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 27, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 9, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2014

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

JOSIE SCHOFIELD

D. Horne: I recently learned that Josie Schofield will be leaving the Legislative Assembly after 20 years of service. During her time here Josie worked for Hansard Services and for the parliamentary committees office. She also served countless members of this House during her time with the committees.

She provided exemplary service here and, actually, spent a great deal of time writing a number of committee reports, as many members on both sides of the House will know. I know that she'll be truly missed.

On behalf of the members of the chamber, past and present, I would like to thank Josie for all of the hard work that she's done.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: West Kelowna may not be big, but we do attract great talent. We are joined in the gallery today by the district of West Kelowna's new chief administrative officer, Jim Zaffino. He's here with his wife, Ingrid, and their daughter, Kristina.

He has spent 39 years in municipal government. He has been serving the people of West Kelowna since 2008, and he's taken over as our new chief administrative officer. I hope the House will please make all the Zaffinos feel very welcome today.

Tributes

JOSIE SCHOFIELD

L. Krog: I want to join with the speaker previous to the Premier to say on behalf of the official opposition that we will miss Josie Schofield. I had the pleasure, as did many members of this chamber, of working with her on a number of committees.

If ever the cliché of the iceberg and the tip of the iceberg was applicable, it was this. The committee Chair and the vice-Chair may have signed the report, but we know where all the work was done and who was responsible for it and who accomplished it with wit and intelligence and gave advice in the most subtle of ways that was so wisely taken up by committee members from time to time, and that was Josie.

On behalf of the official opposition, we congratulate Josie. We thank her for her many years of service and wish her well in what I suspect she may find to be a difficult retirement. A person of that energy and intelligence doesn't settle into retirement easily.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: Several months ago I had the pleasure of visiting Kitimat, a wonderful community in northwest B.C. that's home to the Haisla First Nation. The smelter in Kitimat is currently in the process of upgrading its facilities with $3.3 billion of investment to complete the Kitimat modernization project. That's 1,500 jobs over three years.

It's my pleasure to have in the precinct the lead engineer and general manager of operations, Gaby Poirier, joined by Colleen Nyce, manager of corporate affairs and community relations. Afterwards they will be visiting the engineering department at UVic to talk to future prospective young engineers that are going to be working in the north. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is an extraordinary Canadian, a constituent of mine, a woman who is a force of nature and who has kept politicians of every stripe in every corner of Canada on their toes in the interest of protecting the natural environment. Her name is Vicky Husband. Everyone knows her. Everyone, please give her a very, very warm welcome.

[1010]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'm very pleased today to introduce three special people: Misha Wilson, her son Brian Wilson, and Teah Wilson. They actually live in the riding of my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour, but I used to work with Misha. She currently works at the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, in charge of visitor information services. Her son Brian asked to spend the day with me, job-shadowing, so that's what we'll be doing today.

These are special kids, Madame Speaker. I remember Misha coming to work when we worked together, saying that it was her kids' birthdays. They decided for their birthday party that they weren't going to ask their friends to give them presents. What they were going to say was: "Bring food for the food bank." That resulted in a van full of food going to our local food bank. These are special kids. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise today to introduce three very special people in my life. They're waving at me right
[ Page 2484 ]
now, as I speak. I have my two grandsons — Charles, who's 13, and Andrew, who is 11, soon to be 12 — and their mother, Shelley. They came to see what Papa does when he's over here. They don't believe that I actually work, but indeed I do. I know the members opposite might doubt that as well, but it is true.

I just know that one Fassbender is not enough, so I ask the House to welcome my grandsons and their mother to this precinct.

L. Reimer: It's my pleasure to introduce today Dr. David Spence. Dr. Spence is a former United Church minister, He's been very involved over the years in the intercultural faith movement, and he's a very active and involved member of our community in Port Moody.

For Port Moody's 100th birthday, Dr. David Spence played Col. R. C. Moody, and his wife, Donna Otto, played Mary Moody. I will be doing a two-minute speech a little later on, on Colonel Moody. Would the House please make Dr. Spence very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: Domtar is a company that has employed hundreds of people in my community for decades now, and it's a company that is very important to our economy. They, in fact, are one of the world's largest producers of market kraft pulp, which is used for an incredible variety of products from bathroom and facial tissue to building products and electrical insulating papers.

They not only provide a lot of jobs, Madame Speaker. They are important contributors to the philanthropy of the community and also, importantly, have improved the airshed in our region by allowing beehive burners around the valleys to close down to make clean, green energy.

I would like the House to welcome the vice-president of government relations for Domtar, Tom Howard; the regional manager of public affairs, Bonny Skene; their environmental manager, Kristin Dangelmaier; and the general manager of the Domtar mill in Kamloops, Carol Lapointe. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Rice: Now don't fall off your chair, but I've had two visitors this week from the North Coast constituency. It's such a rare treat, considering my constituency is so far north.

I'm pleased to welcome Lynn Cociani to the House. She's a constituent of mine in Prince Rupert. She is the mother of two beautiful children, Caterina and Averil, and the wife of the very, very chatty Keith. Lynn is an artist in our community, and she makes a huge contribution to our community with teaching and leading workshops and generally welcoming us with her presence. Could the House please make Lynn feel welcome.

G. Kyllo: It gives me great pride to introduce my lovely wife, Georgina, here today, to the House, and her best friend, Naomi Lowe. Naomi is from White Rock, where she lives with her two beautiful daughters, Sydney and Madison, and her partner, Ben.

[1015]

Naomi also works as a senior development officer with the Kidney Foundation of Canada at the B.C. branch, where she fundraises primarily for the Recycle for Life program. I'd like the House to make them both feel very welcome today.

B. Routley: We have in the House today, inside the House as well as outside the House…. You may have noticed that there are about 500 of them out on the steps of the Legislature from the Shawnigan Lake Residents Association, and there are students from the Shawnigan Lake School and Dwight School Canada in Shawnigan. While the issue is currently before the Environmental Appeal Board, they are letting legislators know that they are concerned about contaminated soil. I'll just give one of their little chants: "We know that contaminated soil has got to go."

D. Horne: I actually have two guests visiting me from my riding today as well, George Petropavlis and Marina De Gregorio, who are in the gallery and will be joining me for lunch. I hope that the House will make them truly welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us today in the gallery are five leaders of B.C.'s agriculture industry: Rhonda Driediger, the chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council; Reg Ens, who's the director of the B.C. Agriculture Council; Garnet Berge, who's a committee chair with the B.C. Grain Producers Association; Linda Delli Santi, who's the executive director with the B.C. Greenhouse Growers' Association; and Faye Street from the Kootenay Livestock Association. I'd like to thank them for all the work they do on behalf of B.C.'s farmers and ranchers, and I ask the House to make them welcome in the gallery today.

S. Hamilton: I hope we've saved the best for last. I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House my lovely daughter Lauren, in the audience with us today, and her good friend Jessie Mason. May the House make them feel welcome.

Madame Speaker: Apparently not the best for last.

N. Letnick: Madame Speaker, I actually met the member's daughters last night, and they're outstanding citizens, I'm sure.

However, I was just waiting because I didn't know if anyone was going to introduce the cadets that are up in the gallery. Our province and our country are built by people who have gone through the cadet movement and become leaders in all facets of life, in industry and in pol-
[ Page 2485 ]
itics. When I saw them up there — from Langley — I was hoping that someone would introduce them.

On behalf of all of the members of this House, British Columbians and this country, thank you for being a cadet. Hopefully you will have an opportunity to lead us in the years to come. Please make them welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. T. Stone presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that Bill 22 be introduced and read for the first time now.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I am pleased to introduce these amendments which will improve TransLink's governance and address concerns raised by locally elected officials in Metro Vancouver that they do not have adequate input into TransLink's strategic policies and plans. The amendments reflect government's position that the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation — which comprises the mayors of all municipalities in Metro Vancouver, the Chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation and the director of electoral area A — is accountable to the public for investment decisions and any costs imposed on Metro Vancouver residents as a result of these decisions.

The Mayors Council will now approve TransLink's long-term strategies as well as ten-year fully funded investment plans. The mayors will also take on the transportation commissioner's responsibilities, including approval of fare increases and disposal of major assets. TransLink's board and executive compensation plans will also now have to be approved by the Mayors Council.

[1020]

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

Bill 22, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority 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.

BILL 23 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FUNDING REFERENDA ACT

Hon. T. Stone presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that Bill 23 be introduced and read for the first time now.

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. T. Stone: I am pleased to introduce Bill 23. This act delivers on government's commitment to provide the taxpayers of Metro Vancouver with a voice in any proposals for new sources of funding for TransLink by providing a mechanism for local and First Nations governments to deliver a referendum on transit funding in conjunction with civic elections.

This commitment is further embedded through amendments to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, which will require that any future requests from the Mayors Council for new funding are accompanied by evidence that a majority of the region's electors support their proposal. As I have promised, this legislation also enables government to reimburse the costs of administering a referendum. It is my privilege to introduce this bill to the House, and I want to acknowledge the efforts of everyone who has contributed to it.

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 23, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act, 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 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. S. Thomson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that Bill 24, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm pleased to introduce today a bill that will amend certain aspects of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The amendments flow from our core review of the Agricultural Land Commission, a re-
[ Page 2486 ]
view that was actually focused on finding improvements to the commission and the land it preserves and finding benefits for B.C. farmers and their families.

In recent months British Columbians have told us clearly how important farmland preservation is, how important access to fresh local foods is and how important preserving the farming lifestyle is. There's a reason that the ALC was created 40 years ago. British Columbians want to know that highly fertile land we have in British Columbia today is going to be there for tomorrow.

Today we are introducing steps that will help better achieve this goal. The improvements include ways to help farmers generate increased incomes and better support food production, a recognition of B.C.'s regional differences, improvements in the efficiency of community-based land use planning processes, and a modernization of commission operations.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Thomson: Throughout all, the ALC's role of protecting land does not change, and the ALC remains fully independent both as a tribunal and as a decision-maker. In short, the changes focus on protecting our farmland, supporting B.C. food production and helping farming families to get ahead. They ensure that we have an ALC with modern tools necessary to make independent land decisions for another 40 years.

I move that Bill 24 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Agricultural Land Commission 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.

BILL 19 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

Hon. T. Lake presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Animal Health Act.

Hon. T. Lake: I move the Animal Health Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. T. Lake: Today I'm pleased to introduce the Animal Health Act. Prior to the introduction of this act, British Columbia has largely relied upon the federal government to control animal diseases. This means that animal disease control has been limited to those diseases that affect interprovincial or international trade. But we know there are many other animal diseases out there, diseases which can impact our health and the health of our agricultural economy. Some animal diseases can spread to humans, causing a public health threat.

Because federal legislation is not applicable in these situations, we need to have strong provincial legislation so B.C. can cope with the impacts of animal disease within provincial boundaries. Our existing provincial legislation, the Animal Disease Control Act, dates from 1948, and it has not been modified substantially in the nearly seven decades since. Disease management has changed over the last 66 years, and the act must too.

[1025]

The main problem with the old act is that there are few disease management actions that can be taken apart from the quarantine of individual farms. The new Animal Health Act enables the government to employ modern animal disease management practices to inspect, seize, order, penalize and enact emergency powers.

The Animal Health Act also establishes a clear legal framework which allows inspectors, the chief veterinarian and the minister a connect. It enables the confidential collection of data and information so that government and farmers can work in partnership to make decisions that will prevent animal diseases from occurring and to identify animal diseases quickly when they do appear.

Perhaps most importantly, the Animal Health Act complements the Public Health Act, ensuring comprehensive disease management by government for zoonotic diseases — those diseases that can spread from animals to humans.

This new legislation brings us into line with Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and the Yukon, who have all updated their act since 2007.

I move that the Animal Health Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 19, Animal Health Act, 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 27 — THE CULTUS LAKE PARK
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. C. Oakes presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that Bill 27 entitled The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014, be read for the first time now.

Motion approved.
[ Page 2487 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: I am pleased to present The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014. The legislation will change the Cultus Lake Park board, ensuring it is more accountable to the community of Cultus Lake.

Specifically, the legislation will reduce the number of park board commissioners from seven to five, provide that three of the board members will be elected by the leaseholders and residents of Cultus Lake Park, provide that two of the board members will be elected by the residents of the city of Chilliwack.

The legislation ensures greater accountability to the people and community of Cultus Lake Park. Currently there are five commissioners elected from Chilliwack while only two are from the leaseholders and residents of Cultus Lake Park.

This legislation will decrease the overall number of commissioners but increase the number elected by the leaseholders and residents from Cultus Lake Park. With local elections this November, this is a sensible time to bring forward these proposed changes.

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

Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park 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.

Standing Order 81.1

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SCHEDULE

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 to advise the House that with the tabling of Bill 27, the last bill, absent something completely unforeseen, that represents the completion of the government's legislative agenda for the spring session.

The hon. Opposition House Leader and I will now endeavour to arrive at a schedule for timely consideration of those bills over the next two months. It sounds like there will be some vigorous debate considering that legislation.

We'll advise the House accordingly as that work is undertaken.

B. Ralston: I thank the opposing House Leader for his notice of that plan, and I look forward to those discussions.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M206 — HYDRO
AFFORDABILITY ACT, 2014

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Hydro Affordability Act, 2014.

J. Horgan: I move a bill intituled the Hydro Affordability Act, 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: Individuals, small businesses and large electrical users are being hit hard by increasing energy costs. There will be, with the 28 percent rate increases coming, families that may choose to heat their homes rather than feed their families.

The challenge, of course, is to protect those vulnerable citizens, and the Hydro Affordability Act will do just that. It will allow an amendment to the B.C. Utilities Commission Act so that the commission has the authority to require utilities to set a discounted lifeline rate to maintain the affordability of energy for eligible low income British Columbians.

[1030]

To qualify for a lifeline rate, families or individuals would have to demonstrate their need based on household income and the number of persons residing in the household.

Other jurisdictions with regulated utilities, such as California, have introduced lifeline rates to ease the burden of electricity costs for low-income households. With this act, we have an opportunity — a real opportunity — to support low-income British Columbians and to ensure the cost of hydro is not an onerous one that leads to distress or an inability to meet other necessities that are required in today's modern society.

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 M206, Hydro Affordability 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.

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make a late introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I'd like to introduce Kerry Davis, who I note has arrived in the gallery here. Kerry is a friend, a colleague and a community activist in the Cowichan Valley region, and he's visiting the Legislature speaking gallery today.
[ Page 2488 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY STRATEGY ON
HOMELESSNESS IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: It's not just the big centres — Vancouver or Victoria — that face the sad situation of homelessness. Our smaller communities are also facing those challenges — not just people sleeping rough in the bush or at bus shelters. There are families couch-surfing, sharing with others, trying to keep a roof over their heads.

That's why earlier this year Paul Mason from Campbell River Family Services hosted a round table to develop a community strategy to tackle the problem. It's hard to decide where to start with a family living with a family because they can't afford a home, or those on the street. Campbell River Family Services saw the first priority as the most vulnerable, the truly marginalized.

They'd introduced an innovative temporary shelter to the community through the winter — a shipping container converted to eight separate, private rooms, each with two beds. Rooms are heated, have hot running water, smoke detectors and accessible bathrooms on site. Staff were also on site to admit and care for those seeking shelter.

The community wanted to take some of the energy that had created and turn it into a more permanent solution. The daylong round table was an impressive event, bringing together people from across the community — from the RCMP and the Ambulance Service through to social workers and the Salvation Army.

It was an engaged group — people who daily saw the difficulties of the homeless, people who could give a name to the person trying to find shelter. The stories were heartrending. There are people who are picked up by the police so regularly, they have their favourite cell. They know it's a place which is clean, dry and safe. The hot meal and bathrooms are bonuses.

The group worked through the priorities: who needed help, what was already available, what could the community provide some of the most marginalized — the need for a safe shelter, a place where you don't have to be dry to stay, a place where supports would available from specialists and from the community, a safe stepping stone to a better place.

B.C. Housing is working on contracts, but I think everyone who was at that meeting would agree that more can always be done. A place for those that are really on the edge is always needed.

FARMERS MARKETS

J. Sturdy: I just want to talk about an opportunity for where you may go to purchase your vegetables these days. Chances are it's from one of a few big retailers, which do a great job of distributing products and do try and create that connection between consumer and producer. But there's no doubt that the best experience is to visit the farm, meet the grower and perhaps even pick your own.

