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 13, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 8, Number 4

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: Aujourd'hui c'est la célébration de la journée de la francophonie à Colombie-Britannique, B.C. Francophonie Day.

French language and culture are integral, of course, to our province's and our country's heritage. Since 2002 the province has joined Canada's other provinces and territories in formally recognizing March 20 as International Day of la Francophonie.

We have the pleasure today to have with us in the chambers Mr. Jean-Christophe Tallard-Fleury and Ms. Him Shin Sin from the consul general of France. We have Dr. Réal Roy, president of the Fédération des francophones de la Columbie-Britannique; Ms. Fadia Saad and Yolaine Petitclerc-Evans, respectively executive director and president of Société Radio Communautaire Victoria, and other members of our B.C. francophone community. Will the House please join me in making them feel most welcome.

M. Mungall: [French was spoken.]

I'd also like to introduce the House to Michelle Tallico. She's up in the gallery today. She's a single mom here in Victoria, and this is her first time attending question period. May the House please make her very welcome.

Tributes

G. JACK HARRIS

Hon. M. de Jong: There is great sadness in Abbotsford today and across the B.C. legal community. One of the province's most respected trial lawyers, G. Jack Harris, suddenly and unexpectedly passed away yesterday.

Jack, in addition to being a remarkable trial lawyer and skilled jurist, was noted for his zest, love of life, his sense of humour — frequently revealed in the strange circumstances that often characterize very serious trials and criminal trials. But he was also a great friend, particularly to younger members of the bar, many of whom benefited greatly over the years from his willingness to tutor and mentor in a variety of different ways.

The only thing that Jack will be noted more for than his skill in a courtroom is his philanthropy in the community. He was generous in the extreme, and no cause was too small to attract his attention and support.

To his wife, Lynne, and their daughters, this will be a very difficult time, given the circumstances of the last 48 hours. I know that you and the House will join me in passing condolences along to the family of G. Jack Harris.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: It's my pleasure today to introduce guests from the B.C. branch of the Kidney
[ Page 2198 ]
Foundation of Canada. The foundation is celebrating its 50th year, and the member for Kootenay West and I were privileged to attend the Shine a Light Kidney Gala last week at the Telus World of Science to celebrate with them their 50 years.

Here in B.C. we recognize the importance of advocacy, as one in ten people is affected by kidney disease. With early detection, the progression of renal disease can often be slowed down and, through medication and a healthy lifestyle, can sometimes be stopped entirely.

We thank the B.C. branch of the Kidney Foundation for their efforts. We have a number of members of the foundation. They're led by Ron Walker, who is the president of the B.C. branch, and Dr. Adeera Levin, who is the executive director of the B.C. Renal Agency. Would the House please make them very welcome today.

C. James: I have four members in the gallery today from the Michigan garden, which was recently renamed the neighbourhood garden of all sorts. Dionne Kreischer and Sherri Loken are weekly pickers who gather the produce to take to the James Bay New Horizons and to the James Bay Community Project to be shared.

[1010]

Peggy Mohrfeld, who is the longest-standing garden member, has been there from the beginning, and Dionne's ten-year-old son, Finn Kreischer, helps out at the garden on the monthly workdays. I understand he is an expert at the wheelbarrow and at picking raspberries. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Michelle Stilwell: I have two introductions today. First, I'd like to welcome the students from Parksville Elementary School. These grade 5 students are accompanied by Ms. Manuela Raviglione. The students are currently roaming the halls of our historic building, so if you see them around today, I ask that you all make them feel welcome and perhaps give them a high-five or two.

I'd also like to welcome to the House Ron Walker. Ron is one of my constituents from Parksville-Qualicum, and he's in Victoria today to offer support for people living with kidney disease, today being World Kidney Day. Ron is the president of the B.C. branch of the Kidney Foundation, and he has shared his knowledge about the disease with our government caucus. Please join me in thanking Ron, and give him a warm welcome.

C. Trevena: In the gallery today as part of the delegation from the Kidney Foundation of Canada is the executive director of the B.C. branch, who also happens to be a constituent of mine, Karen Philp. I hope the House will give her a very warm welcome — and continue in the good work that they are doing on the issue of kidney disease.

D. Horne: Madame Speaker, on your behalf, I'd like to introduce to the House two visitors from Richmond. Laurie and Darryl Drummond are here in the gallery today for their first time at question period. May the House make them truly welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to thank the Kidney Foundation for their presentation this morning to the opposition caucus — it was very informative — and for the gala that we were at last Thursday. It was excellent, and it showed the real need for education around kidney disease in the province.

Just to add to the minister's and my colleague's introductions, two of the people who were here this morning are actually recipients of kidney transplants. Guy Lapierre is from Port Coquitlam, and Bonnie Leclair is from Quesnel. There's also Dr. Robin Leary, who's from Prince George. Catherine Turner is the president of the National Aboriginal Diabetes Association. It shows how closely the Kidney Foundation and the Renal Agency work with other agencies in this province. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Dalton: In the gallery today we have Tim Schindel. That's not a surprise. He's here most days watching question period. He is the president of Leading Influence, and he's also the unofficial legislative chaplain here serving both sides of the House. Also, he heads up PrayBC. Almost every day they choose one of us that most needs it, and it goes back and forth. We all need it, so we all get prayed for. If we just can express our appreciation to Tim and his organization, I know it will be appreciated.

S. Fraser: It's March 13, which is also significant in that it's the birthday of my wife and partner and love of my life, Dolores. And I'm here, so there's no better way to say "I love you" than through the wonders of Hansard. Would this House please join me in wishing Dolores a very, very happy birthday.

S. Hammell: There are many students and their teachers and parents here from Strawberry Hill Elementary School in the southwest corner of Surrey–Green Timbers. This is a fabulous school with 68 percent of the students in the ESL program, yet this school has shown continuous progress since 2009 in an infamous comparison of B.C. schools done yearly. I'd like the members of the House to make these children and their parents and their teachers very welcome.

[1015]

M. Hunt: As a new MLA, I'm still learning the rules of the House and how procedures work, but my learned friend from Alberni–Pacific Rim has instructed me on how we express love in this House. Today is also my wife's birthday as well as my mother-in-law's birthday. I cannot do less than to wish both of them a very happy birthday here in the House, and I ask the House to help me express my love to them.

K. Conroy: It's not my husband's birthday.

But for those of you who are desperate in this province for some really exciting hockey, you might want to make your way to Castlegar this weekend. The Selkirk College men's hockey team will look to capture their second consecutive B.C. Intercollegiate Hockey League championship when they take on Trinity Western University in a best-of-three league finals, with the series beginning on Friday.

Last weekend the Selkirk Saints advanced to their second consecutive finals with a victory over Thompson Rivers University from Kamloops — sorry, guys from Kamloops. The Saints swept the series with the best of three games against the WolfPack.

The game is set to kick off on Friday night at the complex in Castlegar. I'm looking forward to some excellent hockey and invite you all.

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I wasn't necessarily going to stand, but having the spousal birthdays, if a certain spouse of mine was watching today and I didn't stand in accord with the others, there may be a little bit of trouble at home. My longest supporter, the father of our three wonderful children, my dear husband who has helped me so much over the years — it is also today, March 13, his birthday. So I hope the House will join me in saying happy birthday.

J. Horgan: Although we won't be sitting on Monday, I just want to say to all those of Irish ancestry who will be celebrating on Monday: happy St. Patrick's Day.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M204 — PARLIAMENTARY
CALENDAR ACT, 2014

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2014.
[ Page 2199 ]

J. Horgan: I move that the bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2014, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: The Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2014, sets a firm parliamentary schedule for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia which includes both a spring and a fall session.

The B.C. Legislature only sat for 36 days in 2013, the fewest number of days in any year since 2001. During the 37th parliament the government argued that our standing orders needed significant amendments to maintain the balance between the will of government and the necessity of appropriate accountability.

In order to avoid granting government the authority to invoke closure on business, a fixed date in the spring and a fall session was done, and the government remained accountable. However, at some point since that time, the government has lost its way.

Since my election in 2005 the legislative session in the fall has been cancelled three times and on two occasions sat for less than seven days. The government has chosen to invoke time limits and closure on key pieces of legislation to avoid a fall session and duck accountability. This government has chosen political expediency over political and public accountability.

This bill will prevent the government from cancelling future fall sessions and ensure that we're all here to do the work of the people of British Columbia as we were sent to do.

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

Bill M204, Parliamentary Calendar Act, 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.

BILL 11 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. The amendments will accomplish objectives respecting implementing land use plan recommendations, realizing the goals of government-to-government agreements with First Nations, fostering economic opportunities and correcting administrative errors.

The provisions of the bill will add lands or marine waters to two class A parks and six conservancies. More than 33,000 hectares of land will be added to two conservancies established in 2012 from the implementation of the Atlin Taku land use plan.

[1020]

Marine foreshore areas totalling more than 22,700 hectares will be added to four existing conservancies that were established as a result of the 2006 coast land use decision. Lands will be added to two class A parks, Syringa Park in the Kootenays and Paul Lake Park near Kamloops.

Further, the provisions in this bill will modify the boundaries of one ecological reserve, six class A parks and one conservancy to exclude a residence and transfer the administration of lands to Canada; to remove lands required by the city of Campbell River for its replacement water system project; to enable the transfer of administration of 26 recreational lots to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; to provide access to safe drinking water; to remove a community water development from a park; and to provide an easement to a private holding.

Finally, the amendments make minor changes to the names of three conservancies, add a First Nation name to one class A park and correct administrative errors.

On one administrative note, I want to point out to all members that the Office of the Clerk will be provided with copies of the official plans — in other words, mapped boundaries — for their review that depict the boundaries of the amended ecological reserve and most of the parks and conservancies.

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

Bill 11, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

KIDNEY HEALTH

K. Conroy: Today is World Kidney Day, and March is Kidney Month. Our kidneys are the master chemists of the body, about the size of your fist and actually looking just like a kidney bean.

Kidney disease is, unfortunately, on the rise, often unrecognized and incurable. Many of the symptoms are
[ Page 2200 ]
silent until almost 80 percent of the kidney function is lost. That is why screening and early detection are so important.

The Kidney Foundation of Canada, which is celebrating 50 years of service, is launching a new on-line risk assessment tool at kidney.ca. Take it and find out if you are at risk of kidney disease. Again, there is no cure. Once kidney function is compromised, you require dialysis or a transplant to stay alive. What can you do to ensure healthy kidneys? Drink lots of water, eat healthy, exercise and cut back on salt and stress — not often easy in this job.

To help the thousands of people in B.C. living with kidney disease, please consider making a donation to the Kidney Foundation or becoming an organ donor yourself. Both can be done at the kidney.ca website, and it will tell you if you are a registered organ donor or not.

If you are feeling particularly generous, you might even consider a live donation of one of your own kidneys. We have two and can get by just fine with one. In fact, they won't take your donation if there are any concerns.

People often comment on what a selfless act it was for me to donate a kidney to a stranger in Toronto, but my response is that I benefited. I got to see my husband, Ed, thriving from a healthy kidney — no more dialysis — and be part of our kids' and grandkids' lives, although I sometimes think it is the birth of the dozen or more baby cows he delivers every year that makes him just as happy.

Actually, the selfless act was the person who donated their kidney to Ed — someone we will probably never meet, who wasn't actually part of our domino donation, wasn't connected to any of the donors or recipients. They were an altruistic donor who, in our eyes, is the real hero.

I ask all of you to do something healthy for yourselves. Give a toast of water to say thanks to everyone involved with the Kidney Foundation and kidney health in B.C.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

N. Letnick: That was very moving. Thank you very much.

I am pleased to announce the proclamation of March 20, 2014, as Journée de la francophonie à Colombie-Britannique. Since the House will not be sitting on that day, this event will be celebrated at lunch here today in the rotunda.

The theme of this year's celebration is: "Our francophonie goes far and wide." Francophonie and francophiles shape a considerable segment of our society in British Columbia. They hold a significant place in the demography of our province.

Today we launch a new web-based mapping platform for French services. The map application will assist francophones and francophiles in finding French services in early childhood, education, health, the economy and health sectors throughout British Columbia.

Today's proclamation of B.C. Francophonie Day honours our vibrant and dynamic French-speaking community of more than 70,000 francophones, as well as about 300,000 British Columbians who speak French. Our francophonie is an invaluable part of our heritage and contributes to improving the social, economic, political and cultural fabric of our province and our country.

[1025]

Partout au pays, des Canadiens choisissent de vivre et de s’épanouir en français. Félicitations à tous les francophones et francophiles Britanno-Colombiens pour leur contribution. Bonne journée de la francophonie! Merci.

[All over the country, Canadians choose to live and prosper in French. Congratulations to all Francophone and Francophile British Columbians for their contribution. Have a great francophonie day! Thank you.]

[French text provided by N. Letnick.]

MICHIGAN STREET COMMUNITY GARDEN

C. James: For more than a dozen years a dedicated group of green thumbs have been making a part of James Bay come alive just steps from the Legislature. The Michigan Street community garden was created when LifeCycles, the James Bay Community Project and interested community members came up with an inspired idea to build a community garden. They knew there was a vacant green space near the corner of Michigan and Menzies, and they approached the provincial government for the go-ahead.

Today there are 20 raised garden plots, a fantastic oasis surrounded by parking lots and government buildings. This little garden is a source of recreation, relaxation, education and sustainable food production for the community. The garden receives hundreds of positive comments from travellers and residents passing by, with many sharing their knowledge or wondering about how to start one in their neighbourhood. It's also a stop on my walks with my grandchildren to stop and see what's growing and to admire the new plants and flowers

Community gardens like this one promote urban agriculture, food security and nutritious food production. They make it possible for citizens to eat locally and know exactly what went into growing their food, without genetically modified organisms or herbicides.

The province has now sold the property, and there's a redevelopment proposed, so the Michigan Street community garden will need to move and put roots down elsewhere. The new owners of the garden property have generously agreed to allow this year's planting to proceed and to give organizers time to look for a new home.

I'm hopeful that with a little help from its friends the Michigan Street garden will sprout once again. The garden is small, but a growing group of green thumbs is dedicated to many more happy, productive years of
[ Page 2201 ]
planting, growing, sharing the harvest and supporting one another and the environment now and for generations to come.

We all say thank you to the Michigan Street gardeners for brightening our neighbourhood in so many ways.

COWBOYS AND RANCHING HERITAGE

D. Barnett: From the grasslands of the Fraser-Nicola, the grasslands of the Boundary-Similkameen country and the rugged landscapes of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, cowboy culture can be found throughout our province. The cowboy spirit is about having a can-do attitude, taking pride in your work and determination to always get the job done.

For over two centuries these values have been passed down through generations, beginning with the first homesteaders, who settled the communities that we live in today, to the rancher that wakes up at five in the morning to treat a newborn calf. As cities become bigger and we become more dependent on technology, now more than ever we need to tell the stories to preserve the history and impact of British Columbia's cowboy culture and ranching heritage.

Therefore, it is an honour to stand in the House today to recognize and speak to the contribution of cowboys and ranchers in British Columbia. Thanks to the hard work of volunteer organizations that help cowboy culture and heritage, these stories can continue to be told to the next generation of British Columbians.

The hard-working volunteers of the B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society help generate so much interest in our shared history by organizing community events such as the annual 100 Mile House Cowboy Concert; the Cowboy Hall of Fame at the Museum of the Cariboo and Williams Lake; and the Kamloops Cowboy Festival, which starts today.

This year's festival in Kamloops will feature some of the best country and western music you will ever hear and cowboy poetry performances, including two very talented poets from the Cariboo-Chilcotin, Frank Gleeson and Corky Williams. Cowboy artists and artisans will be there. Join me in celebrating British Columbia's cowboy heritage this weekend.

CANADIAN ATHLETES AT
2014 PARALYMPIC GAMES IN SOCHI

S. Robinson: I stand once more in the House with the heart of an athlete and a competitive spirit to match. This time I rise to acknowledge and recognize another group of athletes who demonstrate commitment, perseverance and dedication to their sport.

[1030]

The member for Parksville-Qualicum spoke of the Sochi Paralympic Games last week, reminding us that they started this past Friday and will conclude on March 16.

I thought that as Sport critic I would take the opportunity to report on how our fine athletes are doing in the competitions. With three days left, Canada has won ten medals. Three are from British Columbia athletes.

Joshua Dueck from Vernon won a silver in the men's downhill sitting. This is his second Paralympic Games. At the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Games he was a silver medallist in slalom and placed fifth in downhill and 13th in super-G.

In February 2012 Dueck shot to international acclaim when he went upside down and became the first sit-skier to complete a backflip on snow, earning him worldwide notoriety and an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. The Kimberly, B.C., native is a powder hound when not racing and has gone cat-skiing and heli-skiing with his sit-ski, something I don't even do on my standing skies.

Kimberly Joines won a bronze. She's from Rossland. She won her bronze in the women's slalom sitting event. She's one of the world's best female sit-skiers. She's a two-time IPC world champion and a 22-time IPC World Cup winner. Joines, who suffered a spinal cord injury in a terrain park accident, returned to competition in 2011-12 after recovering from a serious injury that ruled her out of the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games.

Caleb Brosseau won a bronze. He's from Terrace. He won in the men's super-G sitting. He joined the para-alpine ski team in 2011-12. He has recorded five top-ten finishes at IPC World Cup and world championship events. This sit-skier is consistently working his was towards the podium.

Finally, I want to make note that in sledge hockey for Canada, we are currently losing 3-0. We want them to play like girls.

WORLD KIDNEY DAY

Michelle Stilwell: On behalf of my constituents in Parksville-Qualicum, I am pleased to speak today of the importance of World Kidney Day, a day that brings attention to those suffering from kidney disease.

It's estimated that one in ten British Columbians has kidney disease, but most people don't even know it. That's because more than 90 percent of the people with early stage kidney disease have no symptoms at all. Most people with early stage kidney disease won't even realize it until their kidneys begin to fail.

A positive impact that World Kidney Day can have is to increase the public profile of this disease. Because kidney disease can often go unnoticed, it's important that people understand the risks. We can all make changes to our lifestyle, changes that will reduce the risk of or prevent kidney disease altogether.

Early detection of kidney disease can delay or even
[ Page 2202 ]
prevent the onset of kidney failure. If kidney disease is not treated, it will eventually require dialysis or a transplant. However, if kidney disease is diagnosed early, its progression can often be slowed and sometimes stopped. Medication and changes to lifestyle and diet really can make a difference.

I'd like to take a moment to commend the B.C. Renal Agency. It's the organization that plans and monitors the delivery of kidney care services throughout our province. I encourage everyone to learn more about this agency and about kidney disease.

The Renal Agency has resources available on line, including a tool that helps you assess your risk. Check it out at kidneysmart.com. Please, spread the word about kidney disease and stay informed.

Oral Questions

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS

A. Dix: A question to the Minister of Health. Can he confirm that primary care programs at community health centres such as Evergreen, South and Pacific Spirit in Vancouver are slated to be shut down?

Hon. T. Lake: I am not aware of that. I will take that on notice and get back to the member.

[1035]

PREVENTIVE CARE PROGRAMS AT
MID-MAIN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

J. Darcy: The Mid-Main Community Health Centre in Vancouver serves over 5,000 patients. It provides highly effective diabetes group visits, programs for people with multiple chronic conditions like kidney disease and heart failure, and home visits for the frail elderly.

Earlier this week staff at Mid-Main learned that cuts to their budget will result in the loss of a nurse practitioner and medical office assistants, whose roles are absolutely indispensable to all of those programs. Why? Because health authorities are scrambling as this government continues to underfund those very programs.

How can the Minister of Health possibly justify these shortsighted cuts to high-quality preventive care for people with kidney disease, with diabetes and for the frail elderly? How can he justify those cuts?

Hon. T. Lake: I've heard members on both sides of this House talk about the excellent health care system we have here in British Columbia. I think we all agree on that.

We take a triple-aim approach to health care, meaning that we look at the health of the population. Might I point out that we have the best health outcomes in all of Canada. We look at the health of the individual and the patient experience, and we also look at value for money, because we know that if the costs of the health care system outpace economic growth and outpace population growth, it is simply not sustainable.

By growing the economy, we will be able to support the best health care system in Canada, which is what British Columbia currently has.

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

J. Darcy: Let me talk about the triple-aim approach as it relates to the Mid-Main Community Health Centre in Vancouver. This community health centre is at the cutting edge of providing innovative services to high-risk patients with multiple conditions. Their preventive care programs with multidisciplinary teams save money for the health care system. They save lots of it.

Just one example: a high-risk diabetic patient with a strong relationship to a family doctor costs an average of $6,000 a year in hospital visits, but a patient without that relationship costs about $17,000 per year. That's a saving of $11,000 per patient per year.

In light of the savings that result from innovative preventive programs like Mid-Main's, will this government take action and reverse these cuts to high-quality care that's good for patients and good for saving health care dollars for the budget in British Columbia? Will he take action to reverse those cuts?

Hon. T. Lake: We spend almost $17 billion every year on health care in the province of British Columbia, and 42 percent of the provincial budget is dedicated to providing health services to the people of British Columbia.

There is an additional $2.5 billion over the next three years going into health care in this province. We have spent over $8 billion on new health care facilities throughout the province. We are committed to providing the highest-level of health care to the citizens of British Columbia, but we also are going to do it in a way that is sustainable to ensure our children and grandchildren have that same great health care system tomorrow.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
INTO BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION

H. Bains: The botched investigation into the Babine sawmill explosion clearly highlighted the dysfunction at WorkSafe B.C., the very organization whose mandate is to protect the health and safety of working people. They're clearly failing at their mandate.

Now we learn that WorkSafe B.C. had tools to do a proper investigation, going as far back as 2007, and they failed to use those tools in this investigation.

[1040]

It is the Justice Minister whose responsibility it is for public safety. Will she order a full public inquiry into
[ Page 2203 ]
the Burns Lake explosion which will fully investigate why WorkSafe B.C. is failing to keep workers safe in this province?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, he is well aware of the action taken by the Premier, recognizing that there do indeed need to be changes made at WorkSafe and, certainly, in terms of the communication and expectations between both Crown and WorkSafe. A number of recommendations from a highly regarded and amazing public servant, John Dyble, said clearly that there were recommendations that needed to see an improvement in the protocol. There's also going to be an ongoing discussion about how information is shared.

We also know that most recently Chief Coroner Lisa Lapointe has said that she intends to conduct a coroner's inquest, which will result in the opportunity that families are looking for to have that information examined, shared and recommendations created.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: We know the complete failure of WorkSafe B.C. The workers have been dying in this province under the watch of this government, and no one has been held accountable criminally. WorkSafe B.C. is failing its mandate under the watch of that government. It means in this particular case, also, no one will be held criminally accountable. WorkSafe B.C. is obviously failing, and the people of British Columbia deserve to know why.

WorkSafe B.C. had the tools to properly investigate the Burns Lake explosion. They could have used those tools, such as search warrants and other proper investigation tools. They did not do so, and the victims and the families deserve to know why.

The investigations announced to date, as the minister mentioned, don't go far enough. The coroner's inquest can't assign blame. These investigations won't keep workers safe. Only a complete public inquiry will get to the bottom of this. Will the minister in charge of public safety call an independent public inquiry into the Burns Lake explosion so that we can get to the bottom of this?

Hon. S. Bond: None of us will forget the very emotional and poignant moments when members of families were actually here in Victoria and in the gallery. That's what drives us to ensure that the recommendations that have been provided by John Dyble will be fully implemented by WorkSafe and Crown.

What is really additionally unfortunate in this chamber is that the member opposite writes off all of the good work of hundreds of people who work for WorkSafe, hard-working individuals who do their best every single day. He writes them off.

In fact, yes, there are issues with this investigation, and we intend to ensure they are fixed. But we want to stand in this House today and say that many, many men and women who work in WorkSafe today do the very best they can and do a very good job on behalf of British Columbians.

N. Macdonald: The Premier, the minister, this government, have admitted that there was a massive failure with WorkSafe. That's been admitted. The responsibility does not sit with the workers. It sits only in one place, and that's with the government and with the minister responsible. That's where the failure sits.

[1045]

The fact is that a coroner's inquest is clearly welcome, but as my colleague has said, a coroner's inquest is limited. It does not assign blame. It clearly does not meet the needs that the families have articulated and that the workers in British Columbia deserve. There is only one thing that is going to meet the needs of the families that the minister references, and that is a full public inquest.

The question to the minister again: when are those families going to get the justice they deserve? When are workers going to be protected in the way that they deserve? When is there going to be a full public inquest into what took place at Babine?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, in the words of the chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe…. She said that the coroner's inquest is the best venue to address the many concerns and questions raised about how and why the explosion happened.

The question about whether or not a public inquiry would change the outcomes was asked. It was one of the first things that we did to ensure that we could say to families…. We asked that question. We asked one of Canada's finest lawyers. In fact, he has done a number of very significant, very challenging cases here in British Columbia, and what he said was: "You've asked me whether a public inquiry could result in the reconsideration of a decision by Crown counsel. I can confirm that a decision of Crown counsel to approve or not approve changes is not a prior subject for…a public inquiry."

