2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 8

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

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: Today is a special day in this House. It is my pleasure to introduce to our Legislature a delightful man, a father of nine, an inspirational speaker, an opera star and a hockey goalie, the man who made the Vancouver Canucks famous, albeit not yet champions. Please welcome, live from the Leg., Mr. O Canada, Mark Donnelly. Please stand.

[O Canada was sung.]

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce Wendy Booth, who is an area director from the Columbia Valley. She's here as a member of the UBCM executive. I ask the House to join me in making her welcome.

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce some 30-plus members of Advocis, the Financial Advisors Association of Canada. Advocis is Canada's largest and oldest association of financial advisers and planners in Canada, representing 11,000 members in 40 chapters from coast to coast.

Today Advocis met with members from both sides of the House and also had a lunch reception to discuss the work that Advocis does, their impact on the lives of Canadians, so that Canadians can make sound, secure financial decisions.

As I have the pleasure and honour of introducing the folks from Advocis, I'm going to take this opportunity to introduce two of my constituents. Rob Bauml and Carolyn Radics, from Vernon, are here. Folks, welcome, and thank you very much for your contribution.

Tributes

JIMMY FITZPATRICK

M. Karagianis: I have some sad news today.

I rise today to pay tribute to Jimmy Fitzpatrick, one of the great labour leaders in my community. Jimmy was, in the words of Jonathan Whitworth, the CEO of Seaspan, a kind and generous man who was able to move mountains with a firm commitment, a wry smile and a good story.

Jimmy Fitzpatrick lost his battle with cancer on Saturday. He will be profoundly missed by his brothers and sisters at the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Lodge 191. Brother Fitzpatrick served on the executive board for 20 years and was elected the business manager six years ago. Jimmy's legacy runs deep in my community for the many ways he made life better for working men and women.

He was a friend of mine. He had a Scottish accent that was as thick as honey and a great sense of humour. My condolences to his family and his friends at this difficult time.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: I'd like the House to join with me today to welcome a great constituent, a community builder and a fabulous supporter. I know him only as Mr. Sohi. He is accompanied by Valbir Sidhu, Issur Bains and Rita Bains. Could the House please make these people all welcome.

[1340]

Hon. C. Oakes: It is an honour for me today to have had the opportunity to meet with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities executive. Over lunch hour we had the opportunity to discuss our strong communities throughout our great province.

I'm pleased to introduce Rhona Martin, who is the president of UBCM, and she's from the Columbia-Shuswap; Mary Sjostrom from the community of Quesnel; Sav Dhaliwal from Burnaby; Al Richmond from the Cariboo regional district; Cheryl Shuman from Dawson Creek; Andy Shadrack from the Central Kootenay regional district; Wendy Booth from the East Kootenay regional district; Michael Morden from Maple Ridge; and Murry Krause from Prince George.

House, would you please help me thank these local governments for all that they do for the province of British Columbia and welcome them to the House today.

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming members of Advocis, the financial advisers 40, from across British Columbia. I'd like to recognize the president and CEO, Greg Pollock. He hails from Toronto. We're told not to hold that against him. Greg's boss, Harley Lockhart, a 15-year volunteer from Kelowna, is the national chair of Advocis. As well, David Webb, Jared Webb and Rob Bommel talked to us on both sides of the House today.

We recognize the important contributions financial advisers from across British Columbia bring to families in terms of the value of their financial advice, promoting financial literacy, as well as the economic benefit to our economy — over 9,000 small businesses across British Columbia. We appreciate that.

We heard their message against the experience of legislated fiduciary responsibility in the United Kingdom, so
[ Page 2692 ]
we're advised not to follow down that path.

As well, I appreciate the positive recommendations to adopt a professions model that looks to fill the existing gap in regulations, or between regulating financial products, and the need for this model to address the relationship of trust between financial advisers and their clients.

I look forward to working more on this issue in the future, and I ask everyone to please make them welcome.

Michelle Stilwell: On behalf of my colleague from Fraser-Nicola, who has a case of laryngitis today, I am pleased to introduce Kleo Landucci from the Ashcroft Terminal. Kleo has been working closely with the village of Ashcroft to ensure the development of an inland port, which will bring jobs and diversity to the village and the surrounding area.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Kleo to the House.

G. Holman: It's my pleasure today to introduce Joseph Boutilier, a young 23-year-old man who is going to be unicycling from Victoria to Ottawa over the next few months to promote unity for climate action. The ride will culminate in Ottawa after rallies, events and meetings in dozens of communities along the way. He'll hopefully be meeting with Prime Minister Harper. Joseph is calling on the Canadian government to take rapid, strategic and collaborative action to tackle the climate change crisis.

Welcome to the House, Joseph.

N. Letnick: Today is the inaugural meeting of the Premier's women's economic advisory council. In the gallery tonight we have Renee Wasylyk from the Kelowna area. Renee is principal and founder of Troika Developments and past chair of our local Urban Development Institute and economic development commission.

I know all the members of this House work really hard on expanding economic opportunities throughout British Columbia so that we have the resources necessary to support our strong social programs. Renee is one of those people. She took her construction company out of the 2008 crisis and has actually built it up over that time in the last five years by 300 percent or $40 million — just an amazing story. I'm sure she'll be sharing some of her extraordinary passion and ideas with all British Columbians to help make sure that we have a very strong economic climate for women and men throughout British Columbia.

Please help me make her welcome.

R. Chouhan: I have to make two introductions today. First, I am very pleased to introduce Sav Dhaliwal, the city councillor from Burnaby, and he's the vice-president of UBCM.

[1345]

Sav Dhaliwal was also the president of the NDP. He served in that capacity so well, and he is still sought after by so many people to help. He's a very active councillor in the city of Burnaby. Please join me to welcome Sav Dhaliwal to the precinct.

Secondly, I also want to talk about some seniors who came today, this morning, 65 seniors from the Taiwanese, Japanese and Chinese communities. They are biking from Burnaby to San Jose. The youngest person in that is 73 years old, and the oldest is 93. It gave me a great moment of pride this morning when we received them in front of the Legislature. I wish them all the best and all success.

Hon. T. Wat: Interprovincial and international trade are a vital source for economic growth and job creation in British Columbia. Our government has strongly advocated for trade liberalization initiatives such as TILMA and the new west partnership, and B.C. has been a vocal advocate for concluding the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union and the South Korea–Canada free trade agreement.

All of these successes have been made possible by the hard work and dedication of our trade policy staff, who are joining us in the gallery this afternoon. I would like to introduce Sarah Wempe, Janna Jessee, Monica Gervais, Linda Jakubowski, Josh Smith, Trevor Paul, Jimmy Li and Executive Director Don White. It is through their tireless work that we have ensured that British Columbia's interests are well represented during these important trade negotiations.

Would the House please join me in thanking Don White and his professional team for all their hard and great work and welcome them to the House.

C. Trevena: I'd like to join the member for Fraser-Nicola in welcoming Kleo Landucci, the CEO of Ashcroft Terminal, to the House. She's doing fine work in Ashcroft, and I had a very good conversation with her this morning about a strategy for moving goods through the Lower Mainland.

I'd also like the House to join me in welcoming a number of guests — Tammy Sampson, from the B.C. Flagging Association; Kathie Haidon, the traffic manager of the city of Surrey; and James Shaw from RoadSafe B.C. We've been discussing questions of road safety and the safety of flaggers in construction zones and the need to be looking at whether we can double the fines in those construction zones.

I hope the House would make these guests very welcome.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I introduce a group from Douglas College that's here with us today. They've been in meetings all day on behalf of Douglas College, a fine institution with campuses both in my riding as well as in New Westminster. Here today is Dr. Scott
[ Page 2693 ]
McAlpine, the president; Shelley Williams, the board chair; and Gerry Shinkewski, the board vice-chair. May the House make them truly welcome.

M. Mungall: I'm very pleased to hear that Andy Shadrack is here in the House today. As mentioned, he is the area D representative for the regional district of Central Kootenay. Andy is a long-time resident of the Kootenays, and he's always been a passionate voice for the issues that matter most to the residents at the north end of Kootenay Lake and, of course, all residents in the Kootenays. May the House please give him a very extra-special welcome.

M. Dalton: I have a couple of introductions to make. First of all, from Mission we have Gregory Ould, also with his daughter Emma and son Benjamin.

While walking out of a movie theatre in downtown Vancouver on a chilly October night a number of years ago, Gregory noticed a man lying in an alcove on the side of the building. He went up to the man, whose appearance looked weathered and rough, and he asked him if there was anything that he could do. His response wasn't what he expected, and it blew him away. He'd expected him to ask for money, cigarettes or coffee, but what he said, was: "I could use a blanket so I can survive the night."

Greg went out and bought the blanket. That one act has actually spurred on other actions. He started Blanket B.C. Their first drive was 67 blankets, and now they've distributed about 100,000 blankets. There are a couple of hundred volunteers.

[1350]

Would the House please make them welcome and express our appreciation.

J. Rice: I've had three visitors in the last few weeks. I'm really ecstatic to welcome Simon Schopman, who is a constituent of mine from Bella Coola. Simon today was assuring me that the challenging journey to get to Victoria did not include any transportation on the Nimpkish, which would have been quite stressful. Simon, like many folks in the Bella Coola Valley, relies or depends on multiple jobs to make ends meet and live a semi-subsistence living.

He told me this morning he had nine jobs. Right now I can only remember seven of them, which are: he's the marketing director for Bella Coola Valley Tourism — again, he has many concerns around ferry cuts; he's a drug and alcohol facilitator; he also works at the career centre; he writes for the central Coast Mountain News; he does property management for many albeit now-closing lodges in the Bella Coola Valley; and he has a landscaping business. Would the House please make Simon feel welcome.

D. Barnett: Today in the House we have Stewart Muir, who's the executive director of Resource Works, and Lynn Angelin, chairman of the Resource Works Society's advisory council. Resource Work's slogan is "Jobs for B.C., innovation for the world: coming together around natural resources, because in B.C. it's who we are and what we do." Please welcome them to the House today.

S. Robinson: I, too, would like to welcome Greg and his children to the House. I remember when Greg collected those first few blankets. He was actually living in the Tri-Cities area. He and I met because I was a fundraiser in the community and he wanted some advice. I'm glad to see that he took it, and he's certainly made great strides with Blanket B.C. I want to congratulate him and his family.

Tributes

TRI-CITIES PREDATORS
HOCKEY TEAM WIN

S. Robinson: I also wanted to offer congratulations. Earlier this week a number of my colleagues were congratulating some hockey teams in their communities, so I thought I wanted to congratulate the Tri-Cities Predators juvenile female ice hockey team because they took gold in their tournament in Everett, Washington, last weekend because they play like girls.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: I'd be remiss not to introduce a councillor and local businessman from Maple Ridge, Mike Morden. You can make him feel welcome.

G. Hogg: I'd like to introduce to this House a gentleman from Kamloops who is being mentored by the Reverend Tim Schindel and is only picking up the very positive parts of that mentorship that Tim has to offer. Would the House please welcome Jonathan Weins.

Secondly, if I may, I'd also like to introduce Mark Donnelly's son, Francis Donnelly, who is with us today. If we would please welcome him. I'd like to add as a postscript that the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove commented to me earlier today that he was very surprised to learn that Mark Donnelly knows, actually, all of the words to O Canada. Please welcome Francis.

R. Lee: I would like to introduce Eva Sun, who is in the House today. I've known Eva for over 30 years. She's the president of The Rice People, a very successful business as well. She's also a member of the Premier's Women's Economic Council. Would the House please make her welcome.
[ Page 2694 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY

Michelle Stilwell: Today is World Autism Awareness Day, an opportunity to reflect on the struggles and celebrate the successes of people living with autism spectrum disorder. There is no cure for autism, and its causes are not yet fully understood. Successful treatment of ASD often hinges on early diagnosis and intervention.

[1355]

I'm proud that B.C. is considered a leader in providing autism services. Ours is the only province in Canada that has a no-wait-list policy for families to access autism funding after a confirmed diagnosis. Among the many supports offered by our government, the Ministry of Children and Families provides funding to more than 8,500 children and youth with autism spectrum disorder.

Of course, government doesn't work alone. Strong community partnerships with organizations such as the Autism Society of British Columbia and Autism Community Training provide exceptional support and advocacy. Their services are in greater demand than ever. Autism now affects one in 68 children. That's a 30 percent increase in diagnosis in just six years. That number is startling, even scary, but it's just a number. It tells us how many people live with ASD but not who they are.

It's likely that everyone in this chamber knows somebody with ASD. If you're lucky, it could be my son Kai. I say you would be lucky to know a child like my son because you know that while autism is a challenging and sometimes heartbreaking disorder, it's not who he is; it's simply a challenge that he faces.

We continue to learn more every day about the best ways to support people with ASD. Together we're all making a difference. It's my hope and belief that we will continue to raise awareness about autism spectrum disorder and continue to build an inclusive society that allows people with ASD to thrive.

Would you please join me in celebrating World Autism Awareness Day.

OOLICHAN HISTORY IN NORTHWEST B.C.

D. Donaldson: There's oil flowing across the northwest, and the people of Stikine are happy to get in on the action. I'm talking oolichan oil, of course — a sustainable product providing jobs, making life more affordable for many and supplying part of a local diet that reduces health care system dependency.

The oolichan run has returned to the Skeena and Nass. The oil has been rendered in a time-honoured process along the banks of those mighty rivers, and the final product transported to Hazelton and further into the Interior. That is something that could have been said every year for the last 10,000 years. Trading in oolichan oil was the basis of a thriving community between the Gitxsan and coastal First Nations.

The oil is solid at room temperature, with a consistency of butter. It was packed in cedar boxes along well-worn paths that were termed "grease trails" by early European explorers. Alexander Mackenzie's famous overland trip through the coastal mountains to the Pacific Ocean followed an ancient grease trail.

Up to 15 percent of the body weight of these sardine-like fish is fat, and the oil is high in vitamins. They're so oily that they're also known as candlefish because, when dried, they could be fitted with a wick and burned like a candle. These small fish not only play an extremely role in the northwest ecosystem, but the trade is a demonstration of the economic component of aboriginal rights and title, and the trails reinforce First Nations' authority and jurisdiction on the land base.

Some rivers no longer have a run. The Haisla point to pollution from the Eurocan pulp mill as a culprit in the loss of a teeming run of oolichan in the Kitimat River. The mill is now closed and gone. So are the oolichan. It's something we need to reflect on when considering fossil fuel–related development at the mouth of the Skeena River, where the estuary is an important area for oolichan as they transition between fresh water and salt water. Oolichan oil is part of living healthy in the northwest, part of who we are and part of living well in our communities.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF MARYANNE ARCAND

M. Morris: Last week my colleague the hon. member for Prince George–Valemount stood in this house to acknowledged the passing of MaryAnne Arcand. Today I want to recognize MaryAnne for the contributions she made to the province, to the Prince George community and to the logging operations across British Columbia.

MaryAnne Arcand made history in 2009, becoming the first woman to manage a B.C. logging organization, the Central Interior Logging Association. She served on the B.C. Forest Safety Council as director of Forestry TruckSafe and northern initiatives. She also chaired the Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative of British Columbia.

[1400]

A tireless advocate for workers' safety, she was not afraid to go looking for answers, as she did when she travelled the Mackenzie resource road network after two serious logging truck crashes in 2006. MaryAnne was instrumental in reducing the number of logging truck deaths in this province and travelled almost 100,000 kilometres around the province in her own truck, delivering her message on how to improve worker safety.

A valuable member of the Prince George community, MaryAnne sat on a number of boards. She was, amongst
[ Page 2695 ]
other things, a past director of the Prince George Railway and Forestry Museum and president of the Prince George Rotary Club. MaryAnne received numerous awards, including Business Person of the Year by the Prince George Chamber of Commerce in 2012.

MaryAnne passed away on March 17. She is survived by her parents, Ditty and Bill DeWitt; her husband, George; their four children, Harald, Willy, Tina and Melanie; and ten grandchildren.

I ask that this House join me in recognizing a woman who was proactive in her community and worked tirelessly to ensure logging truck drivers came home safely every night.

SEARCH FOR ADAM MOORE
IN PRINCE RUPERT

J. Rice: This past winter was a particularly hard one for the community of Prince Rupert. Several lives were lost in a spate of crashes on Highway 16 over the span of a few short weeks, giving new meaning to the term Highway of Tears. One of those lost was 26-year-old Adam Moore.

Adam went missing in the early hours of December 29, seemingly vanishing without a trace. He was a beloved son, a brother, a cousin and a friend to so many. His disappearance rallied our community into action, as hundreds of volunteers joined the search, desperate to bring him home. Prince Rupert waited, holding out hope that Adam would be found alive and well. Sadly, the search came to a tragic end on January 8 when his vehicle was discovered submerged in the ocean.

As a community, we mourned his passing. Yet even in the darkness of this tragedy, there was light. Prince Rupert came together in a way that is rarely seen in this day and age. From the searchers out combing the ditches on a 140-kilometre stretch of highway on foot, to the drivers who kept a constant watch as they drove their normal commute, to the emergency response organizations who searched tirelessly, to the people who cooked and baked and opened their homes and their hearts to the searchers, Prince Rupert was united in a quest to find Adam.

Perhaps most profoundly, Adam's disappearance highlighted the very real need for a land-based search and rescue organization in our community. Realizing this, a group of passionate, dedicated community members are currently in the process of bringing such an organization to fruition. Sadly, none of this will bring Adam back, but hopefully it will help spare another family from the devastating loss of a loved one.

WESBILD OPERATIONS IN
COQUITLAM–BURKE MOUNTAIN AREA

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure today that I rise and celebrate the continued growth and vibrancy of my riding, Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and a key player in the wonderful community I represent, Wesbild. Wesbild has owned, planned and developed property in Coquitlam since 1989, where they were the developer of what I call home, Westwood Plateau. As well, more recently they've developed the wonderful community of Predator Ridge near Vernon.

Wesbild has also been a key player in the development of Burke Mountain to date, which commenced with their ownership in 2002. Recently it was announced, and I am very pleased, that Wesbild purchased 370 acres of land from the province of British Columbia on Burke Mountain, which is a natural extension of their Foothills development. It is great news for our community.

Not only will this result in a thoughtfully designed place to bring people together and for families to call home, including all of the amenities, but a solid, sustainable community that Wesbild, taking the lead for many of B.C.'s best builders and their partners — great builders like Foxridge, Mission Group, Noura, Polygon, Silver Star, Wallmark and others — will contribute to.

Wesbild is committed to developing exceptional places for families and is very dedicated to our community. Yet another example of their dedication lies within the recent deal for the property on Burke Mountain. Included in the agreement for the purchase and sale is a provision that ensures two school sites located within the area available for purchase by the school board at prices frozen at 2014 market value for ten years. Wesbild will also provide such services as sanitary and sewer, as well as other services to the site, to the school district at no cost.

I know that Wesbild will work closely with the city of Coquitlam to make this a reality and will continue to engage residents to ensure that the new neighbourhoods meld seamlessly into the old areas that have been home for so many families for so many years.

I would be remiss not to commend Wesbild's great leadership. Hassan Khosrowshahi, Wesbild's founder and chairman, affectionately known as Mr. K, who is a great visionary and a remarkable leader, has built more than one successful business here in British Columbia. Kevin Layden, Wesbild's president and CEO, continues to work tirelessly to see other great communities emerge.

[1405]

I wish to thank Wesbild and all of their partners for their considerable contribution to making Coquitlam and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain one of the best places to call home in the world.

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY AND
MULTI-MATERIAL B.C.
RECYCLING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

L. Popham: Today I rise in this House to highlight an amazing industry in our province, our newspaper industry. Newspapers are pioneers of recycling. In fact, they
[ Page 2696 ]
were instrumental in establishing the blue box system.

We can all agree in this House that recycling is a virtue. However, very few in this province agree with the overhaul of B.C.'s residential recycling system that will take effect in just 46 days. In fact, MMBC has businesses across B.C. screaming blue murder. MMBC is hitting business with approximately $100 million in annual obligatory fees. One of the sectors that will be hardest hit is the newspaper industry. This is outrageous, because the sector already recycles 85 percent of the newsprint it uses.

MMBC is currently demanding $10 million in annual fees from the newspaper sector to pay for the recycling that is already happening. As well, MMBC is insisting on an additional $3 million worth of advertising to promote itself.

Madame Speaker: Member.

L. Popham: Yes?

Madame Speaker: Content of statements in the afternoon should be aligned with Standing Order 25. I would ask you to bring your remarks in line.

L. Popham: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

John Hinds, president and CEO of Newspapers Canada, does not mince his words. This morning he told me himself:

"If this is not stopped, MMBC could bring our industry to its knees. Newspapers operate on a razor-thin margin right now. Raising the cost for consumers is a non-starter, and that leads to lower circulation and a vicious downward cycle.

"The only way we could pay for this would be to cut 300 to 500 jobs in every small community and to close down small community newspapers. We can all agree that recycling is worthwhile, and in principle, it makes sense to require those who make the waste to pay for the cost of recycling it, but this is not the issue."

Madame Speaker: Member.

L. Popham: Yes?

Madame Speaker: A reminder that your statement must comply.

L. Popham: Yes, Madame Speaker.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO BURNS LAKE
MILL EXPLOSION AND
CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

A. Dix: A question to the Premier. Wood dust was identified as a significant factor in causing the Babine Forest Products mill explosion in January 2012. Wood dust was also identified as a major combustion hazard by WorkSafe at least two years before this catastrophe.

In 2010 John Astad, an expert from the Combustible Dust Policy Institute in Texas, was brought to B.C. for a meeting with WorkSafe safety officials, officers and management. Issues included, in a day-long meeting, combustible dust ignition and explosion factors.

Will the Premier explain to this House and the families and workers of Burns Lake and other communities why WorkSafe did not actually apply the information it had two years before?

Hon. C. Clark: As we work all together to grow this economy for the future, we have to make sure that in doing that we grow it responsibly, that as we create jobs in every corner of the province, we make sure that the people who go to those jobs have a real assurance, along with their families, that they are going to come home safe every day.

After the explosion in Burns Lake at the Babine sawmill, we took quick action. We made sure that we worked with the community in the immediate aftermath of the disaster to support those who were hurt and injured.

Second, we made sure that we connected those who were without work with work and, where necessary, social assistance.

Third, we worked to make sure that that mill was reopened — the economic backbone of that community — so that they could have certainty for the future.

[1410]

Last, government, through the auspices of WorkSafe B.C., undertook an investigation. No charges were forwarded as a result of that investigation. We disagreed with that result. We're unhappy about it, deeply disappointed, and know that families in those communities expected different.

So we are going to work to make sure — we are doing it now — that WorkSafe doesn't ever make that same mistake again and that workers in sawmills across this province know they'll get home safe when they go to work in the morning.

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

A. Dix: The Premier went up to Burns Lake in January 2012 and promised families accountability and justice, and that was botched. It was fundamentally botched.

Now we know that this was a discussion at WorkSafe years before. In other words, an accident that was identified as a preventable accident ought to have been prevented. This case, where you have different government agencies blaming one another and where you have Hampton, the company, not taking any responsibility and WorkSafe pointing fingers at Hampton, is a classic case of why we need a public inquiry. That's what the families are calling for from Burns Lake, and that's what this government needs to deliver.
[ Page 2697 ]

Given that WorkSafe ignored information brought to its own attention, "vital information necessary in identifying, evaluating and controlling combustible dust hazards in the workplace," isn't this just one more reason why the Premier should say yes to a public inquiry asked for by the families, by the First Nations Summit and by people all over B.C.?

Hon. C. Clark: What happened at Burns Lake was a terrible, terrible tragedy, not just for the individuals who lost their lives or for those who were injured — people scarred forever, many of them; it was a tragedy for the entire community and for our whole province.

Clearly, things were not done right at WorkSafe B.C. The member knows, and British Columbians know, more detail about what happened because I ordered a review to establish the fact pattern of what went wrong very shortly after the Crown announced that it would not be proceeding with charges. This is an incredibly serious matter.

In the course of that review, we asked one of the most senior lawyers in this country for his legal opinion about whether or not we would get a different result if we pursued an independent inquiry. His very clear answer to that was no.

So we are instead going and working with WorkSafe B.C. to establish exactly what needs to be done to make sure that this problem does not happen again. That is our responsibility to the workers of British Columbia. Despite the fact that the Crown decided not to press charges, I will say this. We will make sure we do everything we can to find justice for families in the future, to ensure that no family experiences what those families did in Burns Lake.

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

A. Dix: The Premier surely knows that Mr. Doust's opinion does not exclude a public inquiry in any way, shape or form. I'll note the opinion by a very distinguished lawyer in Vancouver, David Crossin, who said, simply put, "The opinion of Mr. Doust does not foreclose the establishment of a commission of inquiry in order to address the proposed terms of reference," which is an analysis of both the performance of WorkSafe and what could have been prevented. I mean, the Premier seems to use Mr. Doust's opinion, which reflects on the government's incompetence in managing the investigation, as the sole issue here.

The issue here is that two people died and 19 were seriously injured. That's the issue here, and that action that could have been taken — because WorkSafe itself determined the accident was preventable — was not taken.

[1415]

The people of B.C. and, most importantly, the people in Burns Lake and the people at Lakeland, as well, deserve answers to these questions, not internal investigations by government. Not government investigating itself — an independent, public inquiry to find out what happened, why it happened and why it shouldn't happen in the future. Why won't the Premier order one?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is correct in this. Mr. Doust did not say there could not be a public inquiry. What Mr. Doust very clearly said…. I'll quote for the member because he may not have seen this. He confirmed that a decision of Crown counsel to approve or not approve charges is not a proper subject for review in a public inquiry. In other words, a public inquiry would not come to a different conclusion. A public inquiry would not change the outcome of what government could do.

What we can do, though, is we can go and make sure that WorkSafe B.C. changes its practices, changes its policies. We can make sure that with Mr. Doust's oversight, WorkSafe B.C. acknowledges that something went wrong and identifies what it was.

Families across this province deserve to know that when their daughters and sons and husbands and wives and brothers and sisters go to work, in industrial workplaces most of all, they will come home safe and organizations like WorkSafe B.C. are there to ensure that that happens every single day that they get out of bed, get in their trucks and start work.

H. Bains: The Premier and ministers after ministers have been talking about half-measures. That will not fix the fundamental problems that exist at WorkSafe B.C. right now. What the Babine victims and their families want, what British Columbians deserve, is to know that WorkSafe B.C. is living up to its mandate of keeping workers safe. That's why families want an inquiry, so that tens of thousands of workers who work in hazardous situations every day can come home at the end of their shift in the same shape that they went in.

The Babine victims and their families have helped develop terms of reference for a public inquiry that would find out what went wrong and come up with solutions. When will the Premier meet with the families at Burns Lake to review the terms of reference for a full, independent inquiry? That's how we can get to the bottom of this situation. That's how we can find some solutions for all the thousands of workers that are in the forest industry right now.

Hon. S. Bond: As the Premier has said, there is not a person in this room or in the province of British Columbia that doesn't want to see changes made. What we actually want to do is make sure that it's broader than just WorkSafe. It is important that WorkSafe make changes.

You know, just the other day I heard the member op-
[ Page 2698 ]
posite mock a meeting that was brought together with industry, with labour, with government. To criticize the fact…. In fact, I think the member opposite called it a photo op.

Well, I want the member opposite to know that, in fact, that group came together to find consensus about how we ensure that there is ongoing, sustainable compliance, not just changes at WorkSafe but with mill owners across British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition is wrong. There were steps taken immediately after the mill explosion. There have been a series of inspections across this province, and I can assure the member opposite that they will continue, they will be more rigorous, and we are going to work…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …to sustainable, continuous compliance.

[1420]

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair needs to hear the answers and the questions.

H. Bains: Two men lost their lives at the Babine tragedy in January 2012. That was two years after WorkSafe B.C. ignored the warning of dangerous sawdust combustion — two years after that. The families of Carl Charlie and Robert Luggi and injured workers are demanding justice.

Madame Speaker, 142 workers died at the workplace in 2012. There's been no accountability in any of those tragedies. And 1,350 workers have died at the workplace in the past ten years. No accountability, no justice, no assurance of safety in the workplace. The Babine victims and families are trying to get to the bottom of this because they want to keep other workers safe. Yet this government continues to stonewall.

The question to the Premier is this. Will she immediately call for a public inquiry into the tragedy so that the workers will finally have a system that they can trust that they are safe at workplaces from here on?

Hon. S. Bond: I am painfully aware of the deaths of individuals not just in Babine, at the Babine circumstance, but in my own community. It is incumbent on all of us — whether it is WorkSafe B.C., whether it is the Steelworkers, whether it is government or whether it is industry — to ensure that we are rigorous and relentless.

The member opposite needs to look at all of the facts, not simply talk about what happened on Friday. Let's talk about what's taken place. The first round of inspections started in April of 2012. The second round of inspections was expanded in July of 2012. The third phase of inspections…. I know that the member opposite knows this. The largest and most complicated inspection system that has ever taken place at WorkSafe was from November 2013 to January 31.

When the outcomes were not good enough, I called together and met individually with industry, with labour. After a significant amount of work had been done, it still is not good enough. In fact, on Friday we brought all of those parties together and came to consensus. We need to be paying attention. This needs to be sustainable, and changes will be made.

CHILD POVERTY
AND INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY
ON CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

M. Mungall: Sheila Joseph, a single mom in Kamloops, has three children. Her seven-year-old receives child support from her father. But because Sheila receives income support, the little girl never sees the help her father sends to pay for school clothes, books and healthy food. Sheila wants to know why the ministry went through all the trouble of getting child support for her daughter only to take it away from her every month.

Can the Minister of Social Development explain to this little girl and her mother why he is taking away the money her father has put aside for her?

Hon. D. McRae: As members in the House know, I'm the father of two young children, and I recognize this is a very challenging issue, one that this ministry and I do not take lightly. The ministry and this government look at income assistance as a payment of last resort. It is not designated to be a long-term solution.

I've met with individuals, and I've met with organizations in regards to this issue, and I thank them for their passion and advocacy for this vulnerable segment of our society.

Just so members know, people who receive family maintenance payments may receive income assistance top-up if their maintenance payment does not exceed monthly income assistance amounts.

We as a ministry continue to meet with families, with organizations, even with businesses, to evolve and improve income and disability assistance in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

[1425]

M. Mungall: Well, B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty for ten years. We know that. We know that half of single mothers and their children live in poverty right now in this province. We also know that child clients of food banks have increased to 30 percent.
[ Page 2699 ]

Meanwhile, what this government is actually doing…. The minister described it in a very nice way, but what they're actually doing is they're clawing back every cent of child support from single parents and their children, simply because the parents are on income assistance. It's absolutely unjust.

My question is again to the Minister of Social Development. How does he justify taking money from B.C.'s poorest kids?

Hon. D. McRae: Through income assistance, through disability assistance, we support about 175,000 people in British Columbia. While we believe our income assistance program is one of the best in Canada, we all will recognize there's room for improvement.

But I also want to make sure that people in this room and in the general public realize there are many other programs that we do to assist families and individuals in need. I'd like to highlight a couple of them, if I may.

We've increased earning exemptions for people receiving income assistance. We've also increased school start-up supplements. There's a bus pass program which is recognized as one of the best in Canada. The income tax system provides single parents access to approximately $385 a month in benefits. There are supports for child care. Starting in 2015 children under six and their families will have access to a $55 a month B.C. early childhood tax benefit.

While I know those programs are supporting families and individuals across British Columbia, there's always more we can do. That's why we continue to engage with families, with individuals and with organizations to come together with solutions and ideas to help to make sure that B.C. is there and inclusive for all British Columbians.

C. James: I'd like to say to the minister that child poverty isn't simply an issue on paper. Child poverty means that children are not getting enough healthy food, that children are not living in safe and healthy housing. That's exactly the case for hundreds of children who don't see a dime of child support because this government claws back every penny of that support. This policy isn't just cruel. It's also shortsighted. Poverty can set children back for the rest of their lives.

My question is to the minister. How can the minister continue to take money that was set aside for B.C.'s poorest children?

Hon. D. McRae: I said in my earlier answers that we can always do more. We can't always do more immediately.

One of the things we do in this government is that if you look at income assistance, whether it's for persons with disabilities or families or individuals, we spend well over $1 billion a year supporting these people.

We also want to make sure there is an opportunity to continue to support them in other ways. One of the things people often forget to recognize in regards to supporting individuals and families is that this government does not believe it's right to tax individuals who make less than $19,000 a year. We want to make sure those families, in British Columbia income tax, retain those dollars.

We want to make sure MSP premiums are not being paid by the people who are most in need. That's why over 800,000 British Columbians — those are individuals; those are children — do not pay MSP premiums. As well, when it comes to PharmaCare, over a quarter-million British Columbians, many of them children, do not pay premiums with their PharmaCare.

That being said, I'm also proud…. As the member opposite knows, I used to be Minister of Education, a job I thoroughly enjoyed. I know that many, many schools — almost every school in British Columbia — receive not just the fruit and vegetable program support, which helps families as well; as Minister of Agriculture, we made sure there are supports for farmers markets as well.

We understand that there's more we can do. We're working hard for British Columbians, and I thank the members opposite for their questions.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: One piece that I agree with the minister on is that the government could do more, and they could do more by ending the clawback of child support right now.

[1430]

When families live in poverty, every dollar counts. Just ask any parent who's struggling to make ends meet. First Call's November report showed that B.C. has the highest level of child poverty in Canada, and it shows that the B.C. Liberals' child support clawbacks take back $17 million a year out of the hands of the poorest children.

We also know that the B.C. Liberal government spent last year $17 million, as well, on partisan pre-election advertising.

My question is to the minister. Does he really think the money that parents set aside to help B.C.'s poorest children is better spent on ads promoting the B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. D. McRae: There are many challenges when it comes to raising children. I know that, and I thank my wife, who is living in Courtenay right now, when I'm here trying to help the province of British Columbia and citizens of British Columbia do better.

One of the most important things this government can do is grow the economy of British Columbia, because children have parents, and when parents have an opportunity to have jobs, this allows them to have a better quality of life.

It is never easy, I know, to have a job and be a parent.
[ Page 2700 ]
That's why we are working with child tax benefits to help children in their early childhood. There are opportunities with StrongStart, neighbourhoods of learning. We want to make sure that there is a foundation for children. Our school system is the best in Canada. We work so hard to make sure there are opportunities for our children.

As we go forward, the best thing we can do is make sure that these parents and their children go forward with hope. The economy is growing in British Columbia. There are opportunities for British Columbians for decades to come, and I'm proud to be a member of this government, which is making sure that our children will benefit from those opportunities.

USE OF PROVINCIAL COAT OF ARMS
BY FORMER MLA

S. Robinson: Former Liberal MLA Harry Bloy is promoting his business with letterhead that sports his MLA photo, and underneath it reads, "Harry Bloy, MLA, member for Burnaby-Lougheed," and in small type, "2001 to 2013." In the left-hand corner is our provincial crest.

According to the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, this crest may not be used by a "person other than the Lieutenant Governor, a member of the Executive Council, a member of the Legislative Assembly or a judge of the Supreme Court, a County Court or the Provincial Court" — that is, unless they get permission from the Premier.

My question is to the Premier. I understand Mr. Bloy is the only B.C. Liberal MLA who supported her leadership bid, but did she give him permission to use the coat of arms of British Columbia to promote his business?

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows well, there are very clear rules in this province with respect to the use of provincial emblems. The moment that this matter was brought to our attention, the office of protocol as well as legal services were immediately on it. They were in immediate contact with the individual, and I understand that immediately following being contacted, the individual in question removed the material from his website and has also provided assurances that he will no longer use the provincial emblem on any other material.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING
AND GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS

D. Eby: We've heard a lot of remarkable things lately from the Minister of Advanced Education. One of the most remarkable is his insistence that cutting millions of dollars from the post-secondary budget would not harm students. Yet over the last week we've seen university after university announcing tuition fee hikes, program cuts and faculty layoffs. Students are paying more and getting less.

My question to the minister is this. How can he still claim that students paying more and getting less for it doesn't hurt them?

[1435]

Hon. A. Virk: This is a government that prides itself on accountability, clearly something the opposition doesn't understand. It's a government that prides itself in being financially responsible with the hard-paying money of the taxpayers.

This government funds post-secondary education to the tune of $5 million every single day. This education system is one of the most renowned in the world. That's why 106,000 international students want to come and study in British Columbia. We're also committed to re-engineering post-secondary education to make sure it aligns from the learner to the earner.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: We've heard a lot about the minister's engineering while he was on the board of Kwantlen University. I'm sure that B.C. is in no mood for any more of that engineering.

In fact, under the minister's watch, UNBC in Prince George is eliminating ten full-time faculty and staff positions and increasing tuition by 2 percent. They've scrapped plans for a new engineering school. Okanagan College in Kelowna is cutting five staff and increasing tuition by 2 percent for domestic students and 8 percent for international students. Many other schools are preparing similar layoffs and tuition hikes.

Now, I know the minister is very concerned about executive compensation. But does he care at all about B.C. students and the impact his budget is having on them?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the member opposite may certainly be interested in hearing some of the facts. British Columbia has had the fourth-lowest tuition for seven years running. Tuition rates are indeed capped at 2 percent, and that's considerably less than the national average. The cost of tuition in British Columbia pays for one-third of the cost of education. It's the hard-working taxpayer of British Columbia that covers the rest of the cost of education in this province.

There are other ways to make education affordable. This province is also a leader in using technology. The open textbook project is a leader in Canada.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Karagianis: I rise to present a couple of petitions. The first petition I have has 70 signatures asking the government to implement a publicly funded full-school-day
[ Page 2701 ]
kindergarten for five-year-olds and expanded drop-in StrongStart centres across the province of B.C.

The second petition I have here is asking the government to tackle poverty here in the province of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the main chamber here I call continued second reading of Bill 18, Water Sustainability Act, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will continue with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure estimates.

[1440]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — WATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT

(continued)

[D. Horne in the chair.]

J. Martin: I'm pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack to speak to Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act — promises made, promises kept. We campaigned very vigorously, and one of the key points in that campaign was to modernize the Water Act and to pass it in 2014, and that's what we're doing.

Chilliwack has a long and rich agricultural history, and many of our residents make a living from agriculture in one way or another. Chilliwack depends on access to clean, fresh water not only for consumption but for our all-important agricultural industry too.

The new Water Sustainability Act will replace the existing Water Act, which dates all the way back to 1909. That Water Act is no longer adequate to address the challenges we face today — challenges including population growth, urbanization and intensive resource development.

Water is a crucial, essential resource for all of us. The new Water Sustainability Act will position our province as a leader in water stewardship. Just as this government has engaged in extensive, unprecedented consultation with the public regarding the disability white paper, liquor reform, the traffic safety review and many other files, over the last four years there has been a very, very intense process of consultation.

In fact, we received a total of 45 submissions, and this included very detailed, exhaustive input from First Nations, from industry groups, from environmental organizations and from various local governments. The high level of public interest is reflected in the fact that groundwater is the main source of drinking water for about 25 percent of British Columbians.

Water is a critical economic resource too. It is a necessary element for business to operate and for industry to flourish. Throughout the new act we are going to improve our current water management system.

Until now the treatment of groundwater was treated differently from surface water. Groundwater, which draws from underwater aquifers, did not require any authorization for use or payment of fees. However, surface water has always required fees. Consequently, this act will level the playing field and provide better water security for generations to come.

In fact, B.C. is the last remaining province in Canada that does not regulate the extraction and use of groundwater. The new legislation will change all that. The new act will regulate and protect groundwater use in B.C., and, more importantly, it will secure rights for water users — communities, industries and more.

For Chilliwack this new legislation will also secure water for our agricultural sector. The proposed act makes improvements in seven specific, key areas. It will better protect stream health and aquatic environments. Water will be considered in land use decisions. Groundwater will now be regulated and protected. Water use will be regulated during times of scarcity. It will improve security, water use efficiency and conservation. It will measure and report large-scale water use, and it will provide for a range of governance approaches.

[1445]

During our consultations the public made it very clear that they consider water to be a precious resource that requires protection and regulation. We in this province are blessed with an abundant supply of fresh water. In fact, British Columbians pay some of the lowest water rates in the developed world, but we have to make sure that British Columbians are the primary beneficiaries under this system.

Under the Water Sustainability Act all non-domestic users of groundwater will be required to pay annual rentals in the same way that surface water users do today. Use of groundwater — except for domestic purposes, of course — will require a water licence and will be required to pay water fees and rentals.

Through our intense consultations we learned that the public wants non-domestic users to pay rates that better reflect the value of water to the economy. The new act will require, among other things, measuring and reporting of water use, implementing water use efficiency measures and developing groundwater resources. There will be no changes for small well owners.

We will be further engaging with British Columbians this month about approaches to water pricing, specifically. Feedback on water pricing will help set new water fees and rentals. Users will have flexibility in determining how they can undertake water measuring in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

In replacing an act that is more than a century old, it was decided that the new act should be a flexible tool for water management, since it is difficult to accurate-
[ Page 2702 ]
ly predict future needs. Most importantly, the Water Sustainability Act looks to accomplish three key outcomes with this modernization.

Water management will be sustainable. That's efficient and effective. Rights for water users, including communities and industries, will be secure, and it will be transparent. B.C.'s water and aquatic ecosystems will be healthy and will be protected.

We all know that water is our most precious resource. At the end of the day, the water we drink, the air we breathe — nothing is more important. In Chilliwack, residents also know the importance of healthy, safe water for the purposes of agriculture and local industry.

The proposed Water Sustainability Act will help ensure that our supply of clean, fresh water is sustainable to meet our needs for generations and generations to come. Once again, promises made, promises kept.

G. Holman: As other colleagues have noted, the updating of water legislation that is over 100 years old is a positive step. I also commend the government on the lengthy and comprehensive public consultation on this bill — certainly, much more extensive than for some of the other pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this session.

For example, regulation of groundwater, enabling of new local governance mechanisms and the promise of better protection of environmental flows are all positive steps forward and are important to my constituents. However, we should consider strengthening and clarifying this bill to address some key concerns and questions. The devil is always in the details.

The monitoring of groundwater use mandated by the bill is a good thing. However, if we are not adequately evaluating groundwater supplies, short and long term, will this simply amount to thoroughly documenting a dwindling resource over time? Consider how we've managed our fisheries resources — good data on harvest volumes, much poorer data on fishery stocks and a poor understanding of the key factors affecting these stocks and how to manage these factors.

With climate change, evaluation of water supplies and their key determining factors will become even more difficult. One of the most serious concerns about water in the province is the use of surface and groundwater supplies in natural gas fracking. What will this legislation do to prevent the permanent contamination of fresh water by fracking? Simply attaching a minimal price for water use will not be a sufficient incentive to conserve or recycle fresh water.

Enabling of governance structures to allow for greater local involvement in the management of ground- and surface water is a good thing, but does this simply mean that the province off-loads responsibility for management of water supply and quality without providing any additional resources to effectively undertake these responsibilities?

[1450]

With respect to my constituency, while the Saanich Peninsula is fortunate to be supplied by a drinking watershed that is fully protected by the capital regional district, probably over half of the southern Gulf Islands residents depend on uncertain and vulnerable groundwater supplies.

As I noted before, simply documenting groundwater use does very little to ensure sustainable future supplies, particularly with climate change. What measures are provided in this bill to ensure not just adequate supplies of ground and surface water but the quality of this water?

For example, half of the residents of the southern Gulf Islands depend on surface water supplies that are subject to threats such as nutrient loading. This causes algal blooms, which can and have turned toxic. Will this act better protect the quality of the surface water supplies? Or will we simply leave it up to small local treatment facilities to deal with the quality problem at great cost to local ratepayers?

Strengthening the protection for environmental flows is a good thing. But how strong is this commitment in a bill when language such as "consider the environmental flow" is used? For example, is there an environmental bottom line to protect fisheries, or not?

With respect to water pricing, the government has stated that this will be covered by regulations and that the policies governing these regulations will be subject to further public consultation. However, the principles governing these pricing policies could be clarified in the legislation. On this matter, I'd like to respond to some of the statements made by members opposite.

The core principle of this legislation appears to be that groundwater and surface water should be priced similarly on a per-unit basis. While equity between water users should be one guiding principle, surely if prices are to reflect the actual costs of managing water resources, then prices should also reflect such cost differences.

For example, while the costs of monitoring use might be similar between ground and surface water, the costs of evaluating short- and long-term groundwater supplies and their key determining factors will be much more complicated and expensive than for surface water. If groundwater requires no treatment to make it potable, should the users of this public resource pay a price that reflects these avoided costs? Certainly, the users of surface water typically have to pay such costs.

In summary, this bill is a positive step forward, but it could be strengthened in a way that still meets the objectives of government, the interests of users and the principles of fairness. As stated by our Environment critic, members on this side of the House are prepared to make constructive suggestions to make this legislation even better.

In the past few weeks, a number of such reasonable
[ Page 2703 ]
amendments proposed by the opposition have been voted down by the government side, who at the same time accuse us of being naysayers with no positive suggestions.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask the member…. It is actually out of order to reflect on a previous vote.

G. Holman: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. With this legislation, I hope we can change this channel.

S. Hamilton: I'm pleased to stand and take part in second reading debate of this bill. Here in our beautiful province of British Columbia we have riches in our goldmines, in our silver mines, in our copper mines. But when you stop and consider things, water is indeed our most precious resource. Water sustains life, quite literally.

The proposed Water Sustainability Act before us today helps ensure that our supply of fresh, clean water is sustainable to meet the needs for now and for many, many generations to come. The development of the new Water Sustainability Act is an achievement of some importance for British Columbia, and it's an important piece of legislation I'm proud to support.

Our current Water Act was introduced more than 100 years ago, in 1909. It brought together a single set of water allocation rules. As the House will know, modernizing the Water Act was a key commitment in our election platform, and we have delivered with the introduction of this Bill 18.

The Water Sustainability Act is a large and complex law that took a number of years of policy development, consultation and legislative drafting. The public told us they were keenly interested in being consulted on the development of legislation to modernize the Water Act, so we have spent the last four years engaging widely with British Columbians. That's an important point. We've also consulted with First Nations, industry groups, environmental groups and local government over the past four years.

[1455]

Members may recall the Living Water Smart blog the government launched in 2009. If I'm not mistaken, that particular blog was one of the first instances where the British Columbia government used a blog to converse with the public and interested stakeholders. It was certainly one of the first efforts by the provincial government at public engagement, in the sense that the term has come to be known these days.

After our water blog was launched to a fair degree of success, we held more discussions and consultations in 2010. Our initial plan at the time was to introduce legislation in 2012. The complexities in drafts resulted in delays, which brings us right up to date to the introduction last month of the Water Sustainability Act.

Why the delay? Simply put, we wanted to make sure that we got this piece of legislation right. As I said a moment ago, it's important legislation, but it's also a complex area of public policy. In addition to the consultations and conversations we undertook in 2009 and 2010, we also held a third round of negotiations in the fall of last year, 2013.

Industry, First Nations and the public were interested in beginning consultation on the development of this legislation. We've listened, and we thank them for their contributions to this effort.

It almost goes without saying that a 105-year-old law doesn't adequately address today's water issues arising from population growth, urbanization, climate change, as well as resource development around our province. I cannot think of a single person, group or community that wouldn't have a keen interest in what their provincial government aimed to achieve when it set out to work with the public and stakeholder groups to modernize our legislation.

That's what the Water Sustainability Act is all about — new water stewardship and management legislation that's essential to protect our environment for future generations. Most notably, the new act will bring groundwater into the licensing system and will expand government's ability to protect fish and aquatic environments.

Others have touched on this, but I feel it's important to place a little more detail and emphasis on the record during debate here today.

The new legislation will regulate and protect groundwater in B.C.; collect information to better understand B.C.'s aquifers to make informed water use decisions in the future; ensure environmental flow needs are considered in allocation decisions to protect our streams, rivers and aquifers; secure rights for water users, communities and industries, especially for groundwater; secure water for agricultural production, agricultural water reserves; allow for wider participation in decisions and water governance, water sustainability plans and water objectives; entrench household use and aquatic ecosystems and priorities in times of drought and scarcity.

What does all of this mean? Well, historically, access to groundwater was not a concern in this province. However, since about 1960, groundwater use for a range of purposes has intensified, due in large part to changes in technology that made it easier to get at our groundwater resources.

Here's a statistic many will be surprised to learn. Did you know that at the present time about one-quarter of British Columbians rely on groundwater as their primary source of drinking water? That's a lot of people. While the primary legislation governing drinking water in B.C. is the Drinking Water Protection Act, the Water Sustainability Act will complement that act in ensuring safe and secure supplies of drinking water.

Specific provisions of the Water Sustainability Act will help protect drinking water and associated watersheds;
[ Page 2704 ]
the protection of environment flows; the protection of water, both surface and ground, from the introduction of foreign matter; the establishment of water objectives; and the ability to undertake water sustainability plans.

Groundwater is also vital to B.C.'s economy, providing water for businesses and industry. The House will be interested to hear that B.C. is the only province in Canada that does not regulate the extraction and use of groundwater.

What exactly do we mean when we use the term "groundwater" in these debates? Well, groundwater means "water naturally occurring below the surface of the ground." Surface water, on the other hand, is water on the surface — streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands, ocean. They are, by definition, two separate things, yet groundwater and surface water are interconnected. They are one resource, and they need to be managed as such.

Population growth, resource development and climate change are putting more pressure on water resources. This will result in more conflicts over water. To that I would add that in many cases water from aquifers flows into streams contributing to sustained stream flow, especially during droughts, and the protection of fish and aquatic ecosystems rely on this base flow.

[1500]

Without the ability to regulate extraction of water from aquifers, we cannot use tools like temporary protection orders to keep ecosystems functioning through droughts.

Regulation of groundwater also corrects the inequality in our current water management system. Until now, use of groundwater has not required an authorization or payment of fees and rentals, whereas surface water used for the same purpose has. Under this legislation, regulation of groundwater will level the playing field, especially for large users, and will provide water security for British Columbians who rely on it.

Under this act, we are looking to accomplish three key goals. We want water management that is sustainable, efficient and effective. We want rights for water users, communities and industries that are secure and transparent. And finally, we want B.C.'s water and aquatic ecosystems to be healthy and protected. The Water Sustainability Act will be brought into effect in spring 2015, once the supporting regulations are developed and finalized.

This legislation has support from the B.C. Ground Water Association and Clean Energy B.C., to name just two groups who have worked with the government to help modernize B.C.'s water legislation. The Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia also welcomes this act, calling it a step forward and noting it will improve our ability to better manage and care for our rivers, aquifers and water resources.

In my time remaining, I want to talk a little bit about this legislation with regards to agriculture, an important industry in my area in British Columbia and a key sector in the B.C. jobs plan. The agrifoods sector provides more than 61,000 jobs and generates over $10.9 billion a year in provincial revenues. I'm proud that B.C. has the most diverse agrifoods industry in Canada, and we have the potential to become a $14 billion powerhouse by 2017.

Much of this potential can be realized in Asia's markets, where there is a growing demand for B.C. agrifoods. Our Premier has already led three trade missions to gain access to these key and emerging markets.

This government recognizes the importance the agricultural sector plays in Delta and in urban and rural communities across the province. Working to ensure water is a sustainable resource is crucial to many people in my area of B.C., many of whom earn their living and support their families growing food we eat, processing the goods we bring to market and selling those wonderful, delicious products stamped "Grown in B.C." to overseas markets.

I'd like to conclude my remarks by saying I support this legislation and look forward to its passage into law.

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to take my place in the second reading debate of Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act. It's a chance to have a general discussion around the bill and some of the aspects of the bill. Again, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill, because it is quite complex, and we can get into really minute detail at the committee stage.

I have to first say that there are some good things in this bill, and I commend the minister for putting the effort into updating a very, very old act, the Water Act. There are some aspects of it, I think, that are definitely an improvement over what we have in place right now. But there are gaping holes, and I'm going to talk about a couple of them in the time I have at this second reading debate — gaping holes, holes you could drive a truck through.

The first I want to talk about is the relaxation of the rules around water for fracking. That aspect is of major concern to the people of the province and the people who live in the northeast. This bill will give new power of the government to issue repeat short-term authorizations to use water to the same person for the same purpose in respect of the same place. In other words, we believe that it's being done to facilitate hydraulic fracturing, which is a method used to extract natural gas from deep below the earth's surface in the northeast.

There are major concerns about these short-term authorizations. They are issued, first of all, by the Oil and Gas Commission. I would question why a quasi-judicial agency like the Oil and Gas Commission is issuing water licences for this purpose when we know that within a government ministry, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, there's a consolidation of issuing of licences by this government.

[1505]

It would seem that that ministry has the experts to assess and understand and know about water use and
[ Page 2705 ]
water licensing, so I would think that a positive suggestion would be to have these short-term authorizations for water use for the purpose of hydraulic fracturing be issued by that ministry and not under the Oil and Gas Commission.

Right now the Oil and Gas Commission can grant short-term approvals for water use for fracking, and they last up to 24 months. If oil and gas companies take longer than 24 months to frack, the commission has been issuing repeat authorizations to the same companies. That has been a source of contention. What this bill does is apparently clarify that that authorization process is now legal. There's no ability to really see the transparency behind these short-term, 24-month approvals.

When we assess about water usage in the hydraulic fracturing part of the industry in natural gas production, there are long-term authorizations. We have a lot more ability through public disclosure by this government of what those entail and the amounts they entail. But the short-term licences, the short-term approvals, are far less transparent. Under this bill, now they'll be made legal in a much less transparent way.

I want to give a bit of an example of how that's an issue. The Fort Nelson First Nation has done an analysis of what the potential impact could be of this government's LNG strategy in their traditional territories that are under treaty. If, potentially, we get the number of LNG export facilities that this government is promoting on our coast, the raw product comes from the northeast.

In fact, what the Fort Nelson First Nation has discovered is that 10 to 25 percent of the gas produced to supply the proposed LNG facilities on the coast will come from their territory. What they've calculated is that that would create three to ten times greater the 2012 levels of activity in natural gas development than they actually see on the territory right now, on their treaty territories.

They say that some of the impacts that this will result in is massive water withdrawals for fracking. They're concerned about this — not only the groundwater aspect, which this act relaxes the rules around, but for surface water as well. We're talking billions of litres.

I've been to the northeast, I've toured the northeast, and I've watched the water trucks line up for the surface water in the Peace River. I've seen in the back country standpipes on almost every stream and every farmer's field that has a pond on it. It really is a bit of a Wild West attitude when it comes to water usage within the industry, and I don't see anything in this bill that gives me confidence that that will be brought under a little bit more of a regulatory control.

In fact, what we do see, from the groundwater short-term authorization aspect, is a lessening of rules. I think that's an issue. I would be very interested in the minister's response to that kind of issue at the end of this second-stage debate and when we get into the committee stage.

It's definitely not what the people expected when this government said they are going to modernize the Water Act. People expected more rigorous oversight of groundwater usage when it comes to short-term authorizations for the extraction of water. The only short-term thing about it is the term. It used to be 24 months, and now it seems to be a perpetual rollover. There's nothing short-term about the amount of water being taken out in these permits.

The second area I'm going to address as a gaping hole in this legislation is in connection to something called FITFIR.

[1510]

I know that government and perhaps government MLAs and perhaps even opposition MLAs get into the bad habit of talking in acronyms. For those who aren't totally into this document or have been following the Water Act, FITFIR is an acronym that stands for "first-in-time, first-in-right."

The concern around FITFIR is that the first-in-time, first-in-right aspects of this bill could undermine environmental flows. FITFIR means older licences, which were issued perhaps 100 years ago when environmental flows were not considered as they are today — obviously, a lot has changed over the last 100 years, not only in allocation and how much water demand there is, but in climate — as well as licences that will be issued for existing groundwater uses, will continue to trump environmental flows. It's only for new licences or amendments to licences that environmental flows will be considered.

So the FITFIR aspect of the bill, I guess for lack of a better description, grandfathers the water usage that's existed under the last hundred years and that would overlook the environmental flow considerations that have grown on us in the last hundred years.

We can't ignore what's happened in the last hundred years, and the bill does that by grandfathering the FITFIR aspect — the first-in-time, first-in-right for water allocation. I grant it that this government has decided to look at FITFIR for here on, but I think it's a major oversight not to look at the water usage that was grandfathered under this and that's grandfathered under the bill. That's another area that I think is an oversight and a gaping hole in the proposed legislation.

Perhaps — and this is from my critic-area perspective — the largest lack of focus in this bill has to do with First Nations. Under this bill we see the assumption that FITFIR — first-in-time, first-in-right — does not take into account the assertion of First Nation priority rights. In other words, over the last hundred years under the Water Act, we've had people who apply to the government for use of surface water and groundwater, and the legacy of the last 30 years of court cases on First Nations rights and titles that we've seen is not being considered under the legislation that's been proposed.

I can tell you, if we had that body of work — over 100 decisions just in the last eight years or nine years on First
[ Page 2706 ]
Nations rights and title — before the Water Act, then we would see a totally different situation than we do today. The government has ignored that, in putting this bill forward.

My serious concern is that it will lead to further confrontation. We had the Halalt First Nation versus the district of North Cowichan only a couple of years ago. That was over water allocation and a water-rights issue. I'm talking about conflict in the courts. We know that developing relationships and reconciliation…. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations has told me in budget estimates that that's the priority he has. Well, by not having the wording in this document around First Nations priority rights regarding FITFIR, we're setting ourselves up for some major legal battles, and that's apparent.

When the government said that they consulted with First Nations…. I just wanted to talk a little bit about that. If you want to have serious consultation, I think you have to discuss serious resources to do that. It was a matter of not too many years ago, during the previous Premier Gordon Campbell's days, when the First Nations Leadership Council was established. That's consisting of the head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the head of the First Nations Summit.

[1515]

When the First Nations Leadership Council was established under the new relationship, $1 million went to those three organizations — over $300,000 each — in order to respond to government initiatives such as Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act. That was money well spent.

I think the demands, not only because of legal cases but of the need for government to consult with First Nations, have only increased since those days. Yet the budget overall now for those three organizations has been cut by 66 percent, down to $300,000. Each of those organizations used to get over $300,000 to conduct the proper consultation required with government on things like this bill. Now they each receive $100,000. Yet the demand has increased for that kind of consultation.

I believe that might be one case as to why, under Bill 18, we see the government basically ignoring the issue of FITFIR when it comes to First Nations. The First Nations Fisheries Council was able to put together some response to the original proposal, and they pointed out that provincial water allocation is still premised on a first-in-time, first-in-right system that does not recognize First Nations rights to water or First Nations priority in time.

If you're talking about first-in-time, you have to go back a little bit and consider who was here before the current water users that are mostly non–First Nations on the system. So that was their policy consideration when responding to government.

I don't see that reflected in the bill at all, and I'm worried about that, because I think the courts are not the best way to solve jurisdictional issues between B.C. and First Nations. I think it leads to a breakdown in trust. So I'm concerned that not including recognized First Nations rights to water or First Nations priority in time in the legislation is going to lead to many more problems if we continue down this road.

The First Nations Fisheries Council also pointed out that First Nations–specific rights are not recognized in the bill and that in some areas of the province, streams are already overallocated. You might have a situation where surface water or a stream has already been, in the last 100 years, overallocated without any consideration of First Nations priority rights to that water, effectively shutting them out. I truly believe that the body of legal decisions in the last 30 years demonstrates that that's not going to fly. It's just not going to fly.

I'm going to just wrap up my comments in this second reading debate by saying there are some good things in this bill. I commend the government for taking a stab at improving a very old act, but there are some gaping holes that I think are going to be a major issue. The relaxation of rules around water for fracking when it comes to the short-term authorizations, the issue of whether first-in-time, first-in-rights could undermine environmental flows and the major issue of not taking into account the assertion of First Nation priority rights when it comes to first-in-time, first-in-rights on water.

I look forward to the minister's response on those and to continuing this on a much more specific basis in the committee stage.

D. Barnett: I am pleased today to have the honour and the opportunity to stand here to support Bill 18 and commend the Minister of Environment for bringing this bill forward. It has been many, many, many years in the making. Coming from local government back in the '80s and having discussions about the Water Act in British Columbia, I know how important it is to each and every one of us in this building. I know how important water is to each and every citizen of the province of British Columbia.

[1520]

You know, we look at history, and we learn from history. We learn not so much from mistakes but how business was done back then and how we must progress today.

The timing of this legislation is so important, as we have all heard from time to time…. And my colleague across the floor talks continuously about climate change. I had the opportunity of sitting on the past Premier's committee on climate change with my colleague from across the floor. Many discussions were had at those meetings about water.

Groundwater and surface water are where much of our drinking water comes from. Over the years as populations grow and the need for water happens, we have to have better consideration for how we supply this water and who takes it.
[ Page 2707 ]

Many subdivisions in rural British Columbia have been built over the past 40, 50 years. Subdivisions are built, and they're built well, but did we do water tests back then to see what the aquifer was? No, we did not. Now we take a look as the world changes and climate changes. There may be some of these subdivisions that are going to have serious problems with water, but this act will protect any new subdivisions being built in rural British Columbia and in urban B.C.

Users of groundwater are ranchers. I will say that the Ministry of Environment was up in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and went out to a ranch, a big ranch in my riding, and had a great discussion with a rancher about this Water Act. He was very concerned. Not just concerned; he was scared. He thought that this act was going to come along and tell him he could no longer have water for his ranch. Nor would he have the ability to afford it, because somehow in the whole process he figured this minister was going to come along and cut off his water supply, but if he paid enough money, he might get water back.

Well, I commend the minister, because she was there for two or three hours. When she left, this ranching family, which is a family, was satisfied at the answers that they had been assured of by the minister. I felt very comfortable, too, because I have a huge ranching community, and this act is so important to them. I am very grateful that my community and my ranchers had the opportunity to talk to the minister and understand what this act will do for their industry.

We talk about consultation. There has been lots of consultation over this act. First Nations consultation — if you look at the information that is provided, there has been much, much engagement. Our First Nation communities are so important to engage with, as we all know. There has been so much that has been done by the ministry, and there is ongoing consultation.

This is not a bill that the minister has put forward. She will continue to consult on issues surrounding this bill. We all know that, because this is one commodity…. When I was young I used to look around and think: "Boy, whoever has the most oil at the end of the day will be the richest person there is." But really and truly, it's water. Whoever has the most water at the end of the day, good, clean water, will be the successor — we all know that — in the world we live in.

Metering water is something that…. Who knows where it'll go? Who knows what it will look like for local communities? Most local governments nowadays go to metered water. I don't think that anybody that's concerned that their water may be metered because of this here bill…. I don't think they need to worry about it. Talk to your local governments, because I've had some feedback from people that somehow have got some concern about meters. I don't know why. This bill will not hurt any of that.

The costs. I don't see any great costs that have been mentioned here. We all know that water costs. Everything costs.

[1525]

I personally believe — and this is my personal opinion, not my caucus's — that we don't pay enough for water. But that's my personal opinion.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: That's good water.

You know, there are lots of things under this act that will certainly help the environment. It will help protect the water. It will help protect the citizens, and it will help protect the future while ensuring that our industries have the accessibility that they need in a careful, respective manner to carry on business in this province.

While the primary legislation governing drinking water in B.C. is the Drinking Water Protection Act — we also have that in place — the Water Sustainability Act will complement that act in ensuring safe and secure supplies of drinking water.

I could go on and on about the great things within this act. But I will take my place in the House today and thank the minister once again and thank this side of the House for coming forward with an act that is long overdue in the province of British Columbia. I look forward to working continuously with the minister on the pieces that will be put into this act over the next few years.

A. Weaver: I would like to start my speech the exact same way that the member left off her previous speech, which is offering my congratulations to the minister for tabling what I believe is a historic bill for the province of British Columbia.

We've been blessed here in British Columbia with some of the best access to fresh water compared to any other jurisdiction in the world. Our abundance of clean, fresh water has meant that the pressures to monitor and regulate its usage have taken much longer to manifest themselves. We've not felt the immediate pressures that some jurisdictions have, in which failure to regulate water usage meant the difference between life and death.

Yet what is clear is that from an economic, social, environmental and cultural perspective, how we manage our water will have significant impacts on the current generation as well as future generations, particularly in light of the climate change as outlined in the recently released working group 2 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

To quote the West Coast Environmental Law: "Water, and how we treat our water, is one of those fundamental issues that touches on so much of who we are, what we do and how we build our economy." Our failure to better regulate our water usage today will have ripple effects and potentially significant consequences for future generations — if not across our province, certainly in
[ Page 2708 ]
specific regions.

After more than 100 years I think we can all agree in this House that updated legislation is long overdue. The original Water Act from 1909 was written for a different time with different issues facing our water resources. It is ill-suited for the current area of climate change pressures, rising competition over usage and increasing importance of managing our water supplies in such a way that ensures opportunity and sustainability for future generations.

The new Water Sustainability Act represents an important step forward to meet many of these challenges, and I'm pleased to say that I find much to support in the many innovative environmental measures proposed to manage our water resources.

In particular, the incorporation of the long-promised regulation of groundwater is an important addition. The inclusion of a system for licensing and regulating groundwater users helps to fill a glaring policy gap that was allowing a number of industries to profit from our Crown resources, with no system to ensure the sustainability of their use. In addition, British Columbia did not receive adequate compensation for the use of this resource.

I'm also encouraged that the government chose to include a number of ecological considerations in the decision-making process about water use. Specifically, innovative components that include the water sustainability plans, water objectives, the protection of sensitive streams, environmental flow needs and mitigation measures are all very positive.

I look forward to examining exactly how these provisions will operate in greater detail at the committee stage. Here I want to note my support for the fact that they were not only considered but included in the bill.

[1530]

I also think the government's decision to sever the water pricing discussion from this act is a very good one. As the ministry has no doubt seen, there are a great variety of positions on water pricing, and a separate engagement process will allow all interested stakeholders to provide the ministry and the minister with their perspectives.

My own view is that the province should seriously look at differential pricing for water based, in part, on how that water is being used. Some guidance could be taken from the bill before us today, particularly in regards to ensuring the beneficial use and aligning the differential pricing with the "water objectives" of a given region. In general, I'm supportive of the process the government has initiated to solicit feedback on water pricing, and I look forward to discussing this aspect at a later date.

As population grows and the direct impact of climate change on local weather is felt with increasing frequency and intensity, the sustainable management of our water resources will become even more important.

Without a doubt, there are many positive aspects in this bill pertaining to the determination of "critical environmental flow thresholds." However, it remains unclear to me whether government possesses the level of in-house scientific understanding required to properly manage our water resources, particularly our groundwater supplies.

As we've seen recently in California, climate change can have massive impacts on water supply. For example, we can expect precipitation to increasingly fall in the form of rain instead of snow, leading to changes in snowpack and water availability throughout the year. This is not an issue of water availability but of water storage for our surface water access. This, in turn, could have significant impacts on groundwater recharge and needs to be accounted for in the regulations that will govern groundwater withdrawal.

I'm also uncertain about the merits of continuing with the first-in-time, first-in-right priority for waters rights, as mentioned by the member for Stikine. My view is that this system is also outdated and needs updating and is potentially contradictory to many of the sustainability provisions that this bill puts in place. I look forward to unpacking the reasoning behind the continuing use of this system further at committee stage.

Finally, my main concern with regards to this bill concerns the government's ability to effectively implement it. I'm left wondering if the government currently possesses and will continue to possess the necessary resources and internal capacity to enforce many of the provisions in this bill.

The overall downsizing of the public service is starting to cause alarm bells to go off in certain areas, especially with regards to available scientific expertise and enforcement. Cuts in the scientific capacity of government will have a negative effect on its ability to manage its natural resources. This comes at a time when the stresses that are placed on our resources have never been more diverse and more complicated. I hope that we can include a discussion on this important topic as the bill moves through committee stage.

In summary, Bill 18 provides a broad framework for a new water management system in British Columbia. However, many of the details are left to regulations that have yet to be written, and so, ultimately, the overall success of this bill will be judged once these regulations become public. I believe it's essential for the government to continue to offer British Columbians an opportunity to provide feedback as the regulations are developed.

Finally, as I began, I'd like to finish by congratulating the minister for tabling this historic bill. I very much look forward to working with her going forward to make sure that this bill lives up to its full potential.

V. Huntington: Let me say I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to what has been called an historic bill, the Water Sustainability Act. I think most of us are
[ Page 2709 ]
very grateful for the work that's been done by the ministry officials and the NGOs across the province in the long years it has taken to bring this bill forward.

I don't think anybody in the House could argue the fact that we're entering a transitional stage on this earth and that water, as so many have said in this room, will become perhaps the most valuable resource we have.

In my general response to the act, I would suggest that perhaps the great weakness in it is that it doesn't discuss and open the door to a much broader, deeper understanding of those sustainability issues within the province and the long-term impact that the availability of water in this province is going to have for our future food security and, also, for our future economic strength.

[1535]

I think one day water will lead to a magnificent growth in our agricultural industries, and as the globe goes through this transition of climate change, we're going to see British Columbia, I believe, land at one of the top tiers of opportunity in the world. I do believe, however, that this bill is a reasonable starting point for updating our antiquated laws governing the province's most vital resource.

The real question we must all ask as legislators, however, is whether this bill goes far enough to ensure B.C.'s freshwater resources will be managed sustainably for future generations. Does this proposed legislation and its parallel consultation process on water pricing address the many serious and complex questions that surround sustainable water management in British Columbia?

While the bill makes some long-overdue changes to how we manage surface and groundwater in B.C., it does not, in my opinion, go far enough to create the laws and regulations that will truly protect B.C.'s freshwater resources.

The government states that it recognizes the fundamental importance of water and that the Water Sustainability Act represents its best efforts to protect fresh water. Yet the act is not courageous enough to truly achieve this vital goal.

According to the government's background material on this bill, the government attempts to address seven areas of water management: protecting stream health and aquatic environments; including water considerations in land use planning; regulating and protecting groundwater; the ability to regulate water use during times of scarcity; improving water security, efficiency and conservation; measuring and reporting on large-scale water use; and providing a range of governance mechanisms. On the surface, all of these areas represent good improvements to the 1909 Water Act that this bill replaces. But as always, the devil is in the details.

As we look at the large loopholes in the protection of stream health and aquatic environments, I'd like to use, as one example, IPPs — the independent power producers. The Water Sustainability Act does not cover water used for hydro generation. It's an unfortunate omission, as the government's own investigation into independent power projects in 2011 found that 90 percent of these projects had negative consequences for aquatic environments, stream flows, water temperatures and fish habitat.

That same report pointed out that the Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Ministry did not have sufficient staff to monitor and enforce compliance of the existing laws designed to minimize the impacts of IPPs on B.C.'s freshwater systems. Water for hydro use will continue to have a major impact on B.C.'s freshwater resources and its vital agricultural lands. If the government is truly serious about ensuring the sustainability of this resource, then it must improve the laws and regulations governing this use and improve compliance and enforcement measures.

This critical problem illustrates the importance of improving staffing resources for compliance and enforcement of environmental protection, including water. The new Water Sustainability Act doesn't seem to come with those additional resources in the budgets of either the Ministry of Environment or Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

Watershed mapping is also a critical component of stream health and aquatic environments. As the owner of Nestlé Canada has publicly pointed out, the province has minimal data on its resources and watersheds. I understand this act hopes that that will shortly improve, but without sufficient data and research on watersheds, water quality and water volume, protecting stream health and aquatic environments will simply be lovely-sounding rhetoric.

We have been driven by industry in the northeast sector of this province with the NorthEast Water Tool, and we have done the watershed mapping in that sector. We have a good tool that is being used, providing a good opportunity for industry and the Oil and Gas Commission to understand water usage. I think it is one of those mechanisms that has created greater efficiency. But there are so many other more subjective areas in which we have to do research. I think that is the only watershed plan that is in place in British Columbia, and I wonder if the resources have been made available to the Ministry of Environment to create other tools similar to NEWT.

[1540]

In B.C.'s Interior the mountain pine beetle, for example, has dramatically impacted the hydrology of forests and watersheds, yet the government has conducted minimal research into the implications of this infestation on both aquatic ecosystems and the current water licences. This issue must be addressed soon if we truly want to preserve water for future generations.

The consideration of water in land use planning is also a vital obligation if we want to preserve our water resources, and I'm very pleased to see that opportunity in the act. Including water is a key value in project de-
[ Page 2710 ]
velopment and planning. It's a good thing and long overdue. However, on this point, the Water Sustainability Act seems weak and will not guarantee that water gets the high priority it deserves in the planning process.

The Forest and Range Practices Act provides an example of how water-related values can be subservient to the economic considerations, as that act specifically states that timber values trump all other values, including water — something this act, I believe, should have resolved.

As the government's own website points out, water is a finite resource essential to life. The vast majority of British Columbians consistently rank water as B.C.'s most valuable natural resource, and as such, the government should strengthen language in the act. The words "give consideration" are not strong enough language to define the value this limited essential resource should have in the planning process.

In short, I do believe that water quality and conservation should be given a higher legal standing in planning processes than this act presently proposes.

The regulation and protection of groundwater usage is also a great step forward, and it is one of the most fundamental changes in this new water act. I compliment the government and commend it for its move to manage surface and groundwater as a single resource.

Knowing our essential aquifers have been uncharted has been disturbing me for many years. But I have to ask: do we have the resources necessary to dedicate to this task, which has generally been regarded as a federal responsibility? Certainly, in the northeast sector the federal government has been the one primarily charting the aquifers in that area and, I understand, throughout other parts of British Columbia. Do we have the resources to be able to manage our aquifers in a goodly and timely manner?

Similarly, as many have pointed out, first-in-time, first-in-right already creates conflicts over water use. It does not respect or account for First Nations rights and titles, and it does not guarantee efficient and effective use of our water resources. I believe our times call for a new regime and a new policy, and I do wish the act had contemplated the same.

Regulating water use during scarcity is also a big step forward in this act. It is an essential change, but as usual, apparently a reactive one. As we have seen for a number of years in the Peace River region and elsewhere, the government must have the tools to step in and protect minimal environmental flows during times of drought. This act does give the government that opportunity. But as they have been in the past, it is most likely these new tools are reactive, not proactive. That is its central weakness.

The Premier was recently down in California, a state that refused to do the research, planning and proactive management of its water resources, despite accumulating evidence that the state's water use was unsustainable. If the government wants to protect B.C.'s limited resources and prevent an eventuality of scarcity here, then it must conduct the watershed research and planning that I previously mentioned. This research should be conducted now with the best available technology and the most current climate change modelling there is.

Without this research, B.C. will, unfortunately, fall into the trap that other jurisdictions now find themselves in. They did too little too late and failed to protect our freshwater resources. If preventative energy and financing was ever needed, now is the time.

[1545]

The act is intended to improve security, water use efficiency and conservation. Again, a laudable goal, and we all support it. But the details of the bill and the government's public comments about its goals for water pricing — that it will only seek to recover costs of licensing and infrastructure — suggest the government may be still unwilling to rationalize and resolve competing demands for water.

Water use for fracking is a classic example of competing demands on water in B.C. and continues to be a highly contentious issue, one which this bill does not address other than to potentially make it easier for the oil and gas industry to not only access water sources but also to continually use short-term licences to access water — not the most effective means to plan for or manage our freshwater resources.

The north has not only an oil and gas future; I believe it is also going to become the agricultural future of British Columbia. Our security and survival depend on our planning now and in the next few years, and the processes through this transitional period of climate change are absolutely essential to engage in.

The part of this bill that makes changes to short-term licensing appears to be a direct response to the current court case against the Oil and Gas Commission, and the proposed changes actually run counter to the province's stated objective of improving water use and conservation.

The government's failure to have an overall strategic water and food production plan that prioritizes water use and forces sectors like oil and gas to truly conserve water through stronger regulations and appropriate pricing threatens the intended outcome of the new Water Sustainability Act. I would hope that during committee we can find out that that is not so, but I am concerned that the act is weak in that regard.

Measuring and reporting of water use is also long overdue. The act, as in other areas, has its good and its bad components. An improvement to B.C.'s water measurement reporting regime is vital.

In 2012 I had a long discussion with the Oil and Gas Commission about these issues during a visit to their offices in Fort St. John. Yet despite the government's own admission that British Columbians are not averse to
[ Page 2711 ]
water pricing in an effort to ensure both the wise and efficient use of water and to help industry minimize its water use, the government has chosen not to mandate examples like water metering and decided to set prices through regulation rather than legislation.

Who is doing the long-term or mid-term thinking on potential scarcities of water and whether or not our aquifers should be protected and when and where they should become off-limits and treated as a reservoir for public necessity? Ultimately, however, we must give serious thought to moving to metering for water use. It would come with retrofitting costs, which is the problem municipalities are facing today. But it must come, and the government could help create a system that results in significantly reduced water use that would help avoid water shortages and make each of us know its true value.

The act also intends to enable a range of governance approaches. One of the problems B.C. has in regulating and managing its water resources is that it did not have a single water manager. This was made clear to me when we met with the OGC and the people in the Peace region. With that in mind, this objective of the act, while sounding reasonable, may simply exacerbate an already bad situation, one that I hope we can review during committee stage.

I agree that government and governance structures must have flexibility to deal with today's rapidly changing natural, social and economic environments. However, when it comes to water, I believe we need an overarching governance framework and structure to ensure we can truly manage this limited and precious resource for the present and our future generations. We do need, perhaps, one water manager and one authority that will conduct research, maintain data, monitor water use, oversee planning processes, maintain minimal environmental flows and manage water use consistently throughout the province.

In conclusion, the government's Water Sustainability Act is a long overdue piece of legislation, and it does indeed update and replace B.C.'s older Water Act. It is a welcome piece of legislation and eagerly looked forward to throughout the province.

[1550]

While this bill makes some important updates and changes to our water laws and regulations, it may be, perhaps, a good starting point, because I do not feel it fully addresses in a courageous way the real challenges we face with respect to our freshwater resources.

Our water, this invaluable resource, will become earth's most valuable commodity. Millions will migrate in the quest for food and water. Sustainable food production will be an impossibility in much of the world, where at a minimum the cost of food will make it a luxury. There will be instability and upheaval.

This province, I feel, has a glorious future, if we manage our resources properly. I wonder whether the government has thought hard enough about that future scenario throughout the globe and the part that B.C. will be playing in it.

R. Fleming: I am pleased to take my place in the debate this afternoon. I think some of the points have been well made by other members on both sides of the House this afternoon at this stage of debate. I think the point that I will repeat that others have made to begin with is that this legislation that's before the House this afternoon is legislation that's long overdue from the perspective of most British Columbians.

I know that to get to this legislative session, we're talking about a five- or six-year journey through the Ministry of Environment, through various consultations that happened many years ago, I think beginning in 2008.

I can recall the Living Water Smart document and some of the initial consultations that were done. At the time I was the party's Environment critic and actually commended government, which is sort of rare in this business, for conducting consultation very well. The stakeholders that needed to be at the table were included. The different regions of the province that demanded and should require input were also included.

It was, I guess, a question mark that was left out of a consultation that was for once of a scope and quality that was worthy of positive comment on: why has it taken so long to get to this point? But we have had some things come and go along the way. I think the HST may have knocked this off the legislative agenda. There may be other reasons that I'm not aware of. We had an election, of course, in between as well.

When you consider that a million groundwater users in the province of British Columbia had very few legal recourses or the ability to be included in the Water Act — although it was there, but today it is much more explicit in this new piece of legislation — I think that in itself, for a quarter of British Columbians, is something to celebrate with the introduction of this act. It has been, indeed, a long, long wait.

This is probably the most significant legislation to do with water that the Legislature has debated for 12 or 13 years. The last time the government looked at making changes was, of course, in the post-Walkerton era, when we had had failures in a province of Canada on protecting the public. People died. Water inspection regimes were called into question. There was rightly a focus on safety around drinking water in this country.

Government at that time — and it was a government of a different political stripe — reacted quickly and introduced that act. It had broad scope. It created layers of responsibility around chief health officers of the province and in the different health regions.

It was amended, after government changed, to improve the act. In the decade since very little has been done around some of the more obvious gaps in B.C.'s
[ Page 2712 ]
water legislation, but many of those, I think, today in this act are answered. That's a positive development. There's no question about it.

We have to take water a lot more seriously, not just in British Columbia or in Canada or in North America but around the world. I think Canadians, and British Columbians in particular, have to take water use seriously. In some cases and in some communities, it has been something that has been taken for granted.

[1555]

We have remarkably well-managed municipal utilities that deliver a plentiful and cheap commodity right into your home, into your faucet, and that is part of the way of life in British Columbia. But it is also why Canadians consume something like 65 percent more water than other people on the planet in just the OECD rich, industrialized countries.

Conservation has to be something that we are mindful of here because, of course, we live in an era of climate change. Right now British Columbia and other jurisdictions around the world are seeing patterns of weather and ways of life on the land base and in the water supply change quite dramatically.

We are living through this right now, and governments need to have much more aggressive adaptation strategies to climate change. They also need to have, of course, more importantly, mitigation strategies to stop climate change from being severe, irreversible and potentially of such a magnitude that it will not support human life in the way that it has been in recent centuries.

We were reminded of this challenge, of course, just on Monday when the United Nations IPCC panel issued a follow-up report, a new report on the pace of climate change. It was a call to action, I think, for humanity and, particularly, for political leaders to respond to the scientific community around the world, which has poured incredible resources and expertise into coming up with the hypothetical models, looking at the real data going back hundreds of years and projecting tens of thousands of years to look at the trends that we are living under around climate change.

Here we are looking at how legislation around water, crucial to support all forms of life, crucial to the regrowth of, for example, the forest industry in B.C…. We have to make sure that this legislation gets it right in terms of giving government the tools to make the tough calls in an era of climate change, where there is drought management and where there are emergencies, but also to plan successfully on adapting to climate change, because it's happening now.

In terms of economic well-being, the connection between water and land use, when you look at the consumption of water by replanted areas — for example, in forestry — supply is critical to that being successful.

Of course, British Columbians have a special responsibility too, to manage water well, because we have some of the greatest rivers in the world. The Fraser River is just one that sustains incredible fish flows and spawning grounds and industries and jobs that come from that — aboriginal rights to that resource. This legislation should remind us and also empower us to manage great rivers like the Fraser and others in British Columbia to the best that we can do as legislators.

Williston Lake, for example, our largest lake in B.C., 1,800 square kilometres — an incredible body of fresh water here in British Columbia that also needs to be managed well. The examples are countless, and members from all 85 constituencies can, I am sure, speak specifically about watersheds and important groundwater sources of water in their communities that need to be managed well.

The test for whether this legislation is good legislation is whether it anticipates these challenges, whether it responds to it with a framework for enforcement, as well as contemplation about some of those challenges and whether it puts the tools in place that are needed. As lawmakers, we have to get that right this afternoon.

There has been a lot of discussion about what is not in this bill and how much of it is left up to regulation by government. Normally, that would cause me quite a lot of concern, because we have seen hollowed-out shells of bills come through this place on a host of topics or intended areas of law that have turned out to be disastrous. Some of them have been rejected by the court — I don't need to get into this — and sent back to this place.

I will say for the record that I am less concerned about that today around the Water Sustainability Act. I understand that there are good reasons to leave much of the development of the Water Sustainability Act, its implementation, to the regulation-making phase, even though that will fall to cabinet and will be away from the scrutiny, for the most part, that we have an opportunity to provide at this stage of debate with this act.

[1600]

I have been involved in a number of water issues in my own community. The capital regional district has been cited many times for its excellence in terms of the model it uses to protect its drinking water sources. But we have a lot of rivers and other sources of water in communities on the Island that are under specific threats.

One of them is the Cowichan River. We saw just a couple of summers ago something that could have been a major crisis on the Cowichan. It has to do with water licensing, which is why I think that this is relevant to a discussion on this bill this afternoon.

We saw a large industrial user need water supply. Otherwise, it would face shutdown and potential destruction of its equipment. It was a pulp mill. Its supply had to be guaranteed through the summer months.

We also saw recreational and residential property users on the lake that fed the river up in the Cowichan take a different view. In their case, they felt — some of them, a
[ Page 2713 ]
very vocal minority — that it was important to have as much beachfront as possible. They desired a certain level of water to be used or not used, as the case may be. Then we had those who were guardians of the river from various angling associations and hunting and fishing organizations very concerned about fish kill on the river.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The community came together and petitioned government to use powers that it had under the existing century-old Water Act, but it was also a lesson as to what some of the gaps are in the legislation. I don't know the opinions, unfortunately, right now of some of the organizations that were formed out of the Cowichan River crisis of a couple of summers ago. One Cowichan is the name of one of these organizations.

I don't know whether they think the Water Sustainability Act is going to be adequate enough to help them, but I do know that they feel some of the contents of the legislation are sufficient to go to government with a management plan and ask for things that there's now authority to give them.

I suspect that, after this legislation is passed, we're going to hear from a lot of communities in British Columbia that want to have a more delegated authority to manage their watersheds and that want to have special projects around managing flows — environmental flows, for example, which this legislation cites.

I think government should not respond to a potential barrage of requests by saying no or taking its time or dragging its feet. I think government is going to have to look at the licensing side around groundwater and other licence holders here and take a good look at what cost recovery means in order for government to have adequate resources to be able to respond to new demands around water stewardship in B.C.

They're going to have to do that. This is not a time to talk about water licences as taxes that fetter the economy. That would be the wrong response. This is a time to look at and sit down and discuss with communities their ambitions, their long-term plans to be good stewards of their watershed.

The premise here is right in the name of the legislation: sustainability. Communities are looking at long-term sustainability around water. They have real concerns now about how things have changed in just several decades' time. They're going to come to government — there's no doubt about it — after this bill becomes law, to ask for that to be taken seriously, and it's going to require some funds.

What we hear, unfortunately, in government day after day…. Whether it's kids and mothers who have payments withheld or the regressive cuts to literacy programs we were talking about a couple of weeks ago, we hear from government: "There's no money for anything. We have a deficit." We have no money to have a civilized, humane plan for helping people in their communities.

This legislation is raising expectations. I think government should not, after this becomes law, slam the door on those expectations. They should embrace them, and they should work with communities that want to have water management plans in place that go beyond what is legally possible today.

[1605]

There are some consultations going on right now around the rental structure, and I understand that those are due to close in just a few days' time. I also think the minister should consider whether that consultation is adequate. It's a difficult question to wrangle with, and I understand that. But there is a criticism out there that, having waited five years for this legislation, on major details like the rental structures, government seems to be moving too quickly in this case.

I want to also single out one area of something additional to this legislation. I've talked about a few things that maybe aren't in the act that will be done by regulation. But one thing that is not in the act that I think government deserves to be commended on is the idea that it floated a few years ago. Again, I was Environment critic at this time.

Government was seriously looking at creating something called water markets in British Columbia. Now, they were looking at keeping, potentially, the same licensing regime that we have in B.C., which is maintained in this legislation. I know we're talking about modernizing 100 years. We're keeping the 100-year-old licensing system in place. In fact, we're extending it to groundwater, but I think we can come back to that subsequently.

One of the most dangerous things in the process around modernizing water legislation in B.C. that this government raised and put up as a trial balloon three years ago was the creation of water markets. This would have brought something similar to what California has here to British Columbia.

It would have taken large water licensees, who don't in many cases use the water that they're licensed to have — and those licences may go back 70, 80, even 90 years — and it would have given them the ability to sell unused allocations for their licences to other potential consumers.

It would have, in other words, monetized a licence and created a commodity market and enshrined new property rights into a public resource, which is water. That would have been an absolute disaster. We've seen it happen in California, where a large agricultural user, for example, will inflate the price and reap significant unearned profits, really, on a public resource from smaller water users who demand it.

It is completely anathema to government's goals around water conservation in certain regions of this province. So it would have been a disaster and absolutely run counter to, for example, drought management areas
[ Page 2714 ]
and the new authorities that the minister has been provided with in this legislation. It would have undermined it completely.

So I think government has to be commended for having floated that trial balloon and, once it was shot down, not being stubborn and seeking to push it through. I think that would have been potentially the most regressive thing that is possible around water legislation in B.C. It wasn't done, and I have to say, again, that we're thankful for that.

In addition to groundwater being better regulated and, in fact, regulated at all, I think government needs to be commended, too, for improving the ability to manage water flows to protect fish. There is now a section in this legislation that is much more explicit about that, giving government the powers during emergency periods to be able to protect fish with environmental flows that are guaranteed. That's a very positive and welcome addition to this legislation.

There's one area that I think needs to be flagged, because we may come back to this subsequently after this becomes law and there are challenges to it. There's a concern that one part of this new act will result in less transparency. It's around a hot-button issue in British Columbia, if you're from the northeast, to do with the short-term water licences given to natural gas drillers for fracking.