Those farm-gate experiences taking place from one end of this province to the other have tremendous value in fixing in the consumer's mind that field-to-fork connection.

While farm visits are a fabulous opportunity to be encouraged, the next best option is to visit a farmers market. In many ways it's an even better option, as you can visit dozens of farmers in one place at one time.

Farmers markets are growing at a dizzying rate, and the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets is growing right along with them. The BCAFM represents more than 125 markets around the province, having grown by more than 25 percent over the last season. They're the voice of over 1,000 farmers, and alongside other make, bake and grow activities, the BCAFM represents over 3,000 small businesses provincewide.

Farmers markets are rapidly gaining in popularity. In 2006 direct sales were assessed at $46 million, and in 2012 that same assessment was done, and market sales had increased to $113 million annually.

[1035]

Farmers markets are clearly alive and growing well, recirculating local dollars, strengthening local economies and bringing fresh, local, healthy food to British Columbian tables.

I had the chance to participate in the annual BCAFM conference a couple weeks ago on Granville Island, and the association is clearly vibrant and strong. It is building capacity in the organization and the industry, and it's working to strengthen local food systems and economies.

Visit a farmers market this summer, this upcoming season, because as the sign at the Vancouver Farmers Market says: "You are what you eat, so come meet your maker."

VOLUNTEER INITIATIVE FOR HOMELESS
IN SUNSHINE COAST AREA

N. Simons: Today I'd like to acknowledge all the volunteers who dedicate their time to strengthen communities throughout British Columbia.

On the Sunshine Coast, like everywhere else in this province, our volunteers come from all walks of life. They're young and old. Some work; others are unemployed. They're students, and they are retirees.

These volunteers have an enormous impact on the health, well-being and livability of our communities. On the Sunshine Coast our volunteers include firefighters. They organize film and music festivals. Some sit on agriculture advisory committees. Our volunteers search for lost mushroom pickers and rescue boaters in trouble. They counsel victims of crime and coach minor ball.
[ Page 2489 ]

Today I'd like to acknowledge a special group of volunteers who dedicated not just their time but contributed food and resources over this past winter to make sure that the homeless and the less fortunate among us would have a warm place to stay and a hot meal on those wet and cold nights. We had a shelter for the extremely cold and wet nights, supported by the Salvation Army, but the volunteers in our community saw a need for the other nights when it wasn't quite as cold and maybe not quite as wet. They saw a need, and they responded in a remarkable display of collaborative effort.

Over 100 volunteers from seven different organizations served over 1,000 meals and provided a safe place to sleep for the homeless on more than 100 nights since November. Coordinated by Brenda Wilkinson, folks organized themselves to cook hot meals and open the shelters for drop-in, in the evening, before any other shelter would open.

The seven organizations include the Sunshine Coast Lions Club, St. John's United Church, St. Hilda's Anglican Church, Crossroads Community Church, Holy Family Catholic church, the Rotary Club of the Sunshine Coast and the Bethel Baptist Church.

Tonight in Sechelt there'll be a volunteer appreciation dinner for all of those involved, including those who took part in the services. On behalf of this House, I'd like to thank Brenda Wilkinson and all of those volunteers who helped over the past winter. I hope they enjoy the celebration. It is volunteers who strengthen the bonds between people and make cohesive the diversity that exists in all our communities.

HISTORIC PHOTO ALBUM OF
RICHARD MOODY

L. Reimer: Earlier this month I had the privilege to participate in the unveiling of a photo album significant to the history of British Columbia, the album of Colonel Moody. Colonel Moody commanded the Columbia detachment of the British Royal Engineers and served as Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works from 1858 to 1863.

The images of the life and times of Col. Richard Moody take us back to an era when the Crown Colony of British Columbia was just beginning. There are many locations in the province whose names are derived from his, including Port Moody, one of four municipalities in my riding.

The Royal B.C. Museum has acquired this fascinating record of rare photos, pictures and a drawing to give each of us a rare glimpse into what life in British Columbia was really like then. Included in this album are several photos of a First Nations person thought or speculated to be one of the first in British Columbia. There's also a photo of one of the first settlements in New Westminster along the Fraser River. This album also contains a pencil sketch of the Moody home in Sapperton area, New Westminster, by Sarah Crease, wife of Henry Crease, the first Attorney General of the colony of British Columbia.

This album is now part of an invaluable, irreplaceable legacy of historical documents and archives that help tell the story of British Columbia to current and future generations. The Royal B.C. Museum deserves congratulations for acquiring such rare archival material at auction.

Our history is important to all British Columbians. It's important to capture these moments, as these anchor our diversity in a shared past. I'm delighted that British Columbians will now be able to share this unique collection from our past at the fabulous Royal B.C. Museum here in Victoria.

CAMOSUN COLLEGE

A. Weaver: Today I stand to recognize an outstanding post-secondary education institution in my riding, Camosun College. Offering 160 applied programs to 18,500 students, including over 1,000 aboriginal students and over 800 international students, Camosun provides a $900-million-per-year economic stimulus to British Columbia.

Camosun students are designing solar heating systems. They're preserving aboriginal languages, building robotic devices for the disabled and creating environmentally friendly workplaces. Frankly, Camosun grads are transforming our world.

[1040]

Camosun College is the largest provider of trades and technology training on Vancouver Island and the second-largest in British Columbia. In fact, Camosun has been graduating highly skilled tradesworkers for over 40 years. With nationally acclaimed faculty teaching over 2,200 students every year, the program fosters non-traditional trades learners, with unique programs such as women in trades and aboriginal trades.

With their new $30 million centre for trades education and innovation, set for completion in 2015, and with new funding in the 2014 provincial budget, the opportunities ahead for this program are, frankly, endless.

Embracing the benefits of a diversified population that enriches campus life and builds cultural awareness, Camosun's English-as-a-second-language program provides language training to hundreds of international and domestic students every year. At any given time, 200 to 300 recent immigrants to Victoria receive ESL training. This wonderful program allows these well-educated, highly capable individuals to effectively enter the workforce here in Canada.

Camosun College is the only school in our region offering a diploma program in early learning and care. This program has graduated over 75 students over the past three years. And of course, there is so much more.

I would like to thank all of the hard-working staff and
[ Page 2490 ]
educators at Camosun College for the work they have done and continue to do for our community and for the community of British Columbia.

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AUTO SHOW

D. Horne: I rise today to highlight to the House one of the most important economic catalysts in our province, an event that's one of my favourite of the year, and I know that that the Minister of Transportation and many other members of the House share that view. I'm speaking of the 2014 Vancouver International Auto Show.

This is the 94th annual Vancouver International Auto Show, presented by the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia, who represent 350 dealers in communities across British Columbia.

Each year almost 90,000 British Columbians attend this signature event, which has moved now and takes place in the wonderful, beautiful new Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. Visitors get a chance to see the latest in technology, the most stylish and the most environmentally friendly vehicles available from around the globe.

The New Car Dealers Association generates over $10 billion in economic activity, pumps $1.8 billion net GDP directly into the B.C. economy, and employs directly and indirectly more than 34,000 family-supporting, full-time positions in over 50 communities in the province.

Additionally, B.C. new car dealers contribute millions of dollars to local sports teams and community organizations. The association speaks on behalf of British Columbia's new car industry to the public, to the media and to the government and deals with legal, environmental and consumer issues relating primarily to the new vehicle sales in British Columbia. The association is a great advocate for the industry with all of the work that they do.

When the House rises today, I encourage members to check out the 2014 Vancouver International Auto Show. It's going on until Sunday. I know that each and every member that attends and those others that attend will have a wonderful time.

Oral Questions

REPORTING OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: To the Minister of Advanced Education: on March 5 the opposition first raised questions about financial irregularities in the reporting of executive salaries at Kwantlen, including a practice of using consulting contracts to hide bonuses for Kwantlen's best-paid executives.

The Minister of Advanced Education suggested our concerns were outlandish and that any contracts were pre-employment and aboveboard. But I have an e-mail from a vice-president at Kwantlen complaining about these very contracts. He describes them as "supposedly for consulting work" and apparently "designed to get around provincial compensation constraints."

He says, "There are many other anomalies in the employment agreements that KPU has signed," agreements all signed during the period the minister was vice-chair of the board and chair of the school's human resources committee.

In light of the vice-president of Kwantlen's concerns, will the minister still rise in this House and insist that these contracts are legitimate pre-employment contracts?

Hon. A. Virk: As the member opposite certainly knows, Assistant Deputy Minister Rob Mingay has been tasked with looking into that. I would suggest that the member opposite immediately get that e-mail that he has in his possession to Mr. Rob Mingay, so he can add to the matter that he is examining right now.

[1045]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: I'm glad to table that e-mail, but of course, the minister was at Kwantlen during that time. He's the person who can enlighten this House about what happened at Kwantlen during this time.

I have yet another e-mail in which a senior HR staff member describes how she has, as a matter of routine, hidden compensation to a senior executive at the school by including it in an offer letter but deleting it from the contract that had been reported to government. She says: "I have omitted any reference in the contract to both the administrative leave and the annual research allowance." She says that this approach should be used as the "template" for future hires.

Does the minister still stand by his statement that all reporting of executive compensation at Kwantlen is complete and accurate, and will he explain to this House what the heck was going on there?

Hon. A. Virk: All across British Columbia we have phenomenal and excellent universities, many of them ranked tops in the world. I was a volunteer board member at one of these universities, and I'm very proud of being a volunteer board member. All across British Columbia there are hundreds and hundreds of people who give up their time, away from their families, away from their employment, to give back to this province. I was certainly proud to be one of those individuals.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: It's a shame that the minister would drag other
[ Page 2491 ]
universities and colleges and other volunteers into his muck. The minister has a problem. In his current role he's responsible for ensuring that all universities and colleges follow government rules. Yet while he was at Kwantlen, we have evidence showing that breaking government rules was a matter of routine for staff and a matter of serious concern for a vice-president, all during the time that he was the chair of the human resource committee and vice-chair of the board.

Is the minister not concerned that these questions about financial practices while he was at Kwantlen will affect his ability to ensure that all universities and colleges follow these very important rules?

Hon. A. Virk: It's quite shameful and disrespectful to all those volunteers across British Columbia. The suggestion from the member opposite and the members opposite about every one of these board members across British Columbia is absolutely shameful. It's disrespectful to the volunteers all across British Columbia that keep the universities going.

A. Dix: To the minister, this is what he oversaw at Kwantlen — the hiding of at least $100,000 in payments to senior staff by recording them as supplier payments. To disguise excess payments, Kwantlen spent significant sums of money on what senior administrators described as supposedly for consulting work.

Just one of these arrangements involved $56,000 over two months. Research allowances and administrative leaves were also used by Kwantlen to top up senior staff salaries. He was responsible to the government at the time, and he was responsible at Kwantlen for these things.

It's a very simple question to him. It's not all the other boards in British Columbia. This is him, his actions and now his role, apparently, investigating himself as Minister of Advanced Education — apparently, passing judgment on himself as Minister of Advanced Education.

My question to him is very simple. Does he stand behind these actions?

[1050]

Hon. A. Virk: Madame Speaker, at the risk of sounding like that movie — I believe it was Groundhog Day — where the same thing gets repeated over and over again, Mr. Mingay has been tasked with the responsibility to examine it. The Leader of the Official Opposition is the last person that should question individuals about covering up facts in this House.

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

A. Dix: Let's be clear, because this is a question the minister can answer today. He was there. He was responsible for this. He was there. Hiding $100,000 in payments to senior staff — does he support that, yes or no? Disguising excess payments, supposedly for consulting work. He was responsible then. Does he support it now, yes or no? Using research allowances to top up contracts — does he support that, yes or no? And has he given evidence to Mr. Mingay's investigation of these activities?

Hon. A. Virk: As the members opposite will certainly recall, just this week a letter was tabled in this House. I read off that the report…. These are instructions to Mr. Mingay: "Your report will include your findings and any recommendation relating to examination of the specific transactions as well as any…conclusions you are able to draw from your review." An assistant deputy minister in the public sector employers council secretariat is examining the compensation at Kwantlen Polytechnic University and will provide a report in due course as to his findings.

BUDGET REVENUES FROM B.C. HYDRO
AND IMPACT OF ELECTRICITY RATES
ON CATALYST MILL OPERATIONS

J. Horgan: Before the election the B.C. Liberals said that everything was fine at B.C. Hydro. Everything was under control. There would be no need for rate hearings. There would be no need for rate increases. Then after the election we learned that we were looking down the barrel of 28 percent rate increases over the next five years — individuals, small businesses, large industrial customers saddled with an enormous amount of cost at a time when they can least afford it.

My question is with respect to the Catalyst Paper operation active here on the Island and on the Sunshine Coast. They're going to be hit with 28 percent rate increases after they've just done arrangements with employees and municipalities to remain whole.

Can the minister justify how the government of British Columbia can take $410 million out of B.C. Hydro at a time when companies are in distress? How does he justify that?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, first of all, I thank the member for his question. We got to the ten-year rates plan that we announced in November on the basis of what was necessary to invest in the future so that businesses in British Columbia, large and small, and residential consumers of electricity in British Columbia could count on the provision of electricity the way they have over the past 50, 60 years in the future. This is all about investing in the future.

As for the member's suggestion that somehow or other we haven't accounted for the impact on large industry and, in particular, the company mentioned by the member, in fact, if the member goes back and reviews what we said in November, we said that we would be doing a rate design review specifically to look out for those large heavy-industrial users who would be impacted more
[ Page 2492 ]
than others. We are doing that review currently. That's probably why you haven't heard much publicly from this company, because we are actually working with them to help them get through these rate changes.

Madame Speaker: The member for Juan de Fuca on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I hope the lights are still on at the Utilities Commission. They haven't had much to do on the watch of the B.C. Liberals. But we'll go from there.

[1055]

We have heard from the company, in their annual report. They say next year the hydro increases are going to cost them $14 million, the year after that $24 million and the year after that another $34 million. At the same time, workers took 10 percent pay cuts to give $20 million in cash to the company — 10 percent pay cuts for individuals working in Catalyst operations.

The communities that depend on that industrial taxation took a haircut as well. The only people that didn't take a haircut is the government of British Columbia — $410 million in a dividend when companies are in distress, individuals are in distress. It's unacceptable.

You said before the election everything was fine, and now it's not. What's that called where I live? A mistruth. Why do it now?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

Hon. B. Bennett: No one on this side of the House has ever said that electricity rates in British Columbia will never go up. We have never said that. No one on this side of the House has ever said….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

Hon. B. Bennett: The ten-year plan that we announced in November was based on a number of very positive developments that we have created with B.C. Hydro. Number one, we have worked with B.C. Hydro to get their costs under control, and we have found $400 million that B.C. Hydro will not be spending. We have gotten executive compensation under control at B.C. Hydro. Of all of the public utilities in Canada, B.C. Hydro….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: We have made plans to invest $1.6 billion in infrastructure going forward over the next ten years, each year. When you invest that level of dollars, when you invest $1.6 billion a year, there is some pressure on rates. Members on the other side of the aisle wouldn't know that because when they were in government, they invested nothing in B.C. Hydro.

LiveSmart PROGRAM AND IMPACT OF
ELECTRICITY RATES ON SMALL BUSINESS

L. Popham: On April 1 this government's hydro rate hike could have a devastating effect on small, energy-intensive businesses like laundromats and coffee shops in communities throughout B.C. — businesses that our economy depends on. The only program our small businesses could look forward to for some relief was the LiveSmart program. But on the same day the massive hydro rate hikes begin, the LiveSmart program ends — a double whammy from this government to small business.

To the Minister of State for Small Business, why won't she keep the LiveSmart program? Does she agree it's unfair to raid $410 million from Hydro while they jack up the rates for small business?

Hon. B. Bennett: While I do appreciate the interest in small business that the member has, it might be worth reminding the member that, actually, B.C. small business has the highest degree of confidence anywhere in the country.

[1100]

The LiveSmart program was paid by the taxpayer. Going forward — and announced, if the members would care to go back and look at what we actually announced in November — we're going to be spending about $160 million to $170 million a year on Power Smart initiatives. Those kinds of programs that we got accustomed to through LiveSmart — many of those will be delivered through Power Smart. It's actually in the budget, in the announcement.

IMPACT OF ELECTRICITY RATES ON
LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

M. Mungall: We know that half of B.C.'s single moms in this province live in poverty with their children. We know that B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty in this country for ten years running. But rather than tackle child poverty with a real plan, this government is charging families 28 percent more on their hydro bills, not to mention the increased costs on basics like milk and bread that will be passed from business to customer. That's not helping B.C.'s poorest kids. That's making things worse for them.

To the Minister of Children and Family Development, will she take a step today in reducing child poverty by committing to protecting low-income B.C. families from these hydro rate hikes?

Hon. S. Cadieux: During the years of 1990 to 2000
[ Page 2493 ]
families living in poverty increased by 42 percent. Since then the rate of child poverty has decreased by 41 percent. We know that the best way to ensure that children aren't living in poverty is to ensure that their parents have a job. It's why we're focused on ensuring that the economy is strong and growing: so that families can find jobs that will enable them to best support their children.

FERRY FARES

C. Trevena: It isn't only hydro rates that are going up on April 1; it's ferry fares. Ferry users in B.C. have been paying the price for this government's mismanagement for well over a decade now. Since 2001 fares on B.C. Ferries major routes have gone up by more than 60 percent, and fares on the minor routes have more than doubled.

Fares went up last April, 4 percent; this January, 3½ percent; and now, another 4 percent. It's no wonder that ridership is going down. This is completely unsustainable. How can the Ministry of Transportation justify the constant downloading of such unreasonable costs on both B.C.'s businesses and B.C.'s communities?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, as we have talked about for many, many months now — and we fully have acknowledged — there are significant challenges facing B.C. Ferries. But we are going to be the government, and we are the government, that's demonstrating that we are up to the challenge. We are up to making the tough decisions to get B.C. Ferries to a place of sustainability, affordability and long-term sustainability.

Now, that requires all of the parties to make some sacrifices. So on the one hand, there's no question that there has been a tremendous amount of upward pressure on fares over the years. But I also want to point out that the Ferry Corporation itself is well on its way to $54 million worth of operational efficiencies. That is going to help put downward pressure on fares. Indeed, the B.C. taxpayer has put a record $180 million contribution into B.C. Ferries this fiscal year alone. That is all intended to apply downward pressure on fares.

[1105]

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

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICES REDUCTIONS ON
HORSESHOE BAY–NANAIMO ROUTE

C. Trevena: The minister talks about affordability. He talks about sacrifice. He talks about tough decisions. He should live in a ferry-dependent community for a few years and really understand what it's about.

People are fed up with those platitudes. They are seeing their fares go up unsupportably. Now they're seeing, at the same time, services cut. This is not the way to be running our ferry system.

Earlier this week the minister failed to answer a very simple question about service reductions, about whether we'd still have a service running between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo. He's now had a few days to consider his response. I wonder if the minister could tell us categorically whether there will continue being that service running.

Hon. T. Stone: Once again I'm going to say that the hon. member for North Island is in absolutely no position whatsoever to lecture this government on what it takes to support a sustainable, affordable ferry system. When the members opposite were in power, the contributions to B.C. Ferries were $5 million per year. Today the contribution from the taxpayer of British Columbia is $180 million.

On the specific question that the member has asked, I have said consistently for many months now that there will continue to be vehicle service between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo. I don't know how much more clearly I can say that. There will continue to be vehicle service between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo.

But moving forward, we are going to continue to challenge B.C. Ferries to ensure that the service is as efficient as it possibly can be so that it's there for many generations to come.

CONSULTATION ON CHANGES TO
AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

N. Simons: The province's agricultural land, where our food is produced, is a sacred trust. Forty years ago our communities realized that we needed to look to the future and ensure that our options for food production remained open for generations to come. Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

The people of British Columbia deserve a say on a public policy issue as important as that. They deserve to be heard before something is fundamentally destroyed or mortally wounded. Why didn't this government say to the people of this province before the election that they were intending to interfere with the independence of the agricultural land reserve? Why didn't the government consult with British Columbians before making plans that could devastate our food production ability for generations to come?

Hon. B. Bennett: I invite the member to read the bill that was tabled today. In fact, both sides of the House believe in the two central principles of the Agricultural Land Commission: that first of all, it should be an independent decision-maker, and secondly, that productive agricultural land should be protected. We believe that. If the member takes the time to read the legislation, he
[ Page 2494 ]
will find that, in fact, those two important principles are enshrined there.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: It's clear that this government is trying to hide this legislation in the midst of a bunch of other legislation.

[1110]

They know that the people of British Columbia are going to be very upset with this government's plans of action. I don't know why this minister thinks that the people of British Columbia aren't going to fight hard to ensure that future generations, the grandchildren's grandchildren that we hear of from this government repeatedly, are going to be protected.

The fundamental principle is that the reserve was set up for the entire province, not for zones here and zones there — for the entire province, for the future of everyone in this province. The options were supposed to be kept open.

And this minister. It's not called a mistruth in my riding. Before the election they said nothing. After the election they decided not to consult with the people of the province. It's deceitful.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member.

N. Simons: I think the minister knows very well that the people of this province know that they've been cut out of this process. Will the minister recognize the concern and the importance of this public policy to the people of British Columbia and consult with the people of British Columbia prior to implementing terrible legislation?

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast, you will need to withdraw that remark. Powell River–Sunshine Coast, you will need to withdraw that remark.

N. Simons: Madame Speaker….

Madame Speaker: Withdraw.

N. Simons: I'm having trouble, Madame Speaker. This is a dark day in the history of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Withdraw the remark, hon. Member.

N. Simons: I'll withdraw my comment.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast?

N. Simons: Yes, Madame Speaker.

Madame Speaker: Have you withdrawn the remark?

N. Simons: Yes, I have.

Hon. B. Bennett: While I recognize the unparliamentary language, I actually take no personal offence from what the member said. I know he is an extremely passionate person, and I respect that about him.

I do want that member and all members of the House to know that, first of all, if you looked at the minister's mandate letters, you would have seen that in June the Minister of Agriculture was actually tasked with looking at the Agricultural Land Commission. There was no attempt at secrecy there. The letter has been on the website since June.

When the core review committee decided to look at the commission, I immediately went out publicly and said: "We're going to look at the commission." That certainly has brought a lot of commentary back to government, to the core review process.

To the extent that the core review process didn't consult broadly enough, I take personal responsibility for that, if there was a deficiency in that regard. But I believe that the people of British Columbia will judge us on the legislation that was tabled today.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report on Credit Union Supervision in British Columbia, the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 2013 Enumeration and the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 40th Provincial General Election.

D. Eby: I seek the leave of the House to table the e-mails requested by the Minister of Advanced Education.

Leave granted.

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have a petition to present. I have a petition with 673 signatures, which states:

"We, the undersigned citizens of electoral area D of the Strathcona regional district, call upon the hon. Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to uphold our stated wishes in our community plan that we do not wish to be governed by the city of Campbell River for any reason.

[1115]

"Further to that, with respect to the city of Campbell River's proposal for a boundary extension of our properties in northern area D, we request that the minister uphold her promise to our regional representative on September 20, 2013, and that a refer-
[ Page 2495 ]
endum will be offered to the whole of northern area D. We request that such referendum be administered by a provincial returning officer on our behalf."

E. Foster: I rise to present a petition signed by 144 people, members of the Federation of University Women, in support of a poverty reduction plan.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, Madame Speaker.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations — and in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 5. When that is complete, we are anticipating moving to second reading on Bill 15.

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

Hon. S. Thomson: I look forward to continuing the discussion on the bill. I'd just like to introduce the staff that are here supporting this morning: Penny Lloyd, with our fish and wildlife branch; Richard Grieve, with our legislation branch; and Tom McReynolds, with the policy and legislation branch within the ministry. With those introductions, thank you.

On section 72.

N. Macdonald: I think on 72 we're okay here. We're fine, and we'll go to 73.

Section 72 approved.

On section 73.

N. Macdonald: Sorry, I'm still sorting out the sections here. Of course, the section that we'll be spending time with will be the section that allows the corporations to purchase the guide-outfitting. I'm not sure that's section 73. As I say, I apologize. If that's the section, then let's spend a bit of time here. If not, we can move on. I'm not sure if it's section 73 or 74. The minister can inform me on that.

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate, for the member opposite, where the opportunity is to address those issues. The definition and the change which allows a person or a corporation to hold a guide certificate was in section 65, where it amended. We're past that section where we approved it.

That talks about the person being a "natural person…(a) issuing a licence or limited entry hunting authorization, (b) registration of a trapline, and (c) employment as an assistant guide." It talks there about who that is. But given that these sections relate to how that works, is managed, I think we're free to have those questions. I'm quite happy to talk about it a little more generally in these sections, as we go through the sections, about how licences or certificates are held and transferred.

N. Macdonald: What's interesting about this, of course, is that we had the briefing, and we went through with it. In contacting the various groups as to what their opinions were on this, I do know that the guide-outfitters, in talking to them, said they were supportive of the measure. However, they did say they couldn't find it in the legislation. They looked at it, and they couldn't find it. It is obscure, even with the briefing, to find exactly how the change is made.

As I said, the guide-outfitters initially said it was the direction they wanted to go. But they couldn't fully understand whether the language that was in the amendment actually met the needs that they have.

[1125]

Subsequent to that, they've come back to me saying that from the organization's perspective, it's something that they've been asking for.

The question that I would have here is whether it fulfils the broader public interest. Here, my expectation is that the minister will make the case that it does.

Some of the feedback I've had is from retired people from within either the Ministry of Environment or the ministry that used to be the Minister of Forests' purview. I'll just read some of the comments I've received back.

This is a gentleman who worked for over 30 years for the Ministry of Environment. They, of course, note that corporate ownership is nothing new and that while there were rules in place that put a guiding area in…. The face of it was an individual and a Canadian citizen. Very often there was money behind that individual. I think it's widely recognized that that happened.

This gentleman says that foreign ownership is nothing new, as for years there's been corporate ownership behind many of the people that would front for a guiding operation. If you go on websites, you can see areas
[ Page 2496 ]
here in British Columbia constantly being traded in the United States, right? So there are mechanisms there to put up money to front these guide-outfitters.

It goes on to say, "I think if you closely looked at the large guide areas in the northern half of the province, the vast majority of them are corporately owned and held, then, by a delegated licensee," the prime point being that on paper, the owner had to be a person, be a Canadian citizen resident in Canada, but of course the corporation could be behind it.

He does go on to say: "If there are legal issues with a particular guide…." This is somebody who was responsible for trying to manage these guiding areas. His point is that if there was an individual there that was a Canadian citizen and you were trying to manage that guiding area, there was an individual that you could hold legally responsible.

The point he's making is that if it's a corporate entity that then owns the guiding area, it's going to be far more difficult for the ministry, if it's the intention of the ministry to manage these areas properly. It's going to be far more difficult with a corporate entity to hold them accountable, as these corporate entities can switch very easily without any real behaviour changing.

I guess that's the question. Has the minister contemplated the implications for his ministry trying to run these guiding operations properly if the corporate entity is there rather than having a Canadian citizen ultimately responsible for practice in the guiding area?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think this is the chance to talk just a little bit about the overall rationale for this and the point that the member raised.

[1130]

I think the concern and the issue he's raising is whether or not — by allowing the corporation to be the owner, in a sense — there are any difficulties or challenges with respect to compliance and administration of the certificate requirements and licences in the operation of the guide-outfitter.

Firstly, this amendment does allow…. Or the amendments that have already gone by and approved — those remove…. It's a change that allows a corporation to hold the guiding-territory certificate. Corporations…. The guide-outfitter must be a Canadian, or the guide must be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.

Currently, as the member opposite pointed out, Canadian certificate holders have behind-the-scenes contracts with foreign owners, which means that foreign corporations are already involved in the guiding industry. Removing this requirement, allowing corporations…. It will bring transparency to the process. It actually will enhance our compliance and enforcement operations.

If you look back to section 61, I think it is, section 61 provides that if a person holds within the last year or applies to renew a guide-outfitters certificate, that provides…. If the registration, the conditions of the certificate are not fulfilled….

In our compliance and enforcement effort initiatives, we have the ability to ensure that individuals, as persons, comply. That same provision applies to corporations, officers, directors of those corporations. There are no limitations by providing this opportunity to do that in terms of being able to enforce and ensure compliance with the certificates.

The other rationale for doing this is to ensure that guide-outfitters as business operations have the opportunity for the financial security, for financing arrangements, that a corporation would have for forms of partnership in the administration of their guide certificates. This is providing that opportunity, expanding the definition from "a person" to "a natural person."

I know that the member opposite had difficulty finding it — so did we, a little bit — but it relates back to the definition of "a person" in the Interpretation Act that defines that as "a person" being "a corporation."

This is simply bringing those provisions forward, providing those increased financing tools for operations, creating greater transparency. In our view, it does not create any limitations to be able to ensure compliance with the requirements of the certificate and their operations.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the answer.

As I say, the experience from somebody who worked in the area — I think this is in the Williams Lake area — for a number of years felt that the direction the government was going would make it more difficult and more costly.

I'm sure the minister, from the answer…. Your view is that that's not the case, and you've been assured from staff that the ability to actually monitor these areas is not going to be undermined by this change.

I have another e-mail that I received, again, from somebody who worked for over 30 years in the ministry that the minister is now responsible for. This is his view. His view is that losing the ownership requirements is definitely a very bad move. The government, in his words, has turned a blind eye in the past to some of this.

His firsthand experience is this. Again, in working, in looking after these guide-outfitting areas, he says that he has received far more complaints from hunters when they're involved with foreign ownership. As the minister knows, as we've said before, we know that there are guide-outfitters…. And in my area, I could tell you who has money behind them, generally, right?

[1135]

Most people know if it's U.S. money that's behind them or if it's something that they own on their own, right? It often depends on, to be honest, the value of the area that they control. Certainly, somebody who's working in that field and was responsible for making sure that the guide areas were being properly managed would know whether there was foreign money behind it or not.
[ Page 2497 ]

His view is that those that had foreign money behind them, in general, were less receptive to having local hunters in the area and were more interested in money than those that were people that lived in the community, had their own money in it and had roots that were deep in the community.

That's, again, something that has been sent in from somebody who worked in the minister's ministry. What response does the minister have to that? Are there concerns that in changing this from what has always been presented as a guiding area that's held by a Canadian citizen, who is often living in a community, to where it's out and open — that this is a corporate entity that now owns the guiding territory…?

Is there a sense that there will be a different attitude in how these areas are managed? And will it impact, do you think, how receptive those corporations are to having resident hunters coming into the same area where they're trying to sell hunts for often significant amounts of money to foreigners who come in to hunt in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I appreciate the comments, and we received a copy of that submission, as well as the member opposite.

There are a couple important points here. One is that the guide who holds a certificate must be Canadian, must be a permanent resident. They hold the quota. That's where the enforcement and compliance starts — with ensuring that they comply with the conditions of operation and requirements of that certificate.

As I pointed out, we don't see any legal issues with respect to being able to enforce and comply either against an individual guide-outfitter who may continue to be held in a single proprietorship as a single owner versus a corporation or an operation that may have been a smaller operation that is a family operation that incorporates for financing and taxation reasons that are of benefit to the corporation.

I don't see the risk of this change making any change to the current situation. In fact, what the industry tells us is that by having this, it will actually be more transparent and will allow us to ensure that we have that stronger enforcement and compliance.

[1140]

It really goes back to the individual and ensuring that it's a strictly regulated activity and sector. We will need to make sure that we continue to enforce the requirements of the certificate and the conditions that are in the legislation and regulations.

I don't see a change in this. The kinds of issues that the member opposite raised I think are there now and potentially will continue to be, but I don't see the change changing that. It's about being able to make sure that you deal with the person operating on the ground — the Canadian, the permanent resident who is here, who is undertaking those operations, whether it's as an individual owner or whether it's on behalf of a corporate ownership or whether it's within a family corporation.

N. Macdonald: The last issue that I'll raise is one, again, where the minister will have likely received the same…. I think we always get the same correspondence. I mean, some of these may be different because they are from local people.

The minister will know…. I can only imagine how much work it was to figure out allocation issues. We have people come to us, resident hunters versus guide-outfitters, around allocation. I can only imagine how much pressure and how hard it was to find the balance between guide-outfitters and resident hunters on the allocation issue.

I think that's something that exists as a tension, as well, on all issues between resident hunters and guide-outfitters. It's one thing if the guide-outfitters, as they almost always are, are active participants as hunters in a community. The tension is eased somewhat. But if it is a corporate body, even if the head guide is a Canadian, and the minister is saying that that won't change, it does change the dynamic a little bit.

To be honest, while in rural areas we understand hunting differently than in urban areas — I think that's fair to say — there nevertheless is a tension around hunting that there isn't, for instance, with skiing and other activities. Very often the argument that is made is: "Well, if a ski lodge can have a corporate body, why can you not have a guiding operation or other things that look similar?" But of course there are more complications around hunting activities just in general. That's a reality — perhaps not always in rural areas, but it is in urban areas.

The other set of concerns that we had were things like this. "As a resident hunter of many years, it's bad enough that you don't have to be a B.C. resident to own these territories. We are constantly banging heads with people who don't reside in the area and don't care what they leave behind for future generations." That's a view that they have, and the view is that putting corporations in charge is going to make that situation worse.

Another one says: "It's another bad idea, just because it's another incremental step towards private ownership of the land for hunting." While the minister, no doubt, thinks that's a stretch, it's nevertheless a concern that people have. They go on to say: "They seek this enhanced ownership control so that they can eliminate free public use and control and charge for hunting use by the non-client public."

Of course, I know that's not what this does, but I think it does demonstrate, as do all of these other e-mails, which are slightly different — I won't read all of them — takes on the same theme. They are consistently from resident hunters who feel that they are going to eventually find themselves with access issues and don't trust
[ Page 2498 ]
that the corporatization of what they saw…. Perhaps incorrectly, because there was always corporate money, seemingly, behind these hunting areas, or that practice has developed.

I'm sure the minister understands the concern that has been raised here. I guess the question is: will he address that concern and explain to those people who hold that view why they should not be concerned with the changes that are put forward here?

[1145]

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the individual concerns that have been raised. Certainly, this has been one of the files within the ministry on the allocation issues and some of the tensions between resident hunters and guide-outfitters — a little bit almost, in some cases, of a Hatfield and McCoy type of relationship that's developed over the years.

We've worked very hard with both parties on addressing the issues around the allocation and worked very closely with the Wildlife Federation, resident hunters and the guide-outfitters in addressing those. Despite that work and everything like that, I think it's very fair to say that tensions continue and probably will continue to be there.

In my view, this change doesn't change that situation. As the member opposite pointed out…. He put the words into my own mouth in terms of that it is a bit of a stretch, and things like that.

We will have to make sure that we continue to build that relationship between the two entities. We've worked very hard to do that.

Both groups…. One of the things they tell me regularly is that we need these tensions put behind us, because we both have very, very common objectives in terms of enhancement of the resource, building the resource, building opportunities, building additional economic contribution. That's a common objective, conservation, that they both share. The allocation issue is one that always keeps getting in the way of some of that.

It's important to point out that we consulted widely on the changes here with those organizations. The B.C. Wildlife Federation supported the change here as an organization. The central Guide Outfitters Association supported the change. They initially had some concerns. The Wildlife Federation initially had some concerns around the assistant guide changes. We've addressed those and allayed those concerns.

The change here…. It goes back to the point that they feel that by having this change, it actually provides greater transparency in the relationships and arrangements that exist, because you now provide for it. It will be more transparent, and you will have that clearer process between the guide-outfitter operating the certificate in the area and the ownership through that process, because it'll be clear. This actually strengthens the process. That's why the Wildlife Federation supported it.

We know we still have individual concerns. But those ones…. They look at this. I think it's not really related to the specific ownership. It's really related to the ongoing tensions that we've had between resident hunters and guide-outfitters, which we're working very hard to try to continue to resolve and make allocation decisions that are fair to both parties. That requires some back and forth between the two groups, and that back and forth continues.

N. Macdonald: I thank the minister for allowing this discussion to happen within this section. I appreciate that.

A couple of questions just to wrap up this section and, I hope, more properly directed to what's actually in this section, which is around the certificates. What revenue does the government get from a guiding territory certificate? Is there an annual rent? Is there a permitting fee? Is there a price charged for each animal that's harvested? If so, what's the price?

I guess the more general question is: how much revenue does the government get in total from these certificates? Is there a provincial number that the minister can provide?

[1150]

Hon. S. Thomson: There are a number of fees — transfer fees on licences, the licence fees per animal under the allocation. There is a lease fee.

I don't have those specific numbers broken out, but we can undertake to provide them. What I do know is that the guide-outfitter industry directly employs more than 2,000 people each year. It generates about $116 million in economic activity each year. It's obviously a sector that provides an important economic contribution.

We can undertake to provide the specific revenue figures. I don't have the notes in front of me. I think they were in the estimates note. We probably had them there. I don't have them here with me now, but we can undertake to provide them.

N. Macdonald: I have a few more questions here. I actually thought we would finish by lunch, and I apologize. I think we're going to be a few minutes after lunch with this bill. I know it gives an opportunity for the minister to take his staff to lunch, which would otherwise not have occurred. I think that's something that he likely will kindly do. He does that a lot. It's a wonderful spread he puts on. That's the upside of ten minutes after the break.

The next question on section 73 is: how long are the licences issued for? Under what conditions are the certificates renewed? How difficult a process is that?

If the minister could answer those questions in the time that we have left.

[1155]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think I've got the question here. The certificates of the tenures or licences are issued for 25 years. The process for renewal or transfer is that the certificate holder would make an application to the regional manager. The regional manager would then undertake a First Nations consultation process around renewal of the certificate or the application for a transfer of that certificate and then, once that First Nations consultation process had been completed, would renew the certificate.

With that, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I hope that I don't have to do this too much more with the member opposite, because it's starting to cost me too much money.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

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 resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $36,495,000 (continued).

D. Donaldson: We're going to continue on this file. I have a number of areas that I'd like to address. I realize that we don't have sufficient time to cover all of them, so I'll get into some of them in as much detail as we can. I will put the questions on the record for some of the other areas and request a written response from the minister when we get to those topics.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. The friendship centres do an incredible amount of work across the province. They are in the northeast. They're in the northwest. They're through the central part of the province, on Vancouver Island and in the Vancouver area. I think the value-for-the-dollar work that they do, strictly looking at it from an economic point of view, is pretty phenomenal. They have seen downward pressure on their budget, especially from the first citizens fund. The government funds friendship centre activities in a large way from the first citizens fund, which we see in this budget. The first citizens fund funding has dropped by approximately $1 million.

I understand that that fund is set up, and the interest off the fund is what enables the apportionment of that money. The programs that the first citizens fund supports in friendship centres — things like the elders transportation program, the student bursary program, the friendship centre program, which are a whole range of culturally appropriate programs that serve many important needs to the urban aboriginal population, which we know is large and growing in the province — are suffering because of the downward pressure.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance — that's a bipartisan committee, as the minister knows; both opposition and government MLAs are on it — unanimously endorsed the resolution to provide core investment of up to $3 million, a $3 million investment, into friendship centres in order for them to support the important activities, the cost-effective activities and the culturally appropriate activities that they do.

I'm asking the minister: in this budget, under his ministry's budget, was the $3 million core investment included?

Hon. J. Rustad: It's nice to be able to be back. I do apologize that we have a short period of time. I will try to keep my answers as brief as I can.

[1125]

The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres does do phenomenal work across the province. Particularly, the moosehide campaign is one that I think is a great campaign and something that we all need to be behind and supporting.

Specifically to the question around the Finance Committee's recommendations, although we understand the recommendation coming forward — we understand the rationale, and we do understand the great work that is being done by the friendship centres — we also have a mandate. And the number one issue on my mandate letter from the Premier is balancing the budget and trying to bring forth fiscal responsibility within the province. That means sometimes you have to make some tough choices. So unfortunately, we were unable to meet the request of the Finance Committee.
[ Page 2500 ]

D. Donaldson: Again, the friendship centres aren't under just financial pressure from the province for the good work they do. I think tough decisions have to be looked at in an analytical way. The work they do does assist — if you're looking at it solely from an economic point of view — in reducing pressures on the budget into the future. That has to be the human resource, the human capital, the human potential that they deal with and assist with. It means that in the future we have a lot less pressure on the budget.

There has not only been downward pressure on their roles and responsibilities from the province, budgetary downward pressure, but there is a large question about the federal component of their funding right now. Can the minister confirm that they're in discussions and possibly confirm that the province will be able to support some so-called bridge funding — in other words, keep the doors open, keep the programs going until the federal portion of the funding is resolved, hopefully before the summer?

Hon. J. Rustad: Thanks for the question. There was a concern that we had, as well, in terms of the commitment around the federal government, but it is my understanding — although it's not my jurisdiction, so I don't know definitively — that that issue has been resolved between the federal government and the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that information. That's not what I received as far as information last week, but perhaps in the past week that's been resolved. I hope that's the case.

As far as the aboriginal friendship centres' roles in human development, they have advanced a strategy called the 5X5 jobs strategy. That is something they feel is a valid strategy under the off-reserve aboriginal action plan. So five-by-five means having 5,000 First Nations and aboriginal people who haven't been employed or are currently not in the workforce working within five years.

We're not talking about the people who have the skills already to enter into the trades, which there is some emphasis on in this government. We're talking about people who have been previously unemployed, who face some major barriers to employment. They have some fairly innovative ways of dealing with this through social enterprises. It enables people to get that first step into the workforce, to develop the behaviours, the habits and the skills that will enable them to perhaps step up into other parts of the workforce as well or continue in the social enterprise field.

My question to the minister is: will you be supporting the five-by-five job strategy initiative as put forward and as discussed by the aboriginal friendship centres?

[1130]

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned earlier, the work that the friendship centres are doing and the association is doing is important work. I have looked at the five-by-five program and, in fact, we are actively engaged as government with the association. The Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training is also engaged with them on this. We are supporting in terms of how those discussions go, and it's something we're looking at in terms of the overall plan and strategy at this point.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Does that mean we can expect funding to be announced for support of that program?

Hon. J. Rustad: We are in early discussions with them on that between, as I mentioned, the ministry responsible for Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training as well as our ministry in playing a supporting role. Those discussions continue on. We're looking at how that can fit in with our overall job strategy plan that is being developed. But like I said on an earlier point, we have no decision points at this time.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Based on our experience yesterday, I'm happy the minister didn't suggest I take that question up with the Jobs Minister, but I will — during those budget estimates.

I'd like to move on now to a treaty-related question. It's not about a specific treaty, but it's regarding the keepers of the process, the B.C. Treaty Commission.

Can the minister advise what the B.C. Treaty Commission's budget is this year as compared to last year?

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you for the budget question. The amount that we provided to the B.C. Treaty Commission for the important work that they are doing across the province last year was just over $1 million for their operational funding.

Of course, this is a tripartite process, so we are in discussions with our partners — with the Canadian government as well as with the Treaty Commission and the B.C. summit — about the funding level for this year. But we're anticipating and we're hoping that we would be in the same vicinity for the fiscal 2014-15 year.

D. Donaldson: I just want to point out that budget estimates are about the administration of the ministry's budget. All of the questions I'm asking are regarding the budget. Thank you for that.

[1135]

The $1 million that the minister pointed out as provincial funding to the B.C. Treaty Commission last year and about the same this year…. Would the minister say that there's been an increase in the workload for the B.C. Treaty Commission from last year compared to this year?
[ Page 2501 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned earlier, the B.C. Treaty Commission, obviously, does very, very important work. It's one of the things that we have recognized in terms of a priority within our budget.

Given the constraints and the challenges in terms of meeting a balanced budget globally and also making sure that we manage within our own budget, we have, as I mentioned, recognized it as a priority, which is why we're able to support it at the same level. We're hoping to be in or around the same level — depending, of course, on how the discussions go — thereby being able to carry forward with the important work that is being done.

D. Donaldson: Well, again, according to the B.C. Treaty Commission, from their 2013 annual report, they say demand has arisen from a number of circumstances — one, "intensified treaty negotiations at stage 5 and some stage 4 tables" and, especially, "intensified inter–First Nation dialogue on overlapping and shared territories, particularly where treaty negotiations are approaching final agreement."

When the minister talks about tough decisions and global budgets, here is a prime example of the work increasing for an organization that the province supports, the B.C. Treaty Commission, but they're not supporting it with any additional dollars. The workload is increasing, especially when it comes to overlapping and shared territory disputes, and these are currently having major implications on economic development for the province.

It's not only the time of government spent in discussions around overlapping and shared disputes that's costing money in this upcoming budget cycle but the lost opportunities from not having resolution. I think that is important to consider in the global context the minister talks about.

Can the minister advise…? They're supporting the B.C. Treaty Commission with up to or close to $1 million this year. Other than that, what is the approach that the minister takes to overlap and shared territory disputes?

[1140]

Hon. J. Rustad: The overlap issue being referenced is actually a very, very complex issue. It has significant ramifications on a lot of interactions — obviously, between government and First Nations and between First Nations themselves. We always try to encourage First Nations to be able to work together to come to a resolution as to how they will have shared or disputed territory or how they deal with overlap issues.

However, given the complexity of the issue…. I recognize that we have a short period of time, and this is such a complex question that what I would suggest is that perhaps we could offer the member a briefing on the various components of overlap and how it impacts on treaty and other issues.

D. Donaldson: I'll accept that offer for a briefing. Thank you. I'll ask one further question on it, and maybe it will be a more simple answer than the complexity.

I think the minister is right. It is a complex topic. However, I think that the actions by the government are making it more complicated. I'll give you an example.

What the experience has been is that as the government moves down the road to getting to an agreement-in-principle with a First Nation around the treaty process, it's at that point that the engagement with other First Nations who have a shared territory dispute seem to come to the fore. As one First Nations leader put it, you don't get serious at the table until you're lockstepped in, until the land is picked by the First Nation in question.

To me, this seems to be not a fully adequate approach. I'm wondering if the ministry has considered or is looking at policy to start the shared territory discussion before they get down the stage to where it's locked in, in an AIP.

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned before, of course, this is a very complex issue. I will try to bring it into a very brief answer.

I want to give you an example of dealing with or managing issues of overlap or shared territory. Through things like strategic engagement agreements, we actually have the First Nations work amongst themselves to deal with those issues. They're able to resolve that, and it becomes part of the overall agreement discussions.

When we're specifically looking at treaties or incremental components that advance a treaty along, we intentionally go and work with the First Nations to try to design these agreements that do not have overlap or do not have potential conflicting claims. We also very much encourage the First Nations to engage early, even before the selections are made, so that they can have those discussions with their neighbouring First Nations around the varying interests.

I guess I would maybe respond in a bit of a question as well, because I'm concerned about the direction that you're suggesting around this. I'd like some clarity, if you don't mind. That is: are you suggesting that we sort of halt treaty and halt that whole process of trying to advance these discussions along until we're in a position where all of the potential overlapping claims, overlapping issues are resolved?

[1145]

D. Donaldson: Well, it's a complex topic, and I'm glad the minister is asking my opinion, because I'd be most willing to share it. I could give him a briefing on it. What I would say is that no one is talking about halting things. What we're talking about is the Crown behaving in an honourable way with First Nations in order to improve the process and get to agreements more quickly.

I recognize the time, and as I alerted the minister, I'm
[ Page 2502 ]
going to put two topics on the record for a written response.

One is the First Nations clean energy business fund. I noted a decrease from $1.811 million to $496,000. During the pre-estimates meeting I had with his staff, which I was happy to have, my understanding was that that drop was due to revenue streams from these projects perhaps not being as good as anticipated. If that's the case, I would ask for, in writing, the projects that were anticipated to generate revenue and the revenue they generated versus what was anticipated for those clean energy projects.

The other question I had regarded the Minister's Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women. I think MACAW is a way it's referred to as well. The minister said in last year's budgets, in July, that he was anticipating a meeting with the advisory council in the fall. So just whether that meeting occurred and whether the shuttle service on Highway 16 came up, especially in regards to the throne speech's desire to have a violence-free B.C., and when the ministry will be meeting again with the Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women.

Vote 11: ministry operations, $36,495,000 — approved.

Vote 12: treaty and other agreements funding, $42,454,000 — approved.

Hon. J. Rustad: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Votes 11 and 12 of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation 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