunities.

I wonder whether or not there's any tracking of these ESL students who've successfully completed their program and their follow-through to other courses that are being offered through the institutions. If the minister doesn't have that information…. I know there's a level of detail that the minister may not have readily on hand, but if not, if the minister could confirm that he could endeavour to seek that information from the various institutions, I would greatly appreciate it.

[1655]

Hon. A. Virk: I believe I have some similarities. I, too,
[ Page 1917 ]
was an ESL student in my youth, some 45 years ago.

We do track extensive student pathway data, but we'll certainly investigate the question posed and forward it to the member, if we can find that information.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate it. I think that's actually important information, to see how our program is doing relative to the labour market.

My colleague from Saanich South has this question that I'm going to ask of the minister. Camosun College, which of course has different campuses…. The $1.43 million that Camosun receives — is some of that money passed along to the Interurban campus for the ESL programming?

Hon. A. Virk: The ESL transitional funding is provided to the institution. The institution has the flexibility and can make the decision on which location they want to distribute the funding to.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer. My question is to the minister. When the transitional funding runs out, where would the minister expect these students to get their ESL education?

Hon. A. Virk: As a matter of protocol, I'm not sure if that question relates to Budget 2014-15, but irrespective, I'll answer a portion of it.

There is transitional funding provided to the colleges and universities as we speak. When the federal government comes to us and provides final information on the breadth and depth and the locations at which they'll provide ESL, including some of those locations that may very well be at existing public post-secondary institutions, that information will certainly become public.

L. Popham: I respect that that may not seem like it's to do with Budget 2014, but it's a decision that's made in Budget 2014. What would the minister's expectations be on where these students would go after that decision has been made? A decision made now has huge implications for the future.

Hon. A. Virk: At the risk of being repetitive, we are awaiting the decision of the federal government on the breadth and depth and location where the federal government is going to provide ESL services.

[1700]

I expect that those ESL students will go to the location that's provided by the federal government, including some of those locations that I'm very hopeful will be at existing public post-secondary institutions.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps on referring to the federal government. It appears to me, anyway, based on the minister's answer, that the federal government might be doing something.

Is it the minister's anticipation that the federal government would actually top up this amount — top up the $10.5 million to the full $17 million that it used to be? Is that the anticipation? If so, what is the timeline for the federal government to come forward with an answer?

Hon. A. Virk: The government of Canada indeed changed the delivery model for ESL, and they are in contract negotiations with ESL providers. We are not a part of those negotiations. I'm not in the business of being speculative in terms of how they're going to fund it and where those locations are going to be.

J. Kwan: From the way in which the minister answered the question, he seemed to indicate that there would be further dollars coming from the federal government. Is the minister expecting that?

If he says that he can't second-guess and he's not part of that table in that discussion…. In the event, then, that no further dollars are coming forward for these institutions, for the ESL training — that means there is a $7 million shortfall in the provision of the programming — how will the province then be able to provide free ESL to Canadians? In fact, the programming would actually not be available from these various institutions.

Hon. A. Virk: Once again, I don't want to be speculative, but if our post-secondary institutions are successful in negotiations with the federal government, they will continue to offer ESL programming and receive funding from the federal government directly.

I must stress that the English language training will continue to be available for new Canadians through not-for-profit community organizations that will negotiate contracts directly with the federal government.

J. Kwan: In the event that they were successful, then there would be moneys to top up the shortfall. In the event that they're not successful, hence that's where the problem lies. When the minister refers to the non-profit sector providing ESL support….

[1705]

Now, the non-profit sector — they do an excellent job. There's no question about that. The programming which they provide, though, is the ELSA program. I think the minister is familiar with that. It is significantly different than, often, what the post-secondary institutions provide. So there is going to be a gap in that instance if moneys are not forthcoming from the federal government. I want to flag that gap for the time being.