Loopholes have been suggested — that those that need a water diversion from a lake or a river for their fracking needs need only reapply for a similar permit after they've used the minimum amount that doesn't require a formal application for a licence.

[1610]

This legislation, it has been said — and I've seen some of the analysis — is going to enshrine that. That will make water use and measurement and reporting, which are really the heart of this legislation, non-applicable to an entire industry, potentially — certainly a significant part of that industry.

That is not going to do anything for the social licence that the natural gas industry needs to continue to be able to do what it does — let alone to grow into the future in B.C. I think government would do well to have a second look and to respond to the critics who have raised that as an issue.

I mentioned earlier that the rental rates are critical, and the licence fees are critical in B.C. to be able to sustain ministry activities that ensure that drinking water is safe and protected and to ensure that watersheds are well managed. I think the investigative capacity by government is at an all-time low.

Let's face it. Today there are something like 30 percent fewer registered professional biologists working for ministries like the Ministry of Environment and the so-called dirt ministries than there were a decade ago, so we've lost 30 percent capacity on the scientific side.

We do not have people in the field, as we once did, looking at licence holders to see that they are in compliance with their licences. We know this from, actually, in some cases, federal reporting done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that looked at run-of-river activities and ramping on certain rivers where there were fish kills. The lessons of some of those reports were that nobody is watching what is going on, and once you have your certificate to build a project, you'll probably never hear from government again.

That's an unacceptable state of affairs. I think the Water Sustainability Act is a chance to be able to repair the lack of capacity in key ministries that are responsible for water, and I'd like to see that happen.

I think, instead, in this legislation what we're seeing is a continuation of a principle that is very popular amongst the Liberals over ten years of their law-making here, which is to go to a self-reporting model.

Disappointingly, I think the Water Sustainability Act furthers and continues self-reporting. In some cases this will be industrial users, licence holders, reporting on their own activities without any oversight by government. That has been disastrous in a number of high-profile cases in British Columbia. It's something that should've been remedied by this comprehensive package of reforms on water in B.C. under the Water Sustainability Act umbrella here, and it wasn't.

In closing, there's lots, I think, to commend government on for carrying through a five-year process here. It has been a long time coming. They have created a law that builds on the most significant water law framework change that we've had in 2001, which was the Drinking Water Protection Act. There are some gaps here that I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to raise at this stage of debate.

We're happy, of course, that groundwater users are now under a regulatory framework. We will wait to see government's details on other key parts of this legislation that will be done at the regulation-making stage. But I think British Columbians need to be praised today for their own persistence in putting water to the top of the legislative agenda, for pushing government and holding their feet to the fire to carry through important reforms like we've seen today.

As I mentioned earlier there are one million British Columbians that were not captured by the old Water Act adequately. They will now be included, and their rights will be protected in legislation when this bill passes. That is all positive. There's no question about it. I thank you for the chance today to raise a few concerns that I have with the act as well.

C. Trevena: I rise here to speak on Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act. Like my colleagues, I would like to recognize the import of this bill and note, as others have said, that it's a long time in coming. I'm not going to be-
[ Page 2715 ]
labour the points that have had much discussion already in this House, so there are just a few points I wanted to pick up on.

[1615]

I think that perhaps it's very appropriate that we are having second reading the same week as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which issued some dire warnings — specifically, dire warnings about water. We in Canada are quite lucky, but it stated: "Rates of climate change associated with medium- to high-emission scenarios…pose high risk of abrupt and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition, structure and function of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems."

When we're discussing this bill, it's been 100 years since the water bill was first introduced. We're doing the Water Sustainability Act, a whole new act, which, one hopes, is going to be lasting for the future. We have a future that is full of great uncertainty. I think that it is our duty as legislators to do everything that we can do to think about the different scenarios that are there, the different possibilities that might come, the different ways that our province, our geography, may evolve.

We know that in Canada we are blessed with very wonderful access to fresh water. There's no question that we are a supremely lucky nation, but that will be put under great pressure in the years to come. Even though we in B.C. are…. We're a large province but a small part of the world map. It is incumbent on us to be taking a very global approach and a very specific approach when we look at legislation related to water.

During the time that the then Water Sustainability Act was a bill, there was a lot of consultation. Among the consultation that came out of this was that the Council of Canadians — a very good, strong, vocal, non-partisan advocacy group — asked for a number of things: one, that in this act water would be recognized as a human right, and secondly, that water would be regarded as a public trust belonging to the people, which can't be privately owned or controlled as part of the commons. The bill doesn't embrace either of those demands.

There is an assumption that we have access to water, that it is there, that we are going to enjoy it and we're going to benefit from it. But the concept of water as a human right, like the right to shelter, the right to food, the right…. We have the declaration of human rights, which enumerates in detail every single right that we have as humans. But water is one that would be a very specific one and, I think, a very important one as we evolve, as our society evolves and as we see what happens in the coming years, as we have climate change.

There has been presaging that we could end up with having wars over access to water, over that very simple thing that we as B.C.'ers and as Canadians take for such a common…. It's just there. We turn on the tap.

Just as an aside, I was recently in England. They're having a conversation with people who have metered water in their homes and looking at how they have changed their approach to how they use their water. They know that they're going to get charged for every litre of water that comes out of the tap. It's had a fundamental change to how they regard and how they use water.

We treat it as a wonderful, disposable commodity. It's there. It is something we can all enjoy. But we have to…. I think it's incumbent on us to respect that water and not always think that we're going to turn on the tap and we'll always have it but be aware that this is something that we are very fortunate to have.

Representing North Island, I have a number of my constituents on shallow wells. They know how easy it is to run out of water. There are already people very concerned, after such a dry winter, that their wells will be low and that they won't have access to water. They are very aware of the bigger issue of water and water supply and water accessibility.

[1620]

I think that these are some of the things that this bill…. It doesn't really embrace some of these areas. I think it would have been, as I say, beneficial for our good as a province to have a broader view of water.

I know that there is general support for the bill. It's good that we've had the consultation. It's good that we're moving on. It's good that we are going to be having this. But there are certain areas of concern about the bill. Some of these have been talked about by my colleagues, but I just wanted to highlight a few that stick out for me.

One of the ones is the fact that the bill has, as the previous Water Act had, the first-come, first-served notion with the first-in-time, first-in-right water allocation. What this means is essentially that older licences that have been around for maybe 100 years or so when…. We haven't had that very direct awareness that we have today of what is environmentally necessary, whether it's stream flows for fish or wetlands or for the bigger issues I've just been talking about, a climate change. Licences that were issued a while ago will continue to be the ones in place. They would be in place above licences that would possibly have First Nations use, relate to drinking water, relate to agriculture.

Only in the new licences will the environmental flows be considered. Those that are in place, that have been in place for a long while, will not have that, and that is a point of concern. I think that there needs to be a broader look at that.

One of the other areas — as I say, there are a number of areas, and I know that other colleagues have talked about this — is the issue of fracking. While the oil and gas sector is important and we all know of the potential benefits that LNG will bring the province, this bill could have looked at this, I think, a bit more stringently.

What it does is it facilitates the short-term water for fracking because it gives the government the power to
[ Page 2716 ]
issue repeat short-term authorizations to use the water to the same person for the same use in the same place. So it can be used time and time again. This is my understanding.

I know that my colleague the Environment critic, the member for Vancouver–West End, will be going through in great detail when we get to committee stage to get some clarity on this. This interpretation is from reading the bill the first time and talking to people who are concerned about environmental issues and to environmental lawyers and so on. This is what they have been flagging, and it has caused concern.

The Oil and Gas Commission, as the independent member was talking about, has granted short-term approvals for water use for fracking, which can go for 24 months. The Water Sustainability Act means that the short-term water use purposes authorization can be issued, as I say, to the same person for the same water for the same place, time and time again. This does lead to some concerns about transparency, because we've not really had much information available on these short-term water use approvals.

As I say, we want to be able to support the industry, but we also want clarity. We want to be able to know that…. The issue of water use in fracking has been raised many times, and we want to make sure that there is that clarity there and that there is that certainty. So that is another concern about this.

[1625]

The section about mitigation is also somewhat troubling, because we see this in other areas where you have a user who can have access to something if they mitigate the effects somewhere else. If industry is going to cause a problem, or somebody is developing something somewhere but they know that there is going to be damage, they will mitigate those effects. It's like: "Somewhere we'll do some mining and then buy some land where there are wetlands and ensure that those wetlands are developed."

Here, the good side of it, I've got to say, is that if there is going to be harm to a stream caused in a place, the offsets will have to be used on the same water source or the same stream or lake or aquifer, rather than moving it elsewhere, like if you've got a mine that is causing problems in certain areas of water and then you look after wetlands in a different area. No, you've got to look after the same area, which is good.

There is concern still about the whole concept of offsets, that you are allowing a certain amount of degradation. "It's okay. We're going to make it up further down the stream." It really should be done when there is a strong framework of environmental awareness and of conservation.

I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, this government hasn't shown that we have that here. In fact, what we have seen is a reduction in environmental protection. We have basically fewer feet on the ground seeing what is happening, representing forest-based communities.

We have a lot of logging, a lot of very good logging. A lot of jobs are created from it, but there is a real concern that some companies are logging too close to the streams, that watersheds are being damaged. There is nobody out there from the forest service. They haven't got the people to get out there and see what's happening. It is up to the companies to self-regulate, and that is a real concern. If this is what's going to be happening through this Water Act — say, without a framework to make sure that what is being done is being done appropriately — this is troubling.

We have the environment. We have all the benefits. Let's make sure we're looking after them properly. Let's not simply allow those who are doing the work to regulate.

The other area which is some concern is the concept that the pricing, putting this price on water and the industrial use — what it's going to mean for the concept. Again, when we're looking in the future, we've got the whole question of climate change that is right upon us, the access for industrial users to water, the access both for industrial use and for the sale of water. I know there are no bulk water sales from our freshwater system, but it's a fine line. No bulk water sales, but we fill up lots of bottles. I think this is something that we're going to have to be looking at in the future as we go along.

The other issue that I have…. While my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake was quite comfortable that there was a lot of things that are going to be left to regulation, I've got to say I'm a little more skeptical because of what my colleague said — that we have seen many bills tabled become acts, but most of the details are left up to regulation.

There are two points of view. Regulation allows some more flexibility. It can happen quickly. It can happen through cabinet, through order-in-council, legislation. You have to go through this troublesome process of bringing issues to the Legislature to be discussed by government and opposition and independents. We then have to go through the whole debate and have committee discussion on it before we can make the change.

Really, I think it's very healthy that we have that. It adds to the checks and balances. It does allow for ensuring that we are getting the best possible legislation. While I say that this legislation on the whole is something that has been long waited for, I think that we want to make sure that it is completely right. That's why, on this side of the House, we're standing here and giving a cautious response, I think. We're not embracing this.

[1630]

There are some very good things. We had a hundred-year-old act that needed updating. This new act does take into account some of the changes, but I don't think it takes into account enough changes, and it doesn't look strongly enough to the future and to the world that we are moving into.
[ Page 2717 ]

In the last 100 years there've been changes, no question. But I would say that in the last 20 years, even ten years — not just ten years of this government; ten years in our world — we've seen rapid changes. Climate change is happening. It is happening today.

In our legislation — particularly when we're talking about a natural resource, particularly when we talk about water — we should be embracing all the possibilities that we can have for mitigation, for options, for really ensuring that we are not just working for today, not just working for ten years hence, but that we are working for many years hence with the best possible information we've got.

On that note, I will take my place in this debate. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about it. I look forward to hearing more comments about it and getting into committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close the debate.

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you to all the members for their thoughtful comments. I'm pleased to hear that there appears to be fairly good support for the bill. I look forward to the comments when we get to third reading.

With that, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 18, Water Sustainability Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I now call committee stage of Bill 12, Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:35 p.m.

On section 1.

R. Austin: On section 1. This adds a definition of "operating area." Could I ask why this definition has been added?

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I start, I just thought I'd introduce the staff that are with me today. To my left is Geoff Turner, the director of pricing, tenure and royalty policy with the Ministry of Natural Gas Development. Barbara Thomson is to my right. She's with the Ministry of Justice, legal services branch — resource, environment and land law group. Basically, whatever's wrong with this could be her fault. I'm kidding. Garth Thoroughgood is behind me. He's the executive director of tenure and geoscience for the ministry.

The definition is being created to identify the land subject to the notifications and appeal provisions for the landowners under the act. Basically, it identifies the landowner to allow us to identify the landowner where the activity is taking place who would have the right to appeal.

R. Austin: This section also amends the definition of "related activity." Could I ask what the purpose of that is?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, the definition is being expanded to ensure that the commission has the authority to issue multiple but related approvals that are required under specified enactments in order to undertake one related activity.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

R. Austin: This section clarifies that it doesn't apply to water source wells. Could I ask why that is?

[1640]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a clarification of when the continuation of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act was brought over to deal with the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Basically, it's to exclude the water source well from the requirements under section 4 for the petroleum and natural gas or storage wells. Before, you could have caught water at the same time, so this clarifies that you have to have the rights to drill for gas in order to drill a gas well. It clarifies that. These were brought forward from former requirements under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act that were meant to apply only to oil and gas or storage wells.

What happened was the oil and gas tribunal said we need to clarify this language with regards to these wells being for natural gas where you had the rights to drill for natural gas.

R. Austin: Just for clarification: basically, this is just trying to exclude water wells on someone's property. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: That would be correct.

Section 3 approved.
[ Page 2718 ]

On section 4.

R. Austin: Could the minister just clarify as to why this change is being made here — this clarification?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm glad to. The amendment to this section is…. Associated amendments are being made to other sections of the act that are to clarify that the explicit rights to receive notice and to appeal permit decisions under the act apply only to the landowner on whose land the oil and gas activity is planned or approved to be physically located. This is being done by tying the right to notice and appeal associated with the permit to an operating area which is identified in the permit.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

R. Austin: I believe this clarifies how the commission is to exercise the power referred to in this section. Could the minister explain this? By "this," I mean an explanation. Does the minister mean that the enforcement of these regulations will be through penalties or by other means?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the member described it pretty well. It's to clarify that the mechanism by which the commission may require security to be paid is either through an order or a condition of a permit. The existing provision, section 30, creates the authority for the commission to require a permit holder, an applicant for a permit or a person to whom the permit is being transferred to provide security in relation to the performance and obligations they held under the act.

The significance of the amendment is to clarify the regulatory tools under the act that apply if a person fails to provide the security required by the commission. The requirement to provide the security will be issued either as a condition of their permit or through an order. Failure to comply with the condition of the permit or the order is a contravention of the act. The administrative process is including such things as additional orders, permits, suspensions. Administrative penalties can be issued in relation to the contravention of the act.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

R. Austin: To the minister: how have the recipients of this notice changed in this section?

Hon. R. Coleman: They haven't changed. It just clarifies who gets the notice.

D. Donaldson: The purpose of section 7 is clarification as to whom the notice under this section must be provided and what the notice must include, and the minister alluded to that. Does this in any way reduce the number of recipients that are currently covered by the bill?

Hon. R. Coleman: No.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

R. Austin: Could the minister let us know why they've added definitions of "former permit holder," "interest holder" and "parties" for the purposes of part 4 of this act?

[1645]

Hon. R. Coleman: Under this section there are three new terms being created for the purpose of amendments to the act. The existing provision is the definition section of part 4, "Orphan Sites." Part 4 of the act establishes the processes by which moneys are collected and expended from the orphan site reclamation fund. The significance of this is that new terms are used to clarify the persons who have liability for reimbursing the orphan site reclamation fund when money is expended from it under this part.

They could be a "former permit holder" in relation to an expired permit. A former permit holder is the person who held the permit immediately prior to its expiry.

An "interest holder" is a person who either owns or holds the Crown rights to the oil and gas to which an oil and gas activity permit applies. In many cases the permit holder will also be the interest holder.

In relation to who's liable for repayment of the moneys expended from the orphan site reclamation fund, the "parties" are the permit holder, former permit holder and the interest holder relative to the oil and gas activities permit application to the orphan site.

A. Weaver: I have two questions. First off, is there any entity or individual who could be classified as an operator but not a permit holder or former permit holder?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try for the member. Basically, under the definition, the permit holder is the operator. There's not a separate operator under the permit. There could be a contractor, but it still goes back to the permit holder as the operator.

A. Weaver: Trying to understand, then. Does this, then, ensure that "operators" are still held to account if…? I mean, the question is: how does this change ensure that "operators" who are not "permit holders" or "former permit holders" are still held to account once this legislation changes? Is there a transition of the word "oper-
[ Page 2719 ]
ator" to "permit holder" or "former permit holder" for legal purposes?

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes the language can confuse. The permit holder is the operator. If he chooses to contract the driller, he is still the operator and still responsible as the permit holder. He's also considered to be the operator.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

R. Austin: On section 9, how is the designation of orphan wells changing?

[1650]

Hon. R. Coleman: The change here is that the list of well, facility and pipeline that can also be designated as orphaned is being expanded to also include oil and gas roads.

R. Austin: What's the reason for that change?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's to make sure that we can apply the fund to oil and gas roads, obviously, for environmental purposes or decommissioning if it affects watercourses and that sort of thing. We've expanded the definition to catch that as well.

R. Austin: Does this mean that by substituting "parties, jointly and severally," in case of any legal problems, this would fall to everybody? Is that essentially what this means?

Hon. R. Coleman: It gives us the flexibility to go after all of them or severally.

R. Austin: So if there's one party that's only slightly involved, the government can still go after all of them. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct.

R. Austin: Has this been discussed with stakeholders? Who asked for this change?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it allows us to have a bit more flexibility. Maybe I'll read a technical description for you, and that might help.

"It identifies the oil and gas sites that may be designated to be orphaned when an operator is found insolvent" — again, remembering that the operator could be the person who is the permit holder responsible for all activities.

"An operator is a person who is either the permit holder or the person who owns or holds all rights of the oil and gas for which the permit is issued. As the provision is written currently, all persons falling within the meaning of an 'operator' must be found to be insolvent before moneys from the fund can be expanded to reclaim a site.

"The amendment will replace the term 'operator' by 'permit holder' or 'former permit holder.' The amended provision will speed up the improved access to the fund for reclamation purposes by requiring that only one permit holder or former permit holder would have to be found insolvent before the fund can be used."

R. Austin: Can I just ask the minister: could you explain how the fund works, just for clarification for my purposes, please?

[1655]

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the best way to explain it is…. Let's say we had a site with some contamination or with contamination on the ground. We would go to those responsible. If they were insolvent, then we would, actually, immediately clean it up using the orphan site fund. Then we'd pursue actions with regards to recovering costs with those individuals responsible.

A. Weaver: I was wondering if the minister could please explain, with respect to section 9(a)(ii), under what circumstances the Oil and Gas Commission usually is unable to identify the permit holder, former permit holder or operator of an orphaned site. And what is the prevalence of this occurrence?

Hon. R. Coleman: That section is really to enable us to pursue old historical issues of years back, before the data was as strong as it is today. Today we know who the permit holder is and whether…. We do have some orphan sites we still pursue going back decades.

R. Austin: Can I just ask, for clarification: does this mean that under this change the government would be able to go after people who are solvent, who previously they would not have been able to go to and would have used the fund? Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, the change has a couple of nuances. One nuance is that it allows us to use the fund, fix it and then go pursue. It also allows us to only have one group that might be responsible go insolvent, and it allows us to pursue the other ones that would be still solvent as well.

R. Austin: Does this mean that people who you couldn't go after before, you're now able to go after? Is that correct? Those who were solvent at the time?

Hon. R. Coleman: What this does is allow us to use the fund earlier so that we don't have to wait for everybody to go insolvent and then spend years trying to track them down. We can use the fund earlier to fix any problem, and then we can pursue all the people that would be
[ Page 2720 ]
affected, whether they be solvent or insolvent.

R. Austin: Has there been any analysis done as to how many cases this would be used on currently?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's impossible to tell you, because it would be new. We haven't used this before. This gives us another tool that we would be using.

R. Austin: Did you speak to stakeholders prior to making this change or seeking to make this change?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, we did.

R. Austin: Who were the stakeholders who were consulted on this?

Hon. R. Coleman: The normal groups I would consult with and the people I had discussions with about this and other things were the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. In various conversations with companies that do work in the northeast, this has come up in conversation with me.

[1700]

All I got back, basically, is they supported that we would pursue this because they feel it's important that orphan wells be addressed in the future and they felt that it was a positive thing.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

A. Weaver: I was wondering if the minister could please comment on how this amendment pertains to surface and subsurface rights in section 14 here. That came on me really fast here, as we went through so many sections rapidly.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think, just for clarification, I'll give the member basically the purpose of the existing provisions and the significance of the amendments, and maybe that will answer the question for him.

The reference is to landowners who have a right to appeal. Various subsections under section 72 are being amended to clarify that landowners are either those on whose land an operating area is located or, when a permit has not been issued, those landowners to whom the applicant provided notice or the purpose of the activity.

The existing provision of the act sets out the process related to the appeal to the oil and gas appeal tribunal of a determination made by the commission. The amendments do a number of things.

First, the amendments give the right of appeal to the landowner of the land on which an oil and gas activity is permitted to be carried out under this act. Subsection 72(5)(b) identifies that the landowner is a party when the permit holder files an appeal, similar to the amendments made to the sections made earlier, above the phrase in both, under these subsections — so that's a little bit of legalese for you.

The fact of the matter is that it identifies in the amendment the landowner as a party to an appeal. So if the landowner wanted to appeal a permit, they can appeal the permit themselves or with the landowner — particularly in the case of a refusal of the permit. Usually when a permit is being done with a landowner, they are actually supportive of the permit. As there's no permit involved at this stage, there's no operating area when you have no permit issued on the other piece.

The other amendment deals with the situation when the permit holder appeals a refusal of an application to amend its permit. The permit is located on private land. The owner of the land also becomes a party to that appeal. Similar to other amendments being made under this section, the phrase the land owner of the land on which the "oil and gas activity is permitted to be carried out under the permit" is being amended to read the landowner of the land on which an "operating area is located."

Basically, in one piece you've got a permit and a landowner, and others you've got an application for a permit, and that's an operating area because a permit hasn't been issued as yet.

A. Weaver: Is there an appeal process, then, for landowners, under these changes, who may not have surface drilling on their land but will have subsurface drilling under their land based on surface drilling on adjacent land?

Hon. R. Coleman: They have the right to consultation. But no, because it's not located on their land, they don't have any appeal.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

R. Austin: Could the minister just explain the purpose of this section and the changes made?

[1705]

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you for passing section 15, because it has something to do with the Forest Act, and I was back in another movie thinking I'd have to actually deal with some forest issues here today.

This is pretty straightforward. The significance is basically that it's been expanded to allow the board to allow an official to exempt a person from a requirement to pay a fee under the act and impose alternative conditions.

I'll give you an example where the significance would affect it: a person is required to pay a fee for a permit to
[ Page 2721 ]
construct or operate a pipeline based upon the size and length of the pipeline. The fee goes towards administrative costs associated with the undertaking — such things as First Nations consultation, the identification of environmental issues and the investigation of the status of other legal issues in the land that the pipeline would cross.

Where an application is made to locate a second pipeline in the same right-of-way, this amendment would enable the board to empower the official to reduce or exempt the fee if no additional work is required. If there's no additional First Nations consultation and no additional environmental work — because the right-of-way is there — it reduces the cost. It's been a contention that in those particular cases the permit fee should be adjusted or waived.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

R. Austin: On section 17, my understanding is that this section will make it retroactive for the capture of funds. To the minister, could he explain why these two sections are retroactive?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I am. This actually fixes something. The Pipeline Act was brought into force in 1955. The act provided for the regulation of the construction and operation of pipelines, including gas transmission lines over 700 kPa in the province.

Prior to the Pipeline Act being brought into force and for a time period after it was brought into force, some pipelines could still be built under authorities found in other enactments. However, these pipelines could be brought under the regulation and enforcement of the Pipeline Act through a certificate issued under section 2 of the act at that time.

By 2008 this provision had not actively been used for years. At the time the Oil and Gas Activities Act was developed, how these certificates applied to pipelines was still in use and was not appreciated. Section 2 certificates were not included in the transition provisions of the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

After the Oil and Gas Activities Act came into force, it came to the attention of the commission that a series of pipelines located in the Lower Mainland were operating under certificates into interests issued under section 2 of the Pipeline Act. These pipelines were automatically placed in contravention of the basic requirement under the Oil and Gas Activities Act to have a permit. This was an administrative oversight in the transition process.

As a temporary corrective measure, B.C. regulation 30/2013, approved on January 23, exempted pipelines that had been under this section 2 certificate under the Pipeline Act from the requirement to hold a permit under the Oil and Gas Activities Act as long as their operation otherwise remained in compliance under the act and regulations. The exemption regulation was created as a temporary fix to bring these pipelines into compliance with the act until a transition provision could be added to the act — which this is.

R. Austin: To the minister, could he give me some examples of which pipelines this situation refers to?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it's some of the Fortis lines in the Lower Mainland, but I'd have to get the member the information.

[1710]

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

R. Austin: This is retroactive to 2012. Again, could I ask the minister why that's happening?

Hon. R. Coleman: In June 2013 the commission brought into force a new oil and gas road regulation that broadened the definition of oil and gas roads to include roads built on Crown land for oil and gas purposes. The roads on Crown land were originally approved under other statutes, and a transition process was followed to issue permits to those roads which were operational at the time the new regulation came into force.

However, the expansion of the definition of oil and gas road through a new regulation expanded the application of section 118.1 as written to include the roads on Crown land that had been built before January 27, 2011, to allow them to be also operated without a permit. This changed the intent of section 118.1. The provision is being amended to restrict its application to the roads on private land, as originally intended.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

R. Austin: This section changes the definitions of "Crown reserve" and "cubic metre" as well as "plant liquids." Why is the definition of plant liquids changed or repealed?

Hon. R. Coleman: I apologize for the length of time on that one. We've actually moved to a different act, so my section notes are different, or the context of them is a bit different.

Basically what this is…. It adds a definition of the term "Crown reserve" to the act and amends the definition of "cubic metre" and repeals the definition of "plant liquids."

Now I'll explain that. The term "Crown reserve" is used throughout the act and regulations to reference
[ Page 2722 ]
Crown-owned petroleum and natural gas as a reserve for competitive disposition. Adding a definition of the term increases clarity. So that's if I have a Crown reserve of natural gas and I put oil and gas leases up for sale, this clarifies what the definition is that we're talking about.

The new definition of cubic metre is required for the consistency with existing royalty regulations and to allow the term to apply to the measurement of substance other than petroleum or natural gas.

The term "plant liquids" was used in the royalty calculations up until June 2003. The term is no longer used in the act, and that's why it's being repealed out of the act.

For the member's interest, the current definition of cubic metre is…. This is what is in the act: "'cubic metre' means, for a volume of (a) natural gas, that volume measured at 101.325 kPa and 15°C, and (b) petroleum, that volume measured at 15°C."

The member for Peace River South might be able to explain that to you in a much better definition than I can.

[1715]

R. Austin: Is that about pressure and temperature then? Is that what the minister is referring to?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not bad, hon. Member, but yeah.

R. Austin: I'll sleep better tonight. Next section.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

R. Austin: On section 21, am I right in saying that this section appears to be doing away with permitting to a contiguous block of land? Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not quite. The significance of this change. The permits under the act are designed to be issued in remote areas with little available geological information.

This section currently restricts the size of a permit to a block, an area defined based on the petroleum and natural gas grid regulation — in most cases. A block is a very large area. The repeal of this section will allow for different sizes and configurations of permits to be issued, increasing the flexibility for the ministry and the industry when tenuring in the exploratory areas of the province.

R. Austin: Does this mean that this can be a larger area of land than previously? Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it could be either-or. "The location for which a permit is issued must be a block, except if the location is (a) adjacent to a boundary of British Columbia, (b) in an area in which petroleum and natural gas is reserved by the government, (c) less than a block and approved by the minister, or (d) in the Peace River Block or as provided for in section 124."

Basically what it is…. In the larger exploratory areas you can issue a block permit that allows them to go in and basically do some exploratory work. That would probably apply to a large block of something like the Liard, for instance, whereas down in the Montney, where we have the resource and we'll have smaller blocks, it allows us a flexibility for different sizes and configurations of the permit. They're more applicable to how the industry operates today versus how it would have operated 30 or 40 years ago.

R. Austin: Could the minister just give me an indication of what the variety of size of blocks are today?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no size today. There's just one fixed measure today. This allows us the flexibility on size and to be more adept on getting, frankly, probably more value for the blocks that we'll be able to put up for leases, because we know where the resource is and where we're going to do exploratory. In exploratory you need a larger area where the resource is. If you have smaller blocks, it allows more flexibility on the resource.

R. Austin: Is there any designated limit to the size of a block under this regulation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are regulatory powers that will allow us to set a maximum size.

Sections 21 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

[1720]

R. Austin: Section 25, I'd like to add an amendment, creating 49.4. The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 25 by adding the following section:

[Position of wells

49.4 A permit holder must not drill a well within

(a) 1000 m of a permanent building, installation or works,

(b) 1000 m of a place of public concourse, or

(c) 1000 m of a reservation for national defense.]

On the amendment.

R. Austin: Now, the reason why I'm bringing in this amendment is really to try and enact something which, actually, the former Liberal Minister of Energy and Mines had intended on doing in 2010. I'm going to quote from a release that was given at the time. This came out of Victoria, and again, I'm quoting from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

"'A 1,000-metre exclusion zone plus a 1,000-metre enhanced management area around schools and community centres, along with a new 250-metre mediated drilling distance, plus a 250-metre enhanced management area for residences will help address concerns for people living near new oil and gas developments,' Energy,
[ Page 2723 ]
Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister and Peace River South MLA Blair Lekstrom announced today."

He went on to say:

"'I'm delivering on my commitment to ensure setback distances are enhanced and make sense for residents and industry alike…. These steps will ensure that there are no new wells drilled or facilities constructed within one kilometre of a school or community centre, and residents will see additional safety measures for any activity taking place within half a kilometre from their home.'"

The purpose here is simply to recognize that there's an awful lot of activity happening in the Peace district. It's going to increase. What I heard when I went up there was that while there is very broad and general support for the oil and gas industry in the Peace district, there are some concerns people have around safety issues. They obviously would like to make sure that schools are better protected by having larger setbacks than are currently permitted. I don't know why the government didn't continue with what they said they were going to do on this issue because it just makes sense.

When you consider the area of the Peace, there's so much area where oil and gas companies can go and do their exploration and do their drilling. Surely it simply makes sense to have setbacks that are increased to keep it away from schools and from other public buildings. When you consider the amount of area that is not what I would call urban, which is the vast majority of the Peace district, that is all open for them to go and create permits for oil and gas exploration.

We have very small areas that are actually city. So why not protect those people who live in those cities and in those schools by having greater setbacks? I don't think that this is unreasonable. In fact….

The Chair: Member, just one second. A point of order.

Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The trouble of going on…. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the act you're speaking to, does not deal with this issue. That's dealt with in the Oil and Gas Activities Act, and the work is already underway to deal with the setbacks. The member for Peace River South has already sat down with us, and work is being done. But this doesn't even fit into this particular act — this amendment — so it is actually, in my opinion, out of order.

R. Austin: Then I'm happy to know that the minister is dealing with this in another act. I thought it was part of section 25. But I'm happy to hear that the government is continuing to act on this, because I think it's definitely worthwhile and something that we would support on this side of the House.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct. The work is being done, actually, on setbacks. Even the most recent one that was brought to mind is more than a thousand metres away from the school where that actually brought up the issue in the Peace. It was measured personally by the member for Peace River South to begin with. They drove out and had a look at it.

Instructions are underway to the commission to deal with this issue. That work is being done. I can assure you that it's getting done. It's because the member for Peace River South has continued to do the work on behalf of his constituency in this particular regard.

[1725]

I don't know how you want to deal with this, hon. Chair, but if it's out of order, I think we'd have to stand down the amendment.

The Chair: Does the committee agree to withdraw the amendment?

R. Austin: Sure. The minister has assured me that this work is being done in another act. That's fine with me.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

R. Austin: Could the minister just explain what this section is about?

Hon. R. Coleman: The proposed replacement for this section provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the authority to make regulations for annual rental payments for leases and establishes a requirement for the lessees to pay rent for their leases. The revisions enabling creation of a system for lessees to apply for reduction in their rent is being moved to another part of the act.

Without limiting, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting annual rent payments, circumstances in which the amounts by which reductions in lease payments may be made, the manner of making the application for a reduction and the powers of the minister and the director in relation to the circumstance referred to.

The provisions related to the creation of a system for rent reductions are being moved out of the part of the act specifically to leases and are being generalized so that they can apply to any type of tenure issued under the act, which gives us more flexibility. The obligation to pay the rent is being added to allow the rent reduction and rent default sections to function as intended.

Sections 28 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

R. Austin: On section 32, this is happening by regulation. Could the minister tell us what criteria the minister is going to use in enacting this section?
[ Page 2724 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: The criteria are being worked on for the regulation, to bring it into force. But I think maybe just a second of explanation for the member.

We do have an existing provision that "if a lessee fails to pay the rental or do work required under section 56, the lease expires 60 days after the date the rental was payable unless on or before the 60 days has elapsed, the lessee pays (a) the rental and does the work, and (b) in addition, as a penalty for each 30 day period or portion of a period that he or she is in default," a sum of 1.5% of the rental value plus the value of the work.

[1730]

The challenge that we found on this one is sometimes…. The inflexibility is the issue here. We're trying to get a mechanism to reinstate a lease after rent default has been done to ensure that all tenure types under the act have similar administrative mechanisms.

One of them would be if you have a default and you actually have a royalty-producing well and would like to see the revenue continue off the well. We have found that in some circumstances when a key employee has left a company or there has been a fire in an office or those types of things where records were lost and they failed to make their 60-day payment, there's no flexibility to go back and say how we can fix that problem.

Now this gives us flexibility if they miss their payment due to loss of an employee who was doing the work and hadn't sent in the payment. You can sit down with the lessee and work out how you can continue the lease. It's really an administrative change to make sure we have the flexibility to deal with the business proactively and fairly.

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

R. Austin: The previous section. This again sets out restrictions respecting new leases issued on surrender of a previous lease. Again, could the minister, just for clarification purposes, say on the public record what the criteria he would use for this section are?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, it's not quite as complicated as that. Really what this is, is that we do use section 64: "With the approval of the minister… be surrendered in whole or in part at any time, and a new lease issued." The ministry has the powers inferred in the wording of section 64 to allow the subdivision of leases. The new wording is going to provide clear authority for the subdivision to actually take place and build key requirements for subdivisions under the act.

Sections 33 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

R. Austin: I think this a the section that authorizes the "issuance of tenures in electronic form and that authorizes the minister to provide relief from rental obligations under the act." Could the minister explain the prescribed circumstances whereby a person can be relieved from rent?

Hon. R. Coleman: It never ceases to amaze me how many pieces of legislation in our history never anticipated we'd ever use electronics for anything. Of course, the world has changed, and that's why the electronic issuing of tenures, etc., makes a lot of sense when you're trying to do business in a modern world.

On the other part of the member's question, on prescribed circumstances, it really is about being able to have the flexibility to do it in circumstances where you've encumbered the ability of somebody that has a lease with you to be able to perform. It could be that we take an area and put it into a land use plan, and it encumbers their access to the property to be able to do their work. Therefore, why would you be charging them an annual rent for a lease that they can't have access to?

It could include things like First Nations issues and stuff like that. We'll prescribe that in regulation, but those are the types of examples that this is aimed at getting at.

Section 36 approved.

On section 37.

[1735]

R. Austin: Could the minister describe what these changes mean? In a practical sense, what are the changes in the section?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to this section of the act we've been basically repealing or adding regulatory powers that are no longer needed. This section actually deals now with the changes that are proposed in the parts of the act that we've already dealt with.

For instance — and I'll give you a couple of examples, or I could read you all 20-ish-odd points on each one. It really is about the ability for us to put into regulatory power the things this section repeals, the regulatory powers no longer needed, and introduces new powers required by the changes in the other parts of the act. The ones that we've taken out — it repeals them. The ones that give the new regulatory powers we've discussed — it puts them in. That's what the section does.

V. Huntington: I'd like to ask a specific question on sub (a)(y). Formerly, the legislation permitted only an order-in-council exemption under certain circumstances. However, (y) seems to give the minister a rather sweeping
[ Page 2725 ]
authority to exempt a person or company from any part of the act for any reason. I wonder if the minister could tell us why this change is necessary and what problem it seems to be solving.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the minister can't do this. It has to be Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. A general exemption power as proposed for section 133(2) is common in the modern statutes and put forward here as part of a general update of the act. It is already is in the other acts we deal with, this particular section.

It really deals with…. When you're dealing with subsurface rights, sometimes you'll come across a situation where you need to have a power to exempt a small area with regards to an activity not being allowed or allowed because of something that is public safety or with regards to who owns the subsurface rights and those sorts of things.

[1740]

Those exemptions are there for Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to be able to make those changes, if necessary. Other acts I've debated…. It's sort of like a modern addition to the statutes that's put forward as a general update of the act.

V. Huntington: Could I ask whether the breadth of the exemption or the opportunity exempt from any provision in the act is too large? Are there going to be regulatory structures set up around this provision in the act that would restrict that authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's what it is. It's just the power to write the regulation if it was needed. The regulation still has to be done and consulted on and go through Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to be dealt with. But it's just a general exemption power to be able to do that.

Having dealt with different legislation over the years, over the last 18 years and the last 13 in the House, one of the challenges we face sometimes is that we don't allow for, in modern legislation, the movement of a modern world. As a result, we'll actually have people who have to wait two years to do something that they should have been allowed to by due regulation — not just under this act but other acts.

So it is a modernization thing — to be able to actually move with the world. If you need to add the regulation for that particular purpose, then you have the ability to do that. But you still have to go through legislative drafting and all the other things to do it. You can't just make it a policy, for instance.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister for that explanation. Let me just explain what my concern is.

I know the modern world is moving quickly, and we need to make opportunity for it to evolve, but so is authority moving quickly. My preference is always to see authority restricted rather than expanded. I just hope that the regulations enable a restriction of this rather sweeping authority that it gives the cabinet.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

V. Huntington: I'm wondering how these penalties compare with other jurisdictions. Are they equivalent, for instance, to Alberta's penalty regime?

Hon. R. Coleman: The fine amounts in the act have not been increased for many years and are well below the levels set out in other natural resource statutes or similar legislation in other provinces. These match up more so to Alberta, which is in the same industry as us when it comes to oil and gas.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister has the information on whether or not fines were given out last year, for instance, and if so, how many. Have they seen an increase in violations over the last few years?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the information and the details here, but I can tell the member that I'm about to start estimates sometime tomorrow. Over the next few days we'll have the opportunity to get into that kind of detail.

Section 38 approved.

S. Simpson: I have a few questions on the Strata Act section. I don't know if the minister wanted to swap up a few staff, and then we'll deal with that. I've got a handful of questions.

The Chair: The committee will take break for a recess.

The committee recessed from 5:44 p.m. to 5:46 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Sections 39 and 40 approved.

On section 41.

S. Simpson: Section 41. Could the minister just explain, substantively, what the change means, the changing of some of the wording around "purchaser" and that, and what the purpose of that change is?

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I start, to my right I have Jeff Vasey, who is the assistant deputy minister, office of housing and construction standards, Ministry of Natural Gas Development; and Doug Page to my left is a manager of
[ Page 2726 ]
housing policy, office of housing and construction standards, Ministry of Natural Gas Development.

The act's definition of a purchaser makes it unreasonably difficult and expensive for a strata owner who purchases new units to remove liens and obtain clear title for their homes. A 2012 court decision highlighted the problem with the act's use of the term "purchaser" in section 89. The court refused to allow a strata lot owner to apply to the court to clear the title of the home, despite observing that this is a clear intent of the legislation.

The problem in the act is that the act defines a purchaser as someone who is not yet an owner, has not yet held title for the strata lot conveyed to them. Changing the wording here restores the intent of the legislation and clarifies that certain rights and obligations do not end when the title has been conveyed.

S. Simpson: Just so I understand, so that I get this clear in my head…. I am a purchaser, but the moment that I've completed the purchase, then I become the owner. That changes somehow the legal definition, and this is intended to correct that so that if I've gone through this purchase process, the lien responsibilities fell into the time period of a previous owner that had the lien. Then this would allow me, even though I became the owner now, to have some relief here, potentially, based on this. Is that roughly correct?

[1750]

Hon. R. Coleman: I heard this before, and I just had it given to me again. I think it's quite absurd, actually.

If I'm purchasing something and I take possession, I can't pay off the liens because I'm no longer, under this act, the purchaser — I'm now the owner — whereas if I buy it, as I'm coming in and I clear off the liens as I'm purchasing it, at that point the courts say: "Well, you no longer…. If you become this category versus that category, you can't actually clear off the liens on your property."

I have the right as a purchaser, let's say, if there's a holdback — which there is, oftentimes, in a new building — to take care of any building liens and what have you. I can pay that. But if I'm the purchaser — if I become the purchaser — I'm not actually allowed to do that, to clear off the lien. That was the court decision: very confusing. It said that we weren't clear enough, and that's why the change of this definition to allow that it's clarified on the conveyancing at which stage or stages you are actually allowed to protect your asset — best as I could describe it.

S. Simpson: I'm glad the minister is clear on it now, and I think I get it. I'm a purchaser. I have a holdback. If I know there's a lien, I may pay that right into the courts so that they can deal with it as a portion of the purchase payment, the purchase — or, if there's a lien against the owners, uphold it in some other way, a holdback in some other way.

Just so I understand, because this is kind of an interesting question: this new language, then, will allow…. I'm assuming it will correct that problem so that when I go and I make that purchase now, this new language, the lawyers will tell us, now allows me to deal with paying off the lien when I've made the purchase — that whereas it wasn't allowed because of a court ruling previously, this now allows me to do that and doesn't complicate my life any more than it already is?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's actually a pretty good explanation. Basically, it will change the wording in key places to include purchasers after they become owners, because the courts found that after you became the owner, certain things that were available to you as a purchaser were no longer available to you. In actual fact, I would think that you'd want to clear the liens as soon as you can for mortgage purposes, or if you ever wanted to sell it, you'd want to be able to do that.

It was just a court thing. It was a nuance that a judge saw, and we have to fix it.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

S. Simpson: Just a quick question. My assumption is that the language change here just allows that in fact there could be contributions required a number of times during a year. It just allows more flexibility for the strata council to be able to require those funds from strata members without being bound to just once a year?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it really is, as we tried to modernize the issue, in and around depreciation reports coming out of the experience of leaky condos and trying to….

We have the depreciation reports now that are required so that people will know, when they're purchasing, what the capital depreciation and the liabilities against it are. But really, it's that strata owners have come to us and said they're having trouble figuring out how they can actually legitimately pay for depreciation reports, which were required by legislation beginning in late 2013.

The act was not clear how strata corporations can pay for depreciation reports unless they take the money out of their contingency reserve fund. To take it out of the contingency reserve fund, they have to have a three-quarters vote.

[1755]

This clarifies that paying for a depreciation report is a legitimate operating fund purpose and expense. The constraints on their frequency of expenditures need to be modified to allow depreciation reports, which are now required by statute every three years.

This basically says the strata corporation will clearly
[ Page 2727 ]
be able to pay for their depreciation reports from either their operating fund or their contingency reserve. Part of the act which everybody asked for was to have depreciation reports, but it wasn't clear on how you pay for them. So you get into the three-quarters vote argument about a contingency report that's required under law every three years, and this clarifies that they can do it either way.

Section 42 approved.

On section 43.

S. Simpson: Section 43 also, I think, references and gets into those depreciation reports and how those funds get used and how you can expend contingency reserve funds and the obligations to get authorization for doing that. Essentially, what this section does, and the minister can correct this….

It says that if it's related either to getting agreement to purchase a depreciation report and getting somebody to come in and do it for you or to deal with the results of that report — and I'll ask a couple of questions about that in a minute — then you can do that with 50-percent-plus-one vote based on this, whereas currently it takes a three-quarters vote. That's what these subsections (A)(I) and (II) achieve?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's basically it. The challenge that has been identified by the strata properties association and by people in the strata corporations…. I actually had a letter that was handed to me today from the one of the members of the Legislature with regards to this very problem.

What happens is you get a depreciation report. Before you didn't have one. You have a property that, actually, you don't want to depreciate in value, but you have to have a three-quarters vote to do what depreciation reports ask you to do, and that's maintain the common property, put on a new roof and those sorts of things out of your dollars.

It's really difficult for some corporations to obtain the required support to pay for the needed repairs to common property because of the three-quarters vote. This amendment will reduce the three-quarters vote to a majority vote for strata corporations to approve any expenditures from the contingency reserve fund that are recommended by the depreciation report.

Obviously, something has to back it up. It can't be a whim that we're just going to go spend some money. But you have a depreciation report that says there are certain things that have to be managed and repaired on the common property and the assets for the benefit of all owners, which, in actual fact, is what it is.

Some strata corporations have difficulty because they have a number of buildings and different sizes of property and lands. What happens is you can have a larger building with more votes in one area, or a portion of the property that has a different type of structure because of how the buildings are laid out, that actually resist the action or improvement for the maintaining of the asset. If you don't keep the property in good condition and extend the life of the asset, everybody gets hurt.

By reducing to allow them to pay for the mandatory depreciation report by a 50-percent-plus vote and also to expend it against that from the reserves to protect the asset…. Basically, that's what it's allowing them to do, and that will then allow them to be more flexible with regard to keeping the building maintained.

At the same time, though, funds that are not related to the repair and maintenance of the common assets — for instance, an addition to a covered walkway or a swimming pool on a particular property — would still require the three-quarters vote.

S. Simpson: I think this has good support in the sector, to allow this for those things that have been identified through some clear analysis. I know one of the issues here that has been raised, and I'm sure the minister has probably had this correspondence in some way from the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, who support this decision….

The comment that they've made is that a depreciation report…. It's a question of what constitutes a recommendation in the report, because the legislation says it needs to be recommended, versus they have asked to say that it needs to be identified.

[1800]

Their argument would be that the depreciation report is a recommendation in its entirety. When it is given to you with the ten things or the five things that need to be addressed or are problems in your strata — when you get that report, and if they identify those things — it becomes, then, a question of: is it an issue being identified or is it a recommendation? I know they had made some requests around moving that to "identified" from "recommended."

My question to the minister would be: has the minister thought about that? I suspect that they probably…. I know this organization well enough to know they're not shy, and I'm sure that they've approached the ministry. How would he respond to this recommendation — the suggestion that they've made for language?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think this is an evolving piece of business with regards to strata properties, to start with. They're just starting to get depreciation reports. I think that the consultants will do a job, as they come through with the depreciation reports, and get more proficient. The strata corporation will also get proficient at hiring the proper consultant to do their depreciation reports and ensuring the report meets their needs.

You will have a depreciation report, which I've seen on
[ Page 2728 ]
buildings when we looked at buying them, when I actually was in the business at one time. Basically, a report would say: "The roof needs replacing. It's got two years of life. It should be replaced within the next three years."

It can also say something with regards to the Duradek on the decks — that they think the life span has another ten years — and would recommend that the strata visit starting to replace the Duradek on the decks five years from now. It allows them to actually build a business plan around the maintenance of their buildings, which they could do.

As the depreciation report comes in three years from now, you would be able to say to your consultant: "Okay, you told us 'in five years' on the Duradeks. When you do the assessment this year, will you tell us what the timeline is for the report, because we really think that we need to look at that within our reserves with regards to doing that?"

It's a dual-purpose thing, from my perspective. The depreciation report gives you a snapshot of your building. It gives you what you might want to look at mid-term and long term but also the immediate things you should do within your depreciation report to your common property, and it actually allows you to build a better business plan around the maintenance of your building. At the same time, it gives you the opportunity and the flexibility so that things that should be done today get done so they don't actually deter or affect the long-term health of the building in five or seven or ten years because you didn't do this in year one or two.

S. Simpson: I agree. I think the depreciation reports are an excellent idea. They do help to plan, and they do provide members with information. Quite frankly, they solidify, if not improve, the value of the asset, potentially. I know if I'm a potential condo buyer out there, I'm going to be much more interested in looking at condos that have had depreciation reports done, where I can read that report and have some understanding of what I'm purchasing, versus those that have chosen not to do depreciation reports, where I'm not sure exactly what I'm buying. I think it's a good thing for a whole bunch of reasons, and I'm certainly supportive of that.

Maybe this question…. I'll ask the minister to indulge the question, because it relates, but it certainly is not specific, necessarily. Is there thinking around this in terms of the depreciation reports — because they're going to become an incredibly valuable and important tool for strata councils — to be clear about what the structure of those reports need to look like or some oversight of that so you know that people are buying something that has real value when they buy a report? Just a question as to whether the minister has thought about that. This is a pretty important piece of business — these reports.

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the Condominium Home Owners Association believes it's okay as we presented it — that it's going to improve and evolve over time. There are sort of outlines of what you want to include in the depreciation report, but you're really relying on the professional capacity of the engineer that would be doing the report.

I mean, if I was having one done, I'd want to make sure the person doing the report was qualified. I don't think we need to go down the road to say we're going to have licensed depreciation report people when we have people that are qualified under different academic qualifications that can do these.

[1805]

I think the nice thing about it is that as of 2013 it's required every three years. So the change — the move to modernize how buildings will be managed from here on forward — is good because we made it mandatory. A strata corporation won't be able to have the choice not to have depreciation reports done once every three years. Every building will have to have it if it's a strata because that's the law.

The evolution of the quality of the report, I think, will be guided by the people that are actually hiring the consultant, which are the strata councils and the strata corporations — and, obviously, the Condominium Home Owners Association. Their relationship with their member groups will obviously be part of that as far as making sure that there's some quality there.

I imagine that they will probably establish a list of companies that are recommended or qualified to do this. A good engineer that knows building construction or some folks that might be qualified by ASSIT could do this — or an architect, in many cases. Somebody that is a certified professional, which is an architect, has the ability to actually do the entire building permit process in Vancouver without having to go through the building permit department. You can hire a certified professional who understands the code a great deal. There are people out there that can do this. The quality will be there, I think.

I think the result of this is that you'll get the flexibility to actually maintain a building. As the member knows, one of the challenges in the condominium market has been the reverse. There are lots of buildings where a group of people get together on an annual basis, and there's a bit of an argument about whether to do this, or do the drains or the downspouts or whatever, in the budget. They want to nickel-and-dime the discussion in and around what the maintenance time frames and stuff of the building are. Then they wake up a few years later, and they find out they have a building that's unhealthy and requires substantial capital investment.

These will, hopefully, stem that pattern where you can't get the three-quarters vote and you can never spend any money to fix your building. There are always 25 or 30 percent of people who say, "I don't want to spend any money," not having the vision for that building and their asset be-
[ Page 2729 ]
ing protected long term so that it maintains its value but also is there for the next generation of owner.

S. Simpson: Just a question around that, to the comment the minister made. I'm not as up on my stratas as the minister is. The obligation, the compulsory nature of the depreciation reports. Is there a number under X amount of units where that is not compulsory, and then over that, everybody has got to do it?

[1810]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just a couple of quick clarifications to the member opposite. Evidently, I misspoke slightly.

They can actually, with a three-quarter vote, waive the three years and go to four, for instance, right? But it has to be a three-quarter vote of the strata corporations. Our research was that…. We may in the future, actually, nail that down even tighter, saying that they can't even do the three-quarter vote. But we want to see how this rolls out and how it works.

We looked at other jurisdictions — not only other provinces but across the United States as well — and we consulted extensively within the province, including the Condominium Home Owners Association and stuff like that. We haven't found it in the act, but my understanding from back when…. I wasn't the minister when we did the act, but I remember having some discussions with the minister. I think under four units they don't have to do depreciation reports.

Section 43 approved.

On section 44.

S. Simpson: Section 44 seems a lot like section 41 in terms of the change of the language. Could the minister tell me whether this language change around this…? Is this a comparable situation to what was explained in 41? Or is it something different? And if so, what?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's the same 2012 court decision, which highlighted a problem with the Strata Property Act using the term "purchaser" in this section. The court declined to extend the rights and obligations given to the purchaser to the same person after they become an owner, despite observing that this is the intent of the legislation. That's why the change throughout the act. You'll see the change to how "the purchaser" is applied.

Sections 44 and 45 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:12 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 12, Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 15, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 6:15 p.m.

The Chair: I'll start by recognizing the minister to introduce her staff.

Hon. S. Anton: I have Doug Scott here, who is the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, and Elaine Vale, senior policy analyst at the liquor control and licensing branch.

On section 1.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get to the committee stage of this. I want to start with a couple of questions that are pretty broad related to the legislation. The purpose really here is that…. There's been a lot of discussion leading up to this legislation — the liquor review that was done by the parliamentary secretary and a fair amount of discussion by the minister, the Premier and the parliamentary secretary about some items that became pretty high profile in the discussion. Obviously, the discussion around liquor in grocery stores has become very topical — and the discussion now around a number of other items.

Yet my sense when I read the legislation is that not a lot of those things actually get addressed in the legislation. There are three or four big pieces here, and I just wanted to maybe walk through some of those and get a sense from the minister about whether those potential initiatives are impacted by the legislation and which sec-
[ Page 2730 ]
tions I might find appropriate that start to address those.

What I'd like to do, then, is start with this. On the question of sale of liquor in grocery stores, could the minister tell us which sections, if any, of Bill 15 actually address that question and move it forward?

Hon. S. Anton: It's section 31, which is the regulation-making authority. It's actually in that section at section 84(z.3). What this is, is a regulation-making authority which allows the branch to put constraints around where a liquor store may go.

In fact, it is actually the case that liquor in grocery could have gone ahead under the current legislation. There is a regulation-making power right now which would have allowed it. This is actually why we have added the (z.3), because it does need to have constraints as to the size of the store and so on. That will be contained in the regulations.

[1820]

S. Simpson: Could the minister maybe tell us which sections in here would deal with the question of the opening up of the sale of licences and any of the changes around the five-kilometre rule?

Hon. S. Anton: The licences…. It's not a sale, actually. It's a transfer, and you can transfer now from one licence holder to another. The recipient licence holder has to be vetted by the branch for appropriateness, so it's subject to approval. There's actually no change to what's in place right now contemplated by this legislation. The five-kilometre rule is in the regulations, and a change to that will mean a change to the regulations.

S. Simpson: The minister says it's a transfer of licences. Still, it's a sale. I mean, I'm going to pay you a pretty significant piece of money to have you transfer the licence to me. Just to be clear, maybe the minister could just tell me what the difference is between a transfer and a sale.

Hon. S. Anton: To transfer a licence you do have to apply to the branch. I think a common scenario would be that you sell your store to the purchaser, and you agree with the purchaser that you will apply to transfer your licence. But ultimately, the transfer of the licence does have to be approved by the branch.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us where if anywhere in the legislation it deals with the contemplation of changing prices and going to a single warehouse price? Is that a legislative requirement, or is that in regulation?

Hon. S. Anton: It's not in this legislation. It's actually a matter whose authority resides within Finance.

S. Simpson: Could the minister maybe just clarify, though. Is it something that can be done through a regulatory change by Ministry of Finance, or will it require a legislative change?

[1825]

Hon. S. Anton: That is not a question applicable to this legislation, so I don't want to attempt to give an answer which may be inaccurate.

S. Simpson: The one other area — questioning whether it's here — is around the initiative to include VQA, a special VQA licence that would be, presumably, in grocery stores, should they take up the opportunity, but would only be for VQA products, wines and possibly craft beers or distilled products. Is that anywhere in this legislation?

Hon. S. Anton: It would be a regulation under this act, and the existing regulation-making authority is sufficient authority for the VQA in grocery, which I think is what the member was referring to.

S. Simpson: I'll move now to things more specific to section 1, questions related to section 1. Section 1(a) in subsection (1) is the repealing of the definition of "agency store." Could the minister tell us the purpose of repealing that definition?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a section that will not be coming into force right at the moment. I want to go back to the bigger picture here. An agency store is like a rural agency store. The rural agency and the duty-free stores are the two that remain in this category.

[1830]

These two stores have been under the Liquor Distribution Branch's authority. The authority to manage them and their licences is being transferred to the liquor control and licensing branch. That change actually has not happened yet, but it is underway, and it will happen. When that does happen, this repeal, which is shown in this act, will come into force.

S. Simpson: Does that occur, under this legislation, at some time in the future? When does it occur?

Hon. S. Anton: It is an operational decision. It is coming, but it's a little way off yet. So it's not an immediate decision that will be made.

S. Simpson: Just to be clear, then, there's nothing in this legislation that empowers that to happen. Is that what the minister is saying? I understand from her staff at a technical briefing that a more significant rewrite of the act is planned for next year. That is what I have been told. So is that something that would occur next year, or is it something that is enabled in this legislation?
[ Page 2731 ]

Hon. S. Anton: There is no legislative impediment to doing it right now. In other words, it could be done right now. There's a lot going on in the liquor file right now, so it's simply a matter of operational timekeeping. They're just not ready to do it at the moment.

The current legislation allows that transfer to be made. This housekeeping amendment here allows this definition to be cancelled once it's no longer needed.

S. Simpson: Just so I understand, this change, which obviously is contemplated…. Otherwise, it wouldn't be written here to eliminate, to repeal, the definition of "agency store." I think that I've read and understand that part of the notion is that the transfer of agency stores over to liquor control and licensing from the LDB, under the LDB act, will change the nature of their licences.

Maybe the minister could tell us, as we kind of foreshadow where we're heading here, what that change would mean. Would that mean that the new licences that agency stores would have would be the same as the licences held by the 670 private liquor stores today?

Hon. S. Anton: The changes permitting this transfer were made a few years ago. They have not been enacted yet because the proposed transfer hasn't happened. The technical decisions around that — I'm not in a position to say what those are at the moment, and they're not contained within this legislation.

S. Simpson: Well, what is contained is that you're repealing the agency store, so it is a legitimate issue in this legislation.

[1835]

When you read this, it says that the change will happen because of where the licences are, and they will no longer be in the LDB. They will move over, and they become a different kind of entity.

We've had lots of discussion about this and about licences and that, which the minister says is all a doable thing. All I'm trying to do is determine what that change means as we move forward, in terms of licences. What is the difference between the licence they hold today under the LDB act and the licence that they may hold at some time in the future under liquor licensing and control?

Hon. S. Anton: The intention at the moment is that it would be a straightforward transfer of responsibility from the Liquor Distribution Branch to the liquor control and licensing branch. The intention is that generally the form of the licence, the form of the store and the considerations around it would remain the same.

S. Simpson: How many stores will be affected by this change?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, it's not directly relevant to this act. It's within the control of the Liquor Distribution Branch, so I don't have that number here. I can get it for the member, if he wishes.

S. Simpson: I think it's about 221, but you can check.

I appreciate the minister's answer that the expectation is, for a number of reasons, around streamlining. Agency stores will disappear as we know them today, and they will become something a little different under a different branch of government than under liquor licensing and control. The minister has said that it's her expectation that not much else changes other than handing the responsibility over to a different body of government.

So I'm clear on that, right now, as the minister has said, the 670 licences that are out there can be transferred or sold, whatever terminology you want to use, today. The five-kilometre rule exists, but that might change somewhere down the road — not really important. Would that mean, potentially, that those stores would be treated in the same way, and would they be able to transfer their licences in the same way as the 670 stores?

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of the rural agency stores is to serve the community in which they are located. They would not have the same portability, if you like, provisions that the regular licences, that an LRS would have. The intention is that they would stay within their community. I suppose they might move down the road, but generally they would need to stay put.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

Section 1(b), repealing the definitions of "catering endorsement" and "catering licence" — could the minister explain what the purpose of that is and what it achieves?

[1840]

Hon. S. Anton: The "catering endorsement" and "catering licence" are both being repealed because they are not needed anymore. It took a long time to get to that answer, but I think fundamentally, that's the answer. They're just not needed anymore in the legislation.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: what did they do that isn’t necessary or isn't done anymore because the legislation says something else?

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of having the word "catering" in was that it implied a form of a temporary licence. There will now be a number of different forms of temporary licences. Farmers markets…. I think there are other examples which we will come to. So the catering terminology was obsolete, and it will be covered elsewhere in these other forms of temporary licences that will become permitted under this.
[ Page 2732 ]

S. Simpson: I'm sure we'll get to that in due course. Section 1(d), "event site." There's a meaning provided here. Could the minister explain a little bit about what the purpose of that definition is — it's a new definition, "event site" — and what it will accomplish in terms of the aspirations of the legislation?

Hon. S. Anton: The definition used to be "site," and it was in relation to a catered event. For the same reason that we're taking out the word "catering," we've now made the more general definition of "event site" so that it can apply on a number of different uses and occasions.

S. Simpson: I assume the creation of it…. Was there something else there? Or is there something removed somewhere here that kind of dealt with what, I believe…?

I'm assuming the minister is talking about what is a more restricted opportunity now, which may be changed, around things like beer gardens and the removal of beer gardens as fenced areas. I'm assuming this, though I'm not entirely sure. I'm just trying to get a sense here of what kinds of things are envisioned here that required such a clear definition of what an "event site" was.

What are the things that we're going to be talking about in that area?

[1845]

Hon. S. Anton: Ski hills may be permitted to extend a licensed area to another part of the property, as may golf courses. Festivals may be granted a site licence for their event. Farmers markets may be granted a licence to serve a certain kind of local wine, for example, at a farmers market. It's those kinds of event sites that are being covered by this definition.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could clarify for me. When I think about things like a ski hill…. The ski hill is there all the time, and people come and ski, and you decide what area you're going to allow the service of liquor in, whether it's a bar or some other area there. They may do special events and put in a special-event permit for that when they're doing something significant — some kind of competition or something — and want to expand those areas. I understand that.

When I look at an event site, though, and I think about an event site, I think about a specific event or purpose, rather than an ongoing activity like a golf course or a ski hill. Of course, golf courses may want to expand, too, if they have a particular tournament or something. Is the event site about special-event purposes like a festival, like a fair — and using that? Or is it something that could be ongoing, as a more permanent structure like a golf course or something like that?

Hon. S. Anton: These events are always…. An event site is a temporary authorization. For example, a ski hill may have a bar area permitted at the bottom of the ski hill. They may wish to have a barbecue partway up the hill on a Sunday afternoon. That would be an event site. Same with a golf course. They may have a wedding on the 18th hole. That would be an event site. Those are the kinds of temporary sites that this is talking about.

S. Simpson: Under section 1 again, 1(e) repeals and changes the definition of "liquor." Could the minister tell us what the purpose of that change is and what it accomplishes?

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I have to admit it's a little bit of a shame to lose the old definition. The old definition talked about "(a) fermented, spirituous and malt liquors, (b) combinations of liquors, and (c) drinks and drinkable liquids that are intoxicating." I think that that's kind of good, but in any event, we've gone to a simpler definition, which is contained in the new definition.

S. Simpson: I'd be happy to move an amendment to return "fermented spirits," if the minister was so inclined. Other than it just simplifies and deals with the reality of what's going on now and what liquor is, versus…. I'm not sure when this was written, this act, but it was a couple of years ago, I'm assuming. That's all it really does is just modernize the terminology, presumably?

Hon. S. Anton: That's correct.

S. Simpson: The change in section 1(f), "repealing the definition of 'liquor store' and substituting the following…." Could the minister tell us: what change, if any, does that make? My sense is that it removes discussion of an agency store. Am I to assume that that is because agency stores will no longer be under the Liquor Distribution Act, that they will be under a different act?

[1850]

Hon. S. Anton: Same reasons as in subsection (a).

S. Simpson: I'm not sure I understand this entirely. There's a lot of this in this bill, so we'll get it out of the way now. Under section 1(i): the definition of "pure grain alcohol" and substituting with "ethyl alcohol." Can the minister tell me…? I don't know what the difference is. What is the difference between grain alcohol and ethyl alcohol, and what is this all about?

Hon. S. Anton: It is exactly the same product. It's changing the language to reflect the modern description of that product.

S. Simpson: I actually still think "grain alcohol" is probably a better term, but that's another matter. I'm done with section 1.
[ Page 2733 ]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

S. Simpson: Section 3, "Delegation by general manager," changes to section 6.1. It adds a piece here that says, "The general manager may delegate, with or without conditions, to (a) an employee or other person, or (b) a class of employees or other persons any of the general manager's powers…" except for the power to delegate. What is the current situation? What's the problem that this section is looking to correct?

Hon. S. Anton: It puts the delegation sections, of which there were five, into one more general section. I can tell the member opposite what they were, if he wishes, but they will be crossed off as we go through the act. They're section 84(2)(m), section 7(3), section 7(6)(b), section 7.1(1)(b), section 22(3) and section 73(1).

S. Simpson: Under this section, I understand a little bit the notion of delegation to an employee, but it talks about delegation to other persons. Could the minister tell us: who might these other persons be that the director of liquor could delegate their authority to?

Hon. S. Anton: The most common delegation under this section would be to the police to shut down a site, for example, that had gotten out of control.

S. Simpson: That one I understand too. Could the minister maybe just elaborate a little bit? I understand authorities, like the police. I would understand, potentially, municipal officials who do liquor inspection or those kinds of things. Could the minister tell us: are there others outside of those folks of local authority — police, liquor inspectors — who might qualify as other persons for this purpose?

[1855]

Hon. S. Anton: Another example is that the general manager can delegate special occasion licences to the Nisga'a and to treaty First Nation designates.

Section 3 approved.

The Chair: Noting the hour.

S. Simpson: I'd be happy to adjourn and take this up again tomorrow or the next time the bill is called.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:56 p.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 progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $812,293,000 (continued).

M. Elmore: Thank you to the Minister of Transportation and also his staff for an opportunity to pose some questions with regards to ICBC.

[1450]

I would like to start inquiring on a number of items internal to the functioning of ICBC and a number of the projects around transformation, along that line, and then get into some discussion around rates and marginal capital tests, MCT, and some of those discussions and some other areas.

To start off, I'd like to talk about the current transformation project. I understand $400 million has been set aside for that. I'm just wondering. Is the transformation project on schedule, how much has been spent to date, and are we over or under budget?

Hon. T. Stone: I'd like to thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington for what I'm sure will be a good exchange of information here today on ICBC.

The first question, with respect to the transformation program…. Just to make sure we're all on the same page,
[ Page 2734 ]
the transformation program is a critical effort on the part of ICBC to modernize internal technology and programs.

To the member's specific question, the transformation program is very much on track. It's on schedule, on budget. The total dollar amount that has been spent to date is $280 million.

M. Elmore: I'd like to ask now — thanks for the response — about the representation rate. I touched on this last time around. It's one of the items where we see costs are increasing. The question is: what is the current representation rate, and what is the trend? Are we continuing to see an increase in that?

Also, what plans are underway? That was one of the recommendations as well — that ICBC needs to have a plan to limit this increase in representation. At what point do you think the representation rates begin to affect the basic premiums?

[1455]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to representation rates. At the end of 2012 the representation rate was 44.5 percent. At the end of 2013 it was 47.5 percent. It did go up a few percentage points from 2012 over 2013.

I should point out that the representation rate has actually been slowly but surely increasing for quite some time now, for quite a number of years. There are certain cases, some of the much more complicated cases, which actually require representation, and representation is a very good thing.

That being said, ICBC is working hard on a number of fronts to apply some downward pressure to the rep rate. Those strategies include a lot of language support — a lot of language services, translation services. In fact today ICBC, in terms of claims, provides translation services in 170 different languages. The language that is requested the most is Punjabi. Recently ICBC made some changes so that those who speak Punjabi now get direct access to the translation services. ICBC is making efforts to actually do the same thing for Mandarin and Cantonese.

The second strategy that is being employed at ICBC to apply downward pressure on the rep rate is streamlining a number of processes that are on the front end of the claims process. When someone has a claim and, for example, if they require immediate medical services or attention from a medical perspective, they are being immediately connected and streamlined, connected with those services. That's making a difference.

Last but not least there has been a significant amount of effort expended by ICBC over the last couple of years in particular at doing a better job of matching the most complex claims with those in ICBC who have the most experience. They're finding that that is making a difference as well.

[1500]

That all being said, in terms of the last part of the member's question — does this impact basic rates? — it certainly does. The rep rate is one of those cost drivers that is directly attributable to the pressure on basic rates and will continue to be a pressure point for as long as it continues to increase. But we're going to continue to work with ICBC to apply strategies that apply downward pressure on the rep rate.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response. I'm wondering if it's possible…. I know we have limited time here in terms of the estimates process. I'm interested in hearing more detail about the plans around the rep rate, if it's possible to follow up with a briefing in a future. I make that request.

My next question is with regards to the B.C. Services Card. ICBC is now responsible for the administration and issuance of the B.C. Services Card. It was previously under the purview of the Ministry of Health. I'm just wondering what cost ICBC is incurring taking over the B.C. Services Card.

Hon. T. Stone: First, to the member: I would be more than happy to facilitate a briefing for you on the rep rate issue. We'll figure out schedules to make that happen.

With respect to the question about the B.C. Services Card and whether ICBC incurs any cost, the very straight answer is no. There are no costs to ICBC for the delivery of the B.C. Services Card. The costs are borne 100 percent by the Ministry of Health. This is a cost recovery relationship that ICBC has in delivering the B.C. Services Card on behalf of the Ministry of Health.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the reply. There's another matter that has come to my attention, and the minister may be familiar. This is the issue: since ICBC is no longer accepting certificates of Canadian citizenship as identification, it's creating a catch-22 situation for naturalized citizens if they lose their identification. It's been raised why ICBC requires a passport along with the certificate to obtain a driver's licence or B.C. ID. In order to obtain a passport, Passport Canada requires another government-issued ID along with the certificate.

So there's a problem that's arisen. There are a number of cases, individuals who, unfortunately, have lost their ID. In addition, they face language barriers in terms of dealing with government organizations. My question is: is the minister committed to working with ICBC to resolve this issue?

[1505]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the question that the member has posed, as she knows well, the federal government made these changes to the Canadian certificate of citizenship. Some of these changes involved actually removing certain security features, including the photo ID and a basic description of the individual.
[ Page 2735 ]

Up to the point of making changes, this certificate of citizenship was a valid piece of ID at ICBC. I know the member knows this. Once the changes were made, it was no longer a valid piece of ID. ICBC requires two valid pieces of identification in order to issue a photo-based driver's licence.

I'm sure that the member also knows that the paper-based licence is still issued at ICBC, so people that find themselves caught with this challenge are still able to get a paper-based driver's licence. They just can't get a permanent driver's licence with the photo ID on it.

We recognize that it is a challenge. It is a problem. It's not unique to British Columbia. We estimate that there are actually 13,000 Canadians across the country that have this challenge.

If there's any good news on this front, we are working closely with a number of other provinces and are having discussions with the federal Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration in talking through a number of potential solutions for this, because frankly, what's required is a solution that will work across the country.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response. I would just hope for and urge the minister to work with CIC to develop an appropriate response. It's just a shame for these folks who do fall through the cracks. It's difficult and challenging. Often they present with language barriers.

[1510]

I'd appreciate hearing of further developments. I know they're working on a pilot project in Ontario. So I look forward to hearing of us here in B.C. moving forward to be able to provide ID for naturalized citizens.

I have a question now with regards to regional offices. The regional offices of ICBC are important, certainly, to provide service across the province in British Columbia, especially in rural areas. Are there any plans to close down regional offices and centralize services in the Lower Mainland? If so, which communities will be affected, and when will the closures take place?

I'm just also wondering if the minister could introduce the staff accompanying and supporting him here.

Hon. T. Stone: I'm going to try and be really brief with my responses so we can get through as much as the member would like to.

On her question, "Are there any plans to close down any regional offices within ICBC's network?" the answer is no. Government has made that directive very clear to ICBC. ICBC has no plans for closing regional offices and centralizing those positions in Vancouver or the Lower Mainland.

With respect to the individuals who are here today supporting us in this estimates process, I'm more than pleased to introduce them. We have Phil Leong, who's the director of finance, the controller, at ICBC; Steve Crombie, who's the vice-president of communications and marketing; and Mark Blucher, who's the president and CEO.

M. Elmore: My next question is with regards to employee engagement. One of ICBC's strategic objectives for the 2013-15 plan was to improve employee experience. However, this objective has been removed from the 2014-16 plan. I'm just wondering why. Is there any relation with the current ICBC…? They have fallen consistently — have registered substandard employee engagement scores.

[1515]

Hon. T. Stone: On the issue of employee engagement. Certainly, ICBC has had its challenges on the employee engagement front over the last number of years. There's no question about that. ICBC is, frankly, very upfront about understanding the challenge and wanting to continue to make their best efforts to improve on the employee engagement score.

The simple reality as to why employee engagement has gone down over the last number of years is that there's been a tremendous amount of change within ICBC, as the member knows well — some of which has been driven by the transformation program. Significant change in a number of key software applications and technology in the corporation is unsettling for some. There certainly has been a tremendous amount of that technology change.

The other reality is that over the last couple of years ICBC has significantly reduced its workforce. Over 260 positions, I believe almost entirely in management positions, were eliminated. That, in addition to a number of other efficiencies that have been achieved, has resulted in about $50 million worth of savings.

There's no question that the change in the workforce, the reduction in the number of positions, has also contributed to the employee engagement at ICBC.

I think I should also point out that it's quite common across the world right now. You look at all kinds of different organizations, whether they be in business or in the public sector. How employee engagement is measured is changing quickly.

In terms of why the objective as it has been previously stated in previous plans is no longer there in the current plan, the simple answer is that ICBC is in the process of establishing a new process for measuring employee engagement. Once they have that nailed, that will work its way into future plans.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response. I'll also be interested to maybe have a conversation when that's rolled out, in terms of what are those performance measures and indicators and plans around that.

I'd like to move to talk about rates for insurance. Certainly, when we look across Canada in terms of insur-
[ Page 2736 ]
ance, auto insurance rates, we see pretty consistently the pattern that provinces with public insurance have lower rates. I think that that's positive, and certainly British Columbia appreciates that.

When we compare to…. Well, British Columbia most commonly would compare, I guess, to Saskatchewan and Manitoba in terms of having public auto insurance. We see that our rates compared to Saskatchewan and Manitoba are actually about 33 percent higher. We see that discrepancy. Overall, the picture is that rates are lower, but compared to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we do see higher rates.

My question has to do with, number one, higher rates. It's connected…. As well, I'd like to get into a discussion in terms of the process around the setting of rates and some of the, I guess, back-and-forth discussion of how those rates are determined.

I'd just like to note that since 2010 we've seen a transfer of $677 million from ICBC's excess optional capital to the province and a plan to transfer an additional $539 million in the next three years. Those have some implications in terms of the MCT.

My question is to the minister: given that there's a B.C. Utilities Commission review underway on ICBC rates, is it possible to take a look at the completed 2013 financial statements?

[1520]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, the member's question about the release of the 2013 financial statements. They will be released and tabled at the end of May. She'll have access to them at that point, as the rest of us will.

I do want to make a couple of general comments, though, about rates. I think this is critical. It certainly is, from the perspective of our government's commitment to family affordability. I think it's important for British Columbians to know that their government is working very hard to do everything we can to keep rates as affordable as possible. Certainly, ICBC understands very clearly that their number one priority is to keep rates low and stable for B.C. families.

That being said, as is the case in many other jurisdictions, we are seeing a steady increase in bodily injury claims. BI claims are increasing year over year. Between 2012 and 2013 the total cost of bodily injury claims increased by approximately $165 million. This reality is perhaps the single most important factor that drives upward pressure on rates.

That being said, I think, again, that it's important to underline for British Columbians that for 2013-14, while the rates on the basic side went up 4.9 percent, rates on the optional side were decreased by 4 percent. The difference between basic and optional is 0.9 percent for over 80 percent of those British Columbians that have both optional and basic insurance through ICBC. That 0.9 percent increase, at the end of the day, works out to less than a dollar a month, the increase, for British Columbians on their rates. So an increase nonetheless, but a very modest increase.

I also wanted to point out, have on the record, that since 2008, rates have only increased by 3 percent in total. In fact, prior to 2012, for the five years previous to that, there hadn't been a rate increase overall, when you combine optional and basic.

We're going to continue to pull out all the stops to keep rates as affordable as possible. This, in part, will be accomplished by continuing to work with ICBC on the rep rate issue we talked about earlier. That will help keep rates down. The excellent work that ICBC is doing on the transformation program will help. The excellent work that ICBC has done at reigning in administrative costs and reducing the total complement of management will certainly help. This all flows to the bottom line and, at the end of the day, drives the rates.

I should also point out that the B.C. government also allowed ICBC, in the 2013 budget, to keep $373 million of optional capital that ICBC was able to use to, again, rebalance their capital reserves and, in part, help keep rates down. That certainly made a difference.

Last but not least, the government, with ICBC, strongly supports the new rate-smoothing framework which is in front of BCUC. This rate-smoothing framework is going to ensure that the basic rates cannot increase or decrease by more than 1.5 percent. Again, this is one of a number of strategies that will be employed to help apply as much downward pressure on rates as possible.

[1525]

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response. I think certainly the reference in terms of the increase in bodily injury claims is one cost area. I believe — the minister can correct me — the number from 2012 to 2013 was $165 million.

I also would like to get into a little bit deeper discussion in terms of the setting of rates. I think British Columbians will disagree in terms of when they're having to pay 4.9 percent more in terms of their basic insurance and a proposed — we're still waiting for the remaining — 6.6 percent, I believe, when that is coming in.

I think there's also an underlying issue around that's driving the rates, and this is the setting of the marginal capital test and that it's too high here in British Columbia. For example, when we look at the reason why we have a discrepancy in rates in our auto insurance in B.C. compared to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we see quite a big differences in terms of the marginal capital test. Currently it's about 130 percent for basic, and I believe it's about 56 percent in Saskatchewan and lower, as well, in Manitoba — also, on the optimal side.

This is also a concern I have, I think, in terms of what's driving these rates — the justification around maintaining an MCT that is excessive and the rationale to in-
[ Page 2737 ]
crease the marginal capital test.

I'll just start with there, and I've a few other questions, to carry on from that.

[1530]

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of this discussion around the minimum capital test, the MCT, as the member asked about…. Before I go there, I want to make really clear, as well, that the dividend payment — the $373 million in 2013 that the B.C. government allowed ICBC to keep and all dividend payments previously and moving forward — only comes from the optional side of the business, not the basic. That's an important point to distinguish.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

Again, even though the member said that British Columbians would be concerned about a 4.9 percent increase in their basic rates…. I agree. But let's also be clear that 80 percent of British Columbians have both basic and optional. For those 80 percent of British Columbians, they're paying 4.9 percent more for basic and 4 percent less for optional, the difference being a 0.9 percent increase. That works out to about $1 a month for 80 percent of British Columbians who get insurance. I think it's important to make that clarification.

Back to the MCT, or the minimum capital test. First off, the simple reason that British Columbia's MCT is higher than in, say, Saskatchewan, boils down entirely to the legal environment within which the two systems operate. Saskatchewan is a choice model. Consumers have a choice. In British Columbia the current model is legislated as it currently is. We have a full tort system here in British Columbia, unlike in a number of other jurisdictions, including Saskatchewan.

I think it's also important to note — again, just for clarity of fact here — that through the BCUC, it's legislated that ICBC maintain 100 percent minimum capital test. The MCT actually within ICBC is higher than 100 percent. It's higher because ICBC then factors in the risk profile on a go-forward basis and also is now factoring in the rate-smoothing framework, which is relatively new to ICBC.

I should also point out that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, which is the regulatory body that oversees all financial institutions, recommends at least — I think they actually require — financial institutions to have 100 percent minimum capital to meet 100 percent minimum capital tests. Now, they can't and don't require ICBC to, but ICBC uses that as a baseline that they measure themselves against, which is a good thing.

At the end of the day… I believe the member said that Saskatchewan was about 56 percent MCT. Let's be clear on what that really means. That means if all of the claims had to be paid out on any particular day, the Saskatchewan insurance company would only be able to pay out 56 percent of the cost of the claims. The taxpayers of Saskatchewan and the government of Saskatchewan would have to step up and would have to pay the rest.

[1535]

The approach being taken in British Columbia through ICBC is a much more prudent and conservative approach where we insist on an MCT significantly north of 100 percent. This means that if on any given day all claims had to be paid out at ICBC, the claims would be paid out by ICBC and the taxpayers would not be on the hook for those claims.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response. This is an area I'm also interested to have more discussions and kind of get into the details. I would ask the minister if maybe this is one of the opportunities…

Hon. T. Stone: We're adding it to the list.

M. Elmore: Okay, great.

…to get into some of the discussions around that. So I appreciate that — and a lot more discussion on those items.

I'd like to talk about — just to register, maybe — the concern in terms of the impact of orders-in-council being directed to BCUC, in terms of indirectly affecting rates for ICBC. I'd like to just mention that. Certainly, it calls into question the independence and the role of cabinet to indirectly set rates through a number of orders-in-council that have been issued.

I'd like to ask a question with respect to a number of fees that ICBC policyholders are on the hook for. Currently there are about 2.75 million individual basic insurance policyholders, and there are 2.2 million residents who pay B.C. personal income tax. We have a wider swath of British Columbians who are covered by a basic insurance policy.

There are a number of items. Driver licence fees — 2.2 million driver licence holders pay a $75 provincial renewal fee, which generates $48 million. The cost of administering the driver licence program is paid by ICBC basic policyholders. With respect to driver licence fees, passenger vehicle licence fees and government fine collection, it's ICBC that bears the costs of collecting and administering that, but it's the collection of those fees that goes to government.

My question is: what is the rationale, I guess, for that and the justification for what I'll call appropriating these funds when they could go towards paying down costs for basic insurance users in British Columbia?

[1540]

Hon. T. Stone: If we understood the question correctly, the fees that are collected in the driver licencing offices go to the consolidated revenue fund as opposed to remain-
[ Page 2738 ]
ing within ICBC. A very simple straight answer is that that's a policy decision of government.

I would point out, however, that there are a tremendous number of other programs that are actually funded from within government that go towards supporting ICBC in a number of ways — for example, CounterAttack campaigns, various road safety initiatives, distracted driving, and so forth.

The other piece I wanted to address really quickly as well…. Again, the member can correct me if this wasn't what she was getting at. The reference to the order-in-council from cabinet — I'm assuming that's in reference to the rate-smoothing framework that cabinet moved forward with last year.

I think it's really important to highlight that over the past five or six years the basic rates have increased or remained the same or gone down as follows. There was zero, zero, zero, minus 2.4, 11.2 percent increase and this most recent 4.9 percent increase. So over the last five or six years we've seen some pretty significant peaks and valleys.

The rate-smoothing framework is an effort to rebalance ICBC's capital reserves. Through rebalancing capital reserves, you lift the minimum capital that ICBC has on hand, which is what is being accomplished. Through that effort, we are able to smooth any rate increases and decreases out on a go-forward basis. At the end of the day, this means that the basic rates won't increase or decrease by more than 1.5 percent from the last year's rate.

[1545]

We think that on a go-forward basis this is a much more prudent, conservative approach so that we can protect B.C. families from having to certainly deal with the peaks in the form of basic rate increases.

M. Elmore: Thanks. I'll look forward to the opportunity to have some more in-depth discussions on that.

Just my last set of questions. It's with respect to auto body repair and the approach that ICBC uses — I understand in response to changes to the federal Competition Act — to now use third-party surveys and other data to determine appropriate rates to be paid out to auto repair shops. My question has to do with: how does ICBC ensure that rates it pays to repair shops and tow companies are economically viable for small businesses, particularly in rural areas? I've got a specific case from a local business that I'll follow up with.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly the decision that was rendered by the federal Competition Bureau will continue to be respected. ICBC is employing an approach to the setting of rates with its suppliers, the collision industry, in a very similar manner to how it has worked with brokers, for example — in setting rates with brokers.

[1550]

The third-party survey that the member referenced is indeed a fairly well-recognized and standard approach to working with your stakeholders on the establishment of rates that are fair and reasonable. There is a third-party survey that the results are not in for yet. The collision and repair shops as well as ICBC don't have the results back from that survey.

I will say that I do share the member's concern for the hundreds of small businesses that are located across British Columbia. I tell you, as someone who comes from a smaller community…. Certainly, in my constituency I've got small communities like Salmon Arm and Chase and Westwold and others. These repair shops and windshield glass shops and even tow truck operators are small businesses that employ two, four, five, ten, 12 people, and they make a big difference to our communities. The smaller the community, the more of an impact these small businesses have.

I want to assure the member that ICBC is alive to that reality. We'll ensure, through this third-party survey process, that the setting of rates is done in a manner that is fair and reasonable in terms of what the rates end up being, but is also done with the utmost respect for the jobs that exist in small communities in rural British Columbia.

M. Elmore: I have a letter from the Vanderbilt Auto Body shop that I would like to share with the minister, talking about the impact of the rates and the additional charges and costs that companies in rural areas incur. Vanderbilt Auto Body has a surcharge for propane costs. They also, in the rural area with lower volumes and higher costs, have stresses in that area. As well, there's the feedback that they are going to have to close their doors.

There's the recommendation, as well, from the Automotive Retailers Association, which you're familiar with, to consult with them in terms of some of the cost pressures and to ensure that a sustainable rate for the automotive sector is achieved.

I want to put that on the record, in favour of that initiative.

I would just like to close on two questions. Is ICBC considering a single provider for auto glass, and if so, has an economic impact analysis been done to measure that impact on small business? And just to revisit, if you have it at hand, the basic MCT at the end of 2013.

[1555]

Hon. T. Stone: Just in reverse order, the basic MCT for the end of 2013 — that number has not been released yet. That'll be a part of the 2013 financial statements, which will be released at the end of May — so very, very soon.

I would suggest that perhaps a good time to arrange that technical briefing might be in conjunction with or shortly after the release of the financial statements. I think we've kept a good list here of all the different topics that you would like to canvass, and we could roll that into that as well.

I just wanted to make one final comment about the
[ Page 2739 ]
collision repair shop rates and so forth. I do appreciate the member reading into the record the letter that she received from that one particular repair shop. I certainly have received quite a number of letters like that one, and I have met several times with the ARA, which represents a subset, obviously, of this group.

I think it's very important to make a strong statement here. Number 1, ICBC is committed to establishing fair rates and reasonable rates and is going to do so in partnership with the ARA and with others in the collision and repair industry. The survey process that's being used is a process that's recognized as being very fair and transparent.

Secondly, I believe the member asked a question about, if I can call it, sole-source procurement — whether or not ICBC…. Specific to glass. I want to assure the member and every British Columbian out there, particularly those in the glass business in small communities, rural British Columbia, that the answer is no. ICBC is not moving in a direction of or contemplating moving towards a sole-source procurement model for glass or any of the other services — tow truck driving, collision repair and so forth.

Again, back to the jobs point. These are small businesses in small communities across British Columbia. ICBC recognizes the value that those businesses provide, not just to their supply chain but to the communities within which they're located.

The last point I'll make on this is…. Quite recently ICBC actually provided the collision repair industry in British Columbia with a one-time interim adjustment in their rates, which actually totalled $10.5 million, as a gesture of goodwill to demonstrate that ICBC is very serious about ensuring that, at the end the day, the rates are at levels that are obviously fair and reasonable, enabling these small businesses to continue to earn a living, but also balance that with the reality that this too applies upward pressure on basic rates. There's obviously a balance there that needs to continue to be struck.

Final point. The total number of repair and collision shops in British Columbia has actually gone down over the last couple of years while the total spend has actually gone up. I think that's an important point to have reflected in the record as well. Specifically, in 2011 there were 656 shops, representing a total spend of $482 million. End of 2013 there were 618 — so almost 40 fewer shops across British Columbia — but the total spend was up from $482 million to $503 million. An interesting reality, I think, that's taken place across British Columbia.

Thank you very much to the member for Vancouver-Kensington for the useful exchange today, I think, in regards to ICBC.

M. Elmore: I'd just like to thank the minister and also the staff for answering the questions and look forward to future briefings on these issues.

Hon. T. Stone: Chair, can we just take a two-minute break while we swap up our staff here?

The Chair: A two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:00 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

G. Heyman: There are a number of questions that I might normally ask, but we won't have the chance in this set of estimates to go back and forth over governance and referendum as we did back last July. But we'll be having the pleasure of doing that soon in second reading and committee stage on the bills that are before the House. I look forward to both the briefing on those bills and a thorough discussion of them on a clause-by-clause basis.

Before I move into some other areas, as long as we were just dealing with ICBC, I have kind of an ICBC- and TransLink-related question to put to the minister.

TransLink has recently, as we know, put in place new measures in cooperation with ICBC to collect on unpaid TransLink fines that were levied. In the last approximately year and a half TransLink has been able to collect about 30 percent of those fines, which equals about $1.8 million, which is a fairly substantial amount of money.

[1605]

I note in a news report that was out today that while ICBC is, in a sense, collecting those fines for TransLink by not issuing drivers' licences until fines from 2002 to 2012 are repaid, in these fines that will be collected retrospectively, ICBC, or the government through ICBC, will actually keep the money rather than TransLink keeping the money.

I understand there are some administrative costs to collecting the fines, so it seems reasonable that there'd be some sort of administrative fee paid either to ICBC or the government, but I am wondering if the minister can tell us the rationale for TransLink actually receiving none of this retrospective fine money — which is, of course, to replace fares that were never paid — especially considering the fact that TransLink has had to postpone plans to expand a variety of services to meet growing population while waiting for other funding mechanisms to be put in place.

[1610]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for Vancouver-Fairview, I just want to start off by saying I look forward to a good exchange here on the TransLink file. He's quite correct. We can't get into too much detail on the governance and the referendum in this forum, but we will soon in the big chamber when we go through the two pieces of legislation.

I also want to confirm for the member that I will make sure that staff circle back with him in terms of the tech-
[ Page 2740 ]
nical briefing that we've committed on the legislation. That will take place for you before the legislation is introduced in the House. You have my commitment on that.

In terms of the fines, I think there's an important…. There are two different time periods here. I think that's the best way to answer the member's question. Up until 2012, ICBC refused to issue drivers' licences for any individuals who had outstanding TransLink fines. The fine revenue collected by ICBC was indeed provided to government, not TransLink.

Since 2012, however, that has been changed. The $1.8 million, which I believe was the number the member referenced, actually represents fine revenue that has been collected that actually has gone 100 percent to TransLink. Certainly, since 2012 on a go-forward basis, every dollar collected by ICBC on TransLink's behalf in terms of fare evasion tickets, the fine revenue, goes 100 percent to TransLink.

G. Heyman: I don't want to spend too much time on this question. I may be incorrect in my understanding. My understanding is that there will still be fines collected for the 2002-2012 period that are unpaid. Is the minister saying that any money collected from this point forward, no matter what period it's covering, will go to TransLink? That would answer my question. If it's not, then that would answer my question.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I intend to provide as much clarity as I can on this. Any fares, any revenues from the fare evasion tickets prior to 2012 that are collected by ICBC — those revenues will still go to the province of British Columbia. Any revenues from tickets that were issued in 2012 and forward and on a go-forward basis from now — those revenues go directly to TransLink. Furthermore, while ICBC, since 2012, will continue to refuse to issue driver's licences, ICBC is no longer collecting revenue from fare evasion tickets if those tickets were issued in 2012 or forward. I hope that makes sense to the member.

[1615]

If a ticket was issued from 2002 to 2012, ICBC will collect that revenue. They will first refuse to issue a person driver's licence. The person says: "Okay, how much do I owe?" ICBC will tell them how much they owe. They can pay ICBC at that point and clear the ticket and then deal with their driver's licence. The revenue from those tickets, 2002 to 2012, will flow from ICBC to the B.C. government.

If the ticket was actually issued 2012 forward, the individual will go to ICBC and try and renew their driver's licence, and they will be refused a renewal of their driver's licence. But ICBC will not collect the revenue from the fine. They will direct the individual to a website that TransLink has set up or to deal with TransLink in some other manner, to pay TransLink directly for that particular infraction ticket.

The main distinction is that prior to 2012 the tickets were treated as provincial offences not unlike speeding tickets, and 2012 forward, they are truly TransLink offences.

G. Heyman: That separation of the systems was my understanding, and you did provide the rationale. Thank you.

Let me now move to some questions about handyDART. I just want to read some figures into the record. The population of Metro Vancouver is aging at a rate faster than population growth. Most people expect that the number of users that require handyDART service will increase, and yet, to date at least, there are no plans to increase handyDART services over the next ten years, although there were plans prior to TransLink cutting back the plan funding for that in the absence of additional funding.

Service denials in the meantime have increased dramatically for the period of time from 2008 to 2012. It's about a 673 percent increase. Over the last five years the number of people over 70 in Metro has increased by over 8,000 people each year, 2½ times the rate of population growth, and 56 percent of individuals over the age of 75 have a disability — all of which is simply to say that there is going to be an increased and ever-increasing need for services like handyDART and other customized transit solutions.

Victoria has recognized this need, and they have budgeted for increased hours of customized transit solutions. But TransLink's 2014 base plan shows customized transit flatlined for the next ten years, and as I pointed out, service denials have increased.

My question to the minister is: first of all, can the minister confirm the numbers that I have given — that between 2008 and 2012 the number of service denials has gone from 4,876 to 37,690, or an increase of 673 percent? Can the minister tell us and read into the record what the number of service denials for the handyDART program has been in 2013?

[1620]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member, with respect to handyDART, I'm not able today to confirm the numbers he has read into the record in terms of service denials between 2008 and 2012, nor do I have a number for 2013. I know the member knows well that TransLink is an independent organization, run quite separately from government.

I would encourage the member to reach out to TransLink. Certainly, we would be happy to facilitate a technical briefing with TransLink to dive deep on the whole handyDART question.

I think from a general perspective, though, I certainly want to read into the record that the government does recognize the value and the importance of handyDART
[ Page 2741 ]
service to British Columbians in every corner of the province. This handyDART service has been growing exponentially. I think the total number of handyDART trips actually has increased by 29 percent between 2009 and 2012 — a number which I continue to find quite significant every time I see it. In 2012 there were just under 1.4 million handyDART trips across British Columbia.

Certainly as the population ages and that demographic ages, the demand for, the need for the handyDART service is going to continue to increase. To that end, I would expect that the Mayors Council, within the context of the plan that they're developing for transit and transportation expansion in the Lower Mainland — which is one facet of handyDART service — would include looking at not just the current state of handyDART but the reality that there are going to be pressures on handyDART and an increasing need for it in communities across British Columbia in the years ahead.

G. Heyman: To the minister, thank you. I have had numerous offers of technical briefings from TransLink. I've had some, and I'll continue to avail myself of that. I would nonetheless appreciate the minister at some point responding to the questions in written form.

As the minister will appreciate, part of the process and purpose of estimates is to address issues, whether it's directly in government service or under Crown corporations or agencies that have a reporting relationship with government or whose boards are appointed by government. Ultimately, that's where the responsibility and accountability lie. Most importantly, information in Hansard is a way for the public to have broad access to it, as it's published on line.

I have a few other questions with regard to handyDART. I will comment that I appreciate that the number of rides has gone up, but obviously the question is: is that in proportion to the population? That's why I raised the issue of service denials rising by such a large percentage, because I think that is an indication of unmet demand to perhaps some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

[1625]

My question to the minister is…. We do expect demand to rise significantly, both with an aging population and understanding that part of aging for many people from the age of 75 and up is a compromise to their mobility. How does the minister expect TransLink to meet the increased demands of an aging population without an increase to a customized transit budget line?

Does the minister, in fact, believe that a priority of TransLink should be to meet the needs of an aging population and others in the population with mobility challenges, or should other items for TransLink take greater priority over the needs of an aging population or people with mobility challenges?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I will reiterate in large part the response that I just gave. I absolutely agree with the member that the demographic that is aging is going to represent significant challenges and additional pressures on transit within TransLink's world, as well as B.C. Transit across the rest of the province.

I will make the very strong statement on behalf of government that we are committed to working with TransLink and the Mayors Council to ensure that every British Columbian who requests a handyDART trip is able to get one. That is going to become increasingly challenging in the months and years ahead.

I do think there's a tremendous opportunity on the horizon here. That opportunity, I believe, is found within the legislation that we'll be debating in the big House at some point in the next little while. That's empowering the mayors to develop a plan, which they're working very diligently on right now. I keep in regular contact with many of the mayors and certainly the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council. They're working very hard to develop a long-term transportation and transit plan for the TransLink region, and handyDART and the services that handyDART provides will be an important part of that plan.

One of the things that I've said consistently for the ten months I've been minister is that I believe very firmly that locally elected officials are best positioned to make the decisions around priorities when it comes to transit and transportation in their region. That is why we're excited to move forward with the legislation that will make that possible and enable the mayors to do the fine work that they're doing. Of course, that will be put to a referendum, and the people of the region will ultimately decide.

G. Heyman: I find it refreshing, as I'm sure the mayors do, that this minister has a different attitude about the role of locally elected officials and governance of TransLink than some of his predecessors.

I'm going to ask a series of four questions on TransLink all at once. They have to do with the introduction of the use of taxis into the system, which has been going on for some time.

[1630]

My questions are: what limits does the minister believe should be placed on the use of taxis as a substitute for customized public transit services?

To the minister's knowledge, are all taxi drivers currently required to undergo additional training with respect to the needs of the clients they'll be transporting before being dispatched to handyDART fares?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Are taxi drivers advised on the condition or any special accommodations needed for the specific passengers they're being sent out to pick up?

What is the total cost of the taxi program in fiscal year
[ Page 2742 ]
2012-13, and how many rides were provided? I understand that with respect to the last question the minister may want to take that on notice and provide a written answer.

Hon. T. Stone: Hello, Chair.

Could the member opposite repeat the third segment of your question there?

G. Heyman: Are taxi drivers advised on the specific condition or special accommodations needed for the particular passenger they are being dispatched to pick up? So that would be on a particular trip.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'll do my best to provide answers to each of the questions that the member has asked.

First, are there any limits on the use of taxis? Certainly, I think the more important question here is: what are the principles that are important to have in front of you from a policy perspective?

I think one of the key principles that TransLink ensures is in play at all times is: what is in the best interests of the people who are actually requiring the service? If their circumstances are such that the traditional handyDART service is better for that individual, then that's the service they should receive. If, however, they can be provided service via a taxi, then that is an option to them.

[1635]

I think it's also important to point out that nobody that wants handyDART service is forced to receive a ride via taxi. If a customer makes very clear that their preference is for a traditional handyDART service, that's what they will get.

In terms of the other questions. Are all taxi drivers are required to be provided with additional training in order to meet the unique circumstances and needs of the types of passengers that take handyDART service, and are taxi drivers advised of the specific circumstances of customers before they pick them up? If I understood those questions correctly….

My understanding is that TransLink does require additional training for the taxi drivers in question, and my understanding is that TransLink also does ensure that the taxi drivers are advised ahead of time about the unique circumstances of the customers that they're being sent to pick up.

In terms of the last question that the member asked, which was if I had any numbers on the total cost of the taxi program for 2012-13 and the total number of rides, I don't have those numbers here. Again, we'll put a question in to TransLink. They are independent from government, but we'll put a request in to get those numbers and provide those to the member as quickly as we can.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister.

If I understand the minister correctly, he is saying that taxi drivers…. I know there is a training program in place and that taxi drivers are required to have undergone the training prior to being dispatched in place of a handyDART. My assumption, therefore, would be that if that's not the case, the minister would have discussions in some form or other, or his staff would, with TransLink to ensure that is the case.

My comment on the second part of that question, which is that it's the minister's understanding that taxi drivers are advised of the specific condition of clients before they're sent to pick them up…. I've attended a number of consultations and fora with users of the system, with seniors, with people in wheelchairs, with people with mobility issues as well as, in some cases, with caregivers of people who are not able to communicate on their own. I have heard a number of stories where that either appears to have not have been the case or the taxi driver simply ignored or did not understand the direction.

My question to the minister would be: if it is in fact the case — and it is, I take it from the minister's comment, his intent and commitment that it should be the case — that if a taxi is to be used, the taxi driver will actually understand any particular measures that are called for, specific to that ride, could he or the ministry take some steps to ensure that that is the case going forward?

[1640]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, to be very direct in the response here, similar to my last response, it is our understanding that TransLink is fully committed to ensuring that the taxi drivers understand the unique circumstances, the specific needs, of any customers that they're called upon to serve. If the member has any specific examples or situations where that was proven not to be the case, then I strongly encourage him to forward those details to TransLink so that TransLink can look into it and take corrective action.

G. Heyman: I want to back up to one of the minister's earlier comments. First of all, let me say that I understand there is use of taxis in many other jurisdictions, that many people in the community who use customized transit services actually think taxis are more appropriate in some circumstances and support them in those circumstances. I'm certainly not meaning to imply by my questions that taxis should never be used.

I'd also note the minister stated that if somebody does not wish to take a taxi, they can say no and get a handyDART. But the simple fact remains, as I pointed out earlier, that in many cases that will result in a service denial — or another form of service denial, which is called "refusal," in which somebody says, "I'd like to go and get handyDART for this period of time," and the time they're offered won't get them to their appointment
[ Page 2743 ]
in time, or the time they would come back is so much later than is reasonable that they simply refuse. That's called a service refusal.

I'd like to move on to my last couple of questions on handyDART. There's currently a pilot project for handyDART registration and assessment out for RFP in the city of Vernon and in Comox Valley by B.C. Transit. In Metro Vancouver handyDART has been talking about a pilot project to change the registration process.

I'm wondering if the minister knows if these are comparable proposed changes to the registration process, if there's coordination between handyDART services outside Metro Vancouver and the suggestions being proposed under TransLink's jurisdiction, and what the intent of Metro Vancouver and other B.C. Transit revised registration strategies would be for customized transit users. What advantages would they bring? Would the minister consider it a success if the result of this revised registration process was simply to shrink the list of eligible riders and more users were actually deemed not suitable for customized transit service?

[1645]

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for his question. It's a great opportunity to highlight, I think, some very good work that is taking place within B.C. Transit.

The member is quite correct in how he framed this program. It is a custom registration program that B.C. Transit launched in March of 2013. It's a one-year pilot program. As the member quite correctly stated, it is taking place in two communities, in Vernon and Comox.

At the heart of the program, it really is all about attempting to better match specific needs of individuals with the transit services that are available in that particular community. The hallmark of this process is sitting down and doing a face-to-face individual assessment with the individual.

That assessment would be looking at items like: how long does this person potentially need custom service? Perhaps it is all the time, moving forward. How much service does this person need? Is it at certain times during the day? Is it a couple of times a week? What are the unique circumstances that this individual has? What are the specific needs that this specific individual has?

All of that data is…. We'll formulate an assessment of that particular individual. The goal here — or the thinking, anyway — and the intent is that B.C. Transit, as a result, will be able to do a better job matching transit services with that individual's needs.

In terms of any tie-in with TransLink, B.C. Transit and TransLink are very actively engaged on this. TransLink doesn't, at the present time, have a similar pilot program for customer registration. However, B.C. Transit has shared all of their data points with TransLink. So their original plan, their proposals, the criteria that's used in the assessments and the results as they're being determined and certainly the final results of the pilot program — all of that is being shared with TransLink.

[1650]

TransLink has strongly stated they want to learn from the experience of this pilot program within B.C. Transit and, in an effort to adopt and adapt best practice, to potentially employ a similar program within TransLink.

G. Heyman: Rather than actually frame this as a question, I'll simply say that I take it from the minister's comment that he does not believe the point of the program is or should be to move people off customized transit onto conventional transit in order to shrink lists. If my understanding is incorrect, I just assume you'll tell me. Otherwise, let it stand.

Let me simply say that I'm not as familiar with the Vernon and Comox pilot projects as I am with the TransLink consultations that were held in Vancouver. I know from being at a consultation that when TransLink once again brought forward a proposal for a customized registration process, an assessment process, there was considerable push-back from the community.

The comments had to do with: "You brought this out once before, and the feedback was almost universally negative." "The consultant that you have talked to about developing this program has developed similar programs in other jurisdictions, whose sole purpose appears to have been to move people off the list of people eligible for customized transit in order to manage demand, and that's not what we think the purpose of the program should be."

I'm still speaking in the voice of people who are being consulted here.

"While we do believe that improvements can be made to the assessment and registration process, we believe that there are better ways to do it. It would be done in a more trusting manner and give users more confidence if the registration and assessment process was developed with and conducted by trusted volunteer agencies in the disability community, where people would more readily accept that the purpose was devoted to or tailoring the particular kind of service to be the most suitable one for the individuals rather than simply a demand management process." This has been apparently the case in other jurisdictions on a very similarly designed process by the same contractors, as I understand it.

My question to the minister is: is he aware of the concerns in the community about TransLink bringing forward this proposal a second time after it was rejected thoroughly by the community of users the first time around and is still held in high suspicion? Would the minister support the kind of different approach to tailoring an assessment and registration process that was put forward by people who were being consulted, or simply develop an assessment and registration process in consultation with the community and in a form that is ac-
[ Page 2744 ]
ceptable to the community and that they believe users will trust and have confidence in?

[1655]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, the member's question with respect to whether or not I'm aware of concerns expressed within the community about the potential for introduction of this type of customer registration program within TransLink. Being completely straight, I'm not. Our office has received, over the months, correspondence on the concerns that people have with respect to the taxi pilot program, but not so much on the concern that the member has suggested. That's not to say that I'm suggesting for a minute that the concern isn't there nor valid.

In fact, if the member has any information on this that he would like to share with me and my office, I would certainly welcome him to do that. I will ensure that we forward it to TransLink as well. Ultimately, it's TransLink that needs to be on top of this.

With respect to the second part of the member's question about whether or not we would support a different assessment process, let me back up. If TransLink was to proceed with some form of a customer registration program, would we support an assessment process that was developed in consultation with the community, the goal being to have the maximum support and confidence of the community? Certainly, from my perspective, I would say yes. I think that would be very important.

I think it would be better placed with TransLink itself. Let's work together to ensure that TransLink is well aware of concerns that have been expressed within the community and on any consideration of this type of program, particularly if you add the assessment component to it, that TransLink is alive to the concerns of the community and develops an assessment program that the community can have confidence in.

G. Heyman: For once I'll take the opportunity to commit to the minister to forward some information, instead of the other way around. While obviously I understand that ultimately the decision is in the hands of TransLink — otherwise, all the discussion about putting decision-making power into the hands of locally elected officials having some control over TransLink would be, essentially, meaningless — I do think it's the role of the minister, the critic and, in fact, all MLAs to pass on concerns of constituents.

[1700]

I'm going to move on to the question of bridge tolling now, specifically the Golden Ears Bridge. I'm going to try to clump some questions here, in the interests of time.

Does the minister have any information on the number of complaints regarding the toll system on the Golden Ears Bridge? Just as a bit of background, I'm sure the minister is aware that recently there were reports that a man in Coquitlam, B.C., took a closer look at his bill for the Golden Ears Bridge and found 23 charges for trips that he hadn't made. He warned others to start checking.

TransLink's response was that it was a glitch in the licence plate–reading software, I guess, or hardware, and in certain cases, some numbers or letters could be misunderstood. Nonetheless, when 23 inappropriate charges are put on an automated bill that many people, in fact, won't have the time in their busy lives to go through in an itemized manner, it is a concern.

Does the minister have any information on how many more complaints have been made regarding the accuracy of the toll system on the Golden Ears Bridge? Is there any difference in the nature of the complaints than the one I've outlined? Are there other complaints?

Does the minister have any sense of the amount of revenue that may be either lost to TransLink or incorrectly charged to users through tolling errors? Obviously, if somebody successfully demonstrates that they were inappropriately charged, TransLink is unlikely to be in a position to know who should have been charged. Is that information tracked, and if not, why not?

Finally, does the minister have any plans, or has he taken any action, to address the issue of inaccurate reading of licence plates on the Golden Ears Bridge with TransLink? Presumably, this could also take place in other automated tolling reading systems.

[1705]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the Golden Ears Bridge and issues related to tolling, specifically whether or not our office has received any complaints, certainly, a number of complaints have come forward to our office. I can think of one in particular where, for whatever reason, an individual had been crossing the Golden Ears Bridge for a couple of years and hadn't received a bill. They received a bill, and the bill was for several thousand dollars. You know, it came as a bit of a shock to that individual.

There have been other instances where marriage breakdowns resulted in one person continuing to cross the bridge in a vehicle that the other person was getting the bill for, and those kinds of things, but not really a tremendous number of complaints related to any specific concerns around the accuracy of reading the licence plates and those kinds of things.

That all being said, certainly we'd be happy to…. I'm going to ask my staff to follow up with TransLink. If the member has any specifics, again, on this that he would like to us to ensure that TransLink is looking into, we'd be happy to do that.

What I also want to make sure is clear…. Part of the member's question was whether or not TransLink actually tracks complaints. They certainly do. I'm not sure if the member has some follow-up questions on this that he'll subsequently ask, but a lot of this level of detail is more appropriately directed, I think, directly to TransLink.
[ Page 2745 ]
Again, we'd be happy to facilitate those discussions as best we can.

G. Heyman: The purpose of my question was not so much to get a lot of data on complaints but simply to hear from the minister, if in fact there was some systemic problem in the implementation of the tolling system by TransLink, that the minister was on the case or would be.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

G. Heyman: Thank you. I'm going to ask my colleague from New Westminster to take over for a moment or two as she has a couple of questions on the Pattullo Bridge, which is actually in her constituency — half of it.

J. Darcy: Yes. As you know, the Pattullo Bridge is probably issue number one in traffic transportation in my community of New Westminster. A number of weeks ago the minister announced that the province would put in $350 million for replacement for the Pattullo Bridge, so there are a number of questions that flow from that that certainly folks in my community are asking and would like me to ask the minister.

[1710]

Is that funding from the province contingent on it being a particular size of bridge? As you know, there is considerable debate on both sides of the river about how wide the Pattullo Bridge should be — in particular, in my community, very, very strong feelings that we cannot tolerate increased traffic going through New Westminster. So is that funding contingent on a certain size of the bridge?

Does the minister envision that bridge being tolled? Certainly, the conversations in TransLink about options have considered road pricing to be a part of the consideration, especially with the Port Mann Bridge and increased traffic that is being pushed over there.

The other question is…. I mean, we're deeply concerned in my community about the existing traffic, but we're pretty well served by public transit in New Westminster. We have several SkyTrain stations and a pretty good bus system. However, we certainly appreciate how, and we feel the effects of, communities like Surrey south of the Fraser are not being well served by public transit, because we experience the consequences of it every single day.

Is there an either-or here about this funding for the Pattullo Bridge? Are there conditions on what that Pattullo Bridge would be — the size of it? We certainly don't want to see an expanded Pattullo Bridge. We need to replace the bridge. There's no question of that. But we don't want to see an extended Pattullo Bridge put in conflict with very, very needed projects south of the Fraser and in the city of Vancouver, because we really think this needs to be decided as part of an integrated and truly regional transportation plan.

[1715]

Hon. T. Stone: I'm certain that the member for New Westminster has follow-up questions, so I'll try and keep each of my responses brief.

At a high level, with respect to the Pattullo Bridge, she's quite correct — the member is — in that the B.C. government did recently announce its commitment to cover one-third of the capital for major transit capital projects as well as a replacement of the Pattullo Bridge.

I would like to say to the member: nice try on the $350 million. I don't believe I ever put a number out there. There have been all kinds of wild estimates on the numbers. Obviously, it depends on the type of the bridge — if it's a four lane, a six lane, an eight lane, a ten lane. I mean, the cost varies greatly. What we've said is we will support one-third of the cost.

Now, that would be contingent on a couple of key items. First and foremost, we have said very clearly that, as with all of the projects that the province invests in, there has to be a solid business case. That's a standard practice with every single infrastructure project that we invest provincial dollars into.

Secondly, as part of that, part of the business case justification will be ensuring that the project fits within the provincial capital plan. That largely relates to timing. If this is a project that was to be announced tomorrow versus three years from now or five years from now, it has different implications in terms of the overall context of the provincial capital plan, both in terms of which other priorities move forward and which priorities need to be kind of moved back a bit. We obviously have very strict targets, very disciplined targets, around our debt-to-GDP ratios and so forth.

Last but not least, a commitment of this size to the Pattullo Bridge would be contingent upon the cooperation of the city of New Westminster, as well, in terms of ensuring that New Westminster is investing in its road network to facilitate any replacement and expansion of the Pattullo Bridge. At the end of the day, it makes no sense whatsoever to replace the Pattullo Bridge with a brand-new bridge, no matter how many lanes, if driving over the bridge from Surrey to New West results in gridlock and results in driving into a wall.

Very clearly, we want to make sure that it's a seamless experience for people as they travel over that bridge. That's going to require New Westminster to come to the table and cooperate and work with its neighbours and work with TransLink.

At a higher level, this is a project that TransLink has been working very hard with its member municipalities on, particularly New Westminster and Surrey. As the member knows well, there are some very strongly held views and very different opinions, particularly between Surrey and New Westminster, as to what the right solu-
[ Page 2746 ]
tion is.

At the end of the day, I believe that the people of New Westminster want what's best for their community and the people of Surrey want what's best for theirs. Everybody's coming at this from a place of best intentions, but there is a gulf in terms of a preferred option here. We will continue to support the discussions that are taking place between TransLink and Surrey and New Westminster as they work towards a solution that everybody can live with.

[1720]

The final comment I'll make is that I would expect that the mayors, in the context of the Mayors Council, are talking about the Pattullo project in the context of the plan that they're working on prior to June 30, 2014.

Certainly, part of why we put the commitment to one-third of the capital out on the table, along with the similar commitment on transit projects, was to signal to the mayors that they might want to include a replacement of the Pattullo Bridge as part of the plan that would ultimately go to the people of the region in the referendum that would be held on the expansion of transit and transportation in the region.

We certainly believe that the Port Mann Bridge is a critical artery first and foremost for the movement of people, with lots of commuters, but also for the movement of goods.

It's critical that this bridge be replaced. It's critical from a safety perspective that the bridge be replaced. It needs to be done in a manner that's thoughtful and that takes into consideration the strongly held views of the communities on both sides of the Fraser River.

J. Darcy: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I actually wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or negotiate about the size of the province's commitment. I understood you had committed $350 million. The question is whether or not that commitment is contingent on the size of the bridge.

Also, the other part of the question was about tolling and about road pricing. As we know, and this has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst the mayors and municipal councils, when the Pattullo is the only toll-free or could soon be the only toll-free alternative, inevitably it will mean more and more traffic coming across that bridge.

It's not a matter of, in this case…. My colleague has lots of other questions he wants to ask on many other aspects, so I don't want to take too much time. We can perhaps discuss this in another forum.

It's not a matter of my community not wanting that. Sure, they don't want more traffic. We can't sustain it. It's 67,000 people in six square miles, and we've already got hundreds of thousands of vehicle trips that go through every day without stopping. There's a limit to the capacity of a community like that to absorb more.

Back to the question. Whatever the size of the bridge is, and my community has strong feelings about it, is the minister contemplating road pricing? How can a community like mine possibly cope with increased traffic coming through, even with a four-lane bridge, because it's going to be safer than the present one? How is a community supposed to cope with it if it is the only toll-free alternative?

Hon. T. Stone: Thanks to the member for New Westminster. Again, I'm trying to be as thoughtful as I can here in terms of the questions.

The provincial commitment to one-third of the capital is not contingent on the bridge being any particular size, if it's four lanes, six lanes, eight lanes. Our commitment is to participate in the capital for a replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. But as I mentioned a moment ago, the commitment is contingent upon there being a solid business case that's supported by TransLink and the member municipalities, particularly Surrey and New Westminster, and that the project fit within the provincial capital plan. Those are the specific words that were in the letter that I sent to the Mayors Council.

We also believe that New Westminster needs to participate in this project in the sense of continuing to invest in its own road network and to facilitate the work that TransLink and other member municipalities believe is necessary to free up congestion.

[1725]

I bring one example to the table for the purposes of this discussion, and that's the Bailey bridge, which I know the member is very familiar with — the whole concept of a North Fraser perimeter road and United Boulevard and over the Bailey bridge and so forth. When you looked at all the modelling on that, it was all about streamlining and easing congestion through Coquitlam and New Westminster.

By the way, New Westminster is my birthplace. I have family there, and I have a special place in my heart for New Westminster.

J. Darcy: You'll come back and visit us soon.

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly will. I have fond memories as a child of going to Army and Navy for flip-flops, of all things. I can't believe I just said that on the record.

J. Darcy: I can't believe you still use the term "flip-flops." That's a generational thing.

Hon. T. Stone: There you go. I may be older than I look.

A Voice: The term is flip-flops. You're thinking of thongs.
[ Page 2747 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Thongs, yeah. I'll go with flip-flops. We're going to stick with flip-flops. [Laughter.]

Anyway, it makes no sense, in my humble opinion, to have effectively two lanes — and if you go back a little bit further on either side, four lanes — leading up to a one-lane Bailey bridge that, in my understanding, Coquitlam and New West have had discussions on for a number of years to sort out. I've talked to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville about this. I think maybe even the member for New Westminster and I have had a chat about it previously.

It really doesn't make sense, and now there's an arbitration process underway and so forth. I think at the end of the day, people that are trying to get to and from work and people that are trying to get their kids to school and otherwise move in that part of the corridor just want to get from A to B as quickly as they can and as safely as they can.

I just say that there is a certain level of cooperation with neighbouring communities that we would hope we would see from New Westminster moving forward, within the context of the Pattullo Bridge and all the related road improvements that would need to take place for a replacement of Pattullo Bridge to make sense.

On road pricing, tolling — let me just address that, or you'll ask me a third time. Again, I have said several times…. I've been on the record very clearly that, well, it's highly premature at this point to suggest that there's certainty around a replacement of the Pattullo Bridge being a tolled option.

It potentially could be a tolled option. That will be the decision of TransLink and the Mayors Council, in particular, under the new governance model that will soon be in place. Certainly, from a provincial infrastructure perspective, the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel — it's a potential that that crossing could be a tolled option.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

What I've said is that if, potentially, these two new crossings — Pattullo and George Massey — were to be tolled, then quite rightly, as you pointed out, suddenly every crossing over the Fraser is tolled, with the exception of the Alex Fraser. Alternatively, the George Massey could be tolled, and maybe the Pattullo isn't and so forth.

My point has been that it has been over ten years since the provincial tolling policy was last reviewed. I think that within the context of the discussions that are taking place at the Mayors Council and the discussions that we're also having on potential funding sources for funding expansion, there may be an opportunity there to revise and update the provincial tolling policy.

G. Heyman: In a February 6 letter to the mayors caucus regarding provincial infrastructure, the minister stated: "The provincial government will not permit new funding to be collected from the provincial transportation system situated in the region."

Now, I had some questions on tolling and road pricing in general, but I think the minister anticipated the questions to some extent and answered them in part. I think I heard the minister essentially say that the tolling policy, in his preference, will be reviewed — he has certainly stated that publicly in the past — and that road pricing is not off the table as a funding option.

[1730]

Can the minister explain exactly what is meant by "the provincial government will not permit new funding to be collected from the provincial transportation system situated in the region"? Does that mean that tolls as they currently exist will continue or just that if there's a change in the system, the amount of revenue globally that the province is currently taking to pay for projects that have been already implemented would continue? And if he will — I think this is a simple yes or no — confirm that road pricing is, in fact, on the table — at least, that it's not off the table.

Hon. T. Stone: First, on the whole question of road pricing and whether that's on the table or off the table, I've quite consistently stated, and I'm on the record as saying, that I prefer to keep things on the table versus knocking them off. Again, the challenge is very much in the Mayors Council's court to develop the plan that they're working on.

The good news on that front is that, by all indications, they have rolled their sleeves up, as I expected they would. They are working very hard to develop a regional plan for transit and transportation expansion. They've certainly indicated to me, as recently as just days ago, that they are very much expecting to have that plan developed well before the June 30 deadline in relation to the pending referendum.

Part of the funding discussion could include road pricing. I've said to the Mayors Council that whichever pocket it comes out of, there's one taxpayer — whether it's property tax or vehicle levies or road pricing or a regional sales tax. There's been a wide variety of other potential ideas floated over the years — no new ideas, by the way. I think any potential revenue source that could ever possibly be considered has been thrown on the table for discussion at some point.

We're prepared to sit down and talk to the mayors about those funding levers. Ultimately, they need to develop the plan. They are developing the plan. The plan will have a total cost, and they are going to come forward and suggest funding sources for that plan.

I'd be more than happy to talk more about the tolling policy review and so forth if the member would like to.

Back to the initial part of your question, and that was with respect to the statement that I put out there in terms
[ Page 2748 ]
of revenue not being collected from provincial infrastructure. I think the best way for me to explain that would be this. We wanted to be very clear with the Mayors Council that, certainly, with respect to provincial infrastructure — whether it's the Iron Workers Bridge, the Lions Gate Bridge, the Trans-Canada Highway — this is infrastructure that the province has paid for, that the province expends dollars on each and every year to maintain. In the case of the Port Mann Bridge, which now has a toll on it, there's obviously a revenue source there.

The signal that I wanted to send through that statement to the Mayors Council is that in the context of future discussions around funding sources for an expansion of transit and transportation, the province is going to protect its revenue sources. The province is going to need to ensure that if, for example, road pricing is to be considered, either solely or as a package of funding levers, and if it's to apply to provincial infrastructure, there's a piece of that that's going to have to be considered, and that is the revenue that's generated and the debt obligations that exist on the Port Mann Bridge.

I hope I've answered the member's question — the point on provincial infrastructure.

G. Heyman: Getting pretty close. I'm just going to — again, in the interests of time — put it this way. I take from the minister's answer that it's the quantum of provincial revenue and not the specific form in which it's currently collected that the minister meant to protect. If I'm wrong in that, he will tell me. If he doesn't say anything about it, I'll assume I'm correct in that — which sort of takes care of some of my other questions.

[1735]

I just want to confirm with the minister. He appears to have said that on the suite of funding options, he's open to discussion of any of them, which I presume means that there is no form of funding which the mayors have proposed to date that he would reject out of hand or intends to reject. Again, if I'm wrong on that, I would appreciate the minister correcting me. If that's what he meant, in fact, then no comment is needed.

Let me simply also ask: does the minister intend to apply the referendum requirement for TransLink to any other form of transportation funding or infrastructure anywhere else in the province? If the answer to that is no, what is the rationale for that?

Hon. T. Stone: Just to make sure it's on the record, as well, in terms of some of the member's comments a moment ago, he is correct in assuming that certainly to this point the province has not ruled out any funding sources. We are keeping that discussion wide open, and we'll be working on that diligently with the mayors in the weeks ahead.

I will say, though, when it comes to funding sources, we continue to stand by the four principles that we have talked about for a number of years now — I believe since 2012. That is that any new funding source needs to be affordable for families. Certainly, the funding source cannot negatively impact the economy. The funding sources need to be regionally sourced.

We certainly are willing, from a longer-term perspective, to engage in discussion around land value capture and capturing investments from that. I think that piece is probably the one area that everybody can agree on. It's just: how do you get there, and how fast can you get there?

In terms of the specific question — are we contemplating tolls or road pricing anywhere else? — the answer to that is no. I'm not contemplating that.

[1740]

The reason that we're doing it in the context of the TransLink expansion plan is, quite simply, because this was a very specific commitment that we made in the last provincial election and that we campaigned on. We were elected, and we intend on fulfilling that commitment. Certainly, I absolutely understand that the mayors continue to this day to say to they don't like the idea. That is their choice. But we campaigned on it, we were elected, and we're going to fulfil that commitment.

G. Heyman: I'm glad to see that the minister has confirmed the suspicions that I and the mayors have always held, that this particular referendum is somewhat arbitrary and of a one-off nature.

Let me ask the minister…. In a February 6 letter to the chair of the Mayors Council the minister committed that the provincial government would fund one-third of major capital projects, specifically new rapid transit and the Pattullo Bridge replacement, if it fits within the provincial capital plan.

My question to the minister is: could other provincial priorities bump these, resulting in less capital for TransLink, given TransLink may propose the bridge and a full suite of rapid transit expansion? What strings, if any, will be attached to the one-third funding commitment? Is there a quantum limit? Will the minister or is the minister planning to commit to including this in his ten-year transportation plan, which, presumably, will be the roadmap for ten years of capital dollars in the province for transportation?

[1745]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the member's questions around the province's commitment to the one-third share in capital for major rapid transit projects and the Pattullo Bridge, I think the first part of the question was: how firm are these commitments? Could these commitments be bumped by other projects in the capital plan?

I think it's important to note that we do have a tight capital plan. There are competing priorities; there always are. We have very specific debt-to-GDP targets that we're very proud of and absolutely focused on maintaining.
[ Page 2749 ]

That being said, we have made it very clear, I think, in the public domain on many occasions, and certainly to the people of the Lower Mainland, that if the Mayors Council is to include these major rapid transit projects — whether it's some form of LRT in Surrey, whether it's something down the Broadway line in Vancouver — and if they decide to move forward with the inclusion of a Pattullo replacement in the plan that they're working on, if that plan were to be put to the voters in a referendum in the Lower Mainland and endorsed by the voters, passed, then the province will stand behind its commitment on those one-third capital commitments.

At the end of the day, the government of British Columbia recognizes just how incredibly important the Lower Mainland economy is to the provincial economy. It's in part the movement of people. It's also in part the movement of goods. The rapid transit side is really about the people, and the Pattullo is about the people and the movement of goods. We will stand behind those commitments, should they be included in the Mayors Council's plan and should that plan be endorsed by the voters in a referendum.

I think it's also important to note that I talked earlier about it, when the member for New Westminster was asking a similar question. I mean, any capital commitment we make is contingent upon there being a solid business case. In the case of the Pattullo, for example, that business case would largely be about TransLink, New West and Surrey all coming to a common place and getting behind a solution that they believe makes sense for their respective communities and putting that forward within the context of the Mayors Council for inclusion within the overall plan.

I look forward to that. I'm very excited about the hard work that the mayors are putting into their plan. As I have said many times, I think that locally elected officials…. It's the best place for transit and transportation decisions and for priorities to be set. I think British Columbians in the Lower Mainland will be well served by the plan that the Mayors Council brings forward.

The last comment I'll make is with respect to the ten-year transportation plan. The member for Vancouver-Fairview is absolutely correct.

[1750]

The plan as developed by the Mayors Council and hopefully endorsed by the people of the region will figure prominently in the ten-year transportation plan, which will be largely about capital but will also be about operational priorities as well.

The economy of the Lower Mainland and the ability to meet the demands, the population growth, the demands that we know will continue to face the region increasingly over the next 20 to 30 years…. Getting that right, with the various levels of government working together on the right investments for transit and transportation expansion in the Lower Mainland is going to be critical to British Columbia's economy.

G. Heyman: I particularly appreciate, as I suspect the mayors will, the clarification offered, because reading the minister's letter to the mayor, it was possible to see there being a little bit of wiggle room thereon out. I'm sure the mayors will be comforted to know, if the voters in a referendum approve some specific rapid transit infrastructure funding as well as a replacement of the bridge, that the commitment of the province is to pick up a third of that. I think voters will want to have that assurance as well, in any referendum going forward.

The minister also committed in the letter that the province would work with the mayors to seek federal funding on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis.

My question is whether the minister believes, if the referendum in fact doesn't take place for another 14 months, that there's any risk to the province and the mayors of losing access to funding under the new Building Canada fund or whether the minister has already, in fact, had any discussions with the federal government around the ability to access that fund, even if the specific commitments of the province and TransLink are in abeyance for a period of time subject to the referendum.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, it cannot be stated too many times that the federal government is a critical partner moving forward in the investments that I think we all agree need to take place in transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

I'll take the opportunity to say thank you to the federal government. They have been good partners on lots of projects that have been important to British Columbians in every corner of the province over the last 12 years.

I have indeed raised the subject of these projects with the federal government on a number of occasions, with different ministers. We do that every opportunity we get. I'm sure that the member does as well, when he has the opportunity to cross paths with federal officials.

The new Build Canada fund, on balance, is a good…. I think what the federal government has done in terms of how they've restructured it and so forth, on balance, is good and will be good for British Columbia. We have a few concerns around the margins and so forth, but generally speaking, things like a ten-year window for investment, moving from a five-year window to a ten-year window, works much better for the province. It works better for local governments as well.

There are a number of new funding envelopes. The criteria has been expanded on a number of the different funding envelopes, thus enabling a wider variety of projects, types of projects, to be included for consideration. There are all kinds of reasons to be generally supportive of the new Build Canada fund.

One of the concerns that we have expressed to the federal government is that the funding is significantly back-
[ Page 2750 ]
end-loaded when you look at the ten-year time frame. The vast majority of those funds are in the second half of that ten-year window. Frankly, from the perspective of the member's question around whether we have any concerns around timing of a referendum possibly resulting in losing out on some funding opportunities through the new Build Canada fund, I believe that the simple answer to that is no, I'm not overly concerned.

[1755]

The federal government is going through their process right now of identifying their priorities, the projects that they deem to be priorities. We've been ready to go with our list of priorities for quite some time now. We're just waiting for a federal partner to engage with. They appear to finally be ready, and we're having those discussions behind the scenes.

We have talked to them about transit projects in the Lower Mainland. We have talked to them about the Pattullo Bridge. We've talked to them about other major transit and transportation projects in all corners of the province, and we'll continue to do so.

G. Heyman: Thank you, Minister. If my memory serves me correctly, the mayors did have concern that in the absence of some specific capital proposals in the year coming up, there was somewhere in the nature of $100 million that might be allocated elsewhere and not to needed transportation projects.

I will take the minister's word that he believes that is not the case but reserve the right to raise it at a future time if, in fact, that risk continues. If the minister, in further study, thinks there is some funding that won't necessarily be lost to the province but might be allocated in a different way than it might be if TransLink was able to proceed with capital projects now, he will acknowledge that and let me know.

My last questions in this area have to do with land value capture, which the minister has partly addressed. Also, it's known as a benefiting area tax.

The minister in April 2013 identified four conditions for supporting new funding tools for transit — that they be affordable for families, regionally sourced, avoid negative impacts on the economy and capture benefits from the substantial investments made in Metro Vancouver's transportation system.

So I was going to ask the minister if he believed that a benefiting area tax or a land value capture met those criteria, and I think he has clearly indicated that he does.

There has been a recent report entitled Evaluation of Revenue Sources to Support Transportation Improvements in Metro Vancouver. Results and resources from a February 2012 evaluation process estimated that a benefiting area tax could recover between $30 million and $100 million in revenue, which could pay off a capital loan of $500 million to $1.9 billion in something like 35 years, assuming 4½ percent interest. So that's one study.

My first question is: has the ministry done any further study of this funding option? Second question is: does the minister personally think that land value captures should be an option in the referendum, and/or does the minister think it's already legal under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act or the Community Charter?

Finally, is the government studying or considering the possibility of applying land value capture to highways in general? Where highways are built or improved, there is also value added to land.

I'd simply say that if the minister can't provide detailed answers to these questions now, I'd be happy to take a written response at a later date.

[1800]

Hon. T. Stone: I assume the report that the member referenced a moment ago is the Urban Futures 2012 report. It may not have been, but land value capture figured prominently in that report, and I do have that report as well.

Certainly, there has been lots of discussion, particularly over recent years, amongst all kinds of different parties about the concept of land value capture. It actually has been…. Well, let me back up. It means many different things to many different people, depending who you talk to.

For example, on the Evergreen line the Lincoln station is a terrific example of what can happen when there is the ability to embrace and harness the value of the investment being made in transit. In that case, the developer in question came forward and, in working with the local government and with TransLink, was able to fund a station that doesn't come at all out of the pockets of the taxpayer. There are other examples on other pieces of transit around the Lower Mainland.

I think more generally that I will say this. I think the province has said a number of times, and I certainly have said a number of times that land value capture in some form is a concept that we're very much open to and willing to discuss in detail with the Mayors Council.

Again, I come back to the plan that the Mayors Council is working on towards the June 30 deadline. Concurrent with the development of the plan is a discussion related to funding, and land value capture is one potential funding source that I think we have been very clear we can support in principle. I look forward to talking through the details of what that could mean in practical terms with the Mayors Council.

G. Heyman: To the question, whether the ministry has done further study itself and whether the minister thinks that applying land value capture needs to go to referendum or if it's already within the authority of the municipalities, and whether the government would consider applying land value capture elsewhere.
[ Page 2751 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Very quickly, I certainly will endeavour to provide a written response on these questions for you as quickly as we possibly can. We'll make sure that we cover the areas of whether or not municipalities have the right or the ability to do this today and your question in regards to highways.

[1805]

In terms of have there been any studies done within the ministry, not that I'm aware of as of today. Again, we'll circle back on that in written form for the member as quickly as we can.

G. Heyman: I have some questions on the Canada Line. A couple of them have to do with policing. Can the minister confirm for us who is responsible for the policing costs on the Canada Line; i.e., does TransLink actually subsidize part of the cost or all of the cost of policing to the operator of the line under the public-private-partnership agreement? Whatever system is now in place, is that consistent with the original terms of policing costs in the contract that was signed, or have they changed?

Who is responsible for maintenance of stations under the operator contract if there's a complaint, if there's a service issue? And what mechanisms are in place to ensure that maintenance is in fact done? I raise this because there have been recent reports of, for instance, lights going out at Canada Line stations and simply not being replaced.

Hon. T. Stone: I think, on these questions that the member has asked, we're getting into a pretty significant level of detail that's highly operational to TransLink. Very, very good, very important questions. I think I've got answers on each of the items, but I'm not comfortable at speculating and putting answers out there that may be slightly inaccurate. We're going to reach out to TransLink, and we'll get very specific responses to each of these questions back to the member in written form as quickly as possible.

G. Heyman: On SeaBus. In 2008 then minister Kevin Falcon and then chair Dale Parker announced a plan to run three SeaBuses together from North Vancouver to Vancouver. The target for implementation of this was 2010. I think the press release said that during peak travel times there would be a SeaBus running every ten minutes under this scenario. But it's now four years after 2010. There aren't three SeaBuses. Can the minister tell us where we are on this promise — whether this promise is on the shelf, pending a referendum or exactly where we are?

[1810]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to SeaBus, I think that the member would probably agree with the statement that the current SeaBus service is tremendously successful and very popular — certainly in my discussions with mayors and people who live in North Vancouver and Vancouver who use the service. I mean, it's roundly applauded for being an exceptional service. There's a very good foundation there. I do know that over the year there have been statements made by a wide variety of different people and organizations supporting an expansion of SeaBus service.

As the member suggested in his question, however, we're waiting with bated breath for the Mayors Council and their plan. I do know that a number of the mayors that are sitting around that table have said to me they believe that an increase in SeaBus service — whether that's an increase in capacity that comes through the form of a third SeaBus or in some other manner…. It will be up to the mayors to determine whether or not that is a priority they want to include in their plan and put forward in the referendum for the voters to approve or not.

G. Heyman: My final question has to do with the AirCare program, which is being phased out, as the minister knows. I'm wondering if the minister can assure residents of Metro Vancouver that with the phasing out of the AirCare program, air quality will be maintained at the same level in Metro Vancouver, or if the minister has any other plans for specific measures to ensure air quality in Metro Vancouver.

I'll simply add to this question. With some small sense of irony, I'll ask the minister to respond to this in writing. I asked this question last July, the minister committed to responding in writing, and that's the one item on which we did not yet get a response. That question was: what steps are being taken specifically with respect to the phase-out of the program?

[1815]

In the interests of time, because I know it's getting late and some of my colleagues have some questions, I'd be happy to take the responses to the new question and the old question in writing, if that suits the minister.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly.

G. Heyman: That concludes my questions. I'd like to thank the minister for his response. His thoughtful and fulsome responses to some questions actually meant that I didn't have to ask some others, because he'd already answered them. I look forward to discussing the bills in the House at second reading and committee.

The Chair: We're just going to take a two-minute recess, everyone.

The committee recessed from 6:16 p.m. to 6:20 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]
[ Page 2752 ]

S. Robinson: I have two questions. In the interests of time, I will be quick and ask that the first one, perhaps, I get the response in writing and the second one, a verbal response.

The first one has to do with a UBCM resolution from September 2013. It's the prohibiting excessive vehicle noise resolution, B67. The resolution was that "the provincial government amend the Motor Vehicle Act to require that exhaust noise emitted from motorcycles and motorboats meet the noise level standards supported by Transport Canada, thus providing police officers clear definitions of excessive vehicle noise, and that it be further resolved that police officers be provided the legislative tools necessary to enforce the Motor Vehicle Act."

The ministry response was very positive and pointed out that the technology for reliably measuring noise in the field has only recently been recognized through the Society of Automotive Engineers technical standard and that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police is working with the ministry to implement this standard as a means of measuring motorcycle exhaust noise at the roadside.

My question is: what is the status of this implementation? When can local governments get back to their communities and neighbourhoods to let them know that their local police will have the tools to act on these excessive noise emissions?

Hon. T. Stone: A written response?

S. Robinson: A written response to that would be fabulous.

My other question, of course, has to do with the Evergreen line. As the minister knows, I represent Coquitlam-Maillardville, which, unfortunately, really won't see the Evergreen line come through our community. It completely bypasses this part of the south slope of Coquitlam.

When they say that Coquitlam is getting the Evergreen line, well, part of Coquitlam is getting the Evergreen line. Of course, the north part will certainly benefit far more than the south part.

The way it stands right now, grateful to have, finally, some park-and-ride as part of the program. I think that's really an important asset to this huge capital project that will help more and more people make use of it. But the folks that I represent, the folks on the south slope, will have to drive backward along the line to make use of those park-and-ride stalls in order to hook onto the Evergreen line.

I am here to ask if the ministry has considered or will consider the possibility of identifying, perhaps in the future, additional park-and-ride stalls at some of the stations that would serve my constituents — perhaps Lougheed Mall or Braid station.

[1825]

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for her question with respect to parking on the Evergreen line. As the member probably knows well, the current scope of the project provides for about 500 parking spaces, the priority stations being Port Moody, Coquitlam Central station and the Lafarge Lake–Douglas station.

The provision of additional parking spaces above and beyond those 500 at those locations or at other stations would be a decision that's entirely within the purview of TransLink. As far as I understand, as of today there are no plans for additional parking beyond the 500 that are in the current scope of the project at the three stations that I have just listed.

D. Donaldson: I want to bring to the attention of the minister an infrastructure project in Stikine and to update and get some answers on provincial infrastructure funding.

The Upper Skeena recreation centre is a project I have highlighted in the Legislature since 2009. The current facility serving all the Hazeltons and outlying communities is at the end of its life. Rain pours in through the roof, water bottles freeze on the bench during hockey games, the rafters supporting the structure are made of logs, and the engineers have concerns.

It was built decades ago with mainly volunteer labour and has served the communities well, but its time is up. After I raised the issue with the minister in last year's budget estimates, he offered a meeting with members of his senior staff, which I had last fall, and I thank him for that.

I updated them on the governance structure that's now in place for the rec centre project in the preconstruction, construction and post-construction stages; the administrative support from local government to get the project moving; and that a fundraising committee, headed by Dr. Peter Newbury, was fully engaged. At that meeting we also discussed extensively the upcoming sequel to the federal government's infrastructure program that was expected in the February 2014 budget.

I met with Dr. Newbury last week, and he briefed me that he has secured a major commitment from industry that, along with private donors, local government funding and additional sources — I have to keep that under wraps; it will be announced this week again — the one-third community financing to the project is in place.

The community overseeing the Upper Skeena rec centre has now proceeded to the detailed design stage with architects. The new Building Canada fund was announced by the federal government on February 12. It included approximately $1.1 billion for the next ten years for B.C. under the provincial-territorial infrastructure component, including a small communities fund. It also includes some expanded categories to the gas tax fund.

The federal Infrastructure Minister said that they were
[ Page 2753 ]
open for business for proposals to the new Building Canada fund last week, on March 28. Generally, they'll fund approximately one-third of projects. The federal ministry website says to contact your ministry regarding applying for the PTIC, the provincial-territorial infrastructure component.

[1830]

From a previous minister of communities and infrastructure and now the Energy and Mining Minister…. He said at a meeting with my communities at UBCM in 2012 that your government was waiting for the federal program before announcing a provincial program to match. That federal program is here now. The Hazeltons have their one-third contribution for the Upper Skeena recreation centre. The federal government says its doors are open for their one-third. The committee in charge of the new rec centre would like to have this building completed in the fall of 2015. Construction cycles are very seasonal in the north.

Does the province, through this minister's ministry, have a funding program in place to sync with the federal program, and when can the Upper Skeena recreation centre proponents expect to be able to apply for the B.C. portion of the funding?

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I'd like to thank the member for Stikine for raising the issue again. I applaud him. It's a very worthwhile project. I recall very vividly the discussion we had about it last year, and I think we've talked about it a bit since then.

I actually had the opportunity to meet with the mayors from the Hazeltons and talk about the project. I know that they also met with the Premier. I was there in that meeting as well, and I think we were all impressed by the extent of community support. To hear now that industry has come forward to participate in the project is good news as well.

I think the next step here would be as follows. We are just working our way through the federal criteria for the different funding envelopes. As the member rightly pointed out in his question, the federal government only very recently released the details of what the different funding envelopes would look like, what the criteria is for them, how much money is in each of them, what the eligibility requirements are and so forth.

I would suggest to the member that it may be timely for officials in my department to meet with the member again and afford that opportunity to update each other. Certainly, there have been some new developments, obviously, on your end in terms of where the project is at. If we do this in a couple of weeks — two, three, four weeks from now — we'll be in a better position to, I think, communicate with maximum clarity as to what the eligibility requirements are for the different funding envelopes and to see where this may match up well.

[1835]

G. Holman: Just a quick question regarding the auto glass repair sector. I know there was a question earlier today, the concern that ICBC might be going to a single-procurement process. My understanding is that the answer to that was an unequivocal no. Just a slight embellishment, or you could clarify…. This could be in writing as well, unless you've got a clear answer right away. The slight variant of that question is whether ICBC is considering a limited procurement — so not single but limited, where just a few contractors would be considered.

Hon. T. Stone: I can state unequivocally that ICBC is not considering any sole-source procurement model, and they are not considering any limited procurement model either. I have made very clear to ICBC that we expect the corporation to continue to utilize suppliers — whether they be in the glass repair business, whether they be in collision — from communities right across this province.

These are small businesses that employ men and women, particularly in rural, small communities, that are very important to those communities. We expect ICBC to continue to utilize these suppliers across British Columbia.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a question with regards to roads.

First of all, I want to commend the minister and the government for upgrading Highway 16 earlier this year from a schedule B to a schedule A road, which improves the level of maintenance on that road. Obviously, after listening to lots of people over the years and the increase in traffic on Highway 16 because of the Port of Prince Rupert and all of the industrial activity that's happening in Kitimat and Terrace, that decision was made. It's a good one. It makes it a safer place.

My question comes, really, from the Nisga'a Nation that I represent. Highway 113, or the Nisga'a Highway, heading north from Terrace into the Nass Valley is, of course, the only route in for all of the four communities of the Nass Valley. It is a schedule C highway. Notwithstanding the population of the Nass Valley, I would like to know if there's any work being done in the ministry to think about upgrading that from a C to a B in order to increase the amount of maintenance in the winter.

I'd like the minister to be aware, in case he hasn't been there, that the entire Nass Valley does not even have a grocery store. When folks in Kincolith want to get milk, bread, eggs, anything, they have to drive all the way through the Nass Valley down Highway 113 to Terrace. It's a question of a large number of people living in a remote place with winter conditions that are stronger than those living in Terrace on Highway 16. They're worse conditions. The highway goes past two large bodies of water and, therefore, has a lot of extra freezing on it, past Kalum Lake.

I'd just like to ask whether the ministry is looking at
[ Page 2754 ]
that, because obviously, an upgrade would certainly help all those folks who live in the Nass Valley who use this road every single day. It's the only way in and out to get anything.

Hon. T. Stone: I'll thank the member for his question. Again, I'm trying to be quick with my responses here so you can get as many questions in as possible. There are no plans at the present time, as of today, to upgrade Highway 113 from a schedule C to a schedule B. That being said, I think we'd be more than prepared to sit down and have a further discussion with you at some point that works for you in the coming weeks and talk that through in a bit more detail.

R. Austin: I thank the minister for that answer. I will certainly set up an appointment and follow through.

I have just two other quick questions, and if there isn't time, the minister can always get back to me in writing. One is just to speak to an infrastructure project. It's in Kitimat. As the minister would be well aware, with all the activity that's happening up there, there is only one bridge across the Kitimat River, the Haisla Bridge.

I'd just like to find out whether or when that bridge is going to be upgraded. It is the only way that all of this industrial activity can take place, and with the onset of potential LNG plants, it's essential that that bridge is fixed and upgraded. It's been many, many years since it had work done on it.

[1840]

My second question is with regards to railway crossings. I understand that railway crossings are governed by federal legislation because of CN. But in the case where CN is saying that they don't want to maintain railway crossings, can I ask the minister whether there's any avenue in government, through either his ministry or through FLNRO, to maintain some these railway crossings so that people can still have access to other roads that come about as a result of that?

I'm thinking particularly of the Exstew crossing that is west of Terrace and east of Prince Rupert. That is one which CN has said that they're not willing to maintain. I just want to know if there's anything that can be done to assist that.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, very quickly. First, in reverse order, with respect to the railway crossings, I'm not familiar with the specific obligations that CN has on the crossings in question, but we'll endeavour to get that information from the member. We'd commit to taking that, providing that to CN, and certainly seeing where CN is at on that.

In terms of the Haisla Bridge, I'm very familiar with this crossing and certainly have had the opportunity to actually go and see it with my own eyes. I was in Kitimat last fall, met with the mayor and council and others. There's a tremendous level of excitement in Kitimat about the economic opportunities, but there's also a certain amount of concern about: what does this mean to our infrastructure, and so forth?

As the member knows well, the Haisla Bridge is actually a municipal bridge. It's owned by the district of Kitimat. We're prepared to talk to them about that. We're prepared to talk to communities across the northwest about infrastructure requirements that they may have, pending final investment decisions, from an economic development perspective.

I think that's the important point here. One thing that we're doing very differently in transportation today versus even a couple of years ago is that in addition to looking at priorities through the lens of, first and foremost, safety, we're also very much looking at our priorities through the lens of economic development and final investment decisions.

We're doing a tremendous amount of hard work behind the scenes with communities — with the UBCM, with affected communities — to make sure that everyone is ready for what a positive, final investment decision actually means when it comes to infrastructure.

[1845]

I want to assure the member and assure the folks, the hard-working people of Kitimat, that they will be treated as we will treat everyone in the northwest, and that's by ensuring that the province is there from an infrastructure perspective, as required, and only after final investment decisions have been made.

C. Trevena: I have what I hope is a quite simple question for you. It's from the B.C. Pensioners and Seniors Organization, who wrote to the minister back in September about a resolution they passed — a concern about the xenon blue headlights, the very bright headlights that are in cars.

They have raised this as a concern and would like action taken. They would like those headlights to be made illegal. I don't know whether that is something that the minister is looking at or has had any response on — any reports on the safety or impact of these very bright headlights. It's obviously causing seniors — and, I know, many other road users — some concern.

Hon. T. Stone: With the member's indulgence, I would like to offer that we get back in writing on this particular issue. It is of a technical nature, and I'd like to consult with my staff. We'll put a thorough written response together for her.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada