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)

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 10, Number 5

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it is my pleasure to introduce a special visitor. Joining us on the floor this morning is Lesley Scott, who is visiting us from the House of Commons in London, where she is the Assistant Serjeant at Arms.

Would the members please join me in extending a warm welcome to Lesley.

S. Fraser: I'm very pleased today to be able to introduce a constituent all the way from Port Alberni. A wonderful young man, Steven Mulvey is here for the first time. Will this House please join me in making him feel very, very welcome.

Tributes

DOUG DAWS

Hon. T. Lake: I rise today with a heavy heart to report the passing of a very important member of the Kamloops community. Doug Daws left us recently at the age of 93. Doug served with the Royal Air Force in World War II before immigrating to Canada in 1946. He became parks manager for the city of Kamloops and was a passionate advocate for park development, most notably McArthur Island and Kenna Cartwright parks, where I, along with many Kamloopsians, run, hike and bike along the Doug Daws Trail.

Doug was a member of the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame, a well-known poet and a real-life hero. I will miss him at our annual Remembrance Day dinners, and I know many, many people in Kamloops will miss him too.

I hope, Madame Speaker, that you will be able to send condolences to Doug's wife, Margaret, and their family on behalf of this House.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I'd like to introduce not a constituent of mine but somebody who would be known to many on Facebook. Mike Summers, otherwise known as Mike Direct-Democracy Summers, has come down from Vanderhoof and is in the House today.

Mike is an advocate of direct democracy, and while I don't necessarily agree with all of his positions, I admire the fact that he tries to engage people in the process. I think that any effort to engage people in the political process and encourage debate is to be celebrated. So help me welcome Mike Summers.

M. Bernier: It's a real pleasure for myself today. I'm fortunate enough to have Ryan Yardley, who is my research assistant, and I know he helps a few others out in this House. He's in the House with us today.

Two things. I'd like to first of all say thank you very much to him and everything that he does, helping myself and others in this building and the hard work that he constantly portrays here, but most importantly, I want to congratulate him today and want the House to congratulate him on his 30th birthday. Thank you very much, and happy birthday.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

VAISAKHI

J. Shin: Imagine all the brightly coloured salwar kameez, bouncy rhythms of bhangra and vibrant aroma of cardamom and cumin. I have fond memories growing up with many Sikh friends and, likewise, now the honour of serving over 3,000 constituents from Punjab, India, in Burnaby-Lougheed, notably Mr. and Mrs. Mike Mukhtar Sandhu, who have taught me how to say my Sat sri akal and call me their Korean daughter.

[1010]

In Burnaby one can live many lives, as our diversity opens doors to every type of fashion, cuisine, religion, custom and holiday. One such holiday is just around the corner, as every April millions of Sikhs around the world celebrate Vaisakhi, a day that marks both the new year and the anniversary of one of Sikhism's most important events, the establishment of Khalsa in 1699 with the first amrit ceremony. Once an individual becomes a member of Khalsa, they say they overcome the inside evils and shed the weakness of the body, the mind and the heart to become as brave as lions.

This day is also observed as Thanksgiving Day by the farmers paying tribute for harvest and praying for future prosperity. Vaisakhi coincides with New Year's Day in several other cultures as well, celebrated by the Hindus and the Buddhists.

Now, we have the luxury in British Columbia to have not just one but two Vaisakhi parades to choose from. The Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade is happening this Saturday on April 12, bringing together 100,000 of us, and the Surrey Vaisakhi Parade is taking place the following Saturday, on April 19, with as many as 200,000 of us, making it one of the largest Vaisakhi celebrations outside of India. The events are known for their delicious
[ Page 2922 ]
food graciously prepared by our local residents and businesses, live music and rides, as well as several politicians to be spotted, they say, working the crowds. You definitely don't want to miss that scene.

I hope everyone will join us to experience together their generosity, woven in to strengthen our social fabric here in British Columbia.

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

R. Lee: Today I rise in the House to recognize and extend gratitude to all volunteers engaged in all aspects of our communities. This week, April 6 to 12, is National Volunteer Week, a time to recognize and celebrate the 13.3 million volunteers in Canada and the commitment they make towards enhancing our neighbourhoods. From coaching our sports teams to organizing our regional, national and international games; from shopping for seniors to coordinating our community kitchens; from storytelling to staging our arts and theatre festivals, volunteers play a central role in our delivering programs and services in our communities.

Volunteers enhance our youth centres; schools; senior facilities; emergency response teams; hospices; sporting events; and arts, cultural and heritage organizations. Many cultures, recreation leaders, mentors, fundraisers, event organizers, caregivers, emergency responders and program coordinators are all volunteers. Thousands of volunteers from all walks of life, from all ages and all cultures donate their time freely.

National Volunteer Week is a time to recognize our dedicated volunteers and to encourage others to give their time to causes as well. In honour of Volunteer Week, Volunteer Burnaby will be hosting the 11th annual Burnaby Festival of Volunteers at Brentwood Town Centre on Saturday, April 12. This event is designed to connect community members directly to volunteer organizations, and it's a great way for Burnaby citizens to find ways to make a difference.

Volunteering builds community, making our neighbourhoods more vibrant and diverse places to live. I encourage all sides of the House to join me during this Volunteer Week to recognize the contributions of volunteers all across our province.

LANGLEY MUSTANGS

H. Bains: I had a delightful opportunity to attend British Columbia's Football 12-Man Provincial Championships. It was the bantam division final game between the Langley Mustangs and the North Delta Longhorns. It was one of the most exciting games I've watched. These boys, who are not more than 15 years old, were out there making plays, planning their strategies. The team effort was remarkable.

You will be wondering why I am standing here praising a team whose name starts with "Langley." It is because the Langley Mustangs include a big contingent of players from Surrey, including a defensive lineman who invited me to this game, my own nephew, Manraj Bains.

I would like to commend the players for their effort, dedication and teamwork, with a special congratulations to Nolan McMurchy for being awarded the MVP.

[1015]

I also applaud the coaches, Keith Pickett and Darryle Swartz, for the extraordinary job they did preparing these young men for the provincial championships. It takes countless hours of time, hard work and dedication to coach any minor sport. Without the skills, knowledge and generosity of people like these coaches, and parents' dedication and commitment, our provincials would not have the outstanding minor sport association that we do.

I believe that minor sports are an essential part of growing up. Children learn invaluable life skills, lifelong friendships, lasting memories, the art of cooperation, team-building and the ability to make quick decisions — all good traits to become good human beings.

I'd like to thank Manraj for inviting me and will ask this House to help me thank all minor sports coaches and volunteers. Big congratulations to the 2013 champions, Langley Mustangs.

CALEDONIA CLASSIC SLED DOG RACES

M. Morris: I was pleased to participate in the Caledonia Classic dogsled races in Fort St. James with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business at the beginning of March. The Caledonia dogsled race has been going on for the past 18 years. It attracts racers from all over North America.

While I attended with both ministers and raced on a beautiful sunny Saturday at minus 20 with a 40-kilometre-an-hour wind, the Caledonia Classic dogsled race is a weekend event starting on the Friday and ending on the Sunday. A wide variety of races are available to racers of all ages and skill levels. There are sprint, mid-distance and long-distance races, as well as teams of four, six, ten or 12 dogs, depending on the race. In addition, there's a kid-and-mutt race and a junior musher race.

The most challenging race offered to mushers is a 150-mile race. Racers are required to have basic overnight supplies to take care of both themselves and their dogs over a three-day racing period.

Mushers visiting Fort St. James are given a tour of the Fort St. James National Historic Site. In addition, there was a banquet and auction on Saturday night, as well as an informal dinner concluding the race on Sunday.

It's a winter tourist event unique to the northern region and one that brings the community together. It was a fun event for mushers and spectators alike. I look forward to attending this event next year.
[ Page 2923 ]

MUSLIM FOOD BANK AND FUNDRAISING

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, $10,000 was the first donation asked for by Sheikh Alla Elsayad, and so what started off as a normal Saturday night vanished with that first ask of $10,000 at the fundraiser for the Muslim Food Bank. Sheikh Alla Elsayad did not move from motivating that ask through stories and parables until someone raised their hand, committed.

He had my attention, and for the next couple of hours I witnessed the most skilful and effective fundraiser I have ever seen. He asked the attendees to dig deep for the Muslim Food Bank, an amazing organization that has been in existence for only three years. Through the leadership of Azim Dahya, Faria Shah and Ziban Malek, the organization has delivered food hampers that cater to specific dietary needs to over 200 families a month.

Sheikh Alla Elsayad made giving easy and the right thing to do, as $10,000 could be donated by a table, your friends, your family. You had a year to complete your commitment, and it would be appreciated by your community. But most importantly, it was your religious obligation to assist the poor. Having the $10,000 spoken for, he then asked for two donations of $5,000, four donations of $2,500, ten donations of $1,000 and so on. He got all his asks and more. Over $60,000 was raised from an extraordinary group of ordinary people.

The Muslim Food Bank is more to the community than food. They are intent on helping participants improve their quality of life by delivering a program called ASPIRE and by partnering with Big Brothers. I came home poorer, as all of us did, but much richer for the experience.

ACTS OF KINDNESS BY
STUDENTS IN STEVESTON

J. Yap: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to speak about a heartwarming initiative being undertaken by high school students in my riding of Richmond-Steveston.

[1020]

As a graduation gift, the 2014 graduating class of McMath Secondary School is participating in acts of kindness throughout Steveston. These acts are intended to be expressions of gratitude for the community in which they have been raised and educated.

These students have cleaned up garbage around a local park, held a used sports equipment drive, provided hot breakfasts to a local elementary school and even handed out roses to residents on Valentine's Day, to brighten up their day. These acts are intended to complement a final legacy gift to McMath Secondary that will be revealed at the end of the school year.

I'd like to thank the graduation committee at McMath and teachers Gail Simonson, Angela Sommerfeld, Elaine Lin, Maryanne Nerreter and Principal Neil Kamide for organizing these meaningful gifts to our community. It's without a doubt one of the most impressive projects I've seen set in motion by a high school graduating class.

These students are truly outstanding citizens who are committed to making our community, Steveston, a better place to live. It's inspiring to watch these young adults display such a mature understanding of the importance of leaving a legacy for future generations of students and staff.

Giving back to the community is a key expression of leadership, and our schools are doing a great job of producing our leaders of tomorrow as evidenced by this project.

Madame Speaker, please join me in recognizing and thanking the students of McMath Secondary School for their special graduating class gift of acts of kindness, of dedicated service to our community, city and province.

Oral Questions

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS TO
FORMER LOTTERY CORPORATION CEO

S. Simpson: We know that when Michael Graydon left his post as the CEO of the Lottery Corporation, he took with him a severance and bonus package totalling about $86,000. Along with that, he kept his laptop, his iPad and his phone. We know that a week later he was working with his new employer, the Vancouver casino. The Finance Minister approved the deal.

My question to the minister is: was he aware that Mr. Graydon was moving immediately into a new job in the private sector when he approved the severance package? And, if the minister didn't know, will he be seeking a repayment?

Hon. M. de Jong: I undertook yesterday to provide some additional details to the House about the breakdown of the moneys that Mr. Graydon received. They are significant amounts, particularly for average British Columbians.

Mr. Graydon, as the member knows, on the 29th of January, informed the Lottery Corporation board chair that he intended to leave. He intended to leave on March 31.

The board, having regard for their perception of the best interests of the corporation, indicated its preference that Mr. Graydon leave more quickly than that — essentially, forthwith.

He received the following moneys. He received regular pay for the period ending February 7 of $8,600. He received vacation payout for $188, to which he was contractually entitled of almost $31,000. He received a salary holdback — to which he was, again, I'm informed, contractually entitled — of $35,600, and he received sev-
[ Page 2924 ]
erance pay for the period February 10 to March 31, an amount of just over $48,000.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: If Mr. Graydon had been out on the street without income for those two months, I might be accepting of that. But we know that he went almost immediately to the employ of his new employer.

But when the government announced its holdback policy in 2012, it noted that these holdbacks were "tied to financial and business results." In February and March, Mr. Graydon didn't deliver any financial or business results to the Lottery Corporation because he was working for Paragon. But still his performance during those months was apparently exemplary enough to earn him the full holdback payment. Not only that, but he was given a bonus that was 75 percent more than the year previous.

Again to the Minister of Finance, who signed off this deal: how is it possible for someone who has left their job and is already working somewhere else to still earn a performance bonus?

[1025]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I don't want to dismiss the significance of the amounts involved here. I think the significant point, however, is this — that Mr. Graydon informed the board chair, provided notice, essentially two months' notice, of his intention to leave on March 31. He would have been paid and received the amounts I have described to that date.

The board and the board chair advised Mr. Graydon of their preference that the relationship sever immediately and, as a result, agreed to pay the same amount that he would have received as an active employee.

The sum total of that was communicated to me shortly after those discussions. Upon receiving assurance that it was in compliance with the applicable guidelines, I agreed that it was appropriate.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Clearly, the minister and I have a difference of opinion over what's appropriate.

In a February 3 e-mail, a manager at the Lottery Corporation wrote to the vice-president of human resources, raising a flag about the size of the holdback. He said: "Should holdback be prorated for the time that Mr. Graydon is employed during the fiscal year 2013-14 — for example, ten out of 12 months — or will he be paid the non-prorated amount?"

Three days later an e-mail was sent from human resources to the Public Sector Employers Council, saying the package gave Mr. Graydon the non-prorated holdback. "We agreed, between our chair and the minister," is what that e-mail said.

To the Finance Minister, why did he ignore the advice of management at the Lottery Corporation and instead let Mr. Graydon receive thousands of dollars in performance bonuses when he was already working somewhere else?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have endeavoured to be as forthright as I can about both the monetary dimension to Mr. Graydon's departure and another aspect of his departure which the member raised earlier and which I have asked the internal audit division to examine. They are doing so.

In this case, I would not want to leave the impression with the member or the House that the breakdown of the amounts paid to Mr. Graydon was communicated to me. The arrangement was arrived at between Mr. Graydon and the board.

In general terms, it was communicated to me that Mr. Graydon would be paid until the conclusion of when he had decided to leave, March 31. The board and the board chair decided that it was in the best interests of the corporation for the relationship to sever more quickly than that. The severance dimension to this is the $48,000 for the period February 10 to March 31 — by any measure, a significant amount of money. The CEO for the Lottery Corporation is paid a significant amount of money.

B. Ralston: Will the minister confirm that he approved the deal?

Hon. M. de Jong: I've not tried to be coy about this. The essence of the arrangement was communicated to me on an evening, following the discussions between Mr. Graydon and the board chair. Having been told that the terms of the severance fell within applicable guidelines and met the contractual obligations to Mr. Graydon, I communicated to the chair that I was comfortable that he proceed.

CONSULTATION ON CHANGES
TO AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

N. Simons: When the minister for the core review was first questioned about his plans to undermine agriculture in British Columbia, he made a promise: "The public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the…committee on Finance and Government Services budget consultations."

[1030]

Yet the Finance Committee was never empowered to consult on changes to the agricultural land reserve, nor has there been any other formal consultation process about this government's plans to destroy agricultural land.
[ Page 2925 ]

My question is to the Minister Responsible for Core Review. Will he recommit today to consult with British Columbians before making changes to how we protect agricultural land?

Hon. S. Thomson: On this side of the House we've been clear in the process that, firstly, the independent decision-making process of the land commission will be preserved going forward. Secondly, we've been clear that in terms of developing policy, developing the regulations that will assist on this foundation of the changes, there will be full consultation with local government, with the industry, with the land commission in the process. We've been clear on that process.

The changes are designed to help support agriculture, to move agriculture forward, and we will continue to consult with the industry in that process.

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

N. Simons: The last time he was asked about whether he would consult before undermining the protection of agricultural land, the minister said: "Mea culpa." For those who don't understand, he said: "That's my fault." Well, mea culpa isn't good enough.

British Columbians want to be heard before B.C.'s farmland is lost forever. So will the minister do the right thing and consult with the people of British Columbia before making changes to how we protect agricultural land?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I'll reinforce that the communication we have committed to is that we will consult fully with the industry, consult fully with the commission, consult fully with local government in the development of the policies and regulations that help support the legislation.

The response from industry has been clear. B.C. Cattlemen's Association said: "We look forward to the changes. We look forward to the consultation. We agree that this provides opportunities to enhance the agriculture industry, and we look forward to consultation on regulations." B.C. Fruit Growers Association, same message.

We are committed to continuing to consult with industry. We will consult, and we have communicated that fully in all of our communication around the introduction of the legislation.

MEAT INDUSTRY REGULATIONS
AND AVAILABILITY OF
MEAT-PROCESSING LICENCES

L. Popham: If the Minister Responsible for Core Review had consulted with farmers, one of the things he might have heard about: that it's not the ALR that's made life difficult for farming in B.C.; it's the B.C. Liberals. That's right. A perfect example is the changes to meat regulations that were brought in, in 2004.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order. The members will come to order.

Continue.

L. Popham: A perfect example is the changes to meat regulations that were brought in by the B.C. Liberals in 2004. Those changes shut down meat processors across the province, making it uneconomic for many farmers and processors to stay in business. After promising last year to start reversing some of those changes by giving licences to farmers in the North Okanagan to produce meat for local consumption, not a single new licence has been issued in that region.

My question is to the Minister Responsible for Core Review. If this government wants to help farmers, if they really want to help farmers, why don't they deliver on their promise to allow class E meat-processing licences in the North Okanagan?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, what we've heard…. The Minister of Agriculture has toured the province listening to farmers, getting their…. The member for Peace River North has consulted, has met with industry, and we're hearing clearly from industry. The B.C. Greenhouse Growers' Association supports government's core review objective and looks forward to the results of the consultation in great detail in regulations. That's the Greenhouse Growers' Association.

[1035]

Rhonda Driediger, chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council: "We look forward to these changes. The act is old, hasn't really been updated for a long period of time."

We're looking forward to the consultations. Again, we are committed to consult. I think it's a little ironic to be receiving this question from the member opposite.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. S. Thomson: They've been talking about the Agricultural Land Commission. It's very ironic, when you're talking about protection of the Agricultural Land Commission…. The member opposite, the member for Saanich North, was involved in a land commission decision and spoke in a meeting about smart farming. Here's her response from that meeting: "It's a difficult choice that I've made, and I've probably disappointed some folks in the audience. As far as Saanich as a community is concerned, I think it's a better direction to have a
[ Page 2926 ]
subdivision."

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
FOR AGRICULTURE

L. Popham: Well, only this government would consider that a zinger. I guess they support having a feedlot in the middle of a subdivision. A real zinger. This government is completely out of touch with agriculture in B.C. — completely.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association...

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members. The Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

Please proceed.

L. Popham: …recently noted: "When the agricultural land reserve was implemented in 1974, there were programs in place that supported the farming community and encouraged agriculture. Those programs have disappeared under the B.C. Liberals, like Buy B.C. In fact, for the last decade we've had the lowest support for agriculture in this country."

If the minister of the core review actually consulted widely with farmers, he would understand that the way to support farmers is to support farming, not to make it easier to build a jail or a motel on farmland.

Again, to the Minister Responsible for Core Review, why doesn't he work to support B.C.'s food producers instead of attacking agricultural lands?

Hon. S. Thomson: I know the member opposite's passion for the industry, but it is, again, a little ironic to be receiving these questions from somebody who supported subdivision within the agricultural land reserve. Better for the community? Those are difficult decisions, I know.

But again, in reference to B.C. Cattlemen's Association, here's Kevin Boon of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association: "We have been asking for some flexibility in some of the land uses in the ALR that would better accommodate moving forward and enhancing the agricultural community."

That's what we are hearing from the agricultural community. They support the changes we're doing. That's why we have also provided in the budget an additional $4 million in funding support for the agricultural land reserve: so that they can do the important work they do in this province.

[1040]

PUBLIC RELEASE OF EXECUTIVE
CONTRACT AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: The Public Sector Employers Act says that on request, B.C. colleges and universities must provide members of the public with their president's contract. So we made a formal request to Kwantlen University for a copy of their president's contract. But instead of sending the entire contract, as the law requires, Kwantlen sent us a contract with four sections hidden, blacked out with a marker.

We have already tabled an e-mail from the president of Kwantlen University where he says he will defend…

Madame Speaker: Member, there is no use of props in the chamber.

D. Eby: Thank you, Madame Chair.

…the Minister of Advanced Education when it comes to the terms of this very contract. That plan is clearly underway.

Will the Minister of Advanced Education demand Kwantlen stop breaking the law to defend him and release the president's contract as the law requires?

Hon. A. Virk: It's quite clear. At the risk of sounding somewhat repetitive and perhaps answering the same gist of the question day after day…. The letter appointing the assistant deputy minister to review the terms of the contract, the disclosure and its consistency with PSEC requirements…. That's a matter that's in front of the ADM to make the appropriate recommendations. Kwantlen is providing information. I will be providing information. I suggest that the member opposite provide and cooperate fully, as well, with that.

D. Eby: This matter has gotten so confused. This is about a legal obligation of a B.C. university. It's the minister's job to make sure universities follow the law, and yet he's under investigation himself by his own government and answering questions about this university. That's why it's confused.

Section 14.8 of the Public Sector Employers Act is not ambiguous. It says the contract must be public — period. The four sections blanked out on the contract are marked "moving expenses." Since the minister read the contract and the minister signed the contract, could the minister tell this House why KPU has blacked out this section of the contract?

Hon. A. Virk: A letter tabled in front of this House gave the assistant deputy minister a number of tasks. One of them gives him a responsibility under the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Information Act to require the university to provide information that he requires to complete his review. So the ADM has the authority to request the information that he requests, and he will get so in order to complete his review.
[ Page 2927 ]

FUNDING FOR
COMMUNITY LITERACY PROGRAMS

S. Fraser: My constituent Steven Mulvey is 23 years old. When he graduated from high school, he had difficulty with basic reading and writing skills. Thankfully, he was brave enough to seek help and make his life better. He found that one-on-one help through Literacy Alberni, where he was connected with the community literacy coordinator, who worked with him for two years to help him improve his skills.

Steven wants to know why year after year communities have to fight to protect community literacy programs and why this government has slashed funding in the past two years and erased it completely from this year's budget? Steven is in the gallery.

Can the Minister of Education explain why he is slashing funding for community-based literacy services?

Hon. P. Fassbender: You know, it is amazing when I hear members opposite who are totally behind the facts. The facts are that this government did maintain 100 percent of Decoda funding this year. There were no cuts. Decoda is the one who makes the decisions on local funding to community groups, not this ministry or this government.

[1045]

That being said, some other facts for the members opposite that they might want to think about are the investments that this government has made in literacy throughout the years — $37 million towards literacy programs. Another fact: $120 million for all-day kindergarten, $27 million to support StrongStart programs.

With a strong economy, a balanced budget and reduced debt, this government will continue to invest in education and literacy programs.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: This minister might not know, but just before the last election this government tried to pull $1½ million out of the $2½ million for coordinators in literacy in this province, and they were forced to reinstate $1 million of it. This minister tried to do it again in this budget, and there's nothing on the books for this year.

After two years of intensive work with a community literacy coordinator, Steven felt confident enough with his literacy skills to go to North Island College. He's now a qualified welder. That would never have happened…. [Applause.]

The members will have to suck back that applause when they hear the rest of this.

That would never have happened without Decoda community literacy programs. No wonder Steven describes Literacy Alberni as building the foundation of the economy. Steven greatly benefitted from the community literacy coordinators. So has this province. We need skilled tradespeople.

Will the Education Minister commit today to fully restore funding to Decoda and ensure it receives stable yearly support from here on in?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I would ask the member opposite to read my lips. And my lips are…. I am clearly saying that this government kept Decoda whole this year. We made that decision. We continue to invest.

I want to say to the young man in the gallery that I applaud his efforts. And I say to the members opposite: because of the investment of this government in programs in K to 12 and in post-secondary, that young man had the opportunity to go to North Island and achieve his goals because those programs were available to him.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES
AND ICBC REVENUES

M. Elmore: We all know this government is raising hydro rates for British Columbians by $2 billion over the next three years just to take more than half of that to pad their own budget. A similar thing is happening at ICBC.

This government raids hundreds of millions of dollars each year from ICBC. Meanwhile, they jacked ICBC rates up by 4.9 percent last year for basic coverage — life less affordable for B.C., more padding for the budget. British Columbians can't afford another basic insurance rate hike on top of this government's hikes for hydro, ferry, MSP and other hidden taxes.

Can the Transportation Minister ensure there won't be another ICBC hike for basic insurance this year?

[1050]

Hon. T. Stone: I want to thank the member for her question.

This government is committed to keeping rates as affordable as possible for British Columbia, particularly for families in British Columbia. With respect to ICBC, I think it's important to note that since 2008 basic rates at ICBC have only increased by 3 percent. In fact, as of 2012 there hadn't been any rate increases for about five years.

Now, in terms of the latest increases that the member is referring to, again, let's make sure we put all the facts out on the table. For 80 percent of the driving public in British Columbia, while optional rates are up 4.9 percent, basic rates are down 4 percent. That works out to an average increase for that 80 percent of the driving public of less than $1 per month.
[ Page 2928 ]

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington on a supplemental.

M. Elmore: The bottom line. British Columbians know the B.C. Liberal government takes hundreds of millions from ICBC every year, and B.C. drivers are paying more for their insurance. After last year's hike these Liberals are still looking for increases this year. The government's plan is to make life less and less affordable for British Columbians. That continues. On top of hydro, ferry and MSP hikes, British Columbian families are tapped.

Will the Minister of Transportation step in and tell ICBC that British Columbians can no longer afford any more rate hikes?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, first off, the hundreds of millions of dollars which the member speaks of represents a transfer from ICBC to government, which is critically needed to ensure that we're able to keep our record levels of investments in health care and education. Again, only the members opposite would think that a zero percent increase over five years, up to 2012, is not in the best interests of B.C. families, and only the members opposite would suggest that $1 a month is not affordable for B.C.'s families.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, in Committee A, Committee of Supply, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — THE CULTUS LAKE PARK
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

L. Throness: Yesterday I began my remarks on Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, just before the House adjourned. I began by describing the accountability problem at Cultus Lake, in which the people of Chilliwack elect most of the commissioners of the Cultus Lake Park Board, which means that the board doesn't have to be accountable to the people of Cultus Lake, the people it serves.

[1055]

Now, this does not mean that the board commissioners are bad people. In fact, they're very fine people. They're excellent people. They are simply are following the democratic incentives that are currently in place.

After describing the problem of accountability, I then went on to the problem of complexity, in which there is a web of intertwined legal issues that inhibit change, even after many years of study, resulting in frustration and finally stalemate at Cultus Lake.

When I was elected, I promised the people of Cultus Lake that I would focus on success, not to try and do the impossible but to make whatever small change we could make without disturbing the tangled legal issues that have tied up this file for decades. But despite the difficulty, despite the frustration, there was still a tremendous desire for change at Cultus Lake.

Gary and Susan Lister put together a petition in the by-election two years ago. Again after I was elected, they knocked on pretty well every door in Cultus Lake. They put together a petition with 926 names, and I want to give credit here to the Listers. That petition was the springboard for change.

It provided the evidence for me to come to my government and say: "Here's the evidence. Here are the signatures that show that I have a community united for change." I want to give credit where it's due, and I want to thank Gary and Susan Lister in particular for their passion for accountable government at Cultus Lake.

As if on purpose, to demonstrate that issue of accountability, after I presented that petition in this House last summer, a majority of commissioners at the Cultus Lake Park Board passed a resolution in opposition to the wording of the petition. Instead of championing the people of Cultus Lake, the majority of commissioners opposed what the people of Cultus Lake wanted. They felt more accountable to the people who elected them in Chilliwack.

Now, on my part, I felt that if the commissioners did not have the democratic incentive to champion what the people of Cultus Lake wanted, I as MLA certainly had that incentive. I had that mandate, so I began to work hard on their behalf, because I consider myself a public servant. My role, my job, is to get my constituents to where they want to go. I felt that their petition was very clear. It was a set of marching orders. It showed that the community was united in its desire for change.

I met with concerned residents of Cultus Lake. I answered a lot of correspondence that has been sent to various members throughout this House. I met with the chair of Cultus Lake Park Board, Sacha Peter, to tell him that I intended to pursue this issue of accountability. I went to Victoria specifically to meet with public servants in the ministry. I met with the minister. I met with the city of Chilliwack. I met with the regional district. I appealed to everyone to help me bring more accountability to the residents of Cultus Lake.

The result we have before us today: Bill 27 is legislation from a government that responds to the wishes of the people of B.C. I'm very proud to be part of a government that takes action on behalf of small communities
[ Page 2929 ]
in B.C. You don't have to be Vancouver. You don't have to be Surrey. You could be a community of 1,000 people and get attention from this government, and I'm very proud of that.

I want to thank the House Leader and I want to thank the minister and her staff for pulling out all the stops to bring forward this legislation on time so it could be passed prior to the fall municipal elections. You will see that it made it just under the wire. It's Bill 27 out of 27 bills that were introduced this session.

The ministry and my colleagues have been so accommodating and gracious. Given the feedback I have received in the last couple of weeks from the people of Cultus Lake, my constituents also appreciate it very much.

This is a very brief piece of legislation. There are just two simple changes that we're instituting, and I want to describe themfor you. The first change is to reduce the size of the board from seven to five people. This was one of two main requests from the petition for Cultus Lake, and it makes perfect sense.

When we compare the size of the board to communities of similar size in my riding, we find that their ruling bodies have five members. So it makes sense to have only five members for Cultus Lake. In addition, we're in the midst of a core review where we're looking for ways to streamline governments across B.C. and to shave down costs for taxpayers. This is an obvious way to do it. There's no particular reason for seven commissioners, but there is good reason to have five.

The second change we want to make, Mr. Speaker is to give Cultus Lake residents and leaseholders effective control over their own board. Right now they only elect two out of seven members, and five are elected by the good people of Chilliwack, which means that Chilliwack controls that board. By reducing the size of the board to five and increasing the number of those to be elected exclusively by the people of Cultus Lake from two to three, we will pass control over that board to where it belongs: to the people of Cultus Lake, who the board serves.

[1100]

Now, why would the government not allow all five commissioners to be elected by the people of Cultus Lake instead of just three? It's because I wanted to get the endorsement of Chilliwack city council for this plan. It was my suggestion, not the city of Chilliwack's suggestion, that two commissioners still be elected by the people of Chilliwack.

I proposed this because I felt that Chilliwack still holds legal title to the Cultus Lake Park as trustees. Even though they have no legal power over how the park operates, the city may still bear some legal liability over that property, so it's natural for them to maintain some kind of influence, some kind of representation on that board.

I'm happy to say that the Chilliwack city council, which has an intimate familiarity with this issue over many years, felt comfortable with this proposal. They endorsed the proposed changes. I want to thank city council and the mayor, Sharon Gaetz, for being very understanding in this issue. I want to point out to the people of Chilliwack that having two of five members from Chilliwack is still strong and significant representation on that board. The people of Chilliwack should have no worry that they will lose influence on that board. They will retain strong influence.

I want to talk about the future for a moment. I have received many complaints over the past year from people who live at Cultus Lake, complaints that their board is overstepping its legal authority and passing bylaws that it doesn't have the authority to pass, therefore putting all the people of Cultus Lake in a position of legal jeopardy. This is a problem that has also been underscored by the city of Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley regional district.

We know, however, that Cultus Lake is part of the Fraser Valley regional district and that the regional district has all of the legal tools in place to perform all of the functions that are necessary. I hope that a new and more accountable board will make use of those tools. I want the people of Cultus Lake to know that I stand ready as MLA to facilitate that use in whatever way I can, to act as a liaison between the regional district and Cultus Lake so that the community can grow and develop in an orderly and a secure way.

I want, at this point, to reach out to the commissioners of the Cultus Lake Park Board. I understand that there will be, on Wednesday, a motion before the board to endorse Bill 27, and I want to reach out to the commissioners. I appreciate their hard work.

In particular, I have enjoyed a cordial relationship with a number of commissioners as well as the current board chair, Sacha Peter. Sacha has been very gracious throughout this process, and I want to appeal to the board for the commissioners' cooperation, to vote for this resolution as we change, because I think we all share the goal of improving governance at Cultus Lake.

I also want to appeal to the Soowahlie First Nation. I visited Chief Brenda Wallace late last year, and I encouraged her to join the B.C. treaty process. Not only would a negotiated treaty be very beneficial for her people and her land, because all kinds of benefits flow from both the provincial and federal governments out of a treaty, but the issue of land tenure at Cultus Lake could also be folded into that larger treaty discussion.

The resolution of the land tenure issue would provide direction and security both for the Soowahlie and the people of Cultus Lake. In that regard, I want to assure the Soowahlie about what this legislation does not do. It does not jeopardize their interests in any way.

I explained earlier that the residents and leaseholders of Cultus Lake do not own their own land. They lease it from the board, and the land tenure issue is complicated by the need and the legal requirement to undertake First Nations consultation should anything affecting land ten-
[ Page 2930 ]
ure be raised. I'm happy to report to all concerned that nothing we are doing in this act affects land tenure in the least. Therefore, this legislation does not threaten First Nation interests.

This is just an internal change, a change that will bring more accountable, responsible and, I believe, better government to Cultus Lake. We would love to see this issue resolved in a global way by bringing the Soowahlie First Nation to the treaty table and resolving these issues on a permanent basis to everyone's benefit. I hold out hope this can happen. I would appeal to the Soowahlie once again to engage in the treaty process.

Finally, I want to appeal to the people of Cultus Lake to get involved in the political process in the upcoming election this fall. Now is their chance to persuade the people they want to come forward and stand for election and then to help the people of their choice to get elected. The more the merrier, Mr. Speaker. The more our citizens become involved in the democratic process, the healthier our communities will be.

In summary, Cultus Lake has grown to the point where it wants to make its own decisions. This is natural, and it is normal. Times have changed, and we need to change with them.

[1105]

This legislation is just a baby step on the long road that leads to even greater independence for the community of Cultus Lake, but even baby steps are important steps on that path. I am happy to help them move forward. I am eager to continue to work with the people of Cultus Lake and their board, with the city of Chilliwack and the regional district, with First Nations and others who live in the region as we continue to grow together in a spirit of cooperation. And to this spirit of harmony and cooperation, I dedicate myself today.

A. Weaver: While the member for Chilliwack-Hope is probably wondering what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is doing standing up to speak in favour of the Cultus Lake act, I will add that I had a number of constituents who e-mailed me specifically about this act because they have summer homes in Cultus Lake. They pleaded with me to support this act. I'd like to read one of the e-mails that I received from the constituents. It said as follows:

"We are two of your constituents who have a summer home at Cultus Lake. Currently the residents of Cultus Lake Park do not have a democratic election process. Residents can only vote for two of seven politicians who represent them. By you voting yes for this bill, it will make a considerable improvement in democracy and accountability for the Cultus Lake Park, thus improving the future sustainability for this wonderful area, which is enjoyed by thousands of B.C. residents every year."

Now, of course, as soon as an e-mail mentions the word "sustainability," my ears perk up, so I took some time to explore this bill further.

The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act takes an important step forward in the lead-up to the 2014 municipal elections to ensure that the residents of Cultus Lake are adequately represented in their government. The act would change the number and composition of representatives from the current structure of seven representatives, two of whom are Cultus Lake residents, to the new structure of five representatives, three of whom are Cultus Lake residents.

By increasing the representation of local residents, this bill will further empower those residents to sustainably manage a park that is enjoyed by so many British Columbians, including residents from the Oak Bay–Gordon Head riding here on southern Vancouver Island.

I, too, would like to thank the government and the member for Chilliwack-Hope for his work to bring and introduce this bill forward, and I very much look forward to supporting its adaptation at second and third readings and committee stage.

K. Corrigan: I, too, am going to rise and speak on The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act. I want to give some credit to the present member for Chilliwack-Hope for being an advocate, a bit of a champion for the changes.

What this bill does is it changes majority representation on the Cultus Lake Park Board to people who actually own property in the Cultus Lake area, as opposed to the previous makeup. The previous makeup was that five representatives from the city of Chilliwack, residents of Chilliwack, were on the board, and only two representatives from the Cultus Lake area. So really it does make sense.

I also want to give some credit to the former member for Chilliwack-Hope, Gwen O'Mahony, who in 2012 wrote to the then-minister calling for changes to the Cultus Lake Park Board and introduced a petition. I'd like to quote what she said in the House on March 14, 2013.

"I rise to present a petition entitled 'Democratic Election Process' for the residents of Cultus Lake, supported by the Cultus Lake Community Association and signed by 281 of the roughly 400 year-round residents of Cultus Lake. From the petition in regard to the Cultus Lake Park board: 'The board needs to be elected by the people they govern, like every other local government in British Columbia — a fundamental principle of our democracy.'"

I note that this quest for accountability and local representation goes back over a decade. I had some contact with it many years ago in another life, another job that I was involved in. I was looking back, because I remember this from many years ago, the quest to have more local representation. Back as far as 2002 the park board and the city agreed to conduct a study of long-term governance, land tenure and infrastructure financing issues.

[1110]

In 2003 there was an 11-member committee appointed to look at the options for the possible reorganization of the Cultus Lake Park community, and that was announced by then-mayor Clint Haynes and park board
[ Page 2931 ]
chair Grant Sanborn. That was announced back in 2003.

One of the things that I think has really upset the people who live in the Cultus Lake area, the actual residents of Cultus Lake, is that they felt there was no accountability. I've heard that in a couple of the speeches — that there is a lack of accountability.

I think one of the things that really irked people, the people that lived there, was the fact that the chair for many years of the Cultus Lake Park Board was Grant Sanborn, and Grant Sanborn was a Chilliwack representative as opposed to a representative from Cultus Lake.

It became particularly upsetting to the people, I believe, of Cultus Lake — I recall some of the media at the time — when rumours started to go around that there was RCMP investigation of Grant Sanborn to do with developments that had happened in Chilliwack. He was the chair of the board at the time, and I think people found that quite galling that he would be the chair of the park board and there would be issues surrounding his land development.

In fact, at the end of the day, Grant Sanborn, who had been the chair of the Cultus Lake Park Board for many years…. I think eight or nine years through a number of elections. Maybe not quite that long. But he ended up having to leave the park board.

The final outcome of that was that in 2012…. I'm quoting from a media story that was from 2012: "Former city of Chilliwack director of development Grant Sanborn was in court for a disposition hearing at which he pleaded guilty to violations of the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Land Title Act." Essentially, what had happened…. He pleaded guilty, and he got a six-month suspended sentence as a result of a plea deal — and other community service, and he had to make some donations.

At the time, the special prosecutor read the agreed statement of fact in court and said that he would plead not guilty to two of the three criminal breach of trust charges and guilty to the regulatory offences.

The first charge was an allegation that in 1997, as approving officer, Sanborn acted "for a purpose other than the public good" when he approved subdivisions, consolidation of properties and boundary adjustments for properties that became the Rosebank subdivision. The properties were owned and developed by former mayor and Chilliwack MLA John Les.

So the controversy around Mr. Sanborn, the allegations and then convictions, did not sit well for the people of Cultus Lake, the many residents who were upstanding citizens and who felt that there was no accountability — and the fact this person who had ended up being convicted was the person who chaired their community board, their park board. They had essentially no control.

I think that was a sad moment in the history of Chilliwack. That was a deal, among other deals, where there was certainly a culture of entitlement. I think the police described it that way. Loose rules around city hall at the time that John Les was the mayor and Grant Sanborn was approving officer.

I think that this is a move in the right direction. Maybe a bit of a cleansing of what was seen as a bit of a sorry history with the governance of Cultus Lake Park Board. I think it's an improvement. The people who actually live in Cultus Lake will have an opportunity to control their own community and the growth of their community.

My understanding is there are still concerns because of the unique form of government that was set out in the 1932 provincial statute. The city continues, I believe, to have tenure over the park but can't sell any of the land, so it's difficult in terms of who owns and who actually has control and how the money can be raised for municipal services.

I'm not sure that has been addressed with this bill. My understanding is that it has not. Nevertheless, at least having the ability to have the majority of seats on that board will allow the people of Cultus Lake to set their own future to some degree.

With that, I would like to support the bill and will take my place.

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

[1115]

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to thank the members for their comments today. I'm looking forward to the committee phase of Bill 27.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. T. Stone: I move that Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014, be now read a second time.

Last year the Mayors Council released a governance review that said that Metro Vancouver has a world-class transportation system and that the funding sources available to fund those services are enviable. The report said that there is more right than wrong with TransLink, but the report also identified potential improvements to TransLink's governance.
[ Page 2932 ]

This bill aims to improve the governance of TransLink by giving the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation more input into and authority over TransLink's strategies and plans. The amendments set out in this bill directly address governance concerns raised by the Mayors Council and respond to their call for greater authority over transit and transportation decisions in Metro Vancouver.

The amendments accomplished within this bill achieve the following four objectives.

(1) They increase the powers of locally elected officials through the Mayors Council to provide input into and approve regional transportation strategies and plans, which largely are funded from local taxation sources.

(2) They transfer responsibilities from the regional transportation commissioner to the Mayors Council, consistent with the council's enhanced governance role.

(3) They provide the Mayors Council with additional resources to act on its new responsibilities, including an increased budget, requirements for TransLink to provide resources as the Mayors Council requires to perform its new functions and removing a ten-meeting-per-year cap on remuneration for members of the Mayors Council.

(4) These amendments improve communications between government, the Mayors Council and TransLink.

In 2013 the Mayors Council commissioned a TransLink governance review, which reported that in an optimal governance system, policy-level strategic decision-making on policies, plans, funds and relationships to broader plans and public purposes should be the responsibility of elected representatives. The same report also stated that translation of policy decisions into operational plans and programs should be the responsibility of persons and or bodies with specific operational expertise in management, administration, service provision and financial control. This bill amends TransLink's legislation consistent with the findings of the Mayors Council's review.

TransLink currently prepares 30-year strategic plans every five years, which are then approved by TransLink's board and provided to the Mayors Council, but only for information. This bill will require TransLink to seek the input and the approval of the Mayors Council before the long-term strategies come into effect. The Mayors Council will indeed have authority over the 30-year strategic plan.

In addition, TransLink currently prepares annual base plans, which describe what it will do with existing funding sources and borrowing. These are currently provided, again, to the Mayors Council only for information. Currently TransLink only needs approval from the Mayors Council for supplemental plans that propose service expansions or investments using increased or new funding or borrowing.

In March 2012 the Mayors Council requested to be empowered to approve both TransLink's base and supplemental plans. Now, government has responded by combining base and supplemental plans into a new fully funded ten-year investment plan that must describe what services and investments TransLink proposes to provide and how they will be funded using both existing and any proposed increased or new services.

[1120]

The Mayors Council will have authority over the fully funded ten-year investment plans, which the Mayors Council will be able to change at any time, but no less than every three years. This bill will require TransLink to seek the input and the approval of the Mayors Council before these plans come into effect.

Now, these approved ten-year investment plans will set the funding parameters and provide direction to TransLink's board and management who will then translate the plans into operational programs and budgets.

The regional transportation commissioner currently reviews and reports on TransLink's plans, approves any increases in short-term fares, approves disposal of major facilities and assets, and approves changes to customer satisfaction policies and complaints processes. Consistent with its increased responsibilities, the Mayors Council will now assume the commissioner's roles.

Additionally, the Mayors Council will also have the ability to review and approve new compensation plans, not just for TransLink's board but indeed for TransLink's executive.

The Mayors Council has expressed concerns about lack of staff and limited resources. To help the Mayors Council fulfil the additional responsibilities and accountabilities set out in this bill, legislation will also provide additional resources, including an increase in the budget provided by TransLink, using savings from elimination of the commissioner's position; an explicit requirement for TransLink to provide staff, consultants and contractors as necessary for the Mayors Council to fulfil its duties; and last but not least, the removal of a cap that prevents members of the Mayors Council from being remunerated for more than ten meetings per year.

To facilitate communications between government and TransLink's board, this bill also provides for the appointment of two directors by the minister responsible. The number of appointed directors will be reduced by two at the expiry of their terms at the end of 2014 to maintain the size of the board at its current 11.

The amendments set out in Bill 22 will improve TransLink governance, enable the Mayors Council to establish long-term policy direction for regional transportation and establish priorities through ten-year investment plans. The bill will also make the Mayors Council accountable to ensure that investment plans are fully funded.

This bill, combined with companion legislation on referenda for regional transportation funding, will provide the Mayors Council with tools it can use to facilitate af-
[ Page 2933 ]
fordable expansion of the regional transportation system to meet the region's long-term needs.

Now, government said that it would improve TransLink governance by transferring significant responsibilities from the current TransLink board to the Mayors Council, along with the related accountabilities. I am very proud that government is following through on this commitment.

I now will sit down, and I look forward to other members of this House weighing in on the merits of this legislation.

G. Heyman: It's been a long wait for this legislation. It's been a wait since this minister was appointed and first started talking, without a lot of specifics, about a commitment to meet with the Mayors Council and make some changes to governance of TransLink. But it's been an even longer wait; it's been a wait since the very ill-advised changes to governance structure that were introduced by one of many predecessors of this minister, former Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, back in 2007.

While there is much that appears to be a significant move forward in this bill, it is interesting to note that the bill is framed carefully, I think, in a way to not give the appearance of repudiating the changes that were introduced by former Minister Falcon.

I look forward to a technical briefing on both this bill and Bill 23, which I'm to receive at a later time, as well as committee stage to dig into some of the details contained in this legislation. Not all of it is completely clear. I think it will be important for all of us in this House, but perhaps more importantly the mayors, to understand exactly how this effectively hybrid structure is going to work.

I think before I talk some more about this bill, it's pretty important to look back in the history a little bit and understand how we got to the place we are now and why these changes are even necessary, because quite frankly, the current board structure of TransLink appears to defy many of the fundamental principles of good governance structures and the separation of good governance structures and political accountability from management and operational decision-making.

[1125]

If we go back to 2007, many of us will recall that there was quite a tension and a push and pull between the board of TransLink — the elected representatives who were the board of TransLink — and the provincial government and the Transportation Minister of the day, Kevin Falcon. The province was attempting to superimpose its own priority for a rapid transit line over what the elected representatives of the region thought was important — not only its own priority but the form of implementing the Canada Line.

The minister became extremely frustrated. That frustration was obvious in news reports. It was obvious in interviews. It was obvious in some fairly intemperate remarks that he made about the functioning of the board at the time. He used phrases like the board "plagued with a circus atmosphere." Proceedings of the board were described as a fiasco, which I guess is a term one might use to describe a decision that didn't exactly go your way when the board exercised its responsibility and its right to say no to a project, initially, that the minister dearly wanted to see proceed.

I will simply say that if one is looking to establish a collegial relationship, a productive relationship, a relationship that gets things done for the people of Metro Vancouver, that improves transit in Metro Vancouver in a way that the residents of Metro Vancouver and people who have a deep interest in the proper functioning of the economy, not just of Metro Vancouver but of the province — all of which depends on the relief of congestion, which we all know must be supported by a good transportation system….

If in fact the minister of the day actually wanted to establish a productive relationship with the mayors, the elective representatives on the board of TransLink, he would have perhaps chosen to be less confrontational, less prone to phrases like "fiasco" and "circus atmosphere," less judgemental and condemning and a little more inclined to sit down and have a decent discussion with those elected representatives.

Ultimately, despite the fact that the TransLink board approved the Canada Line, which was in fact what Minister Falcon wanted, Minister Falcon went ahead and introduced, first, a study to recommend an appropriate governance structure and then imposed a new governance structure that took away elected accountability, that took away the connection of political responsibility for decisions respecting TransLink's overall policy and strategic planning going forward and gave it to a non-elected board. It gave it to an appointed board that met primarily in secret.

It reduced the elected representatives of the board, the elected representatives of the Metro Vancouver region, who were responsible for ensuring that transit planning in the region aligned closely with land development plans, with economic development plans in the region, and that there was a synchronicity between transit planning and livability planning.

It gave that decision-making power to a group of "management professionals" who didn't have either accountability to the people of the region or a sense of responsibility to ensure that the business and strategic-planning decisions of TransLink aligned with the livability decisions, the political decisions, the regional planning decisions, the development decisions and the wishes and hopes of the people of the region.

The minister of day, Kevin Falcon, imposed a new governance structure, essentially, to the outside observer, because the TransLink board, made up of other elected representatives — local and regional elected represent-
[ Page 2934 ]
atives — simply disagreed with him on issues that he wanted to see go forward and on which they exercised their important duty to review, to consider carefully and to offer other alternatives.

[1130]

It's clear that approval from the TransLink board for that minister's priority project, the Canada Line, trumped any sense of good governance, trumped any sense of political accountability, trumped any sense of what a good, internationally recognized, politically accountable, transparent and democratic governance structure should look like. Instead, he simply accused the then TransLink directors of having parochial attitudes, bringing that to their decision-making.

That, frankly, was a kind of stunning accusation from a minister who never exercised his right in the latter days of the board to appoint the three provincial representatives, to which the government was entitled, to the board, in order to, if there was some question of narrowness of decision-making, bring a different perspective.

It is not useful to the people of Metro Vancouver, it is not useful to the provincial government, and it is not useful to transit planning to take this attitude to elected regional decision-makers who have a responsibility to oversee the alignment of strategic planning for transit with economic development, with livability plans, with spatial development, with regional planning in general and with the feedback they get from the people they are elected to represent.

That is why, of course, it is good to see some changes to this governance structure. It remains to be seen if these changes are enough, but it is good to see this government finally acknowledge that the changes that were brought in by Minister Falcon did not work and that, in fact, they get in the way of accountability. They get in the way of alignment of transit planning with the important development and economic development plans of the region as well as the wishes of the people who live there.

The provincial government may think that it knows best what the people of Metro Vancouver want, but the people of Metro Vancouver specifically elect local government officials and saw them, prior to being appointed to the board of TransLink, to actually represent their best interests and to ensure that they were focused, without distraction, on the alignment of transit planning and with the alignment of all development in the region to ensure that they go forward together.

To illustrate this point. I remember being at a TransLink consultation for elected officials last summer. The mayor of Coquitlam spoke at that meeting. He spoke about the fact that his municipality had planned a couple of subdivisions on the assumption that transit was going to be implemented at the same time that the subdivision was built. They were going to, in effect, encourage a new growth area for housing in his municipality that would be less dependent on the car and more dependent on transit.

They were looking to young people to move in and make those kinds of decisions that they could live with driving a lot less. To that end, in fact, there were far fewer parking spaces than one would normally find — pads next to these accommodations. But because the TransLink board wasn't on the same page — in fact, didn't even have the same priorities — the necessary plans to go forward and raise the funding necessary to implement the new and added bus services that would service this area never took place.

Now, there's another reason for that, and we will get into that on the debate of Bill 23. That is the lack of certainty around funding that TransLink has had to live with for several years while waiting for some agreement with the provincial government to exercise new levers of fundraising ability. But nonetheless, the TransLink board oversaw a process where a development was built and the needed transit was not supplied to that development.

[1135]

The end result was that people who moved there thinking they would be able to raise their families there and rely, for the most part, on public transit — to get to work, to get to shopping, to take their kids places; and that it would be efficient, accessible, available and that they could exercise a less car-dependent lifestyle — began to put concrete pads in for a second car so that both members of the family could get to where they had to go. Transit simply was not available to get them to where they had to go.

That is what happens when we don't see an alignment between the accountably elected people of a region and the planning for transit to service that region.

As a result of this, in part, the Mayors Council, after many years of frustration since 2007, commissioned a governance review. The governance review was commissioned in December 2012 with a consulting company, Acuere, and that review happened through 2013.

The purpose and scope of the review. This is in the TransLink Governance Review report from the consultants. In their introduction they say that the purpose, as stated by the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation, was to do a review to identify "global best practice" with respect to the purpose and the functional role of transit agencies and the best governance structure — i.e., elected versus professional versus hybrid boards and the nature of representation.

To do that, the reasons and purpose of the structure had to be reviewed, and the impacts of the structure, both its successes and failures, had to be reviewed.

The consultants go on to say: "The report presents and evaluates examples of governance structures and their potential applicability for TransLink, based on the evaluation."

The research included a literature review, a review of TransLink's governance history, a review of governance practices from other jurisdictions, as well as consultation
[ Page 2935 ]
with key people associated with TransLink.

As stipulated in the request for proposal, the report was prepared for discussion purposes.

One of the first things the consultants did was a literature review and international scan to reveal the following optimal "division of labour" — division of labour, in their report, is in quotes — between the various elements of a governance system. They define these as follows. I'm only going to mention two of them, because I think they're the only two that are particularly relevant. But I will touch briefly on the third.

The first level is policy-level strategic decision-making. In reviewing international best practices literature and how these various structures work around the world, as well as the people who were impacted and affected by the TransLink governance system, they focused on policy-level strategic decision-making with respect to plans, funding, relationships to broader plans — i.e., as I mentioned, economic development plans, regional development plans, housing, etc., and public purposes.

It clearly states that this kind of policy-level strategic decision-making is the responsibility of elected representatives, that it functions best when it's the responsibility of elected representatives.

That was the case prior to 2007. Until then, Minister Kevin Falcon effectively, in a snit, changed it and decided the only political accountability the TransLink board really needed was to him and through him. But that doesn't work. It's been shown not to work.

In fact, the changes that are introduced in this bill demonstrate that after a review of some seven years, it's clear that it doesn't work. It's not only frustrating to the mayors. It's not only frustrating to other elected officials within the Lower Mainland and the Metro Vancouver region. It's not only a frustration to the many residents of the region who depend on transit, who want affordable, accessible, available transit. They don't understand why — after years of talking about getting the funding necessary to at least keep services up with the growth in population as well as plan for the future with new rapid transit infrastructure investment and development — all of this is taking so long.

One of the reasons they can't hold people accountable is there are a bunch of appointed, non-political representatives who sit in a cloistered, locked room, in private, making decisions. That is a direct result of the changes that were introduced by Minister Falcon in 2007.

[1140]

Clearly, best practices internationally state…. Anybody who's gone to any sort of course or discussion on the principles of governance and the role of boards of directors — as I have and as I'm sure the minister has — are clear. It's important to separate the policy-making role of governors and governance from the operational decision-making of management. That is clearly where the former minister went off the rails and not….

He didn't mix the two. He simply replaced one with the other and reduced the locally elected representatives of the people of Metro Vancouver to, largely, a role of symbolic approval of decisions to which they had no input — decisions which were of vital interest to the people who elected them, the people they represent, and decisions which they should have been making and which, we hope, this bill will assure they make in the future, but there are a couple of holes in the bill, and I will get to those momentarily.

The second division of labour that was pointed out by the consultants who did the review for the Mayors Council was that management-level translation of policy decisions into operational plans and programs is "the responsibility of persons and/or bodies skilled in management, administration, service provision and financial control, including the selection of service delivery models and structures."

This is where I would put forward my view that the former minister simply got it wrong. The former minister thought that all the skill sets that are required for good management and for implementation of policy decisions were probably the skill sets that were needed to make the policy decisions in the first place.

Anyone who has been a student of governance understands that is simply not the case. It's certainly not accountable, it's certainly not transparent, and it doesn't allow policy-making to be aligned with a much broader range of considerations than effective implementation of already-created plans. It needs to consider alignment of those plans with all the other plans and concerns that intersect with that.

I'm sure that many members opposite as well as many members on this side of the House who have had experience with municipal and local government understand that, because that is a level of government that is in fact very close — very, very close, indeed — to the concerns of the people who elect them.

That is not to say that the people who make policy decisions will not benefit in those decisions from a number of people who are on the board who can bring their expertise, who can answer questions about how this might be accomplished or translated or implemented in an operational sense — people with accounting background, people with legal background, people with transit administration background and people, in fact, with a background in the concerns of the provincial government, which is a partner, in fact, in funding infrastructure expansion and in funding aspects of transit.

If that is the case, why did the then Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon simply decline to send the provincial representatives who could be appointed to the board to participate in those discussions?

There are two ways this can happen. You can have a small number of professionals on a board to advise the board, to be part of it but not to be in a majority, not to
[ Page 2936 ]
take over the decision-making responsibility of elected officials, or you can simply have an advisory body, as has been my experience on boards on which I've sat, whether it's management or outside experts who come in to answer questions, to give opinions and to prepare, on request, policy analysis and recommendations — not, frankly, unlike the way that cabinet works.

That is not what that minister chose to do. That minister chose to blow up the democratically accountable and transparent governance system of TransLink and effectively replace it with management-level business people on recommendations from groups like accountants and boards of trade and people who have no need to be accountable to voters because they're not elected by voters. I don't mean to impugn their motives, but they simply don't have the incentive to exercise the kind of accountability that elected politicians do.

[1145]

The third level was the implementation level of decisions, which are the responsibility of staff — in this case, of TransLink — or contractors hired and paid for the purpose. I would say it's not surprising to me that the consultants came up with this analysis of what constitutes good governance, what constitutes good management and what constitutes good implementation on the ground, because it's a commonly accepted model around the world. It's a commonly accepted model throughout Canada. It's a commonly accepted model in British Columbia. It has been tested. It works. It works in other jurisdictions. It leads to good decision-making, and it was uprooted, replaced and destroyed by a former Transportation Minister who simply, for want of a better word, had a hissy fit.

The consulting team went on to say that the most pressing need that it saw in terms of TransLink governance was to rectify the accountability gap. I will acknowledge that some steps toward that appear to be taken in this bill. I look forward to more discussion in committee stage to ensure that I fully understand what certain sections of the bill mean in practice and what they're intended to mean and if, in fact, they're worded in the best way.

I will say that steps have been taken — not all of the steps that I think should be taken, but steps have been taken. They needed to be taken, because the accountability gap was simply destroyed. The report said that rectifying the accountability gap should include the ability to develop productive relationships with those responsible for spatial planning and economic development. Those, of course, are the locally elected officials in Metro Vancouver.

The spatial plan and development plan is known as the livable region strategic plan. It is the official land use plan of Metro Vancouver, and there has been a significant disconnect between that plan and the activities of TransLink as well as the lack of necessary funding for TransLink to keep up with growth, demonstrated since the board was turfed in 2007. The connection between the livability plan of the region and transit planning has simply not been there in any real way, and there's been no way to hold the board accountable for that in a meaningful way, although I would say the mayors have certainly tried.

The report goes on to say that successful governance structures must have the ability to take a regional perspective and have strong accountability links to the people served. I think, frankly, that should be obvious.

Some of the concluding observations of the consultants who did the accountability review…. I've always been a bit amused at this wording. They made two observations about the history of the change in TransLink governance. I can only hope that one of the reasons the minister is introducing this bill to this House for debate is because the minister has come to believe that these concluding observations from the consultants produced for the Mayors Council, at the initiative of the Mayors Council — and I commend them for that — were worth heeding.

He said: "The governance arrangements have been quite volatile, with significant changes at relatively frequent intervals." That's not a good thing for stability. That's not a good thing for planning. It's not a good thing for accountability. It's not a good thing for ensuring that the needs of both people and the economy for congestion reduction through the implementation of sound transit plans that are aligned with the regional plan actually take place.

He went on to say that the province has exercised a dominant interest, feeling free to impose its priorities on the region and reluctant to provide a role in transit for local government institutions it did not directly or indirectly control. That is clearly not a good thing. It is not a good thing in any way.

[1150]

That is why the consultants were led to also say to the mayors in their report, and to the people of B.C. and the people of Metro Vancouver in the report, which I'm quoting from memory here, that the governance structure of TransLink, the governance structure introduced in 2007 by then Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, was unique — unique, but not in a good way.

That, itself, is perhaps one of the most condemning comments I have heard used to describe a governance initiative.

We, therefore, are where we are today. We have seen considerable tension between mayors of the Metro Vancouver region and this provincial government about funding, about the ability to make decisions, to be anything more than a rubber stamp on plans that were produced in a room far away from them and over which they had no control.

Again, as we get to committee stage, I will need to question some sections of the bill to see if they mean what they appear to mean and if control is going back to
[ Page 2937 ]
where it should be: democratically elected officials of the region who can ensure that those who are accountable to the people they serve for transit are actually in an appropriate planning and decision-making position, to ensure that congestion is relieved, that transit is accessible, that it's affordable, that it's adequate and that that serves not just people who use public transit but those people who are forced to drive on highways which will be far less prone to congestion as well as to the pollution that driving produces because more people are able to take transit because it works for them. It needs to work for people.

It's not just the people who must drive who will benefit from this. It is also the economy. Estimates have said that the cost to the economy of the whole of British Columbia, because Vancouver is a port city…. There are docks in Surrey-Fraser as well. The region is a port, and the longer it takes for goods to get to port, the more it costs all areas of British Columbia that depend on getting their export goods, products and resources to market.

It's time to move away from the status that we've had for far too many years, a status that saw a board of directors that was less accountable, that didn't have the appropriate….

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

G. Heyman: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

G. Heyman: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I apologize. I thought that would be apparent.

The board of directors is less accountable and has less political oversight. They have no obvious motivation. This was also pointed out to the elected officials of the region in the study that they commissioned. There's no obvious motivation to seriously consider external effects such as the environmental costs of transportation choices, the impacts on transportation demand beyond revenue production and how transportation investments can influence land use.

There was, as I said, a lack of coordination between regional transportation and regional land use. It's desirable to have a consistent approach to regional land use and transportation decision-making. That can only happen when locally elected officials who are accountable, who are responsible for ensuring that transit decision-making aligns with other forms of regional living and economic development, do it in an open and transparent way.

There is and always has been ample business and planning expertise on TransLink's staff to advise the board. That has never been in question. That will continue to be the case, and it will continue to be the case, one hopes, through the new structure, although it is unclear, in some ways…. We'll have to explore this somewhat in committee stage, because in effect, what the minister is doing is creating a bit of a hybrid model.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We're not entirely returning to a situation where the board of TransLink is, in fact, a governance board and locally elected officials as opposed to a board of professionals who might better be seen as advisers or working in an advisory capacity.

[1155]

What we are seeing is more powers from the board being transferred to the Mayors Council — and this is something I think we have to consider seriously — effectively creating not one board but two boards. We have to ensure that there is no confusion inherent in that kind of dual structure.

I would like to say in my closing remarks — I know, hon. Speaker, we are getting pretty close to the moment when you may want me to move adjournment — that the minister has outlined a number of things that have been introduced in this bill. The minister has told us that the current three-year base plan and seven-year outlook, the base and supplemental plans which are currently prepared and approved by the board, will be replaced by the ten-year investment plan, which is approved by the Mayors Council.

He's also said that approval of the 30-year regional transportation strategy is transferred to the Mayors Council from the board, that board and executive compensation is transferred to the Mayors Council, that the responsibilities of the TransLink commissioner are transferred to the Mayors Council, and the TransLink commissioner's office is abolished and the budget moved to the Mayors Council. Let me simply say that these are not all of the functions of the board, and there's one significant disconnect.

Rather than rush my remarks, I would, noting the hour, move adjournment and reserve my right as designated speaker to complete my remarks when the House reconvenes after the break.

G. Heyman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
[ Page 2938 ]

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $101,243,000 (continued).

S. Chandra Herbert: We closed off yesterday's session with questions about jumping slugs. We weren't talking about MLAs or cabinet ministers but about a rare species. If we could get an answer to that question, then my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands has a question or two. Then we'll get into the full meat of the issue. I don't quite have a slug joke to throw in there.

The question, I believe, was regarding what's being done to make sure this rare species of slug is still allowed to be a species of slug in this beautiful province of ours. What is the status of and what's being done to preserve this rare creature, which I'm told by the minister jumps so it evades a predator snail of some kind?

[1105]

Hon. M. Polak: There are two kinds of jumping slugs: the warty jumping slug and the dromedary jumping slug. It is apparently the dromedary jumping slug that is the most…. I guess "threatened" would be the right term. In fact, in 2003 the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which is the third-party federal listing body, listed the dromedary jumping slug as a threatened species. As a result, in 2008 the provincial government put forward a provincial recovery strategy for the dromedary jumping slug, and we are currently in the process of developing the action plans around it.

I should say, and I'm reminded by staff that this will likely come up with respect to a number of different species, that one of the things we do is prioritize recovery strategies and efforts based on the range represented. For example, for a species like the jumping slug, both warty and dromedary, the area that they are found in British Columbia is certainly the northern edge of their regular habitat, whereas we would take a higher priority for a species where we're dealing with their central range. So we prioritize our activities in that way, and I imagine that will come up as we talk about some other species.

G. Holman: Just a quick question before the critic gets into the details. I had a question about the marine conservation area for the southern Strait of Georgia. As the minister knows, I'm sure, a feasibility study area has been identified. This process has been going on for almost a decade, and I wondered if the minister could explain her understanding of the status of that proposal.

I understand that there's a socioeconomic study being undertaken to look at the socioeconomic implications of establishing a marine conservation area and that there's still some work to do in terms of First Nations consultation. I wonder if the minister could just briefly explain the status as she understands it of the proposal and the status of a couple of the specific things I mentioned — the socioeconomic study and the First Nations consultation.

And, I guess, a final question, which is perhaps the most important. It's my understanding that the provincial government does support the establishment of an MCA in principle. My predecessor in Saanich North and the Islands was a strong proponent, as am I, and I would like if the minister could affirm that the provincial government still supports the establishment of an MCA in the southern Strait of Georgia in principle.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, in principle we support the establishment of it. We have been working with the federal government, who are the lead, of course, with respect to the various studies and consultations. It was hoped initially that the feasibility study could be completed by the fall of 2013, but in terms of First Nations consultation, it became clear that there was additional time needed to conduct further consultations with both First Nations and some other stakeholders. They will continue to do that, and the project team is hopeful that the feasibility study can be concluded by the fall of 2015.

[1110]

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that. If there are consultation events happening in the Saanich Peninsula area, I would ask the minister to let me know. I'd like to participate, play a constructive role, if I can. In a former life I worked on a number of LRMPs throughout the province. I'm pretty familiar with the notion of land use planning and trying to get an understanding of the economic, social and environmental implications of that. So I would ask the minister and her colleague at Forests and Natural Resource Operations to let me know if there are things happening in the peninsula. I'd like to participate in any constructive way that I could.

Just specifically on the socioeconomic study: is that underway? Is there a completion? Is that going to be made public?

Sorry for throwing in other questions, but what exactly is your role versus FLNRO's role in this MCA process? Are you working together? Who takes the lead on that?
[ Page 2939 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Maybe the last part first. We are the lead in terms of this particular endeavour for government. We co-chair with Parks Canada a steering committee on which Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations participates.

With respect to the other studies, the feasibility study actually involves a number of other technical studies, including conservation analysis, the socioeconomic baseline study, a mineral potential analysis and a hydrocarbon resource study. All of those will be released when the feasibility study overall is complete, and those will be released at the same time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Conservation officers are very often the public face of the Ministry of Environment. Certainly, there has been concern that their responsibilities have gone up, understanding that they've had added responsibilities in dealing with the interface between farms and wild animals — certainly a responsibility there. The minister's own briefing binder suggested that additional legislative responsibility without an increase in capacity in the conservation officer service could be a real challenge.

Can the minister share with us how the conservation officer can deal with the large increase in responsibility with the same resources they've had for years?

[1115]

Hon. M. Polak: A number of things have changed about the way conservation officers work, as a result of a changing responsibility level and changing circumstances on the land base. As a result, we have also, in the conservation officer service, made some adjustments to the way in which they work.

One of the key changes has been the move toward greater mobilization. Gone are the days when the conservation officer is in their office. Instead, their truck has literally become their office. In particular, with the advent of things like rugged laptops and the deployment of devices that all of us now take for granted, like iPhones and other things, it reduces significantly the amount of time that the officer would have had to spend in past years on paperwork and office administration type of activities — and also, better contact generally.

We've also moved to a more integrated approach in terms of compliance and enforcement. Building on an existing reciprocal relationship that we have with the federal government and their enforcement members, we also now in our government have better integrated across the Peace.

I'll give you a sense of what that means in terms of numbers. If you take our natural resource compliance and enforcement agencies — and there are various ones — you will find there are 485 full- and part-time officers. That's made up by conservation officers, of which there are 148 sworn officers; B.C. Parks, 164; FLNRO, 173. And then there are also contributions made by the Ministry of Energy and Mines, which has 40 investigators, and the Oil and Gas Commission, with 19 investigators.

That collaborative work has also been a significant change in the way we do business around compliance and enforcement and has helped to enhance the capacity that the conservation officers have, in terms of the work they do.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly one of the things that conservation officers do — and I would imagine it's not something that they are excited about — is dealing with bears, and dealing with bears in communities. Certainly, that's where the issue of being bear-aware…. Making sure that communities don't leave garbage out, and campers don't and things like that, we make sure that bears know where their territory is and that humans don't invite them into their homes through not being bear-aware.

I'm just curious if I can get an update for funding for Bear Aware. It's gone up; it's gone down. It's sometimes there; it's sometimes not. It comes from one pocket or another. Certainly, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has expressed real concern that there's not funding certainty. Particularly, small rural governments have a challenge getting that funding because it seems to change, the criteria.

Can the ministry provide us with an update on what amount of money is available currently? Will there be steady funding going on forward over the next three years of this budget?

[1120]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm happy to inform the member that we certainly have found the program very valuable. We continue to support and embrace it. That means they will be seeing an increase of $50,000 each year over the next two years, so for a total of $275,000 each of the next two years.

S. Chandra Herbert: In terms of invasive species, obviously a huge threat to our agricultural areas, our parks and many other things, I understand there is a specialized conservation officer service response team to respond to controlled alien species.

What progress has the ministry made in terms of knocking down the numbers of invasives? Are we seeing the problem get worse? Are we seeing it get better? What kind of metrics does the government have to respond to this issue?

Hon. M. Polak: You learn so many new things in these Ministry of Environment estimates.

I think what the member is actually speaking about is not invasive species but what we called controlled alien species, and I'll give you my short understanding of what that means. Controlled alien species are those species
[ Page 2940 ]
that one is prohibited from possessing or selling, right? There is a list of those, and on occasion we add to them. In 2012 we added a number.

We are currently working with the federal government, because we want to also be able to prohibit the importation. Of course, that's federal jurisdiction, so we are working together with them to develop that opportunity as well — to be able to not just prohibit the sale and possession but also prohibit the importation. Hopefully, that was the right area.

[1125]

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, the service plan comment around addressing invasive species and then shifting over to controlled alien species confused me a little bit, but I think they're both valid questions. Certainly, maybe I'll try again on the invasive side of the question, not the controlled alien species side, although I would request, if it's possible, for the minister to be able to share a list of the controlled alien species that the government is looking to add to the list.

In terms of invasive species, whether it's hogweed, English ivy or some species even harder to deal with, what are we looking at in terms of our success rate? I know the Invasive Species Council has argued that we need funding in the range from $4 million to $6 million to be doubled to have an effective program.

Gail Wallin, addressing the Finance Committee, made that suggestion. The Finance Committee recommended that the government allocate funding for the proactive prevention and management of invasive species. How are we doing? What analysis has the government done to see if we're actually beating back the tide of invasive species that are crowding out our native species? Where are we at with that?

[1130]

Hon. M. Polak: Sorry to take so long with that. I was trying to distil down a very large list of information, and that's going to form part of my answer.

Firstly, the member asked if we could provide a list of the controlled alien species. We can do that. I won't subject everyone to reading it here, because it's well over 1,000 items long. I'm sure members are pleased to hear that.

In terms of invasives and how they are handled, the Ministry of Environment's role is that we set the policy. Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations operationalizes that, albeit when it's in parks, then it's the Ministry of Environment's responsibility. And, of course, as we've discussed, we have the responsibility for controlled alien species.

Now, I don't want that to give the impression that we work separately. The member will no doubt be aware of the issue of the zebra and quagga mussels, a good example of how the different agencies work together. The border guards alert the Ministry of Environment. We talk to our COs. Again, it's an integrated approach with respect to who's available and who responds.

It's certainly cross-ministry, which leads me to some of the work that is ongoing in the field of invasive species. We have on the government side the Inter-Ministry Invasive Species Working Group. That is where much of the coordination for the plans in response to invasive species takes place. We, of course, work with the Invasive Species Council, which involves local governments and other aspects of the community — community groups, etc.

I'll give you just sort of bit of a flavour. They do everything from the "Clean, drain, dry" program…. There is a creative goat eating. Actually, probably goat grazing. It's not that we eat the goats. We creatively have the goats eat in places where there are invasive plants. There are plans around grey squirrels, fire ants.

I say that because I think this might be a question where it would be more productive for the member if we committed to providing some additional information. It's just so broad that to try and talk specifically about all the different species would be impossible. To give the member a direct and accurate answer with respect to progress, it's pretty specific per species that we're talking about. I wouldn't want to mislead the member on a global scale when there may be specific items that he wishes to talk about.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, you know, I think the Invasive Species Council has argued that the government funding provided has not allowed them to have an effective program. But I think what would be helpful…. It doesn't have to happen here. I can understand there are many different kinds of invasive species, and while we may be succeeding in knocking one back, another may be coming in that we're not even aware of yet in some cases. It would be helpful to have that full briefing, because the economic costs of invasive species are high, as are the ecological costs.

[1135]

In terms of reaction, we always seem to be reacting in some ways to invasive species. One suggestion that Invasive Species Council members have made to me — but not the council as whole; it hasn't taken that position yet — is the suggestion that we should look at either labelling or banning certain household invasives. They have found them in our parks, whether that's English ivy…. Somebody may like to put it in their garden, but they live next to a park. It gets picked up by a bird, and all of a sudden it's spreading wide throughout the park.

I don't know. That's maybe a wild idea, but whether it's labelling or, as some have suggested, banning, I think that we do need to look at a proactive approach. The cost of sending in volunteers, the cost of sending in the staff to pull the stuff out of the woods or out of the fields
[ Page 2941 ]
is very high. I hope we can start thinking a little more proactively.

I'd just be interested in the minister's thoughts around such an approach.

Hon. M. Polak: It's true that we have been shifting toward a more proactive approach. Some successful examples are what we've achieved with respect to bullfrogs, and we mentioned the "Clean, drain, dry" program. At this stage, though, we have not been contemplating a ban on household invasive species imports.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister share what the budget is for invasive species removal, action plan, etc.?

[1140]

Hon. M. Polak: First, from the natural resource sector broadly — and I apologize; I don't have complete numbers because it's not just from our ministry — here's what has been directed to the Invasive Species Council: in '09-10, $100,000; in 2011-12, $3 million; in '12-13, $140,000. I don't have the amounts past that.

I can tell that you that with respect to the Ministry of Environment, B.C. Parks, their operational funding…. What I'm going to describe now are items that are dedicated to the invasive species challenge, and it doesn't take into account, of course, that we have people on the ground, for example, in Parks who may not be dedicated to that, but they add to what we're able to accomplish.

So $67,000 per year for B.C. Parks in terms of the operations. Then in addition to that, the salaries within B.C. Parks that are dedicated to invasive species control: $97,000. Then in our other department, environmental sustainability, you have $50,000 of operational funding and $160,000 in dedicated salaries.

S. Chandra Herbert: To shift from invasive species to a situation in the northeast which was quite troubling, a contractor was preparing a site — I believe it was Apache — and ended up driving a Cat or some large vehicle over a bear den, killing the bear. Of course, local First Nations, Treaty 8, were quite concerned about this, because to them, they say a bear is a relation of theirs, and they feel very connected to the spirit of that bear. But it's just as troubling, I think, to any British Columbian who cares for our wildlife.

I understand that conservation officers were called out to the scene and an investigation was done. They wrote it off as an accident, and no cost was ever charged to the contractor who drove over the bear den, killing a bear.

[1145]

Bears, of course…. If you were a hunter, you'd have to pay quite a bit, and that's quite controversial. But in this case a bear was killed on Crown land, and there was no charge at all. Why was that? You know, there was a cost to the citizens for the investigation of this and a cost to citizens in the loss of that bear's life. Could the minister justify why no expense was ever laid?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, those kinds of incidents are always disturbing for the folks involved, disturbing for the folks who are impacted by them. No one likes to see things like this occur.

Perhaps, though, I can provide some understanding by using a different illustration. One of the things that the investigation deals with is examining whether or not there was intent. In this case, they certainly determined that it was an accidental occurrence, in the same way as if a bear or other wildlife was hit by a car. We would look at that differently than a person who had poached a bear. Just as the RCMP or other police services wouldn't seek to recover costs from an investigation, neither does the conservation officer service seek to recoup costs from an investigation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I think it's a little different, though, than a bear running into a road. A contractor drove over a bear's home, its den. It wasn't its fault that it got killed; it was the contractor's. I think that the challenge is: if we can write it off as an accident, what's the incentive to do the actual, appropriate pre-work to make sure that you don't end up killing a bear, to make sure that you don't end up driving over a species' home?

Certainly, I would assume, and my assumption had been, that there's a requirement from government when permits are issued to go do work on Crown land, whether it's exploration or construction — that they have an environmental duty to uphold, a conservation ethos to protect, that they have to do the work. My understanding is the government has now stepped in, in this situation, to try and come up with some plan so it doesn't happen again.

Why wasn't there a plan to make sure this kind of thing didn't happen in the first place? Does the minister not agree that saying it was an accident could justify a future lack of preparation and poor work in protecting environmental values?

[1150]

Hon. M. Polak: Noting the hour, I will try and complete this question fairly quickly.

Of course, we want industry to conduct the appropriate preparatory work so that incidents like this don't occur. That's one of the things that we attempt to achieve — both ourselves and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — when we place requirements within a permit. Nevertheless, this did occur, and as a result of that and the investigation, we are now doing work to determine what we could better require of companies to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again.
[ Page 2942 ]

With respect, though, to the determination of this as an accident and then the corresponding response, which was not to levy a fine or penalties. Again, this is something where I would venture to say that — I'm sure the member would agree — even for the bear that runs into the road, it's still not their fault, if you will.

Fault is one thing. Certainly, it was the fault of the contractor that this occurred. Nevertheless, when it comes to intent, the conservation officers would have not only explored that; they would have explored issues of negligence. As they are sworn officers, really, it is as though we are examining a police investigation. They came to their conclusions that it was accidental, so we will take them at their word in terms of what they investigated and what they found.

Again, we will continue to work, forward-moving, to try and arrange for better preparatory work that could ensure that this doesn't happen again.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada