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)

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 7, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I'm delighted to welcome to the Legislature this morning and this afternoon a group of students from my riding, Richmond-Steveston. From the great school Steveston-London Secondary are 75 grade 11 students and seven adults, led by Mrs. S. Christie.

[1005]

They're here to have a tour of the legislative precincts, to be a part of question period this morning and to be here this afternoon as well. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

A. Dix: Today we have in our minds and in our hearts Robert Luggi and Carl Charlie, who died in the Babine explosion and fire, and Alan Little and Glenn Roche, who died in the Lakeland explosion and fire.

I introduce in the House Maureen Luggi, Robert's wife; Robert Luggi Jr., his son; Rhonda Roche, Glenn's wife; Ron Corbeil, the health and safety rep from the United Steelworkers; Kenny Michell, who was severely injured in the Babine explosion and fire and is here with us today, who's recovery is a source of inspiration to people across British Columbia; Theresa Michell, who provides him so much support; Dirk Weissbach, who was severely injured in the Babine explosion and fire, and his wife, Kathleen Weissbach. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Michelle Stilwell: Joining us in the House this morning is Master Seaman Jason Mackenzie from our Canadian Forces Base in Esquimalt. As part of his ongoing education as a member of our Canadian Forces, Master Seaman MacKenzie is here today to observe and learn about our Legislature and how it works. Please join me in thanking Jason for his service and make him feel very welcome.

L. Popham: I have a global studies class here from Claremont Secondary School. This class uses their passion and concern for others to take action locally and globally. This class doesn't think small, and in all their endeavours, their teachers and leaders never cease to have their backs. Please make them welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: In the gallery today I'm very proud to introduce Kate Ulmer, who's a senior structural engineer with Herold Engineering; Rosie Manhas, director of operations with the Vancouver Island Construction Association; and Karen Galbraith, who's a service assistant with Vancouver Island Construction Association. These women really make it well for women in the trades. I'll be speaking about them a little bit later, but can we please welcome them to the gallery.

R. Fleming: With us today is a constituent of mine, Ron Jeffries, who is very active in the Anglican Church of Canada. He's here today getting a last look at the B.C. Legislature before he embarks, on an extended visa, to do work in the Philippines, helping communities there with disaster relief and also to help work with communities to get lasting benefits from Canadian mining companies in parts of the Philippines.

I would ask, before he makes a long journey for an extended period of time, the House to make Ron Jeffries welcome here today.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2014

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2014.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move first reading of Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2014.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 16 will provide interim supply for government operating expenses during the first nine weeks of the 2014-15 fiscal year. It also provides interim supply for government's financing requirements for the 2014-15 fiscal year, including one-third of the year's voted capital expenditures and loans, investments and other requirements and 100 percent of the year's requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities.

[1010]

I move that Bill 16 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 1928 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

K. Corrigan: Saturday, March 8, is International Women's Day, and it honours working women and women's struggle for equality and their accomplishments.

The first International Women's Day was held in 1911. Just one week later a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, where women for months had been striking for improved working conditions and benefits, killed 146 garment workers. That fire shed light on the terrible wages and working conditions for women and was a tragic impetus in the fight to improve the lives of women.

Today International Women's Day is more closely associated with recognizing and acknowledging the contributions of women, and that is important, but we shouldn't forget the hard-fought struggles over many decades to work towards women's equalities and rights. We have achieved much, but we still have a far distance to go in Canada. We must continue to ensure that we do not go backwards.

Further, while we have many achievements to be proud of in the fight for equality, we must also take our fight beyond our borders and demand those same improvements for women from across the world.

When we consider that the majority of the world's poor are women, where in many countries — particularly war-torn countries — rape and violence are not only endemic but used as weapons of war; when we consider that millions of girls do not have access to education…. When we consider those things and others, it becomes all of our responsibility, both men and women, to commit to equality and opportunity for all women here and around the world.

As Gloria Steinem said: "The story of women's struggle for equality belongs to no single feminist nor to any organization but to the collective efforts of all who care about human rights."

CANADIAN ATHLETES AT
2014 PARALYMPIC GAMES IN SOCHI

Michelle Stilwell: Now that the Olympic Games have served to, let's say, warm us up, it's time to turn our attention to the elite athleticism of the Canadian Paralympic team in Sochi.

I was sincerely relieved to hear that Canada's athletes would participate in the Sochi 2014 Winter Paralympic Games. With political unrest in the region, a cloud has been hanging over these games. But these games should not be about politics. It's about the athletes who've committed so much of their lives to being the absolute best in their sport.

I look forward to watching the athletes obtain their peak performances, pushing the limits in the six different winter sports that will take place in Sochi starting tomorrow. It will all begin as Canada is led into the opening ceremonies by B.C. athlete Sonja Gaudet.

A new sport is taking place. A debut at this game is para-snowboard. This is in large part the efforts of a good friend of mine, Tyler Mosher, from Whistler. Tyler worked tirelessly to break down the barriers and advocate for the inclusion of para-snowboarding. This week he will be making history. The other sports included in the games are alpine skiing, biathlon, cross-county skiing, sledge hockey and wheelchair curling.

Having finished third overall and earned 19 medals, including ten gold, in Vancouver, Canada is looking for a top-three finish again in the medal count, and I believe we can.

Among the many podium contenders who are ready to show the world their ability, the Canadian wheelchair curling team will be trying to repeat as champions. Canada has won every Paralympic wheelchair competition since 2006, when the sport made its debut in Torino. Another exciting team to watch will be the Canadian men's sledge hockey team, who are looking to match their Olympic counterparts by bringing home the gold to Canada.

We have a strong team again this year, and I encourage everyone in the House and around British Columbia to get to know the names of our athletes. Most will be contenders for a spot on the podium.

Cheering for Team Canada is one of those things that truly unites this vast nation, and I'm sure everyone in this House stands together in support of our athletes and will join me in wishing them well. Go, Canada, go!

CANADIAN HARAMBEE EDUCATION SOCIETY

S. Hammell: As we prepare to celebrate International Women's Day this Saturday, I rise to speak about an amazing organization in my constituency dedicated to educating hundreds of young women in Africa.

[1015]

Harambee in Swahili means "pull together," and that's exactly what the Canadian Harambee Education Society is striving to do. By pulling together resources from our community, they are financing the education of over 650 young women every year.

In some countries in Africa, after completing eight years of primary school, students are required to write a national government exam. The results are then published, and high schools begin to draft students with the highest scores. The successful students are invited to attend high school, but on one condition: families are required to pay school fees, which average $600 annually.

For many families this is an impossible burden, given the low incomes in Kenya and Tanzania. If families manage to save enough funds, they will often send their sons
[ Page 1929 ]
over their daughters.

This is where CHES steps in. Through the support of local donors, they are able to provide scholarships for these bright young women. CHES also supports special projects, such as construction of libraries and dormitories, and they send to Africa retired teachers to act as agents.

CHES solely relies on the support from their donors and volunteers, and that's why this Saturday CHES will be celebrating International Women's Day by hosting a fundraising evening of entertainment with a silent auction and a boutique of African items. The event will be held in Sapperton Pensioners Hall in New Westminster. I ask the House to join me at the event and to congratulate the volunteers of CHES for the work they do.

WOMEN IN CONSTRUCTION

J. Thornthwaite: International Women's Day is just two sleeps away, and with that in mind, I'd like to disprove a myth that many of us take as fact. Myth: the skilled trades are no place for a lady. Fact: employment equality is not just a human right. It is also the key to unlocking our productivity and economic competitiveness.

In light of that, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to shine the spotlight on a local organization working to increase female participation in one of the key sectors of our provincial economy: construction.

Women in Construction was founded on Vancouver Island in March 2013 by Katy Fairley from Kinetic Construction. Many in the House might be familiar with that name. Katy was once my legislative assistant.

Since its inception the organization has provided a forum for women to connect with other women who are passionate about construction and skilled trades and has reached out to female students to encourage them to look at construction as a viable career path. The organization is now officially part of the Vancouver Island Construction Association and is very inclusive.

Membership is open to all who support women working in construction and who are passionate about the industry. They are currently focusing on reaching out to tradespeople, to develop relationships and increase their involvement in the organization. This way, they can provide better career, networking and personal development opportunities to women in the Island's construction community.

The theme of this year's International Women's Day is "Strong women, strong Canada, Canadian women — creating jobs one business at a time." So it's fitting that today we recognize women in construction and all they do to create positive gains in promoting careers for women in construction. I ask the House to join me in applauding their efforts.

Museums at the Crossroads?
ESSAY COLLECTION BY JACK LOHMAN

L. Popham:

"In 2002, on my last day in South Africa as CEO of Iziko Museums of Cape Town, while en route to the airport I was involved in a car crash. My luggage containing not only my personal effects but my collection of mementos and much-treasured laptop were in an instant destroyed. I had lost three years of work and writing.

"From the debris, this note was pulled from the first president of the new South Africa to set foot in the old South African museum: 'The discovery of our past is a journey to a more human future. Your valuable work gives us the possibility to do both.'"

This was taken from the preface of a newly published collection of essays called Museums at the Crossroads? The author is our own Jack Lohman, chief executive officer of the Royal B.C. Museum. His experience is broad, and he is a gift to our province in so many ways.

[1020]

In his writing he challenges us to look deep into our soul around the role of public institutions. What price can be put on our cultural history in times of financial austerity? He challenges us to find meaning in our past and its value in our future.

His book is an expression of the passion he holds for museums as a place and museums as a function in our society. He says:

"I have not always felt optimistic about the projects I have undertaken around the world, but my stand on facing the toughest challenges in museums has always been unequivocal. No museum is perfect, and museum transformation takes time. The time to change, however, is always now, and this requires the institutional acquisition of confidence and courage to embrace change and put our skills and resources to work for the benefit of those we serve."

Mr. Lohman has allowed us a look into his lifelong journey and, in his own charming way, has asked us to come along. I hope you all have a chance to purchase and read this wonderful book, as all proceeds go to the Royal B.C. Museum.

JAMES McFARLANE
AND ARCTIC SUBMERSIBLE PROJECT

R. Sultan: Hockey is not the only ice where Canada competes with Russia. We should also celebrate the successful engineering and deployment of a robot submarine under the ice of Canada's High Arctic in order to strengthen Canada's territorial claims. This requires mapping undersea mountains as extensions of our continental shelf under United Nations international law of the sea, article 76.

My friend James McFarlane is president of International Submarine Engineering in Port Moody. Over the past four years Jim has built about 80 submersibles for governments, militaries and software billionaires. His most challenging assignments involve AUVs, autonomous underwater vehicles. The most recent looks like a giant torpedo — 11 metres long, 16 inches in diameter, lithium-ion batteries
[ Page 1930 ]
and packed with instrumentation.

For the High Arctic survey, the challenge was to insert this submarine through a hole in the ice and have it navigate itself with an inertial navigation system — GPS doesn't work under the ice — about 1,100 kilometres over ten days at depths up to five kilometres below the surface, emerging halfway through the journey to mate with an underwater probe for battery recharging and uploading of data, and all performed autonomously without surface direction. The halfway refuelling probe was on the ice not far from the North Pole.

Unlike the Russians, Jim's team did not leave a flag at the bottom of the sea at the North Pole, suggesting to me that his ambition is actually to extend Canada's claim closer to Siberia. I'm sure the United Nations will sort it all out.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON SAFETY AT
B.C. MILLS AND CALL FOR INDEPENDENT
INQUIRY INTO MILL EXPLOSION

A. Dix: On February 13 at a press conference at her Vancouver office, the Premier announced she was ruling out an independent inquiry into the Babine mill explosion. On that day Maureen Luggi, who's with us today, whose husband died in that explosion, said the following: "This file may be closed for the Premier, but it will not be closed for our families, because there is no measure of justice and there is no measure of accountability."

There are unanswered questions, virtually the definition of the need for an independent public inquiry in this case. Will the Premier recognize that an independent inquiry under the Public Inquiry Act is necessary to deliver accountability and justice and to ensure that necessary change occurs for worker safety in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Along with the Leader of the Opposition and other members of this House, I'd like to welcome the Luggi family and other members who are here and who have been so tragically and irreparably affected by the disaster at Burns Lake and the disaster at Lakeland Mills in Prince George.

[1025]

As we grow our economy together, something we are very much focused on doing, we have one central value that we always have to hold in our hearts and our minds at all times, and that is worker safety. Every mother, father, brother, sister, daughter and son has the right to know that their family member, when they go to work in the morning, is going to come home safe and sound at the end of the day.

When this tragedy unfolded in Burns Lake, the first thing we did was to make sure that first responders got out effectively. We did it. Then to make sure that we connected workers, who were suddenly unemployed, to work or to social assistance to bridge them. We did it. Then to make sure that the fibre supply was available for the Babine mill so that it could get reopened, that backbone of the community could be there to support those people in the long term. We did it.

The fourth was to make sure that the investigation was conducted properly. That did not happen the way that any of us hoped it would, so I asked my deputy to go and look at the fact pattern surrounding it.

We've accepted all of his recommendations, and we sought a legal opinion from one of the most respected lawyers in our province about whether or not there should be a public inquiry. He concluded that the results of a public inquiry would not render us any different answers from the ones we had today.

My view is that in order to make sure that we can ensure that this never happens again, we need to get on with fixing the problems that exist at WorkSafe B.C. We need to do it now. And we are getting on with that so that we can make sure that families like the Luggis and other families who were affected can know that no other families will go through what they have.

A. Dix: The Premier went there. She said she was there for them. They completely botched the investigation. We have different parties to that pointing fingers at one another still. We have the results of recent WorkSafe investigations that show that what the government is doing is not working and that workers are being put in danger.

The pious words are important, but pious words without action are empty words. That's my view. With respect to Mr. Doust, the Premier said that Mr. Doust said there was no point to a public inquiry. He did not say that. He did not say that, and to bring that to this House I don't think is the appropriate response.

If the same standard had been used, there wouldn't have been a public inquiry into Air India, as the Attorney General surely knows. There wouldn't have been a public inquiry, the Missing Women Inquiry. There are unanswered questions here and changes that need to occur at WorkSafe B.C.

Will the Premier agree with the families, with workers across B.C., with people in Burns Lake and agree to an independent public inquiry?

Hon. C. Clark: In the face of a tragedy like this one, where individuals have experienced so much loss and an entire community has experienced that — in a tragedy of this scope, where the whole province grieves with them — it is important that we speak to the facts in this Legislature, in order to deal with that grief and its outcome respectfully.

In the review of the report, Mr. Doust absolutely makes it clear that a decision by Crown counsel to approve or not approve charges is not a proper subject for a public inquiry. Nonetheless, we do need to deal with the
[ Page 1931 ]
issues at WorkSafe B.C. that gave rise to this issue around the investigation, immediately and urgently.

Mr. Doust has agreed to stay on as an independent adviser as changes are made at WorkSafe B.C. as all of the recommendations from Mr. Dyble are implemented, ensuring that WorkSafe B.C. immediately develops an action plan to deliver on those recommendations. They must fully examine why they did not ensure the rules of evidence-gathering were properly observed.

We must get on with this urgently. This is a problem that cannot be repeated. We are getting on with it. Mr. Doust is there is to make sure that it happens exactly as it's supposed to, because we must ensure that that central value of worker safety is one that we honour.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Two years after the accident we find that 42 percent of the mills haven't been in compliance. That's not getting on with it. That's not getting on with it — two years later, immediate action plans. Immediate action plans — that's what the Premier is talking about.

[1030]

The Premier went to Burns Lake after the accident. She said she'd be there for people. She got a standing ovation. The Premier went to Burns Lake four days before the provincial election to do a photo op. Will she return to Burns Lake, as she has been invited to by Maureen Luggi, and meet with the families and explain to them why justice denied doesn't deserve a public inquiry?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is right. I have spent some time in Burns Lake. I think, along with the rest of the province, I have been profoundly moved by the spirit of that community in the face of terrible tragedy.

We did make sure that first responders were there and available and delivered on their commitment. I really want to honour the public servants — from the Ministry of Transport, who cleared the road; to the health workers, who made sure that that hospital was up and running at full and above capacity, absolutely as needed, on an urgent basis.

The mayor was an important part of making sure that as we moved from first responders to connecting people to social services and connecting people to jobs…. He was there. The community was there behind us. We delivered on that commitment as well.

We worked hard to reopen the mill and the fibre supply, and I can't say enough about what the community did to make sure that we kept that as a priority in our minds. We delivered on that.

On the fourth, in looking back through the investigation to see what went wrong, WorkSafe B.C. came up short. That's why we've ordered changes at WorkSafe B.C. and that they happen immediately and urgently. That's why we've appointed an independent adviser to oversee those changes and ensure that they are done properly.

Worker safety matters. Making sure that your family members can come home safe every day from work matters. As we grow this economy, we must do it in a way that ensures that the people who are responsible for economic growth, the people who work in the mills and the mines and the industries across our province, come home safe every single day.

H. Bains: The Premier talked about Mr. Dyble's investigation into this. When government reviews itself, the truth never comes out. The Premier appointed Mr. Dyble, her right-hand bureaucrat, to investigate this tragedy and its aftermath. It's not only that Mr. Dyble is part of this administration. His review didn't even touch on how the government was failing worker safety before the explosion — an explosion, I might add, that was preventable.

No one is held accountable for that. Workers from the Babine mill and workers from all across this province are looking for some honest answers to questions such as: why did WorkSafe B.C. fail to adequately enforce orders regarding combustible dust? Why did Hampton increase production levels without a dust management system to match? Important questions.

To the Premier, when will she call a public and independent investigation into one of the worst workplace tragedies in B.C.'s history?

Hon. S. Bond: I, like everyone in this House, am deeply moved today by the heart-wrenching circumstances that these families faced — and as I mentioned yesterday in the House, in my community. To suggest that there has been no action or will be none is incorrect. Immediately following the Lakeland explosion there were directives issued to sawmill owners across British Columbia. The expectations were clear.

WorkSafe, at that point in time, undertook the largest inspection process that has ever been undergone in the province's history. We all recognize the magnitude of what happened. In fact, in phase 3 of their inspection, every single sawmill had a repeat visit.

[1035]

As I said to the critic yesterday, we still believe there is work to be done. We are going to ensure that sawmill owners across British Columbia are in compliance. We want to make sure that WorkSafe has the proper suite of tools in order to ensure that there are consequences.

There is not a single person in this House or this gallery that wants to see this repeated. We will do everything we can to mitigate these circumstances.

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

H. Bains: What the Premier said today and what the minister is saying today…. They said the same thing
[ Page 1932 ]
two years ago after the explosion: "We have work to do." Two years have gone by, and over half the mills are facing the same risk to those workers that caused that explosion back then — the same thing. So what work has been done?

By 2012 industry and government knew the explosive hazard of wood dust. Yet even now, some two years after this horrific explosion, we know that almost half of the B.C. mills failed a recent wood dust audit. The safety of tens of thousands of millworkers is still being compromised today, two years after the explosion.

The Labour minister's response was to have more meetings with CEOs. She said: "We need to be sure that the entire industry understands the importance of being in compliance."

After four deaths…

Madame Speaker: The member will pose his question.

H. Bains: …and over 40 people injured, she's still talking about the industry to understand compliance — not good enough. What's important is real enforcement of the rules. When people die in the workplace, those responsible for worker safety are held accountable. That's what is needed.

Premier, when will you call an independent inquiry into the Babine tragedy under the Public Inquiry Act?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the most important legacies that we could actually hope would happen in British Columbia is that there are safer workplaces. For the member to suggest that all we've done is have meetings is just inappropriate.

Hundreds and hundreds of inspections have taken place across this province. Mills have been shut down when there was an apparent risk. And there are a large majority of sawmill owners in British Columbia who have changed their processes, who have added new equipment, who have taken this very seriously.

We've said that there is more work to be done. I wish, for the families in the gallery today and the member opposite, that we could stand in this House today and say that this will never happen again. I wish I could say that.

What I can say with absolute intensity is that we are going to work wherever possible to mitigate the circumstances that led to the tragic loss of life for the families and friends and communities that are represented here today.

N. Macdonald: There has to be action, though. Last weekend the Liberals actually ridiculed the suggestion of an independent investigation into the Babine sawmill fire and explosion. They suggested that spending $3 million on the inquiry would be irresponsible and a waste of money.

Now, I have to believe that the minister is not refusing to call an independent investigation because she thinks that $3 million is too high a price for justice for the families of people in Burns Lake. I want to believe that. I do believe that. But there needs to be a demonstration that that's not the case.

There has to be action. The way forward is clearly what the families and what we have been calling for: a full, open inquiry, as well as rigorous inspections with onerous penalties for non-compliance.

The question for the minister: when is that going to happen? It's the only solution. When's it going to happen?

Hon. S. Bond: All of us have expressed frustration, anger and disappointment about the fact that the results in terms of the charges moving forward did not occur. But to suggest we didn't do something is simply inaccurate.

[1040]

There are a series of recommendations that will change not only processes but the culture at WorkSafe. They also include changes in response to some of the issues with the Crown. And we should be clear.

I quote from the response from Mr. Len Doust: "We did explore the possibility of the impact of an independent inquiry." Ultimately, would it change the outcome? His answer was no.

In fact, he says:

"You've also asked me whether a public inquiry could result in a reconsideration of the decision by Crown counsel not to approve the regulatory charges. I can confirm, as you have indicated in your document, that there is very clear case law, unanimous judgment, confirming that a decision of Crown counsel to approve or not approve is not the proper subject for a review in a public inquiry."

That does not mean that we mustn't take every single avenue available to us to ensure that we see changes in the processes at WorkSafe, that we see greater compliance by mill owners. All of those things matter. They are a part of the process that needs to be a priority and will continue to be.

IMPLEMENTATION OF MISSING WOMEN
INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS AND
BUS SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

J. Rice: More than a year ago the Missing Women Commission urged the government to bring in a shuttle bus along the Highway of Tears. My question to the Justice Minister is simple. Will the B.C. government bring in a shuttle along the Highway of Tears, yes or no?

Hon. S. Anton: The first part of Commissioner Oppal's report suggested that government "develop and implement an enhanced public transit system to provide a safer travel option connecting the northern communities, particularly along Highway 16." The words "shuttle bus" were not used.

I will say that the fact is, of course, that there were many missing and murdered women along the northern
[ Page 1933 ]
highways. They were not safe at that time. The ongoing safety of people in the north in their travelling is important to all of us in this room.

It's certainly fair to say that it's challenging in the northern communities — the northern communities that Commissioner Oppal was referring to. They include many northern communities, because women went missing from Hudson's Hope. They went missing from Kamloops. They went missing from Merritt. They went missing along Highway 16. It's that safety of the travelling women in particular that he was focused on in his report.

Our government is committed to working with local governments to identify safer transportation options connecting those northern communities, and it's with the partnership of local communities that that will happen. That's something that is a commitment the government has made, and it's an ongoing commitment.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: Communities along the Highway of Tears have spoken. They want a shuttle bus to ensure women and girls have safe, accessible transportation. Perhaps the minister doesn't understand that there is absolutely no public transportation whatsoever for many of these communities. Billboards telling women not to hitchhike are a cruel joke when many women have no other way to get to where they're going.

Again, to the Minister of Justice: will the B.C. Liberal government follow its own recommendation and bring in a shuttle bus along the Highway of Tears, yes or no?

Hon. S. Anton: Certainly, the tragedy of women missing along northern highways — in particular Highway 16, because there were many along Highway 16 — is a tragedy that must not be repeated. The collaboration with northern communities on transportation is something that government is working on and continuing with, because it is from communities that these solutions will be arrived at, working between government and local communities.

Government has been working — and Justice, in particular — extremely hard on the recommendations from the Missing Women Commission. Let me mention a couple of things that are improving safety on northern highways. Another recommendation made by Commissioner Oppal was that we have real-time policing.

[1045]

First of all, we instituted PRIME a few years ago, whereby every single police officer in British Columbia has immediate information at his or her fingertips in their vehicles. But later this year we will have real-time policing so that if an incident happens on Highway 16, the police officer in Quesnel, the police officer in Fort St. John…. All of those officers will have immediate analysis of the issue.

REPLACEMENT OF STEVEN POINT ON
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR MISSING
WOMEN INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS

M. Karagianis: Well, what a stunningly inadequate answer the Justice Minister has just given us. There is no bus on Highway 16. It was an urgent recommendation of the Missing Women Inquiry.

On Monday of this week the Justice Minister, in her budget response, patted herself on the back for having appointed Steven Point as the champion of the Missing Women Inquiry recommendations. Well, the Justice Minister knows very well that Steven Point resigned nine months ago. And when he resigned, he urged the government — and he emphasized — to urgently find a replacement for him.

Can the Justice Minister answer: is the government going to replace Steven Point, and when is that going to occur?

Hon. S. Anton: Steven Point was, of course, appointed immediately on release of the report, and he did some wonderful work in the immediate follow-up on the report by connecting with families and connecting with communities. That work has informed our ongoing work.

We have taken significant action on policing, on the policing recommendations in the report, and there are new amendments to the Police Act which reflect those. We have taken action on missing persons. There are changes in front of this Legislature on the Missing Persons Act and also work that is being done by police on missing persons.

At the same time, we are doing extensive work on support for vulnerable women, which was a third theme in that report. We are working extraordinarily hard in Justice and in government to implement the recommendations in Commissioner Oppal's report.

DUTY TO REPORT CHILDREN
IN NEED OF PROTECTION IN
FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITIES

C. James: The independent member for Delta South asked a question last week of the Attorney General that was taken on notice. This is a critically important issue, so I want to give the Attorney General another opportunity to respond.

The Representative for Children and Youth's latest report shows a disturbing trend where professionals failed in their duty to report child protection concerns to the ministry. Reporting is not an option. It's the law. The report directs the Attorney General of British Columbia to review why this child protection law is not being enforced and to take steps to promote compliance.

My question is to the Attorney General. What steps has she taken to investigate, under her responsibility, why B.C.'s child protection law is not being enforced?
[ Page 1934 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: First of all, I want to say that the suicide of a young person is a tragedy, regardless of where it happens. Certainly, our hearts all go out to the family of the child about whom this report was focused.

We all have a role in keeping children safe. I am equally interested in determining how best to reinforce this information with the general public and those members of professions who have direct contact with children. That's why the Ministry of Children and Families and the Ministry of Justice are currently in a discussion about that.

What I can tell you at this point is that the Child, Family and Community Service Act is in place. The duty to report is clear, and we will follow up on the representative's recommendation.

The director of child welfare has contacted both colleges, of Physicians and Surgeons and Registered Nurses of B.C., and offered assistance and information in regard to the duty-to-report provisions. The Deputy Minister of Justice has also been in contact with the representative's office and is continuing to discuss measures in connection with addressing the recommendation.

The ministry promotes compliance through protocols with professional associations, such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and documents targeted at service professionals and the general public.

[1050]

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S ISSUES

K. Corrigan: The Premier said, when she appointed the Attorney General: "When things need to be fixed, she will be there to fix them." So we hear that we have no bus, a promise broken — promise after promise broken on the Missing Women Inquiry. We have a failure of the legal responsibility to ensure that children are being protected.

Minister, we also have, in this year's service plan for the Ministry of Justice, showing that it is taking longer to get an order in Provincial Court on family court cases such as maintenance, child custody and access.

So we have a promise from the minister, from the Premier, and far from doing that, we see that the median wait for these orders, which are critically important to the stability of families, has increased to 127 days from a target last year of 89 days — waits that are punishing women and children. We have a multiplicity of broken promises and a Premier that promised we were going to have a fixed justice system.

My question to the minister: why is she and the B.C. Liberal government failing its responsibility and breaking its promises to so many women and children in British Columbia, and when will she fix any of the issues that we raised today?

Hon. S. Anton: As the Minister of Children and Families just said, action is being taken on the recommendation by the Representative for Children and Youth. In fact, my deputy minister is looking into it and has written a letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and is working with Children and Families to follow up on that recommendation, because it was an important one.

On the question of the missing women, on the inquiry and the recommendations, we have made significant and important progress on the themes of that report. There were themes of policing. Commissioner Oppal identified policing failures and policing gaps. Those pieces are being addressed, and I've mentioned a number of them.

Support for missing persons and help for missing persons and being able to look for missing persons — perhaps the member opposite has forgotten that we are bringing in the Missing Persons Act to give police officers additional tools that they did not have before.

There is a missing-persons centre with the RCMP in Surrey, and a number of police forces and detachments have missing-person units. There have been tremendous strides in the last 15 years.

The third significant theme through Commissioner Oppal's report was on support for vulnerable women. The supports that have been given out through government…. If the member would like to ask me a follow-up question, I will give some of those out, because there have been incredible supports put in place in the last 15 years for vulnerable women in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

S. Robinson: I'd like to table a petition.

Petitions

S. Robinson: This petition was organized by the Dr. Charles Best social justice 2013-14 class in Coquitlam. They collected 487 signatures calling on the B.C. government to implement a B.C.-wide ban on the trophy hunting of grizzly bears.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Oakes: I rise to table a report. I have the honour to presents the 2013 annual report for the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education; and in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 4.

[1055]

Madame Speaker: We'll allow a moment for members to make their way.
[ Page 1935 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to resume my place on second reading for debate on Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act. When I left off yesterday, I was referring to what Bill 4 does and some examples of concerns around what the bill is proposing.

Bill 4, what it does, is give the minister the ability to issue park use permits that could be very detrimental to the stated purpose of class A parks, without having to bring those issues before the Legislature. When you look at legislation from the official opposition side that's been introduced, one of the questions you ask is: what is the situation that the bill being introduced is attempting to remedy? In other words, what was the situation as is, and what was the issue with that situation?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The situation as it is, is that if there's any representation around taking resources or disturbing land in a class A provincial park, the proponent must seek a park use permit from the minister, and the permit cannot be issued unless the minister decides that it's "necessary for the preservation or maintenance of recreational values of the park involved," and it will not interfere with the use of the park in accordance with this purpose.

That's the situation as it stands, and this bill proposes to decrease that level of potential protection and introduce the ability for the minister to issue permits that would allow for feasibility studies for mineral exploration, for potential laying of pipeline in provincial parks. These activities of course can be very opposite or very detrimental to what the purpose of a class A park is.

Again, that's the situation as it is, and the minister was trying to provide some examples, I believe, about the purpose of the bill and the situations that it's trying to remedy.

However, we've had situations where there's been representations by First Nations, for example, for wanting certain sections of a provincial park to be withdrawn from the park in order for it to be used for industrial purpose. An example I give is — I believe it was just not even two years ago — where the Nisga'a were proposing to the minister that part of the land in the Lava Bed Provincial Park, a class A park, would be removed to allow for the northwest transmission line to run through that park.

This was a situation that came before the Legislature, as it should. We debated it, and in fact, that is what happened. The removal of that part of the park for that use was approved. It was voted on in the House and debated and discussed and approved.

It's difficult to understand why, then, that the minister is introducing this bill that would remove that oversight and that debate when, in fact, the previous legislation was able to accommodate those kind of requests and also accommodated the debate in front of us in the Legislature.

[1100]

I think, therefore, it's difficult, and I'll look forward in committee stage for the minister to explain what situation she is attempting to remedy with this legislation, when it appears the current legislation already has the ability to accomplish what she's trying to do.

It begs the question, then: what is the government, the B.C. Liberals, attempting to do with this legislation? Many people are concerned about the fast-tracking, the approving, the ability to grant a park use permit for activities that most people wouldn't think are acceptable within a provincial park: feasibility studies for a highway, a pipeline, a transmission line and other kinds of activities that seem to run counter to what most people would think is the intent of a provincial park.

The response of the minister and this government to these kinds of concerns is…. And I'm reading from a press release that was issued, and again, the minister talked about this yesterday. These kinds of permits will be considered "only after a thorough review of protected area values, including management plans, impact assessments and conservation assessments."

Essentially, the minister is saying that we have to introduce this bill because the previous legislation isn't giving us the ability to do something — we're not sure what — but: "Don't worry about it. We don't bring it before the House because…. Just trust us. We'll review management plans." I talked yesterday a bit about why there's an issue of trust with that, and I had a couple of examples.

I'll touch quickly on the example I talked about yesterday, where the Gitanyow had a management plan. They had a land use plan that was signed by the provincial government in the fall of 2012. Then in 2013 they received a letter from the environmental assessment office saying that there was a proposal to put a couple of pipelines through their territory. What was their response? They said: "See our land use plan. We signed it with the provincial government not even eight months ago."

The response from the environmental assessment office was: "Well, that has no bearing on this proposal about two natural gas pipelines through your traditional territory." Of course, they were taken aback. They had to claw and scream and bring this to the attention of the minister and the government. What it did is it really set back that idea of trust — that even in a land management plan that had been signed by the government there was any trust that the government would follow through on it.

The same with the Tahltan. They signed a shared decision-making agreement in April of 2013, just last year, with the government. There was a ceremony here that I attended in the rotunda. The minister was there and others — and the shared decision-making agreement, a
[ Page 1936 ]
framework for how decisions would be made together regarding resource extraction activities and other activities on the Tahltan territories.

Well, not more than two months later the Ministry of Environment unilaterally made a decision to apply to the federal government to streamline, to fast-track, a mining proposal in the Tahltan territory — these are the words of the Tahltan Central Council president; she typified it as fast-tracking — without any consultation.

I don't know what kind of shared decision-making that is, but once again, it destroys the trust. The minister is saying: "Well, don't worry. We'll consult land use plans. We'll consult protected area values. We'll consult all these other documents. Trust us."

Again, there are two examples of why she must acknowledge that people would be skeptical of the government when it says "trust us."

I think a final example of why it's not good enough to say this legislation will put this decision-making around these kinds of activities directly in the hands of the minister without any ability, without any requirement to bring it before the Legislature at that point in the process…. Another example of why "trust us" isn't good enough on that one are the comments from the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation when we were reviewing some amendments to the Park Act back when there was another Minister of Environment. It wasn't that long ago — perhaps two years ago.

[1105]

He actually stood up and argued against the position that his own government had introduced in that bill. What he said is that B.C. has no plan on parks and may have enough ecological protection already.

Again, when a current minister at the cabinet table is on record with that kind of opinion about parks and protected areas and the current Minister of Environment brings in legislation that's going to dilute the ability of this assembly, this House, to review potential industrial activities in a park, and then she says, "Just trust us," well, we wonder what kind of discussions go on around the cabinet table. We know what the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation's views are on parks, especially in the north.

Those are three examples of why people are concerned about what the intent of this bill is, the situation that it's attempting to remedy. Right now we know that it appears the current bill is wholly adequate to address situations where small parcels of a park might have to be removed for purposes that local people feel are valid, that the minister feels are valid, and that come before the House. We have a wholesome debate on that issue because we know that people in B.C. hold in high regard their parks system. So that is a deserved place for that debate to take place.

But when the minister in this bill introduces the notion that that debate will not take place, then it really, really introduces a lot of questions around: "Well, what is this government up to with this bill?" Again, when it comes back to the trust factor, I've outlined three specific examples that reverberate throughout the whole province about how there is a lack of trust when the government says: "Trust us. We have the best intent in mind around parks, even though we want to pass this bill that gives the minister the ability to approve feasibility studies that have an actual impact on the ground in parks." A feasibility study does….

We've seen this in different parts of the province. We've seen this in Stikine. The kinds of industrial activities that the minister could approve, even though there are feasibility studies, allow a footprint on the ground that most people, I would think, would find unacceptable in what they think is a class A park, whose intent is supposed to be preservation and inspiration for current and future generations.

That is why people are upset and angry by what appears to be the intent of this bill. I think a good example of that is articulated very well by a constituent of mine who wrote a letter on February 20 to the Premier and to the Minister of Environment regarding this bill.

I'd just like to read a paragraph out of this letter. It's a different paragraph than the one that I read during the hoist motion. I wanted to make sure that the Chair knows that, because he had some concerns about the language in the letter. Even though it's strong language, I agree, it is the true feelings of a constituent, and it's his language.

This is a different paragraph, and I think it's a very well articulated paragraph. It shows the level of trust that's lacking out there, and it shows the concern about how people really, really hold dearly these parks and the potential footprint of the activities that could take place in them if this bill is allowed to pass without the oversight that we currently have, without having the wholesome debate that we can clearly have under the current legislation.

It's from Graeme Pole on February 20, to the Premier and the Minister of Environment. It says:

"Premier Clark and Minister Polak, you were not voted to the Legislature to squander B.C.'s provincial parks system and its legacy. You do not have the right to act outside of the trust that voters have placed in you. You do not have the right to destroy the only remaining protected areas in this province for the sake of an industry — LNG, liquid natural gas — that, if pursued as you would like to see it pursued, would do a great deal to destroy most of the unprotected landscapes of this province."

That is the opinion of one of the constituents of Stikine — a resident of the Kispiox Valley, Graeme Pole. He's written to the minister and the Premier.

[1110]

I look forward to the reply that they're going to provide him to that letter. I wanted to use that paragraph to typify the kind of concern that I think is widespread and I know is widespread in the province around Bill 4, which could introduce the ability of the minister — without the appropriate oversight by this Legislature, as we currently
[ Page 1937 ]
have — to permit activities in a park that most people, I don't think, would see are what a class A park is all about.

I'm going to get to my concluding remarks on this part of this stage 2 debate — second reading, at least — of Bill 4 by saying I'm really looking forward to the committee stage. That's where we get to go through it detail by detail. I'm sure I'll be very interested to hear the minister's response as we go clause by clause through the legislation.

I think that will give us the ability to offer the minister the opportunity to specifically respond to many concerns, one of them being: who was consulted before this bill was put forward?

Right now it doesn't appear that stakeholders or people around the province were asked. Again, that goes back to the remedy. What was the situation that needed correcting that she feels so strongly about to introduce this bill? I don't think the argument's been put forward that that concern is there.

We already have a bill that does what it needs to do as far as what the minister can or cannot approve. Therefore, in committee stage I'm looking forward to hearing answers around who was consulted. Which members of the public were consulted on this bill? Who was advocating for this kind of change?

The minister does give one example of a First Nation that wanted to have a small portion of a provincial park removed to allow access to drinking water. I already gave an example of the Lava Bed Provincial Park, with the Nisga'a, who wanted some removed for an industrial purpose, and that happened under the current legislation.

So why the need for this bill? Who was consulted? Who were the proponents? Of course, having read the letter from my constituent Graeme Pole, it's obvious that some people think the proponents, the people pushing for this bill, were ones who would like to see an increased level of industrial activity in a class A park. That is not what people in the province wanted to see when they fought for and won the designation of a class A park for many of the areas around the province.

What First Nations were consulted on this? We know that the B.C. Liberal government, this government, very much likes to bring up the words "consultation with First Nations." Which First Nations were consulted around the potential activities that are going to be approved in provincial parks?

These parks — many were created in the late '90s, under a different government. When they were created, there was a lot of give-and-take with First Nations, with people who had current activities in the park, with business, with industry. There was a lot of give-and-take about the creation of these parks.

Now, for the minister to introduce a bill where she's going to be able to issue permits, without coming to this Legislature, for activities that people already had a thorough understanding of around what was allowed and not allowed…. There was a lot of give-and-take and multi-stakeholder processes to balance a diversity of interests when these parks were created. When that took place, people left some things on the table because they gained other things.

But now the minister wants to, it seems, ignore those kinds of compromises that were made and increase the risk for a lot more conflict on the land base. Of course, we know we don't need that in B.C. at this time.

[1115]

Even though the current government says they felt that they'd been doing a good job of consultation, I can list off a dozen examples of where we are at in this province on the issue of disagreement over the land base — whether it's Jumbo Glacier, whether it's New Prosperity, whether it's any of these situations where there's a disagreement over the land base.

I'm afraid this Bill 4, the amendment to the Park Act, will lead to a situation where risk and confrontation and conflict will again arise unnecessarily. These were parks established under multi-stakeholder processes, where people gave and took and compromised.

I don't see where the issue is with the current legislation, what the legislation is attempting to remedy that can't already be done under current legislation. It leads to questioning trust and wondering who the proponents are of this legislation that could see industrial activity increase in class A provincial parks through feasibility studies that we know have a footprint on the ground.

It's opening up battles that don't need to be opened, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it's good for B.C. at this time. There's no reason to have this amendment.

Again, I look forward to the committee stage, where we're going to tease this out a little further and provide the minister with some opportunity to answer specific questions about who was consulted. First Nations — were they consulted? Were members of the public consulted?

With that, I'm pleased to have had my ability to speak to second reading of this bill. As it stands, I await some further answers from the minister, but I can't see that I would be able to vote in favour of this bill at this time.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member, and I did note the last time he quoted something as well, that all of the rules of the House apply when using a quote, including the use of names of members of the assembly. So I remind for the future.

K. Conroy: I, too, am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, 2014. It's our understanding that this bill will enable the government to permit "exploration research" for industrial development of parks and protected areas and even class A parks in our province. It would also remove special restrictions on park use permits in small parks and weaken restrictions on commercial film activity in our parks.

When you read through Bill 4, you see that it is really
[ Page 1938 ]
quite indiscriminate. It does not limit the purposes for which a permit can be requested. It enables permits to be issued for feasibility studies, with no real example of what a feasibility study could be.

It's for any type of project that the government might decide to include in the regulations. It would apply to any provincial park in the province. I've had many concerns expressed by constituents that what we could see is…. It could unleash a gold rush of pipelines, mines and independent power projects, which all could become part of our park system.

Research — now what does that mean in this bill? It doesn't give any definition. It could mean road-building, drilling, digging pits and many other activities. It could mean highly destructive mining exploration.

This reminds me. There are many great, wonderful companies in this province that do mining exploration, but there are some unscrupulous ones. We had an incident that happened in the Kettle Valley a few years back. A mining company came in and did exploration on a rancher's land. The rancher had no say whether they could come in or not. It was just done.

The fellow left holes all over the land. The rancher lost a couple of horses — quite expensive, prize-winning horses. When they were running around on the land, they broke their legs in the holes that were left by the mining exploration.

The company didn't come in, didn't do any reclamation — just left it. There was no mitigation, nothing to help the rancher. He was never compensated for the loss of his livestock. This mining corporation just got to walk away from this.

Are we opening up our parks to this? Is this what could happen in our parks in B.C.? Is this what research means — this exploration that could happen? I think that if Bill 4 passes, this could be something that would now be law in B.C. parks.

[1120]

Do we put wildlife in B.C. parks at risk by allowing this to happen, by allowing these permits that would be done as a matter of ministerial discretion? It does not state what comes after a research permit. What happens after?

We know that if studies indicate that development is feasible, companies can apply for boundary adjustments to parks, meaning the removal of an area from protected status. Right now 35 parks in this province have been listed for possible boundary adjustments for natural gas pipelines, transmission lines and roads connected to those pipelines.

It can be assumed that studying parks for industrial development will sooner or later mean opening them to industrial development. The discovery of an ore body in a park could then be used to leverage a mine in that park.

Bill 4 was introduced into the Legislature with no public consultation. Knowledgeable observers say that it's possible the government could push it through very quickly, and this is a real worry to people out there who weren't consulted, people who value dearly the parks in this province. They weren't consulted.

The government promises that projects will be studied for their environmental impact, but this isn't stated in this very slim bill. There's nothing here, really. There's nothing that says that this will happen. Hopefully this will be canvassed in committee stage, but we have to make sure that that will happen.

I want to quote from a letter I received from constituents. People will recognize the name. The internationally recognized organization, the Valhalla Wilderness Society, which is now under Valhalla Wilderness Watch, sent a letter with very, very strong opposition to this act. I'm quoting from the letter. The language is all appropriate, Mr. Speaker.

"'Statements by the Liberal government continue to deceive the B.C. public by saying the bill is just about allowing research in parks, and they cite deceptively innocuous kinds of research,' says Anne Sherrod, a director of Valhalla Wilderness Watch. 'In reality, they know very well that the purpose of Bill 4 is to first allow studies for pipelines, transmission corridors and highways through parks. Such research is itself damaging to parks. It can mean building roads, drilling, blasting and pitting for engineering studies.

"'What's more, the pipelines transmission corridors, roads and highways are only the beginning. Bill 4 will annul and shatter the most fundamental provisions of protection for parks from any activity that could be truthfully or deceitfully packaged as research. Activity such as mining exploration has in the past done serious damage to parks. Once research has obtained evidence that a project is economically feasible, that then becomes leverage to remove a part of the park from protection.'

"Bill 4 can be applied to any industrial or commercial development this government wants to allow, and it would apply across the board to every park in this province. 'Why would government do this if it doesn't mean to permit the development?' asked Craig Pettitt, a director of VWW. 'The public should not be defrauded of its park system by these deceits. This is like writing a law that allows confirmed bank robbers to do research on banks. The intent to rob banks is evident all over the place. How dumb do they think the public is?

"'The way the Liberal government has gone about this shows their shocking contempt for the public that built our park system and has given it overwhelming support for nearly 50 years. Bill 4 was launched in an ambush, continues to be promoted with deceitful arguments, and it has been rushed to become a fait accompli in a tyrannical disregard of public protests. This fairly shouts that with the Liberal government we have resource exploiters in control, and the whole province is being hijacked to serve their profits.'"

Now, a lot of people are feeling that way. A lot of people are feeling extremely concerned about what's happening to our parks.

Valhalla Wilderness Watch has gone on to say that they feel it's a de-protection of B.C. parks. Craig Pettitt goes on to say that "our parks are our children's heritage. We purchased them with blood, sweat, tears and enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars. They belong to us. Let's not whimper for crumbs."

Some people are advising that the government should be asked to ensure that the process is transparent and that the public has an opportunity to comment. Craig feels that "this is whimpering for crumbs, and if we ask
[ Page 1939 ]
for crumbs, crumbs are what we will get."

[1125]

Extensive public input and government decision processes on these areas have already occurred at great taxpayer expense, and the decision was full protection of the parks in this province. He's asking us to tell the government no. "No changes to the B.C. Park Act." This amendment is not needed. "No industrial development or activities in B.C. parks."

The removal or damage of resources or land should be illegal. It's been that way for over 50 years, and it should stay that way. I think people spend their life and energy — countless British Columbians — investing time into ensuring that we have parks in this province.

I know that my colleague from Stikine has well over 50 parks in his huge, vast constituency. We have 16 parks. ecological reserves and wildlife management areas, and they are well used in our area. They are visited. You see people at them all four seasons of the year. Everybody uses them. They use them for camping, hiking, swimming and also the winter recreation sports that people go to these parks for. They're really valued.

One of our parks is named after Nancy Greene, the senator. It is used 12 months of the year, that park. I can't imagine that park with mining exploration in it or any kind of pipeline through it. And that's what this bill seems to be saying — that this could be allowed.

We have a park in our region, Syringa, that's been there for 30, 40 years. I went there when I was a little kid. This park — my grandkids go there now. That's the park that people go to, to camp, to have their family vacations. To think that now we will have a potential for mining. Our region is known for mining. We do mining in our region. Now when we think…. We want to keep those parks protected.

I think of the Valhalla Park. It is a pristine park in our area. The Valhalla society just fought tooth and nail to ensure that that land would become a park. I can't imagine what would happen if that pristine area would suddenly have to be subjected to mining exploration or even mining.

There's lots of opportunity for mining in our area. There are mines. A number have been closed down in recent years. That's not relevant to this bill, but it is still relevant to the people in the area. To think that mining could actually happen at Valhalla Park, where people just fought for years and years to ensure it would be protected, just gives us grave cause for concern, as does the entire bill.

We have to ask: why do we need this amendment? Who is it benefiting? Is it going to benefit…? Are we leaving a legacy for our children and grandchildren when we ensure that there now could be mining in parks, that there could be exploration in parks, that we will put pipelines through parks?

Is that what we're leaving, or are we going to leave pristine land that doesn't get touched, that is there for people to enjoy for years and years to come? I want to make sure that my grandchildren can take their kids to that park and that they will see that it is still a park that can be utilized by people in our region.

I know that many people have expressed their concerns to the minister. They've expressed their concerns to the Premier. I am hoping that in their wisdom, they will understand that this is not something that people want to see in this province. It's not just a few people. Many, many people are expressing their concerns about this.

Things that have happened in parks have happened under the existing guidelines that have been mentioned before. The bills that exist allow things to happen that have happened. I know that the member for Kootenay East talked about: we have a mine in a park. Well, we don't want more mines in a park. We want to make sure that this does not happen again. Just because it's done once doesn't mean it's the right thing to do it again.

We want to make sure it doesn't happen again. For that reason, I'm speaking strongly against this bill, strongly against the amendment to the Park Act. I hope that the minister will take these comments and recognize that it's not just a few of us. There are many of us in the province that feel exactly the same way.

C. Trevena: I stood yesterday to speak in favour of the hoist motion for this bill because I do think that it would be very wise to have had more consultation about it.

I think that a lot of things that my colleague from Kootenay West has just been talking about — the concerns from the environmental groups, concerns from citizens, concerns from across the board — would be able to be addressed with greater consultation and an explanation of why this is needed.

[1130]

As soon as you start talking about playing with the parks and doing undefined research in the parks, it's a red flag. One of the things that's wonderful about B.C. is people's love for and emotional investment in our park system. We have a very large park system. This is integrated almost in our psyche. They are established as a trust.

I note that we open with prayers every day, and today's prayer — and I think I'm paraphrasing slightly — said to tend with care our heritage on behalf of all of B.C. That's what we as legislators are supposed to do. We're supposed to make sure that what we have, what we have worked so hard to get…. What people — we now call them stakeholders: individuals, residents of our communities — have fought hard to get is the growth of the park system, the protection of the park system, the awareness that we are a province that is resource-rich and resource-dependent.

There is no question that we depend heavily on forestry. We depend heavily on logging. We don't have the secondary industries. We are depending heavily on the primary
[ Page 1940 ]
industry of logging, depending heavily on industries of mining in its various forms. Whether that's coal or minerals or gravel, we have mines everywhere. So we know that we're a resource-dependent province.

Partly because of that, I think the importance of parks is underlying because we use the natural resources of our province very intensively. We go at it pretty heavily. So to have areas which are protected, areas which aren't just for the campers and just for the day hikers, but vast areas that you and I may never go to, but we know that it's protected there because that's the right thing to do…. It's protected for the flora and the fauna.

To start saying that we can have research happening, undefined research in these areas, is extraordinarily troubling for many, many people. The vast areas that we may never go to may also be vast resource-rich areas, so we may never see the fact that there is a mine in that particular park.

My colleague from Kootenay West talks about hers being a mining constituency. I also represent a mining constituency. As I mentioned yesterday, we have Myra Falls mine, which is in Strathcona Park. Strathcona Park being the oldest park in British Columbia, there was a huge fight when there was discussion about having that mine in that park. People were extraordinarily upset, and rightly so.

I mean, we have the mine operating there now. It does create jobs. We've got good well-paid jobs at that mine, but we have that section of the park which is set aside for industrial use. If you look at it in its reality, we have a separate designation of park for where the mine is. I think that having one mine in a park really split the community. It was tremendously difficult for the community. To have the concept of another mine, I think, is really unforgivable. We've seen what it's done.

The bill talks in section 3 that the real amendment…. I mean, we've got an amendment about having the ability to do film production, and I'm not sure that many people are very concerned about film production in the parks.

The concern that people have been having is section 3 of this bill where it adds the word "research," and that means that environmental assessment…. It's got the definitions of "environmental assessment" and "feasibility study."

It 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," and then it goes on to list: "(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 paragraphs (a) to (e)" — those five cited areas.

[1135]

That's both huge and undefined. A transmission line — from where to where? A pipeline. We know the major politics of pipelines that we have at the moment. We have telecommunications projects. Will these be cell towers? This is just so vague. I know that governments don't want to prescribe themselves by having specifics, but we are talking, as I say, about what is supposed to be a trust for the people. There is really no definition of what that is.

Since 2004, 27 parks have had boundary amendments, but the province has applications for boundary adjustments in 35 parks and protected areas to accommodate industrial pipelines, transmission lines and resource roads. We've got this happening already. Why do we need a bill with this very vague list?

It's got implications for TransCanada's LNG line, the Lower Mainland transmission line, the North Thompson transmission line, the Trans Mountain Pipeline, countless independent power projects. I mean, this has been one thing that's been going on for many years, so whether the independent power projects still want to be looking at that.

The possibilities here under this very broad section are vast, and I think that, in itself, is troubling. Even the fact that we're talking about parks — the fact that it's just so broad.

As I say, we have parks set aside because it is important to us as British Columbians. The parks are there to protect the flora and the fauna. It's the bugs, the mosses, the trees, the bears — whatever it is, that's why you have parks. There is a place for these to go untouched, unhampered, without the imprint of man on them, except maybe the back-country hikers who are going out there, or the back-country campers.

I'm very extraordinarily lucky in my constituency to have many parks. I haven't actually camped in a number of parks. I've cited Strathcona Park, the oldest park. It is partly in my constituency. It also goes into the constituencies of the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim and the Minister of Social Development. That is actually where the mine is, in the minister's own riding. Most of the people who work there live in my riding.

The park touches many of our constituencies. It's a huge and beautiful park, with access for day use and access for a lot of back country. We also know that again, like the member for Kootenay West, we have lots of minerals there. We don't want to have another mine and more exploration in Strathcona Park.

Likewise, with the north Island we've got Cape Scott Park with its fantastic hiking trails, an amazing draw for tourists, tourists who see the West Coast Trail as too busy. They can come up to the North Coast Trail and Cape Scott Park. It's fabulous. You can do it comparatively easily. Just go out to Nels Bight for a few days' hike, or you can do the whole trail right along the north end of the Island.

Do we want mining there? Again, we've got minerals up there. We've got a lot of investigation. Island Copper used to be in that area. There are lots of minerals up there.
[ Page 1941 ]
Do we want mining there? Of course, the community wants to be able to re-establish mines, but the community would not want to see a mine established in Cape Scott Provincial Park.

We've got mines from Brooks Peninsula on the west coast right near the open Pacific. We've got marine parks up and down the coast. Would this research include investigations into the seabed? What does this research include?

We have a diversity of protected places and a diversity of reasons that those places are protected. Some parks were handed to the province by people as an inheritance. In my constituency we've got some wonderful very easy access parks, where there's good camping, where there are day hikes. There is this diversity.

These are for the people of British Columbia. They have been set aside for the people of British Columbia, as well as for their protection. That trust can't be easily broken. I think that this bill will allow that trust to be too easily broken.

I think we should also recognize — this is one of the reasons why I was very supportive of the motion to hold the bill off for six months yesterday that we had tabled — that this province has a number of environmental organizations that are willing to come to the table to be players.

[1140]

I think that the greatest area where we have seen that work is in the Great Bear rainforest, where you have environmental group organizations, industry and government all coming to the table and saying: "How can we protect this area? How can we make the most of this area? By protection? Where can we use the resource of this area? Where are we going to protect it? How are First Nations going to benefit from this?"

It has brought people to the table and found solutions. It is going to be, I think, a flagship for development and ways of working together around the world. I mean, people are already coming to talk about it. They want to see how that works. Yet this bill flies in the face of that sort of open and constructive dialogue.

We have six leading environmental non-governmental organizations standing up and saying that what is happening here is wrong. These are people who would willingly come to the table to discuss how we can make sure that we benefit from our resources.

I'd like to just quote from Nikki Hill, the executive director of CPAWS B.C. She writes:

"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 designation, often the result of long multi-stakeholder processes that have 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 area that it defends."

That's strong language, but I think it really flags the very real concerns of what this bill means. If you can open up the parks for the potential of industrial activity, for that whole list of pipelines, transmission lines and roads, where do we stop?

I would hope that the government is listening to this. I know that government members aren't participating in the debate. I think that's sad, because I know that many members do have the opportunity to participate. It is a debate. That's why we're here — to debate. They have the opportunity to talk about the parks in their regions, and many of them represent areas where there are parks and where it will impact their constituents too.

I do hope we will have the opportunity to hear from the government side to really get a sense of what they're hearing from their constituents. It can't be that different from what we're hearing from our constituents, which is: "Don't do this."

If you really want to amend the Park Act in some way to allow some exploration where it makes sense for some reason to have some exploration, do it in a consultative way. Bring people to the table. Have that discussion of why you want to do it.

I think that continuing in the way that is happening at the moment is really a game. Really, it's hubris — arrogance and hubris. They can get away with anything. The government has its majority. It had the election in May, won with a majority, has more members, is likely to win every vote — brings something forward and doesn't really need to consult.

It's good for its friends. It's good for whatever mining companies or transmission companies or pipeline companies want to have this, and so it will do something to make sure that they get what they need. It really doesn't matter what others are saying.

We have here the people who have come out, and these are just some…. Greenways Land Trust in my own community has come out very strongly opposed to this. For provincial representatives we've got…. I quoted from CPAWS. We have the Wilderness Committee, a highly respected organization. They described this as showing that the government seems hell-bent for leather to allow parks not to get in the way of transmission lines and pipelines. That's the way it appears because of the lack of consultation, by the fact they've brought this forward.

[1145]

We have ForestEthics, who fought long and hard for our forest base, and West Coast Environmental Law, who underlines what I think is very important to note and what I've been trying to express here — the public trust. These parks are for the public trust. They are for
[ Page 1942 ]
the public good. They are not just another piece of land mass where you can move the border.

It's a bit like when we look at the licence to operate on our lands — on public lands, on Crown lands. We have forest companies that have licences to operate on Crown lands and feel that they are almost their lands. They're not; it's public land. This is Crown land — Crown land with the extra protection of parks, with that designation on Crown land. This is protected. This is inviolate.

We have Greenpeace, a world-known environmental organization, saying that these changes will undermine decisions based on science, international commitments and best-outcome-possible negotiations. That's pretty damning. The Sierra Club has also come out very clearly against it and has asked to meet with the minister and with the Premier about this.

I would have hoped that the minister would have opened her doors to those meetings beforehand. I think this would have really made people feel more comfortable. It might have changed this quite considerably if the discussion had happened beforehand.

As I say, we as a province lead the way in working collaboratively for protection of our environment. I think this is something we should be proud of. But this amendment does not do that. It violates that public trust. It violates what people are hoping they will see from the government, which is protection of both their communities and their environment — their province.

We as legislators are given a trust by the people who elect us. They expect us to work on the best behalf of the province, of the people of the province and for the good of the province. This bill, which opens the doors to deconstruction of our park system, would break that trust, and we shouldn't allow that. That really should not be allowed to happen.

We know the system. We operate in here. The government has defeated the opportunity to have a broader discussion, to have the amendment that would have allowed a broader discussion. This is likely to go through, with the government's majority here, without the discussion.

We on this side of the House feel that the trust that the people who voted for us gave us, and the people who voted for that side of the House gave them — to look after the best interest of the province as a whole — will have been violated by this bill. That's why I and my colleagues will be voting against it.

J. Rice: I'm especially concerned about Bill 4, given the recent activities that have taken place in the north coast region. The Khutzeymateen grizzly bear sanctuary near Prince Rupert is critically important to the continued health of grizzly bears on the north coast of B.C. The Khutzeymateen is the first area in Canada to be protected specifically for grizzly bears and their habitat.

The B.C. Parks website notes that the ultimate purpose of this area is to protect the north coast grizzly bear by preserving a part of the ecosystem in which they live. "Because of this area's high sensitivity and strict conservation orientation, visitor use is not encouraged. However, a limited amount of controlled viewing is allowed under a permit." That's how sensitive this area is. It's so sensitive that despite how incredibly beautiful this area is and the great diversity of species that can be found here, we strictly limit tourism in the area.

I used to work as a naturalist just outside the boundaries of this park. You wouldn't believe the care that was taken by tourism operators working in the park and outside the park to minimize disruption to bears in this area.

[1150]

We would use only four-stroke engines for our boats, and we shunned those that used two-stroke engines, just to reduce the noise and minimize disruption of the bears. We would cut our boat engines far away from the bears and let the tide carefully, slowly push us in towards shore, where we could see grizzly bears grazing on sedge grasses and flipping over rocks for food.

It was so quiet that you could hear bears crunching on mussels and clams. When we would fly people in on float planes, we would have the planes land far, far outside the park boundaries. These rules were in place to maintain the integrity of this incredibly important park.

You can imagine how concerned people were to learn that a contractor working for an LNG proponent started flying helicopters over the area and sending people into the ground without any permits or permission recently. They were told not once but twice — three times — that what they were doing was inappropriate, yet they did it anyway.

Here we are with tourism operators going above and beyond, following the letter of the law, doing what they can to protect the integrity of the reserve and minimize disruptions to grizzlies and other bears, yet these contractors would just fly in with their noisy helicopters. No doubt, these contractors would say they were doing research — research that this bill could allow, research that undermines the integrity of the only safe haven for grizzlies on the North Coast.

The fact is that there are activities that are incompatible with the very purpose of our parks. Flying helicopters over the Khutzeymateen is a perfect example of the kind of activity which this legislation could allow, activities which undermine the reason why many of our parks were created in the first place.

Bringing in legislation that is so vaguely worded that it can open up our parks to activities that are incompatible with the purposes of parks as well as the values of the people who live in the North Coast and in our wilderness areas is not in the best interest of British Columbians.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to take a few minutes to address the bill before us. Yesterday I spoke to an amendment that was moved by the opposition that would have given government the opportunity to engage with citizens
[ Page 1943 ]
of British Columbia and hear their feedback before passing this controversial bill. Unfortunately, the government did not feel that the delay of this bill was in their interest.

I want to reiterate again my view. My view is that the Park Amendment Act does not have the social licence to move forward.

There's a lack of public trust and public confidence in this bill. The government's desire for expediency in passing this bill serves only to risk increasing this distrust. We need more time to engage the public on this bill and for the government to allay the perceived fears around the change in the legislation protecting our parks.

This bill fails to define the term "research" in a way that ensures that the mandate and the underlying purpose of why our parks exist is not undermined. I recognize that the research is defined within draft policy. But policy gives guidance. Policy is not the law.

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

I would like to draw attention to the 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.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, in recognition of the time, may I reserve my right to continue later?

Madame Speaker: And move adjournment of the debate.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.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 11:02 a.m.

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

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a few questions with regards to Northwest Community College. I live in Terrace and actually attended the college as a second part of my change in life, so it's of great importance to me personally.

I would like to begin by giving a little bit of context. There's been at Northwest Community College, it's fair to say, a certain amount of turmoil over the last few years, which, unfortunately, ended up with a dispute between the administration of the college and faculty and, in fact, ended up going to court. That's not a good thing — I think the minister would agree — anytime we see that in a public institution.

I'd like to ask my first question. I think it's a very simple one. In my previous role as the Education critic…. One of the interesting statistics that government always maintains is to identify the amount of public dollars that are spent on administrative costs versus other parts of the operational budget.

To the minister, my question is: since 2001 what has been the increase in the number of administrative positions at Northwest Community College?

[1105]

Hon. A. Virk: Thank you for the question from the member for Skeena. We do not track administrative positions separately from other positions.

Broadly, for the member's information, there's been some $25 million invested in Northwest Community College since 2001. That's an overall increase of about 25 percent, which will mean a variety of positions within that university would have increased with that increase in grants from the government in that period.

R. Austin: Obviously, I'm quite disappointed with that answer, because I would have thought that it was a critical piece of information for government to have. It's certainly a piece of information that many other ministries track to see what is being spent on the administrative side as
[ Page 1944 ]
opposed to what is being spent — how shall I put it? — more in the classroom, or the actual dollars that are put in front of the students. I would hope that…. If the ministry can perhaps look back into this and give me some data on that, I would appreciate it.

My next question. As I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, there's been an unfortunate amount of disputes that have happened within Northwest Community College. I'd like to know, if the minister could let us know: how much has Northwest Community College spent on legal fees for matters of labour relations associated with the laying off of about 30 employees in 2012?

In fact, to follow up, the reason why I think this is important is that the minister often stands in the House and quotes how important it is that all dollars that are put forward on behalf of the taxpayers are used for the best purposes of providing post-secondary education. Clearly, when we have an institution that has had to go to court, it would be interesting, I think, for the public to know to what extent those dollars that would have gone into educating our students has had to be spent on dealing with this dispute.

[1110]

Hon. A. Virk: As the member for Skeena may know, we do provide institutions with block operating funds. In the 2014-15 budget, it's indeed block operating funds.

We do not have specific details of the legal allocation, but we will certainly follow up on the member's question.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm looking forward to getting the answer to that.

There's a line item in the ministry's budget this year that is asking all of the post-secondary institutions to cut their administrative costs in order to save money.

My question is: if that is a specific request by the ministry, how is it that the minister and his staff are going to be able to know what savings are achieved in administrative costs if they don't actually track what the administrative costs are in the first instance?

Hon. A. Virk: Institutions are baselining their costs and are indeed tracking their savings for all administrative services projects as part of this reporting requirement. Even more, I'm happy to report that they're working collaboratively with each other across different sectors, and they're also working with ministry staff at the same time on this important work.

R. Austin: Sticking with savings in institutional administration costs, can I ask the minister: when institutional administrative savings are identified, are those funds going to be reallocated back into Northwest Community College programs, used for other purposes or returned to the Ministry of Advanced Education?

[1115]

Hon. A. Virk: The budgets collectively across all institutions have been reduced by $20 million in the 2014-2015 budget that we're here to discuss today. All savings identified by the institutions through the various projects are being retained by each institution.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

I'd like to ask a question with regards to the cutting of budgets for developmental education. As the government constantly tells us, and it's certainly true, in northwest B.C. there are a large number of big projects pending, most of which will require an increase in trades training in the area. Currently we have some projects going on — the Rio Tinto Alcan new smelter build and the northwest transmission line.

While these projects are taking place, we're seeing planeloads of people coming in from outside of the area, hopefully most of them from other parts of British Columbia, but also from the United States and other parts of the world. So I think it is incredibly important…. If these big projects that are pending actually come to fruition and we have a final investment decision, I think the minister would agree that it's very important that those who live in the area get to benefit first and foremost.

What we have seen, though, in the last number of years is cuts to the developmental education. What I'm specifically talking about is enabling students to upgrade their skills so they can even enter a trades program.

When I went back to community college in 1999 there were a number of programs that enabled people who were out of work to get that upgrading necessary. I'll just mention one.

[1120]

There was a program that enabled those who at that time were on social assistance. If they wanted to go back and get their grade 12 equivalency and do upgrading, they were able to go back to school and still maintain their ability to collect social assistance. They had their tuition paid. They had their transportation paid. They had their books paid. That was cut.

My question is this. Since 2001 what has been the cumulative effect of cutting budgets and programs in developmental education, which are essential programs for earning the grade 12 equivalency needed for entry into most trades and all academic and career programs? Can the minister tell us that?

Hon. A. Virk: Adult education programs throughout British Columbia are supported not only by the post-secondary system but also by the K-12 system as well. Annually my ministry spends about $100 million on adult basic education. In addition, we have community adult literacy programs that have supported about 84,000 adult learners since 2001.

Specific to the member having been an alumnus of Northwest Community College, obviously they've done
[ Page 1945 ]
a good job — that you've risen to these lofty heights.

[1125]

Northwest Community College actually has 11 programs out towards…. I'll give you an example of one or two of them: aboriginal literacy at Haida Gwaii and a community literacy program in Houston, Link to Learning in Houston. I'll be more than happy to provide the entire list to the member for Skeena, if he so wishes.

R. Austin: In spite of the efforts and the amount of dollars that are put into supporting those who need upgrading, there have been, unfortunately, a number of cutbacks over the last few years, which have not enabled people to go back to school who are in very hard financial circumstances. It's certainly had a cost in the community.

I think it's a fairly shortsighted one, because, as I say, we have a large pool of people who are not working and not in school. If there were greater facilities for them to go back to school, it would certainly be of advantage to all of them.

I'd like to move on, if I might, to another question to the minister. When Northwest Community College undertakes its core review, are community organizations, including First Nations, consulted? If so, what is the community consultation process for that core review?

Hon. A. Virk: As part of the core review, each institution is indeed developing their own process for consultation of their core review. We are just now starting to receive the interim progress reports. My understanding from Northwest Community College is that they're building their core review on their strategic plan process, which includes extensive community consultation.

R. Austin: Once the ministry receives the plans from the various institutions on how their consultation process is going to take place, can that be shared publicly with us and with everybody else?

[1130]

Hon. A. Virk: We'll endeavour to get back to Northwest Community College and ask them to follow up directly with the member on any consultation process that they embedded in their core review.

R. Austin: Excellent. Thank you to the minister for that.

My final question is this. It speaks to my concern around public dollars being used for their main purpose, which is to provide programs for students. This speaks, again going back, to some of the disputes that have been happening in the last few years within Northwest Community College.

I was wondering whether the minister could let us know what the turnover rate of employment of administrators at Northwest Community College has been over the last few years. What has been the severance and recruitment costs involved in this?

I recognize, right now as I ask the question, that it's unlikely that the minister and his staff will have that information at their disposal. So I'm going to follow up my own question by saying that if it isn't at his disposal, could I get that information at a later date once his staff has been able to find that out?

Hon. A. Virk: The member for Skeena is indeed correct. That information is not at my fingertips, but certainly, we'll follow up directly with the member on that.

[1135]

D. Eby: In the ministry's Aboriginal Post-Secondary Education and Training Policy Framework and Action Plan, subtitled Vision for the Future, the document cites three principles under an aboriginal post-secondary education and training policy framework "to increase participation, retention and success among aboriginal people" in B.C. for participation in school. There are three key principles.

This is relevant to our discussion at an earlier session. We were talking about the Native Education College, and the minister was stressing how that was a private institution. Therefore, I guess the implication was that they weren't entitled to the same level of funding as public institutions — or that it wasn't appropriate to compare them.

There were three principles around these schools. One is that the ministry should strengthen public post-secondary institutions in meeting the needs of aboriginal people. We've talked about that. Stabilize partnership agreements between public and aboriginal-controlled institutes — we've talked about that as well.

What I'd like to talk about is providing for designation of aboriginal-controlled institutes as public post-secondary institutions. Is there any area of this budget that will provide for designation of aboriginal-controlled institutes, like Native Education College, as public post-secondary institutions so that they can provide the services that urban aboriginal people so desperately need?

[1140]

Hon. A. Virk: The aboriginal policy framework and action plan, as mentioned by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, is indeed a multi-year and ambitious plan going until 2020. Good progress has been made on a number of the actions in plan, including an increase in the overall number of credentials awarded to aboriginal learners.

In 2014-15 there were no new budget items for the specific activity the member mentions above the $1.95 million that is already, as aforementioned — I believe it was yesterday or the day before — provided to NEC in the form of grants.
[ Page 1946 ]

D. Eby: The question of the educational opportunities for urban aboriginal people is a serious one, and it's a legal question under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court has said that decision-makers, like the minister, have not always considered the perspectives and needs of aboriginal people living off reserves. In particular, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples said:

"Before the commission began its work, little attention had been given to identifying and meeting the needs, interests and aspirations of urban aboriginal people. Little thought had been given to improving their circumstances, even though their lives were often desperate and relations between aboriginal people and the remainder of the urban population were fragile, if not hostile.

"The information and policy vacuum can be traced at least in part to a longstanding idea in non-aboriginal culture about where aboriginal people 'belong.'"

The court went on and said:

"Many Canadians think of aboriginal people as living on reserves or at least in rural areas. That perception is deeply rooted and persistently reinforced."

Quoting again from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples:

"There is a history in Canada of putting aboriginal people 'in their place,' on reserves and in rural communities. Aboriginal cultures and mores have been perceived as incompatible with the demands of industrialized urban society."

The court goes on to note that urban aboriginal people face a significant number of disadvantages and that this tendency to fund rural and on-reserve processes without considering the needs of urban aboriginal peoples is a systemic issue.

[1145]

I point to the Native Education College's per-student funding that comes from the ministry through a block grant, admittedly funnelled through a third party, but it's only $6,500 per student.

When you compare that to schools like Vancouver Community College, $8,300 a student, and Emily Carr, $9,500 a student, and then you start looking at schools that predominantly serve aboriginal people, the numbers don't even compare.

I guess the question to the minister is a simple one. Does this budget perpetuate the exact stereotype that the Supreme Court of Canada was concerned about, which is that urban aboriginal people are not treated as being equivalent in value in terms of a priority for the government as on-reserve and rural aboriginal communities?

If the budget does perpetuate that, will the minister commit to looking at the situation of Native Education College and other schools in a similar situation to make sure that they're at least getting equivalent funding to other schools in the system?

Hon. A. Virk: Aboriginal peoples do indeed live in urban settings all over British Columbia. We are very proud of the work we've done to support aboriginal students in all of our public post-secondary institutions across British Columbia. We're going to continue to work with our aboriginal partners to implement the Aboriginal Post-Secondary Education and Training Policy Framework and Action Plan.

[1150]

D. Eby: I wish we had more time so that I could follow up on that one as well. But unfortunately, we don't, and I need to make room for my colleague. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for his patience through this often challenging exercise and certainly his able and capable staff who have been here in this hot room through this whole process, and also, of course, the Clerks who have been here, the folks from Hansard, our able security force and also the other members who have been through here through this process.

Thank you all very much. It was a very successful estimates, and I look forward to being here in the next budget.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,935,671,000 — approved.

Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Chair, a big thanks to my team as well. They're, as usual, very thorough in their responses. And thanks to the member opposite and all of the members opposite that came with well-researched questions. I absolutely appreciate the manner in which they were presented.

If I may, I so move that the Committee of Supply, Section A, estimates completed…. I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

D. Eby: Mr. Chair, we're wrapping up here. This is the end?

The Chair: That's right. This is completion.

Hon. A. Virk: I don't ask leave to sit again. How about that?

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Your ministry is completed, but Committee A is continuing. We're going to keep it open.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.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