Every member in this House wants to ensure that we do as much as we possibly can, and I have been the first to say that words are not enough for families. Action is required. That's why we expect WorkSafe to make changes and for them to cooperate with Crown to ensure that this does not happen again.

CREDITOR PROTECTION FOR
REGISTERED DISABILITY AND
EDUCATION SAVINGS PLANS

A. Weaver: Most provinces, including British Columbia, have recognized the importance of protecting RRSPs and RIFs from creditors in the event of personal bankruptcy. They've passed legislation to protect these
[ Page 2204 ]
registered plans from being seized during bankruptcy. This provides a bankrupt individual a glimmer of hope that they will not be destitute in their old age. Here in B.C. such seizures are governed by the 1996 Court Order Enforcement Act.

In 2008 the federal government passed legislation to allow for the creation of registered disability savings plans. These are called RDSPs. The RDSP is a tax-deferred, long-term savings plan for people with disabilities who want to save for the future. Unfortunately, under the same act, RDSPs are not listed as a registered plan and are therefore not exempt from creditor protection.

My question is to the Justice Minister. It's this. Does the government have a plan to provide creditor protection for disabled individuals as in, for example, the province of Alberta?

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the member opposite for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, because it is an important one. Our government is committed to modernizing our laws and keeping them up with protecting our vulnerable citizens. When new things come along, like this particular plan, it has to keep up as well. It is an important issue for people with disabilities and their families.

We are looking at it as part of the general review of the Court Order Enforcement Act. We're looking at our legislation. We're comparing it with other provinces to ensure harmonization. There are complex questions attached to the issue, I'm told, but we will be looking at those. I'd be glad to keep the member abreast of where we're going and keep him involved in the discussion, because it is a matter that needs to be addressed.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member from Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: The province of Alberta actually, just this past December, also passed legislation to provide creditor protection for RESPs, the registered educational savings plans. My question again is: does the government have a similar plan to protect a child who, through no fault of their own, might see their education investment seized by creditors?

[1050]

Hon. S. Anton: Again, I would be very glad to have a look at that one as well. I think that the thoughts behind it are the same. I appreciate the member bringing it to our attention. I'd be glad to work with him moving forward on it.

GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON CRIME IN SURREY

S. Hammell: Serious crimes are on the rise in Surrey. A record 25 people were murdered in Surrey in 2013. In 2013 our city saw 28 percent more sexual assaults, 37 percent more abductions and 41 percent more cases of identity theft than we did the year before. Breaking and entering, motor vehicle theft, cocaine possession — they're all on the rise.

Why does the Minister of Justice continue to ignore the crime problems facing our fastest-growing city?

Hon. S. Anton: Surrey has indeed had a terrible homicide rate last year, culminating with the death of Ms. Julie Paskall, which horrified everybody. Everybody in this chamber can imagine going and picking up a child at a rink and how safe an activity that should be.

That's why I have been in touch with the mayor on numerous occasions. I have met with the mayor. We are talking with her through police, through courts, as to how we can help in the provincial government. Essentially, community safety is community-led, and the mayor has put together her task force. They have reported out. They have some recommendations. I am committed to working with her, to help the mayor and to help Surrey move forward with their community safety programs.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: In the throne speech this government promised to eliminate violence in this province. Then a week later they cut funding for victim services and crime.

Curbing violence takes more than a slogan. Our members from Surrey have called on all three levels of government to support a Surrey accord, a collection of real measures aimed at improving health and safety in Surrey. People are calling for more policing, community courts, regulation of recovery homes, a real mental health strategy and increased access to social housing. We asked the people of Surrey if they agreed with these measures to reduce crime, and 69 percent of Surrey residents have said yes.

Will the Minister of Justice tell us why this government would rather cling to slogans than to support a real initiative that could improve lives in Surrey?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned, community safety is community-based. Community safety in Surrey is taken up under the leadership of the mayor, who is very active in leading this initiative, in leading her task force and putting forward recommendations from our police officers for better social services and for other things in Surrey that will help community safety in Surrey.

We are helping, in the provincial government. I'll mention another initiative. We now have a plan for new courtrooms in Surrey, and we are committed to working with the city of Surrey. In fact, my team is already working with her team to establish what the optimum use is
[ Page 2205 ]
of those courtrooms in Surrey.

We're working on policing, we're working on courts, and we're working on other initiatives to help the mayor of Surrey, to help the citizens of Surrey have their community be a safe place. Crime rates are going down, but they did have some very significant tragedies last year. We're helping them to make sure that does not happen again.

B. Ralston: Clearly, the provincial government has a huge role in these matters as well. People in Surrey clearly want their governments at all levels to work together to bring more policing, regulated recovery houses, a mental health strategy, more accessible social housing and a community court.

[1055]

When appointing the Justice Minister, the Premier said: "When things need to be fixed, she will be there to fix them." Will the Minister of Justice join with us today and help fix Surrey's rising crime problem by supporting the comprehensive Surrey accord?

Hon. S. Anton: I believe I've already answered the question. Indeed we are in touch with Mayor Watts on numerous occasions, have met with Mayor Watts and are working with Mayor Watts to help her on the community initiatives, on her initiatives to make Surrey a safer place.

Public safety, community safety is community-led. It is for Surrey to determine and is determining through its task force what it needs, and it is for us to help where we can. We've made a very strong commitment to the mayor of Surrey to do that.

We're working on a B.C. policing and community safety plan. We have a plan for courtroom expansion in Surrey. We give more than $1.6 million in annual funding to Surrey programs that aid victims of crime and women and children impacted by violence. We have provided $470,000 from civil forfeiture to support crime prevention efforts in Surrey. We have massive investments in crime prevention and fighting gangs and organized crime around British Columbia, including, obviously, helping Surrey as well.

We are very committed to helping the public safety initiatives in the city of Surrey.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: I'm disappointed to hear that the Minister of Justice is not prepared to support the Surrey accord. Perhaps that's something she might want to take up with the member for Abbotsford South, who heads up a task force on real measures to help prevent crime here in British Columbia.

Just recently the federal government announced it's putting an end to its community safety officer program. Surrey already ranks 31st in the province in the number of police officers per capita, despite having one of the highest crime rates in B.C. Now we will lose the work that those ten community police officers do.

This is a striking example of why all three levels of government need to start working together on this issue, and that's exactly what the Surrey accord, which we are proposing, is designed to do. It also has widespread community support in Surrey.

Will the minister step forward — I'll give her another opportunity — and commit to working together in moving forward with the Surrey accord so that people in Surrey know that this government is committed to a better future for Surrey?

Hon. S. Anton: Indeed I am. I will answer enthusiastically yes, committed to working together with the mayor of Surrey — highly committed.

I was on the phone with the mayor of Surrey on New Year's Day to discuss their crime issues in Surrey. The mayor of Surrey and I have been in touch ever since, talking about these initiatives. We've had a meeting in Surrey. We put money into Surrey and are helping Surrey on their other initiatives. If Surrey wishes to have more police officers, that, of course, is a local initiative. If they wish more police officers, they will have more police officers.

We are very committed through courts, through policing, through public safety initiatives to help Surrey to become the safe community that it wishes to become, under the leadership of its mayor and council.

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN LES TO
EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS PROCESS

S. Simpson: The government's procurement policy requires that all contracts valued at more than $75,000 be posted for open competition. The position filled for a day by John Les was never posted. Can the Attorney General explain why she broke the rules and failed to post this position?

Hon. S. Anton: Two days ago I announced an extremely important public safety initiative. That may not interest the members opposite, but I can assure you that it does interest people in British Columbia.

[1100]

We need to be safe in British Columbia. We need to have public safety in place. We need to have citizens ready, communities ready and the province ready in case of a disaster.

We appointed two co-chairs. I appointed them through my ministry. I announced the appointment. That was my decision. The contract for one of them did not fit within….

Interjections.
[ Page 2206 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: The dollars for one of them did not fit within our goals of keeping government small. So we will go with the one chair, because it is so important for British Columbia that we carry on with this very important public safety initiative in the province.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

WHOLESALE PRICING IN
LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

S. Simpson: Well, since the minister's not prepared to answer the question about why she broke the rules around the procurement policy, we'll try something different.

Last summer in estimates I asked the minister if her predecessor's argument for a one-wholesale-price system for liquor distribution in B.C. was something that the minister was still considering. The minister responded in estimates last year, saying: "The question of one wholesale price did get assessed at the time, and the assessment concluded that there would be significant impacts. There would be winners and losers. It would have been extremely disruptive to the industry and very complicated, so the decision was made not to go there."

To the minister, does she still support her statement from July, and if not, why not?

Hon. S. Anton: The Premier of British Columbia struck a real chord when she determined that there needed to a widespread review of liquor in British Columbia. Now, it started off with the sort of silly rules as to why you couldn't carry a beer across a hotel corridor. It has ended up in a very broad-based discussion of retail liquor, wholesale and liquor consumption in the province.

My Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor did one piece of that. But the project, of course, has grown so as to take in consumption, retail, wholesale and, indeed, pricing, because the consultation demonstrated that there was widespread interest in looking at all facets of liquor. That's what we have done.

I think that the province of British Columbia is happy that we have done that. We are changing the rules. We are changing the rules for consumption. We are changing the rules for retail. We are changing the rules for wholesale. It has widespread support amongst our stakeholders.

That is what we are doing. It's a big, broad-based review. It's the first one in many, many years. I think the province is very appreciative that we're doing it.

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL OF TRADITIONAL
CHINESE MEDICINE AT
KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: In estimates last week the Minister of Advanced Education finally admitted that this government won't provide any funding for the new traditional Chinese medicine school at Kwantlen University. Instead of funding Kwantlen's traditional Chinese medicine school, the Premier and Minister of Advanced Education gave the member for Burnaby North a brand-new role as the parliamentary secretary responsible for the school of traditional Chinese medicine.

With the Premier's continuing cuts to post-secondary education in this province, schools like Kwantlen have no money for new programs. This means it'll come out of the pockets of students or out of existing programs at the school.

Will the Minister of Advanced Education stand up and confirm now what he left out of his press release, and what the Premier left out of her election platform — that students at Kwantlen will be the ones paying for the Premier's election promise?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite certainly left out a lot of the facts, which has become quite predictable. You may recall in the balanced budget that there's $750 million in the next three years that are planned for capital improvements across British Columbia.

[1105]

As I recall, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake joined me last week — just last week — in the photo op to congratulate the community of Victoria on the sod-turning ceremony for Camosun College. I'm more than willing to share the photograph with the member opposite.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. A. Virk: I'd be more than happy to share the photograph afterwards as well.

We have a world-class system, and we're committed to keeping it world-class.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Horgan: I have a petition signed by 68 residents in the Mill Hill area of my constituency of Juan de Fuca, to add to the petition I tabled last week, calling on the government to gift the lands that are for sale at the Provincial Capital Commission so that they can be maintained as green space coming from Goldstream Park into the city of Victoria.
[ Page 2207 ]

C. Trevena: I have a petition of several dozen people, to add to the 1,300 people who submitted a petition from Bowen Island who are petitioning, saying that the ferry is an essential service seven days a week, including non-peak hours.

In today's day and age a core level of service must be maintained to accommodate shift workers, business professionals, secondary and university students and families, including families where both parents need to go to work at different hours to support themselves.

Families and individuals moved to Bowen Island knowing that B.C. Ferries was their lifeline to the outside world, with well-established ferry runs to meet everyday needs. This includes medical appointments, specialist appointments and extracurricular activities to maintain social and physical health. Infrastructure like a community centre or ice rink or swimming pool or movie theatre does not exist. A medical visit off-island might also include a medical clinic or a hospital, as both crucial services are not available on Bowen Island.

In Bowen Island municipality's 2012 household survey, 83.3 percent of those rated Bowen Island as a good or very good place to raise a family. These family values will be eroded as many families will need to leave the….

Madame Speaker: Member, can I ask you to conclude your remarks.

C. Trevena: Financial implications for the already fragile Bowen Island businesses via both decreased local expenditures and decreased tourism will be immeasurable. They request the House to take these on notice.

J. Sturdy: I rise today to submit a petition on behalf of 53 of my esteemed constituents representing the Canadian Federation of University Women of West Vancouver, expressing concerns regarding poverty in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development; and in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 4, Park Amendment Act.

[1110]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On section 1.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister and her staff. If she's able to identify the staff when she gets up to answer the first question, that would be great — just for people at home to know the able staff members of the Ministry of Environment so that if they have more detailed questions down the road, they'll know who to follow up with. That would be helpful.

Section 1, section 9(5) — what it does, I'm told, is amend the Park Act by striking out "in a park of any class having an area of 2 023 ha or less." Can the minister tell the House how many parks and what percentage of our park system this will affect?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll first introduce my staff. To my left I have Brian Bawtinheimer. He is our executive director of B.C. Parks. To my right I have Lori Halls, assistant deputy minister of B.C. Parks and responsible for the conservation officer service.

With respect to the question, we have 445 of our class A parks, and that's 71 percent of them that are less than 2,023 hectares.

S. Chandra Herbert: So this amendment affects 71 percent of class A parks. Of course, for those that may not know, class A parks — that's the highest designation of our park system. It's the highest level of protection with the highest degree of ecological value. They've been classed as class A because of that.

I'm curious if the minister would be able to take us on a little bit of a history lesson in terms of what led to this designation originally when it was brought in and what the values were that it was meant to protect at the time.

[1115]

Hon. M. Polak: We have to then cast our minds back to before 1965, when the Park Act was brought in. At that time provincial parks, for the most part, had been managed under the Forest Act. At that time that meant that, on occasion, activities such as mining, logging, gravel pits and all sorts of other industrial-type activities were still taking place in parks. There was an effort at that time to provide stronger protection for those parks, and that finally resulted in the Park Act being struck and implemented in 1965.

When they looked at the type of areas that were experiencing those kinds of alienations, the majority of parks that didn't have those issues were under 5,000 acres, or 2,023 hectares. That's where you arrive at that number. So in order to protect those that remained, if you will — those that had not experienced that — then, in legislation, that size amount was placed within it.

Now, as we reach 2014, of course the Park Act itself has evolved. There are now other protective measures in the Park Act that would not allow for activities such as forest-
[ Page 2208 ]
ry or mining. So the designation now, given our current protected area system, really isn't relevant. We treat all of those parks in the same manner. We currently do not treat the parks at the 2,023-hectare level any differently, so this is simply putting that into legislation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for that answer. I think the understanding, as some longtime park-watchers said, was that the designation of under 2,023 hectares was brought in because there had been an argument that if you were smaller than that, you weren't a wilderness area — that you weren't treated in that way. They argued that this was necessary to protect those areas.

When you're smaller as a park, should there be any activity — whether it be roadbuilding, whether or not it be potential other activities which might be considered in a park for a variety of reasons — because of the size of the park, they could be put more at risk. Species that might rely on that park could be put more at risk, and there might be longer-term challenges as there's less room for a species, an animal or an ecosystem to move.

I guess ecosystems don't really move that much, but certainly animals and species sometimes move to areas that are less well-trafficked, less used by the public.

Just if the minister could go a little bit further in terms of explaining what the practical differences, if any, there are between how the government currently treats smaller parks, under 2,023 hectares, and larger parks. I understand that the reason was to treat them differently because smaller parks would be more at risk.

[1120]

Hon. M. Polak: I should just first point out — and it's a technicality — that the 2,023 hectares is not actually a designation. It simply maps out a different type of treatment. To that end, though…. The member asks about the practical implications of this.

For quite some time B.C. Parks has been managing parks of both that size and larger in the same manner, using the same kinds of tools and using the same kinds of evaluative criteria. The change is here because we currently….

As you can see in the way the Park Act stands, the legislation doesn't reflect what current practice is. At the time when this particular section was put in place, there was a different set of circumstances in B.C. parks such that you did have industrial activities like mining and forestry and other matters taking place in parks. Because that is no longer the case, there's no longer any different treatment of those 2,023-hectare areas.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister points out that the hectares is not a designation, that the size of the hectares is not a specific designation that maps out a different kind of treatment, and then argues that, well, that has changed now — if I'm understanding correctly — because for a variety of reasons, the legislation is no longer what the ministry follows.

Some have heard that argument before and argued to me: "Well, what does that mean? Does that mean the ministry is no longer following the law?" Of course, I would doubt that. But can the minister clarify what that means?

Hon. M. Polak: Almost, but it's the reverse. What's changed is not the treatment of the ministry or treatment of B.C. Parks toward the 2,023-hectare areas. What has changed is the manner in which we deal with the larger parks — that being that no longer are those industrial activities taking place.

In the past, because you had a set of larger areas where there were activities like that…. It doesn't mean it was widespread. There wasn't widespread mining in parks back in the day.

Nevertheless, in those larger areas those activities were on occasion allowed. Because of that, the specificity that was placed in the act around 2,023 hectares then had a purpose. While the 2,023-hectare areas are still being treated the same, that now has extended to the larger areas, where no longer do you see mining, forestry, etc.

The change that has taken place is not with respect to the treatment of the 2,023 being degraded. It's the other way around. The treatment of the larger areas has actually been enhanced.

[1125]

S. Chandra Herbert: In regard to this change…. Of course, we could ask this, and depending on how the minister answers, I could ask it for each section of the bill. But I'll ask it now, and we'll see how it goes.

Can the minister list all the groups that were consulted about this bill prior to its introduction and that were asked for feedback or asked for advice?

Hon. M. Polak: There were no consultations with respect to this. It is primarily an administrative change, and we would not typically be consulting with respect to an administrative change.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister clarify if she's answering the question just in regard to the first section of this bill, section 1, or the bill in its entirety?

Hon. M. Polak: The bill in its entirety.

S. Chandra Herbert: Last summer the ministry sent out to a number of stakeholders — to people in the oil and gas sector who had interest in linear projects, in pipeline projects — a briefing note on how they could apply for park boundary adjustments, what the policy is and how it works.

At the time, when questioned later on when it became
[ Page 2209 ]
public, the minister argued that it was just about setting the rules, that these were the rules and people just needed it to understand the rules.

This act does change some of those rules. So I'm curious: what changed between the time the minister sent out the linear parks document around how proposals for pipelines through parks worked and when the bill was introduced?

At the time, there was no indication that changes might be made to, I would argue, make it easier for proponents to potentially impact parks for industrial development or take sections of parks out for industrial development. What changed between when that linear park document was sent out and when this bill was introduced?

Hon. M. Polak: The short answer is: absolutely nothing has changed. The amendment that is before the House right now will do absolutely nothing to change, affect or modify the park boundary adjustment policy.

The member is correct. At the time that that memo was sent out to industry, we were concerned that with the increasing interest on the land base, there were many proponents who had not, prior to this particular point in time, worked in British Columbia. In some cases they appeared to be unaware that we have a fairly rigorous and extensive approach to requests for the removal of land from parks.

Anyone that looks at the memo that was sent out — or, indeed, looks at the policy — will see it is quite an onerous task to get through. This particular amendment does absolutely nothing to change that. That policy and approach remain in place. It is largely the same approach that was put in place first in the year 2000. So it's longstanding.

We intend to continue to not only impress upon proponents the seriousness with which we take this process but also their obligations in terms of following the rules in British Columbia when it comes to their requests for movements of boundaries.

S. Chandra Herbert: Did the ministry or the government hear from any proponents for projects that they found the process too onerous, that they might not be able to do research or other activities in parks or that they would need to put forward boundary adjustments, between the time they sent the linear policy out and the introduction of this bill?

If this is not the appropriate time to ask the question, I can go down further in the act. I'm happy for the minister to refer me down there to do that.

The Chair: As the question appears to be on section 3, are you having any further questions on sections 1 or 2? No.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[1130]

S. Chandra Herbert: As people in this House will know, I'm been an advocate for the B.C. film industry for quite some time and had, in a previous life, done some work in the film industry. However, I'm also an advocate for parks and wild spaces and proper protection there.

I understand this section. It relates to film production. It would change how we treat film production in B.C., in B.C. parks. My understanding is that it changes the act so it's no longer that you would have to prove that the film activity…. As long as it's not detrimental to the recreational values of the park, that could proceed, whereas the previous test was that the activity would have to be necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park.

Can the minister illustrate why the previous test was too detrimental or too difficult for film companies to meet that test?

Hon. M. Polak: Let's be clear. It actually doesn't alter the way that we have been working with the film industry. Again, that's why we would consider this more of an administrative change than anything else. What's changed is that we have been advised that the current test in the act, that being what the member just read out — "necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved" — left us open to challenge with respect to granting those permits.

For anyone who is concerned…. I certainly had great fun, I should say, reading through this, because it's quite fascinating. If you take a look at the B.C. Parks website, the policy with respect to what the film industry may or may not do — it goes all into explosions, special effects, but there's quite extensive instruction for them.

I say that only because I want to make it clear that it's not that in the intervening years staff didn't care about how filming impacted a park. It was that they thought there was sufficient ability for them, sufficient discretion, to grant these permits. We've since been advised that that's not the case. Having that knowledge, we need to correct the test so that the kind of commercial filming that we think is very valuable for British Columbia and probably promotes a lot of our wild places in B.C. can continue.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is the minister aware of any filming work that occurred in B.C. parks that was challenged, as the minister suggested was possible, under the previous test, that this amendment would change?

Hon. M. Polak: The complaints are very low. I'm advised that we may or may not have had one particular challenge with respect to an explosion that took place. Nevertheless, part of our job is that if we are advised of a
[ Page 2210 ]
legal issue with our legislation, then we have an obligation to see that it is addressed as effectively and as quickly as we can.

Again, part of the motivation for this is responding to that advice. Part of it also is recognizing that that becomes more likely with the increase in activity that we expect we will be seeing.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister share what she means when she says that the increase of activity will be more likely? Have there been more applications for film permits in parks? Is there a great desire to get into the parks?

Hon. M. Polak: I, along with the member, am always happy to see when our film industry is successfully producing in British Columbia. We've seen that over the past five years. We've seen 233 park use permits that have been issued for film production. We average about 47 per year.

[1135]

We're seeing increased interest. Probably part of that is because of the dollar being low. I'll give you a sense of that: First Blood, The 13th Warrior, Twilight, The Lightning Thief, The X Files, MacGyver, Double Jeopardy and the new Godzilla movie, which I'm told is to be released in May. I'm not particularly planning to see that, but for some of our monster fans….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Polak: Maybe we should put it on the Sunshine Coast or something. That would be kind of fun.

In any case, it is really about just considering what we expect to be increasing interest in the use of our parks, and we want to make sure that we have every legal protection insofar as the decisions we're making.

I should point out, because it's often forgotten, that that legal certainty cuts both ways, right? If there is an instance where an application is made for a permit and the statutory decision-maker or I, as the minister, believe that the permit should not be granted, we want the legal certainty to be able to make that decision, as well, without the potential for challenge on the basis of the legislation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I think the minister knows the film industry. Langley is, of course, another hotbed for the film activity. I've been out and met with a number of film folks out that way.

We may see an increase in film activity due to the dollar. Certainly I hope so, because I know there'd been a challenge in the real production and the actual physical production of film — not quite so much on the technological side, as much more is moved onto computers and out of physical landscapes with a resultant loss in jobs, in a sense, as technology has picked up where many, many people would have done the work before. But I understand that will also…. Sometimes you just cannot replace a park by using a green screen and a computer.

I'm curious. When we talk about "detrimental to the recreational values of the park" and that that will be the test that the minister has to decide upon, can the minister share what "recreational values" means?

Hon. M. Polak: The recreational values are really drawn from what the purpose of the park or the protected area is and the kinds of things that people go there to enjoy when they recreate. In the case of a class A park, the Park Act describes class A parks as "dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public."

In the case of conservancies, they are set aside for a number of reasons:

"(a) for the protection and maintenance of their biological diversity and natural environments, (b) for the preservation and maintenance of social, ceremonial and cultural uses of first nations, (c) for protection and maintenance of their recreational values, and (d) to ensure that development or use of their natural resources occurs in a sustainable manner consistent with the purposes of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)."

Some of the things that the decision-maker would consider, in looking at a park use permit for filming. They would look at occupying a portion of the park for a period of time. How long do they need to have their sets there? How long does it take to set them up and take them down? They would take a look at whether or not they had to temporarily close off an area of the park to public access while film is occurring.

They would look at an impact like slowing down access to a park. If they had to redirect traffic, what impact would that have? If they had to temporarily alter some of the park facilities. Maybe they needed to change the signs so they could make it look like Yosemite Park or something like that. If there were increased noise levels for a short period of time, they'd evaluate that impact. Also, if they had to bring either domestic or exotic animals into the park for a short period of time — in case they want to film Jurassic Park. I guess those technically aren't animals because they're not actually real, but you never know, right?

I hope that helps the member.

[1140]

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes. I'm not aware of any existing dinosaurs that could be brought into a park that would suffice for a Jurassic Park remake, but you never know. Maybe up in Tumbler Ridge or something they'll find one, one day. Certainly, incredible dinosaur footprints and skeletons and so on that they have identified up in that area.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm not going to repeat what the
[ Page 2211 ]
member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said.

Hon. M. Polak: Come on.

S. Chandra Herbert: "Oh, come on," she says. I could tell quite a story about…. I think the government on that side wanted at one time to designate a provincial fossil. I asked whether or not they were worried that some members might be nominated, but I didn't receive a response back from the minister — not this minister; a previous minister.

Anyways, I digress.

N. Simons: Yeah, you do.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I do. Thank you. I'm giving the minister time to catch her breath and not cough again. She's doing very well. I know she's been fighting a cold.

I'm curious. Some have asked: "recreational values?" Recreational for many would assume…. Maybe it's playing sports, or maybe it's going for a hike or doing something recreating in a park or a protected area, I suppose.

Is there a thought to ecological values, or is that captured when we talk about recreational values?

Hon. M. Polak: The definition that remains with respect to class A parks that I read out earlier — "dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public…." That phrase becomes the background for any decision made with respect to activities in parks.

It certainly is considered in the granting of park use permits, but also is considered in the overall maintenance. And, as one observes what takes place in a park, it certainly would prohibit a significant number of activities.

Obviously, there's a big difference between creating a baseball diamond in the middle of a pristine area versus a couple of people standing in a grass meadow and playing Frisbee.

There's discretion certainly involved, but a fundamental part of our management of parks is to consider first and foremost the purpose of the park, and that is fairly clear in 5(3).

M. Elmore: May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased today to welcome students from John Oliver high school in Vancouver, members of the Take a Hike program. You can see them up there. You may be familiar with Take a Hike. It's an internationally acclaimed program. There was a documentary on the CBC. It's a unique program, only offered at John Oliver, a partnership between Vancouver school board and the Take a Hike Foundation.

It brings together adventure-based learning, academics and community involvement. It's a great model. It has shown great success for grades 11 and 12 students, and they're here joining us today on their tour of the Legislature. Twenty students are joined by adults Tim Gale, Klaus Klein and Liane Langton.

They wanted me to share that they recently attended a camping trip. They went to Tetrahedron in Sechelt. The group slept one night in a cabin, one night in a tent and one night in a snow cave. I asked them if it was cold. They said they were warm enough.

Then they also went to Elfin Lakes — two nights in a tent and one night in a snow cave, and it was snowing so hard that it collapsed the tent, and they woke up.

I think it really characterizes them as hard core. I wanted to share that and congratulate them. They also completed a ten-day hiking and camping trip in Pemberton.

I'd like to ask everyone to please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

S. Chandra Herbert: I think that's great. It's perfect that the students from John Oliver Secondary are here while we're discussing the Park Act. The Take a Hike program is one that I think is very valuable. Of course, as we discuss parks and how we treat our parks, it's valuable — I hope — or of some basic interest to the students above, because that's what we're discussing today.

[1145]

We're currently discussing, for the students' benefit, how film activity could occur in our parks — whether it's filming for Godzilla, or it could even be Jurassic Park. That would be of interest. I'm jealous of the students. Sometimes members on the opposite side might tell me to take a hike when I ask questions, and sometimes I wish that I really could just go take a hike. It would help calm tensions in this place.

I'm curious in terms of film activity. The minister discussed some of the tests that the ministry has to take before they decide to allow a permit for film activity to go ahead. Is there ever…?

I know in Vancouver, where I live, there are often notification requirements for the public so that they don't drive for hours, in the case of some parks, only to arrive at a park where they think there'll be complete quiet and discover an explosion or something like that occurring for a film activity.

What are the requirements for public notification and — in some cases, I would imagine — public consultation?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll start with the simplest part of the answer, and then I'm going to go and overcomplicate it
[ Page 2212 ]
for you.

The simplest part of the answer is that it really depends on the type of activity that they are seeking to have permitted. If it happens to be, for the sake of argument, one person with a camera who takes a 30-second shot of the heroine of the film standing on a cliff, it probably doesn't need a big, broad bunch of notifications to the residents who might live within a 20-mile radius.

On the other hand, if one was going to…. I'm told that, although I find it interesting to read about explosions in films, they're very rarely allowed in parks. One can imagine why. But if one was to do something like…. We actually have a specific section on artificial snow, believe it or not. Maybe helicopters are going to be buzzing overhead if you're going to film Red Dawn again or something like that.

If you go to the extent where there's some very major activity with noise, maybe with traffic, then you would increase your requirements around notification and consultation. Those can actually be written into the permit as well. We could. We have the discretion. Based on what the film company is asking to do, we could even say within the permit: "Yes, you're permitted to do this, but you must take the following steps."

For example, within some of the policy that you can look at — and I would encourage people to look on the B.C. Parks website — there's a whole section on public consideration and safety that deals with having an appropriate number of people who are there purely for safety reasons, the operation of radios, a safety manual plan, search and rescue signs. So it's quite extensive.

[1150]

The short answer is: it really depends on the type of park use permit that is being applied for.

You'll see that reflected as we get onto the further conversations in among research too. The permitting process, whether it's here with respect to park use permits or even if you take a look at permits granted under FLNRO or Energy and Mines, is dependent upon the application. Then the response is designed to take into account the extent to which that permit requires mitigation or requires other activities to ensure that nothing harmful takes place.

S. Chandra Herbert: I agree with the minister. Explosions are rare occurrences in film, becoming rarer these days as digital technology has allowed people to reduce costs and often explode things on computers.

I have a certain interest in that question. I used to, for a short while, work as a pyrotechnician in another life, in Vancouver parks, with a small charity for festivals. We could talk about that at another date or time.

The Chair: Perhaps that would be in order.

S. Chandra Herbert: Sorry, hon. Chair.

He's drawing me back to the bill.

Anyways, I wonder. For those residents…. I've heard from them. When they heard this discussion of this bill and this section around commercial filming, they expressed some concern that I, as an Environment critic — or advocate, as I think we could say — would find it somewhat unacceptable that we would have filming in our parks.

Just for the benefit of people who are concerned about this issue, what kind of revenue does the park system raise from film permits, and where does that money go to? Does it stay with parks?

Hon. M. Polak: The revenue isn't hugely significant. The application fee for all filming is $500 plus applicable taxes. The permit fee for a minor shoot is $100, and a major shoot is $500, or $100 per day, whichever is greater, plus applicable taxes.

There may be other fees that apply, depending on what activities they're engaged in. That money, that revenue — which is generally the practice in all other areas of permitting — goes to the consolidated revenue fund.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, there is that cost to the filmmaker but revenue comes into the consolidated revenue fund. I understand in some cities they would, in a park-like setting, assign park rangers or police or others to be on site and then charge that amount back to the film company. Are there any requirements like that in B.C. Parks?

Hon. M. Polak: They very often are required to have on-site monitors. Again, that's another section in location monitoring. But when they are required to have those, they often hire park rangers. They have to pay for them. They're required to foot the bill for that.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

[1155]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.
[ Page 2213 ]

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,356,419,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Cadieux: Before we get started with questions today, the member yesterday asked a question relating to the last time the child and youth with special needs budget was increased.

We have that answer for you now. There was a series of increases between '05-06 and 2008-09, with the last lift in 2008-09 of $4 million, but the cumulative lift over those four years was $34 million.

C. James: Just to clarify those numbers, we were talking at that point about special needs programs outside of the autism area. Do those lifts include the autism area, or are those lifts to special needs programs outside of the demand-driven programs? That was the specific question.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, this is outside of the demand-driven programs.

C. James: Perhaps we can go back to the mental health area then, where we left yesterday. We were speaking about the new beds at Maples, and the minister confirmed that those beds were not in place, as was committed to in the fall. They were going to be in place at the end of April and, hopefully, open by the end of April.

There was a second additional piece that the minister committed to back in July, where she said, from estimates, that that would be followed up by five regional centres with four to six beds each, which would be available for children with high complex needs, mental health needs as well. Could the minister speak about those regional beds and where they are in the budget?

[1115]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, as I mentioned yesterday, as well, we will be looking to open those additional sites around the province for secondary level of care, after children have been stabilized at the Maples, just to return them to or closer to their home communities.

We plan to have two sites of those five identified by the end of this fiscal year, so the end of this month, and operational by June of this year, followed by the three final additional sites by the end of '14-15.

As far as the costs associated with that, it's the same strategy as we were discussing yesterday. We know that some of these children that have very complex care needs require different interventions. We've had some great success with complex care interventions in some of our service delivery areas.

What we're doing is centralizing the more intensive interventions in a provincial resource and a number of regional resources. These will be used as intensive interventions, after which the children and youth will be returned to their home communities, and we anticipate at that time needing less expensive interventions in those communities than they do today.

Furthermore, we'll have outreach workers in communities who can provide ongoing interventions to those children and youth, still without needing the more expensive residential arrangements that we have in place today or that we will have in community and complex care resources when the full suite of six facilities is open.

C. James: I know the minister made mention of this as well when we were talking about the Maples beds, and, in fact, when we were talking about special needs. New initiatives, new programs that are being put in place in the ministry, it seems, can always be found by finding money somewhere else. Well, I just don't understand, and I certainly don't think the public out there understands, how on earth we could look at adding four to six beds in five regions, an additional number of beds at Maples and not have to add additional resources into the budget. It makes absolutely no sense.

I understand the minister saying that there are more cost-effective approaches, but the number of children who need to be served continues to remain. The number of children who move out of Maples, as the minister said yesterday, will go back into the community and will need supports. It doesn't make logical sense not to have some additional money in the budget. Four to six beds in five regions, an additional number of beds in Maples will simply means squeezing the money from somewhere else.

I think that is a huge concern and certainly something that we're tracking. I appreciate that the minister says the ministry is looking to open these beds and will have two sites up and running, but the commitment in July was that the Maples beds would be open in the fall and the regional beds would follow. Now we're a year later, and we're still looking at opening up those beds.
[ Page 2214 ]

I think it's a continued pattern that is a big concern in this ministry, where promises and commitments are made, resources don't back them up, staffing doesn't back them up, and the timelines don't back them up.

I want to ask another couple of questions specific to Maples and the issue of staff violence that has occurred over the last while. As we all know, the staff raised a number of concerns around violence issues in Maples. Just one specific concern that they raised was regarding panic buttons. The minister said that the panic buttons were in place when they, in fact, weren't. I wonder if the minister could tell us why she wasn't aware of those specific issues in Maples when they were raised publicly.

[1120]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Previously, when WorkSafe issues occurred, notification was posted at the worksite, and therefore we were not necessarily aware that there were issues in any particular circumstance. When this issue was raised through the media, obviously, it was extremely concerning because safety of staff and clients is equally important.

Right away I and my deputy went to visit the facility and investigate for ourselves what the situation was and, in fact, have taken a number of steps since then to ensure that not only are all of the situations that were being raised were addressed but, in fact, have taken steps to assure that any WorkSafe issues that occur not only at Maples but anywhere else, any other ministry site, are raised immediately to the attention of the ADM responsible for service so that can be monitored and the solutions implemented forthwith.

As it relates to the specific concerns at Maples around panic alarms, it was my understanding at that time that everyone had them. When I both learned that they didn't and, more importantly, went to see them myself and didn't personally feel that was necessarily adequate, I directed the deputy to first ensure that everybody at the Maples, in the Crossroads and the rest of the Maples facility, does indeed have individual personal panic alarms. The Crossroads facility does, in addition, have the walkie-talkie situation and 2-to-1 staffing for that so that the staff are never alone.

In addition, I directed that 24-hour security be available on site and that that security on a go-forward would be trained in non-violent crisis intervention to be able to assist with restraints if required. All of those things are now underway or in place. The training for the guards is taking, I think, until the end of this week, but they are on staff now.

[1125]

I don't believe these, necessarily, are the longer-term fix. But the last WorkSafe order is one that will take longer. WorkSafe has not put a time limit on it because it is dependent on the joint occupational health and safety committee coming up with some recommendations and some longer-term plans when they do report out. Indeed, if there are additional measures that can be taken or that they wish to have taken, we will be looking at those and having those implemented.

C. James: Just so I'm clear from the minister, then, when there are violent incidents at facilities, that information will now go directly to the ministry and won't just remain at the worksite.

Just to follow up on one specific question around the walkie-talkies and the panic buttons. Is the minister looking — or is the facility looking, through the ministry — at having a wired-in security system? I think some very valid concerns were raised by staff that holding a panic alarm when you're attacked…. Obviously, the panic alarm can be thrown aside. Holding a walkie-talkie when you're attacked…. The walkie-talkie can be thrown aside.

In most facilities, for true security, you have a wired-in panic button. You hit your panic button, and it goes to a main security person, who comes in.

Is there a plan at this point to look at a wired-in security system to provide safety?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I agree with the concerns that she raised or the potential issues there. In fact, that was one of the things that I recognized when I was there.

The Maples is, however, a unique facility in its size. Therefore, some of the things that work well in other facilities and that in fact are in place in, for example, youth justice facilities or larger hospitals don't necessarily work in the environment that we are looking at, at Maples.

The first thing that the joint occupational health and safety committee is doing is looking at what would make sense within their work environment and making recommendations. At that point, we can look at implementing those recommendations. Indeed, if we — myself and the deputy — don't feel that those are even adequate or addressed, we can go further.

C. James: We heard the incidents that were going on around staff-and-client or staff-and-youth violence. Could the minister tell me the rate of youth-on-youth violence and whether we've also seen an increase in those kinds of violent incidences at the Maples?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In terms of a number, we'll get you that. We don't have that. What I can tell you is that when the deputy and I were there, we did discuss that issue with the staff. I'm sure the member can understand, as well, that it is highly dependent upon the individual youth at the facility at any given time and their particular challenges.

[1130]

Individual risk assessment plans and safety plans are, in fact, worked up for each individual youth at some points in time. Depending on the residents, there is more
[ Page 2215 ]
risk of that occurring, and at other times there is little risk of that occurring. That is a client-by-client assessment.

We'll get you the numbers — the most recent, anyway.

C. James: Are those incidents required to be reported to the representative? And if so, were they?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Absolutely. We're absolutely confident that that is the case if it is a child in care. If the child, however, is in the Crossroads unit at the Maples as a result of a referral from the review board, we are not 100 percent certain. We will confirm that and respond to you.

C. James: Thank you, Minister. The minister mentioned the ratio of 2 to 1 in one area of the Maples. Has that staffing ratio changed over the last year, and is that change to address some of the issues of violence?

[1135]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Because the Crossroads unit is specific to young people who have committed violent offences but who are not deemed able to stand trial…. They're often with us for a long period of time until, perhaps, they can be transferred, at 18, to a federal circumstance. There is in that unit always a higher staffing ratio — 2 to 1 in that unit. That would vary at the different parts of Maples that are not youth forensic facilities.

C. James: I understand, as the minister said, that particular…. But there's been no change compared to other years. Thank you.

Has there been any discussion or any plan put together or any requests from other parts of government to the ministry to sell the land that Maples is on or to sell Maples itself?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The short answer is yes. The area where the Maples is, is being considered as a potential sale. That said, any detail around that — the timing of that or more detailed questions about that — would better be directed at the Ministry of Technology and Innovation, as they are responsible for that process.

What I can tell you is that there's a consultant that's been meeting with stakeholders to ask questions or seek advice on potential relocation sites or ideas, looking at suitability requirements for physical plant, and so on.

C. James: So the plan is to sell the land and the building — to sell the entire site — and to look for a new site, then, for Maples?

[1140]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, that is our understanding. Any such move, though, would likely be a couple of years down the road. The ministry will have input into any potential relocation site.

C. James: It has certainly been rumoured out there. I think it's important for the ministry to look at that kind of planning time period. As we saw from the previous section…. We were talking about beds that were going to be put in place and weren't ever put in place.

I would hope, if they're actually looking at a land sale, that it will be a good facility, that it will be a facility that makes sense. I know there are lots of challenges with the existing Maples, but I would hope that it would be a facility that would look into the future and look at the number of beds, etc., into the future.

With the kind of work that has had to be done to add the additional beds and then looking at the selling of the property, I think there would be some valid questions around how that timing and planning is going and why the consideration is being made now.

To move on from Maples, then, continuing on in the youth mental health area. The minister mentioned that last June…. At the time, it was the acting ADM who was looking at facilitating forums between MCFD and the health regions. The minister talked about improving services for youth mental health beds in hospitals and having those discussions about how to do a better job between hospitals and families that were going in.

I wonder what the progress is of that work that was being undertaken at the time and those forums that the minister was referring to.

[1145]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Indeed, there are regular meetings with health authorities and a focused initiative in the Interior between the Doctors of B.C., the Ministry of Health, IHA and MCFD and contracted service agencies in the region. They have hosted a number of large, forum-style events — the deputy minister attended the last one — where they're looking to address the linkage issues between the different systems and share experiences and so on.

As well, there are local community action teams in the Interior Health region that are looking at the more local issues, with the view to sharing their experiences at those larger forums. There will be a summit in May, as well, to culminate the first collaborative to inform anticipated similar initiatives in other health authorities.

Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress on the Ministry of Children and Family Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 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