Now I want to ask if the minister would agree with this. In terms of language training, official language proficiency is the best indicator or predictor, if you will, of labour market success, along with specialized advising and job market preparation, for newcomers to Canada. Does the minister agree with that?
[ Page 1918 ]

Hon. A. Virk: There are many indicators for success of new Canadians in the labour market.

J. Kwan: Would the minister agree that language proficiency would be a key indicator?

Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Chair, I must protest. This is outside the purview of the 2014-2015 budget questions. There continue to be speculative questions on other subjects.

J. Kwan: With all due respect, it's actually not outside the purview of Budget 2014. We're talking about ESL funding and programming. We're talking about the fact that there's going to be a $7 million shortfall with respect to ESL programming.

As we know, language proficiency is a significant factor in terms of labour market success. We all know that. I as an ESL student know that. I as a person with family members who had to get ESL training to get into the job market know that. People in the community who are struggling with English as a second language know that. I would expect that the minister knows that too. He also said in these very estimates that he, too, was an ESL student. Without language proficiency it would be very difficult for people to actually have labour market success.

That said, how is this relevant to 2014 budgeting? It's relevant because ESL training is being cut. The funding for ESL programming is being cut to the tune of $7 million. I'm just trying to connect the dots here, what the anticipation would be in the event that the federal government is not going to be forthcoming.

The minister himself acknowledged in these estimates that he has no idea whether or not the federal government is going to come forward with any of the funding. He himself is speculating to say that until we know we can't really predict what will happen.

I'm assuming that there will be no moneys coming from the federal government until proven otherwise. I'm working on the basis of the assumptions of what's in the budget book right now, which is Budget 2014, which shows a $7 million budget shortfall.

If the minister doesn't want to go down the road around speculative funding that might come from elsewhere, then don't mention it. Don't mention it, I would say, about what might or might not be coming from the federal government. At this juncture I am assuming that there are no moneys coming from the federal government.

[1710]

On that basis, going forward, what are the implications with respect to ESL training, which British Columbians rely on, from this minister?

Hon. A. Virk: At the risk of being repetitive, ESL training was funded by the federal government through flow-through funding. Canada has changed that service delivery model. We did provide some $10.5 million to our institutions for transition while we learn more information about what that service delivery model is going to look like. We're certainly waiting for that decision on the federal government contracts.

We're going to continue to work with our institutions on pathways for ESL students so we can have a transition from the current program to the new program once we find out exactly what that looks like.

J. Kwan: The minister is speculating that there would be a new program, which he cannot confirm in this House, nor is he engaging in the discussion with the institutions with the federal government around that. Yet he's here speculating about that, saying: "Hey, just wait a minute. All is going to be well, because we think the government is going to come through with something." I'm going to park that for a minute.

I'm interested in knowing how British Columbia compares to the rest of the provinces with respect to ESL funding in terms of the money that comes from the provincial government or that from the federal government. Does the minister have any comparisons that he could make available, or could he gather that information so that we know how we rank in Budget 2014 relative to the other provinces?

Hon. A. Virk: We don't have that information readily available. We would be happy to investigate that with our colleagues all across Canada and provide that information back to the member.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much. I would appreciate that very much. I think it would be good to know how we compare in British Columbia in terms of a province-by-province breakdown of federal-provincial funding for ESL services to the immigrant community here.

I'd be interested, as well, in how we compare in terms of the funding to the level of proficiencies relative to the other provinces. I think that some other provinces actually go to a higher level of proficiency that is being funded than that of British Columbia. It'd be good to know, to see how we compare. Can the minister endeavour to get that information as well?

[1715]

Hon. A. Virk: Once again, we will certainly communicate with our colleagues across the rest of the country and determine if they have that information readily available, and if it's readily available, we'll certainly pass it to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm quite certain that the other provinces would have that information. I'm quite confident they would, because they would have to outline that in their budget, and all they really need to do is provide
[ Page 1919 ]
that information by way of their budget documentation. In any event, I'll look forward to receiving that from the minister, then.

The minister mentioned ELSA students. Many of the ELSA students that I know have been dismayed to find that they can't return to their studies after they acquire their citizenship. Once you've acquired citizenship, you have to go to the post-secondary institution to get the ESL support because ELSA would no longer apply to them. Is that not correct?

[1720]

Hon. A. Virk: In relation to ELSA and ESL, this is indeed part of the transition planning that institutions are working on now. The ministry will be monitoring that very closely with all the institutions as the federal government program rolls out.

J. Kwan: As it stands now, isn't it the case that ELSA students, after they've acquired citizenship, would not be able to access tuition-free ESL?

Hon. A. Virk: Our current policy for tuition-free ESL applies to all students — Canadian citizens and immigrants alike.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I think I said the question in reverse. It's the ELSA students who cannot access. Once you become a citizen, you can't go back to get ELSA programming. I actually had that in reverse.

In a lot of cases, the students who are in ELSA, having reached the number of years that they are able to take the ELSA programming…. It may not help them get into the level of proficiency they require in order to get into the job market. Hence, these students are in a place where they're stuck in terms of employment opportunities and trying to get ahead. That is the problem with that.

I'm wondering, though. Given that that's the case, given that the federal government has at this point made a cut to ESL funding to the province to the tune of $7 million and that there are discussions going on with the federal government and the institutions, though the minister is not part of that table and the province is not part of that discussion, doesn't the minister think it's important for the province to be at that table, to have that discussion?

Isn't it important for British Columbia to engage with our federal counterpart to say what is important for us to ensure that British Columbians would have the maximum opportunity for labour market success and what the program would look like for us to get there? Isn't that an important component and job for the minister?

[1725]

Hon. A. Virk: When the federal government changed their delivery model, we did indeed work with each of those institutions and, in fact, hired a consultant to help those institutions bid for those ESL contracts. My staff will continue to work with institutions through this transition.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

J. Kwan: My question, of course, is not at that level. I'm talking about the level where the minister ought to be at, and that is the discussion right now that's taking place, supposedly, between the federal government and the institutions around the shortfall of $7 million and how to make up for that.

Does the minister not see a role for himself to actively participate in that discussion with our federal counterpart to ensure that British Columbia will get that $7 million shortfall, to ensure that the programs that are so valued here in British Columbia, by way of ESL training, are protected?

Hon. A. Virk: The negotiations, as I noted before, between the federal government and our institutions are, indeed, contract negotiations, and they're ongoing. Our institutions — I have a lot of faith in them — are very competent to work with the federal government in those negotiations.

I must stress that when the federal government did make the changes, we did note and did communicate with the federal government our concerns that we believe that the system we had in British Columbia before this, which currently is in place right now until April 1, was our preferred choice.

J. Kwan: I have no doubt that the institutions are very competent and that they, of course, will do what they can, but I would also assume that the institutions would very much appreciate a leadership role that the minister could provide, in going out to advocate for them.

I am reminded, of course, of the Minister of Energy and Mines, who went all the way to Ottawa on a mines issue.

I wonder why this minister, the Minister of Advanced Education, in the face of funding cuts to ESL programming for the province of British Columbia, which he claims his government and himself want to ensure is protected, would not actually take up the cause to go to Ottawa and stand side by side with the institutions to fight for this money for British Columbia. I would have thought that a person who believed in the programming would have done exactly that.

[1730]

That said, it's a mystery to me why the minister is not taking up that cause to do that, simply saying that he's not part of the discussions and that he will let the institutions do the job on their own. I agree that they are capable, but I would fully anticipate that they would welcome the minister's support and advocacy on this front
[ Page 1920 ]
at this juncture.

I would like to ask the minister if he has, in his ministry, any analysis around language proficiency and ESL training — the relevancy of ESL training relative to language proficiency, relative to labour market successes. Does he have any analysis around that?

Hon. A. Virk: ESL students are indeed part of our student outcome surveys. We'd be more than pleased to provide that outcome data information to the member directly.

J. Kwan: When the minister says outcome surveys, could he elaborate on what that outcome survey would look like? Does it compare language proficiency with ESL training and labour market successes?

[1735]

Hon. A. Virk: The aforementioned employee outcomes surveys — we'll certainly investigate if there is data available as it relates to language proficiency. If that information exists within our survey data, we'll get that to the member as well.

J. Kwan: I would welcome the information that the minister is going to share with me in terms of the entire survey. Maybe I can look at that, and then if there is specific information around language proficiency and labour market success, I would appreciate that.

In the event, though, that that information is not in the outcomes survey that the minister is talking about, is the minister intending to conduct any such analysis with his ministry? I would think that that's pretty important information to have, given that the government's own goal is a jobs plan to achieve getting people into employment. Trying to get some data around that would be an important component towards achieving that goal.

I know that the minister is wondering why this would have anything to do with Budget 2014 and his ministry. Of course, his ministry provides for the ESL training for British Columbians who are trying to get into the labour market, so I would think that is very relevant to Budget 2014 for him.

Hon. A. Virk: Our student surveys, in terms of outcomes, are very comprehensive. We'll certainly endeavour to share the most complete information that we have available with the member.

J. Kwan: I would look forward to receiving that information. I would hope, then, the information that I've asked for, particularly in relation to labour market success and language proficiency, is included in that outcomes survey. If not, I assume that the minister will look around the ministry to see whether or not they have that information.

If they don't have the information, I would hope that the minister would undertake to gather that information and to do that analysis. If not, then I guess we'll be back here in the next set of estimates to determine why we don't have that information. In any event, I will leave it at that. I will look forward to receiving all the information from the minister.

My final question to the minister is this. Could he give me an estimated timeline on when I could receive this information? I'm really hoping, of course, that I could get this material before the House rises at the end of May — although June would be okay, too, if we were still sitting.

Hon. A. Virk: Yes, we'll get the information to the member before the House rises at the end of May.

J. Kwan: With that, I want to thank the minister and his staff for their patience and their answers to my questions, and I'll look forward to receiving the information.

I thank my critic for yielding the floor to me to ask these important questions on behalf of my constituents.

D. Eby: Turning to page 36 of the large estimates book, fiscal year March 31, 2015, we discussed briefly the $504,000 for the computer system. I note that the same amount was set aside in the budget for 2013-2014.

Can the minister advise whether or not any of that $504,000 was actually spent or whether this is the same amount of money pushed forward because there was no activity?

[1740]

Hon. A. Virk: In relation to that $504,000 this fiscal year, we are on track to require that full amount, as the maintenance of our system is indeed ongoing.

D. Eby: Then do I understand from that that the full amount, $1.08 million, is being spent on the computer system? I get that number by adding the two together.

Hon. A. Virk: The approximate $500,000 that we spoke of is for each year to maintain the system for certain financial aid. I'm advised there is a small portion that's about $4,000 that's allocated for furniture related to health and safety, and that is per year. Just to correct the member opposite slightly, the next $504,000 is for the next year, for '14-15.

D. Eby: Just to clarify. I must have misunderstood. I guess that this amount of money is an amount that the minister expects to be a regular amount of money because it is a maintenance amount of money. It's not for a new computer system. This is maintaining the current computer system. I'm talking about the half a million dollars here, not the $4,000 for furniture.
[ Page 1921 ]

Hon. A. Virk: Indeed, that capital line item is for maintenance and enhancement as required throughout the year.

D. Eby: Changing gears a little bit, can the minister advise how much money in this budget has been set aside for graduate student scholarships?

[1745]

Hon. A. Virk: There is no provincial funding allocated for graduate scholarships. Our institutions, however, do offer significant scholarships and bursaries for grad students. In fact, $135 million in bursaries was provided by public institutions.

D. Eby: I note that UNBC, in their 2013-14 budget planning framework, notes that they're in a downward spiral in relation to research funding because they've lost 5 percent of their grad students in comparison to fall 2011. When you lose graduate students, that means you also lose research funding, which means you lose graduate students, which means you lose research funding.

Has the minister got anything in this budget that will help UNBC deal with this decline in graduate students and what they identify as a financial threat to them in the coming year?

Hon. A. Virk: The UNBC has received a total of $15.3 million for 27 research projects under the British Columbia knowledge development fund. There's some $5.9 million of that directly from AVED. BCKDF funding will continue, and UNBC is certainly able to apply for that funding.

[1750]

D. Eby: I note that UNBC is struggling to hit their FTE requirements. It is an expectation of the ministry that schools deliver on a certain number of students. There are two ways to look at this. One is that UNBC is not fulfilling their mandate and should face a reduction. The other possibility and the other concern is that because they're a northern school that serves underserved populations, they should actually have a reduced expectation of FTEs.

I wonder. Year after year, with UNBC not meeting FTE expectations set out by the ministry, is the minister going to look at remedying this problem at any point by either demanding that UNBC hit the FTE targets or by saying: "Look, this isn't realistic"?

In summary, this budget relies on accountability and realistic goals for universities and colleges of British Columbia. It's what the whole thing is premised on, in terms of the Ministry of Advanced Education. I hope the minister can shed some light on that connection between the FTEs and the level of funding that UNBC gets under this budget and his plan to remedy that situation.

Hon. A. Virk: My expectations are quite clear. As noted in my mandate letter, for UNBC and all institutions across British Columbia, it's to indeed work at maximizing their utilization rates. We do work closely with all institutions across British Columbia, including UNBC, to help them achieve their FTE utilization rates, as we do with everyone else. I must point out that FTE utilization rates are only one measure as well. We have a range of criteria that we use to evaluate institutional success.

[1755]

D. Eby: I think it's exactly that range of measures that makes UNBC so valuable, especially in their performance around aboriginal students and in serving an area of the province that benefits greatly from their work and their research.

The question, though, is: why does the minister have a measure that UNBC doesn't hit, hasn't hit for many years? If nothing else, I would say, it has a demoralizing impact on the president. He's asked to hit this target that's not being hit. There are two possibilities. As I said, one is that they're evading accountability. I don't think that's the case. I think the case is actually that the realistic FTE target is much lower.

I ask the minister again to clarify his remarks and explain why he's not looking at adjusting the FTE to a realistic level.

Hon. A. Virk: As I noted before, FTE utilization is indeed one of many accountability measures. In some programs at UNBC, like their allied health programs, they're indeed meeting their targets. We're going to continue to work with UNBC so they can meet their targets in other programs and overall as well.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions about a great, dynamic institution in my region that I know the minister is familiar with: Camosun College. They're very specific questions about some of the financial issues as well as capital priorities for that institution.

I think maybe I'll start with the issue of deferred maintenance at this institution. I know it has been canvassed in relation to other institutions. But at Camosun College alone, the estimate there — and I think government is probably familiar with this from the core review submission that was made and required of the institution — is $100 million in deferred maintenance for existing building stock on the two campuses over the next five years.

[1800]

That's a considerable sum of money. This is deferred maintenance that has come to a critical point. There are safety issues as well as the ability to deliver the kind of quality education that the institution would want to offer to all students. I'm wondering if the minister could
[ Page 1922 ]
maybe give an indication as to what the response from his office has been to Camosun's specific proposal around deferred maintenance.

Hon. A. Virk: As you may have noticed in the balanced budget of February 11, there was some $750 million in new capital for the next three years, including deferred maintenance. In this fiscal year there is some $36 million allocated for deferred maintenance, and out of that there is $1.73 million, including a reroofing project, for Camosun.

We have a comprehensive list across the province called a facilities condition index, or FCI, to prioritize deferred maintenance spending. I must note that there has been almost $50 million invested by AVED since 2001 at Camosun.

In very short order I hope that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake will be able to join me to celebrate the groundbreaking of a new $30 million trades campus right here at his favourite institution, Camosun.

R. Fleming: I thank the minister for his answer there. He's outlined how the ministry has a plan to address 1.7 percent of the deferred maintenance that I was asking about. We'll perhaps come back to the 98.3 percent over the next five years that is unaddressed in his budget at a later time.

One complaint that the minister has undoubtedly heard from institutions during his brief time as the minister responsible would be around reporting requirements. There are a lot of reporting requirements now for institutions. At Camosun alone the estimate is something like 4,300 employee-hours per year of reporting just to comply with the ministry.

Now, given that Camosun is an institution that, in order to deal with budget constraints from this government over the last two years, has eliminated 46 FTEs in terms of staff positions, has eliminated the entire department of applied communications in order to avoid a deficit, they're finding that while they're reducing employees in every department of the college, the one area where they're not able to make any administrative savings is around reporting requirements. I wonder if the minister could comment.

[1805]

I know that Camosun has made this view known to him. Other institutions have undoubtedly done that as well. During the core review, is the minister going to review his own ministry's requirements of institutions where there may be excessive data reporting that is required that costs a lot of money and is not entirely useful?

Hon. A. Virk: Indeed, there is very much of a balance the government strikes between streamlining reporting requirements and ensuring a vibrant and appropriate accountability framework, including student and outcome surveys and a whole host of information that's required for institutions. We're certainly going to be working with institutions, including this one, to ensure that reporting requirements for institutions strike that appropriate balance.

D. Eby: It's interesting to hear the minister talk about balance in these reports. There are no fewer than 42 separate reports that the ministry requires from post-secondary institutions each year. No fewer than 16 have various financial names — year-end financial reporting, schedule of revenues and expenditures, financial forecast, cash flow projection reports and, of course, statement of financial information. For the bigger schools, for your UBCs and your SFUs, they seem to be able to deal with this a little better. But the smaller schools, the NVITs and the Camosuns, really struggle with the ever-growing list of reports on everything from carbon output to institutional accountability plans and reports.

I'm sure that all these reports are incredibly important to the ministry, but I'm also equally sure that the minister could find ways to reduce the reporting obligations on universities and colleges. I hope that he can find some space in his budget here, and I ask him whether he will find some space in his budget to find ways to reduce the reporting obligations of universities and colleges that universities and colleges are obligated to produce.

[1810]

Hon. A. Virk: As I noted, we are indeed working with institutions across the province, including Camosun, on the reporting requirements of our institutions, with a look to streamline reporting. Also, I must note that the reporting, as to financial and other areas, is certainly part of good governance.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister a question.

[The bells were rung.]

R. Fleming: It will have to wait.

The Chair: It appears a division has been called, so we will recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 6:11 p.m. to 6:23 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: I believe the bell rang perhaps right in the middle of the answer. We are indeed working with institutions on reporting requirements for institutions that look to streamline reporting, at the same time keeping in mind the need for good governance.
[ Page 1923 ]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here today.

I'm going to pick up where I left off in the last estimates, which was actually dealing with an interesting, innovative idea in Clayoquot Sound.

[1825]

The district of Tofino and the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation and others…. Actually, through the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust there are eight different communities — Nuu-chah-nulth and non–Nuu-chah-nulth communities — all working together, using the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust as sort of the hub for that — trying to build a learning economy and wooing in post-secondary education institutions to deal with innovative in situ education in one of the most amazing places in the world, in Clayoquot Sound.

Since it's one of our only two UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, the idea is that this is an actual economic generator too, and a small business generator. I raised this in the last estimates, and I suggested that it might be worth the minister's visit.

Now, I believe that the district of Tofino issued a formal invitation. Can the minister confirm that and, if so, when or if he's planning on maybe making the trip? It would be a worthwhile trip.

Hon. A. Virk: In terms of whether or not I received an invitation, I'll certainly have to check with my staff if we did receive one.

I did indeed meet with the mayor and council from Tofino at UBCM, and from Ucluelet as well, and we had some discussions. Certainly, I will check the schedule and be able to see if we can make that. If not, I'll have one of our staff that can attend to delve into the educational opportunities that are available in the region that the member has presented.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that answer. For the record, the opportunity does exist here for the province to partner in what I believe is accurate.

It's a new segment of the economy, basically an education destination, with this region, Tofino and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, providing the backdrop for an incredible draw for institutions to come and for post-secondary students from all over the world to able to experience this incredible opportunity to work in some of the largest temperate rainforests in the world as they meet the marine environment — sort of a Woods Hole example, a very exciting type of research and training facility, post-secondary facility.

I believe it's this ministry. I know that one of the government's goals in post-secondary is to grow the foreign student enrolment by 50 percent. Could the minister confirm that? And if he can give me an update on just how that's going.

Hon. A. Virk: I thank the member for his passion for the Tofino and Ucluelet area and the opportunities that he has presented.

In the area of international education, he is correct. It is indeed part of my mandate to increase international education by 50 percent. It's a two-way exchange, as well, to ensure that British Columbia students look at going overseas. It's a wonderful opportunity for B.C.

[1830]

To date we've already achieved a 13 percent increase in enrolment. There are a number of institutions — I gave the same answer, actually, yesterday — that have gone up 30 percent. TRU, Camosun and others have gone up substantially more than that 13 percent. So we're hoping to achieve that target, and we're going to achieve that target.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. It's a good goal to have. I would submit that what's being proposed in Clayoquot Sound here, as a new type of educational draw…. What we see this as is an opportunity for the province to create some real jobs out of this too, and prosperity, but not just for Clayoquot Sound.

They're so far ahead on this initiative, and they already have the hub in place through the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and the organization, which is the UNESCO biosphere trust. They already have money put aside that they're hoping to partner with the province on — a relatively meagre amount in the big scheme of things. I think they're looking at $50,000.

They could actually get this thing going, and then it could be used as the model, sort of a test run, for the other 13 resort municipalities that also have their own unique draws in the province.

If this worked, it would be a very, very good investment to help benefit the entire economy of the province in a very symbiotic way, where an education economy blends so beautifully with ecotourism and that sort of thing. It's a perfect match in many ways.

We find, in some cases, that resource development doesn't make a perfect match with some of these regions of the province just because the existing economy is often based around the beauty of the area. Having the educational component to it is completely compatible.

I'm hopeful that the minister is…. He seems to be listening to this. I'm not the expert. I am so impressed by the work of the Nuu-chah-nulth and the local communities, the regional district, all working together in a way here that I think could benefit the entire province, as an example.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could direct the minister's attention just back to Camosun, before we went off to vote there. I wanted to ask him a question about an element of the strategic plan for the institution, which is pretty impressive.

The institution, I think, engaged about 400 stakehold-
[ Page 1924 ]
ers in the community — business, labour market providers, all of those who have an interaction internally and externally with this institution. That helped fuel their strategic plan, which is called Inspiring Lives. It gave some direction on their decision-making and what their priorities are as an institution.

One of them that is desperately supported by the community — and I think this request would be known to the Ministry of Health, as well, which is a beneficiary of graduates of Camosun; in fact, hospitals on the south Island couldn't function without that training — is to have a new centre for health and wellness. That remains the top capital priority for the institution — a new health and wellness centre.

I don't know if the minister has toured Camosun College, but the nursing program is not in a purpose-built health facility on the campus. It is in quite a dated facility. This is the top capital priority.

I wonder if this has found its way onto his desk and whether there's any wonderful news to share here this afternoon on a Wednesday.

[1835]

Hon. A. Virk: The member for Victoria–Swan Lake did ask if I did go to Camosun. Indeed, I have been to the main campuses of all 25 public post-secondaries, including Camosun, and did tour the facilities.

As you may know, I mentioned before that I'll be very, very pleased to have him join me as we open at the groundbreaking ceremonies for the $28 million Camosun trades-training facility.

As you also know, in our three-year capital plan some $750 million is allocated for the next three years in the capital plan, across British Columbia. We have a process for institutions to submit business cases for new buildings all across British Columbia. Camosun's will certainly be prioritized, along with the requests from across the university, college and institution sector across British Columbia.

R. Fleming: I'm going to have to read between the lines there, then. But I appreciate the chance to bring it to his attention again. I'm sure he'll be hearing more about that capital priority for the campus.

I wanted to ask the minister a question here that's based on guiding principles and criteria for budget-making that is issued to institutions by the ministry. One of the expectations is that the ministry expects that strategies, decisions and program delivery are in alignment with the B.C. jobs plan and labour market demand, including graduate employment outcomes. That's fine.

However, according to the government's own research, based on the B.C. Labour Market Outlook as well as B.C. Stats and Statistics Canada data, by 2016 the number of jobs requiring university, college or trades credentials will exceed the supply of B.C. graduates, which is a skills deficit that is projected to grow, by those who have analyzed it, until the year 2020.

Something like 18,000 to 19,000 jobs will go unfilled because too few British Columbians, during those years, have graduated and received those credentials. The estimate is that for 8,400 jobs requiring a university degree, there will be not enough British Columbians with those skills — 8,100 with a college credential and something like 2,300 short in trades training.

The ministry is asking the college to align their budget-making with the B.C. jobs plan and labour market demand, but at a 50,000-foot-high level, the ministry isn't the aligning its advanced education agenda with the labour market outlook.

Can you explain this huge discrepancy? Why would you ask a college to do something that you have not done yourself, based on government's own statistics about the labour market outlook?

[1840]

Hon. A. Virk: I thank the member for acknowledging there are going to be far more jobs in British Columbia as a result of good management than there may be positions. That's why we're making sure all across British Columbia that we want British Columbians to be first in line for all these jobs by 2020.

As he indicated, some 78 percent are going to require post-secondary, and some 43 percent of jobs are indeed going to require skills or training. That's why we're engineering post-secondary education.

We're asking all institutions to do a core review, to do an examination of all that they deliver to make sure they're as efficient as possible and as aligned as possible. It is about being creative. It's about a joint-ministry analysis in terms of a long-term skills-training plan, which is coming out.

It's about changing the way we deliver education — an example of a front-end-loading program whereby we're delivering training in areas like commercial transport mechanics.

In a new model in one institution in Kamloops we're examining dual-credit programs where students are getting university credits while in high school. So it's across the board. It's an examination of looking at everything we do to make sure that British Columbians, including aboriginals, are first in line for those jobs that are going to materialize in the province.

R. Fleming: We don't have enough time, I don't think, to go into that any further now, but the minister has just completely misunderstood my question.

My question was about what the province is doing to respond to its own labour market projections that show that it is not training enough people to fill positions that may emerge based on labour market projections.

That means capital investment projects may not happen
[ Page 1925 ]
if the skilled labour is not available in British Columbia. That is not good management of skills-training shortages in British Columbia. It means that British Columbians won't get opportunities that they otherwise could have.

I want to move back to the college board situation. My understanding is that a number of boards have told government that they have an interest in seeing appointments made on a more timely basis and a more transparent basis.

[1845]

I'm wondering if the minister has reviewed any of these discussions or documents that he has received — written requests — around how board appointments are made at the college level and whether there are any reforms he plans — either to put a shorter term on vacancies, when they must be filled, how the appointments are made and who has input into those appointments.

Hon. A. Virk: Board appointments are indeed made at the recommendation of the board resourcing office. That's a branch of the Ministry of Finance.

There are a number of factors that go into appointments. There is a whole host of competency matrices and skills that go into the right kind of volunteer. Certainly, we're committed, collectively, to have the right kind of volunteers at the right time, at the right place on these boards. We continue that discussion, collectively, with boards across the province, including right here in the member's backyard.

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada