2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 7

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

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: Just a few minutes ago we reached a significant milestone in our work to bring home the generational opportunity of LNG with the first two revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations. Agreements like those are going to plant the seed for the prosperity that will benefit communities in the north and across the country for generations — jobs, skills training and new infrastructure.

[1335]

We are joined today in the gallery, from the Metlakatla First Nation, by Chief Harold Leighton, councillor Alrita Leask, councillor Robert Nelson and councillor Wayne Haldane; and from the Lax Kw'alaams First Nation by Mayor Garry Reece, councillor Andrew Tait, Wayne Drury and George Burke.

Grand Chief Ed John is also in the gallery with us today.

I hope the House will make all of them very welcome.

R. Austin: On behalf of the official opposition, I would also like to welcome those members from the Metlakatla and Lax Kw'alaams bands here today. I think it's fair to say that there is a lot of optimism everywhere in the northwest, not just amongst the First Nations but amongst non–First Nations as well, and we hope that these agreements that are signed will one day come to fruition.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, when I arrived here a few decades ago, part of the province that you are very familiar with, Richmond, was represented by a very quiet but dignified individual, Doug Symons. He, in those days, taught me a lot about the role of an MLA.

When I walked in the chamber today I was pleased to see Doug and to realize that he was, in addition to his other many talents, one of the few who planned his departure from this chamber on his own terms, and he returns on his own terms. I know all members will make him feel very welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to follow the Minister of Finance and welcome Doug Symons back. I remember him from that time when he served in this chamber, and he sat on this side and I sat on that side, and he was always very respectful, understood this place and represented his constituents well.

But there is one footnote, and this is a really interesting one. In 2001, in the last question period of the then Dosanjh government, the last question asked in that question period was a question from him to me — so that was the last question asked of an NDP government. Would the House please make him most welcome.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: It's his fault.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I would like to introduce four people that are visiting the House today: Danny and Louise Evans and Kent and Julie Sillars, who are from the Fraser Valley. Danny and Louise are in the real estate business, and Kent and Julie have a company called Vesta Properties. Not only are they very active in the Fraser Valley, but they are contributors to the community in so many ways, and I'd ask the House to welcome them.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to welcome here members of the B.C. Nurses Union Workers Of Colour committee and internationally educated nurses — and I hope my voice holds out.

We've got Mabel Tung, who's the BCNU treasurer; Yolanda Cutanda-Dela Cruz, the regional rep for BCNU; Mindy Derro; Shirley Oandasan; Getjeda Seet; Maria Villacrusis; Jessica Celeste, who's the chair of the workers of colour committee; Walter Lumamba, who is the chair of the men in nursing; Harwinder Gill; Anais Sophie; Nicola Hamilton; Melanie Mercado; Minda Lu; Monaliza Rosete; Marian Rose Sunglao; Carmen Rose Paterno; as well, joined by Baljit Sandhu and their daughters Jasreen Gill and Manreet Gill; and our friend Annette Beech, here from Victoria, a great advocate and president of the caregivers and yemporary foreign workers association of Victoria. I ask you to please make them all welcome.

Hon. C. Oakes: Today is a great day in this House and in British Columbia. We have Her Honour here today to talk about a proclamation that we presented to recognize and pay special tribute to the significant achievements of authors and publishers in British Columbia. I would like to thank everybody on both sides of the House that were involved in this process.

[1340]

I would like to recognize Ruth Linka, president, Association of Book Publishers of B.C. and associate publisher of Orca Book Publishers; Margaret Reynolds, executive director, Association of Book Publishers of British Columbia; Andrew Wooldridge, publisher of Orca Book Publishers; Kevin Williams, publisher of Talon Books; Karen Green, associate publisher of Anvil Press; and Randal Macnair, publisher of Oolichan Books.
[ Page 3010 ]

May we all go out, buy a good British Columbia book and enjoy it over our Easter break.

S. Fraser: I am very pleased to be able rise today in this House and recognize and welcome constituents, distinguished visitors from the Huu-ay-aht First Nation. That's one of the key Maa-nulth treaty nations that were able to come out from underneath the yoke of the Indian Act a number of years ago. Visiting us today are chief councillor Jeff Cook, Tom Happynook, Charlie Clappis, Derek Peters, Sheila Charles, John Jack and Jack Cook.

Would this House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm really pleased today to rise and introduce members from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Their CEO, Diane Finegood, is here; board chair John O'Neill; and David Plug, who is the director of marketing and stakeholder relations.

These three individuals, along with their many members of the organization, play an important role for health research in B.C. by aiding in the development of new treatments and cures, responding to emerging health issues and improving the delivery of care.

Since 2001 over $360 million has been invested through the Michael Smith Foundation, allowing B.C. researchers the tools and training needed to produce innovative solutions to health problems.

Would the House please join me in welcoming the Michael Smith Foundation.

M. Mungall: I have seven guests in the gallery today — Scott Nunn, Rachel Goodine, Tabitha Naismith, Crystal Pennicard, Diane Terrillon, Jennifer Brice and Michelle Tallico. They are all here today to see how our democracy works, and as single moms with children, they're also here to advocate on behalf of their children and children all over British Columbia to reduce child poverty in this province.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will join me in welcoming 58 guests to the gallery today. They come, fortunately, in two batches. One is a grade 11 class from Prince of Wales Secondary School in Vancouver-Quilchena. They're stewarded here by their teacher, Mr. Andrew Humphries. The second is a grade 10 socials class from Sir Winston Churchill high school, who have been brought here by their teacher, Mr. Francois Clark. I compliment both these teachers for bringing 15 year olds this far.

J. Rice: I, too, would like to welcome the members from Lax Kw'alaams and Metlakatla, two communities which fall within my constituency, the North Coast. As I have mentioned previously when I introduced guests, it's a hard journey to get here from the north coast. Metlakatla and Lax Kw'alaams are both only accessible by ferry or by seaplane. But I would like to just put in a little bit of a plug for the Tsimshian access project, which would end that and make the journey to Prince Rupert and the larger communities a lot easier.

J. Yap: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I, too, would like to add my welcome to Doug Symons, the former member for Richmond Centre, who brought with him a number of your constituents and constituents of the Minister of International Trade. I'd like to welcome them to the gallery.

They are Aileen Cormack, Corisande Percival-Smith, Daryl Whiting, Shams Jilani, Joan Haws, Hans Havas, Kathleen Holmes, Maggie Levine, Shirley Khong, Patti Gallacher and Sean Davies.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to these folks from Richmond.

[1345]

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure today that I introduce to the House Lisa McGuire. Lisa is the CEO from FIOSA-MIOSA Safety Alliance of British Columbia, representing food manufacturers and processors — great companies in the Tri-Cities area, like our local Coca-Cola bottler, Ann De Louis del Mis. May the House make her truly welcome.

C. Trevena: In the gallery — if not now, shortly — will be a group of grade 11 students from Campbell River Christian School. There are 12 grade 11 students, eight accompanying parents and their teacher, Tammie Coon. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

R. Lee: I have a group of five visitors in the gallery today. They are from Vancouver and Toronto — and Victoria, for that matter: Mr. Wang Qiang, consul for science and technology, Chinese Consulate-General in Vancouver; chief representative of the China Association for International Exchange of Personnel in Toronto, Wu Yunru, and also representative Chen Jie. I also have Yan Cheng, a member of the Canada-China Society of Science and Technology in Vancouver, as well as Mr. David Wang, global engagement officer from the University of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

I also would like to extend my welcome to the B.C. Nurses Union. I saw my friend Mable Tung over there and all her colleagues. Thank you for visiting the House.

N. Letnick: We have many wonderful cities all across this province and many great leaders, and in the precinct today we have two of them: Ron Mattiussi, city manager for the city of Kelowna, and His Worship Walter Gray. They're here to meet with the Transportation Minister and see how much money they can get out of him. Would
[ Page 3011 ]
the House please make them feel welcome.

S. Hamilton: I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome to the precinct today the city manager or the chief administrative officer for the corporation of Delta, Mr. George Harvie, who's here this afternoon to conduct meetings, as our friends from Kelowna are doing. Would the House please make him welcome.

D. Bing: I would like to welcome to the House today a medical colleague, Dr. Mark Lupin, a resident of Victoria. Dr. Lupin is a renowned dermatologist and a sought-after lecturer in the field of non-surgical facial rejuvenation. He's a clinical instructor at the faculty of medicine at UBC, and he has many publications to his name and is often quoted as an expert in the media. Some of you may have met Dr. Lupin today at the Rattenbury Room, getting your skin checked. Please, I ask the House to make Dr. Lupin welcome.

D. Barnett: I would like to welcome Roche Canada to the House today. Roche is a global leader in diagnostics and pharmaceuticals and the world's biggest biotech company. Their B.C.-based staff are in the Legislature today hoping to better understand how our government works. I wish them well on this onerous task. Please join me in giving Roche Canada a warm welcome.

Hon. J. Rustad: I also want to welcome the many First Nation Chiefs, leaders, councillors and other members that are here today.

I also want to recognize and welcome a member of my team, Mark Lofthouse, who is our chief negotiator. He's in the building here today, and I just want the House to please make him welcome.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I'm advised the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[1350]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Laboratory Services Act

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2014

Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

[1355]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M209 — MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2014.

S. Simpson: I move that a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read for a first time.

Motion approved.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to introduce the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act. British Columbians rightly expect politicians, their appointees and senior executive members of Crown corporations and government agencies to conduct themselves with the highest ethical standard and carry out their duties in the public interest.

The Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, which will rename the legislation to the conflict-of-interest act, seeks to address this. This bill establishes more stringent conflict-of-interest laws to restore public confidence and promote greater accountability.

This bill broadens the scope of conflict-of-interest laws and establishes cooling-off periods for ministerial staff, former Deputy Ministers and advisers, as well as senior executive members of Crown corporations and government agencies. This will ensure that these parties, including the CEOs of Crown corporations, do not improperly benefit from their office.

Finally, this bill also requires members of cabinet, parliamentary secretaries and Deputy Ministers to place their assets in a blind trust for as long as they hold that position.

The opposition has put forward similar legislation in the past. However, given recent events, it is being introduced once again in hopes that the government will finally take action to toughen up conflict-of-interest laws in British Columbia.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
[ Page 3012 ]

Bill M209, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PARKINSON'S DISEASE

Michelle Stilwell: Many of us know someone who has Parkinson's disease. Michael J. Fox, Linda Ronstadt, Muhammad Ali — they are the celebrity faces that put a name to this disease. It's the second most common neurodegenerative disease affecting around 100,000 Canadians, including about 11,000 people in B.C. Chances are that you know someone personally with Parkinson's.

The average age of onset is 60, but people as young as 30 can be affected. The symptoms of Parkinson's vary from person to person. The first sign usually is a tremor in the right or left arm on one side of the body only. Over time the tremor usually spreads to the other side of the body. Muscles often feel stiff or weak, and the individual may have trouble with balance.

By the time a diagnosis can be made, people often have non-motor symptoms such as anxiety, depression or even trouble sleeping. Early diagnosis can give you more options for trying to manage the disease. If you or someone you know experiences symptoms of Parkinson's, especially prolonged tremors or limited movement, you should speak with your family doctor.

Parkinson's is a progressive disease, and symptoms usually worsen over time. We don't know what the causes of Parkinson's are, and there is no known cure. But people with the disease can still live long, productive lives by managing their diet and exercising, in conjunction with other treatments.

We're talking about this disease today because April is Parkinson's Awareness Month. We want to shine a light on what's being done to prevent Parkinson's and how we can help those diagnosed with the disease.

Our government has provided more than $28 million in funding to the Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health at UBC Hospital in Vancouver. The centre, which had its grand opening in February, includes a number of clinics that treat neurological conditions. It's our hope that research being done there and across the world will lead to a cure.

[1400]

L. Krog: Following on the remarks of my friend from Parksville-Qualicum, one of my constituents, Gil Luckham, suffers from Parkinson's. Along with his partner, Janet Irvine, they work very hard to deal with the issues arising from that disease.

Gil was diagnosed with this complex neurodegenerative disease at the age of 51 and had to retire early. For several years his job has been dealing proactively with the personal and social consequences of receiving an earlier-onset diagnosis. Both Gil and Janet are active members of the Parkinson Society B.C. self-help support group in Nanaimo.

Parkinson Society B.C. is dedicated to providing resources and inspiration to empower the Parkinson's community to live well and has been promoting the benefits of exercise. Research shows that exercise is helpful to living well with Parkinson's and that it may have a neuroprotective effect, perhaps slowing down the disease progression and reaping immediate benefits in mood and movement. As part of Parkinson's April Awareness Month, Parkinson Society B.C. has launched Parkinson's Movement and is encouraging people with Parkinson's to exercise and take charge of their own well-being and fight back against this disease.

Gil is fighting back and currently attends an exercise class twice weekly and uses his Nordic walking poles regularly. I encourage members of the assembly to recognize the efforts of everyday heroes such as Gil. During April the Parkinson's community asks all members to recognize the contributions of everyday heroes during National Volunteer Week, April 6 to 12, and World Parkinson's Day on April 11.

I encourage all members of this assembly to think of how they can be an everyday hero. Indeed, the first campaign I worked in was for a former member of this assembly, Bob Skelly, who served in this chamber from 1972 to 1988, and he is a sufferer of Parkinson's disease. So let us support all of those who suffer from this disease and compliment them for their courage.

HOSPITAL INFECTION CONTROL
AND RESEARCH

R. Sultan: My constituent Carolyn Cross did not let her broken teeth, ribs and pelvis from a plane crash at YVR about a year ago slow her down. She was focused on infection control trials at Vancouver General Hospital, demonstrating an approximate 50 percent reduction in Staphylococcus aureus infections post-operatively using laser light, not drugs, to kill the pathogens.

Some say that hospital-acquired infections are Canada's fourth-leading cause of death, right up there with stroke. Dr. Elizabeth Bryce, medical director for infection control at VGH, spearheaded the successful trials demonstrating MRSAid's effectiveness. VGH estimates saving almost $2 million through this prevention protocol.

Carolyn had another motive: the near-death of her own daughter with a tonsil infection from stubborn bacteria not responsive to antibiotics. Hospital trials based on the photodisinfection system developed by Carolyn's company, Ondine, won the 2013 award for innovation
[ Page 3013 ]
by ICPIC, the International Consortium for Prevention and Infection Control, representing the world's leaders in infection control.

Where do we find these nasty colonies of Staphylococcus bugs for laser-zapping prior to operation? Mostly up your nose. Creepy.

Congratulations, Carolyn. Let's hope that adoption of these life- and money-saving techniques can accelerate in operating rooms across British Columbia. Abbotsford's operating rooms are next.

IMMIGRANT PROFESSIONALS
AND CREDENTIAL RECOGNITION

M. Elmore: Valuing internationally educated nurses. Canada's annual immigration flow is one of the highest among OECD members. More than half of Canadian immigrants are highly educated. However, they face higher unemployment and underemployment rates, and they earn lower incomes. This achievement gap must be closed. There are economic benefits to shortening the amount of time it takes for immigrants to integrate into the labour market.

One example is the situation of internationally educated nurses. I met with some, who are in the gallery today, who are feeling frustrated in their efforts to meet the requirements needed to become registered nurses in B.C. They experience many obstacles, such as a limited and chronic shortage of placement opportunities that then result in a growing bottleneck of students waiting to complete 250 hours of preceptorship. One solution is the option of doing a group preceptorship to ease this backlog of students. They'd also like to see the Skills Connect program continue. They said the program has helped many of them afford the costly process of registration.

[1405]

Considering that there is a considerable proportion of immigrants working in low-skilled occupations, even with their high levels of education, the possibility of being recognized as professionals here would be out of reach for many if the process is too expensive. Improving qualification recognition for internationally educated professionals requires leadership from the provincial government to create and champion solutions to better integrate skilled immigrants into the labour market. Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec have all established fairness commissions by bringing together stakeholders to improve fairness and efficiency of foreign credential recognition.

It's important that we convey confidence to employers about this accreditation process and that we ensure standards for public safety are met. Action is needed on this continuing underutilization of skilled immigrants, education, talent and experience in B.C.

Together we need to highlight that being an inclusive society means creating processes that ensure the full potential of the immigrants we welcome into our province are developed and maximized.

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL BULLDOGS
SENIOR BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM

Moira Stilwell: I, too, would like to share in the greetings to the students and teachers who are here today from Sir Winston Churchill high school and Point Grey high school, and I rise to congratulate the Sir Winston Churchill Bulldogs senior boys basketball team for winning the 2014 high school AAAA provincial basketball championships.

Because of their impressive effort, teamwork and focus, the Bulldogs won 67 to 64 against the formidable Holy Cross Crusaders at the Langley Events Centre. With this win the Bulldogs captured their first senior boys title in school history, becoming the first public school from Vancouver, other than Kitsilano, to capture the provincial title since 1961.

The Bulldogs were led to this inspiring victory by tournament MVP and Quinn Keast Foundation scholarship winner Mindy Manhas, a grade 12 student at Sir Winston Churchill with a sublime 30-point performance, and their best defensive player, Jason Claur.

This win would not have been possible without the efforts and dedication of coach Rick Lopez along with coaching staff, chaperones, parents and volunteers. They deserve considerable applause for their dedication, enthusiasm, patience and skill in supporting our athletes.

Through team sports our children build life skills, social connections, teamwork skills, leadership, a healthy lifestyle and good decision-making. Congratulations to the Sir Winston Churchill Bulldogs senior boys basketball team and to all of the coaches, chaperones, parents and students.

Also, since this week is National Volunteer Week, will the House please join me in conveying a special thank-you to all of the many volunteers who make school sports possible. Your commitment and hard work towards sport and athletics is admirable and appreciated.

YOUTH VOLUNTEERS AT
BURNABY-EDMONDS CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

R. Chouhan: I rise today to acknowledge the importance of youth engagement. In our office of Burnaby-Edmonds we are lucky to have many high school students who volunteer with us on a regular basis. Recently our office participated in the Guru Ravidass parade. I had five dedicated students who gave up their Saturday to hand out treats and information outside our constituency office. It was a cold, wet day, and their assistance did not go unnoticed. I would like to thank Ylaiza Padua, Jasleen Subherwal, Agamroop Thandi, Mavis Peng and Karan Heer.
[ Page 3014 ]

In addition, I have a young man by the name of Khalid Boudreau who has been involved and engaged in my community office since the age of five. He has a keen interest in politics and often spends his time watching question period in both the Legislature and the House of Commons. He is well known for asking MLAs and MPs many intelligent questions. Everyone is impressed with his knowledge on political and environmental issues.

Currently a grade 9 student at Moscrop Secondary, he is a bird-watching enthusiast and has just received the B.C. Young Birder Award 2014 for his important ornithological discovery. On a recent family trip to the Interior near Puntzi Lake, he spotted the second-known breeding spot in B.C. of the American white pelican. He was on a fishing boat with his grandfather when he spotted eight adult pelicans and three young ones on the island. Later, a top ornithologist confirmed the discovery.

I would like to congratulate my constituent and friend Khalid on his important discovery and award.

[1410]

Oral Questions

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

M. Mungall: Single-parent families in British Columbia who receive income supports, like disability, have their child support payments clawed back, dollar for dollar, every single month by this government. Last year the total amount taken from B.C.'s poorest kids was $17 million. That's the same amount that the Premier spent on self-promoting ads in the last election.

So my question is to the Premier. How is this putting families first?

Hon. C. Clark: We have to in this province do everything that we can to give every child, every young person and every adult all of the opportunities that they would wish for themselves. We have to make sure that we're growing the economy. We have to make sure that people have the skills that they need to participate fully in the economy.

I was very proud today to be part of the signing, the historic signing, with the Lax Kw'alaams and the Metlakatla First Nations on agreements that are going to ensure economic development, economic growth, comes to their region of the province.

In those cases those leaders have a vision for their communities. They have a vision for people in those communities, some of whom haven't been attached to the workforce for a long time. Healthy, wealthy, thriving communities where every young person gets a shot at a great job — that's what we are working toward.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Rachel Goodine, Diane Terrillon, Jennifer Brice, Crystal Pennicard and Tabitha Naismith are all single moms with disabilities that prevent them from working full-time outside the home. They receive income supports, and as we all know, the levels of support from this B.C. Liberal government keep them struggling to put food on the table.

If they could keep their child support payments, the struggle of feeding and clothing their kids would be reduced. That would reduce child poverty in their homes. Those moms are in the gallery today.

My question, again to the Premier: can she explain to the mothers here today how taking child support payments away from their kids is putting their families first?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said in my previous answer, we are very much focused on growing the economy as a way to make sure that we look after people in the province for the long term, to make sure that communities are sustainable, that families are sustainable, ensuring that people can look after themselves and each other in the way that they expect to and the way that they should.

While we do that, we also have to maintain a strong social safety net, and we are doing that in British Columbia. Since I became Premier, we have raised the minimum wage three times in our province. We are proud to be able to say that we have one of the lowest overall tax levels, keeping more money in people's pockets.

We have child care — $135 million invested in child care subsidies this year; 800,000 people in the province who pay no MSP premiums; $3.6 billion since 2001 invested in affordable housing; 98,000 households that benefit from provincial social housing programs and services; and of course, the introduction of the early childhood tax benefit, starting in 2015, to make child care more affordable for 180,000 families. And that's just the beginning.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a further supplemental.

[1415]

M. Mungall: The Premier needs to stop brushing these families off with all of her rhetoric and empty slogans and the various numbers that she likes to point out. Why doesn't she ever talk about the fact that B.C. has had the highest child poverty in this country for ten years running? That's happening under her watch.

Here's another stat for the Premier. Half of B.C.'s single mothers are living in poverty with their kids right now — mothers like Tabitha Naismith, a Surrey mom who's struggling to raise her one-year-old daughter on $642 a month after rent. The B.C. Liberals are clawing the $100 that her daughter is supposed to be getting in child support payments. They are clawing that back every month, and it is wrong.
[ Page 3015 ]

Instead of doing the wrong thing, will the Premier do the right thing — end the clawback of child support payments and give B.C.'s poorest kids their money back?

Hon. C. Clark: We live in a rich country; we live in a rich province. And the sad fact is that many people still do not fully participate in that wealth.

We have an obligation as a generation to ensure that everyone across the province has an equal opportunity to take part in the economic growth that is coming in our province. We believe that the best way out of poverty is to make sure that people are participating in the economic growth and that they have the skills that they need to take those jobs. In the meantime, we also have to make sure that that social safety net is there to protect people who need that protection when they are enduring poverty in our province.

I went through quite a number of the investments that our province has made in supporting people who live in poverty. We need to continue to do that, and at the same time, we need to give everyone a hand up. We need to give everyone the help that they need to acquire the skills and the education that they're going to need to create a sustainable future for themselves and their families through employment.

M. Karagianis: The Premier is so completely out of touch with the reality for these families, it is shocking.

Michelle Tallico is a First Nations woman who's here today, who is raising her nine-year-old daughter on her own. Her daughter loves fruit. But each month the government takes away child support from Michelle's daughter because Michelle is on income supports.

With a pacemaker and other chronic illnesses, Michelle is not able to work full time. She said that if she could keep the small amount of support that her daughter gets, she'd be able to buy her the fresh fruit that her daughter loves. She would also be able to help get some supports for her child, who has a learning disability, so that she could do better in school.

Michelle is here, listening today in the chamber. Can the Premier explain to Michelle why the B.C. Liberal government is taking away the child support that would mean so much to her daughter?

Hon. C. Clark: In this wealthy society no one should have to endure the deprivation of poverty. I think all members in this chamber agree on that.

What we disagree on often, though, is how we want to make sure that we address poverty in the long term. On this side of the House what we believe is that we need to grow the economy if we want to invest in the future. We need to invest in people through skills training if we want to make sure that they have an opportunity to fully participate.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. C. Clark: We also need to make sure that through a growing economy, government has the revenue that it needs to be able to look after people through a strong social safety net when they are struggling with poverty.

Again, First Nations as one example. The agreements that we signed today with the Lax Kw'alaams and the Metlakatla are real, real evidence of what we can do when we work together to create economic growth to lift communities that have lived in poverty, sometimes for years, into the full mainstream economy so that they can fully participate, as they have every right to do.

That is the bright future of economic growth in British Columbia.

[1420]

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: You know, I think the families here in the gallery would like to hear no more rhetoric and maybe a more clear message from the government on taking away these clawbacks from their households. Every month the B.C. Liberals take money out of the hands of B.C.'s poorest children simply because their parents have a disability or are on income assistance. That's what's going on here.

That money is clawed back out of their households. By the end of the year the money clawed back from these families and others like them will amount to $17 million — coincidentally, the same amount of money that the government spent on self-promotion during the election campaign.

I would like the Premier to explain to these families — not the rhetoric — how this government can justify taking money out of the hands of B.C.'s poorest children while they're busy still spending money on self-promoting ads, ministerial pay raises, fake municipalities and sweetheart deals with their friends. That is not fair to these families and all the families across British Columbia that want them to stop clawing money back from the poor children in this province.

Hon. C. Clark: Between 1990 and 2001 British Columbia's child poverty rates went up by an appalling 42 percent. Since 2003, 70,000 children have been lifted out of poverty.

What changed? Why were those two decades so starkly different when it came to poverty rates in our province? A commitment to economic growth. A commitment to making sure that everyone had an opportunity to be able to participate in a growing, thriving economy. That is the answer in the long term to poverty.
[ Page 3016 ]

Go ask the First Nations leaders who are signing on to agreements, who want to be a part of liquefied natural gas and the 100,000 new jobs it will bring to British Columbia. Go ask the young people who are hungry for opportunities and the big wages that will be paid in the trades that will be in huge demand when liquefied natural gas becomes a reality in British Columbia.

That is the reality of economic growth. It changes lives. It changes communities. It makes them better. It makes them sustainable. And it will do it for a long, long time.

CHANGES TO COMMUNITY HEALTH
CARE CENTRES IN VANCOUVER

A. Dix: You know, I think all of us agree with the Premier that we are profoundly against poverty. I think it's profoundly disrespectful to talk about being hungry for opportunity and to lay out political slogans of these kinds when we have children in this province who are hungry for food. I think it's profoundly disrespectful.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Frankly, we are tired of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations — given the poverty rate amongst First Nations in this province — and the Minister of Social Development — given the poverty rate in this province, the worst in Canada — bragging about these questions. They should be doing something about them. There are some people here in the House who would like to hear from the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

My question is to the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health, the government, is closing down primary care services at Pacific Spirit, Evergreen and south Vancouver community health clinics. This is contrary to the government's policy. It's going to leave thousands of people without a family doctor. It will cost more money. How can the minister justify such a lousy decision?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, despite lifting 70,000 children out of poverty over the last 12 years and creating economic opportunities for people, there still are vulnerable people in this province that require interdisciplinary community health centres for their patient needs. These community health centres were serving a vulnerable population.

Over time that patient population changed, and a less complex type of patient was coming to these clinics. It was important to refocus the service of these community health centres to the most vulnerable of our patients in British Columbia. The result will be longer hours, greater access for the most vulnerable of our patients, which will reduce emergency room visits, and the other patients will have lots of opportunities for primary health care through their family physicians at their existing facilities. That transition period is ongoing. We are committed to looking after the most vulnerable in our province.

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

A. Dix: If one could only live in the world of B.C. Liberal press releases, where apparently everyone's going to have a family doctor. There are 100,000 people now in Vancouver without a family doctor, tens of thousands actively looking who can't find them. The minister is cutting people off from family practice doctors. He's doing so in an irrational way, and here we are, them listing off this glorified situation where they're going to be able to find family doctors. The people are being cut off. Many of them themselves are extremely vulnerable.

How can the minister justify doing this? All that's happening is that Vancouver Coastal Health is saving money in its budget and transferring those dollars to MSP. But what's happening with real people is that they're losing their family doctor. How can the minister justify such ludicrous health policy?

Hon. T. Lake: Let me read some headlines from some stories from 1996. "B.C. cancer patients…."

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: When the member opposite was chief of staff, these were the headlines in health care.

Interjections.

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

Proceed.

Hon. T. Lake: We know what happened in the 1990s. What has happened since then: over $8.4 billion invested in hospitals around this province; the number of physicians being trained more than doubled; the number of nurses being trained more than doubled.

I know the opposition members don't like change. That's evident from their leadership race. But this side of the House believes in innovation and responding to the changing needs of the population, and that is what we will continue to do.

J. Darcy: The Minister of Health ought to get rid of his briefing books for a few minutes and go out and talk to real people who are losing their family doctors as a result of these changes. Let me just talk about what's actually happening in these community health centres.

Vancouver Coastal Health recently commissioned an independent external review of the community health centres that serve about 13,000 people across the city. This independent review recommended against — against — cutting primary care services for anybody except the most at-risk 5 percent. These independent reviewers pointed out that there are literally thousands of
[ Page 3017 ]
other patients who also have very high needs — the frail elderly; at-risk youth; people marginalized due to poverty, addictions and mental health; refugees and new immigrants; people with multiple chronic conditions.

[1430]

The Minister of Health's own priorities document that we looked at this morning at the standing committee on Health says: "We must fully implement access to physicians and primary care teams across all 62 geographic service areas based on a system of interprofessional health teams."

When will the minister step in and reverse these cuts to community health centres that are practising exactly what this minister preaches?

Hon. T. Lake: I have had the opportunity to travel around the province to visit with health care professionals in hospitals. I've been to the Downtown Eastside and visited patients with a psychiatrist. I've been to the community health centres in Prince George and Kamloops that serve the most vulnerable.

This redesign…. As I mentioned, the opposition does not like change. We understand that. But it is important. Health care must be dynamic, must be responsive to the changing needs of the population.

These changes will result in an expanded clinic, an expanded community health centre, that's open seven days a week, 12 hours a day. It will also allow more investment in inner-city youth clinics at Three Bridges care clinic and the East Van public health youth centre.

This is the right thing to do using the right amount of resources, serving the right people at the right time at the right place. That's what we'll continue to do, looking after the most vulnerable people in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: I would suggest that the Minister of Health also go out and talk directly to some of the patients at these community health centres that are losing their doctors, people like Tita and Dosolo Tocol, who are patients at the Evergreen Community Health Centre. Tita has several chronic conditions. Dosolo has had open heart surgery, suffers from congestive heart failure and needs to be checked weekly for blood clots. They've been told they'll be losing their family doctor next fall.

The minister should also talk to the 90-year-old frail woman who's now served by the Mid-Main Health Centre, who now receives regular home medical visits, sometimes from a family doctor but also often from a nurse practitioner or a pharmacist. She won't any longer after these changes.

The evidence is clear in this province, across Canada and around the world that these kinds of primary health teams lead to better health outcomes, and they reduce costs in the health care system. Why is the minister defending a decision to cut existing community health clinics in British Columbia's largest city? How can he explain that?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite is just wrong. These patients will have access to primary care. The lower-complex patients will have access to family doctors and other facilities. Also, as the transition occurs, the opportunity will be there for current physicians to utilize the community health centres on a fee-for-service basis for those less-complex patients.

Meanwhile, the more vulnerable patients that require an integrated primary care community health centre will have greater access to those services, reducing emergency visits and, in fact, serving that population much better than they are being served today.

AUDITOR GENERAL REVIEW
OF KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: I bring this House some news from the year 2014. On April 3, 2014, we sent a letter to the Auditor General requesting a truly independent investigation of Kwantlen University and the Minister of Advanced Education.

[1435]

I can advise this House that the Auditor General has written to confirm that his staff will be performing fact-finding work on this matter. This will be a relief for all Kwantlen employees and board members, current and former, who have information but can only share that information in confidence. They may now send their information directly to the Auditor General. The contact information is on his website.

Our office, of course, will be cooperating fully. My question for the minister: will the Minister of Advanced Education confirm that he, too, will be cooperating fully with the Auditor General, starting by instructing the government's investigator to share with the Auditor General all documents and information that he has uncovered to date?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, I intend to be to the point: yes.

D. Eby: Hopefully, we can keep this trend going.

In a key series of e-mails that we tabled in this House involving the Kwantlen foundation, a troubling plan to funnel money — student scholarship money — into a secret payment to the president of Kwantlen University was discussed. The minister's RCMP e-mail address was used in relation to this plan.

I wonder if the minister will confirm that he will cooperate by asking the RCMP to proactively disclose to the Auditor General all e-mail messages that the minister sent and received concerning Kwantlen University at
[ Page 3018 ]
his former e-mail address. Will the Minister of Advanced Education do that as well today?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, who has raised this matter on repeated dates in the House, as is certainly his right to do. The member will know that a number of weeks ago — almost a month now — in response to some of the matters that he has raised, I wrote to Mr. Rob Mingay. I asked him, in his capacity as assistant deputy minister of the public sector employers council secretariat, to examine the matter. I asked him specific questions, or to answer specific questions. I've laid those out. I've provided to the member and to the House the details.

The member has today related additional information about submissions he has made to the Auditor General. The Auditor General, being an independent officer of the Legislature, makes his own decisions about the matters he chooses to examine, the manner in which he chooses to pursue that examination. He reports to the House. There is a mechanism for members to explore the results of his work.

As the member heard just a moment ago, my colleague and the entire government are pledged to cooperate, as always, in every way.

POSITION OF FORMER
LOTTERY CORPORATION CEO
WITH PV HOSPITALITY PARTNERSHIP

S. Simpson: In 2010, while Michael Graydon was the CEO of the Lottery Corporation, they made a submission to a legislative committee on Freedom of Information arguing that: "Commercial Crowns such as BCLC carry on in a business environment where sensitive commercial information should not be disclosed in any circumstances because of the potential for financial or economic harm."

Yet we know that Mr. Graydon, in trying to defend the deal that the Minister of Finance approved for him, said recently in the media: "There's nothing from my perspective…as a CEO that would be detrimental to any other operator or advantageous to Paragon." Clearly, there's a contradiction between these two positions.

Now, we know that the government's own conflict-of-interest policy bars senior public servants from taking a job for one year with an outside entity that you "had a substantial involvement in dealings with…at any time during the year immediately preceding the end of employment." This policy does not apply to the head of Crown corporations.

[1440]

My question to the Minister of Finance is: does the Minister of Finance agree with Mr. Graydon's defence of his new position, or does he agree with the Lottery Corporation position to the legislative committee that they in fact do deal with very sensitive commercial information? If he does, will he put a one-year cooling-off period in place for heads of Crown corporations?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has, I think it's fair to say, pursued several aspects of the employment relationship between Mr. Graydon and the Lottery Corporation and several aspects of his departure from that position. Today he is focused…. I should say this. I think the member and I have a difference of opinion about the matter that he canvassed yesterday relating to the payments that were made to Mr. Graydon.

Setting that aside for the moment, he has raised issues in this chamber previously about the circumstances both preceding Mr. Graydon's departure from the corporation and his ultimate destination following his departure. I have candidly advised the House and the member that I, too, have some concerns, particularly about the period preceding his departure, and for that matter, I have asked the internal audit division to examine that.

The member today, through another mechanism, the tabling of a private member's bill, has indicated a preferred option that he has. Without getting into the details, I'm not sure that I would mix these matters into the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. But ensuring that there is a proper mechanism in place beyond the rules that exist in the common law for ensuring that those matters are dealt with both contractually and legally, and by policy, I think is an appropriate thing and something we're looking at.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Martin: I have the honour to present a report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Martin: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Martin: I would like to make some brief comments. The Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association was dissolved by the registrar of companies for failure to file annual reports for ten years. It was unaware that it had been dissolved and continued to operate.

The purpose of the association is to provide non-interest-bearing loans to qualifying graduating high school students from the city of Armstrong and the township of Spallumcheen.

The association wishes to transfer its current assets,
[ Page 3019 ]
approximately $65,000, to Pleasant Valley Secondary School, which will continue to manage and disburse these funds for the same purpose. As a society, the association cannot transfer its assets unless it is restored. It wishes to be restored for one year so that it can transfer its current assets.

On Tuesday, April 1, the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills met, considered the proposed private bill and asked questions of the solicitor for the association.

I am pleased to note the recommendation for this private bill to proceed was unanimously supported by the committee.

Madame Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and in this chamber, second reading of Bill Pr401.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — ARMSTRONG-SPALLUMCHEEN
STUDENT ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION
(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2014

G. Kyllo: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

[1445]

As noted earlier, the Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association is a society previously dissolved by the registrar of companies for failure to file annual reports for ten years. The Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills has recommended that the bill proceed to second reading.

As sponsor of the bill, I am pleased to assist with its progress today, and I hereby move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

G. Kyllo: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2014, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL Pr401— ARMSTRONG-SPALLUMCHEEN
STUDENT ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION
(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr401; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

G. Kyllo: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:47 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — ARMSTRONG-SPALLUMCHEEN
STUDENT ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION
(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2014

Bill Pr401, Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I now call second reading on Bill 23, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

Second Reading of Bills

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

(continued)

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm delighted to rise again today to conclude my remarks on my support for Bill 23.

There was a lot of debate yesterday around this bill.
[ Page 3020 ]
There were a lot of issues that were raised in this House. I do want to say again, Madame Speaker, as you leave the chair, that I know that we are going to continue to talk about the importance of this referendum bill to Metro Vancouver and, indeed, the entire province.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I again want to compliment the Minister of Transportation and his staff for working closely with the Mayors Council on regional transportation in Metro Vancouver to find a process and a resolution to the important question that will be put to the taxpayers, and that is: how will transportation be funded in the Metro area?

As I look at that this bill and, more importantly, what's behind the bill, I clearly see that there is a desire on the part of every single mayor in Metro Vancouver to move transportation forward, to move it forward in a way that's sustainable and affordable but meets the needs of the region in terms of moving people, goods, and services throughout the region.

[1450]

It also is critical in order to ensure that the major road network, the bicycling infrastructure and many other critical elements to the health and the future of Metro Vancouver is looked after by a funding formula and funding tools that will ensure sustainability.

When I look at this bill, I also realize it is a unique approach to have a referendum on a funding proposal. But in the 12 years that I served as a local government representative, the one issue and the one area that I heard the most debate about in Metro Vancouver was funding for TransLink, how that funding was being used.

As this House well knows, we had a comptroller general's report, we had the commissioner at that time do a report, and then we had another audit done to ensure that the mayors of Metro Vancouver and TransLink and the board that served both of those bodies could stand up with assuredness and say to the taxpayers that TransLink is run as an efficient and effective organization.

What was clear in all of that debate and all of that dialogue and even the difference of opinion that existed amongst mayors and communities was that it was going to be absolutely critical to move ahead. I watched a number of Ministers of Transportation work very hard to find a way to build that relationship with the local mayors and the communities and, most importantly, the taxpayers. As we have said, there is only one taxpayer that funds any of the initiatives that any level of government has, so it is critical.

I also heard, over those years, from the business community, from stakeholders in the health care system, in the education system. They wanted the assurance that the transportation system in Metro Vancouver would meet the needs of every citizen, no matter where they were in life, no matter what stage of life they were in. I heard from seniors who said they wanted reliable transportation so that they could meet the needs that they have — their doctor's appointments and other medical appointments.

Students in university said: "I need transportation. I do not want to have to buy a car. I want to use transportation." Behind this bill is all of that input and all of that comment from such a diverse group of people, all with the one goal: a sustainable, long-term transportation system that is affordable for people, no matter where they may be, no matter where they may need to go, and affordable for people in industry who need to move goods and services around the region.

This government has invested millions upon millions of dollars in infrastructure that will help to facilitate that vision for the future. As I conclude, I urge everyone in this House to recognize that the relationship between the Mayors Council and the government of British Columbia and all of the stakeholders is the best it's ever been.

We have a unique opportunity to work together to reinforce the vision that already exists, to augment it as might be necessary, to develop a funding formula that the people who live in Metro Vancouver and the business community that serves us can look at and say: "That is the vision that we agree with, and we also agree with the funding recommendations that will be developed and put forward in a referendum to serve that need, not only now but into the future."

It is without hesitation that I support this bill. I know that there are many people in Metro Vancouver who are very optimistic that we have a unique opportunity at this stage, both in the governance changes under Bill 22 and the referendum and the funding envelopes that are going to be developed under Bill 23, and they will have an opportunity to have their say.

[1455]

I also know that the Mayors Council is clear, as are TransLink and the board and our minister in this government, that people need to understand what that bill is all about, they need to understand what the funding mechanisms are going to be, and they need to understand and be clear on the question they're being asked.

I believe we have the tools. We have the willingness. And I encourage all of us to put our shoulders to the wheel and to make sure that we do that job in the interests of not only Metro Vancouver but the entire province.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak about Bill 23, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

Rising again after the Minister of Education, who was one time, as he keeps telling this House, on the Mayors Council, I find it very interesting that…. Well, I guess it's the promotion to cabinet that has allowed him to become the apologist for government.

Back in 2011, when the Premier was suggesting her
[ Page 3021 ]
set of proposals for how to fund TransLink at that time, which is obviously different from today — because the Premier has changed her mind; I will go into that a little in my remarks….

At that time, when the minister was on the Mayors Council, he said about the Premier's apparent unilateral action when she rejected the funding proposals from the mayors without consulting her Transport Minister…. I do pity Transport ministers with this Premier. It must be very difficult to work with her. But at that time the Minister of Education, who's now so fully behind this act, said: "I'm never surprised at things the Premier says. I think she makes decisions in isolation."

We have, obviously, a change in perspective from the Minister of Education on this. He now is wholeheartedly behind it and talking about the best-ever relationship with the Mayors Council. But as I understand it…. I don't live in the Lower Mainland, and my reason for speaking about this bill isn't specifically about this relationship, this very toxic relationship that is evolving here. It's not so much on the relationship between the Mayors Council and the government. But the minister said earlier, when he was concluding his remarks, that the mayors…. He said that it's the best relationship there has ever been with the Mayors Council.

Yesterday he acknowledged that the mayors don't always sing from the same song sheet. And it's quite right. They clearly don't sing from the same song sheet a lot of the time, but on this it appears that the government has managed to solidify the mayors in complete opposition to the referendum.

I think — now that we're starting to see mayors who realize that this is going to happen — that they have no option but to work with it. But the initial reaction after the election, when this referendum was dropped as an election ploy by a somewhat, at that stage, desperate government, the reaction by the mayors was wholeheartedly in opposition. I mean, the government very quickly got the mayors singing from the same song sheet.

At that time, the mayor of Surrey said: "We've got to stop playing politics and get the job done." The mayor of Richmond said that it's "a recipe for disaster." "It'll divide the region." I think we're going to hear from some of my colleagues about how it will divide the region, how we're going to have the competing interests of the region all trying to vie for one another. White Rock was calling it an "absolute, utter and total mistake" and "a total abrogation of responsibility."

Devolve it. Just devolve it down to the mayors, and walk away from it.

The Port Coquitlam mayor described it as hypocrisy: "The hypocrisy of this policy platform proposal is unbelievable." This is a former candidate for the B.C. Liberals. He obviously didn't win and did not end up in government and so is not now an apologist for the actions of this government.

The mayor of Vancouver described it as "ridiculous." The North Van district mayor described it as "a deflection of the province's responsibility," and the mayor of Burnaby described it as "desperate measures."

At that time we did get the mayors singing from the same song sheet, so the government achieved something there. As I say, now mayors are realizing this is going to happen and are going to start, clearly, trying to work with the government. But there are two areas I really want to focus on in my remarks. One is the issue of a referendum to be used to establish tax policy. The second issue is, really, the indecisiveness of this government about its policy.

[1500]

The first issue is the question of referendum politics. We have mayors talking abrogation of responsibility, that it's a bad policy decision. I absolutely agree that it is both an abrogation of responsibility and a bad policy decision. To devolve the question of tax policy to referenda really does take away the authority of elected bodies. It's just saying…. If you have to go to the people every time you want to make a tax increase, you have to start questioning why you have elected bodies in place.

We have governments in place who are there. One of the things they are charged with is to make tax policy and to make decisions on behalf of their electorate. To go back time and again to the electorate and say, "This is something that is going back to you; you're going to have to make the decision," I think is bad policy. This is not the system of government we work in. We work in a system of government which respects those who are elected to make those decisions.

If you use referenda and carry on using referenda politics, you can end up in the situation that California is in. I mean, it's the worst example of referenda politics. You end up going broke, because people vote against it. People vote against tax increases. They tend to vote against tax increases.

With the best sales job in the world, you go to somebody and say, "Oh, by the way, are you willing to pay an extra 2 percent for your transit?" and a lot of people are going to say no. They're going to say: "Why should I? I pay my taxes." It should be part of a greater debate. It shouldn't come down to referenda politics.

What's exceedingly troubling in this bill is that this is going to be permanent. For any new revenue that TransLink wants to raise, that the Mayors Council needs, as we discussed in the preceding bill, Bill 22….

They are co-joined bills, as it were. You've got the one about governance. Bill 22 is all about governance and the role of the Mayors Council, the TransLink board. This one is about how to raise money through these referenda. So this is going to be in perpetuity. It's going to be that every time the Mayors Council wants to raise money for the growth of TransLink, for the investment into the infrastructure that they so desperately need to make sure that people are served well, that businesses are served
[ Page 3022 ]
well, that we have a Lower Mainland that can actually move, that people….

I mean, we've got the minister talking about all the wonderful things — about seniors being able to catch the bus, and students, and so on. I think my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview, in his remarks yesterday, the critic for TransLink, gave some very eloquent examples of how this isn't working, particularly for people who are trapped at home because there isn't handyDART. There are huge needs.

This is not the way to deal with those needs — by telling the Mayors Council that every time you need to increase your revenue, you're going to have to take it out for a vote. You're going to have to go and take it to the electorate who has already elected you and given you that responsibility and that authority to make tax decisions, to make financial decisions. It's really, I think, irresponsible.

I think this is a huge problem when you get to referenda politics, when it devolves down to each attempt to raise money coming down to the individual voter. I think it's a really exceedingly dangerous way of going, and it's not the system that we, in this province, have or should adopt. We should be allowing our elected representatives to have that authority. The mayors want that. They're looking at the authority that is given to them in Bill 22 and are very wary about it because it does give them financial authority without the power over the budget.

This doesn't give them power over the budget. This gives them a referendum, a referendum now and a referendum in the future — and an ill-defined referendum now.

I think that what we have here is almost an example of making policy on the fly without any real foundation. The government is so, really, desperate of trying to solve this, not wanting to include people and not wanting to embrace a proper discussion, not wanting to engage the mayors in: "How are we going to solve this?" It's like: "Okay. We'll put it back to the taxpayer. We're going to have a referendum."

This whole notion of there being only one taxpayer…. I mean, to be honest, it's cant. The fact that what the minister keeps talking about is there's only one taxpayer….

[1505]

There are actually lots of sources of revenue, and individual taxpayers are one source of revenue. But there are lots of other sources of revenue, and the minister, as a minister of the Crown, should recognize that — the different ways that services in this province are funded. It's very clear from his remarks and his really narrow vision that he doesn't understand the way that systems work in the bigger sphere outside his former mayoral role.

I do think that what we have here, really, is the issue that we're having decisions made on the fly with no real thought of what it's going to mean. As I say, we have referenda in perpetuity. How is that going to unroll? I mean, how are the mayors supposed to work if there will be a permanent condition that the mayors have to always go to referendum to raise money?

I think that what we are seeing is a government, as I say, that is just desperate to find any solution. This has been troubling them for a long while. They say: "Okay, we'll take it back to this one taxpayer. We're going to take it to the one taxpayer, whether that one taxpayer is in Port Coquitlam, in Surrey, in North Vancouver. We're going to take it back to them, and they're going to make the decision for us."

Clearly, the Premier and the Transportation Minister have been unable to make that decision. The Transportation Minister really has been left with a poisoned chalice. He's got to deal with a lot of difficulties. It's something that was unable to be resolved by former Transportation Ministers. Blair Lekstrom had real run-ins with the Premier on this, and we've had other Transportation Ministers dealing with it.

But we have, I think, the unfortunate situation of a Transportation Minister who is continually being undercut by a Premier who really just wants to win votes — you know, just get the ideas there and: "Okay, we've got the nice smile. We've made the nice slogan. This is what we're going to do today."

I think what we have today is the result of something that was really ill-conceived by the Premier. But as I say, we have had the Transportation Ministers being undercut by the Premier several times, particularly on the referendum.

We know that the idea of the referendum for any new funding came up in the Liberal Party platform at the last election. The mandate letter that all ministers received, the one the Transportation Minister received, said that any new funding would not be approved unless it was approved by a referendum held no later than November 2014 — so this November — in conjunction with the municipal elections.

In September the Premier, who earlier also didn't like referenda…. I've got to say I agree with her, back in 2011, when she said, "I never thought that tax issues are best outside the Legislature" — I guess, best sorted outside the Legislature. She was short-forming, I imagine, on a news station.

Then she said in a news release: "I think you have to be upfront with people, explain the circumstances, have a debate, and then you introduce tax policy. I will lead a government that consults and listens and then acts with the best interests of all British Columbians at heart. When you do that, people are willing to accept changes to the tax system."

Nice approach: consult, talk, lead, make decisions on tax policy. In 2011 that's what the Premier wanted. I concur. I think that tax policy should be done in legislatures. It should be done among elected officials. It should not be done through referenda. Doing it through referenda undermines the electoral system that we have in this
[ Page 3023 ]
province, and I think, as I mentioned, it's quite dangerous.

Back in 2011 the Premier accepts it. The 2013 election manifesto — or rather election platform, using the English term — says that we're going to have the referendum.

In September the Premier says that the transit referendum "is something that needs to be resolved by mayors. They need to come together with a proposal. They need to agree on it, and then they can put it forward to the public."

At that time, the mayors said it was up to the government to formulate. They had already said very clearly they didn't want the referendum. They were unanimous. Like the minister says, they got them to sing from the same songsheet. They were all opposed to it.

[1510]

At the time the mayors said: "It's up to the government to come up with the questions. If you're going to give us a referendum, you decide the questions."

By October the Minister of Transportation — I've been referring at times to the Minister of Education, who was speaking before me — responded to a letter from the Mayors Council, committing to discussing the governance changes and the referendum question but didn't give any details.

But by November, about six weeks later, the minister, who was feeling very confident…. He'd just come forward and announced all the cuts to the ferry service and the damage that's going to be happening to our marine highway just that previous week.

In November the minister tells the media that his six conditions for a successful referendum say: "It cannot be a convoluted question with a whole bunch of boxes to tick off. Successful referendums tend to be yes or no, with one single question at the bottom.... In terms of timing, we want to maximize voter participation. We want to minimize the cost of the referendum, and we want to set the referendum up for the maximum chance of success."

Obviously, it's largely up to the mayors. The province has an important voice at that table, but it's largely up to the mayors themselves to set what their priorities are. That was back in November.

By this February we have the letter to the Mayors Council which says that there will be the referendum, and there will be the governance changes. Wait and see; this is all going to be coming up in the legislation.

So what we have in front of us now is the legislation which does that. What it does is leave the decision up to the Mayors Council. They've got to make the recommendations on the question or the questions.

So they make the decision, but then the minister isn't bound by that. So they go to all the work of committing to it and make the decision that they are going to be pulling together the referendum questions. But the minister then isn't bound by it.

Despite saying previously that the referendum had to be held no later than the 2014 municipal election, now the timing is actually left up to regulation, which means it's not in this bill. It means this is going to be a decision made by cabinet, by regulation. It does allow for a stand-alone vote to be held by the end of June 2015 — not November 2014 — or even in conjunction with later municipal elections in 2018 or 2022, assuming that we're moving onto a four-year cycle.

What we're left with is really, I think, something that I've got to say is absolutely unsatisfactory. We've had contradictions between the minister and the Premier on the date of the referendum and the nature of the provincial involvement. The minister is trying to engage with the Mayors Council. He's working very hard to try and engage but is being undercut by his Premier. Then we are left with this piece of legislation, which is leaving a lot to regulation and a lot with very upset mayors.

We have a government here that's a new government with a Premier who was re-elected, and we have many new ministers. It is in many opportunities a way of starting afresh. Let's look at this in a new way.

We have to find out ways of funding TransLink. There's no question that it needs extra money, but to do it through a referendum is not the solution. To look at one of the most densely populated…. It is the most densely populated area of our province. As I mentioned in my remarks on Bill 22, this is where goods flow through, where businesses are operating, and where people are living and going to work and making things happen.

We've got diverse communities there. Working both east-west and north-south, we've got a very diverse geographical structure. There are a lot of things and a lot of different demands. There is a huge need for funding for a system.

[1515]

As I say, I represent the North Island. I absolutely understand the needs of the Lower Mainland in making sure that they have a transportation system that works, because it's for the benefit of all of the province. It's a bit like having a ferry system that works, that's financially affordable, but it's for the benefit of all of the province.

You've got to look at the provincial picture when you're talking about transportation. You've got to look at the provincial picture, because transportation is so fundamental to the economic and social and environmental well-being of our province. To narrow it down to just a few blocks is not the way forward.

You've got to be looking at it in a provincial way, and you've got to take a provincial responsibility when you're talking about it, when you're devising policy and when you're thinking through policy. You've got to really be aware of what is going to be in the best interests and the least-divisive approach for the province.

What we've got here is a piece of legislation that it doesn't seem anybody really wants except the Premier. The minister is trying to stickhandle it through as best he possibly can.
[ Page 3024 ]

There is an agreement that we need to get extra funding for TransLink. There is a definite agreement on this side of the House that the Mayors Council needs authority to be able to handle the responsibility that it's being given under the preceding bill for fare increases and everything else.

We've got to make sure, though, that this is being done in a responsible way, and this is not the responsible way forward. Referendum politics is not a responsible way of establishing any way of raising revenue, any tax regime — particularly in an area such as this, particularly for an issue which is as vital for our economic, social and environmental well-being as transportation.

With that, I'm going to conclude my remarks. I do hope that the government does rethink this. I hope that they will look at, at least when we get to committee stage, seeing whether they can pull back on some of the areas.

I mean, we've had so many changes of ideas — whether it should be a referendum or shouldn't be a referendum, how it's going to be carried out, who's going to make the question — that maybe we can, before we get this bill passed, have yet another change of mind.

The Premier will reflect on previous thoughts and think: "Okay, well, you know, it was a quick win for the election. I like my quick wins for the election. I'm now going to come up, and I'm going to have a quick change of heart, and I'm going to go back to saying I don't like referenda politics."

We don't know with this Premier. There is a change of heart very rapidly. There is obviously no real commitment to real, well-thought-out policy.

I would hope that she has the courtesy of informing her Minister of Transportation before she changes her mind, but all we can hope is that the Premier does change her mind before we continue with this and before this becomes the law. Because to establish this as law, to entrench referenda for every time that the TransLink mayors need to raise money, is shortsighted and simply bad economic and social policy.

R. Lee: I would like to rise today to support Bill 23, put forward by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Of course, the bill's title is South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

This is essentially dealing with the Lower Mainland and, really, it talks about funding and also some kind of a referendum. I believe this is the way to go for, in this case, a direct democracy. It's a way for the mayors to put forward their 30-year vision regarding strategy and ten-year funding formula for how to get new infrastructure and new additional funding sources in order to support that infrastructure.

I would also like to point out that the member for North Islandsaid that she does not agree with tax policy in terms of a referendum. I think the same group of people supporting you….

[1520]

You supported a tax policy by referendum about two years ago, called the HST referendum, and campaigned on that. I think this is nothing new in terms of tax policy by referendum.

I also would like to point out that this is an important issue for direct democracy. In many countries, of course, they go to vote almost every now and then, in very short intervals, to make local policy. That's in terms of casting their vote to make decisions on how to proceed with policies at the local level. I think in many countries in Europe they use that kind of vote — direct democracy — quite frequently.

I think this is a decision for the mayors to make, as well, for them to cultivate a vision for the future of transportation infrastructure in the Lower Mainland. It's an opportunity for the mayors to take up more responsibility, for them to have more power and for them to also be more directly involved in transportation.

Transportation. Locally, of course, many cities have their local traffic and local roads to control already. I think this is a way for them to integrate the local traffic policy, transportation policy, into a regional network. I think that would be a good opportunity for them to have that kind of vision of how to do the integration, how to use their local authority, their local power given by the voters for them to control those local issues. So I think this is very positive development for them to have more involvement in this local transportation authority.

Of course, there is much funding actually existing already to support local transportation — for example, in our Metro Vancouver region just recently, about two years ago, the proposal to increase the fuel tax by two cents. That decision was actually proposed by the Mayors Council and was accepted by the House, and we passed a bill in order to enable them to do that.

Right now, locally, TransLink actually has a lot of resources already in terms of the dedicated motor fuel tax. A lot of people don't know that 17 cents for each litre of fuel is allocated to TransLink already. So when we put gasoline in our cars, 17 cents per litre actually goes to TransLink.

Of course, there are other infrastructures — roads, construction, bridge construction. We have the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. They actually are doing financing for a lot of those infrastructures already — the Evergreen line, the Sea to Sky Highway, the Kicking Horse Canyon, South Fraser Perimeter Road, the William Bennett Bridge and, of course, the Canada Line. Those are under the authority to do some financing regarding infrastructure in the Lower Mainland. I'll go back to the gasoline tax. When you put a litre of gasoline in your car, 6.75 cents has been allocated for that financing authority.

There are other revenues, as well, to the provincial government. It's only 1.75 cents to general revenue. A lot of
[ Page 3025 ]
people don't understand. They say: "Okay, we pay a lot of taxes on gasoline. But how are they allocated?" They don't know. They say that the provincial government is actually taking everything at the provincial level — all this tax. But actually, for general revenue, the province only gets 1.75 cents per litre.

[1525]

You add all this together. The total motor vehicle tax in Metro Vancouver area is 25.5 cents already. This is not including the carbon tax as well as the GST and the federal excise tax.

If you included everything, the tax portion of one litre of gasoline…. Suppose it's $1 only. Now, at 25.5 cents for the motor vehicle tax; carbon tax, 6.67 cents; ten cents for the federal excise tax; and GST of 5 percent. The 5 percent is on top of all of these taxes as well.

I think, if it's $1 per litre, it adds up to $1.49. That's how we pay $1.49 at the gas pump. But I would like to emphasize, TransLink is actually getting one-third of that tax already, and the BCTFA, in terms of transportation, is 6.75 cents. So sometimes….

Deputy Speaker: Member, the member for North Island would like to seek leave to make introduction. Would you mind ceding the floor for a second.

Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: Appreciate the member from Burnaby for giving me the floor for the moment.

During question period I let the House know that there was going to be a group of students from Campbell River Christian School visiting the Legislature, and I believe they're in the gallery at the moment. We have 12 grade 11 students, some parents and their teacher Tammie Coon. They're here observing the workings of democracy, the intricacies of debate of the second reading of a bill about TransLink funding.

I hope that they are enjoying it. They would have had a lot of livelier debate watching question period, but this is the real meat of how our system works: a lot of debate, a lot of questions, a lot of respect.

With that, I hope the House will make them very welcome, and I thank the member from Burnaby for ceding the floor to me to make that introduction.

Debate Continued

R. Lee: It is my honour to continue the debate on Bill 23.

I think the bill is a way for us to show our support to the mayors, the Mayors Council, for them to actually pick up more responsibility.

This is nothing new in introducing this bill. Our government actually committed last year, when we had the election, and made promises that before new fees or taxes were used to expand the Metro Vancouver transportation system, there should be a referendum. So I think this is an issue we campaigned on, and the voters actually had their say already. Today is a promise made and a promise to be delivered.

I think that it is very clear that this is something this side of the House is very committed to do. Our position has been really, really clear. If the people of Metro Vancouver are being asked to pay for new taxes and fees — this is for the new taxes and fees; I also talked about what TransLink has already been able to collect, in terms of tax, already, so beyond that collection of taxes — the taxpayer should have a say on new fees and new taxes.

I think this is very democratic, and I think this is a way for us to let the people say what they want and what they are committed to, with a vote. I think it is easier for the mayors to say: "Okay. This is a decision of the Metro Vancouver people. If you don't agree with that, this is a decision made by referendum."

So I think it is easier for them to bring in policy to bring in infrastructure that way as well. I think today's legislation will enable the referendum to occur during the election — or maybe beyond the election, depending on what the Mayors Council will decide. They have the control of this date, but not after June 2015.

[1530]

I think this is a reasonable time period for the Mayors Council to make their decision. You can save some dollars with a referendum if this is being held during the election so the voters don't have to go back another time to cast a vote. I think this is a way for the mayors to decide. The options are probably quite clear.

This is also our commitment on this side of the House, of government — to reimburse the costs of a referendum. I think this would be helpful for the local governments to have a referendum without a burden on their local financial situation. So I think this is a way to engage the public, to have the direct input for them to say what they want.

Also, the Mayors Council has the option and the authority to have the wording of what they want, what the question would be. They can put the wording in a question. It's a lot of input for them to shape the questions. I think those are the options available to the mayors, and I think they should embrace those kinds of opportunities.

I attended, actually, quite a few TransLink meetings during my 13 years as an MLA. I always enjoy listening to the opinions and attended quite a few with the member for Surrey-Panorama. When he was the TransLink chair, I was there. I listened to the debate and the discussions together with some of the city councillors, of course.

I think there was a lot of interest over those years in getting people's input. Sometimes people's options are discussed, but how to make a decision is not clear. I think that with the guidance of the referenda, the board will have more power to proceed with those plans. I think
[ Page 3026 ]
this is a good way for our infrastructure to be built in the Lower Mainland.

This legislation also allows the Mayors Council to approve TransLink's long-term strategies. I guess that this is the strategy. With the opinion of the mayors, it could be more complete, I believe.

The mayors are elected locally, and of course, they also have a mandate to improve the infrastructure around their local region. But as everybody knows, the regions are not isolated. The cities are not isolated. The municipalities are not isolated. And some of the areas, even smaller regional areas, are interconnected. How to present a plan with the vision and the strategy so that in the future it is more sustainable for TransLink, for the local transportation authority?

Those are the keys, I believe. The mayors have to discuss it. They have to present a vision. They have to present the strategies. Also, they have to be somehow involved in the consequences of that decision. In the future the complaints, some of the issues that were brought up by the people in this region…. They will go to the authority as well, to the Mayors Council as well, unless the Mayors Council will say: "Okay, we don't want to play the role of commissioner. We will ask someone else to do that."

So I think this is the power within the Mayors Council — for them to decide what to do and how much they want to get involved in the day-to-day operation or policy. I think this is a way for them to engage with the residents. Of course, in transportation, we call them customers. The satisfaction of the customers is very important for them. This is a way for those processes to go on in the future.

[1535]

We also would like to say that a clear understanding of these projects is very important before you go into a referendum. For the next few months, if possible, cultivate the projects — what you want, which area to develop, what kind of services, funding level, buses, SeaBus, SkyTrains, whatever. I think these are the issues. The Mayors Council has to decide and put forward the questions on how the money would be raised if they are allowed to use these kinds of policies and the mandate passed by the referendum.

With that, I would like to say thank you to the Chair and to the House for the opportunity.

D. Eby: I really hate traffic jams. I live in Vancouver. It's a nightmare to drive around Vancouver. Ask anybody from Vancouver. It is a headache, and yet thousands of students that go to school at UBC drive their cars to school because the buses will not pick them up because they are at capacity.

When you add the thousands of students at UBC who are already there to what is coming to UBC — we know that UBC will be increasing their daytime population to 87,000 people at the school — we've got a real problem in Vancouver. It's a major, major problem. Like not a small problem; this is a crisis-level problem.

I'll give you some scope on the crisis we face on the Broadway corridor. The UBC-Broadway corridor is at full transit capacity during peak hours, with 500,000 pass-ups a year. Off-peak services are up to 75 percent of capacity.

When you've got 500,000 times that a bus drives past somebody standing in the rain, not picking them up, you cannot blame that person for not taking the bus next time, for buying a car, for getting a parking pass at UBC and driving themselves to school so that they can make it to work, so that they can make it to their class on time.

Now, obviously, that is not a sustainable approach. We're past the point of sustainability, and we're at the crisis level on the Broadway corridor. But it's not just the Broadway corridor. This is a systemwide problem. Friends at CUPE prepared a study of the number of buses available to the system right now: 1,003 conventional buses and 105 community shuttle buses for a total of 1,108 buses serving Metro Vancouver during the a.m. rush hour.

Yet TransLink's plan calculated that the region would require a bus fleet of 1,600 buses. Even if you take out West Vancouver and the private operators in New West, Langley and Aldergrove, you're still 430 buses short for projections to 2006. As I noted in question period, this is 2014.

The 500 bus figure — these missing 500 buses — may actually be conservative, because the projections to come to 1,600 buses were based on population projections that have been exceeded in those years and didn't include the U-Pass program, which has dramatically increased the number of students on the buses. It didn't include the unprecedented rise in the price of gasoline, which has taken many people…. Well, it has encouraged them to get out of their cars and get onto the bus.

We've seen a massive increase in people on the bus. When I visit schools…. It's not just UBC. When I visit BCIT, they talk about lineups around the corner of students trying to get home on the bus and not being able to get home on the bus and not able to get to school on the bus. This is a major problem.

[1540]

Students who have the U-Pass. The idea behind the U-Pass, as I understood it, was to encourage people to take transit when they were younger, when they literally had to because they couldn't afford to take any other form of transportation — that they would enjoy that process, that it was fast, that it was efficient, that it was cheap, that it got them where they wanted to go, that it was environmentally friendly and that they would keep taking the bus and rapid transit for their entire lives.

Instead, what we've done is create a system where these students literally hate the bus. They hate the bus. If they had any way other than to take the bus, they would do it. You can't blame them when you hear a figure like 500,000 pass-ups and you know who the majority of those pass-ups are. Those are students on the UBC-Broadway cor-
[ Page 3027 ]
ridor line trying to get to school, trying to get to class.

It's not just students, of course. "HandyDART Trip Denials Up 670 Percent Since 2008" — that's a headline from November 2013 on CBC. This document that came from TransLink showed that there were 4,800 trip denials for riders in 2008. In 2012 that number reached 37,000 trip denials — 37,000. According to TransLink: "Our current sources of revenue do not allow TransLink to expand transit service." So people with disabilities and senior citizens in Vancouver trying to get handyDART service are being denied service today, right now.

A recap: 500,000 pass-ups, a 670 percent increase in denial of rides to senior citizens and people with disabilities under the handyDART system, 500 buses short.

Those are the problems that we face today. But there are also opportunities when we talk about the Broadway corridor. The city of Vancouver prepared a report, and KPMG helped them do it, titled The UBC-Broadway Corridor — Unlocking the Economic Potential. KPMG told the city of Vancouver the following:

"The corridor linking Vancouver to UBC has the potential to become a technology hub on par with Toronto's MaRS district, San Diego's CONNECT or London's Tech City. Already, growth in the corridor is outpacing predictions from just a few years ago, with estimates currently predicting an increase in employment and population of 150,000 over the next 30 years."

They say that UBC, with their economic impact of $10 billion, has more than 150 spinoff companies, 100 of which are life sciences. raised $2 billion in capital based in the Vancouver Broadway corridor and are dependent on high-quality transit, not 500,000 pass-ups.

We might be getting to the point where you ask: "What does this have to do with the referendum? This is exactly what the referendum is about. We're going to get some funding for this, essentially, desperately needed transit improvement along the Broadway corridor, and we're going to buy the buses that we need."

The problem is: what happens when the referendum says no? What if it says no? Are we just going to say: "You know what? That growth on the Broadway corridor — forget about it. The referendum said no, so we're not going to improve transit. And students not being able to get to school — well, those are the breaks. Maybe they should go out and buy a car. And the senior citizens and the people with disabilities — well, they'll just have to figure out a different way to get to where they need to go."

The problem is that these are not referendum issues. These are basic services for people who need to get to work, who need to get to school, who need to do what they need to do. This government has followed that model with bridges and roads and essential infrastructure across the province, yet for transit, for transit users, for the sustainable future of our province, for young people, for senior citizens and people with disabilities, we're going to put it to a referendum.

We're going to say: "No, we cannot move on this independently because it has to be done, because it is essential infrastructure. We're going to put your ability to get around to a vote."

It doesn't just impact the groups, as I say, that take the bus currently. It impacts people who drive their cars as well. Anyone who tries to drive around the city of Vancouver knows that it is a living nightmare to try to get where you need to go within half an hour if you have to get across the city.

If there are fewer people on the bus because they're getting passed up, that means there are more people in cars on the road, clogging up the roads. I think we can all agree that fewer traffic jams would be a really great idea for the city of Vancouver. We don't need to put it to a referendum. We could start action on it right away.

[1545]

I'll just close my relatively brief remarks — because I think it's so obvious that there's really no point in hammering away at it; this needs to be done — by saying that climate change is all of our responsibilities as people who have been elected to represent our communities. B.C.'s part in that is giving people good, high-quality options to get out of their cars and reduce their carbon footprints.

Without high-quality transit, we will not be able to reach our emissions targets — which are already, obviously, very much in jeopardy. We won't be doing our part for this global effort to reduce carbon pollution.

I heard the member who spoke before me — I apologize; I forget the name of his constituency — say June 2015. That's a pretty good schedule. Two years after the date of the election is when we're going to hold the referendum, theoretically, if it doesn't get pushed back again.

These issues can't keep getting pushed back. These issues are a matter of crisis in Vancouver for anyone who is trying to get where they need to go. It includes the members of Vancouver–Point Grey, but it also includes the 75 percent of riders on the Broadway corridor who do not come from my constituency, who come from across the Lower Mainland. It's an issue for all of us.

That concludes my remarks. I hope that the government reconsiders this very poorly planned initiative.

J. Yap: It's my pleasure and honour to rise and participate in this second reading debate on Bill 23 which, as we know, is in regards to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

Transit, as speakers from both sides of the House have noted in this debate, is so important to the people of British Columbia living in urban areas, and certainly, our largest urban area — the Lower Mainland, the greater Vancouver area — is already growing. People want to move to the Lower Mainland, to the greater Vancouver area, a population of 2½ million and growing. Forecasts are showing that over the next 30 years it could grow by another million people. Transit is crucial to supporting this growth, to supporting the economic growth of our region and of the province. So it's important that we get this right on behalf of all British Columbians.
[ Page 3028 ]

As I travel through my riding, through Richmond, it's clear to me that my constituents in Richmond-Steveston are very concerned that we continue to have a transit system that works. In Richmond we have clearly benefited from a great transit system. We have great bus linkages through Richmond connecting to different parts of the Lower Mainland, and of course, we have the Canada Line, a great success story.

It's one in which I believe, during the wonderful experience that all members will recall — the 2010 games, when the Canada Line was one of the centrepieces of the infrastructure that came with the 2010 games — British Columbians really discovered the joy of using transit.

I recall well the many times before and during the Olympics and after the games…. I'm a regular user of the Canada Line, as is my family and many people that I know. What a great piece of infrastructure, a success beyond forecasts. The Canada Line today delivers over 100,000 passengers, riders, every day. It beat the forecasts very, very early since its start.

I have to say that it's understandable that as our region grows, as the greater Vancouver area grows, more transit is needed, as was noted by previous speakers, including the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. But we need to ensure that this is a sustainable transit system. We need to ensure that there's a fair way to help pay for needed transit.

[1550]

It has been said before, but it's worth saying that we have here in the Lower Mainland a large and growing population, but still there are many British Columbians that do not directly benefit from transit.

Where do we balance the investments that people living in the north and people living in rural British Columbia, through their taxes, invest in transit in the Lower Mainland? How do we balance the investment by taxpayers in general and those who live in the region?

That is, in essence, what we're trying to achieve here with the changes that are being introduced in governance and the funding model, as well as the referendum, to ensure that the people living in the greater Vancouver region support the mayors' plan for a fully costed transit system that will meet the needs of the greater Vancouver region over the next ten years — and fully costed, certainly, over the long term, over the next 30 years.

Sustainability is important to my constituents and to British Columbians. We need a financial model that not only is sustainable but has the support of those that will be helping to pay for it. As has been said, there is only one taxpayer. Our government has consistently stood for and continues to stand for keeping taxes affordable for British Columbians.

We did about a year ago, during the last election campaign, talk about how, if we were re-elected, we would deal with transit in greater Vancouver, and a commitment was made. A commitment to British Columbians was made that if we were re-elected we would introduce a referendum to ensure that those living in the greater Vancouver area understood the options for potential new ways of funding transit and that through the referendum we'd support these new taxes or ways of funding.

The Minister of Transportation has introduced two pieces of legislation — Bill 22 and this one that's the subject of this second reading debate, Bill 23 — to provide greater authority over TransLink to the mayors. It is quite logical, as the leaders in the region, that through the Mayors Council they have additional responsibility. This is something that the mayors have been calling for. This Bill 22 will lay the groundwork for a public regionwide transportation system that will meet the needs of our region and allow the people living in the region to have a say in the way that this is funded.

Our position has been clear. We made our promise to British Columbians that if we were returned to government we would hold this referendum, so we are following through on this. The legislation will allow a referendum to occur, if possible, during the local government elections that are scheduled for November of this year. If that were possible, that would keep costs to a minimum.

However, if the mayors through their work discover that it's more feasible to hold this referendum at a later point, they have the flexibility to do that but have to hold this referendum by June '15. We want to have this planning and the work that needs to go into this and the support for a funding model to be in place as soon as possible, so this needs to be held before June of 2015.

The legislation will also keep the local governments whole in the referendum. Should it take place other than in conjunction with the local government elections, the costs of delivering a referendum, which can run up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, will be covered by government, by the province.

[1555]

The Mayors Council will determine the timing of the referendum, working with the Minister of Transportation. We look forward to the results of their work.

You know, I have to commend the mayors who, I understand, had some reservations about this approach but have now come aboard and are working hard. The mayors have been working diligently to come up with a transportation vision and plan, a ten-year plan and a 30-year plan, looking at the options in terms of the funding and the need for a referendum should new funding sources be part of the visioning and long-term plan. All are keeping in mind what's best for greater Vancouver voters and their regional transportation system.

As I mentioned, the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation had asked our government for a greater role. They felt that they needed to be at the table and to have a greater say over TransLink's long-term plans and investments. Our government listened, and this legislation will allow the Mayors Council to approve those
[ Page 3029 ]
long-term plans.

Whether it's a 30-year regional transportation strategy — you know, the really long-term plan — or the fully funded ten-year investment plan for transit, the Mayors Council will have this ability. They will be able to approve fare increases, the sale of major assets of TransLink, oversee customer service and customer satisfaction programs, and assume responsibility for the TransLink Commissioner.

In asking people to vote on a new transportation vision that will meet the needs of the region into the next decades, the people living in the region need a clear understanding of what the projects are. We heard a number of members, in their comments, talk about whether as the region grows….

We already know about some of the potential projects, whether it's the UBC line; whether it's the next line to Surrey, our fastest-growing city in the province; or whether it's more bus service out into the Fraser Valley.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

All of these are great projects, but they cost a lot of capital, and it's important that the people who will eventually be paying for this have an opportunity to express their opinion through this referendum.

In closing, I think it's fair to say that our government has been very clear. We said a year ago that there would be a referendum, and we're following through. This is, as colleagues have said, a promise made and a promise kept. We're committed to supporting the continued economic growth of our most populous region, the greater Vancouver region, with a great transportation system — but, again, one that is sustainable financially and otherwise.

I support Bill 23 and look forward to the continued comments from other members. I believe that this is an important step to ensuring that we have a great transportation system to meet the needs of the greater Vancouver region into the future.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand up and speak on Bill 23, which has to do with funding transportation referenda.

The member who spoke before me was talking about Bill 22 as well, which we debated yesterday. I stood up and spoke about that bill and expressed great concern about that bill.

[1600]

That bill basically, despite promises from this government that they were going to fix the problems with governance that have existed since they took the locally elected local government mayors and councillors out of planning transit in the Lower Mainland and created a private board that they populate with their friends and those that will do what they want. Ever since that we've had a terrible problem with transit in the Lower Mainland. We have gridlock in planning, and we have gridlock in the streets of greater Vancouver because of the terrible problems that we've had with transit.

We debated Bill 22 yesterday. Essentially, what that does — despite promises to give more power back to the mayors…. I think there is a recognition that you need to have locally elected people involved in planning. Unfortunately, what they really did in Bill 22 — and I will get to Bill 23, but the two are tied together — was give all the lousy jobs to the local mayors and say: "You get to raise the fares. You get to set the compensation level for the private board, but the private board is still going to run the system." That was yesterday.

The other piece of legislation, which came about as in the middle of an election a promise — again, I think, to delay taking a real hard look at transit and coming up with solutions after many years…. Then the government says, in an election: "We're going to have a referendum on funding transit." Again, a delay — a delay of years caused by this government, which refuses to sit down and have proper discussions and work with mayors and councillors, the locally elected representatives from the Lower Mainland.

I think it's quite astounding that suddenly the government — or the Premier — decided that there was a great interest in referendums. They certainly didn't want to have a referendum on the HST. We had one because 10 percent of the people of this province said that they were making a lousy decision on the HST. They didn't think it was a good idea, and for that referendum they spent $5 million of taxpayers' money to convince people that they should vote against it. They didn't want a referendum on that.

They didn't have a referendum on the Port Mann Bridge that they spent $3½ billion on. They're not having a referendum on another election promise — the Massey Tunnel replacement. Again, the whim of the Premier. No discussion about that.

But when it's politically thorny and a problem and there have been four years of delays in coming up with funding solutions to very complex transit problems, suddenly the Premier says: "Let's have a referendum." Tricky — probably a cute little political trick to try to push the blame back on the local governments. But this is no way to plan a serious system, to plan a very complex system. We've had many years of delays, as I said. I suspect that what they want to do is blame local governments.

This government has been ragging the puck for at least four years. In 2010, almost four years ago in later 2010, the province and the mayors signed a regional transportation agreement. Here's what the Premier of the time, Premier Gordon Campbell, said: "We are reaffirming our commitment to the people of Metro Vancouver that their mayors and the provincial government will collaborate closely to keep people, goods and services moving
[ Page 3030 ]
quickly and efficiently, with minimal impact on our environment."

Boy, that sounds like a great idea. What have we had since? We've had absolutely nothing. Over the past several years we've had three audits. We have ministers auditing each other, ministers coming in new and saying: "I don't like the work." I guess what they're saying is: "I don't like the work that the last minister did, so we're going to audit that work. We're going to have a review of that minister's work."

We've had delay after delay. We've had no action whatsoever, and what's the result? What's the result for the Lower Mainland? As my colleagues have said — most recently my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey — what you have is a result of a lack of funding of transit in the Lower Mainland.

What you have are students getting frustrated and not believing in the transit system — students standing, waiting for bus after bus. I've seen it. I've heard it from my kids. They're not going to school anymore, but I'll tell you that it took hours to get to school sometimes, waiting in the rain for buses that passed and passed and passed. It's unbelievable.

[1605]

At a time that we should be putting money into transit, instead, what we're doing is saying that we're going to build bridges but we're going to neglect the transit system. We're talking about a system that serves half the population of this province, and it's in disarray because of this government. It caused a three-year delay in the Evergreen line. Now we're getting massive service cuts to bus routes, especially south of the Fraser.

As I said, this is a very complex issue, and it astounds me that this government would leave such a complex issue — the planning and the decision-making — and try to distil it down to one or two or three questions. Of course, we don't know what that is, whether it is going to be one question or a yes-no, because the Minister of Transportation said it was going to be one thing and then the Premier said it was going to be just the opposite, that you couldn't have a yes-no question. So we don't really know what it's going to look like.

You know, when in July the Mayors Council, the elected representatives from the Lower Mainland who have been dealing with transit…. They still don't have any real power, because they don't have control of the budget.

I suggested yesterday to the members opposite that perhaps that would be okay — that to run the provincial government, they should get a private board that has control of the budget, and then they could just get to do things like decide their own compensation or things like that. Apparently, they're giving themselves a 10 percent raise this year — the ministers are.

But we have a very complex system, and the decision that this government makes is that you are going to let the future of that complex system be decided by one or two questions on a referendum? It's preposterous. Do you know: what is the result? I don't know if anybody has thought about what the result of this referendum is going to be. What do we have in the Lower Mainland? I think we have…. It's not bad. I think it's in the range of 21 or 22 percent ridership in the Lower Mainland, the area that is going to be voting on this referendum.

What is the result going to be? Has this government thought about that? Has this government thought, when you have 21 or 22 percent of the people that take transit, what the odds are of a referendum passing? So is this government intending for this to fail and, therefore, delaying funding of transit yet another three, four, five years — making it worse, meaning that there's going to be more congestion in the Lower Mainland? More congestion in the Lower Mainland and no improvements whatsoever.

You know, one of the members opposite talked about capital investments. The problem that TransLink has — it's partly capital. But the real problem is the operating costs associated with any capital improvements that happen. You can build all of the bridges you want. You can build the infrastructure, but the problem is: you have to have the operating costs.

Their reserves are drained. Again, this all goes back to the inability of this government to work in any way with local government in order to fix the problem. The local government has been trying. Even after saying how ridiculous this referendum was and unanimously voting against it in July 2013…. The Mayors Council said unanimously that they did not want to do it.

Dianne Watts of Surrey said: "We really just need to stop playing politics and get the job done." Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie: "A recipe for disaster — it will divide the whole region. And if it fails, we'll be further behind than we ever were."

Port Coquitlam mayor Greg Moore, who is also the chair of Metro Vancouver, said: "The hypocrisy of this policy platform proposal is unbelievable." Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson called it simply "ridiculous."

Despite their feelings on this, I have to give the Mayors Council, the mayors of the Lower Mainland, credit. Despite the incompetence of this government for the last four years — ragging the puck and doing nothing about transit, which is important not only to move students in our universities but also for businesses and for all of us in the Lower Mainland — they have kept coming back to this incompetent government and tried to offer solutions.

[1610]

They're even now trying to come up with a vision. They're even now doing that, despite being rejected over and over again.

What are some of things that, after that 2010 memorandum, they have suggested to government? They've said a vehicle levy. They suggested a vehicle levy and said: "You know, we'll take some local heat for that." They suggested a vehicle levy — rejected by this government.
[ Page 3031 ]

What they suggested was that the vehicle levy should be collected by the provincial government and that the easiest way to do it would be to have the vehicle levy collected at the time that people pay ICBC. Otherwise, it does not make financial sense and would cost more or eat up a huge amount of the money that was collected to try to collect that money. It would make no sense to do it any other way.

Rejected by this government, despite the fact this government forces local governments to collect millions of dollars every year on their behalf in the form of the school tax. They can force local governments to do that. They force them to do that in their property tax bill every year but rejected this because, I presume, they didn't want to have it on ICBC. Inconsistency, to say the least.

They suggested a portion of the carbon tax. It makes sense to have a tax on carbon go to transit — again, rejected. They even agreed to a temporary property tax increase as a stopgap measure — as a sign of faith, yet again, with this government, because the then minister, Blair Lekstrom, said he would get things sorted out to provide new sources of funding for transit. It never happened — more delays, never happened.

So here we go. Now we have this pathetic idea of having a referendum which has a good chance of failing, which means that by the time that happens, if it's June of 2015 when it happens, we'll have had five years of no action whatsoever.

But I do have to say that I give the Mayors Council credit for trying. They may work something out here. They may manage to get around the incompetence of this government on this file. They may manage to get something together that works, but it's certainly not thanks to this government.

It's unfortunate because those that suffer, those that are affected by this are the people who need to get on the buses every day, the people that need the buses and the transit system to go to work.

There are parts of it, like SkyTrain, that work very well, although there have certainly been incompetencies there as well. There are parts that work, but the bus system is really hurting. What we should have had over the last four years is we should have had a significant investment in the bus service.

There's no reason that we don't have a service that serves all the communities of the Lower Mainland and that we have good systems. Then we don't have young people learning that the only way you can get to UBC is to get in your car because you can't get there on a bus in a timely manner.

I think it's another terrible idea by this government. I think it's very unfortunate because those that suffer are those that take our transit, rely on it for work and so on. Our costs are going up; service is going down. There's been delay, delay, delay. So I'm very concerned that we have yet another bad idea.

With that, I'll take my seat.

S. Sullivan: I'm pleased to speak in favour of Bill 23, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act. There are many arguments about the place of referenda in political decisions, but in my mind the most important issue here is that it was a commitment made in an election campaign.

[1615]

Any government should take with utmost seriousness such commitments, and for this reason I endorse this current Bill 23. Referenda are very powerful tools with the capacity for great good and the potential for not so good. This is why the management of this process is extremely important. I've great confidence in our Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, who has been spending incredible energy on this file. Our minister is passionately committed to achieving the best possible outcome.

All of us must do everything we can to support the minister on this critical issue. It will determine the quality of life for years to come for people in the Lower Mainland, and it is essential that all municipal leaders recognize the importance of this and get involved in bringing this effort to a successful conclusion.

There are many passionate opinions on this topic. I know that I spent some very difficult times in the government of Metro Vancouver. I sat through an experience where we attempted to try to bring more funding to transportation in the region, and it was a very bitterly fought battle over a vehicle levy. A lot of friendships were lost in the process — really, a lot of tension — but in the end we did vote at the Metro Vancouver level to endorse a vehicle levy. I do remind our friends opposite that it was an NDP government that rejected this after all of that fighting, so I'm sure our friends opposite will recognize how difficult this is and how it needs the support of all of us.

I had a wonderful student do some research for me to look at some of the literature. There is quite a literature on referendums, and I think we need to pay great attention to this because it could give us some ideas of how we could go forward.

He writes that the use of referendums to determine funding mechanisms for transportation and infrastructure in Canada are comparatively few in number. Where they have occurred, it appears that the referendums have been used to assign specific funding for specific projects, such as the Prince Edward Viaduct in the original section of the Yonge subway line in Toronto.

There is much more literature in the U.S. on referenda. As an example, a review of 111 transit referenda held in the United States between 1999 and 2007 found that proposals to use taxes for funding are less likely to pass than those that use bonds. In Sonoma county, California, there were five transportation sales tax measures over 15
[ Page 3032 ]
years. Only one of the measures, in 2004, successfully passed. In Phoenix a transit referendum was attempted four times before passing.

An article in the Atlantic Cities noted that a proposal for a one-cent sales tax for ten years to fund an itemized list of road and transit projects in Atlanta was rejected, despite endorsement from many leaders. So there is a lot of potential that this could go either way, and we need to work together.

Two researchers, Werbel and Haas, found that detailed projects, lists and plans that had multi-modal expenditure plans fared better than alternatives. In a study of ballot measures to increase the transportation sales tax in Sonoma county, they provide an overview of five transportation sales tax measures and a more detailed outline of two recent measures — one held in 2000 and another in 2004.

The ballot in 2000 had two separate measures. One measure called for a 0.5 percent sales tax for eight years to fund highway improvements only, and a second measure called for a 0.25 percent sales tax for 16 years to fund public transportation, local streets, roads, pedestrian improvements and bicycle projects.

[1620]

The authors explained that although there was very little campaigning from either supporters or detractors surrounding the second measure, and the majority of campaigning and media attention focused on the first measure for highway improvements, the second measure fared better, although both did fail. The authors take this to indicate that ballots for transportation funding can garner more support if they address multiple modes of transportation. So these kinds of studies can help us when we move forward.

An analysis of a successful ballot measure held in 2004 provides further insight. The researchers note that support for this measure came from a wide array of groups and coalitions. The measure was for a one-quarter percent sales tax increase for 20 years to fund $470 million in projects comprising highway, street and road, bicycle and pedestrian projects. This ballot measure provided a detailed expenditure plan of how the tax revenue would be spent and divided between the different transportation modes as well as specific projects.

Prior to the ballot, a poll was conducted, and 62 percent of those supported the measure when they were told the tax would be earmarked for undefined traffic improvements. Once a list of specific projects was included in the poll, 70 percent of those polled expressed support for the measure. This can help us in our efforts to move forward.

The summary that the student provided to me was that multimodal transportation plans fared better in public referenda due to their appeal to a wide range of constituencies. Funding plans that outlined specific projects and expenditures were better received by the public in the studies cited.

Information campaigns regarding the need for transportation funding should address public concerns of government waste, and the provision of an anchor value in the public sphere was an important element in the successful campaign for transportation funding.

In my own thinking about where we could go with this, some of the thoughts that I have in deciding what a successful referendum would look like, the results, in my mind, should lead to a more unified community that will rally in support of the concerted actions that will be necessary to achieve the best possible outcome.

The referendum should make clear whether the provincial or regional governments should be making decisions on these issues, so citizens will not be able to falsely assign blame for policies they don't like. The results should enable us to accommodate growth and not lead to unintended consequences that will tie our hands from providing for the future. The results should lead us to outcomes that will be consistent with the best advice of those who have the expertise in regional issues and governance in society.

Since the great flood of 1948 the Lower Mainland has developed an internationally respected approach to regional planning. Over the years regional politicians have developed a consensus around the original vision of Tom MacDonald and Jim Wilson — the cities in a sea of green.

In a series of policies such as the livable region strategy, the growth management strategy and others, a consensus has developed that urban growth would not be in a consistently low-density form that would spread across the whole valley but would, rather, be in denser nodes that would leave areas of farm and wilderness intact for future generations.

Although several generations of regional and municipal politicians have, through consensus, crafted this vision, it has never been submitted to the public for their opinion. The referendum could be doing a great service to the future of the region by allowing the citizens to indicate whether or not they endorse this vision.

These are some of my thoughts, but I know that our minister has been putting in a lot of time. There's a lot of energy going into this, and I completely support…. He has my support in his efforts. I want to support this Bill 23 and support the minister. Let us work together to make this referendum a success.

[1625]

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to stand and take my place in this debate around Bill 23, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act. This is a piece of legislation that will enable this referendum in the Metro Vancouver area, in the TransLink area, on the question of transportation funding — not exclusively transit but transportation funding, a lot of it transit.
[ Page 3033 ]

It's a very controversial position. It's controversial for a whole range of reasons, and we'll get into a little of that. But you know, just everything about this is a bad idea. I note the previous speaker, the member for Vancouver–False Creek, a previous and a past mayor of Vancouver, has come out and embraced this idea of the referenda here in his comments today.

I would have thought that the member — who has been intimate with Vancouver and Metro Vancouver politics for an awfully long time and played a key role as a councillor and as the mayor of Vancouver and on the Metro Vancouver board as one of the key representatives for Vancouver — would have known just how bad the mistake of 2007 was, when the previous Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, basically blew up TransLink and its governance and created the situation that we have today, which has been an unmitigated disaster, no matter how you cut it.

There's been some recognition of that, I think, by the current Minister of Transportation, who with a pretty flawed piece of legislation in Bill 22 is still trying to cobble together some kind of recovery from that, with at least some recognition that local leadership in the form of the mayors really is integral to the success of the transportation system. Having had that pitched out by the 2007 changes, we now need to recover from that.

I would think that the member from False Creek would have understood that, and he would easily understand that this referendum is just as equally a bad idea, in terms of actually getting to where we need to get, which is to fix the transit and transportation problems that exist in the Lower Mainland area — to be able to deal with the challenges that are faced by fast-growing communities like Surrey and with communities like Vancouver that have significant and high concentrations, and all that's involved in that.

Whether it's more SkyTrain or it's light rail or it's buses, whether it's the capital costs or the operating costs, I would have thought he would have known better, but apparently not.

So what's the situation we have? We have a situation where the minister…. Well, before him, the Premier announced this notion of a referendum before the last election. I think there was pretty much a consensus view that in doing that…. And we're all thinking about the Canucks today, with Trevor Linden. Well, this was the greatest puck-ragging deal that I saw in a long time, where the government essentially did not want to deal with its responsibility, which is to fix the transit problems in the Lower Mainland and to be a partner in fixing those problems.

Instead, what do they do? They say: "We're going to have a referendum. We don't know what the question is. We don't know when it'll happen. We don't actually know what the role of it will be. But we're not going to talk about how to fix this problem. We're going to have a referendum." That's what happens. Then they have the gall to say to the mayors: "It's your responsibility to decide the question. It's your responsibility, essentially, to take ownership of this."

Thankfully, the mayors — they're pretty smart folks, pretty smart men and women — said, quite rightly: "You created the mess around this referendum proposal. You figure it out, and you fix it."

That creates a conflict. What do we see when that happens? Well, we see a Minister of Transportation, who I think is making some efforts. My understanding is he was meeting with the mayors. He's making some efforts to try to figure out how to move this thing forward and how to fix this problem as it exists.

But at every step — and this is part of the chaos of all of this — whether it was around the date of the referendum, around the nature of provincial involvement in the campaign, around the question…. Pretty much every time the Minister of Transportation expressed a view and a position, the Premier would come out and contradict him and suggest something different.

[1630]

Then, presumably, the two of them would have to go and huddle and try to figure out who was taking what position on what and how they put this all together. So we're still not much farther ahead.

The result of all this is uncertainty, unbelievable uncertainty about our transportation system in the Lower Mainland — a system that is fundamental, that needs to be fixed and that, as much as the province would like to avoid its responsibility, the province is going to be an integral player and funder in fixing. That's just the reality.

What we have, though, is we have this situation. We have a piece of legislation now where…. Originally, the Liberals said, "We're going to do this at the municipal elections in 2014. We're going to have this vote then," but that seems to have fallen by the wayside somewhat at this point.

Now, we could have a stand-alone vote — maybe in June of 2015. Maybe in the 2018 municipal election, assuming we go to four-year terms. Who knows? Maybe not 2018; maybe 2022. It's totally unclear because the government just does not know what it's doing with this, and I suspect that continues to be the case.

We don't have any clarity around the question. Again, the minister, probably because he is scared to try to ask the Premier what the question should be…. It's a game trying to get the Mayors Council to make some recommendations about the question or questions. But even with that, while the Mayors Council is being asked to make recommendations, they are not being told that they get to set the question. At the end of the day, every recommendation they make, if they make any, could be thrown out in a minute by the minister, and the minister could write a whole new question — depending, presumably, on what orders he gets from the Premier.
[ Page 3034 ]

We have a situation where this bill, Bill 23, does nothing to alleviate the chaos that was created by the Premier and the B.C. Liberals when they introduced this idea of this referendum. Nothing is being done to resolve the situation. We continue to have a chaotic situation.

People say to me: "Well, we're going to have this referendum around funding for TransLink. I don't remember when I got to vote on a referendum about the Massey bridge tunnel. How come I didn't get a referendum about that? When was my referendum vote on the Port Mann? When was my referendum vote on any number of these things?" They didn't get a vote, and they didn't necessarily want one. But they understand the hypocrisy of the government suggesting that transportation planning and support for transportation planning and implementation should face a referendum when the pet project of the Premier, the Massey bridge, doesn't have to have a referendum. It raises interesting contradictions.

What happens with this referendum? Well, first of all, we all know that if you take this outside of the election period…. We have enough challenges with voter turnout in municipal elections, but make it a stand-alone in June of 2015 and you're going to get 10, 15 percent turnout, maybe 20 percent turnout if you do well. And you're going to make a decision based on that?

Well, good chance it doesn't pass. Let's assume for a minute that it doesn't pass. That will not remove one iota of responsibility from this government to be at the table figuring out how it invests in transportation in the Lower Mainland — not one iota of responsibility.

The reality is that those investments have to be made, whether it's light rail in Surrey, whether it's another SkyTrain line, whether it's more buses or whether it's simply trying to deal with the increasing operating challenges and costs that TransLink faces. It's going to be about: what are the tools available?

If you really want to do this properly, what you do is you empower the mayors. You give them the power that has been omitted in Bill 22, the governance bill that we dealt with the other day that says they don't have control over budgets. You give them that control, including the authority and the ability to make some decisions about revenue streams, and make them politically accountable for those decisions so that they, as the mayors, are accountable for the decisions they make about revenue streams.

[1635]

You do that, and you begin to fix the problem. You have a plan that makes sense, and you have a real conversation with the people of the Lower Mainland and the people who will pay this bill, ultimately — the taxpayers. But have a discussion about people's needs and what they want and how you move forward. That means engaging people.

That leads back to this debacle we've had since 2007, when you took the elected representatives out of the mix, essentially, to create a private board that met in secret, did its business in secret and essentially alienated much of what is TransLink from the people it's supposed to serve. We have to rebuild that trust, and that's a big part of the challenge.

As we look to do that, and if we do that well, we will create the opportunities for the kind of discussion…. Whether it's a discussion at Metro Vancouver, whether it's discussions by the Mayors Council specifically around these things, whether it's the minister and the provincial government engaging in joint discussions with the people of the region on how to resolve these problems and how they get paid for — all of that is a fair and open discussion.

Instead of playing this game around this referendum, we would be much better off to acknowledge we're going to have to fix the problem. We're going to have to deal with the shortfalls. We're going to have to deal with the operating challenges that my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake talked about. We're going to have to make decisions about capital investment and priority. We're going to have to move ahead and do it, and we're going to have to do it in the coming years.

We do ourselves no favours by saying we're going to have a vote on some undetermined question in 2015 or maybe 2018 or maybe 2022. That's not fixing the problem. The challenge it creates is that the longer the Liberal government drags this thing out, all of that is lost time for effective and thoughtful planning. All of that is lost time for engaging the people in the region, the stakeholders and the people who are our local leaders, in a real discussion. Instead, we have this back-and-forth game going on around this referendum.

It really is time to talk about fixing the problem; it's not time to talk about another delay. It's not time to talk about a game. It's time for the Premier and the government and the minister to understand that regardless of what happens with this vote, whether it passes or fails, whether it ever happens, the responsibility cannot be shirked.

The responsibility to be a full partner in creating the solutions that need to be made around transportation, the solutions…. The member for Vancouver–False Creek talked about the linkages between planning and transportation — and we all know about that — and development and transportation, about the movement of goods. All of those things that create the kind of sustainable communities…. Things that we know transportation is integral to, all of those issues, we've got to have in that discussion.

That is not the discussion that this referendum will create. It hardly ever does. These kinds of votes hardly ever do. What we get is the people…. It's interesting. When you look at the people who are supportive of this, just about the only voice outside the Liberal side that embraces this is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
[ Page 3035 ]

We know the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is about cutting anything that has to do with government: "Just cut government. Government's bad, and if we can cut something out of government, that's good." If they think they can reduce the size of government in some perverse way by having this referendum fail, then they'll be good to go on that. But it doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't resolve the issue. It doesn't deal with any of that. At the end of the day, we still have to fix the problem.

It's a bad piece of legislation. It's a bad idea. It was a bad idea when it was proposed before the election. It continues to be a bad idea. We don't seem to be a whole lot farther ahead. I know we have a minister who feels frustrated that he's kind of been blindsided on occasion after occasion by the Premier taking contrary positions to his.

Let's just get this work done. I believe the minister is prepared to sit down with the mayors and try to find a solution that resolves this. Try to open a debate with the people in the region on how to solve this problem. That would be a more preferable way to go than this game around this referendum.

[1640]

We should set this plan aside, give the minister the direction to do that, empower the mayors to really be a key player at this table, tell the two sides to sit down and have that meaningful discussion, figure out how to fix this problem and move forward on a solution that creates, reinforces and strengthens the kind of sustainable communities that we all want to see in our region. If we do that, we will be much farther along.

It's a bad piece of legislation. It should be defeated. Sadly, I'm sure it will probably go ahead.

J. Sturdy: It should not come as much of a surprise that I stand to speak in favour of Bill 23, the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act, which follows on the heels of Bill 22, dealing with transportation governance in Metro Vancouver. Clearly, these two bills work together.

Our government is committed to putting before the electors of Metro Vancouver an opportunity to approve the source and type of funding formula that those electors prefer in order to fund future incremental activities of TransLink, be it roads, bridges, buses — clearly — SeaBuses, SkyTrains, light rail, subways, cycling infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure or any other innovative opportunities, both existing and new, that will come forward.

I do want to take the opportunity at this time to commend the minister and his staff on developing a new relationship with the mayors from across the region and for grappling with this fundamental and challenging conundrum that is TransLink and its governance and its funding, as it has developed over the years.

I have seen and heard the commitment from the minister in working towards a resolution on this difficult issue with all its competing interests, and there certainly are many. The challenge is developing and finding support for an efficient, sustainable and, ultimately, affordable system that the citizens of the region fundamentally support.

I believe that this process of working with the Mayors Council, stakeholders, TransLink and the communities to develop and approve a system and formula that will serve the region well, essentially for decades to come, is a challenge that many governments have grappled with over the decades. But really, it's this minister that has done the work that will lead to a successful resolution.

We all know how important the successful movement of goods and people will be in the economic and social success of the region and how challenging it is to find the balance of governance structures and tools which will help marry land use decisions with the funding and operations of a transportation system that incorporates dozens of municipalities and dozens of competing interests.

Municipal and regional governments, as has been pointed out, are responsible for land use decisions. Density and commercial, industrial, recreational and natural spaces are all consolidated within a regional growth strategy and are the mandates of local government, as they should be.

Metro communities need to work collaboratively, both inside and outside of their jurisdictions, to collectively design and implement the visions that develop through their OCPs. Of critical importance to these plans is the transportation component.

This bill, in conjunction with Bill 22, clearly puts before these mayors the opportunity and the power to incorporate the collective vision into their planning and to act on it. By putting to the Mayors Council the challenge of developing the long-term strategy, we would be remiss in not working alongside them in developing the financial tools to support the system both now and in future expansions. That is exactly what we intend to do.

[1645]

The Mayors Council will have direct input into the wording of the referendum that will support their vision for the transportation future of Metro and also the responsibility to support such. We all need to have a collective responsibility for its success. It is reasonable that new funding sources over and above the funding levers that municipalities currently have are approved by and generated from the region which will benefit from the improvements in operations.

Does this bill put before the Mayors Council and the communities and the region a challenge to rise to the occasion, to act on the opportunity and act collectively for the greater good? Well, clearly, the answer is yes. This is a responsibility of the region: to articulate their vision for the future, get behind that vision, take responsibility for the future and put forward ideas on how that future will be implemented.
[ Page 3036 ]

I suppose that really is the essence of the longstanding Metro debate on transportation. What does that transportation look like? What are the regional and local priorities? How is it integrated into land use? Who is paying, based on what formula? These are all critical issues for the success of the region — success economically, success socially and success financially.

These two bills are the best way to put the parties together to take responsibility to work cohesively with a single mind to accomplish what needs to happen. It seems to me that this conversation around these questions will provide the necessary focus to bring us to a new place and a new time and a new commitment to making transportation work sustainably in the region in an affordable and an efficient way.

Clearly, the taxpayer, the one taxpayer, is a key stakeholder in this dialogue and has the right to have a say, to make their desires known. These taxpayers — be they seniors or students, commerce or industry — deserve a system that works. Clearly, this is important to everyone.

We are at a unique time and have a unique opportunity to work together to create that system for the benefit of all. We're at a turning point, and this bill will give the communities the tools to do what needs to be done, in their own interests and in the interests of the region. I'm certainly happy to support this progressive initiative.

S. Hammell: I would like to rise to speak on the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act and to register my opposition. In doing so, I'm in just a little bit of dismay at what the government is doing and the place it is taking us to.

When I spoke about the budget, I itemized the numerous actions the government has taken that have ended up in a mess, particularly around transportation but also in a number of other areas. One that I could use as an example is the move into IPPs, where the financial toll on Hydro has been horrific, where we're selling electricity for less than what we're buying it for.

We're driving Hydro into debt while we are raiding Hydro to balance budgets. Then the consequence of that is that we raise hydro rates on individuals. That wouldn't be what I would call a smooth and seamless way of governing a province that was done in the best interest of the people.

That's one mess. Then, when we look more closely at transportation and, in particular, at the construction, the government has an outstanding record of ending up in overruns. We had an overrun on the B.C. Place roof when that was put on. We had a massive overrun at the convention centre.

[1650]

We had an overrun on the south perimeter road. We had an overrun at the Port Mann Bridge. What was to be a $3½ billion dollar set of construction and transportation projects ended up at over $6 billion. I would say that that was a bit of a mess and not the execution of a fine and disciplined government.

The transit sort of takes the cake in terms of how to do something poorly. You have a governance system, although it is difficult at times. Imagine you have…. I just don't know why you wouldn't imagine this. You do at times have conflict with other levels of government. I think that's kind of expected.

What happens is that one level of government, which has the power, gets into a hissy fit and removes the governance model in transit. They get rid of the power of the mayors and substitute that with a board of directors that has less and then have the mayors responsible to an unelected board of directors. They blew up a structure that had challenges and replaced it with something that is completely ineffective. We see that now as we find that they are going to change that structure one more time and try to make it work with tinkering and giving the mayors back more power.

Now, of course, the mayors are responsible for their part of the regional government. That regional government has to come together — those regional governors — to create a transit system, because the transit system moves through the various cities. They must have some kind of support to be effective. To take the power away from the mayors was foolish. As a result, we see the consequence of that is we are trying to replace that now.

I have to say that part of the place where all of this makes the least sense is that you have a huge structure in the Port Mann Bridge, overrun in terms of the cost of it and a huge toll on it. It was not consulted, unlike Seattle. As they're moving into a tolling system, they consulted and consulted and consulted so they could find the spot where, if they put the toll on, people would not rat-run to avoid the toll. They'd accept the toll — if it was low enough to accept — so that you'd have the volume that the new structure could absorb.

What we have is a bridge where the toll is so high that you see massive rat runs around it to the Pattullo, which is untolled. Not only are people in cars moving to the Pattullo instead of going over the Port Mann; trucks and commercial vehicles are also moving to the Pattullo and putting huge strain on a bridge that is over 65, 70 years old.

They've now got nets underneath the bridge to catch the cement as it falls off, as the structure shows its age by losing some of the concrete — which we've been told is just cosmetic in terms of the structure of the bridge itself. But I don't think you can put that much strain and that much movement on a bridge and not have some consequences.

One place there is a consequence is in New Westminster. What you now have is a reaction from the Royal City saying: "Enough is enough." You've got a new bridge. It's not working. What people are doing is running through New Westminster to try to avoid the toll, because the toll is too
[ Page 3037 ]
high. And the bridge had an overrun. Even then, it's not paying for itself.

[1655]

It is a bit of a mess. It's not like this is done smoothly. It's not like it is effective governance that ends up with a population that thinks a good decision has been made and they buy into it. Of course, they can't buy into something if they haven't been asked, but that's another story.

What is happening is that we now have a referendum that is supposed to fix the specifics around the transportation system. It has been stalled for a significant period of time, and now what we have is a referendum that's supposed to fix this. But then, of course, we're not quite sure when the referendum is going to be, and we don't know what the words of the referendum are going to be.

We don't know who exactly is making the decision on what all of that will be, but what we have in front of us is the framework through which to allow a referendum to move forward. I understand the knee-jerk response. If you have a problem and you're in the middle of an election and you need a solution, you say "a referendum," and then you have to live with the consequences.

I don't envy the other side in having to piece this puzzle together and to make something that makes sense in terms of our transit system. I just think it is so critical that we have good governance and strong leadership around our transportation system, because there's one thing government is supposed to do, and that is to build the communication roads between one city, one town, one group or another and allow not only people to move around the region but the commercial vehicles that fuel the economy to move around.

We don't have that. We have a botched-up system where we have a referendum; we don't know when it's going to be. It was to be this fall. It's now not going to be this fall. It's going to be later. We don't know what the words are going to be. It just leaves the greater Vancouver area out of luck in terms of leadership, and I think that's really unfortunate. We have a beautiful city that could be supported by a significant and thoughtful transit system and road system, but instead we have this constant bickering and dysfunction between the provincial government and its bills or acts that govern the Lower Mainland transportation system and the Lower Mainland regional mayors who represent the different pieces that put together the puzzle.

This is not going to benefit my community of Surrey. We are the ones that pay the price. We pay our fair share into the transit system. We have one bus for 4,000 Surrey residents, according to Steve Burke, where in Vancouver the Metro average is one for 1,700. People buy into things that are fair and reasonable and thought through and ones that serve their interests.

I just don't see how a referendum that is specific to the method of funding of a transit system, or a TransLink system, serves anybody's interest in the long run. What it does is delay inevitable decision-making. It is deferring decision-making, and it shows a complete lack of leadership. I'd just like to again reiterate: I don't see anything in this bill that would allow a thoughtful person to support it.

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

Hon. T. Stone: I want to start off, first, by thanking all of the members from both sides of the floor for their comments on Bill 23 second reading. I do have a few closing remarks that I would like to make.

[1700]

First off, I want to just say that a lot of people have been working very hard for many years on the transit and transportation file in the Lower Mainland. Shortly after becoming the minister ten months ago, I set about to bring myself up to speed as quickly as I possibly could and to reach out to everyone in the region that I felt would have something to add to this discussion.

To that end, I've sat down with virtually every one of the mayors. I've met many of them individually. I've met with all of them as a group on a number of occasions. I've had countless discussions with all kinds of other stakeholder groups. I've indeed immersed myself in this file. It's a file that is absolutely critical not just, first and foremost, to the quality of life in the Lower Mainland, but it's absolutely critical to the economy of not just the Lower Mainland but the entire province.

Now, there were two specific commitments that government made to the people of the Lower Mainland. One was that at this point in time we recognize that there need to be changes to the governance structure of TransLink. The current structure is not working well. We acknowledge that. I certainly acknowledge that as the minister responsible. We made a very clear commitment to the people of the Lower Mainland that we were going to fix the governance, and we are attempting to do that with Bill 22.

The second commitment that we made was to hold a referendum should any new funding sources be requested by the Mayors Council to fund an expansion of transit or transportation in the Lower Mainland — a very, very clear, specific commitment that we made to the taxpayers of the Lower Mainland. It should come as no surprise to the people of the Lower Mainland, it should come as no surprise to the members of the opposition, and it certainly should come as no surprise to the mayors that we intend on fulfilling these commitments.

I'm very proud to be part of a government…. I'm very proud to have a leader, in our Premier, who methodically ensures that each and every one of us is going down our list of commitments and checking them off. We said to the people of the Lower Mainland that we were going to fix the governance. We're going to fix it. We said to
[ Page 3038 ]
the people of the Lower Mainland, "You will have a vote. You, as the taxpayer, will have a say if any new funding sources are requested by the Mayors Council for expansion of transit and transportation," and we are going to follow through on that commitment.

Now, in my various discussions with the mayors — which, again, have spanned the entire ten months that I've held this role — I believe that government has demonstrated a tremendous amount of flexibility. We've demonstrated flexibility on the governance file. I've been very open to suggestions that all of the mayors have had as to how we can best hit the mark with the improvements to governance.

And at the end of the day, the improvements aren't perfect. The mayors aren't getting everything they want. The province isn't getting everything we want. But certainly, from my background in business, the best deal is one where everybody comes away from the table having concluded a deal, recognizing that they didn't necessarily get everything they wanted, but they feel pretty good about it.

The referendum date. There's been lots of talk about the referendum date. We've demonstrated a tremendous amount of flexibility on this front as well. Instead of insisting on the date being held concurrent with the next municipal election, we said — again, after receiving a tremendous amount of feedback from the mayors and from others: "We're willing to enable this referendum to be held concurrent with municipal elections beyond just the next one."

Furthermore, as a one-shot special opportunity here, if the mayors choose to hold this referendum prior to or outside of the regular municipal election cycle, they can do so up until June 30 of 2015 — again demonstrating a significant amount of flexibility there.

[1705]

Thirdly, we have demonstrated flexibility with respect to our commitments to capital. I have said very clearly on behalf of government that the province of British Columbia will be there. We will be there with capital for major rapid transit projects. But we went one step further.

We said we will also be there with a one-third capital commitment on the Pattullo Bridge, which isn't even a provincial asset today — again, demonstrating flexibility and a desire to demonstrate goodwill to the mayors and, more importantly, to the people of the Lower Mainland region.

We've also said that we will continue to do everything that we can to lobby the federal government to ensure that the federal government comes to the table with capital for these projects. The federal government has been a very important partner on a broad range of infrastructure investments in this province, and we expect that they will continue to be so in the future.

Last but not least, when it comes to funding levers, funding mechanisms, we have said to the Mayors Council very clearly that if they believe that new funding sources are required for transit and transportation expansion — funding sources beyond the sources that they currently have available to them today — then, again, we're going to make sure that the people of the Lower Mainland have a say.

With respect to the specific funding sources, those new funding sources, I have always preferred to keep things on the table, as opposed to taking things off the table. I've been very consistent in saying to the mayors: "Work on the plan first before you start worrying about how you're going to pay for it."

Before we start getting too deep into the discussion around, "Are we funding it with this funding lever or that funding lever or this package of funding levers?" let's first understand what exactly it is that we're building. How much transit expansion do you think the region needs? How many LRT lines in Surrey do we see going ahead and at what stages of time? What exactly do the mayors want the people of the region to consider in terms of rapid transit down the Broadway corridor?

As the members know, if the rapid transit goes as far as the Canada Line, there's a certain price tag. If it goes, you know, all the way to UBC, it's a dramatically different price. If it's somewhere in between, again, the price varies greatly. If it's above ground, if it's underground, the price varies significantly.

I'm very pleased that concurrent with the commitments that we have made, the goodwill that we are demonstrating in bringing forward governance improvements, significant enhancements of accountability for the mayors, which is what the mayors have asked for, and following through on our commitment to ensuring that at the end of the day, the taxpayers of the region have a say in how their tax dollars are spent on what could be multi-billions of dollars of expansion over a 20- or 30-year period — in the context of all of that, the mayors are actually rising to the occasion.

I take my hat off to the mayors. I take my hat off to Richard Walton, the Mayors Council chair. I thank Wayne Wright, the mayor of New Westminster who's the vice-chair. I thank the other 19 mayors. I thank the Chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation, who's also part of the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation. They are working very, very hard. And you know what? No one thought that they could get to this point.

I've sat and listened to speeches in this chamber through today, through yesterday, and I hear all kinds of negativity and doom and gloom about all the failures of the past. But I think we should challenge ourselves to focus on the future. Let's focus on what's happening right now.

The mayors have had a week's worth of meetings over the last couple of months, all under the radar screen. None of them are out there grandstanding in the media. They've rolled their sleeves up, and they're actually working hard on a vision — a vision that didn't exist complete
[ Page 3039 ]
with prioritization of projects, complete with costing of projects and complete with a total price tag at the end of the day. They're working on that.

[1710]

Greg Moore — again, the mayor of Port Coquitlam, who I also acknowledge — is heading up a subcommittee of the Mayors Council on this transportation file. He is doing a tremendous job in bringing his colleagues along with him in this discussion, and he assures me, assures government, that they are well on track to delivering a plan well before the June 30 deadline.

We believe that we are following through on two very specific commitments that we've made to the people of the Lower Mainland. A referendum is needed. I've heard many comments across the aisle: "Why do we need to…?" A referendum is needed because the mayors are talking about a very significant potential expenditure of tax dollars for an expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

We said that we would look the people of the Lower Mainland in the eyes. We said: "You're going to have a say on how your tax dollars are spent on any such expansion". The people of the Lower Mainland agreed with that position, and so we're going to follow through on it.

Many comments have been made about: "Who's coming up with the referendum question? What will the referendum question actually look like?" Again, the referendum question, in my mind, is the easiest part of this process. It starts with a vision. It starts with charting a map for where you want to go with your transportation priorities. That vision will include details — detailed priorities, phasing, costs and a total price tag. There's your referendum question, at the end of the day.

That's the work that the mayors are undertaking right now. They are undertaking that work because they know, as we have said and as we agree, that they, as the locally elected representatives, are closest to these challenges. They also know that we have demonstrated in good faith our willingness to follow through with the governance that they've asked for, the governance improvements. That's called authority over decision-making along with the accountability over the decisions that you make. The referendum question will effectively fall out of the creation of this vision.

Now, the last point I want to make before I end is that I have spoken a fair bit over the last number of months on referendum success. The members opposite…. Certainly, the member for Vancouver-Fairview has done the exact same research I have, and we've had thoughtful discussions about this. These referendums can be won.

In fact, in 2012 there were 63 ballot measures in the United States — ballot measures in the U.S. being comparable to referendums in Canada — and 79 percent of the time they were successful. As I've said, that begs the question: why were they successful? How were they successful? What were the common denominators? Very quickly: those ballot measures that were referendums that were successful 79 percent of the time had a very clear vision. People have to know what they're being asked to vote on.

They have to know what that vision looks like. They have to know what the priorities are in that vision. They have to know what it costs, and they have to know what funding sources are being asked of them to support it, to pay for it. That's exactly what the Mayors Council are working on right now.

Secondly, these successful referendums have a straightforward question. My advice to the mayors has been consistently that as you're working on your vision, as you're doing all of this hard work, keep in mind that at the end of the day the referendum can be won if you put that vision to the people and you say: "Here's what we propose over this particular time frame. These are the projects. This is the total cost. Here's how we pay for it. Yes or no." That's a winning referendum question, if you look at the 79 percent of the time that referendums have been successful in North America.

Last but not least, there does need to be a strong and organized coalition of the willing: those that use transit, those that don't, students, labour, business, local governments. Everyone needs to come together to support the expansion of transit and transportation.

[1715]

Remember, the transportation part of this is as much about goods movement as it is people movement. It's as much about an investment in the major road network of the Lower Mainland as it is about critical and needed investments in rapid transit. It's as much about expansion of bus capacity as it is in rapid transit.

A clear vision so people know what they're voting on and what's being asked of them, with detailed phasing and costing. A straightforward question. A strong and organized coalition. You pull those ingredients together, and you have the ingredients of a successful referendum.

It can be done, and the sooner that the members opposite, the sooner the doubters get behind this and recognize that this is probably the most empowering initiative that we could possibly provide the people of the Lower Mainland to break what has been a logjam for decades, the better.

You know, I'll end on this note. I've listened — again, intently — to the comments from the members opposite about how…. Certainly, on Bill 22 yesterday, I was regaled in all the history, all the dead bodies and where all the bodies have been buried with transit and transportation over the last ten or 20 years in the Lower Mainland.

I'm a guy from Kamloops. I don't have any axe to grind. I'm not from New Westminster. I'm not from Burnaby or Vancouver or Pitt Meadows. But through all of those discussions, I kept hearing from members opposite: "Where is the democracy at TransLink? Why did the government take the democracy out of TransLink with its last round of governance improvements?"
[ Page 3040 ]

Well, there is nothing more democratic than giving to the people of the region the right to have a say in how their hard-earned dollars are spent on what could be a multi-million-dollar expansion, a multi-billion-dollar expansion, of transit and transportation.

Let the record show again the hypocrisy that we've heard from members opposite. Let the record again reflect that when the members opposite have had an opportunity to rise to the occasion and to stand with the taxpayer, once again they've chosen the other side.

With that being said, we believe that the taxpayers of the Metro Vancouver region, who work so hard for what they earn, have a right to have a say in how their tax dollars are spent for any significant expansion of transit and transportation. Therefore, it is with great pride, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, that I'm presenting Bill 23 here today.

With that, I move second reading.

[1720-1725]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 23 approved on the following division:

Hon. T. Stone: I move that Bill 23 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 23, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, second reading on Bill 19, Animal Health Act.

BILL 19 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

Hon. T. Lake: I move that Bill 19 be now read for a second time.

The new Animal Health Act gives the provincial government the ability to limit the spread of both current and emerging diseases, and to better respond to potentially disastrous outbreaks in a way completely unachievable under existing legislation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Bill 19 gives B.C. the appropriate regulatory framework to effectively manage a wide variety of diseases in a way many other Canadian provinces now are able to. Agriculture in Canada — and, in fact, in B.C. — is a major contributor to our economy, and animal disease control is an important element of maintaining our competitiveness.

In 2012 B.C. generated close to $1.4 billion in total livestock receipts from the sale of cattle, hogs, poultry, eggs, dairy, honey and other animals and animal products. If we are to maintain our economic health and the well-being of families and communities that depend on the livestock and poultry sectors, any threat of disease must be taken very seriously.

The Animal Health Act has three main goals: (1) to assist in protecting human health through the early detection and management of zoonotic diseases, which are diseases that can spread between animals and humans; (2) to ensure the continued productivity and competitiveness of farm operations in B.C. through on-farm prevention strategies, early detection and eradication of animal diseases; and (3) to minimize the likelihood of interprovincial or international trade closures by effectively managing animal disease outbreaks.

[1730]

Other provincial, national and international governments are also reviewing and updating animal disease control legislation. There are several reasons for this. Emerging zoonotic diseases are a greater part of the public consciousness due to rapid travel and communication. Even the perception of a possible animal disease outbreak can have implications for trade and competitiveness. Climate change and global trade are both affecting animal disease spread and disease range. An estimated 75 percent of the emerging diseases in humans originate in the animal kingdom.
[ Page 3041 ]

When zoonotic diseases mutate such that there is a direct spread among humans, the impact of a disease on human health can change dramatically. Severe acute respiratory syndrome, better known as SARS, and the H1N1 virus are examples of pandemics with at least partial origins in animal populations, and the economic impact can be significant.

SARS was originally a zoonotic disease, but once it was able to pass from human to human, it spread rapidly. The SARS outbreak in 2003 is estimated to have cost the Toronto economy nearly $1 billion in reduced travel, tourism and entertainment spending. The mad cow disease — or bovine spongiform encephalopathy — scare in 2003 is said to have cost the Canadian economy close to $6 billion, devastating the cattle industry and the communities that depend upon it, despite a relatively low risk to consumers. The avian influenza outbreak of 2004 in B.C.'s Fraser Valley lasted 91 days. It resulted in more than 17 million birds being culled by the federal government and 410 commercial poultry farms being emptied, with a gross economic cost exceeding $380 million.

In an interconnected global economy, animal diseases can be transmitted and spread very quickly. They can be carried by animals themselves, by animal products and by-products, and other things that they come into contact with. In new environments, the development and spread of diseases can be unpredictable. The ability to respond immediately is absolutely critical to limiting the impact of disease.

The legislation requires government to be accountable for effective disease control, including enabling the chief veterinarian to employ emergency measures if necessary. As well, the legislation expresses clear procedures regarding data collection, use and transmission. To foster relationships with farmers and others required to monitor and manage disease, certain data is protected under the legislation, but the minister will release information where necessary to protect the public.

As much as we need to be able to respond to disease outbreaks, it is equally important to prevent disease from occurring in the first place. The legislation places more accountability on persons responsible for animals to ensure that on-farm practices prevent, to the greatest degree possible, the occurrence and spread of disease. It only takes one producer with a significant disease outbreak to affect an entire industry.

The legislation also provides opportunities for industry to work with government to monitor animal health and to participate in health management and research programs. We look to the continued cooperation of our producers in maintaining a healthy agricultural animal industry.

In summary, the Animal Health Act will apply effective control measures to a larger number of animal diseases, including on an emergency basis if required. It will include comprehensive and updated inspection powers. It will apply measures to control disease, not only to animals but also to animal products and by-products. It will include a new administrative penalty system for contraventions of the act and higher penalties where individuals have been convicted of committing an offence.

The act will protect certain data and information voluntarily submitted in confidence by farmers to government for purposes of animal disease monitoring and early animal disease detection, and it will enable the future consideration of compensation for the destruction of animals or property to control animal disease.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The Animal Health Act brings us into step with other Canadian jurisdictions and, in fact, with other national and international governments for animal disease management. At the moment, B.C. is far behind others in terms of animal disease legislation. With the approval of this bill, B.C. is now marching forward in partnership with other governments, industry and individual farmers to protect animal and human health.

With that, I look forward to the comments of other members of the House on this very important bill.

[1735]

N. Simons: I appreciate the opportunity — and thank you to the minister — to speak on Bill 19, the Animal Health Act.

As the minister stated, the province of British Columbia may in fact be behind, compared to other jurisdictions. I would say that that's possibly because this is two years since it was first introduced by this government. They began their consultation in 2011, and here we are.

I have to say that the basic principles of the act, in terms of the attempt or the goal to ensure that we do everything that we can to prevent disease in our animals and to ensure that the spread of those diseases is kept to a minimum…. I think that the priorities that are outlined and the purposes of this bill are essentially and fundamentally good.

I should point out, as well, that this bill actually does a few other things besides those things that the minister mentioned. They include the repeal of a few other pieces of legislation that have perhaps outgrown their usefulness, or perhaps outgrown their relevance to today — modern day and age. Those include the Fur Farm Act, the Game Farm Act and the Bee Act, not to mention the Animal Disease Control Act. Those acts will, by effect of this legislation, be repealed, and this legislation before us today will take their place.

The last time this act was introduced in the House it was called Bill 37, and it was in 2012. It remains essentially, with a few minor changes, the same act, the same bill. At the time, in 2012, it was in conditions somewhat different than we're in now, and there was a pressure on
[ Page 3042 ]
government to ensure that all the legislation they wanted passed got passed, so techniques were used in this Legislature to ensure that the time for debate would be such that adjournment and recess of the House could take effect.

In other words, we truncated the debate process at third reading. I think, because of that, we've had some insight into the legislation from previous debate, and we've had some opportunity to, in fact, address the issues that were raised those many months ago.

Obviously, my main purpose in speaking on this bill is to ensure, as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, that issues and concerns raised by the public or raised by colleagues or raised by professionals are addressed and are brought to the attention of government so that, in fact, when legislation is passed, it can't be said to have been passed without the full knowledge and full understanding of the ramifications of the legislation.

With that in mind, I think it's just important to go over some of the main issues that are addressed by this piece of legislation. What this legislation is doing is, in effect, updating legislation that hasn't really been updated since — I think the previous Minister of Agriculture referred to it as minus 22, when he hadn't been born — the '40s.

That isn't always the proper argument for the changing of legislation, but, in this particular case, I think it is. We've had significant advancements in our scientific knowledge. As such, legislation should refer to, for example, diseases we had not yet discovered or that had not yet manifested themselves in our country. In that respect it's important that we look at those changes and look at those updates with an eye to ensuring that the protection of animals and the protection of the public health is paramount.

Other considerations, I think, include ensuring that the rights of farmers and the rights of people who are involved in processing food and ensuring that we have a healthy population are also respected.

[1740]

I think from previous debate it was clear that there were some concerns around some aspects of this bill. If I may, I'll just go through some of those issues that were raised as issues that may be addressed in more detail at the next stage of the debate.

I appreciate the Minister of Health standing in for the Minister of Agriculture, who I join with colleagues in this House in wishing all the best. I would have preferred to be debating him on this legislation — no offence to the Minister of Health; it would just be nice — and I look forward to the day when the minister from Peace River is back to conduct business as the Minister of Agriculture.

With that, I'd like to just go through some of the things that I think we'll be canvassing at greater depth and in greater detail as we proceed, probably this week or in a few weeks.

The Animal Health Act, according to the government, will bring legislation into harmony with other provinces and trading partners and provide increased assurances about safety and traceability of B.C. animals and products.

Now, except for the use of the musical term "harmony," I understand that it's an appropriate thing to do to try and make sure that our legislation matches in terminology with other jurisdictions with whom we have trading agreements or common interests.

Harmony would, of course, mean that their notes are different than our notes, but together they sound good. But in this particular case, it looks like it's almost in unison. Bringing British Columbia's legislation into unison with other provinces perhaps wouldn't sound as good as it does.

Early detection of animal disease. Obviously, if this act can do that better than the previous act, then, in fact, it is an update, and it's an update worth supporting. What this legislation will do is provide producers with clear guidelines on actions that they have to take in the event that disease has been identified and, as well, to take the steps necessary to ensure the protection of animals in adjacent or regional areas.

How they do that is by introducing opportunities for the quarantine of areas, and that's all going to be decided by inspectors and the chief veterinary officer.

There are some issues around penalties, around powers of the chief veterinarian, around the freedom-of-information provisions of this act. Those are the things that I think deserve some fulsome debate and perhaps could have been addressed if we had a committee sitting that discussed agricultural issues, something that this side of the House has been calling for, for many years.

My predecessor in the portfolio of critic for the Ministry of Agriculture has often said that a committee of legislators could provide support and an opportunity for fulsome debate on legislation such as this prior to the stage of tabling the actual legislation.

I can't help but agree that we're here and we have interests that are specific to not just our constituencies but to our areas of interest. I'm quite sure that legislation would be drafted and created in a way that would probably be better if both sides of the House had some involvement prior to simply debating the bill.

[1745]

Obviously, our ability or our success in having bills amended is not a frequent occurrence in this House, although I have to say that during second reading, when this bill was called Bill 37, significant concern was raised among the public. Considerable public attention was paid to this legislation, in part because some definitions appeared to some people to be vague.

The minister at the time attempted to reassure the public that their concerns may not have had any real merit. Despite that, I acknowledge that the government did make some changes to this legislation and, in part, alleviated some of the concerns raised by the opposition in May of 2012.
[ Page 3043 ]

Obviously, we on the opposition and, I believe, the two independent members support measures to prevent the spread of animal disease and, in principle, support the updating of legislation so that it becomes modern and can address current issues. In that respect, I would say the legislation is appropriate to be back in front of us.

The legislation, according to the government, will also require producers to improve on their early detection of animal disease through expanded monitoring and surveillance programs. Now, that's clearly something that's essential if, in fact, the disease characteristics we note are faster spreading than they have been and are perhaps more difficult to identify.

Six other Canadian provinces modernized their animal health legislation in 2007. We're just a little bit behind. This is our opportunity to catch up.

One thing that was brought up in 2012, as I mentioned just a bit earlier, was that there were concerns about what the public was allowed to say and what the public was allowed to disclose with respect to the presence of diseases.

Today's legislation clarifies that there will be no restriction on the general public from reporting the presence of diseases. Now, that will assuage many people's concerns, but I would point out that it's not at the point where the general public is in the position to disclose this information. It's whether or not they have access to this information in the first place.

If the public is not made aware or if information is hidden from the general public, clearly, the general public is not able to report on the presence of disease.

The government's argument for restricting the access to information about animal disease has to do with ensuring that we protect the personal information of farmers. I understand that, and I respect that.

I think that's an important goal to strive for. But I'll make some more comments about that a little later in context with the legislation that currently protects farmers and protects producers and protects the public, not to mention increases the accountability of government in its role in overseeing this legislation.

The government claims that once disease is confirmed, it's obligated and accountable to take specific actions. Now, that is obvious. I think it probably was self-evident. The process for informing the public, according to the government, about the presence of diseases such as avian influenza, infectious salmon anemia and bovine spongiform encephalopathy doesn't change.

As the minister stated earlier, those are some of the major zoonotic diseases — H1N1 and SARS — a word that I have only really needed to know in my critic area since very recently. Those are the diseases that can pass between animals and humans.

[1750]

The government has consulted on this legislation, and I think that we should be able to say that about all legislation that comes before this House.

Third-party support of the bill exists. The provincial medical health officer believes that "effective animal health legislation is very much a part of creating the best possible environment for human health." He further states: "The Animal Health Act gives needed measures for preparation, surveillance and response to animal health issues." As the provincial medical health officer, I think that we should take his words with some comfort in his understanding of the relationship between animal health and greater public health. That's the position, in a very encapsulated form, of the provincial health officer.

I'm pleased that the Cattlemen's Association is supportive in principle of this legislation, understanding that the legislation we have and the soundness of that legislation does have an impact. It's not just on disease prevention, disease identification and the prevention of spread, but it also has an impact on our industry, our valuable and important agricultural industry in this province — the entire province.

There are areas in this entire province that produce food that we eat and produce food for our animals to eat, and we need to reflect on the fact of having strong legislation to ensure that we protect not just the market and the health of the public but that we protect the farmers and ranchers themselves.

I think sound legislation that does that is legislation that can be supportable by British Columbians. I think British Columbians know now, better than they ever have, the importance of ensuring that we have a strong oversight of our agricultural products and our agricultural markets and that we have legislation and rules, regulations and programs that support farmers and ranchers not just in their work but in their ability to market their products.

I got quite a bit of information just from reading the comments from previous debate on this issue. I don't think I can overstate the importance of ensuring that our farmers and the public are protected by legislation and how essential it is that legislation contemplated in this chamber does what's necessary. Not just for today. I'm hoping this legislation isn't going to sit idle as we learn more over the next 50, 60 or 70 years but that it'll be updated to ensure that new diseases are included and that it adapts to the scientific knowledge that we have.

I would also point out that most legislation is, in this day and age, geared towards ensuring that we protect our food sources and we protect how we produce our food, how we slaughter our food, how we market our food, for future generations as well. I would say it's a positive indication that this government recognizes that legislation passed now has an impact on the future. I'm hoping that this kind of attitude towards protecting farmers and protecting our food and protecting the people and the land that produces that food….

[1755]

It's essential, more than ever, that we have a long-term
[ Page 3044 ]
outlook because of how our climate is changing, how our growing regions are changing, how the demands on our farmers are increasing and how the challenges of farming and ranching today can be hurt by legislation that makes farmers' and ranchers' costs increase. We need to make sure that the legislation we pass in fact protects the farmers and protects our food.

The Pork Producers Association, as well, have said that Bill 19, the Animal Health Act, "reflects how critical it is today to today's farmer that government and industry have the best possible disease surveillance and response plans in place." He goes on to say — this is Jack DeWit: "The legislation ensures the flow of information from the farm to the public is accurate, so our customers can continue to enjoy" — and he talks about the food that the Pork Producers Association oversees — "ribs, bacon, ham and pork products." It's getting late in the day, and if I talk too much about that, I might start getting hungry.

I would further state that the stakeholders involved are supportive of legislation that will in fact make us greater, better prepared "throughout the agricultural sector." I must point out that that final comment was from the Egg Marketing Board executive director Al Sakalauskas.

Those are some of the comments that I have on this particular aspect of the legislation. Now, clearly this bill, which has 119 sections, couldn't possibly have been debated in 2012 in a matter of the five hours that were afforded to it. Because of that, it's back before the House again with what one might call a slight haircut. For the most part, though, the legislation remains essentially unchanged. We will be able to go into further detail in later stages to talk more specifically about some issues around various sections of the act.

If I may, I'll talk about even the definitions. You know, there's no definition of "disease." There's no definition of "pathogen." There are concerns around that one, and perhaps those will be alleviated in further discussion.

This is obviously just a place to bring up in general some of the issues that are of some concern to some people some of the time. But it's essential that those issues are raised when we talk about legislation that has, potentially, a very big impact on public health, on animal health and on the markets that we've developed and have nurtured over a number of years. British Columbia is well known for its diverse economic opportunities that come through the diverse commodities that we produce here on our farms and on our ranches.

There are other issues with respect to definitions that we'll be able to examine in further detail. The issue, obviously, that was brought to the attention of government in the past and had been raised as a concern in the past is around how and when and who informs the public — what they're told, when they're told it and by whom.

I would just point out that there are sections in this act that raise concerns, and raise concerns of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner raised concerns in 2012 and raised them again, upon the tabling of Bill 19, very recently. If I may, for the record, note that the concerns raised in 2012 were relatively similar to the concerns raised this month, when the legislation, as I said, was tabled again.

[1800]

I'm not going to suggest that the government ignored these recommendations. That wouldn't be fair, because there's no way they could have. It was clear and obvious to government that there is a difference of perspective on this issue.

I would just point out my — perhaps the opposition's — approach to this particular issue. And that is that where there is an accommodation possible, where there is some compromise possible, where there is an opportunity to put at ease the concerns of parties by amending or changing how the legislation is written….

Maybe it's because I was a social worker that I would look for that way of coming together to ensure…. If we can balance the interests of protecting privacy in ensuring that farmers are not unfairly impacted by issues beyond their control, then that balance, I think, should be sought.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

It is sort of problematic when an independent authority, a nationally and internationally well-respected commissioner, addresses some very specific concerns about legislation. It's not — I believe — done to catch the government trying to do something that they shouldn't do but to point out from a legislative perspective, from the perspective of an impartial third party, the impact of legislation that may be written in a way that could curtail or circumvent people's ability to access information that, essentially, is important for the public.

I know we've heard in the past how the Premier wants this government to be open and accountable. I'm not sure if she said the most open and most accountable government, but even if not, I'm not sure that this legislation as it's written, Bill 19, actually reflects openness or, necessarily, accountability. Maybe as time goes by there'll be an opportunity to strengthen the act, strengthen its rigour. I think good legislation really needs to be thought out carefully.

Now, in 2012 the Privacy Commissioner wrote to the minister at the time and said the following, with respect to the Animal Health Act: "The bill would override the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — FIPPA — and remove the public's right to access various records regarding animal testing, including actions and reports relating to animal disease management."

I'm just going to divert here. As the expert on this area, I think it's important for legislators to know when there's an authority speaking independently and that, from a neutral position, we don't become defensive on recommendations from these third parties. We could be defensive, or we could say: "Interesting — we can do something
[ Page 3045 ]
to address the concerns."

We see that the commissioner wanted to point out that FIPPA was written to make sure that public bodies are more open and accountable to citizens. She said the importance of these goals is reflected by the fact that FIPPA's provisions override every other enactment, unless the other enactment expressly overrides FIPPA.

"Only a very small number of these overrides have been enacted in the almost two decades since FIPPA came into force." At the time it was Bill 37. She continues: "Bill 37 would unnecessarily add to that number, and this is a matter of deep concern, considering the importance of disease management measures and the need for openness and accountability in the monitoring and enforcement of such measures."

[1805]

Now, this was 2012, with respect to Bill 37.

I'll continue with discussing the concerns of Elizabeth Denham, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.

Commissioner Denham pointed out that the override would be at odds with FIPPA's policy choices and pointed out that the legislation was passed with the unanimous vote of this House.

Everything in politics is a bit of a trade-off, and it's a balance of priorities — how much weight is given to different sides of an argument. It's very rarely, as my colleagues on both sides of the House would agree, one position versus another position. There is nuance, even in legislation. It's a question of where the nuance is identified and where both sides come to meet.

I think right now there's a bit of a step between the importance of this legislation and some of the impacts that this legislation may, intentionally or not, have on its effectiveness.

Now, to be fair, the Ministry of Agriculture at the time made their position clear and did not attempt to in any way dismiss the concerns of the commissioner, but instead explained them away, in a manner of speaking, by saying that section 21 of FIPPA — the exception for harm to third-party business interests — does not adequately protect information related to farmers engaged in animal health programs or subject to disease management actions.

Now, here's the line that may have caused some defensiveness. I don't think it was intended that way, but the commissioner told the government: "Your interpretation that FIPPA is out of step with other jurisdictions, or is overly onerous, is not supported by our research." I point out it's the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and it's the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, who understands this legislation probably better than anyone and who are leaders in the country in terms of jurisprudence in the area of privacy protection.

I'm not quite sure why the government didn't take those words to heart or did not respond in a way that accomplished what they needed to do while respecting the commissioner's perspective.

I always find it troubling when independent third parties are seen as somehow in the way of government as opposed to improving what government produces from legislation, regulations or priorities.

We've seen it with the Representative for Children and Youth or with the Ombudsperson or with the Auditor General. The government sometimes acts defensively first. In my view, it should embrace the opportunity to hear varying perspectives on legislation. It should embrace the opportunity to delve further into the substance of legislation, to make sure that we don't pass legislation that is too broad or we don't pass legislation that's too restrictive — that legislation that's passed is in fact going to accomplish what we hope it will accomplish and expect it to accomplish.

[1810]

One of the concerns raised in 2012 was that when the chief veterinarian declares an emergency, "the ministry and other organizations have unlimited powers for collection, use and disclosure of personal information. The ministry is granting itself…unlimited powers without sufficient evidence of actual need or evidence that FIPPA and PIPA do not already enable this collection, use and disclosure."

When we see a letter that is appropriately shared with legislators here, one might expect an attempt to address some of the concerns. But as I'll point out in a few moments, the more recent concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner perhaps weren't completely addressed.

Commissioner Denham says: "Further, this authority for emergency regulation-making powers precludes oversight to mitigate against unnecessary infringement of personal privacy." Now, obviously we're not going to say: "I'll trade you my privacy for animal health." It's not a question of one or the other. There should be an opportunity to make sure that while protecting our food supply, while protecting those who grow the food for us, the privacy of individuals is protected. If the legislation exists already to protect that, people's information, then perhaps having redundant legislation or overriding legislation is not necessarily the way to go.

In conclusion, the commissioner "respectfully asks that your ministry amend the bill to remove sections 16 and 60, and to provide for oversight of the emergency provisions described in part 5." The numbers referring to sections in this legislation haven't changed. The bill number has, from 37 to 19, but the concerns remain in section 16 and section 60 — not quite to the same extent, perhaps, because some changes were made.

If you remember, and it was riveting, committee stage on Bill 37…. If you weren't here, I recommend going back to Hansard and finding the telecast of the exchange between the former critic and the former minister. I'm not
[ Page 3046 ]
allowed to acknowledge whether the former minister is here or not, so I won't. But I have in my hand a transcript which goes on, on a number of pages.

Essentially, it's attempting to define who a person is — a person. Section 16 at the time stated that except as permitted under section 17 or 18, a person must refuse to disclose the following…. What proceeded from that was the discussion I referred to earlier that goes on for some time about who decides who a person is. It is a little bit humorous — just in my mind, I guess. But in terms of the legislation itself, it's important to know that when the legislation is contemplating the restriction of a person's rights, we know who exactly is restricting those rights and whose rights are going to be restricted.

It was summarized quite eloquently, if I may say, in the Tyee. I won't mention the author's name in case people think I'm just being nice, but Andrew MacLeod said at the end of May — this was the response to that debate: "The British Columbia government is clarifying who it means by 'a person' in a bill aimed at restricting people from sharing information about animal diseases, but is not acting on concerns raised by the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner."

The section in question said "a person must refuse…to disclose…information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle."

[1815]

Now, despite the fact that the minister defended the legislation, and he may have been right…. In the abundance of caution — which I respect and thank the government for doing — they clarified that it was a person referred to in the same way other sections were referring to a person.

But as the article in the Tyee mentioned, the other concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner were not addressed, and she wrote another letter to the government in April, this month, regarding the legislation.

If I may:

"I'm writing to convey my concerns regarding Bill 19, the Animal Health Act, which you tabled in the Legislature on March 27. Bill 19 would replace the Animal Disease Control Act and several other enactments that address farm animal production and disease, and replace them with the Animal Health Act.

"The new Animal Health Act would provide government with legislative tools to enable the monitoring and management of animal disease and require farmers to report incidents of disease and suspected disease"

Now this is the part I highlighted, so it's more important:

"The bill would also prevent public access to information about animal disease reporting and testing by exempting information collected in the administration of the Animal Health Act from the access-to-information provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As a result, journalists, citizens and researchers would never be able to examine the manner in which government is managing its responsibilities under this new act."

In reality, nobody in this is questioning the ability or the desire of government to address the issue. But when there is closed information and a lack of openness, it's not good for the democratic process, and it's not good in terms of how we are supposed to, as a public, see our legislation to be acting.

We don't usually try to enact legislation that restricts the ability of the public to have access to information that will allow them to ensure the oversight of government. In this day and age there's not always a great deal of confidence in governments, and maybe in politicians in general. But as much as that's not fair, I think that when legislation is written to specifically prevent the public from looking at how government manages its responsibilities, we're getting into a little bit more of a difficult area.

Our societies have learned over the years why there needs to be openness and accountability. It's not just for the gotcha moments that politicians in this House sometimes like, but it's because the public needs to have confidence in the way that government operates — in the way that all levels of government, not just the politicians but the ministries themselves, operate.

I think that oversight, even if not everybody looks at it or pays attention…. To be able to access information to assess whether in fact government is meeting its obligations — that's a measure that we should see as important. Not necessarily whether they did a good job or a bad job but the ability to at least check.

I think, in part, that's what Commissioner Denham sees as a particular problem. She goes on to say:

"Government proposes this broad exemption despite the carefully balanced set of access-to-information provisions and exemptions already present in FIPPA which protect both the public's right to know and a person's legitimate business interests and right to privacy. This balance is the result of policy and legislative decisions originally adopted by unanimous vote of the Legislature and fine-tuned over FIPPA's 20-year history."

[1820]

It's pointing out the truth of the matter that the legislation as it was written was based on that balance, and that balance was determined. It was found I don't think easily but with due consideration of all legislators and agreed to unanimously.

I think when you have a piece of legislation not contemplated at that time, perhaps those legislators would have thought that this is legislation that should only be overridden in extreme circumstances with real proof that it's the only way to protect all parties. I don't think that threshold was reached.

Bill 19 also exempts Animal Health Act inspectors, who are mostly veterinarians, from compliance with FIPPA and the Personal Information Protection Act, PIPA, during an emergency. "This would remove all instances of collection, use and disclosure from the oversight of my office, which would prevent any review of how those emergency powers are exercised."

Once again it's the question of whether or not the government
[ Page 3047 ]
does the right thing in the moment but the ability of the public to assess whether or not the government conducted itself adequately at the time. It's concerning to me that the commissioner can't even go back in retrospect to look to see if things were done adequately. Maybe we can get further information on that at the next stage of debate, but that would be a major concern.

At the time, the explanation was that the concerns of the farmers and of the marketing were very legitimate concerns, but those arguments don't hold much when we're talking about retroactive examination of the actions of government.

Commissioner Denham says:

"I am concerned that in Bill 19 government has set aside the comprehensive access-to-information and protection-of-privacy scheme provided by FIPPA without providing evidence that the current regime is incapable of protecting the interests of farmers and the public that are at stake in the administration of the Animal Health Act."

In other words, the current regime, the acts that currently are in place — there is no evidence that they are not able to do what this act claims it has to do because of that.

The fact that government hasn't demonstrated the need for this exemption or how existing exemptions in FIPPA wouldn't adequately protect the interests of farmers who report suspected incidents of animal disease or who submit samples for laboratory testing — that just seems to continue the theme that we do have legislation in place that is the balance of protecting the public and private interests. The balance is in FIPPA and PIPA, and it's out of balance in the Animal Health Act.

Commissioner Denham said: "This broad exemption is proposed despite the protections of part 2 of FIPPA which expressly prevent the disclosure of information where that disclosure would be harmful to the business interests of a third-party or to an individual's personal privacy."

Now, part 2 includes sections 21 and 22. I won't read them out, but essentially, sections 21 and 22 provide for the protection of information supplied by farmers under the Animal Health Act. Section 21 "prevents the disclosure of commercial information where that disclosure could be harmful to the business interests of a third party," and section 22 "prevents the disclosure of personal information if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy."

Continuing:

"Those two sections, as components of FIPPA's complete access-to-information scheme, are capable of governing the treatment of confidential information collected pursuant to the Animal Health Act." The previous legislation "doesn't exempt disease reports from access to information…and government has yet to provide an example of where public access to information has frustrated the objective of the act."

[1825]

The commissioner points out that there hasn't been any sort of conflict over this area, and there hasn't been a push-and-pull that has resulted in the government not doing what it wanted to.

Perhaps it just raises more concerns as to why it's really necessary to have legislation that overrides well-founded, longstanding legislation that is updated regularly but is strong and maintains the principle of its legislation, and that's the freedom of information and protection of privacy. I think that raises some questions, questions that I hope my colleagues and maybe private members from the other side will be able to pursue in greater detail at the next stage of debate.

The commissioner acknowledges it's the opinion of the government that the provisions in FIPPA exempting access are not sufficient, and clearly we'll hear an argument to that effect. Despite that, if the government in fact is of that opinion, then the commissioner wonders why other legislation that would fix that problem wasn't thought of instead of the rather sweeping legislation proposed in this bill.

I tend to agree that if there is a difference between two perspectives and both parties acknowledge the validity of the other's argument and if, in fact, both can find a place where they are comfortable, that would be a better solution than a win-lose. I don't want to make this into anything other than it is, but there's a pattern of bulldozing ahead, when in fact legislation should be the result of deliberate and thoughtful debate, trying to address the differences that exist.

The commissioner points out that other legislation we've heard, which this legislation is based on…. Well, the commissioner points out that that other legislation is less sweeping legislation, has less-prescriptive measures than the legislation in Bill 19.

The Ontario Animal Health Act, upon which our legislation is apparently structured, has subsection 16(2). This is Ontario.

"Information in the custody or control of an institution that has been collected for the purposes of this Act, other than information to which subsection (1) applies, is deemed for the purposes of section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (a) to be scientific, technical, commercial or financial information; or (b) to have been supplied in confidence to the institution by the person or entity to whom the record or information relates."

That would be deemed to be provided in confidence, thus protecting the parties involved. Ostensibly, that's the purpose of Bill 19's provisions that override the privacy laws that currently exist.

In Alberta it's the same thing. There's section 55(2), on personal information. Out of context it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense, but it, too, has a provision that is a compromise between what this government is proposing and what our Information and Privacy Commissioner recommends.

[1830]

To me, that seems like a perfect recipe and opportunity for the coming together of minds and the coalescence of perspectives, wherein people can be satisfied, in fact, that their rights are being protected or that their rights are not being unnecessarily abrogated. I think that is a bit more
[ Page 3048 ]
of a win-win than we see in the legislation before us today.

I've been speaking primarily about section 16, but there are concerns about section 60, which is the emergency powers section under the Animal Health Act, or Bill 19, currently being debated. The commissioner says that the "emergency provisions are being proposed without evidence of actual need or evidence that FIPPA and PIPA do not already enable the collection, use and disclosure" of this information — almost to the word, the same concerns raised by the commissioner about the legislation that was tabled in 2012, known as Bill 37.

Now, coming from a sector where personal privacy and the protection of individual rights has always been a cornerstone of our work, I understand the importance of making sure that governments don't have the ability to misuse legislation. Legislation in itself should be such that its interpretation falls within certain boundaries and isn't so expansive as to be able to be interpreted however our government wants. It should be clear enough to the public in reading the legislation to know specifically why and how it's going to be applied.

When you talk about an emergency, an emergency doesn't in itself mean that all our rules are thrown out the window and we've just got to all hunker down and do whatever is necessary. We can do whatever is necessary and still ensure that the protection of rights remains paramount. The commissioner, in expressing her concern about this particular aspect of the legislation, section 60, writes: "I am concerned that these proposed emergency powers to collect, use and disclose personal information during an emergency are unlimited and would be susceptible to misuse during an emergency."

Once again, the commissioner is not saying they will be misused. But the potential for their misuse should be enough, if allowed by legislation, to be corrected prior to the passage of that legislation, and the commissioner just points out what I think is self-evident. It's important that her office is given the jurisdiction of how our personal information is collected, used and disclosed.

She points out: "…even if that review were to take place after an emergency." But that isn't even an option. She also points out that the needed powers that this legislation purports to be creating exist already under current legislation.

In summary, the commissioner recommends:

"…that government amend the bill to remove section 16(2). Alternatively, I recommend that government provide for a narrower exemption from FIPPA, such that information is deemed to meet the requirements of section 21(a) and (b) of FIPPA, protecting the interests of farmers where there is a real risk of harm to their business interests, while retaining the public's interest in access to information and the role of my office in providing oversight over the balance between those interests."

[1835]

That's fundamentally at issue here — that we have an independent, neutral party that adjudicates, prevents misuse of information, oversees the release of information to balance what we agreed to when that legislation was passed, the values that we held then, which I think are essentially the same values. Ensure that the public is protected in legislation, that the public is afforded all of the rights of citizenship to access information about how their government operates, whether in an emergency or not.

I just want to go through a few sections that will be part of our further discussion, but in general terms, there have been concerns raised about the apparent broad powers of the provincial veterinarian. I'm not a veterinarian, and I would never purport to know the work involved, but I do think that legislation that gives power to any authority needs to be balanced against the assurance that those powers are balanced with the rights of individuals.

Whether it's a social worker or a police officer or any public official that has the ability to do what no other public official can do — i.e., enter a home or enter a vehicle or trespass onto a property — these are powers that cannot be unlimited. They really have to be allowable only in circumstances where it is so obviously clear that rights need to be trampled. It can be explained and it can be excused in certain circumstances, but those should be very clear, and the authority of those individuals should be extremely clear as well.

Maybe in third reading we'll find some assurances that those powers are going to be exercised with professionalism and with certain standards of behaviour and conduct and comportment. But as it stands now, it just…. The concern is that except for personal residences, other areas, vehicles and property can be entered without a warrant.

I used to think that it was only social workers that could go into a house without a warrant and do their work. They're trained, they have extremely limited powers, and they have to be accountable to a judge within a few days for the actions that they've taken. It's not carte blanche to do whatever is necessary in any circumstance that'll be excused because of the emergent nature of that particular case. In that case, we're talking about the welfare and health of the child. In this case, we're talking about the protection of the public from disease — food-borne disease and animal disease.

I do have some concerns about warrantless entries and emergency powers — not to say that there's not an explanation that can be understood. I do think that there is opportunity for — I don't even want to call it compromise — addressing the concerns that are raised.

I'll have questions around the repeal of the Bee Act, and I think that we will probably be talking about the regulations that were prescribed in the Bee Act, the Fur Farm Act, the Game Farm Act. Perhaps they will all be transferred directly into Bill 19, but that, too, is not clear at this point, so I'm hoping that we'll be able to discuss those issues as well.

Now, something that's also new in this particular piece of legislation is that fines and administrative penalties
[ Page 3049 ]
are significantly higher than they were under previous legislation, where the limit for a fine was $2,000 and now would be $75,000. How the expectation of voluntary compliance meshes with increased penalties, how the administration of the act would work with respect to offences committed under the Animal Health Act are issues that I'm hoping we'll be able to further examine and debate as we proceed toward third reading debate.

[1840]

With not that much more to say about the act at this point, I just want to reiterate or recap that in principle the legislation as put forward is an amendment. It is an update to existing legislation. It's the modernization of legislation that protects the animals, protects the farmers and protects the public health.

It contains within it some provisions that are new, which were not under the Game Farm Act or the Fur Farm Act or the Bee Act or the Animal Disease Control Act. It's on those areas that I think special attention needs to be paid, especially as it relates to the powers of government — the apparently unlimited powers of the chief veterinary, the provincial vet — as well as around some definitions and the absence of reference to fish — something else that needs to be discussed — and the absence of reference to pathogens, the precursors to disease, if they're in fact found.

We know that a lot of this legislation has to do with protecting farms in the water and on land. Those are both, obviously, of considerable importance. The privacy issues which didn't exist in previous legislation and now do, I think, need to be fully explored, fully examined, as well as the other issues that I raised previously.

With that, I look forward to further debate on this legislation. I look forward to the public of the province weighing in. Previous consultations in 2012 purported that approximately 315 separate submissions were provided. And while those people who provided information and input were never told whether their input was considered, we know that consultation took place.

I would just like to point out again that legislation…. When it relates to human health or our ability to protect our food sources for now and for the future, I think it's essential — beyond possible explanation of how important it is — that the public be included in the discussion.

In this legislation and other legislation we've seen put forward in this House, including the Liquor Control Act, the government proudly, proudly told the people of this province how much they were included in the decision-making. The government really wants the public of the Lower Mainland to have a say in how their transportation system is funded. The public will have a say in whether there's a gate around your beer garden or whether you can sell new products at farmers markets. The public was consulted on all of those issues.

It's essential for the public to have confidence in our political system — that they're afforded an opportunity for input in policies that have a direct impact on them, have a direct impact on their children and have a direct impact on their grandchildren. I reiterate and I cannot overstate the importance of the public being involved in legislation that impacts them.

With that, Madame Speaker, I thank you for your time.

D. Bing: I'm pleased to speak on Bill 19, the Animal Health Act, 2014. This legislation updates B.C.'s 66-year-old laws and gives the provincial government the ability to limit the spread of current and emerging diseases and to better respond to disease outbreaks. These changes will enable our government to make critical disease management actions on a significantly larger number of diseases more quickly within the first 24 to 48 hours of a serious animal disease being confirmed.

[1845]

The Animal Health Act, 2014, enables government to employ modern animal disease management practices to inspect and seize animals or their products and to issue orders for actions to be taken by animal owners.

The act also contains higher penalties for offences and allows for emergency powers during times of crisis. This legislation brings the Animal Health Act, 2014, into harmony with other legislation across the country and reflects the realities of increasing global trade and travel.

It is important to note that there will be no restriction on the general public, including media, from reporting the presence of diseases.

The current Animal Disease Control Act dates from 1948 and has not been modified substantially since that time. And 1948 was the same year that bus service was introduced to Burnaby and that Vancouver International Airport was named. The story of two-way escalators in a Vancouver department store made the newspapers. Technology, travel and trade have all changed dramatically since then, and the animal health legislation must too.

A major shortcoming of the Animal Disease Control Act, 1948, is that there were few diseases that are referenced under this act. This limits government's ability to respond to an outbreak of a disease that is not included in the Animal Health Act, 2014, such as foot-and-mouth disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and so on.

Indeed, actions to control disease are extremely limited. Government, under current legislation, is limited to imposing quarantine on individual farms. In addition, actions can only apply to animals, not animal products and by-products, which can also spread disease.

The powers assigned to the inspectors are vague and inconsistent with modern legislation, specifically that of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Penalties are very low and do not serve as a deterrent to unsafe practices. Penalties may only be applied upon conviction, and offences are prosecuted only in the most serious of cases.

There are few recordkeeping requirements. This slows and complicates tracking and response to disease.
[ Page 3050 ]

There are six Canadian provinces and territories that have also modernized their animal health legislation since 2007. The modernization of the Animal Health Act, 2014, in British Columbia is necessary. This new legislation updates the entire spectrum of monitoring and responding to animal diseases.

Legislation increases the number of reportable and notifiable diseases from a few, a handful, to around 100. This allows government to respond to a wider array of animal diseases. Many of the added diseases were not known in 1948. It now includes diseases such as chronic wasting disease, rabies and other syndromes and infestations.

The Animal Health Act, 2014, improves the early detection of animal diseases through expanded monitoring and surveillance programs and improves the province's ability to take swift, effective action to control disease. This requires producers to take preventive measures to reduce the risk of introducing and spreading disease. It ensures that employees are trained to prevent and respond to disease, maintain records of animal origin, abide by inspectors' reports and report any incidents of disease or unusual illness.

This increases disease control measures beyond quarantine of an individual farm, such as restricting the movement of affected animals, animal products such as milk or eggs, or animal by-products such as wool or hides, all of which can transmit disease.

This increases the maximum penalty — under the Animal Health Act, 2014 — from $2,000 to $75,000, and this creates an administrative penalty system for less serious contraventions.

This legislation enables the province to take critical disease management actions on a significantly larger number of diseases more quickly, within the first 24 to 48 hours of a serious animal disease being confirmed.

Effective animal disease control ensures better overall health of the food production system and will decrease the likelihood of animal health outbreaks that could affect human health or have major economic consequences.

How is the Animal Health Act, 2014, different from the animal health act proposed in 2012? The new legislation is very similar to the one that was introduced in 2012, but with the following changes. There was some misinterpretation of the language around section 16 in 2012 and who it would apply to. That has now been made clear. There will be no restrictions on the media or individuals from reporting the presence of diseases to the public. Restrictions only apply to people who administer the Animal Health Act, 2014 — that is, those working within animal health.

[1850]

It is important to understand that the process in which the public is informed about disease outbreaks has not changed. The section regarding traceability, 22, has been redrafted to more clearly articulate that the province can establish its own trackability system or program for animal identification, animal movement and premise identification, or it can adopt an existing traceability system or program such as a federal program. These changes reflect new possibilities that have emerged since the original act was introduced in 2012.

Sections 29 to 31 have been modified slightly to allow for government to seize and destroy animals — but only where there is a known or suspected disease occurrence and the animals or the public may become affected by disease.

In addition, some changes have been made related to the release of information through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, FOIPPA. FOIPPA applies to AHA except for six categories of information described in section 16(1). However, if a situation arises where public safety or health is at risk, the information in 16(1) may be disclosed under FOIPPA. The Minister of Health has the authority to disclose information under the act and has the sole authority to disclose information that is not subject to FOIPPA.

In cases of zoonotic disease — diseases that may transfer from animals to humans — and there is a threat to human health, the information must be disclosed. As well, the legislation requires mandatory disclosure of information where there is a threat to public safety.

Farmers are the front line of defence against animal diseases and the first to notice signs of illness on their farms. Their role in surveillance and monitoring is crucial.

Animal Health Act, 2014, allows for the confidential collection of data so government and farmers can work in partnership to prevent animal diseases from occurring and to identify animal diseases quickly when they occur. In order to encourage surveillance and the reporting of unusual and undiagnosed animal symptoms and behaviour, the Animal Health Act, 2014, protects the personal information of farmers submitting samples for testing from being released under FOIPPA requests.

It is important to understand that in all situations in which there is a threat to public safety, disclosure of information is mandatory. Furthermore, if the minister deems it to be in the public interest, information can and very likely would be released. Such examples can include if there is a need to create significant disease control measures, such as a quarantine zone. People with knowledge of a reportable disease will continue to be legally obligated to provide that information to provincial and/or federal authorities.

Due to the hour, hon. Speaker, I think I will sit down.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, if you might move adjournment of the debate.
[ Page 3051 ]

D. Bing: I move adjournment of the debate.

Madame Speaker: And he's reserving his right to continue.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: He has adjourned the debate, and he has the right to return to the debate when he returns.

D. Bing moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.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 2:52 p.m.

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

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here again today. It's a beautiful day outside — springtime.

I'm wondering if the minister can start by…. One of my critic roles…. I have many critic roles, it seems, but one of them is fish — fisheries. That spans a number of different ministries. If the minister could explain to myself and to those watching what the role of the Ministry of Environment is relating to fish or fish habitat.

[1455]

Hon. M. Polak: Generally speaking, our ministry is responsible for science, for policy, for standards. And of course we help with legislation. Also, if there would be a fish species that is listed in terms of being a species at risk, if there is a recovery strategy that is required, we would participate with the relevant agency, whether it was the federal government — DFO — or FLNRO. We do not have any involvement in allocation. That would be for FLNRO or DFO. In respect of habitat, the riparian areas regulation is the responsibility of FLNRO.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Further to that, do you have an estimate on the full-time-equivalents, the number of staff, that would or could be responsible for addressing the issues of science, policy and standards relating to fish or fish habitat?

Hon. M. Polak: We'll provide the member some more fulsome details. As an example, we do have a fisheries science unit that is embedded at UBC. That takes into account approximately four FTEs. But we don't have it broken down based on category, such as fish, so we will get that to the member.

S. Fraser: Was there a role played by this ministry in addressing the concerns and the recommendations that came out of the Cohen inquiry? That's 75 recommendations. I know it's a year and a half since that report came out, but if the minister could let me know how that works out with your ministry.

Hon. M. Polak: It was a cross-government response, and Ministry of Agriculture had the lead. We participated in that cross-government effort.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I realize the Ministry of Agriculture is still coming up, so that's good to know. I'm trying to figure out what I can ask of the Ministries of Environment and Agriculture. I know that there's crossover. There's a grey area, arguably.

One of the key recommendations in the Cohen inquiry was addressing…. There are 75 recommendations, but it's about citing criteria for salmon farms, for salmon aquaculture.

[1500]

Does the Ministry of Environment…? The minister mentioned there's a policy role, there's a science role. I'm getting to this too, so I might as well just mention it now. One of the recommendations from Cohen was also, basically, updating science in addressing…. Essentially, we're talking about the Fraser River sockeye. That was the main thrust of the Cohen inquiry. I guess we'll relate it to that. We could probably keep it simpler.

Hon. M. Polak: Generally, the answer would be no. There could be a situation that involves a species at risk, and in that case, we would likely have some involvement. But generally, the answer would be no. That would be the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture.
[ Page 3052 ]

S. Fraser: I appreciate that, and I won't pursue that. I'll follow it up with the Minister of Agriculture. Actually, that may end up starting today too — either later today or tomorrow. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to do that. I'm losing track. There are too many things happening at once.

One of the recommendations from Cohen was that an associate regional director general be appointed specifically. This is dealing with the Fraser River sockeye — very germane to this province and the health of our marine environment, and one of our key species. There was supposed to have been….

Recommendation 5: "The new associate regional director general should, by March 31, 2013, publish a detailed plan for implementation of the wild salmon policy, stipulating what tasks are required, how they will be performed and by whom, when they will be completed and how much implementation will cost, as set out in a detailed itemization of cost."

I apologize for my ignorance here, but I'm not even aware of who this designated director general is. So if the minister could help edify myself and the room here so that we can know what the status of that recommendation is.

Hon. M. Polak: It's a Department of Fisheries and Oceans position, and staff are not aware with respect to the individual or even if they've actually hired out the position yet.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Then, relating to the report that was due out by that entity by March 31, 2013, am I correct in assuming that there was no report? If we're not sure we have a director general….

Hon. M. Polak: I'm advised we are not aware of such a report.

S. Fraser: If I can ask the minister, then…. If there is a key recommendation involving the decline of the Fraser River sockeye salmon and that recommendation doesn't seem to have been met — we don't have the director general; we don't have the report — is there a reaction from the province to this? It is critical for the sockeye salmon, which is a keystone species. Does the ministry have any back-and-forth with their colleagues in DFO to maybe raise concerns that this has not been completed?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm sure the member will appreciate that in the absence of information, I don't want to speculate with any certainty around either the appointment of an associate regional director general or an implementation plan and its release date.

[1505]

The fact that we are in our ministry not aware doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't occurred. It may be that this is something that is part of the work either between FLNRO and Fisheries and Oceans or perhaps Agriculture and Fisheries and Oceans. It may be that we just don't have the knowledge. I wouldn't want to speculate in that environment as to whether there should be a cause for concern. It may be that we're just not aware of what's already taken place.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I get that. I'm not critical here. I'm just curious if these are key recommendations. It was a $26 million report. I've never heard of a report of this nature before. It's very comprehensive, dealing specifically with a key species in this province.

If the recommendations are not happening, isn't there interplay back and forth, concern for not having these recommendations fulfilled? Is there not a role, at least an advocacy role, for the minister or ministry — or a minister and ministry? It may not be…. I don't want to be critical of the minister on this. It may be another ministry. Surely there's a role for the province to try to ensure that the taxpayer, at least, in British Columbia is getting some value for that $26 million, especially as it relate to such an important species.

Hon. M. Polak: I think this relates back to one of my earlier responses when we were discussing the response of the province and the work of the province with respect to the recommendations that would relate to us in Cohen. We do have a cross-government group that is led by the Ministry of Agriculture. We participate there. But really, I would not want to comment with any certainty with respect to which recommendations have been met or not met.

Not knowing with any certainty whether or not this appointment has been made or the plan has been put out, I certainly wouldn't want to engage in speculating that they have not met the requirements. They very well may have, and we just might not be aware. That might be a more likely part of the work that is being done with Ministry of Agriculture in the lead. Again, I don't want to in an irresponsible way suggest that there should be cause for concern. There may be no cause for concern at all. It may be that this recommendation has been met, and we're just unaware.

S. Fraser: I will follow this up with the Ministry of Agriculture and see if they have any more information on this. Some of the recommendations under Cohen related to concerns about fish farms, specifically within the migration route of outgoing smolt and sockeye salmon and key concerns about that. I realize I'm probably moving into that again. Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for tenuring and water leases and that sort of thing.

Part of the recommendations from Cohen was about trying to protect those migration routes, that there was
[ Page 3053 ]
a risk from salmon farming, from aquaculture, potentially, for those Fraser River sockeye. Again, we're talking about that. Is there a role for the Ministry of Environment in addressing those concerns, specifically around fish farms?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, this goes back to…. Ultimately, the overarching responsibility is with Fisheries and Oceans. Provincially, there is a division with respect to responsibilities between the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. The Ministry of Environment does not play a role.

[1510]

S. Fraser: There were changes made in the last couple of years federally, certainly, through an omnibus bill that made some changes to how the federal government addresses environmental assessments. There were Navigable Water Act changes that affected waterways, including waterways and water systems in British Columbia. This would be one of the changes. Changes to the Fisheries Act, too, arguably weakened the federal role. Has the minister or the ministry noticed the need to pick up any slack from those changes that happened federally?

Hon. M. Polak: The Ministry of Environment has been coordinating a cross-government review and response to changes related to the Fisheries Act. As a result of that, on behalf of the province, the Ministry of Environment provided fairly comprehensive comments outlining the concerns of British Columbia with the legislative, regulatory and policy changes. This was requested by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

I have to say that thus far the department of Fisheries and Oceans has responded quite positively to the feedback from British Columbia. I would say it's safe to say that the information provided by B.C. was far more extensive than any other jurisdiction responding to this.

I will say to the member…. I can anticipate there are probably some questions around: "Well, can you give examples of the concerns?" It's quite extensive, and I'll make the offer now that if the member would like, staff are quite happy to organize a briefing for the member with respect to what we have provided to DFO and what our concerns are and the results of our review.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that offer and that answer, and I will accept after we're through with this process. I know the minister is quite busy when this is on.

I'm going to cede the floor for some time to my colleague from Stikine because he has a time constraint that I do not have. Since we opened up talking a little bit about environmental assessment, I don't think it's too out there. I hope that'll be all right.

D. Donaldson: I have a couple of questions. I think the first is a good segue, because it deals with fish and environmental assessment. I do have a couple of questions where the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation referred me during his budget estimates to this ministry, so you're the beneficiary of your colleague, who was quite adamant that these were questions for the Ministry of Environment.

With that prelude, the first one is on the Morrison mine decision. This was a mine that was proposed in an area of high values for salmon.

[1515]

I believe it's actually just on the border between my constituency and the constituency represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

The proponent's proposal was rejected in the environmental assessment process, and it became subject to quite a bit of controversy. The controversy centred mostly on the environmental mitigation measures and whether they were able to be carried out in a successful manner or not.

I read the decision cover to cover twice because it had downstream impacts on the constituency and the people I represent. I think what was overlooked was the three First Nations who were given the ability to provide testimony in the environmental assessment process or provide facts.

The Lake Babine Nation, the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow — all three rejected the notion that significant long-term environmental effects would not occur. But more important to me, because of my role as Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation critic, is that they quite strongly stated that nothing in the environmental assessment process would they construe as consultation.

The proponent went to court, as the minister knows, to appeal the process and the decision, and the judge ruled in favour of the appeal around the process.

My question to the minister. The environmental assessment process in B.C. is typified by the government as deep consultation — the best, the biggest, the most rigorous type of consultation with First Nations. Yet here was a case where three very strong First Nations that all had a seat at the table during this environmental assessment process said this was nothing to do with consultation, according to them.

The government decided not to challenge the judge's ruling around the successful appeal by the proponent. I'm curious as to whether the minister briefed her cabinet colleagues on the fact that this was not considered consultation by the three First Nations.

Also, if this process was rejected and the government is saying this is deep consultation, then, does that not give the minister some degree of concern regarding the approach to consultation that has been taken?

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: I appreciate the member's interest in the decision and appreciate that the member has read
[ Page 3054 ]
through the decision. I know that the member will note that there was an important area in which the judge ruled in favour of the environmental assessment office.

I just think it's important to point out that the judge did rule that the executive director of the environmental assessment office did have the statutory authority to make the recommendations he did, despite the assessment report.

The member is correct in that where the judge found that the actions of the EAO contravened their obligations was in respect of procedural fairness. Certainly, a large part of that was in the lack of involvement of the First Nation when the executive director added additional information to the recommendation that was forwarded to the minister.

At that point the First Nations were not allowed an opportunity to respond in kind, to review that recommendation from the executive director directly. Therefore, the judge ruled that that was not appropriate with respect to consultation.

I can tell the member with respect to our response that not only have we chosen not to appeal, but we are proceeding to respond in a manner consistent with what the judge recommended in terms of revisiting the recommendation and the process.

We will be in receipt of a new submission from the company, but we are also directly involving the Lake Babine Nation, the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow Nations. They are participating in the process currently in response to the court decision, and their submissions are due to us by April 25.

In terms of our actions, there's the decision not to appeal, but we have also followed that up with a new process through which we are responding to the judge's decision and doing so by addressing the important need for First Nations to have an opportunity to respond and, as well, for the proponent to have the opportunity to respond to the director's recommendation.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I'm going to pursue a line of questioning that involves the Gitanyow, but only because it's…. We were talking about the Gitanyow in this sense, but it's not in connection to the Morrison mine decision but on a larger perspective.

I did canvass it somewhat with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, but I'm in receipt of some new information regarding the Gitanyow. I'd like to typify it as…. I know that the government is very interested in trying to make the environmental assessment process more efficient. Some people have typified it, including this government, as streamlining. Of course, everyone knows that if you cut corners, you don't end up streamlining anything. This is not an example of this.

This is something I think is a very positive and productive suggestion from the Gitanyow. That has been forwarded — I appreciate it's fairly recent — to the ministry through the environmental assessment office on April 2 from the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs. It's a draft letter of understanding on consultation with the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs. I think one of the points that jumps out for me is around the strength-of-claim issue.

[1525]

As we see, the Gitanyow signed an accord of recognition and reconciliation with the provincial government. I believe that was in the fall of 2012. There was a land use plan, Gitanyow Huwilp land use plan, as part of that, and that is a very productive document.

The issue is that every time a proponent comes to the EA process and is accepted into the EA process, the Gitanyow are forced to prove their strength of claim over their territories, even though they have this reconciliation agreement, this land use plan that the government has signed off on. So it not only delays things; it uses up a lot of resources on behalf of the government and on behalf of the Gitanyow. I think what I've described people could see as a frustration.

Under the letter of understanding that they have forwarded to the environmental assessment office and the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, there are many projects that are slated that the proponent is wishing to carry out on Gitanyow territory. They've suggested that…. It's a quote from the letter of understanding: "Where a proposed project has the potential to have impacts on Gitanyow's aboriginal rights, there will be no requirement to provide a strength of claim assessment to Gitanyow, as the strength of claim will be deemed to be strong."

In light of the fact that these documents have been signed, a reconciliation agreement, and there's been a land use plan signed by the government, would the minister advise whether she would look upon this as a favourable development in the consultation process with the Gitanyow, in light of how it could really result in some streamlining of effort?

[1530]

Hon. M. Polak: I am advised that we have received the letter, but only a couple of days ago. The member will know that the last couple of days I have been in estimates, and staff, of course, have been with me. To say only that we haven't given it the kind of review that it really deserves as yet.

I am happy to say that this letter from Gitanyow is a response to a process that we initiated. We sent them a draft letter of understanding. I say that only because I think it's important to note that in terms of improving our work with First Nations through the Ministry of Environment and the environmental assessment office, we are proactively engaging First Nations. We recognize the value of having agreements with First Nations as to
[ Page 3055 ]
how we will proceed.

In terms of their specific request, I wouldn't want to offer a commitment at this stage, not having reviewed the detail of the letter of understanding and not having any substantial information from other ministries with respect to any potential impact.

Suffice to say that we are encouraged by the work that is going on between Gitanyow and the ministry and the EAO. We're looking forward to that continuing, and we do believe that we can arrive at a result that will not only ensure certainty for us with respect to consultation and consultation models but will also provide assurance to Gitanyow and confidence in the process on the part of Gitanyow so that we are all getting the most out of the kind of consultation that we are obligated to undertake.

I'm looking forward to what we can bring about as a result here. I feel optimistic. I think, thus far, that we've had good cooperation and good discussions between ourselves and Gitanyow.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think Gitanyow is definitely making some very productive suggestions around consultation and accommodation. I look forward to hearing from them around the response from the minister and from this government. I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are some major development pressures, so time makes a difference on this one.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

The next question I have, and again it was referred from the Minister of Aboriginal Relations budget estimates, was on the Sacred Headwaters. As the minister likely knows, the Sacred Headwaters is the birthplace of three of the major rivers of the province — the Stikine, the Skeena and the Nass. It's also an area that I'm lucky to have in the constituency of Stikine.

However, it has been the site of suggestions and proposals by proponents for resource extraction activities. I have to congratulate the Tahltan, who were able to ensure that coalbed methane development and drilling for that would not be happening in the Sacred Headwaters region of their territory and were able to sign an agreement with the government and Shell to ensure that that didn't happen.

As a result, though, there have been some other issues. The one that is at the forefront right now is the issue of mineral extraction in that area. The government has made a commitment, and I'll read from the 2013 platform commitment: "…to examine the feasibility of a provincially designated protected area in the Klappan." That's the area we're talking about, the Sacred Headwaters.

I'm curious to get an update from the minister about how that process is going with the Tahltan around arriving at a provincially designated protected area. I am especially interested in how the ministry squares this process that they're engaged in with the Tahltan with the fact that one proponent, Fortune Minerals, is in the midst of pursuing a coal project while this other process is underway. How does the ministry square those two processes?

[1535]

One, the work that Fortune Minerals says it's going to be doing this year in the Sacred Headwaters, probably in a matter of months or less — exploration work for a potential coal mine — and the other side of the equation, the talks that this ministry is having regarding a provincially designated protected area in the same place that the proponent is suggesting and pursuing a coal mine.

Hon. M. Polak: This is — and I know the member is aware of this because he's from the area — a very, very difficult issue, a very complex one. I know those are probably overused words when it comes to talking about government, but I think nowhere are they more appropriate than here.

[1540]

One of the challenges, of course, is that while there can be decisions — and the member has mentioned one, with respect to the deferral of future grants, of licences and tenures, etc. — nevertheless, we have an existing tenure here, and government has obligations associated with that.

Our ultimate goal, of course, is to get to a place where together with the Tahltan, in looking at the broader land use in the area, we have a much more collaborative approach to managing the natural resources, and that will enable the Tahltan to see not only the benefits from economic activity in their area but also to be confident that the values there are being protected.

To date, as a result of the work that is ongoing, in September the Klappan strategic initiative was established. That involves a shared approach between the province and the Tahltan in terms of developing future decisions about conservation. Potential protection of the Klappan from that strategic initiative has grown a technical working group. They are doing a technical review that will include in its report an examination of all the values that are present on the land base, including the cultural and historic values that are so important to the Tahltan.

In March of 2013 the Tahltan and B.C. signed a very important government-to-government agreement. It has, I think, gone a long way to establishing the kind of collaborative framework that we've been able to utilize, even in this very difficult time between us and the Tahltan.

Having said that, I think it's important not to dismiss the impact and the significance of the decision to move in terms of the deferrals. That is something that we as government not only find significant, but one of our more well-known environmental organizations in British Columbia, Organizing for Change, actually went so far as
[ Page 3056 ]
to declare success based on that, in terms of their efforts to have us pay attention to the protection of the Klappan and the need for that protection.

We certainly have a lot of work in front of us. I'm under no illusions that this is somehow going to become easy. It isn't. Very difficult priorities to balance here from our perspective, from Tahltan's perspective. It's going to be a huge challenge, but I am very encouraged by the participation of Tahltan with us. I'm encouraged by the establishment of these working groups and the strategic initiative.

I'm hopeful that, at the end of the day, we can come to not only a resolution with respect to the Klappan, specifically, but also more broadly develop a more certain and collaborative relationship with the Tahltan in terms of land use in their area.

S. Fraser: I'm back. I guess I will hold off on further questions relating to, say, the Cohen recommendations and finfish aquaculture and migration routes, and concerns about that, to the Minister of Ag. I'd like to just move on. I'm going to be probing here, because I know this will cross borders with the other ministries again, so if the minister could just be patient with me here.

There's a harvest occurring right now on the east coast of Vancouver Island in the area of Deep Bay–Bowser, just above Parksville-Qualicum area. It's a seaweed harvest. It's thousands of tonnes of seaweed. These are detached seaweed. Mazzaella japonica is the Latin name. It's what grows in the shallow subtidal area. When we get certain storm situations, this seaweed gets pushed up onto the beach, and it forms an ecological treasure chest. There are lots of critters living in there, and as it decomposes, it plays other roles too.

[1545]

I'm wondering: does the ministry have any role when it comes to addressing the science behind allowing…? I know it's the Ministry of Ag that does the licensing and lease agreements for these types of operations. But the minister may not be aware that there had not been any baseline studies. No science was done before the licences were let just a couple of years ago.

Heavy equipment started showing up, track vehicles started showing up on the beaches and on the foreshore. Just so the minister knows, there are more retired DFO scientists that have moved to this part of Vancouver Island…. When they open the door and there's stuff happening out there, they've been raising concerns, as have local residents, for all kinds of reasons.

It's the ecological integrity of the foreshore that is of greatest concern to myself and certainly the scientists involved. Does the ministry play a role when it comes to addressing science and policy issues relating to, essentially, a new fishery on a coastline in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm concerned that the Minister of Agriculture is going to complain that I've added a whole bunch of material to his estimates. But once again, the Ministry of Agriculture has responsibility for licensing aquatic-plant harvesting. They would also be responsible for the analysis to support that decision.

I could liken it to the decisions that FLNRO makes with respect to its allocations, whether it's for hunting or freshwater fishing licences. Those ministries then have responsibility for the analysis and the science that would support the decision that they ultimately make. In this case, it would be the Ministry of Agriculture.

S. Fraser: As I said off the mike there, I will blame the minister for that when I talk to her colleague. I'll tell him it's all your fault.

Well, I appreciate the answer from the minister. But the science that I have seen on this type of harvest…. There hasn't been any significant science in British Columbia on this type of harvest before, this seaweed harvest. There has been science done on the larger habitat impacts in eastern Canada, in Ireland. There are other places that have done some work on this.

My concern is — and I'm not blaming the minister for this — the siloed approach. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the tenuring, the beach tenuring in this case, for the harvest.

[1550]

The larger ecological role of the beach-cast seaweed is significant, according to the science that I have read that's been done — not in British Columbia, necessarily. Its effect on the food chain from birds to foraging fish — the whole chain right up to the salmon in the marine environment and then the bivalves, the clams and the critters that live in the substrate below the seaweed and all…. The larger picture — is the minister saying that the Ministry of Environment defers completely to the Ministry of Agriculture to do that work? They don't seem to be doing the science on this, not the larger science that relates it to the food chain.

That's, I guess, what I'm asking. Is there not a role for the Ministry of Environment? Maybe it hasn't been yet, but is there a role if there is a complaint laid, if people have concerns that the proper science isn't being done? I know the minister said initially that there was a role in fisheries issues, when it comes to science, for the Ministry of Environment.

Hon. M. Polak: When there are ministries responsible for the granting of licences, etc., such as the one we are speaking about, then it is their work, their efforts to establish the basis for their decision. That may involve analysis that is very localized. That may involve a broader analysis. I can't speak to whether or not the Ministry of Agriculture has undertaken that work. They very well may have, but I have no way of responding to the member about that.
[ Page 3057 ]

Again, apologies to the Minister of Agriculture, but it is something you should canvass with him, and if there are proactive efforts, if there are analyses that they've conducted more broadly, he would be able to outline that to you. I would not want to speculate on what, if any, role that might involve for the Ministry of Environment.

I will say this with respect to the concern about silos. There is always the challenge within government that you want to on the one hand improve integration, improve the sharing of information. On the other hand, it is a well-known adage that joint accountability is no accountability. It is a fine line.

We certainly in the Ministry of Environment support our colleagues in other ministries with respect to science and policy advice whenever it is requested. But I can't speculate as to whether or not the Ministry of Agriculture has produced any of that analysis or conducted any of that research.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I will follow up with the appropriate minister later, probably tomorrow. The critic has informed me that I need to finish this off very quickly because I've taken up a lot of time. I appreciate his patience here too.

I just want to raise one other issue, which I'm assuming is probably going to have to go again to the Ministry of Agriculture. I'll make his day tomorrow. It's around the…. I'm sure the minister has read that Island Scallops, near the Deep Bay–Bowser area, has had a major mortality, as have others in scallop production — over 90 percent mortality. It's happening with the oyster seed. It's happening at every level of the industry.

It's of great concern, and it's being related to high CO2 levels in the marine environment, in the water, and essentially, acidification of the marine environment. These critters, especially when they're just being developed as seed, basically, are very, very sensitive to ocean acidification.

Does the Ministry of Environment play a role in trying to address and maybe mitigate all of the concerns associated with these high mortality rates that are happening throughout the shellfish growing areas in British Columbia?

[1555]

Hon. M. Polak: I have good news for the member. We do have a role to play here. I will say at the outset, though, that I'll provide him with some information about the work that we've undertaken but would encourage him…. In terms of the detail and especially specific detail around ocean acidification and its effects on our local aquaculture industry, the Minister of Agriculture will have more information for the member than I do.

I can tell you, though, about the strategy that we have begun, and that was probably best evidenced in terms of our concern about this with the signing of the accord. The Premier signed an accord with the members of the Pacific Coast Collaborative committing the jurisdictions to work together to conduct research with respect to adaptation, mitigation and also efforts to combat it. This also committed the members to work together with their federal governments, recognizing the role they play.

As a result of that, letters were sent on behalf of the collaborative to both the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States. I understand that we have received responses from both, and in both cases they share our concerns, encourage our work, and we look forward to developing those strategies jointly with the jurisdictions who are part of the Pacific Coast Collaborative.

I have to say, as a member of the delegation travelling to San Francisco for the signing of that accord, I was absolutely impressed by the commitment not only of those other governments but also the commitment of industry.

[1600]

They obviously have a vested interest in arriving at some kinds of solutions. But I was very encouraged to see their active participation with the Pacific Coast Collaborative, their support of the accord, and of course very encouraged by the concern and participation of the governors of Washington, Oregon and California. I would commend to the member the Pacific Coast Collaborative accord for his reading enjoyment and hope he finds some more detailed answers from the Ministry of Agriculture.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm going to try and keep my questions relatively short. We have many other members who have questions too.

The federal government rejected the Taseko mine outside of Williams Lake again. Of course, the province's environmental assessment process had said it was okay. The Minister of Mines has since continued to say that the federal government's process was flawed, yet the Minister of Environment and the provincial government still continue to work on harmonized environmental assessments.

My question is: is the minister confident in the federal government's environmental assessment process, in particular when it relates to the Taseko mine decision — and in general, I guess I would say?

[1605]

Hon. M. Polak: I want to just first, maybe, clarify the message that is sent when an environmental assessment certificate is granted. In the case of the initial certificate granted by our EAO to the Taseko project…. I don't think the member intended this. But here's the way that I think it's important to view an environmental assessment certificate.

I grant you it is somewhat nuanced, but I think it's an important nuance. I don't believe it's correct to say that when an environmental assessment certificate is granted…. I think it's a mischaracterization to say that the EA is then saying that the project is okay.
[ Page 3058 ]

The important distinction I want to make…. I'll use Taseko as an example. In the case of the environmental assessment certificate, there were 103 conditions attached. I would say, then…. And I won't press the matter too hard. I agree that it's a nuance, albeit an important one. If and when the project were to meet all 103 conditions, then the project, according to the certificate, would be okay, if you want to characterize it that way.

I just think it's an important distinction because, unfortunately, there is a misperception that an environmental assessment certificate being granted essentially says: "There you go. Go off, do your project, and we'll never see you again." It's not carte blanche. If anything, it might be more properly characterized as releasing our environmental requirements on a project.

Nevertheless, I won't belabour that point.

We have for a long time been supporters of the idea of one project, one process. I note that the member has on many occasions expressed concern when decisions are made solely by the federal government or when federal government decisions could potentially overrule British Columbia decisions.

Now, I would submit that we actually have a solution to that challenge that the member recognizes, but that solution is not one that is going to be quick. I do think, though, that we're on the road to being successful.

Here is what we are pursuing. We are the only province in Canada that has a substitution agreement with the federal government. Here's what that means.

We are applying for substitution for as many projects as we possibly can because we want to eventually arrive at a place where we have equivalency granted to us. We, I understand, just had…. The seventh such project had substitution status granted to it just yesterday — so a substantial number of projects, because we need to be able to show that there can be confidence in our process.

With substitution, what occurs is that the federal government then relies on our process. They still make their decision, ultimately. So we make a decision, and they make a decision, but they are relying on our process.

[1610]

We believe quite strongly that if we can show that the federal government can have confidence in our process, we will be successful eventually — hopefully, not too long from now — in achieving equivalency with the federal government. In that case, the federal government would rely not just on our process but also on our decision.

That's where we want to get to, where we have British Columbia conducting the process, making the decision, having the federal government rely on that, rather than conducting their own. This is the process that we are going through in order to achieve that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I didn't quite get the answer that I was interested in to the question I asked. It was: was the government confident in the federal process, in the sense that…? While the province approved the first version of the Taseko project, which included extensive damage to Fish Lake, that was rejected at the federal level for environmental reasons and for reasons of First Nations concern.

Then they tried again. This time they changed the project and increased the budget to address, in their view, the issue of Fish Lake. Again, the Tsilhqot'in people, scientists and those concerned about the fish and the environment in that area said that it still wasn't appropriate. The federal government agreed again. Yet the provincial government again suggested that no, everything was fine, even though…. The decision didn't go the province's way.

For the minister to suggest that the federal government should have confidence in the provincial environmental assessment process and be able to substitute all decisions, when in a project like this, clearly, they didn't agree with the province's decision in the first round or to the minister's point of approval with conditions and then didn't agree the second time as well — we've got a bit of an issue here.

I think we do want to make it easy — I guess "easy" is maybe not the right term but at least efficient — for project proponents to be able to meet the standards. We want them to be rigorous standards that balance economic needs with environmental needs, understanding that you can't have a good economy if you've destroyed the planet, but also understanding that an economy based on natural resources will need to involve that planet and include mining, etc.

To suggest that we should just get the federal government in some way to get out of the way and let the province stand, when in this case, clearly, the federal government doesn't agree with the provincial environmental assessment…. I think it's important to hear from the minister on this project and what her response would be, given that the federal government has rejected the province not only once but twice in this project.

If the minister could give me some clarity on why she thinks that might have happened and how that builds trust in giving the province, in a sense, sole say on environmental assessments for major industrial projects.

[1615]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the two different processes, two different results, I'll just walk through some of what I think is important to consider.

Firstly, the fact that the two processes in the first review, and I'll address that in a moment as well, resulted in two different decisions from two different governments is potentially simply the result of having two different processes with two different sets of criteria. In the case of British Columbia's environmental assessment process, we consider a much broader array of criteria than the federal assessment is open to considering, so it's difficult to make a direct comparison.
[ Page 3059 ]

I would have to say, though, that the fact that we arrived at two different decisions is not necessarily indicative of a poor process. I'm the Minister of Environment in British Columbia and responsible for British Columbia's environmental assessment, so of course I believe that our process is the best. It's one of the reasons that we are going down the path of seeking for substitution and, ultimately, equivalency.

I wanted to just clarify, though, the position in which governments found themselves, both in the first instance and the second — just to make it clear that in the first instance, we conducted an entire environmental assessment process. We arrived at a decision. The federal government also went through an entire assessment process and arrived at a decision, albeit a different one.

When the proposal was submitted a second time, two different things happened. The federal government reviewed the entire project once again. Our process is different. We reviewed an amendment to their existing certificate. Now, in part that has to do with the fact that the federal government rejected the entire project, whereas we had an existing certificate in place. Therefore, for us, it was a review of the amendment. We did not conclude that review prior to the federal government making its decision.

In the case of the second attempt by the proponent, there was no decision on record from the provincial government, save that they possessed an existing certificate. There was, at that stage, only a review taking place of the amendment. Again, we did not complete that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I don't think I will get the full answer that I was looking for, but I can understand why. I can understand why the minister would give the answer that she gave. I understand that.

[1620]

Environmental assessments. It was a surprise to me — but then I have not applied for an environmental assessment myself — that there aren't fees currently for some of those, application process fees. There is quite a cost to government, of course, to run through the process. Potentially you get a good project. Of course, there could be a lot of revenue down the road should the project proceed, which I guess helps cover some of that, arguably.

I understand the ministry is considering charging fees now for environmental assessments. I think there was approximately $600,000 put in the budget for environmental assessments, in addition, because of the number of projects that are planned or coming down the pike.

Just curious. Can the minister break down how much the budget currently is for environmental assessment and what the plan is in terms of fees? Is it a cost recovery model? What are the principles involved in the fees for environmental assessments that are proposed?

[1625]

Hon. M. Polak: First, I'll go to the budgetary numbers. I want to be clear, though, that this past year, while we had a base budget for EA of $8.7 million, we accessed contingencies of $1.64 million. There's a difference this year in that the $2.96 million is not contingencies; it's actually a base-budget lift. That was extremely important for us as we look ahead to increasing pressures on the environmental assessment office.

We will be introducing what we expect to be modest fees for the environmental assessment process. We're actually one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that does not charge fees or otherwise transfer costs for the process to the proponents. We expect that the fees will partially cover the costs of time that staff spend in reviewing new projects and also in terms of reviewing compliance with their certificate conditions.

At the same time, in discussions with proponents, we understand that while they are expecting that fees will be implemented and while they are not opposed to that, they have made it clear that they really want to see improvements in our processes that are reflective of that increased budget lift — that therefore we have greater capacity. So they are looking for us to improve our service levels. We know that's important. The base-budget lift that we received was in recognition of the fact that the fees will be implemented.

Now, with respect to the precise framework or the amount of fees that will be charged specifically, that is a process that we are currently undertaking with Treasury Board. There is a specific process across government for any establishment of new fees. With respect to the precise framework, precise model and the dollar figure for the fees, that will be announced once that Treasury Board process has completed.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think I misstated something around $600,000 dollars. I was jumping ahead with figures in my head, and of course, I shouldn't do that. I should rely on paperwork and so on that has the real numbers. The $1.26 million, I think, was the figure I was looking for, to expand capacity to evaluate new LNG facilities and new mines, based on a briefing I had with the ministry.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Given that we're seeing an increase in the environmental assessment budget, I'm curious around cumulative impacts research and potentially strategic environmental impact assessments that have been requested for LNG facilities in the northwest — or pipelines, in particular, in the northwest side, I guess I should say, but also the facilities — should they be built in Kitimat and Prince Rupert or Port Edward.

Has the minister decided against doing a strategic environmental impact assessment? Is that still being considered? When I travel in the northwest, they tell me
[ Page 3060 ]
they're being run off their feet with a million different meetings and hearings and opportunities to question and so on. If somebody is concerned or has thoughts on how to do it better, they have so many meetings. They could go to a meeting every night of the week, it feels like. Of course, they have to work and raise families and do all the rest.

They feel this is being rather rushed. In their views and their words to me, they would much prefer if there was some way to coordinate this in a fashion so that when they say they have concerns about, let's say, corridors — if you put in a pipeline, you could create a corridor that wolves could run down and kill the moose — they don't have to go to a meeting every night of the week to say: "If you put in a pipeline here, that problem exists, and if you put in a pipeline there, that problem exists." They would be able to have their voices heard in a more coordinated fashion.

[1630]

Just as government is trying to move the environmental assessment process for industry to make it simpler, citizens whose land and resources the industry is looking to potentially impact want their voices to be heard in an efficient and respectful way as well.

Hon. M. Polak: There are at least two components of the member's questions. I'll start with the cumulative effects.

We define "cumulative effects," for our purposes, as the likely impacts from a reviewable project combined with the impacts from prior developments, existing activities or developments that we can reasonably foresee in the future. The environmental assessment office assesses project effects for that individual project as well as cumulative effects, if any. We assess those for significant impact that there might be on important parts of our assessment.

We are, across government, currently in the process of developing a cumulative effects framework. Now, I don't want that to imply that in the absence of such a thing, there's no assessment being undertaken.

[1635]

The framework would be a consistent approach across all of the ministries that are responsible for permitting, licensing — evaluations of that nature. We do currently assess for cumulative effects. The framework, we hope, when it is completed, will provide us with a consistent means of evaluating cumulative effects across government, ensuring that all of our ministries and agencies are doing it the same way. EAO is participating in that work, and we're trying to refine our approach to best align with others.

Of course, we're doing some other work specifically in the area. The member will be familiar with the Kitimat airshed study and the work that we're doing there to try and get a better understanding of the airshed and what impacts any future developments may have.

There's also, though, a strategic environmental impact assessment that the member is describing. Just based on the descriptions he gave, I take him to be referring to the process whereby we engage communities and First Nations on projects and what has become a very onerous task for the communities and the First Nations. The member is quite correct that in the case of some communities where there are a number of pipelines and other projects that are being considered, the communities are hard pressed to attend separate meetings and separate consultations for each and every project.

We recognize that and have been doing a number of things to, hopefully, improve that experience for the communities and the First Nations. I can give the member some examples. We have an agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission that we will operate joint consultations with communities and First Nations when it's the same project. We also have established one working group for all pipelines and one working group for all facilities, again trying to see how many of those we can combine and give the community a chance to participate, notwithstanding the fact that they certainly wouldn't have as easy a time if they had to come on successive evenings about different projects.

Those are some examples of the efforts that we are undertaking, but we are continuing to examine ways in which we can better accommodate the needs of the communities and the First Nations to be a part of the decision-making process, and as we see opportunities to improve that, we will certainly make those changes. Our aim is to ensure that it is as easy as possible for those communities to participate. I think, for us, it certainly helps staff, as well, to be able to combine our efforts and be hearing the same information at the same meetings.

S. Chandra Herbert: My colleague from Delta South has a number of questions, but I'll just ask one more. The minister mentioned the Kitimat airshed study. I believe it's a review of other reviews that were done for Alcan for the Kitimat airshed by other industrial users.

It sounds like a lot to me — $600,000 — but according to the science folks I talk to, that doesn't leave you a lot to actually go out there and put up the equipment needed to accurately measure air emissions in the Kitimat valley — of course, stretching up to Terrace. I understand that there's another, approximately, $600,000 in the budget for airshed studies. Is that dedicated towards the Kitimat area, or is that for somewhere else? Certainly, people in that neighbourhood have told me they don't think that's quite adequate.

Just in response, again, to the minister's response. That cumulative impact framework — when is the target date for that to be released? I remember hearing about it last summer.

[1640-1645]

Hon. M. Polak: Well, no lack of topics to address in your question. I'll do my very best. Forgive me if I do miss something. Just remind me. It's not because I'm trying to miss something.

I'll deal, first of all, with the member's question around the release of the cumulative effects framework. I might be wrong about this; the member can just nod or indicate. I suspect that the member was inquiring as to the release of the Kitimat airshed study.

S. Chandra Herbert: Both.

Hon. M. Polak: Both? Okay. The cumulative effects framework is being led by FLNRO, so I couldn't give you any accurate or up-to-date information, I guess I should say, with respect to progress toward that release and completion.

With respect to the Kitimat airshed study, we did receive it on March 31. It's undergoing an internal review. One aspect of that review specifically is that we've asked the health authority to be involved in that review as well so that we have some additional opinion and viewpoint from them with respect to potential impacts on health.

Now, with respect to the budget, the $600,000 in this year's budget is not with respect to the Kitimat airshed study. The member asked how we could possibly conduct a thorough airshed study for the amount of $600,000, and the answer is because this was an effort to model based on data that had already been gathered in the fieldwork that came about as a result of the Rio Tinto Alcan modernization project. So the data, the fieldwork did not have to be repeated. Instead, the modelling was conducted based on that data that had already been received.

As we look forward…. The member is correct that the $600,000 in this year's budget would be for future airshed studies, if they were required. Again, it's important to note that the proponents of projects actually have obligations to provide data and fieldwork to the EA when it comes to their environmental assessment. In all likelihood, there would not be much of a cost, if any, to the ministry for gathering that data.

Those proponents don't simply gather and provide that data in-house. They typically would hire experts, those who are certified in their field, to gather that data, to provide them some analysis and then be able to present that data to us for the purposes of our assessment.

I think I have hit the points that the member asked, but if I've missed any, please advise.

V. Huntington: In the last year or so I've asked the minister a couple of questions, one in the House and another in estimates last year, about the Fraser River estuary management plan and its subsequent failure as the federal government eroded the environmental laws and the fisheries laws and the budgets of the federal departments.

I wonder if the minister could update me on how the relationship between the Ministry of Environment and the port and the other participants in what used to be FREMP is evolving.

[1650]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll give the member the same caveat I gave to the critic, which is that I think I've captured the information she wishes, but if not, please advise, and I'll attempt to do a better job of being complete.

[1655]

The member, I know, is aware that the federal government withdrew the funding for FREMP. We felt, though, as did the other parties, that it was very important that that relationship continue. It is a very important one with respect to the Fraser River estuary. Under the coordinating work of Port Metro Vancouver, we have continued those relationships with the parties. Those are, of course, FLNRO — they are the lead on behalf of the province — Ministry of Environment, Port Metro Vancouver. Environment Canada is still at the table — and Metro Vancouver.

Of course, the challenge that they are confronting…. They are working through how they might model their ongoing efforts. The challenge, of course, is that with the withdrawal of the funding, they don't have an office, they don't have administrative staff. So the parties are currently working to determine how they might together collaboratively maintain their efforts in the absence of the funding that can support the office, the administrative work, etc.

I can say that with respect to the Ministry of Environment's direct work connected with those relationships and what planning has taken place, some examples of the work that we are involved with are invasive species removal, species-at-risk planning and, in conjunction with that, some fisheries research, in particular around sturgeon.

We continue to work together with the parties, and it would be certainly our desire to see these important relationships continue because, of course, as the member knows, all of these parties have an important role to play when it comes to the work to protect the important values in the estuary.

V. Huntington: Thank you for that answer, but with great respect, it's very similar to the answer I received last year — the lack of funding, the discussions ongoing about how to continue.

FREMP was such a unique and important organization, and it maintained the health of the Lower Fraser. It was that unique coming together, voluntary coming together, of all of the jurisdictions on the river. It was without statutory authority. It was an amazing organization, which over the years operated on a consensus basis and with the cooperation of the south Fraser River port authority. I think one of FREMP's most unique contributions was the habitat classification system on the
[ Page 3062 ]
Lower Fraser — the red, yellow and green zones that it developed.

When the port authorities amalgamated and Port Metro Vancouver basically took control and established its leading agency status, or so it said, on the Fraser River, a lot of the decisions at FREMP became much more difficult and much more precarious. For instance, the port refused to allow FREMP to classify the Brunswick Point area, perhaps the most important and sensitive environmental area for both birds, wildfowl, waterfowl and also the salmon nursery on the Lower Fraser. It refused to allow it to be classified as red.

I think it's very important that the ministry…. And this is what formed the basis of my concern from day one. The minister knows full well from her time in Transportation that the port interprets its letters patent in a very specific way and has decided its mandate deals entirely and only with international trade. It has no interest in environment.

The habitat banking that's presently occurring along parts of the Fraser — in Canoe Pass, on Boundary Bay — is strictly related to a banking opportunity to mitigate its development of terminal 2. The banking of the habitat that's going on bears no relationship to the habitat that will be impacted by terminal 2.

It has no interest in fisheries issues. It is not an organization that ought to be leading the province or any other jurisdiction on what happens and managing of development along the Fraser River.

I would like the minister and her officials to tell us how the Ministry of Environment can step into this incredible breach that's developed with the loss of FREMP and whether or not the ministry feels that there is an issue here that has to be resolved at the higher levels of this province.

[1700]

We need to take a look at the impact this is having on fisheries. We need to take a look at the impact the control has on that classification system that was so hard won and unique. I would really like a response from the minister about whether her officials see this as an issue that needs to be resolved at a senior level within this province.

[1705]

Hon. M. Polak: I certainly understand and am aware of the frustrations. That might even be too bland a word to describe the feelings of many people in the community with respect to Port Metro Vancouver and their role, their jurisdiction.

Having said that, where we find ourselves as the Ministry of Environment, as the province, is that Port Metro Vancouver exists. It exists under a certain jurisdictional framework. Then we, of course, with our responsibilities, be it FLNRO or Ministry of Environment, have to ask how we can best influence what takes place in terms of the process.

I'll comment, firstly, with respect to why I think that means it's so important to find a way to maintain that work of FREMP, albeit without the FREMP moniker or funding from DFO. The member knows that not only are we dealing with the realities of jurisdiction that belong to Port Metro Vancouver, but of course, in that area there are very complex interjurisdictional challenges. We saw that in the evidence in a big way when it came to trying to make decisions around dredging, for example. It took a very long time, and it was very complicated to find out who could allow what.

In light of that, I do think that points to the importance of maintaining these relationships. Is it a perfect solution? Certainly, I'm not going to say that it is. I do think it's a testament to what began in terms of FREMP. Remember, the parties at that time voluntarily came together. They were fortunate enough to have the funding from DFO. Now that that's gone, they continue to voluntarily bring themselves together.

Now, when it comes to the work around T2, the review of T2, CEAA, of course, is running that because of the jurisdiction of the federal government. The EA does have a very limited role in terms of examining the proposal. For the member's information, for our provincial environmental assessment process, we will be evaluating the impact of dust, noise, light and traffic with respect to potential significant adverse effects.

Not to say that we step over the natural and proper jurisdiction of local governments when it comes to those matters, but for our purposes, we would evaluate those things with respect to any potential adverse impacts.

That is the role to which we are limited in the British Columbia EA. It is the federal CEAA process that would govern the review of T2.

[1710]

V. Huntington: Thank you for that, especially the latter part of that answer. I wasn't aware that the province would be looking at that, or I hadn't anticipated asking that question. Perhaps next year I'll…. Well, it might be too late next year. Perhaps I'll approach the minister in another venue and just get some more information on how the province anticipates participating in the panel review.

I recognize the difficulties of that jurisdictional problem. I just hope that the ministry maintains a close watch on what is going on, on that river. It isn't the port's first interest, other than as a transportation medium, and it has such value to so many industries and to so much of our environment. It has a heritage and heartfelt value to a lot of the citizens of this province.

I'll go on to another issue quickly on the Fraser River, and that's the minister's approval of the YVR jet fuel facility. I wonder if she could tell me where the applicant is on satisfying the ministry's conditions of approval and whether there are any negotiations going on between the applicant and the ministry on those conditions.

[1715]

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: This House will stand recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:18 p.m. to 5:32 p.m.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: It's perhaps easier to answer the member's question in this way, and I hope it's satisfying. The requirements that are laid out, the conditions that are in the certificate — you will find that they reflect requirements that would be the jurisdiction of a number of different agencies or ministries. To that end, what occurs is that the proponent would then respond to that particular agency or ministry with respect to fulfilling it.

I guess I'll back this up. So while we have ultimate responsibility for the certificate and the compliance overall…. I guess I should say it in this way. We have overall jurisdiction in terms of adjudicating whether or not they have met the conditions of their certificate. On a day-to-day basis many of those will be involving interactions not between the proponent and us as Ministry of Environment but, along the way, interactions with the proponent and individual ministries or agencies of government. Indeed, in this case, there is also an overlay with the Port Metro Vancouver, who also had a reviewing role in this.

The short answer is that we don't monitor it as Ministry of Environment from the standpoint of here's this project and where it is in the process. The different elements — some have different timelines and expectations. They are report-backs to different ministries. Our overall role is to adjudicate whether or not they have met those conditions.

[1735]

In this case, it could be that there is activity taking place that relates to a different ministry at this point, or a different agency. But as far as we are aware, they are still in the process of advancing their permit applications, because beyond the environmental assessment certificate, there are permits that they need to receive approval for. Our understanding is that's where they're at in the process.

I will also say that we never negotiate about environmental assessment conditions. Those are the conditions. They're legally binding, and they will remain so in this case. So there are no negotiations around the conditions that are in the environmental assessment certificate.

V. Huntington: I very much appreciate that answer. I wonder if there are any matrices that the ministry has or any further information you have on which ministries are responsible for which conditions, etc. I would really appreciate getting any of the information that is available. I don't need a response to that unless it's an absolute no. I'm hoping there's something that's available.

I had two other longer questions. I think given the time and the patience of the member for Vancouver–West End, if the minister wouldn't mind I'll correspond with the ministry on the issues. Before I end that comment, I'd like to also publicly thank my research officers, who've done so much work on the background for those questions and will be disappointed they didn't get asked.

My final question is a very short one. I think it could be a yes or a no, and I'd be satisfied. I'm wondering if the minister is engaged with her colleague the Minister of Health in any way about requesting his support for an independent health assessment that has been requested by his medical health officers on the movement, transportation, of thermal coal through the Lower Mainland.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize. I hadn't had conversations directly with the Minister of Health, but I didn't want to mislead the member if there were conversations that had taken place amongst staff. I can tell the member this. There haven't been conversations between our staff and Ministry of Health staff.

[1740]

What has happened, though, is the Ministry of Transportation made inquiries of our staff as to where our role was in terms of Ministry of Environment. We have agreed to participate. Forgive me; I'm at a loss for the name to describe this process. The member will be aware that Mayor Lois Jackson has initiated a process, and we have agreed to participate with that process. I'm not sure where that will ultimately take us, but we have agreed to be a part of that. We haven't had any direct back and forth with Health, though.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister one question. It's a very important question for myself and the member for Nanaimo. We're very concerned about this issue. I would like to bring the minister up to speed with it if she isn't familiar with it.

The issue is pertaining to the Morden Colliery Historic Park in the regional district of Nanaimo. This is a park that commemorates the coal industry, which essentially built Vancouver Island's communities quite a long time before forestry took its part. It is a significant historical site in that it was built during the 1913-1914 coal miner strike. The Pacific Colliery, who built it, took advantage of that time when they couldn't work underground to work above ground and create what was then a North American technologically leading facility.

It was one of the first structures of its kind built with reinforced concrete, and that, in fact, is why it still stands today. It is one of the few remaining artifacts of the early days of newcomer history on Vancouver Island. One of the other structures that's well known is the Kinsol Trestle. Another that's been in the news recently is the
[ Page 3064 ]
Colliery Dam Park in Nanaimo.

We are very aware and we cherish our history of the early days of Vancouver Island, as with many communities in British Columbia. We have a very young province, and some of the only historical buildings and sites that exist are, in fact, industrial sites. This is just another of those, but a very special one. In 1972 it was declared a provincial historical park, and it still stands. It's an amazing structure that was used to elevate coal from the mine onto a deck. The coal would then be loaded from that deck onto waiting railcars underneath.

The tipple is in danger of falling down. It needs emergency repairs and has needed those repairs for probably a decade now. There is essentially a watch, waiting for the inevitable to happen should it not be repaired.

The cost of not repairing, as with most items that require maintenance, becomes greater and greater the longer we wait. The most recent estimate for cost of emergency repairs is between $250,000 and $500,000. I think that if the minister can have a look at the value and the character of this park, and the history that it represents, she will quickly see, as we do, the value that is represented in that figure.

This is one of the essential reference points to the history of Vancouver Island. We in the Nanaimo region would like very much to save it. There's a very active society, the Friends of Morden Colliery Park, that is active in advocating for its repair. They do a lot of volunteer work in maintaining the park.

I wonder if the minister is familiar with the issue and if there is room in her budget to find resources to help save Morden Colliery Historic Park.

[1745]

Hon. M. Polak: I want to begin by acknowledging the community, the Friends of the Morden Mine society. They've done tremendous work in fundraising and trying to move things along, and I don't want to, in any way, diminish the importance to the Island and, in particular, to the local area of the history that is represented there and their desire to maintain it. Certainly, that's something that the provincial government has felt, which is why it was made into a park in the first place.

I will, though, talk a little bit about where B.C. Parks has been going. The member, I'm sure, will be familiar with the sites of Fort Steele, Barkerville. Those are areas where we have moved away from maintaining parks where the principal focus was the preservation of a historical structure.

Nevertheless, in this case there have been some very significant safety concerns with potential collapse, etc. We did commission two studies for the park. They included a condition assessment update and a visitor safety risk assessment. We've acted on most of those recommendations in the risk assessment, including completing repairs and improvement to the fencing, safety signage installed and construction of a new viewing area. We're going to continue to monitor the structure and ensure that safety is maintained.

Unfortunately, though, with respect to the society's vision…. They have a wonderful vision for a fully restored concrete structure, an interpretive centre. All those things would be wonderful, but unfortunately it is just not within the financial capacity of B.C. Parks to restore the structure to that level.

We certainly will maintain our responsibility around the safety of it and the safety of the viewing public. I wish I could give the member better news, but we just don't have the resources to engage in that kind of restoration.

D. Eby: I've received more than 190 e-mails in the last three weeks in my constituency office relating to the marine planning partnership that the province has been involved in with First Nations governments and, unfortunately, not with the federal government. The people who have e-mailed me would greatly appreciate an update on the marine planning partnership. How are things going? Where are we at?

As well, they would certainly appreciate any plans that the ministry has to get the federal government back to the table in this process, because it is an area of shared jurisdiction. Then finally, they'd like to know plans for implementation of the plans that come out of this partnership.

[1750]

Three things. An update — where are we at? Is there any plan to get the federal government to the table? Then finally, are these plans going to be implemented, and, if so, when?

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, the marine planning partnership is actually led by FLNRO. I have inquired of staff…. We really don't have any staff who are working on this, so you would be better to direct your questions to FLNRO.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious about, in the environmental assessment process…. I know we're jumping around a little bit here. You've got to make the parks staff get more exercise, keep them on their toes.

I have a question which was submitted to me from a very interested person in Kamloops, in the question of the proposed Ajax mine there.

Their question was: why did the Ministry of Environment approve the dispersion modelling plan for the proposed Ajax mine which excludes an assessment of chromium and, in particular, the assessment of the highly carcinogenic hexavalent chromium (IV) form of chromium, even though assay data held by the Ministry of Mines shows significant levels of chromium in the Ajax deposit? A very specific question.

Hon. M. Polak: Now, I often joke with my staff that
[ Page 3065 ]
I'm a nerd, and when I turned around, they said: "If you have the answer to this, you really are."

Joking aside, I'm sure the individual who wrote to the member would like an answer, and a direct answer. It is just too detailed a question for us to answer with the materials we have.

Given the detailed nature of it, though, if you could forward that on to us, we would certainly be happy to pursue an answer for the individual.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate nerds who try to get things right. I will do that. It's news to me, and I've been learning a lot of policy-wonkish nerdish things in this ministry so far.

Speaking of one, which is of a high amount of interest to a very specific set of people, it goes to waste control bylaw 280. There is, of course, a lot of interest in this in the Metro Vancouver area. I'm curious. Will the minister be approving waste control bylaw 280? What's the timeline? What's going into her thinking?

Hon. M. Polak: We have received the bylaw. I'm told that regional staff are currently reviewing it. After I receive their information, then I will have to consider my decision.

[1755]

There is no hard-and-fast timeline. I know that on the one hand, we have communities who are anxious for a decision, but on the other hand, this is something that's going to impact the region for many, many years to come. We certainly want to take every opportunity for due diligence to ensure that we're making the right decision.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that the bylaw was sent to the Ministry of Environment after it was approved by the city of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver on October 11, 2013. We're in April now. I understand we've got to get it right. It is a major decision.

Any thoughts from the minister in terms of the concept behind it? Does that continue to be something that the minister supports? I understand that the provincial government's own plans suggested that elements of waste control bylaw 280 were certainly in keeping with the provincial strategy.

I just want to get a concept. Does it look, at least to the Ministry of Environment at this stage, within the scope of the ministry's previously approved plans, or is it way out there? Where are we at? It is a big decision, but it's one that the longer we wait on it, potentially more and more waste gets shipped out of region and the more and more challenges the region has managing its own waste facilities.

Hon. M. Polak: I'm sure the member will appreciate this. Not having had the benefit of the staff review, I would not want to say anything definitive with respect to indicating support or lack of support. Suffice to say that we will conduct our analysis. Upon receiving the review, then I'll consider it.

Certainly, I note that we conceptually are in the same policy place as Metro Vancouver overall in that we share zero-waste goals. We actually have some shared goals in terms of where we want to get to with waste, along with other communities and regions in the province.

I think, ultimately, we are all trying to get to the same place. Our analysis will answer the question: does bylaw 280 actually fit within that framework? Of course, we have to analyze that in a very thorough way. We have to ensure that there aren't unintended consequences.

I hope that gives the member some assurance.

S. Chandra Herbert: There's an element, as well, to this around banning organic waste entering into the waste stream. Organics can be used in compost and then, of course, right back into the life cycle. Is that proposed ban something that the minister supports?

Hon. M. Polak: We certainly support that approach to organics, and long term I think you will see very many communities transitioning there.

Now, in terms of Metro, I can't speak to each municipality and their actions. I know in the municipality in which I live, in Langley township, there is now the green bin, and you're expected to put your organics there. I, unfortunately, don't benefit, because I'm in a multifamily development, but we'll get there.

Certainly, we as a ministry support organics bans. It is ultimately where we need to get to, and I think there is, at least in the more urban areas, a fairly widespread support from the public as well.

[1800]

S. Chandra Herbert: The Chair would know that in many rural areas there is widespread support for not sending organics into the waste stream. They can be used on farms, and there's actually more room to compost in those areas.

I live in a multifamily development as well, and it's going to be difficult to find a place for it, but we have to do it.

I'm going to try once more on bylaw 280.

I do have a worm bin. I eat a lot of vegetables. The worms don't eat them quite as quickly as I do.

Bylaw 280 — I'm just curious. I understand staff are doing a bit of a review, and have been, I guess, since the bylaw was brought to them. When the minister makes a decision, what kind of information will
[ Page 3066 ]
be made public so that people can understand how she made a decision?

It's a huge issue. There are many interested parties spending a lot of money trying to influence the decision one way or another, particularly on the side to try and stop the decision, because it could impact certain desires to truck waste elsewhere. What kind of information will be shared so that people can really understand how the decision was made?

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of the minister's approval of a bylaw, there are no formal reasons for decision, or anything like that. I'm sure the member is familiar enough with me as minister to expect that upon the decision, there will be much commentary in the media. I'm quite sure I'll be asked about it, and I'll be happy to comment about it at the time.

Now, I should say, though, and I think this is actually important to note, that the representations being made to me as minister are pretty robust from both sides. I don't think I could actually distinguish the number of discussions and proposals that have been made to me. They're probably pretty equal.

The one thing I have found in this discussion about bylaw 280 and about waste flow — I'm sure now with the member's time as critic, he's probably found this as well — is that it is amazing to me how many people have an interest in where trash goes. Very many of those interests are not straightforward. There is a wide range of parties. Some are on one side, some are on the other, and some are in the middle.

The one thing that is clear to me is that this decision has huge effects across multiple, multiple sectors, and multiple jurisdictions as well. I wanted to make it clear that the lobbying efforts certainly aren't one-sided. I must say that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is there a deadline to come to a decision on waste control bylaw 280? Does the minister have any concerns that if this takes a long time…? I don't know. As Metro Vancouver has argued to me, they will start to find that they just do not have the amount of waste in order to, I guess, properly support their own operations as more and more of it ships out of the region.

Hon. M. Polak: There is no statutory deadline, or anything of that nature. Having said that….

[1805]

Of course, I live in the region as well, so I'm familiar with many of the issues around it and the discussions between Fraser Valley and Metro. There are certainly implications to either decision. I'm absolutely sensitive to the fact that Metro Vancouver can't wait forever for a decision, that there are implications with time going on, that regardless of what the decision is going to be, there's a point at which they really do need to know what is going to happen. I'm sensitive to that, but at the same time there is no hard-and-fast date requiring a decision by a certain time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for the answers on that. That certainly is a controversial topic amongst people. There are a lot of people very much interested in what the final decision will be in terms of sustainability and in terms of what will allow us to drive down waste, not just move it around or do other things with it. I think zero waste has to be the goal.

Could the minister just give us an update on where we're at with zero waste? I understand MMBC was canvassed yesterday to an extent. Does the minister feel that we are actually achieving progress in terms of driving down the amount of waste created in this province?

Hon. M. Polak: We are still early days, and the member will know that the zero-waste concept is not a formalized policy or approach. Nevertheless, it's one that we embrace. It's what drives all of our work in terms of initiatives around waste, initiatives around recycling.

The 20 or more EPR, extended producer responsibility, programs that we have in place currently were a big part of moving towards zero waste. Organics bans are another step. We still have areas where we have problems. The member will be aware that there are efforts to confront those.

One of those is our blue box program. We currently have in British Columbia the most expensive blue box program, and it has the worst results across Canada. We know that's an area we need to work on. It's one of the reasons you've seen initiatives like our packaging and printed paper regulation go forward.

Really, in spite of all of the successful stewardship programs we have in place, if you're not getting at those household diversion rates, then you really are not tackling the overall problem. We want to get to 75 percent diversion. That's what's required in the regulation.

[1810]

We're currently at about 52 percent diversion with our blue box program. Again, that's for the most expensive program of the provinces, and yet that percentage of diversion is the least successful.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm told that in terms of pop bottles and beer bottles, as they have a deposit on them, their return rate is incredibly high. It's much higher than the general blue box return rate — some have suggested as high as 80 percent. When I asked Allen Langdon from Multi-Material B.C. in terms of their organization's view around deposits, he said that certainly he wasn't speaking that the organization was advocating for deposits, because that's not the organization's belief, that's not what they're doing, but he acknowledged that deposit-based programs have a very high success rate, certainly higher than the blue box program itself.

Some have asked me: why don't we have deposits on milk cartons, milk jugs? My constituents — a number of them have been working on an argument to have a deposit program on cigarette butts because there are things that people will not return if they're told to return that end up on the street or end up down the drain or where
[ Page 3067 ]
have you.

Why is the government not proceeding with continued expansion of deposit-based programs when they're shown to be one of the most successful ways to reduce recyclables ending up in the garbage or the waste stream?

Hon. M. Polak: No question that deposit systems have been very successful, but they are very specific. In other areas, stewards have chosen to apply eco-fees. MMBC could have decided to apply eco-fees instead of going with the model that they have gone with. They have not chosen to do that.

The drawback to deposit systems is that they're very administratively heavy. One can imagine that if you're dealing with two or three product lines…. Or in the case of beverage containers, really, while there might be different containers, it's one product line. It's beverages.

Now imagine yourself in a world where we applied deposits to every single item that has a package in the grocery store. They'd probably have to charge you an eco-fee on your ticket tape, your sales tape, when you got out because it would be a few kilometres long — not to mention the administrative burden of trying to manage keeping track of all the deposits that came in. I guess not inconceivable, but probably highly problematic, and I would imagine, in terms of administration, probably much more costly.

In terms of milk cartons, yes, from time to time I am approached, and people propose the idea that we attach deposits to them. My hesitation, and I think fair to say government's hesitation — and this goes back quite a ways; I think even before our government — is that I'm not sure if, as a society, we're comfortable applying a deposit to what would be considered a staple food.

[1815]

If you think about models involving deposits, they tend to be attached to things that are not staples. It's tough to get more staple than something like milk.

Not to say it won't ever happen, but at this stage it's not something that we would be comfortable proceeding with. It certainly would need, I think, some more discussion, and that may be a little more publicly.

J. Shin: Thank you to my colleague from Vancouver–West End, the critic for Environment or, as he calls it, the advocate for the environment. I would also like to thank the minister in advance in that I do have a question. But really, ultimately, I'm here to express the concerns of my community, as I did last year in the summer session estimates as well.

As the minister is aware, the Kinder Morgan project poses a great threat and risks for Burnaby-Lougheed. The existing pipeline, as you know, cuts through our community, with many residential homes and schools in the vicinity. Both the original and now the new, preferred routes will travel by or actually drill right through Burnaby Mountain.

What is actually more troubling is that despite the thousands of pages that make up the proposal, Kinder Morgan does fail to explain what will be the extent of impact on my community. It doesn't offer any definitive plans or measures if there were to be an accident on these hypothetical routes.

As the minister is aware, our Burnaby city mayor and council have vocalized their very strong opposition on that, and I believe it's completely legitimate in the sense that the city can't be assumed to manage an emergency if it was to arise.

Of course, we've seen more than one spill in Burnaby alone, so our residents are extremely alarmed, and they're very angered. They've formed coalitions. I saw for myself hundreds of people gather in the town halls and meetings that were hosted by our MP, Kennedy Stewart. People signed petitions and applied to intervene, even though for too many of them, their applications were rejected, of course.

The question that I have for the minister. There is a definitive challenge that I'm experiencing at my office, as well as other MLAs in the area. And of course, our MP offices are completely flooded with the inquiries that are coming in, because we do have those successful applicants of the intervening process.

From what I understand, any training for such is only about a week in length. That started on April 8 and finishes on the 14th. Now there is only just a hyperlink on the website for the PowerPoint presentation for people to prepare for these hearings.

So the questions that I'm getting from my constituents are: are there any plans from the ministry to ensure that the citizens that are intervening in the process are better prepared to participate in the hearing process? Are there any resources that the ministry is making available?

[1820]

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, I understand and appreciate the member's concerns. I know that, in particular for those of us who represent areas that will be impacted by the pipeline, we all are hearing from our constituents, and they're outlining their concerns as well.

It is the National Energy Board's process. We simply would not have the resources to provide that kind of assistance or education to people who are participating in the process. I'm not even sure if it would be an appropriate role for us, given the fact that we are also interveners.

Now, I can say, with respect to what we will be doing — and I think it is an important role for us to play; I think it was important with respect to northern gateway — that we do have intervener status. We will certainly be arguing very strongly in favour of British Columbia's five conditions, and we will be inquiring of Kinder Morgan with respect to information about the project to ensure that we well understand all aspects that they're presenting.
[ Page 3068 ]

Then on the basis that we enter these processes neutral, we listen, we inquire, and at the end we will certainly present a strong position with respect to our analysis of what we've heard throughout the process, as we did with northern gateway.

S. Chandra Herbert: Moving to water. I won't ask about the Water Sustainability Act, as it is before the House. The question is…. I appreciate the letter I received from the Ministry of Environment informing me that…. I believe the figures were: it costs about $15 million to administer the Water Act, but the government brings in revenues, I guess, in terms of fees and charges to water users, of about $8 million. Are those the correct figures?

Hon. M. Polak: I'm told those are the correct figures, as close as we know.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that there's now a study looking into what the fees should be, a consultation saying: where should the fees be? Of course, the most popular or the most controversial or infamous or unpopular — depending on who you are or how you look at it — would be water bottling companies, which have been charged zero dollars for water up to this point if it's groundwater. The earlier proposal suggested 85 cents for one million litres. I understand that that's being looked at now.

The Minister of Environment, I believe, was probably asked by Nestlé whether or not they would accept their assistance in terms of developing a real plan looking at what all the total costs are so that the water resource could be priced accordingly — so that Joe Public, the citizen, is not subsidizing business operations which rely on water, for the licensing, etc.

I'm curious. Has the government done an analysis of all future demands for water — in terms of the protection, licensing, mapping and those kinds of priorities — to come up with a ballpark figure of what they really need? Certainly, people will tell me that we don't have the appropriate staffing levels to do enforcement.

[1825]

They don't have appropriate maps to even understand the water resources we have. In some cases that puts the water at risk, but in other cases it puts projects that could provide good jobs at risk, just because we don't have the information. Has that analysis been done? And if possible, can the ministry share it with the opposition and with the public?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct. We have engaged in consultation with respect to fees. I should clarify, though, that the act itself has never established fees, even the previous Water Act. The fees were always in regulations.

There's an important reason for doing that. We expect that a piece of legislation will stand the test of time — albeit, I would hope we maybe don't wait so long this time to review the act, given that the one we're replacing now is 100 years old. There's a sideline comment. The point to be made: it was important for the purposes of the act that we establish the concept that we are now going to treat surface water and groundwater the same.

So the estimates that have been provided, I think, in media commentary, etc., that allude to an 85-cent charge being proposed in this act — really, that's simply reflective of what it would cost if the same was being charged on surface water. But there is nothing in the act that proposes fees.

When we get to that place, which we will arrive at shortly, we will consider not only the feedback that we received in the consultation, but we will also consider, to the member's point about the need to conduct much of this work, the requirements we will have to be able to implement the act. Things like watershed inventories, aquifer characterization, monitoring use and demand — all those things will be required of us in order to successfully implement. We will consider what we expect will be the required amount of operating costs, and we'll consider that alongside the feedback that we have received in the consultation.

[1830]

I do want to just say a quick word with respect to the length of time. I had some commentary from folks concerned about the length of time, which was very short, for the consultation on fees. That was really because throughout our consultation on the act itself, I have to say that a very significant portion of the feedback we received was about fees, so we've already had a significant amount of input from the public with respect to fees.

We really felt that we wouldn't hear much different if we went out again over a longer period of time. Instead, we produced principles that we felt were fairly well based on what we'd already heard in the consultation on the legislation and then asked for feedback over a period of about 30 days on those principles. We asked about principles because, of course, the manner in which fees are established is through a particular process of Treasury Board. What will happen is that we will take the input, we will take our analysis of our requirements, we will make recommendations to Treasury Board, and then the decision will ultimately be made as to how the fees and the framework for them are set.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see Lori Halls is here from the parks division, waiting very patiently. I have some questions for parks.

Of course, parks are incredibly important to the province for so many reasons. Of course, we want people to be satisfied and happy in our parks and to feel that park staff and the ministry are responsive to concerns that arise in parks. Certainly, I've seen the survey results. We're seeing more people in the parks, and we're seeing satisfaction levels looking pretty good.
[ Page 3069 ]

The issue that I've got…. I've talked to a number of people across the province, and they will point out things, like writing an e-mail to the staff saying: "There's a problem with this trail." Maybe it's become unsafe for a certain reason — or an issue with signage being so degraded that you can't read it anymore because weather patterns and so on have made it so that trail markers are unreadable. They have written to the parks to ask that they be replaced. They don't get a response. They write again. They're asked to send their complaint again because it's disappeared somewhere. And then they still don't get a response.

I tried it out myself. I wrote in about an issue at Cypress Provincial Park where a trail sign was unreadable, and I didn't get a response. I wrote again. They said: "Sorry, we thought that you had got a response." I didn't. Then they didn't give me any indication if the sign was going to be replaced at all or if there were any plans to do anything about it. That's something that I've heard from a number of people.

I think park facility operators may have direct connections with the public, so maybe that's outside of the ministry's information it has at its hands. In the information I received back from the ministry when I asked about complaints specifically, I was told there's no tracking of verbal complaints, which I can understand. You know, somebody calling up and just saying, "I've got a problem" — I can understand that the ministry hasn't evolved to do that yet.

In the city of Vancouver, if you call right now with a 311 complaint, to make a verbal complaint, it's recorded. There's a tracking number you're given, and there is a timeline expected for a response so that you can follow it up. You know, maybe the government decides it doesn't want to address the complaint for a variety of reasons, but at least there is a process.

Maybe not verbal, but I would hope that there was a tracking tool for written complaints. I think what we don't want to happen is that a complaint — let's say it's around safety — comes in, it disappears, there is no response, and then there's an incident. In the case of the signage that I mentioned, it was a question around just helping hikers know where to go. Certainly, people need very good directional signage so that they can get into a park or out of a park. If it occurred to me — I'm an MLA, and I didn't get a response — I worry about what happens in other cases.

[1835]

Does the government plan on implementing a recording procedure so that if a complaint is made, it's tracked all the way through to resolution, whether or not that resolution is: "Thank you for the feedback, but we don't have the budget" or "We don't have the ability to respond at this time, but we will put it on the list for future updates"? I think that would increase satisfaction from residents who want to see the parks improved. It would also help B.C. Parks respond to critical needs where they exist.

Hon. M. Polak: I know our time is getting short, and I know the member probably has some more questions.

We don't have any plans to institute a tracking system. It's the order of magnitude that would just take such a tremendous amount of resources, considering we have about 20 million visitors annually and they have so many different interactions not only with our park facilities operators but just with the parks and environment themselves. It just wouldn't be manageable for us from a resource standpoint. Whenever there are complaints like that that make their way to the ministry, we certainly track those.

I'm always concerned to hear when people are not getting a response to their inquiry. I'm particularly concerned if it happens to be the critic for the Ministry of Environment. What I can say to you is that we've heard you raise those concerns today. I know the member is familiar with my assistant deputy minister for B.C. Parks. So he can feel some confidence that we'll certainly deliver the message out again to our operators that it is important to us that those who are our clients, if you will — those to whom we are responsible, those who are using our parks…. We certainly want to be responsive to them, and we'll certainly make it a point to emphasize for them the need to be responsive. Hopefully, that will improve the situation.

S. Chandra Herbert: I am disappointed that a tracking procedure will not be put in place, because of course, if you don't track it, it's pretty difficult to change it. Yes, there are many millions of people, but as the minister has said publicly and as Parks say in their own report, the satisfaction level is fairly high.

[1840]

I don't imagine that if, as the government has asserted, the satisfaction is high, you're going to have a gazillion complaints, because that would suggest that people would say the satisfaction level may be on the decline. Maybe what we should do is go to the parks, the little boards they have there, and say, "If you have a complaint, write the Minister of Environment," and then they will be tracked.

Hon. M. Polak: I think we develop an app.

S. Chandra Herbert: It could be an app. There's a variety of ways that could be done. It doesn't have to take a lot of incredible technical know-how.

It's been done elsewhere. In the city of Vancouver's case, I just go to the website. They have a phone line, and they always advertise "dial 311," and you can do that. But they have a website, and you just plunk in the data, and there it goes. I've had similar interactions with the city of Victoria around a number of issues.

I just think that unless we track it, we're going to lose stuff. If you rely on one person to check that in-box and
[ Page 3070 ]
they sent that e-mail somewhere, it can disappear very quickly and not get a response in a timely manner to those that have taken the time to try to improve the parks.

I would urge the ministry to adopt that strategy, because it's going to save money in the long run. If you see an issue coming up and it's alerted early enough, the ministry can actually be proactive rather than wait for a failure or wait for somebody to go missing to realize that there's an issue.

I should clarify. I didn't write on my legislative stationary about the complaint. I wanted to do it as an individual because I wasn't out hiking the mountains as an MLA. I was out hiking as somebody who loves the outdoors.

I think it would be helpful to get a sense of if the ministry might consider that request or if the minister would prefer for me to put up posters in parks recommending they contact the minister herself.

Hon. M. Polak: I don't want to be dismissive of this. We recognize, obviously, that it should be about customer service. People should be able to expect that they get a response. They should expect that there's somebody monitoring what takes place.

I'm also not going to say that it will never happen. I'm sure if you went back into Hansard, there was some point when someone asked: "Are you ever going to have a reservation system on the web?" We now have a fairly successful one, and it keeps expanding. So who knows? Maybe we will get to a place where there is an app for that, if you will.

We could find some other means to do it, and we may be able to achieve that. At this stage I just don't think we have the resources to devote to it, but that doesn't mean it's not important for us to ensure that people are getting a timely response and a fulsome one. We certainly want to achieve that. We'll certainly look for more and better ways that we could track the kinds of complaints we receive through various means. Perhaps some of that is working more closely with our park facilities operators.

The other aspect, though, that I think is worthwhile pointing out is just that while there may not be a multitude of complaints, based on the satisfaction surveys, I would say that…. Actually, I think I should word that differently. While the fact is that the satisfaction surveys come back regularly with high satisfaction levels, I think there's another factor to consider, and that is just the sheer volume.

Even if you only had 500,000 complaints, which out of 20 million is maybe not that bad, you're also talking about a land base that is absolutely massive. So correspondence, complaints, interaction coming from all sorts of different areas — just a perspective on maybe the challenge we might face as compared to a fairly local area like the city of Vancouver.

I take the member's point. I don't fundamentally disagree with him. I just think it's going to be a work in progress. But we'll certainly endeavour to impress upon our folks the importance of timely and fulsome responses.

S. Chandra Herbert: In terms of questions of timely responses, a group that cares a lot about frogs contacted me and shared with me an e-mail around, I believe it's called, the frogwatch program. The e-mail was basically: "I'm sorry. This e-mail address is only checked once every two weeks due to a lack of capacity."

[1845]

Can the minister share what's going on with the frogwatch program? My understanding is that a more timely response, in some cases, might be necessary. Checking an e-mail address once only every two weeks may not be adequate.

Hon. M. Polak: Frogwatch is a collaborative effort between a number of ministries and agencies, some inside government, some outside government. Its purpose isn't a rapid response; its purpose is to take in information that the public provides. That assists us with mapping, with creating better understanding and data around where frogs are observed, and it helps us as we engage in planning. Every two weeks is not something we would consider unreasonable given that, again, it's not meant as a rapid response where you're reporting some imminent catastrophe or something of that nature.

I can give you good news. We actually found a cane toad, in a surfboard case, which would have been an invasive species, and managed to make sure it didn't establish itself in B.C. Apparently this just happened, so staff are pretty excited about it.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Polak: Yeah, the poor surfer.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, good work to whoever caught that cane toad in the surfboard case. Maybe it was the minister herself out surfing. That would be fun. We'll have to do that one day.

We started out this discussion looking at jumping slugs, and it seems that we are to finish it on cane toads caught in surfboards. It's an interesting file, the Ministry of Environment.

I can't say that I got all the answers that I wanted, but I appreciate the minister's attention and focus, with her staff, to get the answers. She's very good on her feet, knows how to use words in judicious ways, and so I appreciate the answers that I could get. Certainly, there are political and other reasons why some questions might not have been answered. But I do thank the minister and her staff very much for attempting to give me the best information that was possible within the political circumstances and for considering suggestions and ideas to improve processes.
[ Page 3071 ]

I will have further questions, through, hopefully, a couple of briefings on a range of issues — endangered species, updates on park situations, the biodiversity file, to name just a few. I know there were questions around the wolf hunt, which I think I will try with FLNRO first. I see the minister nodding that that would be the place to go.

[1850]

The people of B.C. are passionate about protecting our air, our water and our land. Certainly, I'll continue to work from our side, and I appreciate all the colleagues who lent their voices to many questions that I would raise myself, but it was important coming from them because it was in their own areas.

Thank you to the minister for that. We will continue to talk about these issues for many more months and years to come, I'm sure.

Hon. M. Polak: I won't take long, as I know that we're about to wrap up.

I wanted to thank the member for doing as good a job as he possibly could in trying to organize how members were coming in and out, and the subject matter. It makes it a lot easier for our staff. I know that's always a challenge when you're the critic trying to manage that process, so very much appreciate that.

I just want to encourage the member that if there are items we were not able to canvass here, by all means, let us know. We want to be able to provide, as best we can, the information that he needs. We'll certainly undertake to provide that as he makes his requests known, and I'll look forward to working with the member in our next appearance around the chamber, for Water Sustainability, in committee stage.

With that, I understand that there are other items I need to move.

Vote 20: ministry operations, $101,243,000 — approved.

Vote 21: environmental assessment office, $11,714,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Polak: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Votes 20 and 21 of the Ministry of Environment and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:52 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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