2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 15, Number 9

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

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Statements

SINKING OF FISHING VESSEL
IN JOHNSTONE STRAIT

C. Trevena: As the House may have heard, a fishing vessel went down in Johnstone Strait, just north of Campbell River, over the weekend. Sadly, two men lost their lives: 34-year-old Barry Sewid and 29-year-old Michael Kelly. Both were married, with young children.

Fishing families and communities are tight, and the shock of this accident is palpable. I’d like the House to join me in sending sympathies to their families.

Madame Speaker: It will be done.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

NAMU CANNERY SITE
IN HEILTSUK TERRITORY

J. Rice: The Heiltsuk people of Bella Bella on the central coast have occupied and utilized the site known as Namu for at least 10,000 years. It is the oldest known First Nations village site on the coast of B.C., situated in the heart of the Great Bear rainforest. It is here that the famous whale with the same name was captured for a life in captivity.

[1005]

B.C. Packers acquired the land and operated a cannery here for 40 years. It has changed hands many times since then, and now the cannery town sits as a derelict, decrepit environmental ticking time bomb collapsing into the Pacific Ocean. In its heyday the cannery at Namu employed hundreds of people — First Nations, Chinese, Japanese and Caucasian workers.

I had an opportunity to visit Namu with Heiltsuk Hereditary Chief Harvey Humchitt. We observed dilapidated, collapsing buildings and docks crumbling into the ocean. The place was besieged with garbage, broken glass, rotting wood, mangled pieces of rusting metal and a sinking ship. Corroding barrels of oil, aviation fuel and other petrochemicals sat exposed to the elements, where some of the highest rates of rain this province sees washed the chemicals into the ocean.

Harvey tells me how the Heiltsuk have a vision for the place, with a proposed resort and marina plan. They would like to claim back their village site and be stewards of the property, which contains an ancient burial site. This government claims there is no pollution problem, yet the environmental remediation costs are prohibitive for the small coastal First Nation.

In Namu’s glory days, tremendous wealth was taken from the region, millions of dollars generated for company profits and great fortune generated for the provincial coffers. Surely, it is incumbent upon this government to step in and force the responsible parties to clean up its mess. How can we trust this government with major industrial projects in oil and gas when it can’t be trusted to clean up the past, more benign industries such as fish-processing plants?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

PHILANTHROPY FOR
HEALTH SERVICES ON NORTH SHORE

R. Sultan: North Shore recently celebrated the opening of the magnificent new HOpe Centre at Lions Gate Hospital. The name “HOpe” derives from philanthropists Robert and Greta Ho who, along with the Ministry of Health and other private donors, paid the almost $60 million cost of this new 26-bed, four-storey psychiatric facility.

Another North Shore philanthropist, Dr. Djavad Mowafaghian, contributed funding for teaching space for UBC medical school.

Completing the hospital hat trick is a new nine-bay B.C. ambulance centre. Services provided focus on mental health and addictions, since these disorders often present concurrently. Philanthropist Robert Ho, in visiting the old building — which is even older than I am — declared that there were only a few rooms and it was gloomy and dark.

Capital funding set a new benchmark standard of approximately 60 percent government money and 40 percent private gifts. The Lions Gate Hospital Foundation, directed by Judith Savage, organized galas, golf tournaments and sidewalk lemonade stands to collect the required nickels, dimes and dollars.

Congratulations to the Vancouver Coastal and CEO Mary Ackenhusen, to the foundation and to donors large and small. Mental health and addictions are moving out of the shadows for mainstream attention and recovery on the North Shore.

COQUITLAM FARMERS MARKET

S. Robinson: Two weeks ago we all had the chance to acknowledge our gratitude for all that we have in our
[ Page 4750 ]
lives and in our communities during our Thanksgiving celebrations. As we celebrated the abundance of the harvest, I thought about the Coquitlam Farmers Market and its founder, Terri Evans, and the abundance that she has brought to our community.

Terri started the market in 1996 as part of a community economic development project when she was a student at SFU. The market started with only a handful of food vendors and operated for 12 weeks. The initial goals of the market were to reconnect local food producers with suburban consumers and citizens with each other. These goals were easily achieved.

Today, 18 years later, there are more than 40 vendors selling their wares, and the Coquitlam Farmers Market operates year-round. The success of the market is easily recognized by the market’s regular shoppers, and I’m one of them. We’ve all incorporated a visit to the Coquitlam Farmers Market into our regular Sunday routine.

The Coquitlam Farmers Market is the longest-serving suburban farmers market in the Lower Mainland. Terri Evans, who brought this project to fruition, has been a mainstay of the market. She took an idea and moved it to action. She identified a team to help her bring the idea to fruition. She tried it out, and she has recognized the economic and community development power of the Coquitlam Farmers Market and its building success ever since. Terri has been the market’s board chair for 18 years and has just stepped down from the role this month to pursue other projects.

[1010]

Every weekend hundreds of my constituents purchase their weekly meal supplies at the market. They are better connected to their food source, support local farmers and engage in strengthening their communities. For this Coquitlam resident, I am very appreciative and grateful for Terri’s foresight, her commitment and her passion for bringing this treasure to Coquitlam.

RICHMOND CHINESE
COMMUNITY SOCIETY

J. Yap: British Columbia embraces multiculturalism with its rich diversity and uniqueness. Yet it’s also very important for ethnic groups to integrate with mainstream society and be involved in community. This is what Richmond Chinese Community Society, or RCCS, has been doing for the last 25 years.

Being one of the largest and most recognizable non-profit charitable organizations in Richmond, RCCS aims at assisting Chinese Canadians in the process of integration and assimilation with mainstream society. RCCS encourages members of the Richmond Chinese community to actively participate in various community services.

Since its establishment in 1989, RCCS has expanded its range of services and programs for different age groups — from fitness dance, ballroom dance, bellydance, tai chi and yoga to karaoke singing, Chinese brush painting, calligraphy, etc. Services are available in Cantonese, Mandarin and English. Recently it established a seniors group, which provides activities for people over 55, to encourage health and wellness and to engage in the community. RCCS also has an active youth group providing volunteer and leadership development opportunities for its younger members.

This coming Saturday, October 25, RCCS will host a fundraising dinner to mark its 25th anniversary. Its goal is to raise $35,000 in order to fund its high school scholarship program.

Madame Speaker, I know that you will join me in expressing sincere gratitude to the leaders of RCCS, its former presidents, directors and the current directors and current president, Mr. Alex Wong, for their passion, leadership and commitment in making Richmond a more culturally harmonious, energetic and healthier community.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN SMITHERS

D. Donaldson: What do making sausage, exploring for copper and gold, and driving trucks across the province have in common? It all has to do with businesses based out of Smithers, B.C. Those are the fundamental activities of three of the businesses up for the Smithers Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year award, part of the chamber’s business awards night at the Hudson Bay Lodge set for Saturday, November 1.

Those three businesses are the Sausage Factory, Seabridge Gold and Bandstra Transportation. All are deserving winners. I have to say I have personal experience with all three businesses, but especially the Sausage Factory, where I dropped off my lambs about ten days ago for them to butcher. I’ve got them in the freezer now.

I’ll be attending, whenever I can, the awards ceremony. Last year I gave out the Young Entrepreneur of the Year award, which involved a dance studio, a farming enterprise and a tree-cutting service. I love these events. They’re amazing.

The chamber has been in existence since 1929. I’m a member as an MLA. They do amazing work not just with the business community. It can be a wide range of activities. They’re hosting an all-candidates forum pretty soon for the local elections. Especially of note, they did a very good study on what a living wage is for the town of Smithers.

They do all sorts of great work, and I would like to salute the chamber for all the work they do. I look forward to the awards ceremony on November 1, and I’ll be enjoying my lamb sausage in the meantime.

ED ARAKI

L. Throness: I have many remarkable people in my riding, and one of them is Ed Araki from Hope. Ed has
[ Page 4751 ]
a great story to tell. He was born in Mission in 1932. But when a Japanese submarine was said to be lurking off the coast in 1944, he and his family — Canadians of Japanese descent — were forced to leave everything behind and move with nothing but the clothes on their backs to Alberta, where he spent the next decade working on vegetable farms.

While he was there, he poured himself into sports as a way of proving himself to his classmates. When he returned to live in Hope, his love for baseball led him to volunteer as an umpire. He enjoyed it, so he became president of minor baseball, then coached ladies fastball and also served as president of the minor hockey association.

[1015]

In 1971 he branched out by becoming president of the Hope Crime Prevention Society. In 1976, when the Block Watch program began in Hope, he was its first coordinator. When Block Watch went provincial, he joined the board. This year he is president of the Block Watch Society of B.C., active in 68 communities involving thousands of volunteers.

While doing all of this, Ed has still found time to be a volunteer firefighter, head up the local Brigade Days celebrations and still sits on the recreation commission. Oh, and by the way, he also managed to fit in a career in the logging industry and raise a family with four boys.

Looking back, he expresses no bitterness over his treatment during the war. He only has positive things to say about his community. Through volunteerism, he has chosen to make a difference and give back to the community some of the good things he has received.

I’d like to thank Ed Araki for a lifetime of volunteer service in Hope. I trust that all of my constituents, especially younger ones with their whole lives ahead of them, will take his example to heart.

G. Holman: Madame Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Madame Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands.

Introductions by Members

G. Holman: I am honoured today to introduce a number of members visiting the precinct from the Central Saanich Senior Citizens Association: Penny Furnes, Braunda Gustafson, Nona Frew, Winota Slugget, Maybelle Hutchinson, Thea Revoy, Hilda Shilliday, Mel Giles, Joyce Wolfe, Sue Tribe, Cathy Thompson and Gerie Turner.

Madame Speaker, I have informed the group that they’re not allowed to throw anything during question period. But if they were to drop something by accident, who would know?

I wish the House would welcome these visitors to the precinct today.

J. Shin: I also seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Shin: Today in the gallery, joining us for the first time since his elementary school days for a field trip, is my constituency assistant Nicholas Page. Nicholas is studying at SFU, and he has a natural aptitude and passion for science behind policy. I would like to thank Nicholas for the great work that he does in the office on our day-to-day research and communication. I kindly ask the House to please make him feel very welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C. PLACE
CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT

D. Eby: On September 18 the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner revealed that for two years PavCo suppressed an engineer’s report on yet another problem with B.C. Place’s wildly overpriced retractable roof. This is a retractable roof that it turns out couldn’t be retracted without pieces of it falling onto the playing field and the stands.

Can the Deputy Premier explain exactly why the government was so desperate to conceal this embarrassing information from the public?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the member should recognize that B.C. Place is now ranked in the top five best stadiums in North America. It’s an investment made in British Columbia that is good for Vancouver, good for tourism and good for the investment in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the few stadiums where 50,000 people can go on line at once and actually use their electronic devices as well.

As we have gone through the construction, there is a warranty on any of the work that’s going on. That discussion, negotiation, is being handled by PavCo. But I can tell you this. That stadium is a world-class stadium. It was the right investment even to the point that we actually attracted the largest convention in the world, which is the Alcoholics Anonymous convention, because we have that stadium.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The members of the public should bring their electronic devices and maybe their hardhats as well.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner made it clear that the government has an obligation to inform the public of safety risks. The commissioner said that PavCo ignored that obligation when it hid the engineer’s reports on the broken stadium roof.
[ Page 4752 ]

[1020]

The Minister of Education and the Minister of Justice sat on the board responsible for B.C. Place at the time, endorsing the effort to hide this information from the public. Does the Deputy Premier agree with their actions in concealing this report?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, one thing hasn’t changed for the member opposite, and that is that when he was in the private sector or the public sector, he was always accusing people of doing something before he could back it up with any facts, right?

There have been stories about the issues around the B.C. Place roof. The fact that it’s under warranty and the work is getting done…. But I know this. I mean, it’s no surprise that the members opposite want to criticize B.C. Place or anything that might bring economic activity to British Columbia. You don’t believe in jobs. You don’t believe in investment. You don’t believe in opportunity for B.C. cities.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ll bet you a number of you actually show up at the Grey Cup game this year, and you’ll sit in the stadium and say: “Jeez, what a wonderful place it is.”

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a further supplemental.

D. Eby: Let me ask the Minister Responsible for Core Review about this economic stimulus project. Last year alone PavCo lost over $10 million. When B.C. Place missed its original revenue and attendance targets by 18 percent and 20 percent respectively, PavCo simply lowered the targets to make them match.

PavCo hid this embarrassing engineering report for two years, held public events at B.C. Place for months while pieces of the roof were falling onto the seats and the field, and despite all of this, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Justice’s former colleagues on the PavCo board gave PavCo president Ken Cretney a $100,000 bonus for his work. Can the Minister for Core Review explain exactly what Mr. Cretney did to deserve this economic stimulus?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, as with any major project of any scale…. Mind you, they wouldn’t know about a big project of any scale, because their job plan is to take a big business, tax it to death and make it into a small business.

But if you’ve ever built anything, which I suspect none of you have, you would find that any construction-related issues…

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: …can always, Madame Speaker, have some issues. On August 8 and 9 in 2012 there was an inspection done. The items have been remediated in a timely manner and reviewed by a qualified engineer in 2012. There was no additional cost to taxpayers for these repairs.

You know what? You don’t care. You know why? Because you don’t like the building. You don’t like economic development. You don’t want to attract tourism to British Columbia. You want to shut the doors, to not have any activity in B.C. — especially in B.C. Place, where it brings $100 million in economic activity to British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, all members will put their remarks through the Chair.

S. Simpson: Not only are pieces falling from the roof, but it continues to leak, with the key response from PavCo being that for wet patrons, they get a free beer. You have an organization that missed its attendance projections by 15 to 20 percent, losing over $10 million, and an organization that suppressed information about health and safety risks. For this, the president of PavCo got a $100,000 bonus.

Could the Deputy Premier tell us: what would this organization have to have done for the president to not get a bonus?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, it’s really interesting, the line of questioning from this member. The only thing that ever fell from this roof was a very small washer, and this issue was addressed and parts upgraded on August 9, 2012. They keep trying to dig down to find something.

[1025]

But let me remind them of something. We have a $500 million investment in a building. If we’d replaced this, (1) it would have cost us $1 billion, and (2) it brings $100 million in economic activity to British Columbia on an annual basis. Their only solution to spending $500 million was on three fast ferries that got shrink-wrapped and sent out of British Columbia.

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

S. Simpson: The Ministers of Education and Justice sat on the PavCo board in 2013. They collected tens of thousands of dollars in directors’ fees. This was a board that either condoned or ignored PavCo’s decision to suppress an engineering report that revealed a risk to the safety of stadium attendees. That was the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that said that.

You can take your pick, hon. Speaker, on whether they
[ Page 4753 ]
were complicit or they were ignorant about this. The board’s conduct was disreputable on this. Why are the Deputy Premier and the Liberals defending this shameful conduct by a board that included two senior cabinet ministers?

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s always amazing how this particular member and members opposite get up and just impugn the integrity of people in this House shamelessly.

How can you actually use those adjectives in describing any hon. member in this House, hon. Member? Maybe you better also go and look at what directors get paid at Crown corporations, and you’ll find that it’s not tens of thousands of dollars. But you don’t do your homework. You don’t like B.C. Place. You’ve never liked B.C. Place. You don’t like $100 million in economic activity.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

Hon. R. Coleman: The people that work at B.C. Place have good jobs. You don’t care about that. All you care about is the fact that a building, Madame Speaker….

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s a building built by the province, upgraded by the province. We think it’s a great investment for British Columbia — $100 million in economic activity. As everything else in economic activity, Madame Speaker, they’re opposed to jobs and economic activity.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES
IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

J. Darcy: Last month I was invited to attend a community meeting in Fort St. John, where hundreds of people packed the seniors hall to share their stories about the crisis in health care. After my visit, a gentleman named Ryan got in touch with me and asked me to share his story.

Like thousands upon thousands of people in Fort St. John, it is a constant struggle for Ryan to access a family doctor. The wait is up to eight weeks. Ryan needs urgent treatment for his depression and his anxiety, and he was finally referred to a psychiatrist last June. But because of wait times, he is being forced to wait six months more at least.

My question to the minister is this: why are people like Ryan being forced to wait unacceptable lengths of time for urgent treatment in rural communities right across British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the question. The member knows well that it’s a challenge all over the western world to recruit health care professionals to rural and remote areas of a province, of a state, of a country.

The member was present as we held a symposium at the Union of B.C. Municipalities on the issue of rural health care. We reached out to community leaders and explained all of the incentive programs that are available to attract health care professionals to rural and remote parts of British Columbia. We talked about the need for communities to wrap their arms around this problem, to make sure that we do recruit and attract health care professionals and make sure that they are welcomed into the community. We have numerous incentive programs to attract physicians, to attract nurses.

[1030]

In the case of Fort St. John, there’s no question that over the last year they have lost a number of health care professionals. We are working hard with Northern Health. Our MLA for Fort St. John is working with us to make sure that we put the right incentives in place.

We are pleased to announce that they have hired one nurse practitioner. We have funding for two more nurse practitioners, and we have also just approved another four locum positions to increase the recruitment and the availability of doctors in that community.

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

J. Darcy: As the minister knows well and has known for a considerable period of time, waiting for hours, sometimes in minus-30-degree weather, in Fort St. John to get into a walk-in clinic is a common occurrence. The government has also known for a very long time that Fort St. John is at the breaking point — with some of the worst shortages of doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses and other health care providers in the entire province.

For most of that time the only thing we’ve gotten from this minister is talk. He makes a last-minute media announcement about nurse practitioners but fails to deliver the conditions for their success on the ground. That is no way to run a health care system or an economy.

Does the minister think it’s fair for the B.C. Liberals to keep pumping resources out of communities like Fort St. John without putting in the health care services that the people there so desperately need?

Hon. T. Lake: One thing I do know is that in the 1990s not one extra position was created in medical schools in this province — not one. Since 2002 we have more than doubled the number of doctor training spaces. We have doubled the number of nursing spaces. If that action had been taken in the 1990s, we would have 1,000 more doctors in the province of British Columbia today.
[ Page 4754 ]

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS
FOR HAIDA GWAII RESIDENTS

J. Rice: The travel assistance program is supposed to help people like my constituents on Haida Gwaii access the same level of medical care that people in larger communities receive. The program covers 100 percent of ferry costs but only 30 percent of flight costs on certain airlines. It actually costs less to fly than it does to take the ferry, and only one airline on Haida Gwaii is covered under the program.

Will the minister move to cover more of what it costs families to fly out of remote communities and receive the medical treatment they need?

Hon. T. Lake: I’ve stood in the House before and talked about the huge vastness of British Columbia and the challenge of providing the best health care in the world to all citizens of British Columbia. We know that’s a challenge, and that’s why we have the travel assistance program, which is a partnership between the Ministry of Health and a number of transportation carriers. It offers discounts from 30 to 100 percent off regular fares for eligible B.C. residents who must travel for non-emergency, physician-referred medical specialist care.

We strive hard to make sure that people who need the best available care are looked after in the province of British Columbia. It is a challenge.

We are always reviewing the travel assistance program. In fact, we have overspent the travel assistance program in the last number of years, because our staff bend over backwards to try and help people to get down to Vancouver and other metropolitan areas to get the high level of health care that they deserve and need.

[1035]

IMPLEMENTATION OF INDEMNITY
POLICY REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS

L. Krog: In 2011, after giving 6 million taxpayers’ dollars to two of its convicted political staff, this government asked former UBC president Stephen Toope to recommend a new legal fees indemnity policy for public servants. In November 2011 the former Attorney General announced that the government fully supported Mr. Toope’s report on legal indemnities and had adopted all of its recommendations.

To the Minister of Justice: does the government today stand by the Toope report and recommendations — yes or no?

Hon. S. Anton: The member will know that the government has updated the indemnity coverage provided to public service employees, as it should be. Government employees are entitled to legal indemnity when they have legal issues arising in the course of their employment.

This indemnity is decided by a senior staff member — the Assistant Deputy Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General. It is not a political decision. It is a decision and a feature of all employment of government employees that they are protected in legal matters.

That is the update that government made. It’s very important to everybody in government.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, I think that was a yes.

In his report Professor Toope pays special attention to government indemnities as they were applied to public servants who believe they were defamed during the course of their duties. Toope said:

“Negative public commentary will rarely be so damaging to the public servant that it will fundamentally damage his or her ability to do the job, nor will it unduly impair the operation of government. Considering the purposes that underlie indemnification as set out in part II of this report, public funding of complaints of defamation should be rare and should remain a matter of discretion.”

Does the Minister of Justice stand by this recommendation — yes or no?

Hon. S. Anton: There is an indemnity policy. The policy permits civil servants to request an indemnity for matters that arise in the course of their employment. The decision of whether or not to grant an indemnity is not a political decision. It’s made by the Deputy Attorney General or, in his absence, by an Assistant Deputy Attorney General.

This is something that all civil servants and senior staff members are entitled to apply for. As I said, it’s not a political process. It’s an important process for people, in the course of their employment, to be able to count on that kind of indemnity.

INDEMNITY OF
LEGAL ACTION BY DEPUTY MINISTER

M. Farnworth: I hear the Minister of Health chirping away, and I’d like to remind him and the Attorney General that there is a policy in place. The policy in place is not about proactive lawsuits, which is what we’re talking about here today — a decision by a deputy minister to take a proactive lawsuit to silence somebody in this House.

We were surprised when the government chose to indemnify the Deputy Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training in her now taxpayer-funded action to silence the member for Victoria–Swan Lake — surprised because, according to the government’s expert, the comments about her, about the deputy minister, must have been “so damaging to the public servant that it will fundamentally damage their ability to do their job.”

In making this decision to grant the indemnity, can
[ Page 4755 ]
the Attorney General tell this House whether or not an assessment was made as to how long the deputy minister has been unable to perform her duties?

Hon. S. Anton: I’m not going to discuss specific cases, but I will say, and it is repeating what I said a moment ago, that for employees and appointees to be eligible for coverage, the proceeding must be in relation to the performance of their employment. That decision is made at the senior staff level. It’s not a political decision.

[1040]

It’s a proper process. It’s a process that staff — senior staff, all staff and all members of government — are entitled to. It’s an important process, and it’s important to helping and to supporting persons throughout the civil service.

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: We’re not talking about a specific case. We’re talking about a policy point, which is that you get the indemnity…. “The slander must be so damaging to you that you are unable to perform your duties as a public servant.” The deputy minister is still performing her duties.

Can the Attorney General answer just a basic question? Was any assessment done on the damage, on the ability of the deputy minister to do their job? If they’re so damaged, if they’re so unable to do their job that they qualify for this indemnity, why are they still at work?

Hon. S. Anton: That certainly sounded like a specific case to me. What I can say is that we have an indemnity policy. It’s an important policy for all government staff. They can apply for an indemnity. It is within the authority of the Deputy Attorney General to give that indemnity.

As I said, it’s not a political decision. It’s a decision made by the senior staff level. That is something that all staff are entitled to as the proper process. It follows through on the recommendations made by Professor Toope at the time that we have a robust, good policy that works for government on indemnity. That’s what we have.

B. Ralston: Professor Toope said that the occasions where a public servant’s ability to perform their job would be very, very rare indeed. The consideration was whether or not the public servant’s ability to perform their duties was so seriously impaired that they couldn’t carry out their functions as a public servant.

Where in the decision that was made by the public servants involved in this decision was consideration given to the policy that was set forth by Professor Toope in his detailed report?

Hon. S. Anton: We have a policy. A staff member may apply for indemnity in a legal matter. It is within the authority of the Deputy Attorney General to give that indemnity. It must be in relation to their employment. It covers excluded employees. It covers regular employees. Indemnity coverage is provided to public service employees and appointees, and it includes defamation suits.

Madame Speaker: Member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Clearly, this is a very rare case, according to Professor Toope, and the question I’m asking is about the policy itself. Where in that policy was consideration given to what Professor Toope said — that in order to qualify in these rare circumstances, the ability of the public servant would be so damaged as to prevent them from carrying out their duties?

It’s a question about the policy. It’s a question about the application of the policy. I’d appreciate the Attorney General — and I’m sure the public would appreciate the Attorney General — giving an answer to this question.

Hon. S. Anton: The application of the indemnity policy is made by a decision of the Deputy Attorney General or, in his absence, by an Assistant Deputy Attorney General. It is not a political decision.

M. Mungall: Professor Toope was clear. He was absolutely clear that for an employee to be indemnified, they have to have had such incredible damage personally that they cannot perform their job. That is the spirit in which this policy is supposed to be applied. It is not being applied in this particular case.

[1045]

Will the minister answer the question? Was this policy even considered when they chose to indemnify the deputy minister?

Hon. S. Anton: That sounded like a specific case question to me as well, and I will simply reiterate: there is a policy in place. The decisions are made at the senior Deputy Attorney General level. They apply the policy. It is not a political decision. Staff members are entitled to the application of that policy through things that happen in the course of their duties.

Madame Speaker: Member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: The case that we’re talking about here is because taxpayers…. It’s a specific case, yes. It’s a specific case, and it’s a policy related to a case where taxpayers’ dollars are being spent. Taxpayers deserve to have an answer from this government.

The question is whether the minister considered this particular policy in this particular case. The taxpayers
[ Page 4756 ]
deserve an answer. Why was the deputy minister indemnified?

Hon. S. Anton: Did I consider the policy? No, I did not. This decision is made by the Deputy Attorney General properly in the course of his duties relating to an indemnity that staff are entitled to.

GOVERNMENT USE OF INDEMNITY POLICY

M. Karagianis: Perhaps the minister can answer this question, then. How many times has this policy been used, and in what circumstances?

Hon. S. Anton: That’s not information that’s in my possession today. I’ll get back to the member on it.

M. Karagianis: I would like to put very clearly to the minister: in how many instances has this policy been used to proactively go after a member of this House or any other individual? How many times has it been used for that purpose?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned a moment ago — I’ll repeat it: I do not have the information as to how often the policy is being used, but I will get back to the member on that.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: We will begin this morning with second reading of Bill 3, intituled the Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act. If we finish that before noon, we will then move back into debate on the Speech from the Throne.

[1050]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
(STONE AND TIMBER) SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that Bill 3, the Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act, be read a second time.

The Canadian Pacific Railway and the province of British Columbia signed a settlement agreement on October 8 regarding the ownership and value of timber and stone rights on 145,000 hectares of Crown land and 68,000 hectares of private land in the Kootenay and the Okanagan regions. Consistent with this mediated agreement, the act will extinguish Canadian Pacific Railway’s interest in historic timber and stone reservations on those parcels of land.

Between 1892 and 1908, the province granted land to three railway companies to subsidize railway construction in British Columbia. When the railway companies sold the land to third parties in the early 1900s, the companies reserved the timber and stone rights on those lands for their own use. These reservations were not recognized in many subsequent land transactions, and many of them were not registered in the current land title system.

Many landowners are not aware of the CPR reservations on their land. Canadian Pacific Railway became a successor to the assets of the three historic railways and the owner of these timber and stone reservations in 1956.

Uncertainty regarding these timber and stone rights raised management challenges for the province, the Canadian Pacific Railway, landowners and forest tenure holders when the situation came to light in the early 2000s. In September of this year CPR and the province reached an agreement to settle this issue.

The proposed legislation will allow the province and affected landowners to apply to amend land titles, cap compensation to Canadian Pacific Railway to the amount of the settlement agreement and validate previous decisions made by the province regarding these reservations.

Extinguishment of the Canadian Pacific Railway interests means that ownership of the reserved timber and stone remains with the current owner of the underlying land. Under the settlement agreement Canadian Pacific Railway will receive $19 million in compensation for relinquishing all claims to the timber and stone reservations as well as claims to land that was transferred to the province decades ago but incorrectly remains in the title of any of the historic railways.

In May 2013 Canadian Pacific Railway filed a lawsuit that sought confirmation of its ownership of the reserved timber and stone resources and damages for past actions of the province, landowners and tenure holders. As part of the settlement agreement, the province and CPR are applying to the court to have this lawsuit dismissed. Clarifying the ownership and the value of timber and stone reservations for about 1,600 parcels of lands through the courts would have been time-consuming and expensive.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The proposed legislation will clear up uncertainty regarding the legal status of CPR timber and stone reservations on this Crown land and private land, and it will support resource management efforts throughout the region.

H. Bains: I’m glad to speak on this bill, Bill 3. Based on the amount of information that we have — that is provided to us — it seems that through this bill, the government is trying to resolve a dispute that started in 1892, as
[ Page 4757 ]
the minister said, when the Crown allocated some Crown land to CP Rail and two other railway companies to help them to establish rail lines. As a result of that, there were tracts of land along the railway lines that were allocated to these three railway companies.

[1055]

I think on the surface, this bill takes us in the right direction, but it still poses a lot of questions that we don’t have the answers to, and those are the questions that we will be asking during this process. Just for the record, I will go into what this dispute was all about and what this government tried to do.

It started with the lawsuit that was filed by Canadian Pacific Railway in 2013. In 2013 Canadian Pacific Railway sued the B.C. government and private land owners for usurping above-surface rights, the right to harvest stone and timber — stone and timber reservations — held by CPR on land in the Kootenays and Okanagan region.

The province reports that 145,000 hectares are Crown land, which means owned by the province, and 68,000 are owned by the private land owners. The settlement price is $19 million to CPR by the government to obtain the reservations. This arrangement will extinguish both the Crown and private land rights. The province will then, therefore, own the Crown land unencumbered but also grant or gift those rights back to the private land owners, since the timber and stones are valuable.

I think the questions that I have, at least from my understanding from the information that is before us…. We seem to have three types of different situations here.

One, there’s a dispute between the government and CP Rail. The B.C. government is trying to extinguish all CP rights — surface rights, the in-ground rights to stone and the timber rights — by way of this settlement. Also, we have private land owners, as was mentioned earlier — 68,000 hectares. I think there are two types of those landowners, and I think that’s the question.

The first type of landowner is those who purchased those lands, but CPR continued to hold their timber rights and stone rights. With this bill, those rights will be purchased from CPR, and then they will be handed over to the private land owners. Then there is another set of landowners who actually end up purchasing the rights — timber rights and stone rights — along with the surface rights that were granted to them some time ago.

So the question is: how is it fair to those who actually paid the full price to obtain the timber rights and stone rights, when the government will now be purchasing those rights from CPR and from the other private land owners, and now the other part of those landowners, who never paid for the reservation rights — they will be handed over to them?

I think behind this whole dispute…. Those who paid the full price will be saying: “How is it fair that we paid the full price? Others did not.” Others also, whenever this land was transferred over to their name, harvested timber. They also used stone. They made money on that, but they never paid for those rights. That’s what the dispute is all about.

Also, the government allocated timber rights to many private interests over those years, which is a crux of the dispute. That’s why this settlement is.

Now the government is saying: “We will purchase those reservation rights and hand it over to the private land owners.” I think that’s where the big question is. How is it fair to those who paid the full price, compared to those who only paid for the surface rights but never paid for the timber rights or the stone rights, but the government is coming in and — in some people’s words — bailing them out now, purchasing the rights from CP and handing it over or gifting to these landowners, whereas the others paid the full price?

[1100]

That’s the discrepancy between those two groups. How do you deal with that issue?

The other big issue that also comes to mind is aboriginal titles. How does the Tsilhqot’in decision apply here — whether that was even considered when this dispute was resolved, or is purported to be resolved, through Bill 3?

As we know, there are clear cases that…. Not only must there be consultation on timber rights and aboriginal rights, but there must be consent. My question would be, and we will be asking those questions when we go into the committee stage, whether those consultations took place and whether the consent was granted. Was that actually decided? Who actually owns the tract of land that we are talking about through Bill 3 here?

I think those are some very key issues. I will relate to you, to make my point, that the people who paid the full reservation rights…. Well, originally they paid for the surface rights, and then, subsequently, the other landowners came, and they purchased timber rights, stone rights and surface rights. They paid the full price, and I think they are concerned that this is not fair to them.

The fair thing, according to them, would have been that the government purchase these rights, reservations, both timber and stone rights, and then sell them to those private land owners who never paid for the above-ground or stone rights. Then the taxpayers don’t have to come up with taxpayer dollars to, according to them, bail those people out.

I think the dispute also is that they harvested timber, according to that dispute, that did not belong to them. They even used a stone quarry, and that didn’t belong to them. That’s the whole dispute here. They harvested timber that wasn’t theirs, and they mined the product that didn’t belong to them, according to CP Rail. Now the government’s coming in and paying a pretty big price to CP Rail to purchase those rights and then gift them to those same people.

I think that’s where the concern is from those who paid the full price, and here I’ll describe how some people
[ Page 4758 ]
have described that. This one person said that the benefit to private land owners is large, much larger than the proportional share of the $19 million settlement.

For example, this person said that they were part of the purchase of the above-surface reservation on 379 acres of Crown land for $1 million. That’s a lot of money, and they paid the full price. A landowner in the Kootenay land district paid the CPR $250,000 to have the stone and timber reservation removed on their 160-acre plot. Another one, on a small 3.1-acre lot in the Kootenay land district…. A real estate agent bought the reservation from the CPR for $10,000 because the purchaser wanted it removed from the property.

Here is a group of landowners who paid the full price to acquire the stone and timber harvesting rights along with the surface rights. They are saying: “We paid the full price, but others did not.” Others only paid a small fraction of the total value of the land that they were purchasing because they only purchased the surface rights and the CPR continued to own the timber and stone rights.

Now those people are…. Although they also harvested those products during this time, now the government is coming in, gifting them, paying on their behalf to the CPR and gifting that land back to those owners. That’s what these landowners are saying: “How is that fair?” The question is….

[1105]

This is a fair question from those landowners, saying: “Wouldn’t this be a fair thing for the government, to retain the stone and timber reservation on private land and let landowners buy them back at a fair price?” For example, anyone who cuts timber in B.C. must apply for timber marks. The province could let private land owners buy back the reservation at that time. The province engages in this kind of transaction on a regular basis. This would have provided some benefits to the taxpayers.

I think it’s a very fair question. Those are the questions that haven’t been answered. We don’t have the information provided to us by the government. We tried to get a briefing. I’m raising these questions now because the minister…. Although he tried yesterday to give us a briefing, the briefing isn’t there until tomorrow, I’m told, but we are faced with this bill today. All those questions are there. We don’t have answers to them.

Another question. CPR alleged in a civil suit that the province and many private land owners essentially engaged in theft, according to them, of timber and stone by extinguishing the reservation on private land. Isn’t the province, effectively, bailing them out? I mean, according to CPR, they alleged that their timber and stone was taken away without their consent, so they call it theft. Now the government is purchasing, on their behalf, those rights and gifting them back to them. Someone said: “Well, are you not gifting them for theft?”

I mean, those are the questions that are being raised — not by me, but by many people out there who are concerned about this arrangement that is being made by this government.

The other question is…. Many landowners have paid good money to purchase these reservations from Canadian Pacific Railway. I drew some examples above. They were responsible and did the legal thing. How is it fair to give their neighbours something that they had to pay for?

You know, you’re treating two groups of landowners in a similar situation differently — two different ways. One was required to pay the full price for timber and stone rights and surface rights. They paid the full price, and then they harvested on their land, and they benefited from it. Fair enough. That’s the way the system worked. Then you have landowners who only paid a fraction of the real price because they only were entitled to surface rights. They had no right to timber, no right to stone. CPR owned those rights.

The government is saying: “Well, because this letter….” A group of landowners, according to CPR, harvested timber that didn’t belong to them without paying for those rights. They harvested stone that didn’t belong to them without paying the price for those rights. The government now is paying CPR to purchase those rights and gifting over to them. I mean, it’s very, very clear — two distinct approaches to two distinct groups of people in the same situation.

Those are very serious questions and legitimate questions. We don’t have the information or the answers to those.

Aboriginal consultation is another very, very serious question here. When and where did a consultation take place? Who did they consult with? Who actually has…? Is it in treaty negotiations, those lands?

Those are the questions that are very, very important. I think the people who may feel…. Our First Nations may feel that they have title to this tract of land that we are talking about. They may have something to say about this in view of the Tsilhqot’in decision.

I think it is very troubling, in my view, whether the government actually thought through, when they made this settlement, about treating everyone equally.

[1110]

I mean, I’m for the decision to purchase CPR rights — timber rights and stone rights — and then making sure that we do the legal thing, which means if a government is going to allocate that timber for someone to harvest, or stone rights, then at least the Crown has the title. Then they could allocate them legally, which didn’t happen prior. That’s why the dispute is before the courts, or was before the courts. This is a proposed settlement.

I think that’s the right thing to do. But then, how you treat those two different landowners is a serious question, whether it was thought through to deal with both of them so that they both feel it was a fair deal for both of them and that both are treated equally.
[ Page 4759 ]

The other question comes from the taxpayers. How is it fair to the taxpayers — $19 million of taxpayers’ money? That’s a lot of money, especially during the time when for education, there are cuts. On health care, there are cuts. Crime — there’s no money to fight crime. Violence-free B.C. is no longer the motto anymore. There is hardly any money for training for our young people. If you look at all of those important issues that are being ignored…. But we find this $19 million.

Like I said, it’s the right thing to do, to deal with this issue. Those are the questions raised by those landowners who pay the full price. Why are we bailing those landowners out who never paid for these rights, but they harvested timber and stone that didn’t belong to them, that belonged to CPR? Government is paying on their behalf and then gifting those tracts of land to them, whereas others have to pay the full price.

I mean, that’s a very serious question, and the taxpayers would be worried. Why are you doing this? Why are you purchasing rights on behalf of those landowners who only paid for the surface rights? Now you’re handing them the entire timber and stone rights without them having to pay for it, and now the taxpayers are essentially paying for their title. I think that would be a very legitimate question by any taxpayer..

Just to give a bit more background here, the case that was filed by CPR in the Supreme Court of British Columbia sets out pretty factual information. For the record, I would read some of the facts that are contained in that lawsuit.

It says that between 1888 and 1896 Columbia and Western Railway company, C&W; British Columbia Southern Railway Co., BCS; and Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Co., C&K…. Collectively, three railways were incorporated pursuant to acts of the Legislature of British Columbia. By acts of the Parliament of Canada between 1890 and 1898, the works of the three railways were declared to be for the general advantage of Canada and to be operated pursuant to the laws of Canada.

Pursuant to the Canadian Pacific Railway Co., and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (Subsidiaries) Act, 1957, SC 1956, 1957 c. 40, CPR became the successor to the three railways, with all of the accompanying rights and obligations of each. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia was the defendant declared in this.

Here is the crux of the whole thing. They say that John Does — 1 to 100, they said — whose numbers and identities are unknown to CPR, are the current and former owners of lands in British Columbia who disposed of trees or stone owned by CPR without CPR’s consent as described herein. It goes on. The defendants — ABC contractors, 1 to 100, whose numbers and identities are unknown to CPR — are contractors who harvested trees or quarried stone owned by CPR without CPR’s consent as described herein.

[1115]

That’s the whole matter of dispute. The government, the private landowners and the contractors who harvested…. In a nutshell, they harvested timber and quarried stone without the consent of CPR. CPR, according to these documents, owned those rights, and no one went to them and asked for their consent. Government didn’t do that. Private owners didn’t do that. But they harvested timber and quarried stone which didn’t belong to them, according to CPR.

The railway land that we are talking about here is this. Around 1892 to 1907, by a series of statutes relating to construction by the three railways of rail lines in southern British Columbia, land grant statutes, the three railways were granted fee simple title to approximately 5.2 million acres of land in the Kootenays and Okanagan area of British Columbia called railway lands. Attached as schedule A is a list of railway lands.

Then it went on to say that under contracts made around 1892 and 1925, the three railways transferred approximately 830,000 acres of railway land to private purchasers under instruments of transfer, which were registered to the applicable land registry offices. They called it transferred railway lands.

Then it says the tree and stone reservations….

“When transferring the transferred railway lands through private purchasers, the three railways frequently excepted from the transfer and reserved to themselves title to resources on the lands. For approximately 145,000 acres, tree and stone reservation lands, the three railways excepted and reserved title to all wood, timber and trees, which are called tree reservations, and all valuable or marketable stone, stone reservations, for approximately 380,000 acres.

“The three railways excepted and reserved the stone reservations but not the tree reservations. Collectively, the approximately 525,000 acres of tree and stone reservation lands and stone reservation lands are described herein as the reservation lands. Particulars of the reservation lands are known to the Queen.”

It says that as the successor to the three railways, at all material times CPR has held legal title to and ownership of the trees and stone excepted and reserved by the tree and stone reservation on the reservation land, apart from certain CPR trees and stone, which CPR has subsequently transferred to private parties.

I think what happened subsequently, just to move forward, is that approximately 50 percent of the 145,000 acres of tree and stone reservation lands were forfeited by their private purchasers or successors in title to the Crown for non-payment of property taxes or, in a small number of cases, otherwise acquired by the Crown, thereby transferring surface title of these lands to the Crown, which is considered Crown land with CPR tree and stone reservation.

The remainder of the tree and stone reservation lands remained in private title, private lands, CPR tree and stone reservations. Particulars of the Crown lands and CPR tree and stone reservation and private lands with CPR tree and stone reservation are known to the Crown. That’s what the claim says.
[ Page 4760 ]

I think, clearly, there are some various serious issues, and I hope the minister will answer those questions when we move on to the next stage. Certainly, as I said before, I think dealing with this issue and bringing it to a successful conclusion is a good thing because you want to remove the uncertainty. You don’t want to have people going and harvesting timber or stone that, according to title, didn’t belong to them. CPR held those titles.

[1120]

I think the question is that it has over the years created two types of private owners. There’s a strict issue of the Crown and the CPR because the Crown also allocated timber rights and stone rights to private contractors, who benefit from it, and the government benefits from it through the stumpage and stone rights.

The government has an issue with the CPR. They, according to the CPR, allowed on their land to trespass on their rights to harvest timber and stone…. The government made profits out of this — and others. So they need to deal with this, and I get that.

I also get that private land owners who had surface rights purchased at a very, very low price at that time, because only surface rights were transferred, not the timber or the stone rights. Now, with this deal, they can fully own all those rights as true owners. Then they could benefit from harvesting legally, because it’ll be theirs.

The others who, without the help of the government, went about in their own way to pay for full rights — surface rights, ground rights, timber rights — paid full price. So they’re saying: “Well, where’s the fairness here? We paid. Others didn’t.” Those others, according to the CPR, stole timber and stone from their tracts of land, rights that belonged to the CPR.

Now the government is coming in, purchasing those rights from the CPR and gifting it over to those landowners who originally, according to the CPR, took timber and benefited from it, took stone and benefited from it — which didn’t belong to them. Now the government is coming and bailing them out. I think those are the questions. Not my words, but those are the real concerns raised by some of those owners who suggested that there should be some fairness in this.

I think government owes it to them, owes it to the taxpayers. It’s the taxpayers’ money that is being used. How is it fair? Why were all those things that were not considered not considered?

Aboriginal titles and aboriginal consultation and consent would be another very, very troubling issue if the government had not complied through the standards that have been set, at least by the Tsilhqot’in decision and decisions before that, as far as the aboriginal rights are concerned. Those are some of the questions that we will be asking at the next stage.

With that, I think the minister — hopefully, tomorrow — will get us many of those answers. If not, we will be asking those questions on behalf of these people in this House when this bill moves to the next stage.

N. Macdonald: I guess there are no Liberal speakers on this.

It is one of these bills that, in a sense, is innocuous. It’s a settlement. It’s something that doesn’t have huge ideological differences. But it is something that I think all members should pay attention to. There are a couple of questions, and I think the critic laid them out very nicely — the concerns. It does point, unless there’s a good answer from the minister, to some shortcomings and some challenges with the bill that need to be addressed.

I’m speaking as a Kootenay MLA. Many of the properties, of course, are in the Kootenays. They are interesting properties in that they sort of dot themselves all over the Kootenays and show up in a number of places. They have a lot of issues attached to them that aren’t necessarily related to this particular legal settlement. We’re aware of them, so we pay attention to what’s going on here.

Now, with the minister, I’ve always been quick to thank the minister for briefings. I understand there were some complications that will give us the briefing after this part of the bill but before, I understand, the committee stage. When we learn things in briefings, we put them on the record in the committee stage.

[1125]

Even though I’ve always thanked the minister for those briefings, I just want to be clear that my expectation is that I get briefings, as a member. Most ministers have been good with that. The Mines Ministry has refused briefings on a number of topics that we’ve asked for, and I just want to put on the record that in no way is that acceptable. As MLAs, we need to be fully informed so that we can participate in the debate.

I would invite backbenchers with the Liberals to actually have a look at this bill and to listen to some of the questions that are being raised here, because there are things that need to be explained by government. Whether that conversation takes place here or in the caucus room, I think there are explanations that need to be given.

The bill does arise from a settlement of a 2013 suit by CP Rail. The minister, as I understand it, said that it was a settlement that was decided upon to avoid court costs. That might be reasonable. It’s difficult as a layman to judge whether that’s reasonable. The settlement is for $19 million. The minister, as I understood it, said that it was going to be difficult to assess the value of the timber rights and the mineral rights that were part of this settlement and that it would be a time-consuming and expensive endeavour.

Nevertheless, I think it will be important, as we go into committee stage, to explain the $19 million figure, as to how that was reached. Was it completely subjective, just what the two parties agreed to? Or was it based on more than that? So just to give to the minister an example of some of the things that we would be interested in hearing.
[ Page 4761 ]

The province, as the critic talked about, has retained, through people over time not paying property tax — I think that’s the information that I have as well — about 146,000 hectares of the land in question and has operated with a number of businesses being given those mineral and timber rights over a period of time. Then there are some private landowners — about 68,000 hectares. All of those parties were part of the suit. Nevertheless, it is the government, as I understand it, that is going to foot the bill here with this settlement.

It purchases, in essence — that $19 million of taxpayers’ money — what the CPR claims are its rights. I guess the government concedes that point, or it can’t be bothered to fight it in court. It is kind of funny what the government finds money for — SLAPP suits but not these things. Maybe that was a good decision.

CP has come to get control of properties that formerly were.... Some interesting names from B.C.’s history: the B.C. Southern Railway Co., the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Co., the Columbia and Western Railway Co. These are historic names that passed on their rights to Canadian Pacific, and now we have this settlement.

As the minister knows, an awful lot of this land is in the Kootenays. The critic as well as, I would presume, local opposition MLAs from the Kootenays are really going to have to use the committee stage to get a fuller understanding of the details. I think the points that we need to emphasize are the same ones that the critic talked about.

First, there is the First Nations aspect of this. There are rights that are being given away, and it will be important for the minister to explain the process that the ministry went through as they settled this, in terms of its consultation with First Nations in that area to make sure that the rights of First Nations were dealt with in a proper and respectful way.

[1130]

The critic also articulated what seems to be, I think, a central weakness: the difference in the way that property owners are treated. You have some property owners that purchased land and used the mineral and timber rights as if they were theirs without really purchasing them. If everyone did that, I think it would be less problematic than it actually is.

You also had some property owners that purchased separately the property and the timber and rock. These are not inconsequential amounts of money. In one case the information we have is that it’s up to $250,000. You have a problem here, in that if it’s the case where somebody has purchased timber and mineral rights for $250,000 and you have a property owner that will now enjoy that benefit through this bill, then I think that you create an inequity that speaks to a weakness in the settlement.

It’s possible that this was contemplated. It is possible that in the briefing and in committee stage the minister will be able to give an explanation, some comfort, as to the thinking that has gone into that. That certainly would be my expectation, that this has been figured out. Those would be the main things that we would concern ourselves with.

I guess three points, then. The explanation for the figure of $19 million, and what we would be looking for is something more than simply: “That’s what everyone agreed to.” It should be, I would presume, based on an approximation, at least, of real mineral values.

The other part of it would be the First Nations aspect and evidence, within the committee stage of consultation, of who was talked to, what consideration was given to some rights that may be given away with this bill — presumably, unintentionally. That would be the third part.

Then the fourth part: trying to explain how the bill or the settlement deals with what seems to be a tremendous lack of fairness to property owners. That’s really what we’re going to be looking for.

As I say, the minister and I have a long, long relationship in terms of…. We work together, I would say, as minister and critic. I’ve always been appreciative of the support staff. I look forward to the briefing that I understand will come tomorrow. Hopefully, we’ll get some of these answered.

I think the minister understands where we’re going to go in committee stage. As I say, I would invite Liberal members to have a look at this. It sounds innocuous, one of the bills that one wouldn’t think impacted, necessarily, their part of the province. Nevertheless, it’s important for all of us to support legislation that is good legislation and thought through.

The committee stage will be the place that we’ll get the details. With this bill, of course, it’s not a philosophical divide. It will be on the details, and it’s there that we will be spending most of our time.

With that, I’ll turn it over to anyone else who wants to comment on this bill and thank members, as always, for their attention.

L. Krog: I’m delighted to rise this morning to speak to a bill that bears this wonderful title so full of the rich sense of Canadian history: Canadian Pacific Railway — bracket — (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act.

A. Dix: Bracket or racket?

L. Krog: “Bracket or racket?” my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out. I can’t resist. That will, to some extent, form the subject matter of what I want to talk about today.

We are, in a sense, presently engaged in British Columbia in the sort of gold rush mentality that was so reflective of the age that created the very problems which are now the subject of this bill. Of course, now it’s liquefied natural gas and the belief that somehow
[ Page 4762 ]
there’s a fortune to be made just around the corner. That was certainly the case in the British Columbia of its day, when railway grants and railway companies were being formed in order to exploit the resources and wealth of the people, if you will.

[1135]

Of course, it goes without saying that “the people” in those days didn’t include the First Nations. There was no concept of aboriginal title. British Columbia, as everyone in this chamber knows, had entered into Confederation saying that it was a federal problem and ignored it. The federal government welcomed British Columbia into confederation as a province saying that it was a provincial problem and ignored it.

Ignoring problems is actually the substance of this bill. We ignored the historical rights and claims of the First Nations people who had occupied these lands since time immemorial. Today we have before us a bill which is essentially a recognition of some historical mistakes and the ignoring of problems and legal issues which are relatively complex and relatively difficult.

That’s why my colleagues who’ve spoken already this morning have raised that as much as the bill on the surface is very interesting, it raises a number of questions in terms of how we’ve arrived at this, what rights are being circumscribed by this legislation, what things are being acquired and what’s being given away.

I couldn’t resist this morning…. I’m delighted to say, when I went to the Legislative Library, that I wanted to do a tiny bit of research, historical research. I was trying to get George Bowering’s wonderful book, Bowering’s B.C.: A Swashbuckling History. For those members who haven’t taken the time to read it, I recommend it highly.

It is a history of British Columbia written from a somewhat different perspective and examines British Columbia’s history through the eyes of the First Nations and through the eyes of those who saw this province as something to be exploited. Every timber baron and robber baron and crook and schnook and land speculator and every exploiter of every resource imaginable has filled the pages of the history of this province. Bowering does a wonderful description of it.

Much to my delight, it wasn’t available. Someone’s got it checked out till December. Now, that tells me, obviously, that there’s some brilliant member of this chamber, no doubt, who is anxious to read a different version of British Columbia’s history than the more standard and mundane.

If you can’t get Bowering’s, then you’ve got to get Margaret Ormsby, British Columbia: A History — 1958. Now, that was the history of British Columbia. I must tell the members assembled this morning that if you get the edition that I was able to this morning, with the help of the library, there’s a series of signatures in one of the inner pages: E.H. Fox, Ray Williston, a signature I can’t make, Willard Ireland, another signature I can’t make, another one I can’t make out and then L. Wallace, of course, and finally, at the bottom, Ken Kiernan.

Right in the front of the book is a little page inserted, and it says: “This copy of the first edition of British Columbia: A History by Margaret A. Ormsby is presented with the compliments of the British Columbia Centennial Committee.” So we have a first edition as the source of what I want to talk about this morning, to some extent, with respect to this bill and what rights and legal ramifications flow from it.

The legal suit, which was commenced by way of proceeding in B.C. Supreme Court back on May 30, 2013, in which the Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. company is plaintiff and then Her Majesty the Queen and various John Does are the defendants, arises out of that great era of expectation. To quote the American historian Richard Hofstadter, who said of America under Jackson that it was a nation of expectant capitalists, that was certainly the case in British Columbia. One of the considerations around the granting of these railway lands, of course, was the concern of the American influence, which was still fairly strong.

Ormsby comments, in talking about the southern part of British Columbia to which some of these land grants apply, that:

“During the Kootenay excitement” — as she referred to it — “the provincial government seemed to be interested in encouraging the building of any and every railway line except one from Kootenay over the Hope mountains to the seaboard. Entry into the mines was therefore denied Vancouver merchants and brokers, for the Dewdney Trail was now in disuse, and while access was possible from Revelstoke and Golden, transportation costs by this route were heavy.

“Meanwhile, Fritz Heinze, a copper magnate from Butte, was permitted to advance his plans to provide a smelter for Rossland or at Trail Creek. And Daniel C. Corbin, president of the Spokane Falls and Northern Railway” — those crafty Americans keeping an eye on Canada’s resources — “and owner of the Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway was allowed to join Rossland and Trail by track, commence the shipment of ore to the Trail smelter and direct commerce towards Spokane.

[1140]

“Not to be outdone, James J. Hill, who had a more than a little influence with the Turner government, elaborated plans to divert the wealth of the Kootenay and Boundary towards Tacoma.”

These railway grants were also about maintaining Canada’s nation and making sure those Yankee traders didn’t acquire too much of British Columbia’s wealth.

Ormsby goes on to comment at the same time…. Perhaps this isn’t necessarily reflective of what’s happening around liquid natural gas today. She says:

“The lobbying practices of railway promoters in British Columbia had now been refined into an art. A member of the assembly could hardly pass through the corridors leading to the legislative chamber without being buttonholed by a suppliant. There were rumours that the Canadian Pacific Railway had obtained the ear of the Premier himself.

“William Mackenzie and Donald Mann, who were suspected of having financial backing from the Great Northern Railway and who had hoped to obtain a generous subsidy to construct a line through northern British Columbia, had found friends to urge consideration of their cause.”
[ Page 4763 ]

We know that these grants were made at a time when British Columbia was about to expand and grow, and we had significant resources to exploit. These grants were all made between 1888 and 1896 to three companies — the Columbia and Western Railway Co., referred to as the C&W; the British Columbia Southern Railway Co.; and the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Co.

As a resident of Vancouver Island, indeed a native son, I say with great pride for the city I reside in now, everyone on the east coast of Vancouver Island is conscious of what land grants are all about, because most of us own our property subject, of course, to exceptions and reservations in favour of the E&N Railway and its successors. What that means is if the average British Columbian living on the east coast of Vancouver Island happens to discover gold or coal in the backyard, it isn’t theirs to exploit. It belongs to somebody else.

In many cases, that’s reverted to the Crown. But as in this bill before the Legislature, we are dealing with lands of a mixed nature — both Crown lands and private lands. As the member for Surrey-Newton has ably pointed out, in some cases, people have purchased those lands. Every once in a while, in a little legal practice in Nanaimo, you’ll run across a piece of property where the exceptions and reservations and the mineral rights are actually held by a private individual often long dead, often forgotten by their relatives and often not transferred for 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or even more years.

The complexity of those land grants, as reflected in this legislation, has provided legal difficulty through generations. I get the point of what the government is trying to do here. The CPR has figured out that having been given all this land — purchased it, I should say in fairness — through various acts, and those acts of the federal parliament actually ensuring that the property and rights would be transferred….

The CPR has been losing some stone and timber. My goodness, the CPR. Any of you in this chamber who have ancestors or family who lived in the Prairies of this country are obviously familiar with the famous symbol of the farmer shaking his fist. I won’t use the language, but let’s just say it’s something to the effect of: “So g.d. the CPR.”

There has been a great love affair both by citizens and historians of the role of the CPR in the creation of Canada and the binding of the nation, that ribbon of steel. Pierre Berton made a justified fortune with his two-volume history of building the CPR. Every Canadian has a romantic attachment, I think, to the railway. But those railways were created often by the most loathsome political practices associated with great corruption. Indeed, the CPR scandal led to the downfall of the Macdonald government for a period of time. There are always scandals.

Interjection.

[1145]

L. Krog: My friend asks if I’m talking 2002. I’m not even going to bring up B.C. Rail. It would be unfair of me to raise that issue in this House, because I know it would — how shall I say? — engender a certain sensitivity in the members opposite who are well familiar with how the taxpayers of British Columbia managed to pay the legal bills of two convicted criminals to the tune of $6 million; how a government managed to break one of its major campaign promises and turned around and got elected regardless, then managed to sell the patrimony of this province that W.A.C. Bennett in his wisdom sustained, supported by Dave Barrett and every sensible Premier in the history of this province since the ’50s.

They managed to sell one of our great assets at a price that they claim is so wonderful but which we well know, given historical terms and the desire to exploit resources of this province again, meant that when we were entering a period of incredible profitability in that railway, of course, it was gone and out of public hands.

Interjections.

L. Krog: It’s not my intention, notwithstanding the incredible encouragement I’m receiving from members, to stray too far from this, lest the Speaker rule me out of order — not a decision I wish to hear from the Speaker’s lips when I’m addressing a bill so interesting as the Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act.

I’ve digressed enough on the subject of B.C. Rail and scandal, but let me just say that what happened was scandalous in many respects. These enormous tracts of land were granted, as they were on the east coast of Vancouver Island, and created incredible profit. Speculators were stumbling out of every nook and cranny, hoping to get a piece of the action.

What we have today is a bill that’s trying to solve, again, an historic problem that arose out of that period of exploitation and greed — not dissimilar to the perhaps inflated dreams about the value of liquid natural gas to the future of this province.

We’re all assured that probably today — and I don’t wish to speculate too much — we’re going to see, finally, the liquid natural gas bill before the House. We’re going to find out exactly how much of British Columbia’s patrimony has been given away to try and solve and pay for a political promise.

This very legislation today is all about that. Nothing has changed in British Columbia. At the same time that everyone wanted a railway somewhere, of course, we entered into the great gold rush — the mentality that there was just a fortune to be made around the corner if you found the right claim and struck it rich. Everybody was going to get rich without great effort. It’s the story of British Columbia’s history.

Here we are with legislation now that’s trying to fix a problem that, you can argue, was created by the polit-
[ Page 4764 ]
icians of the day. But I think, in fairness, Ormsby pointed out very well in the passage I read that it was created by the lobbyists of the day — people who worked on behalf of special interests trying to persuade governments to engage in, essentially, giveaways of public resources, often for very little return.

Here we are, over 100 years down the road — actually 126, between the first grant to the Columbia and Western Railway Company, so 126 years down the road — now being forced to hand over even more money to another railway company to solve another political problem. It’s what I love about history. It’s like the law; it’s all about the precedent. We have this wonderful precedent again of making the same mistakes generation after generation.

Oh, did I mention that notwithstanding all the historical lessons we have learned about First Nations and how they, the original occupiers of the land, have been treated historically in this province…? Somehow I didn’t hear the minister, in his introduction, talk about that as an issue. Where’s the consultation process this time around? Surely in 126 years we’ve learned a little bit about consultation. Not clear to me that that’s happened.

[1150]

Where is consideration of the fact that some British Columbians, sort of lottery winners, almost, who actually paid to get their stone and timber rights — some of them considerable sums of money, the opposition is informed — are going to live cheek by jowl with their neighbours, who are going to get a big, happy merry Christmas gift from the B.C. Liberals trying to solve the problems of previous governments, who gave away too much in a spirit of corruption and silliness, if I may use that term, in the belief that if you gave away enough, somehow there would be some public benefit back?

Those neighbours are going to sit cheek by jowl, having paid for their stone and timber rights in order to get full and clear rights and title to their land, next door to somebody who gets the Christmas present from all of the other taxpayers of the province, all of us collectively. And, with great respect, I might say particularly for wealthier British Columbians, not enough of what they have…. But that’s a discussion for another day.

They’re going to get the Christmas present from the government with this legislation. They get the benefit of the full rights to their land without having to pay one solitary nickel for that benefit. That’s an issue I haven’t heard the minister address. That’s an issue I look forward to hearing from the minister when he comes to explain how this is right and fair.

Why is there not some scheme, at least, if the government is paying to acquire these rights which the government of a previous day…? And it wasn’t a socialist government, and it wasn’t a CCF government. It wasn’t our political ancestors on this side of the House that engaged in this giveaway. It was the political ancestors of the government. Why are they not being good traders and good business people and wise custodians of the public wealth and resources?

Why aren’t they settling this claim, taking an assignment of the rights at the same time — which is certainly part of the deal — and then going to all of those private land owners, who have received the benefit without having to pay anything for it, and saying: “By the way, if you want to have these rights…”? Let’s be reasonable. Depending on where you are, the rights to the stone on your property or the timber may be utterly meaningless in practice.

Saying to them: “Your neighbour paid fair market value for these rights. We expect you to pay something to the citizens of British Columbia, who have managed to solve what for you could be a significant legal problem when it comes to the transfer of your property to some other purchaser at some future date.”

What’s wrong with the concept that if we’re going to fork out $19 million…? I think that’s the figure. If the government’s going to fork over $19 million, what’s wrong with asking those people who are going to benefit from that expenditure to contribute something to that? After all, if they want to be made whole in the sense of having the full right and title to their lands, what’s wrong with the concept that they would contribute something specifically to that?

I mean, the subdivision in Nanaimo where my in-laws used to live, when they were alive, didn’t have underground services. Lovely subdivision, overlooks Departure Bay — but the developer of the day jammed through the quick and dirty and fast subdivision, as they did in those days. The city then offered to put the services underground, put in sidewalks, improve the roads, etc. But they would pay a special tax, a special levy over a period. I think it was 20 or 25 years. People in that subdivision said: “This is a good idea. We’re prepared to do this. We’re going to get a benefit, so we’re prepared to pay for it.”

My question then. What’s wrong with asking the question — at least as opposed to this bill, which will extinguish it: why shouldn’t there be some contribution? If nothing else, the government could take that money and pay itself back. If there’s a profit, they could go back to the very communities and parts of this province that are affected by this legislation and build a new community centre. They could build something for the public good.

I think there are many options for the government other than simply this bill, and I’m looking forward to hearing what the minister has to say with respect to the proposition that the general population shouldn’t be paying for a specific benefit to a portion of the population who in fact aren’t losing anything. They are simply going to gain something that they never had before, which is the full right and title to their land, the right to the stone and the right to the timber.

[1155]

What’s wrong with asking that? There’s no need for the
[ Page 4765 ]
legislation to go as far as it does. Let the province take it over, and let the province decide by policy what happens to the benefit once they’ve received it as part of this settlement.

I’m sure it’s not the CPR that’s saying: “We want to protect the private land owners.” I’m sure it’s not the CPR. That’s not their historical interest or practice.

A. Dix: They sued.

L. Krog: As my friend pointed out, they sued.

The CPR has a duty to its shareholders. Goodness knows, perhaps some of the members’ pension funds are invested in the CPR. One never knows. We’re all tied up in the nasty web.

But I note the hour, and wishing to reserve my right to say a few more words, I would move adjournment of the debate this morning.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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