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)

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 1

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

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: This week is International Education Week, and today we’re celebrating, here in British Columbia, our first offshore school in Japan. We had the pleasure of hosting Mr. Seiji Okada, the consul general of Japan, and a group of Japanese students who are here in Victoria earning their Dogwood.

These students are also accompanied by Laura McTavish, the English language learning coordinator for Victoria High School, and Jeff Davis, the vice-principal representative from the school and the international program in the Victoria school district. I ask the House to congratulate Mr. Okada and to welcome these students.

A. Weaver: I am pleased to introduce a class of 16 first-year law students here today from the University of Victoria. They’re here to learn about the legislative process and Hansard Services. They’re accompanied by their law, legislation and policy professor, Donna Greschner. Would the House please make them welcome.

Please also let me introduce Isaac Hordiyuk, a grade 12 student who is visiting the gallery today. He’s one of Canada’s top debaters, and he’s visiting here just for the single day, perhaps thinking about taking politics as a career path down the road. Would the House please make him welcome as well.

Last, but certainly not least…. And please, to all members here, don’t dissuade my young friend Isaac Hordiyuk from moving down the political career in the future. I’m sure he’s going to enjoy question period.

Finally, please let me introduce a remarkable group of talented young students from Glenlyon Norfolk School who have been actively engaged in Fin Free Victoria. Their names are Connor Bosenberg, Anastasia Castro, Lily Davies, Drake Erickson, Deandra Livora, Marissa Smithson, Caitlin Steves, Sofie Finn-Storan, Jasmyne Storm and John Windell. Together, they’re here with their teacher Margaret McCullough, who was a recent recipient of the prestigious Prime Minister’s Awards for Teaching Excellence. Would the House please make them welcome as well.

Hon. N. Letnick: If you come to Victoria and look at this wonderful building at night, I think one of the first things people remark on are all the little lights that are on the outside of the building. In the early ’30s, late-1920s some person was hired to do that job. He happened to be the grandfather of one of my guests here today, and that’s Walter Gray, the mayor of Kelowna.

Not only is Walter related to this wonderful building through his grandfather; of course, Walter served four terms as mayor of Kelowna. Unfortunately for the members in this House, he also inspired me to get into politics. But the good news is he inspired Colin Basran, who was elected mayor of Kelowna, to get into politics as well.

Walter, as we all know, is leaving political life in the city of Kelowna and has been named chair of ICBC. Would the House please make Walter very welcome.

B. Ralston: It’s my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a delegation of visitors from the state of Yucatan in Mexico. Joining us in the gallery this afternoon is René Arcila, who is the Auditor Superior, Supreme Audit Office of the state of Yucatan; Aida Canto, the legal director; Cecilia Aké, special auditor of performance audit and institutional development; and José Montalvo, the special auditor of financial compliance. With them also is the Auditor General of British Columbia.

This morning the delegation had a chance to engage in dialogue with the members of the Public Accounts Committee and are now in the gallery to observe the proceedings this afternoon. Would the House please join me in making them all very welcome.

J. Yap: I’d like to also join with the member for Surrey-Whalley in extending a warm welcome to the Auditor General, the Superior Auditor for the state of Yucatan, René Márquez Arcila, and his team. We had a wonderful meeting with them — members of the Public Accounts Committee — this morning and a wonderful lunch. Thank you, Madame Speaker, for hosting. Would the House please give a warm welcome to our friends from Yucatan.

[1340]

J. Shin: I have three very special introductions to make in the House today.

Firstly, today is my one and only brother Jimmy Shin’s birthday. For the last two decades he has been his sister’s keeper as he beat the 25 percent odds of being my perfect bone marrow transplant match. Would the House please wish Jimmy, the better child out of the two of us for my parents, a very happy birthday.

Secondly, joining us in the gallery today are my all-time favourite Korean Canadians. I’m the apple of their eyes, for better or for worse, and they also remind me that despite all of our differences on all sides of the House, we are all apples of somebody’s eyes, those who love us. Would the House please welcome my Momma
[ Page 5412 ]
Bear, Michelle Shin; my Poppa Bear, D.J. Shin; and my 88-year-young grandma, Ok Hyun Cho. Please make them feel very welcome.

Lastly, on November 15 Port Moody elected a young, energetic Korean Canadian into their school board who knocked on 10,000 doors not once but twice to earn the confidence of the electorate. At a time when campaigning seems to have belittled into mass advertising and sometimes character assassinations, I really thank her for setting that positive tone that it doesn’t have to be that way.

She’s here with her parents, Sun Keum Hwang and Sang Keun Park, and her most incredible volunteer, Yu Min Lee. Would the members please congratulate and welcome our brand-new school trustee Lisa Ka Young Park.

Hon. M. de Jong: When you enter the Finance Minister’s office, the first person you will meet is a remarkably bright, articulate and hard-working young lady named Alexandria Garcia. Yes, things deteriorate as you move further into the office. Alexandria is in the chamber for the first time watching question period, and I know all members will make her feel welcome.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the chamber Daniel Dian. He’s a grade 7 student who is here with us today. He attends Scott Creek Middle School. His interests include public speaking and politics. In 2014 he won the community public speaking contest for his age group. For his research on and fascination with politics he recently interviewed a number of politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister James Moore and me. His essay was published in a number of newspapers.

He has also received, I think, in 2013 the highest distinction in Royal Conservatory piano exams, having successfully completed four levels up to now. He’s considering a future in law and views himself as a future Prime Minister.

When you meet kids like Daniel, you certainly realize that we’re going to be in very good hands. We have a very bright future here in British Columbia. I’d ask that the House please make Daniel and his mother, Sheila, welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WHISTLER ATHLETES CENTRE

J. Sturdy: Today I rise to talk about the Whistler Athletes Centre and the role it plays in fostering elite sport not just in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky but throughout British Columbia and Canada.

The Athletes Centre was at the core of the Whistler Olympic village during the 2010 games, and it hosted competitors from the Nordic, alpine and sliding disciplines. Today the facility is the epicentre of athlete development and training in the Sea to Sky and provides year-round, state-of-the-art facilities for high-performance athletes. The centre’s amenities include a fully equipped 4,000-square-foot gym, a 5,000-square-foot gymnastics hall, recovery rooms, a physiology testing room — all designed to be a one-stop shop for some of the world’s best athletes.

This fall the centre hosted the Canadian Sport Institute Pacific’s Podium Search. I was pleased to be able to attend the event, which saw 27 athletes between the ages of 14 and 22 take part in a talent identification camp.

[1345]

This free event tests athletes between 14 and 22, aspiring athletes, for sports performance at the highest level. It connects them with coaches, sports representatives and former Olympians who are passionate about developing youth through sport. It introduces them to high-performance environments and gives them a chance to test their skills against current national team standards.

The Athletes Centre was a perfect venue for the event, and at the end of Podium Search 14 participants were invited to further their athletic development. Podium Search is planned again for next spring, both in Whistler and around the province, and I expect we’ll see even more enthusiastic youth in attendance.

Facilities like the Athletes Centre are a lasting legacy of the 2010 games. They’ve turned British Columbia into a premier hosting and training destination and allowed homegrown talent to pursue their dreams and ambitions. I’m sure we’ll see some of the alumni this spring at the Canada Winter Games in Prince George from February 13 to March 1.

KITSILANO NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

D. Eby: This past weekend more than 2,500 people helped warm the freshly renovated home of the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House, an institution many of us affectionately refer to as the heart of our community. My family and I were excited to take part in the celebration, where we saw reunions of decades-old relationships formed as part of the Whistling Shrimp café crew. We also saw new friendships deepen at the neighbourhood youth talent show. It will be looked back on fondly years from now.

Kits Neighbourhood House has as fascinating a history as it has a promising future. At the opening of Kits House in 1974 many, including the mayor, worried that the facility would become a crash pad for hippies. Arguably, it did. But it also evolved to become the heart of the community, a vital meeting place helping to combat isolation and empower people in our diverse and rapidly changing neighbourhood.

Greenpeace had some of its first meetings at Kits
[ Page 5413 ]
House. Organizers at Kits House also founded in the late ’70s what was then an innovative program aimed at reconnecting people with disabilities to the community. One of the first beneficiaries of their efforts, a young woman with cerebral palsy, flourished, ultimately winning a medal in what was then called the International Wheelchair Olympics.

On this foundation the new, renovated facility has improved child care space as well as low-cost housing, all seamlessly integrated into three buildings which preserve heritage yet flow together as one, thanks to the efforts of the builders and architect Sean McEwen.

The programs and initiatives from Kits House are too numerous to list. There are arts groups, theatre companies, family drop-ins, seniors groups, community kitchens, conversation circles, pocket markets — something for everybody. These programs bring together and improve the lives of the community through a shared feeling of neighbourliness. I, for one, am happy and proud to have them as my neighbours.

Thank you to all of the staff and volunteers of the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House for your efforts to make this heart of our community beat every day.

B.C. YOUNG FARMERS ASSOCIATION

D. Plecas: It may come as a surprise to many, but the average age of a farmer in British Columbia is 55 years old. I’m talking old. I’m saying this, asking all the young people in the gallery to be attentive to this, because if nothing else, that should tell us we simply do not have enough people taking on a career in agriculture.

That, of course, among other things, should be important to us because of our concern about food safety. But to help the situation, a fantastic group of enthusiastic individuals, numbering about 250, have banded together to form the British Columbia Young Farmers Association. Their motto is “Keeping farming alive with the next generation.”

The B.C. Young Farmers promotes youth participation in agriculture through a number of different programs, including the annual B.C. Young Farmer award, which recognizes young people who participate in the Fraser Valley Regional Science Fair. The B.C. Young Farmers also supports its members by holding special events such as Farm Fest. This year, that featured a tour of the newly opened University of the Fraser Valley Agriculture Centre of Excellence.

This organization also encourages members to participate in knowledge exchange events that promote advice and information on how to improve farm operations. They also provide support to young farmers through webinars, networking events and access to technical publications.

I would ask all of us, then, in this House to join me in acknowledging the great work done by this organization to encourage more young people to have farming as a career.

[1350]

MULTICULTURALISM

J. Shin: This week, the third week of November, B.C. is celebrating Multiculturalism Week.

Multiculturalism is honoured by law through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act from 1988, in section 27 from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as by the B.C. Multiculturalism Act from 1993 to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government which shall foster a society in which there are no impediments to the full and free participation in the economic, political, social and cultural life.

Canadian multiculturalism is the envy of many countries around the world. It is considered a distinguishing element of what defines our Canadian identity and one of our most significant accomplishments as a society. We can attribute our cultural pluralism to immigration, although during the 1800s and early 1900s the ethnic groups faced barriers in Canada such as unequal pay and without a right to vote. These legislative restrictions were amended in the late 20th century, resulting in an influx of diverse people.

Currently Canada welcomes approximately a quarter million immigrants every year from over 200 countries, making us one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the world, and 40 percent of Canadians are either of the first or the second generation, with one out of five Canadians not born in the country.

As we go from observing the Remembrance Day last week to celebrating multiculturalism this week, we must ask ourselves: when all the tributes are said and the ceremonies are celebrated, how are we any different and how have we changed?

How about one less road rage, one more apology, one less mudslinging, maybe, and one more thank-you? It doesn’t take a miracle for a better world, and I respectfully challenge each of us to do something now and tomorrow that’s with a little more thoughtfulness, a little more kindness and, perhaps, starting with the question period today.

SOCIAL NEEDS OF SENIORS AND
ASK FRIENDSHIP SOCIETY

Moira Stilwell: Our province’s seniors are healthier, more independent and living longer than ever, but for many older people, loneliness and isolation are on the rise. In fact, recently researchers at the University of Chicago found that loneliness can be twice as harmful to the elderly’s health as obesity.

A sense of fellowship is vital to seniors’ quality of life, particularly for those who are suffering from chron-
[ Page 5414 ]
ic illness or unable to meet their own social needs. It’s vital that they remain engaged and connected with their community, and that’s exactly what the ASK Friendship Society aims to do.

ASK — or Arbutus, Shaughnessy and Kerrisdale — is one of the many adult daycare programs available throughout the Lower Mainland. Their mission is to provide opportunities that enhance quality of life through programs that offer seniors fitness training, nutrition planning, health monitoring, personal care and friendship.

ASK believes that by helping seniors stay active and social and by providing opportunities to learn new things, they can build a sense of community, improve their mental and physical health, and keep them living independently in their own homes and, thus, out of our health care system.

I was able to tour the society’s facility earlier this month and saw firsthand the difference it makes in the lives of clients. The ASK Friendship Society is an invaluable resource for our community. I want to thank Christine Stardom, the executive director, as well all of the staff, volunteers and caregivers who work so hard to ensure that the social needs of Vancouver seniors are met.

While aging is inevitable, the ASK Friendship Society proves you don’t have to do it alone.

STUDENT ACTION ON SHARK PROTECTION
AND FIN FREE VICTORIA

A. Weaver: Today I’d like to speak to you about the importance of the youth voice in our society. I’d like to illustrate this by focusing specifically on the efforts of a remarkably talented group of young students from Glenlyon Norfolk School who are being featured in a documentary entitled Child of Nature, produced by Enigma Films under contract with Warner Brothers.

Sharks have been present in our oceans for over 400 million years. They’ve survived earth’s five great extinction events, including times when up to 80 percent of all marine species were wiped out. But they are struggling now in the anthropocene, the sixth great extinction event, because of a cruel and wasteful process known as shark-finning.

In February 2012 Rob Stewart, director of the film Sharkwater, gave a powerful presentation to Glenlyon Norfolk School. He inspired and motivated the students in the room, and they became determined to do what they could to make people aware of the plight of the world shark population.

Together with their teacher Mrs. Margaret McCullough, these students set up a not-for-profit known as Fin Free Victoria. This incredibly passionate and articulate group of young students has worked tirelessly for several years. They’ve visited numerous municipalities and businesses in Victoria, Vancouver, Richmond and elsewhere on Vancouver Island.

[1355]

They’ve given presentations to restaurant groups. They’ve collected signatures on petitions. They’ve conducted media interviews. They’ve participated in press conferences. They’ve met with municipal councillors as well as with provincial and federal politicians, some of whom are in the room today. At all times they’ve done so with the deepest respect for, and sensitivity to, British Columbia’s diversified cultural heritage.

This group of young students has been so effective that shark fin soup has disappeared from the menus of all Victoria restaurants. “Fin-free” stickers are proudly displayed instead. The same is true for a growing number of establishments in Richmond and Vancouver, thanks in part to the collaborative efforts of Fin Free Victoria.

It gives me hope and inspiration to see the youth of today so engaged in such important societal issues. While we in this room ultimately represent the decision-making generation, it is their generation that will have to live with the consequences of our decisions. Each and every one of us should reflect upon that from time to time.

Oral Questions

CABINET APPOINTMENTS

K. Corrigan: My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier stand by the appointments she has made to the provincial cabinet since becoming Premier?

Hon. C. Clark: When I get a chance to look up and down the rows of the men and women who sit with me in this Legislature in cabinet and out of cabinet, I get a chance to reflect on the incredible dedication of, as the member from Oak Bay said, people who think about the future, who are remembering every single day that the decisions we make are not just ones we will live with ourselves but ones that the future generations, our children and grandchildren, will live with every day.

With an eye firmly on the future, I am surrounded by an exceptional group of men and women who work hard every day to build a prosperous future for British Columbia, one that will guarantee that people can build the kind of fulfilling lives that they hope to have, no matter where they live in the province, and that will ensure we can always continue to support those social programs which count us as Canadians and which we hold so dear.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

CABINET APPOINTMENT OF HARRY BLOY
AND RELATIONSHIP WITH PREMIER

K. Corrigan: When the Premier appointed Mr. Harry Bloy to her cabinet on March 14, 2011, it was because the Premier knew him pretty well. Is that correct?
[ Page 5415 ]

Hon. C. Clark: You know, appointing a cabinet is one of the most difficult tasks that any Premier faces and also one of the most important tasks, thinking about — as I have with every one of the men and women who sit with me here today — their specific skills, what they can bring to the table, how they can make a difference for the future of British Columbia, making sure that the regions of our province are represented, ensuring that there is a balance so that it reflects the population of our province appropriately.

I cannot say enough, Madame Speaker, to you and to this House and to the people of British Columbia how proud I am of the dedication, the forward-looking nature, the hard work and the sacrifice that every single one of these cabinet ministers makes every day. We are not all perfect; that is certain. Nobody in the world is. But I can tell you I have never worked with a group of men and women about whom I am more proud.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: In March 2011 the Premier gave Mr. Bloy a cabinet minister’s duties and a big cabinet minister’s salary. To the Premier, is she unwilling to stand here today…? She knew Mr. Bloy pretty well when she appointed him?

[1400]

Hon. C. Clark: I have a feeling that this line of questioning is not going to end here. I have a feeling that the members of the opposition have a plan, a series of questions that they’re going to put, and they hope that at this early stage they’ll find a way to ensure that it’s as embarrassing as possible for the government.

All I can say is this. In terms of the cabinet that sits here with us today and the majority members of this Legislature who make up our caucus, who British Columbians elected and in many cases re-elected to send back to Victoria to represent them, we have men and women who are dedicated to creating a prosperous future for British Columbia, working hard to make sure our kids have the future that they deserve.

These men and women are the men and women that British Columbians chose to serve in their government, to run this province, because they believed and had confidence that we would do the right thing and build a great future.

S. Robinson: The Premier chose to put Mr. Bloy in cabinet. Mr. Bloy had been in Gordon Campbell’s caucus for about ten years, but Mr. Campbell never saw fit to put Mr. Bloy in cabinet. What was it that the Premier saw in Mr. Bloy in March 2011 that made her give him a cabinet minister’s duties and a big minister’s salary?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m hoping at some point that, as one member said, we can get to the last chapter of this story sooner rather than later. And I also hope that that last chapter includes some questions about the current cabinet and what we’re doing in British Columbia.

But let me say this. I do note that of all of the decisions that have been made about cabinet, British Columbians were pretty clear in the last election not to send any of those members to sit in cabinet in this Legislature.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: This question is to the Premier. Mr. Bloy was the only member of the then Liberal caucus to publicly support her in her 2011 campaign to become Premier. Is that part of the reason why she appointed him to her cabinet?

Hon. C. Clark: We’re at chapter 5, and we still don’t have any questions for the current cabinet. I have to assume that the question bank for the opposition’s research group is running a little bit low. I know at some point they will have an opportunity to ask about the current business of government and people who are currently sitting in cabinet — a group of which I could not be more proud.

Of course, if they don’t have any questions about the current workings of government, perhaps they could ask the leader of the Green Party to get up. I know he’s always got something smart to say.

APPOINTMENT OF BRIAN BONNEY AS
GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

M. Karagianis: Well, I do have a question for the current Premier. On October 27, 2011, the Premier appointed Mr. Brian Bonney as a director in the government communications and public engagement office, also known as GCPE. This question is to the Premier. When the Premier appointed Mr. Bonney as a director, it was because she knew him quite well. Am I correct?

Hon. C. Clark: Chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 — 6 we’re at now. I’m really hoping that the members will get to questions about what the government’s currently doing.

I would note that there was an election between the time the member is examining and now and lots of chance for the public to think about, based on all the questions and all the things that they knew that were going on, who they wanted to serve in the cabinet.

[1405]

I can say I am very pleased with the people that are serving in this cabinet and, again, happy to note that the people of British Columbia were quite resounding in their decision that no one sitting on that side of the House deserved to sit in cabinet.
[ Page 5416 ]

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: On October 27, 2011, when the Premier appointed Mr. Bonney as a GCPE director, he had previously spent six years as operations director of her B.C. Liberal Party. Now, I don’t know why the Premier doesn’t want to answer questions about Mr. Bonney, but in October 2011 when she appointed him it was in part because the Premier knew Mr. Bonney had been a B.C. Liberal Party director. Am I correct in that?

Hon. C. Clark: Question period is valuable time for the opposition, and it’s valuable time for the public. It’s a chance in our democratic process for members of the opposition to hold the government to account for the things that we’re doing today, to talk about the decisions that we’re making. It’s a legitimate forum to do that.

You know, I know we’re at chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 now. I am hoping that at some point we can get to the end of this story and get on with talking about some of the issues that are of such pertinent importance to the future of British Columbia, the reasons that the people of British Columbia selected this party and this government to represent them. They want a prosperous future, and we want to deliver that.

WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HARRY BLOY AND BRIAN BONNEY

S. Hammell: In 2009 Mr. Bonney managed Mr. Bloy’s campaign in Burnaby-Lougheed. In 2011 Mr. Bloy was the only MLA to support the Premier’s leadership. The Premier gave Bloy his first-ever cabinet post and made Mr. Bonney a GCPE director. The Premier knew the connection between Mr. Bonney and Mr. Bloy. Is that not correct?

Hon. C. Clark: At this point I feel like I’m obliged to say that I think in this question period we have never seen a better and stronger argument for official party status for the Greens.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: To the Premier, if the Premier was aware at the time of a close connection between her cabinet appointee, Mr. Bloy, and her GCPE appointment, Mr. Bonney, was a deliberate decision made that Mr. Bonney’s job in GCPE was to work on multiculturalism with Mr. Bloy?

Hon. C. Clark: Okay, so chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — chapter 9 in the book. I think the member may have got her files mixed up. These questions were canvassed quite extensively, I should note, before the election in full view of the public by members of the opposition. I think she’s probably gone back in her files and pulled out something from 2011 or 2012. They may want to pay their writers more. They could get some new questions rather than using ones that are three years old.

APPOINTMENT OF BRIAN BONNEY AS
GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

M. Mungall: On October 27, 2011, when the Premier appointed Mr. Bonney as a GCPE director, it was in part because she knew that Mr. Bonney had been a public supporter of her leadership campaign and to be Premier. Is that correct?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: You know, I think I’ve answered those questions, the quite long list of questions. And in between the time when these issues were last canvassed in the House, we had an election, and in that election British Columbians decided that they wanted the folks on this side of the House to have their hand, a steady hand, on the tiller, to create prosperity for the future. They looked at the folks on that side of the House, and they decided to consign them again to opposition.

What happened in that election? In that election, this opposition stood up every day and said: “We want to spend more money, but we don’t want to grow the economy to pay for it.”

Since then they’ve said, “Oh gee, we don’t believe in…. We think that we want to balance the budget,” but it’s that member who stood up and said: “I think our provincial government can do better. If you want to know what we’d do, go look at our 2013 election platform.” She said that in October 2014.

So my question for her is this. Does the NDP stand by all of those massive spending promises that they made in the last election? Do they continue to stand by that? Is that their continuing policy? Rather than talking about things that happened before the election on which people had a chance to decide, maybe that member can stand up and solve for us some of the mysteries about where she actually stands on the future of this province.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Mr. Bonney publicly supported the Premier’s leadership campaign. He bragged to the media that he had sent out 2,000 e-mails urging people to vote for her.

It’s a simple question. I hope the Premier will answer it. Can she stand in this House today and truthfully say that when she appointed Mr. Bonney as GCPE director, she was not aware of his role in her leadership campaign?
[ Page 5417 ]

Hon. C. Clark: I think if the member has an allegation she’d like to make, she should make it. I think the members of the opposition, rather than standing up here in this kind of theatrical farce…. Just get the end of the book and let us know what’s going on. And if they’re not prepared to do that, maybe the member can tell us which ones of her election promises she’s prepared to jettison or if she stands beside all of them.

While the budget committee came back with NDP members saying that they expect to have a balanced budget, this member says that the NDP continued to support the almost $2 billion in new spending. Which is it? Do they want a balanced budget, or do they want to stand by all those election promises that would have meant digging into taxpayers’ pockets for $2 billion more?

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY
AND STAFF ROLE AND CHANGES

L. Krog: On December 1, 2011, in these very precincts the Premier’s longtime friend and deputy chief of staff chaired a meeting on a multiculturalism strategy. The attendees at Ms. Kim Haakstad’s meeting included the Premier’s appointee Mr. Bonney, the Premier’s appointee Pamela Martin, B.C. Liberal caucus staff and B.C. Liberal Party staff. To the Premier, she agrees, does she not, that the December 1, 2011, meeting occurred just as I described it now?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I mean, I understand regret. We’ve all had losses in our lives and things that we regret and things that we wish we’d done differently. I take it that the members didn’t feel like they adequately canvassed all these issues during the many months that we were in the Legislature a couple of years ago, and during the election campaign they didn’t feel like it, so now they want to consume a question period talking about those things again.

I think we could be serving British Columbians better by talking about things that are germane to today. How is it that the government has balanced two budgets in a row? How is it that we have managed to cut alcohol-related road deaths in half?

[1415]

How is it that we’ve seen trade with China go up by 1,900 percent — a 20-fold increase? How is it that we, despite the opposition wanting to run up the white flag, managed to negotiate a fair and affordable settlement with the teachers of British Columbia? It’s because this cabinet is working hard. It’s because this caucus is serving their constituents. It’s because this B.C. Liberal government is making British Columbians proud.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: They’re simple questions. I’m sure the Premier could focus enough today on giving a simple answer to a simple question.

On December 1, 2011, the day of this strategy meeting, Ms. Haakstad’s senior colleagues in the Premier’s office included the Premier’s appointee, Deputy Minister Athana Mentzelopoulos. To the Premier, will the Premier confirm this — that Ms. Mentzelopoulos was Ms. Haakstad’s Premier’s office colleague when the December 1, 2011, strategy meeting was held?

Hon. C. Clark: Finally the opposition has stumbled across the name of someone who still works in these precincts.

I understand that the opposition, perhaps, wishes that they had approached the election differently and that their arguments about some of these issues were accepted by the public in the election. But these issues were talked about very extensively in this Legislature, outside of it and then during the election campaign.

British Columbians decided to choose a government that they felt would best serve their interests — one that would stand up for economic prosperity; one that would build a liquefied natural gas industry in our province, support our resource sector squarely; one that would make sure that we are creating a prosperity fund to pay down the debt for our children and keep taxes low.

Despite all of these issues having been raised, British Columbians said they wanted this government to serve them. That’s why we’re here today, and that’s why when British Columbians spoke in the election, we took them seriously. We’re going to keep those promises, and we are going to deliver a prosperous future for the people of British Columbia.

D. Eby: On the topic of the Premier’s senior political appointees, on December 1, 2011, the day that Ms. Haakstad got the government’s quick-win strategy underway, the Premier’s appointee, Mr. Sweeney, was the deputy minister of government communications. Will the Premier confirm that Mr. Sweeney was her appointed head of government communications on December 1, 2011?

Hon. C. Clark: I can say I am really very, very proud of the men and the women that I work with, both on the political side and in our civil service. We have all worked together to make sure we are really building a prosperous future for the province.

Of over $236 billion in proposed projects now in British Columbia, $82 billion of those are already underway, putting people across the province to work. B.C.’s unemployment rate is at 6.1 percent — well below the national average, the fourth lowest in the country.

Since the release of the B.C. jobs plan, $7.2 billion in economic expansion has gotten underway, including $3.9 billion last year, and 71,500 net new jobs since the incep-
[ Page 5418 ]
tion of the B.C. jobs plan. That’s what people voted for, and that’s what we’re delivering.

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

D. Eby: A simple question. The Premier made an interesting switch just two weeks after Ms. Haakstad’s quick-win meeting. On December 16, 2011, the Premier moved Mr. Sweeney from government communications to Ms. Mentzelopoulos’ position in the Premier’s office and vice versa.

To the Premier, she swapped Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Mentzelopoulos into each other’s former position, didn’t she? Yes or no.

[1420]

Hon. C. Clark: Madame Speaker, I hope with the long and theatrical run-up to this that by the time we get to the member for Port Coquitlam and his question, it’s a really, really good one.

N. Macdonald: As head of the GCPE, starting December 16, 2011, Ms. Mentzelopoulos became Mr. Bonney’s GCPE boss. That’s Mr. Bonney, the Premier’s leadership campaign supporter; the Premier’s appointed GCPE director, who had been on the job just eight weeks; the GCPE director who had just attended Ms. Haakstad’s initial quick-wins meeting.

Can the Premier confirm that when she appointed Ms. Mentzelopoulos as the deputy of GPCE, she made her responsible for, among other people, Mr. Bonney?

Hon. C. Clark: Okay, so by my count — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12…. Maybe that’s one more to go until we finally get to the big money question from the member for Port Coquitlam. I’ll wait and see what he has in store.

Madame Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: In December 2011 the Premier moved Mr. Sweeney to her office and put Ms. Mentzelopoulos in charge of Mr. Bonney in the GCPE. One might expect that Mr. Sweeney was obliged to brief his replacement, Ms. Mentzelopoulos, on GCPE’s newest file — say, those files originating in the Premier’s office itself.

The question to the Premier, in December 2011, did she instruct or expect that Mr. Sweeney would brief his replacement on the files GCPE was working on with the Premier’s office?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, I know the opposition does some thinking about question period before they come, and they write the questions in advance. I mean, in this case they’re three years old, but nonetheless, they wrote them in advance. They’re reusing them — reduce, reuse, recycle. I completely get that. I understand it. Maybe the leader of the Green Party would appreciate this line of questioning in question period.

But you know, there are a lot of issues that British Columbians are thinking about. This is a very legitimate forum for the opposition to be able to put those questions forward. I also do some thinking about question period beforehand, and I had thought that members might have some very vital questions about education, vital questions about what’s going on with Mount Polley, vital questions about what’s going on with the coroner’s inquest in Burns Lake and for the Lake Babine mill.

What about questions with respect to ferries and some of the questions that they’ve raised publicly with Seaspan? All of those are issues that we would be very, very happy to talk about in question period. I hope that at some point we can get to those questions so the NDP can prove that although they are in opposition, they do at least have something relevant left to say.

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY
INVESTIGATION REPORT

S. Simpson: We know that in the Premier’s office there was a meeting around an office strategy. It was attended by the GCPE director. Two weeks later the Premier swaps out the GCPE deputy and her Premier’s office deputy. We have to assume that they talked to each other.

We know that the results of that was quick-wins. The Premier asked her deputy, Mr. John Dyble, to review the quick-wins scandal. She said the goal was to be “absolutely sure” and that there was “no sharing of resources between the government and the party” and that “it should never happen.”

To the Premier, does she consider Mr. Dyble’s March 14 report to be thorough and complete on the issue of sharing resources between the government and the party?

[1425]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: If ever there was proof that the opposition in British Columbia is struggling to find its identity and figure out what it stands for, it must be found in this line of questioning in question period today. They will have to change their name from the NDP to the Irrelevant Party one of these days soon.

They on the one hand say they want a balanced budget, and then they also say that they want to continue with their plan to spend $2 billion more in taxpayer’s money. They say they support LNG, but then they say they don’t
[ Page 5419 ]
support fracking. They say they support mining, and then they attack it every single day. This is an opposition without an identity, it’s an opposition without a plan, and it’s an opposition without principles. If there is every any proof of that, it is this question period today.

Now, Madame Speaker, I give you and this House the final questioner, getting to the point, the member for Port Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: What we’ve witnessed from the Premier is a refusal to answer basic questions on an issue that has been of importance to British Columbians and an issue that has seen two people close to her, appointments that she’s responsible for as head of the executive council, going to appear in court.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member says I’m out of order. Well, I’ll tell you what’s out of order: a Premier that doesn’t want to answer the most basic questions put to her in this House.

We’ve been talking about Mr. Bonney, Mr. Bloy, Ms. Haakstad, Mr. Sweeney, Ms. Mentzelopoulos. They’re the Premier’s people. They weren’t inherited. No one forced them upon this government. Two of those operatives and the company they own are facing charges for Election Act violations. According to the special prosecutor, there may be more to come.

But the question I’m putting to the Premier that I’d like an answer for is Mr. Dyble. Mr. Dyble had before him quick-wins-related e-mails from Mr. Bonney’s Mainland Communication account and quick-wins-related e-mails in the B.C. Liberal Party director Mark Robertson’s Mainland Communication account, but Mr. Dyble did not make any mention of Mainland in his report, even though it was involving quick wins and is co-owned by the Premier’s GCPE appointee and by a director of the Premier’s Liberal Party.

So perhaps the Premier can answer this. Does the Premier have any explanation for why Mr. Dyble failed to report to the public about a company run by her appointee, Mr. Bonney, and by her party’s Mr. Robertson?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I have to say I’m disappointed. After all of that run-up, a half-hour of question period, asking the same question again and again, they finally get to the punchline, and it just wasn’t that good.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake rose on a point of privilege. On October 6 the member had reserved her right to bring forth a matter of privilege. The Chair also heard a submission of the Government House Leader on Thursday, November 6, 2014, on the same matter. I would like to thank members for their submissions, which I have carefully reviewed.

In essence, the member’s point of privilege is based on what she terms as the deliberate misleading of the House on March 5, 2014, by the Minister of Advanced Education in his response to a question by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey respecting executive compensation at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

[1430]

To support the point of privilege, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake provided a report titled Kwantlen Polytechnic University: A Compensation Review, dated June 13, 2014, prepared by Rob Mingay, assistant deputy minister, labour relations, public sector employers council secretariat, Ministry of Finance.

The report reviewed compensation offered or paid by Kwantlen Polytechnic University to members of the executive. The report acknowledges that the minister was one of several individuals who provided information in support of this inquiry.

The Chair was unable to determine — following a reading of the report, a reading of the question by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the response of the minister — that a prima facie breach of privilege has been made out.

What there undoubtedly is before the Chair is a dispute by members on the interpretation of facts. Neither the report provided by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake nor the exchange in this chamber offers evidence that the minister sought to deliberately mislead the House with his remarks on March 5.

Breaches of privilege involve the protection of members from impediments to their functioning as Members of the Legislative Assembly, whereas contempts of the House are, broadly speaking, offences against the dignity and authority of the House itself. This strict definition of privilege or contempt cannot be expanded to include controversies as to facts and opinions or, in the case, differing opinions or conclusions on the interpretation of reports.

The point raised by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake appears to be more a matter of debate than it is one of privilege or contempt. Members will know that it has been a longstanding practice in this House that an hon. member’s statement is accepted by the House in the absence of indisputable evidence to the contrary. This practice is well described in the decision of Speaker Schroeder of April 13, 1982, which is cited in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fourth edition, at page 351.

Indeed, there must be prima facie evidence that the minister deliberately misled the House. This requirement
[ Page 5420 ]
of evidence to the House as being deliberately misled is described in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, at page 111, and in Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 224.

In this case, there is no such evidence in possession of the Chair, and accordingly, the application by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake fails.

I thank members for their attention.

Petitions

A. Weaver: I have a petition to submit. It’s a petition to ban shark fin products in the province of British Columbia. There are 528 names on this petition, and it was brought to my attention by the young children that I discussed today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage on Bill 8, protected areas.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 8; M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. M. Polak: Just to introduce the two staff that I have with me, to my right is Ken Morrison, our manager of planning, and to my left, Jim Standen, our assistant deputy minister in charge of parks and the conservation officer service.

R. Austin: Before asking questions in committee stage, I’d just like to give those who are watching or those who are going to read Hansard a little bit of background to this bill, if they didn’t watch the debate yesterday in second reading.

This bill, Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, is an extremely short bill. It consists of two sections, the first of which is a long list of coordinates that detail a pipeline route. The second section of this bill is simply announcing when this bill would come into effect.

It’s unfortunate that people who are listening or watching perhaps don’t have access to a map, but if they want to contact my office or the minister’s office, they can perhaps get access to some links which would show them the potential route or pipeline that we’re talking about here and the part of the Memorial Lava Bed Park that’s being removed. I just wanted to give that so that people understand the questions and put them into context.

With that, I’d like to ask the minister if she could please elaborate on what potential other routes were considered that either did not have impacts on the Memorial Lava Bed Park or took a different route through the park.

Hon. M. Polak: There were a number of different routes considered. There were six conceptual routes that were evaluated by the company, including the one that we are dealing with today at the end.

Three routes were considered that avoided the park entirely. These included a marine route through Alice Arm and Portland Inlet, a route through the Kiteen Valley and a route north of the Nass River. They also examined two more southerly route options, known as the Alder Peak route and the south lava bed route, both of which would impact the park to some extent.

[1440]

I’m just trying to get to the nub of this here so you don’t get too much extraneous information or unnecessary…. In landing on this route…. Ultimately, it’s worth noting that this route has fewer water course crossings in comparison to the south lava bed route. Of course, as has been discussed in the debate in second reading, the current route choice follows quite closely the route of the highway — which, of course, tends to lessen the level of disturbance that will occur in the park.

R. Austin: The minister noted in her brief that B.C.’s protected areas have a very high level of protection, and decisions to make boundary adjustments are not taken lightly. That being the case, what was the criteria that was used to justify this particular decision in removing these 12 kilometres from the park?

Hon. M. Polak: Each one of these processes, or each one of these decisions, follows along the provincial protected area boundary adjustment policy process and guidelines document, which has been in place since about 2000.

It sets out the principle, first of all, that boundary adjustments may be considered where there are compelling provincial economic, social and environmental benefits to be realized from the proposed boundary change. Every proposal includes an assessment of the environmental, social and economic impacts and benefits that may result from the proposed boundary change.

All those applications have to consider alternatives for avoiding the park. The information is then considered alongside the outcomes of First Nation and public consultation in deciding whether or not the boundary adjustment should proceed.
[ Page 5421 ]

In addition, in this case, to considerations set out in that boundary policy and process and guidelines, I also, of course, considered the wishes of the Nisga’a Lisims Government in leading up to the place we are today here in the Legislature.

A tremendous amount of back-and-forth discussion has taken place involving the company, involving Nisga’a and involving government to arrive at striking the right balance in terms of where the boundary adjustment would take place or if, indeed, it should take place.

R. Austin: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I realize that this amendment will only come into effect once the full environmental assessment certificate has been approved under the law. My question: if there is no final investment decision with regards to the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, will this amendment still come into effect, in any case?

[1445]

Hon. M. Polak: We have committed that this will not take effect unless and until the regulatory approvals are granted.

In addition to that, in order for the boundary adjustment to be complete there needs to be an amendment to the Nisga’a final agreement. I am given to understand in discussions with Nisga’a that the amending agreement to the Nisga’a final agreement will contain terms and conditions to ensure that this boundary amendment does not take effect unless the project proceeds.

R. Austin: Further to my previous question, can I ask the minister…? If indeed the project specified by this amendment does not take place, but another company chooses to, for example, build an LNG facility elsewhere on the coast — for example, within Nisga’a territory itself….

I think the minister is probably aware that the Nisga’a have visited Asia and have attempted to show specific sites within the Nisga’a core lands that could be used for an LNG plant. If the Pacific NorthWest was not to have a go, and they were to pull back for whatever reason, could this pipeline route then come into effect to further an LNG facility elsewhere?

Hon. M. Polak: First, just a clarification in that the issue isn’t so much whether or not another company could do that. Another company could be taking over the same project. If that was the case…. For example, the member will be aware that very often environmental assessment certificates are granted to one company, and then another company purchases the project. They still have the certificate with the project.

If it was a different project…. I suppose one couldn’t say it’s absolutely impossible, but it would be close to impossible, because if it’s a different project, then there would have to be an entirely new environmental assessment process. There would have to be entirely new discussions with Nisga’a, and, again, the Nisga’a final agreement amendment will have provisions with respect to the project itself proceeding.

While I don’t think we can say with 100 percent certainty that that’s not possible, I would say it’s in the range of 99.9 percent.

[1450]

R. Austin: I take it, then, that this pipeline route is specific to the project on Lelu Island. If that was to never happen and there was to be one further north on the coast, then obviously I take it that there would have to be a completely different bill brought forward and a different amendment. Okay.

The bill also notes that the section that’s going through the Memorial Lava Bed Park has a right-of-way of approximately 32 metres on either side of this pipeline route in order to construct it.

Can I ask the minister who is going to be responsible to ensure that that 32-metre-wide right-of-way is adhered to and isn’t extended in any way by the company when it’s building the route? Is it going to be the Nisga’a enforcing this themselves? Or is it going to be the government of British Columbia that ensures that that right-of-way is adhered to?

Hon. M. Polak: A couple of things. First, just to be clear about the issue of the right-of-way, the corridor is not a uniform width throughout. There will be areas where the width is a bit larger to accommodate where they expect to have equipment and things like that. The 32-metre right-of-way is a likelihood post-construction. That hasn’t been finalized. It’s what we expect. But suffice to say that the boundary adjustment doesn’t necessarily conform to what will ultimately be right-of-way.

Once the construction is complete, in discussions with the company, we would determine an appropriate right-of-way. There could very well be land that is removed from park status as a result of this adjustment yet doesn’t become right-of-way. It just ends up being Crown land that is not part of the park because it maybe is not needed as right-of-way. It might not be a full 32 metres. It is what the company has asked for. We don’t anticipate that there’s going to be any need for additional right-of-way.

In terms of compliance and enforcement, there are various natural resource ministries who have responsibility on the ground for that. We operate in an integrated way between our compliance and enforcement officers and those who work with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

B.C. Parks staff will also be present in the area. They’ll work in conjunction with the environmental monitors to ensure that, as the work takes place, transgressions
[ Page 5422 ]
don’t occur and that if there are any such incidents, those would be dealt with. Again, we don’t have expectation that additional areas will be impacted, but it is something that we’ll be watching closely.

[1455]

R. Austin: Can the minister confirm whether in the agreement with the Nisga’a Nation there is a guarantee that this pipeline route will only be used to transport natural gas and not be used to transport — or changed later on for — diluted bitumen or any other oil product?

Hon. M. Polak: In discussions with staff, we don’t have information as to whether or not that’s actually included in the agreement with Nisga’a. However, the Minister of Natural Gas Development has announced publicly that he will be addressing that broad concern of First Nations in some way through either the legislative or regulatory responsibilities of his ministry.

R. Austin: So to the minister’s knowledge, then, the Nisga’a never brought this up themselves when they were in discussions with…?

Interjection.

R. Austin: Okay. Thank you very much.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, reported complete without amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act.

[1500]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 7; M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m pleased today that we’ll be able to move the bill forward. I just want to take a moment to thank members for their comments in second reading and, as well, to introduce the staff that I have here with me.

I have Lloyd Roberts, who is the executive director for implementation and legislation with my ministry, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation; Geraldine Hutchings, legal counsel for the Ministry of Justice; and Bridget Minishka, director with aboriginal tax policy for the Ministry of Finance.

I look forward to the questions.

S. Fraser: It’s good to be here, again, at committee stage of Bill 7. I’d like to begin by thanking the minister and his staff for making themselves available to myself and Kenn McLaren, my researcher, the other day and helping to take me through this bill. We seem to have a full pull for support for the bill, but I will have some questions for clarification for myself and for those watching. Some of this is complicated in its writing, and any clarification that can help clarify some of the legalese, if I will, is always useful for those that are watching. I know some are on this.

For those that might be watching that didn’t get any of the debate from Bill 2, Bill 7 itself is the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014. It actually empowers the previous agreement, the real property tax coordination agreement, which was signed in July of this year between the Nisga’a Lisims Government and the government of British Columbia.

A lot of the bill, I would also suggest, is regulation. I suppose it still has yet to be developed fully. I’ll ask questions about that as we come along.

I guess I have a question on part 1, on section 1, if I could begin with that. Part 1 is settlement legislation. It says sections 6(1) and 8(5) are repealed. For the record, can the minister just highlight what those repealed sections are?

Hon. J. Rustad: The two sections that are being repealed are sections 6(1) and 8(5) of the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act. They are actually being repealed because they’ll be captured by new sections through this piece.
[ Page 5423 ]

[1505]

If you want the specific pieces of that legislation, we can pull it up if you’d like — the Nisga’a final agreement legislation — but I’m hoping that will be sufficient for the member.

S. Fraser: Fair enough. Possibly I can get that after. I just didn’t have the final agreement with me at the time, and I know many who are watching would not know. Even if they have a copy of this document, they would not know what sections were repealed there. I’m mindful of the time involved to do that throughout the bill. I’ll follow that lead.

Now, I realize also I jumped ahead a bit. We were at section 1. I’m just wondering on the protocol here — if I can be reminded. My next question is dealing with section 4. Do I need to wait for the Chair to give me the okay on that? I will sit down and wait for that okay.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

S. Fraser: On the definition of “land,” it has “the same meaning as in the Assessment Act.” I get that part of it, but the land…. I mean, we’ve been just dealing with Bill 8, which, to my understanding, was dealing with land that’s actually outside of the treaty lands, the Nisga’a treaty lands.

This taxation bill, Bill 7, only applies to land within the treaty lands, not within the larger territorial lands.

I know the minister is nodding, but if he can clarify that for the record.

Hon. J. Rustad: Yes. Just within the treaty lands themselves.

S. Fraser: Just for clarification, too, the land outside of the designated treaty lands, which have been in place for many years now, that land that’s still arguably within the traditional Nisga’a territory…. Is there any peripheral effect that Bill 7 has on those lands outside of the accepted defined treaty lands?

Hon. J. Rustad: This bill specifically deals with taxation within the treaty-defined treaty lands, settlement lands, not on the outside area, which is where the rights would be.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Just bear with me. I have had some questions on this which I was not able to answer, so I’m hoping to get that through this line of questioning.

Is it ever perceived…? Is there an option for the Nisga’a Lisims Government to, say, acquire land — hypothetical situation — outside of the existing treaty lands, whether it’s contiguous or non-contiguous? And then, is there a mechanism for them to include that into the treaty lands at some future time so it would be captured under the umbrella of the treaty lands itself — land that is not in the treaty lands right now?

Hon. J. Rustad: Treaties, of course, are complex entities. It would be possible for Nisga’a Nation to acquire land and to consider adding it to their treaty lands, but it would have to be done in agreement with the federal government — with Canada — and with the provincial government — British Columbia.

S. Fraser: That’s helpful. Does the third level of government — not always mentioned, but local government; in this case, it would be the regional district — that would have some responsibility over that land, presumably things like zoning and planning of various kinds…? Would there be a requirement for some involvement at that level if the treaty lands were to be expanded, or potentially expanded, outside of the existing treaty lands?

Hon. J. Rustad: As we enter into treaty negotiations, discussions or other types of engagement with treaty nations or non-treaty nations as we move forward, particularly on those sorts of issues, we obviously do engage with local governments and regional districts.

[1510]

S. Fraser: I think the nature of the questions that were put to me that I was not able to answer, which you are informing me on now…. I guess if treaty lands were to be expanded, that could have a potential impact — financial, taxation-wise impact — on the regional district in any area of the province. Actually, it doesn’t have to be necessarily just Nisga’a, but it could be any treaty nation that achieves treaty within the B.C. treaty process also.

Presumably, there would be consultation with adjoining communities or regional districts. If a treaty nation or, in this case, a Nisga’a treaty…. If those lands were to be expanded, the potential impacts would be probed before any decision would be made — the impacts on the local governments. Is that safe to say — that some process would come into play there?

Hon. J. Rustad: Our commitment through this process is certainly that for any of these sorts of matters of a land nature, we enter into discussions with the regional district and/or local governments as appropriate.

S. Fraser: Thank you for that, and thanks for bearing with me on that.

Moving on but still in section 4, the definition of “non-citizen,” as described in Bill 7, is: “means a person who is not a Nisga’a citizen.” I don’t believe the term “Nisga’a citizen” is actually defined here.
[ Page 5424 ]

Can the minister provide such a definition? Just so we know what…. I’m guessing there are issues of marriage. It’s not always clear-cut what citizenship means. Certainly, with nationhood with First Nations, that’s relatively new in the history of this province. I mean, it wasn’t new. It obviously predated contact. But if the minister could help me with the definition of that.

Hon. J. Rustad: I hope I’m not breaking a rule here by using some technology in this response, as opposed to writing it down. But I’ll give you the response, and I’ll suffer the consequences thereafter. In the Nisga’a treaty, a Nisga’a citizen is defined: “means a citizen of the Nisga’a nation as determined by Nisga’a law.”

S. Fraser: All right. Thanks for that. Is there anything…? I mentioned by marriage. So if a non-Nisga’a resident marries into a Nisga’a family in Nisga’a territory, does that person then become, by definition here, a Nisga’a citizen? Or would they remain a non-citizen? What would be the current requirement for citizenship, just for clarification?

Hon. J. Rustad: Hopefully, now I’m back within compliance with the rules, Mr. Speaker.

The Nisga’a define their laws, so that’s a question that really should be put to the Nisga’a in terms of how they define a citizen.

S. Fraser: Fair enough. Thanks to the minister for that.

Turning the page but staying on section 4, subsection 10.02 is “Authority to impose tax on non-citizen owners or occupiers and provide exemptions.” The provision for exemptions — I’m familiar with that in municipal government. It’s quite common with various facilities or groups that are community-based. Often it's considered in the public interest by the local government in a municipal government system.

[1515]

Is it anticipated that that would be a similar criteria for exemptions with Nisga’a? Again, it may be a question to put to the Nisga’a Lisims Government. But in the making of this bill, are we expecting to see exemptions used in a similar way?

Hon. J. Rustad: The real property tax coordination agreement defines and lays out any of the exemptions, and it is consistent with what would be happening within municipalities.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that.

I guess a protocol question. Since we’re dealing with Bill 7 specifically and not with the real property tax coordination agreement, is it permitted to ask questions relating to that agreement that was signed in July? I’m just not sure what’s appropriate in this place, as we are in third reading of Bill 7.

The Chair: Member, if it relates to the section, it’s permitted.

Hon. J. Rustad: Actually, this bill is designed to work with the agreement, so I would suggest that any questions associated with this bill would be appropriate. Obviously, there’s information that may be needed to be drawn on from the real tax agreement.

S. Fraser: Thank you very much to the minister. And thank you, hon. Chair, for that.

I guess just a follow-up question on subsection 10.02. When taxes are levied through this bill, which is part of nationhood — I very much support that — what’s anticipated in the case of a default? Someone’s not paying their taxes. A non-citizen, say, is not paying the taxes that are being levied by the Nisga’a Lisims Government. Is there a…?

I didn’t see it in the bill itself. And I apologize. It may have been in the previous real property tax coordination agreement. There might have been details there.

In the case of a default, is it a similar situation as in a municipal situation, where a property could actually be lost by an owner? Is it a similar sort of situation?

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a good question to put forward. If anybody on the property of the Nisga’a Lands refuses to pay their taxes, the Nisga’a Nation will collect taxes in accordance with their own property tax law. The real property tax coordination agreement actually provides the Nisga’a to impose a penalty amount to unpaid taxes, and that penalty would be at the same level as municipal governments would levy against unpaid taxes. In addition, the Nisga’a will be able to exercise general debt collection powers available under provincial law.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Would B.C. Assessment play a role in enforcement or collections? Just a mechanism…. How would that actually occur?

Hon. J. Rustad: That isn’t the role that B.C. Assessment plays in British Columbia. They go out and do the assessment. What you’re asking about, Assessment would not be involved in.

S. Fraser: Just to finish off on this line of questioning. Presumably, one final remedy could be expropriation, loss of the property. Is that…? Presumably, that would be the case whether it’s Nisga’a or outside of Nisga’a, but specifically with this particular agreement, Bill 7?

[1520]

Hon. J. Rustad: This is similar in terms of municipalities. There are provisions as you go and look at trying to recover debt under the general provisions within the
[ Page 5425 ]
province to be able to go after assets. It is something that would be possible, just like any general creditor would have that opportunity to be able to pursue.

S. Fraser: Just for clarity, this would apply to Nisga’a residents as well as non-residents. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Rustad: Nisga’a have agreed to the provision that there will be no discrimination between citizens and non-citizens, and the same rules would be applied.

S. Fraser: Thank you. Moving on to subsection 10.04. It addresses the potential for and the entitlement to an administration fee in the amount determined as if the requisition had been received by a municipality. As far as fees go, potential administration fees, is there something pre-set? Is there a formula? Do we have any idea of what that would look like? Is there a standard rate, and would it coincide with what happens in a municipality, for instance?

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a good question the member opposite has asked. My understanding is that there is provincial legislation that lays out what those administrative fees would be and that any taxing authorities, municipality or treaty would actually look to that to be able to look at the level of administration fee that would be levied.

S. Fraser: Just for my edification, who pays that fee? Where does it come from?

[1525]

Hon. J. Rustad: My understanding is the fee would ultimately be passed down to the taxpayer, just like it would be with municipalities or other taxing jurisdictions.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The next section…. Don’t worry. I’m not going to go through each small subsection of this bill. I’m not trying to run the clock.

I have a bulk of questions in section 4. It’s sort of sparse throughout that, and intermittent. Don’t worry. I’m not going to keep us here for the rest of this session.

Section 10.05 deals with excess homeowner grants. It refers to “the minister charged with the administration of the Financial Administration Act.” I’m presuming that that is not you — the minister — but would it be the Minister of Finance that has that responsibility?

Hon. J. Rustad: Yes.

S. Fraser: And then maybe a pithier question. I don’t quite understand section 10.05. I’ll just read it.

“In accordance with the property tax agreement, the minister charged with the administration of the Financial Administration Act may pay to the Nisga’a Nation for a taxation year, from amounts appropriated for the purpose, the amount described as the ‘Excess Amount’ in Article 12.3 of the property tax agreement.”

Could I just get a layperson’s explanation for that? I’ve read it and re-read it many times, and I just don’t quite get it.

Hon. J. Rustad: Under the real property tax coordination agreement the Nisga’a have agreed to levy provincial tax rates on residential properties. As part of that agreement, the province requires Nisga’a to provide homeowner grants to eligible individuals that meet or exceed the provincial grant amounts.

Because it is possible that the total amount of homeowner grant paid can exceed the aggregate amount generated from the school tax, in order to ensure that Nisga’a is not out of pocket as a result of the requirement to provide a homeowner grant, the province agreed to mirror the approach that applies to taxing Indian bands under the Indian Self Government Enabling Act. This is also consistent with the provincial policies that make municipalities whole.

S. Fraser: I’m not sure that’s a Coles Notes version, but I appreciate that. Is it just specifically related to school requisition? Could there be other amounts that might have an impact? You only cited the school fees, as I heard, but could other fees apply here too — not fees, but the requisition?

[1530]

Hon. J. Rustad: Maybe I’ll take this approach and version, the general Coles Notes version or the short version of this. The Nisga’a are required to collect property taxes, and they’re required to provide the homeowner grant. If for some reason there becomes a difference in terms of the amount collected versus the grants and stuff, the province will make them whole. It’s just like what it would be with other municipalities. I hope that, perhaps, explains it better.

S. Fraser: I’ve got it. Thanks to the minister for that explanation.

I guess further to that, though, if periodically the amount of the homeowner grant — who is eligible, where that limit is…. It’s a moving target. In history we changed that. Governments changed that. Would that change if it changes provincially? Would that automatically apply to the Nisga’a under this agreement? Would it require anything subsequent, like an order-in-council or something like that?

Hon. J. Rustad: Through this agreement, the Nisga’a are required to provide at least the same level of homeowner grant that the province has.
[ Page 5426 ]

S. Fraser: Again, just to be clear, that’s not the current…? I mean, if the provincial amount changes, that would still apply? I’m getting a nod, so thank you for that.

Section 10.06: “The Municipal Finance Authority Act does not apply in relation to Nisga’a Lands.” Now, I probed this a bit in the briefing, and I appreciate that, but just for further clarification, do any other acts apply in lieu of the Municipal Finance Authority Act?

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m going to have to ask for a little bit of clarification, because I’m not quite sure what you’re asking — whether you are asking whether there are any other acts that allow the Nisga’a Nation to apply for pooled funding or whether there are any other acts that are impacted or not by this. I’m not quite sure what you’re asking, so perhaps you could give me a little bit of clarification on it.

S. Fraser: I apologize for not being clear to the minister. Well, the Municipal Finance Authority — for those that aren’t aware and that are watching — can provide financing for municipal governments at a pretty good rate. Since this act does not apply to Nisga’a Lands and Nisga’a government, are there other options that can be made available?

[1535]

That lower interest rate is a nice thing to have if you’re a municipal government. It would be a nice thing to have if you were a Nisga’a government too.

Hon. J. Rustad: Treaty nations actually look to the federal financial authority for the opportunity to be able to go after the pooled funding to have those lower rates.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Finishing off section 4, which is the one that raised more questions for me than other sections, at 10.08: “Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply in relation to this Part.” Again, can the minister just explain what that means, for those that aren’t familiar with the Offence Act — just for clarity, please? I would be one of those people that’s not familiar with the Offence Act, so for my clarity it would be helpful.

Hon. J. Rustad: For clarity on this, it disapplies section 5 of the Offence Act to part 2 of this act. Section 5 of the Offence Act creates a general offence when a person does not act in accordance with the requirements of an act. It is being disapplied because it would be inappropriate to find Nisga’a Nation liable for an offence in these circumstances. If any inappropriate behaviour occurs, it would be subject to the dispute resolution mechanisms in the final agreement or the real property tax coordination agreement, depending on the circumstances.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that, to the minister. So there are remedies — and I apologize for not being up on this — laid out in the treaty for dealing with that kind of conflict, and therefore the Offence Act does not need to apply here? I’m getting nods, so I’m going to say that that’s a yes. Thank you for that.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

S. Fraser: On subsection 5(2) it says: “On or before April 6 of the first year in which the Nisga’a Lisims Government exercises its authority under the property tax agreement to impose real property taxes on non-citizens, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may order an assessor to complete an assessment roll for Nisga’a Lands for that year.”

I’m just curious of the wording on that, particularly the word “may.” Wouldn’t it be a given that the assessment roll for the Nisga’a lands for that year would be completed by the assessor?

[1540]

Hon. J. Rustad: Certainly, the intent is that an assessment would be undertaken. It is possible under some circumstances, I suppose, that there may already have been an assessment that is in place, which then would mean that it would not be required to undertake the assessment. But the intent certainly is that the assessments would be there.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

Further to that, is there an assessment already on property within…? For Nisga’a residents, for its citizens, is there an assessment roll already on the properties specifically within Nisga’a treaty territory?

Hon. J. Rustad: There has been a very small component that has been done in the past, but the full assessment roll is actually being undertaken right now.

S. Fraser: That’s timely, because I’m assuming that it would be helpful for the Nisga’a, to actually apply the taxation, to know what the properties are worth so there’s some basis for that.

The assessor. Are there any challenges for the assessor in British Columbia to assess the value of properties that are in a nation, in a separate nation? Nisga’a has nationhood. The basis for assessment of property value in British Columbia is, I guess, pretty well established, but these are relatively new designations, having nationhood. Just how does the assessor make such an assessment? Is there a new set of criteria, that sort of thing?

Hon. J. Rustad: B.C. Assessment already has the tools in place for doing assessments. They have been doing assessments on other treaty bands, as well as for other lands
[ Page 5427 ]
owned by non-treaty nations.

The rules they have in place are what would be utilized for the assessments. There are no specific conditions that have been created for assessment within Nisga’a Nation.

S. Fraser: I’m curious. This could apply elsewhere, not just for Nisga’a but other nations too. If you achieve freedom from the Indian Act by establishing a treaty and establishing nationhood, does that not vary, potentially, the value of the land? I mean, in some cases it might be land that was previously reserve status — federal reserve, Indian reserve status.

Again, wouldn’t there be some difference in assessment value when a nation achieves nationhood through a treaty process? I was going to say a B.C. treaty process. In this case it predated the B.C. treaty process, but it is the first modern-day treaty. Would that not have some effect for the assessor?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned, the B.C. Assessment Authority has their parameters and the rules in place when they go out and do the work.

Since that isn’t really directly within this, what I’d be happy to offer the member opposite is to get in touch with the B.C. Assessment Authority and give him a briefing, or have B.C. Assessment Authority provide you with the information as to the background rules and the way they go about doing the assessments within the Nisga’a territory.

S. Fraser: Thank you very much to the minister for that.

[1545]

In my constituency we have the Maa-nulth treaty, which involves several nations in Alberni–Pacific Rim. As we were having this discussion I was thinking.… There’s a lot of new things happening in Maa-nulth and at Ucluelet and Tla-o-qui-aht and other nations that are pretty exciting. They may well affect assessment rates.

I appreciate that advice, and I’ll probably take the minister up on that. I will contact the assessor and see if I can get some of that information.

In subsection 5(3) it says, “An order under subsection (2) may do any of the following,” and it’s (a) that I have a question about. It says: “provide for the deletion of parcels of Nisga’a Lands from the assessment roll for a rural area.” Why? What would trigger that, just out of curiosity?

Hon. J. Rustad: This particular provision is really to make sure that the lands are under one taxation roll. That would either be the provincial roll or the Nisga’a roll. It gives the ability for it to be deleted off, if need be, so that it will only be taxed once, under one authority.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the Minister for that clarification.

Moving down to subsection (3), I’ll go to (e). I’ve got some just general questions about the appeals process. That’s probably the most germane section to ask this on. If not, I can be maybe advised.

The issue of appeals…. Somebody appealing an assessment — are we referring to individuals who are appealing their individual assessment on their property value and the taxes that are being levied on that? Or is it the Nisga’a, some government, that might be appealing an assessment. Or is it both or either?

Hon. J. Rustad: The right to appeal is not limited to just the taxpayers. Anybody that would fall under this can appeal, just like it is for a municipality. That’s the provision that’s set up.

S. Fraser: Turning the page to section 5(5), it says: “Section 74 (5) of the Assessment Act does not apply in respect of an assessment roll completed under this section.”

Again, I’m confused by just the semantics maybe of that. But why? What are we talking about here that would not apply under the Assessment Act? I’m not sure. I just don’t understand that one clause.

[1550]

Hon. J. Rustad: This subsection applies to section 74(5) of the Assessment Act, as the member has said. In relation to this section of the act, if we’re doing this roll in 2015, the exemptions would not have been created in time. This provision removes the otherwise applicable delay of one year created by 74(5).

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

S. Fraser: Just a question. Maybe I’ve missed something, but the first five sections come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In the documentation I have, section 6 does not say that. Have I just got my signals crossed here, or is there another mechanism to come into force besides the regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. J. Rustad: If you look through to the end of the act under “Commencement,” what happens is there’s a definition of various regulations that come into effect with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, anything else covered by the table comes into effect with the date of royal assent.

S. Fraser: That royal assent — was that achieved with final agreement? Is that how that happened?

Hon. J. Rustad: That comes into effect with the royal assent of this bill, as it goes through the process.
[ Page 5428 ]

S. Fraser: All right. Thank you for that clarification too. I guess, just relating to coming up…. This is section 6, but right up to section 34 — from 6 to 34, which is the bulk of this bill…. These would all be…. Stopping at 34, they would be consequential amendments? Is that correct?

Hon. J. Rustad: Yes. Section 6 through section 34 would be consequential amendments to other acts.

S. Fraser: Could the minister just explain how that works? The regulations have to be…. Do they have to be developed subsequent to Bill 7? As consequential amendments, does somebody have to still work on these to put them into regulation subsequent to Bill 7 being ratified by this House?

Hon. J. Rustad: For those sections in question, the only regulation that would be required is actually the regulation to bring it into enforcement.

S. Fraser: Again, just to finish that off, that regulation to bring it into force — is that something we do here, or does that happen automatically with adoption of Bill 7?

Hon. J. Rustad: Just for clarity on this, back to the section on commencement, section 64. There would be no requirement for regulations where it comes into effect on the date of royal assent. Where you have sections that go in by regulation with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, that’s where you would see a regulation that would have to move forward.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

In the interest of expedience, I have no questions until section 13.

[1555]

Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

S. Fraser: “Section 32 is amended by adding the following subsection: (3.2) Subject to the requirements in section 33, the Nisga’a Nation may make a complaint against all or any part of the completed assessment roll relating to Nisga’a Lands, based on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1) of this section.”

Can the minister just explain the circumstances that might lead to that? I just can’t get my head around it.

Hon. J. Rustad: I can provide you, if you like, with the conditions under that section.

“Subject to the requirements in section 33, a person may make a complaint against an individual entry in an assessment roll on any of the following grounds: (a) there is an error or omission respecting the name of a person in the assessment roll; (b) there is an error or omission respecting land or improvements, or both land and improvements, in the assessment roll; (c) land or improvements, or both land and improvements, are not assessed at actual value; (d) land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified; (e) an exemption has been improperly allowed or disallowed.”

S. Fraser: Thank you for that. I get that. That makes sense now.

In section 16, it says: “Section 51 is amended by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following:” — so the new (c) — “if the property is located in a municipality, a regional district or the treaty lands of a taxing treaty first nation, the municipality, regional district or taxing treaty first nation, as applicable.”

How does this apply to Nisga’a? I don’t see how that…. I don’t believe there are any municipalities or any role for a regional district within Nisga’a territories, which is what this bill applies to. I might be misreading it, but perhaps the minister can clarify that.

Hon. J. Rustad: I just want to note…. Are we now on section 16?

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

S. Fraser: Should I try the question again? I’m not sure how section 16…. It’s citing, “if the property is located in a municipality, a regional district,” etc. I just don’t understand why that wording is in there, because that is not the case in this bill. This Bill 7 is regarding only Nisga’a territory, treaty territory. So those options don’t…. I just don’t understand why that’s put in there. I want to make sure I understand what it says.

[1600]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. J. Rustad: Welcome, Chair.

Keep in mind that this is an amendment to the Assessment Act, so provisions are required to be put in. We need to make just some adjustments as we’re going in there to streamline it and make sure that it was applicable for the Nisga’a Nation as well.

S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, welcome to the proceedings here on the committee stage of Bill 7.

Just for clarification, the wording here, including the speculation of a property being located in a municipality or regional district…. Again, I’m not sure I understood what the minister was saying, why that’s cited here if indeed there is no municipality or regional district that this applies to. Could the minister try one more time for me, please?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned, this is an amendment to the Assessment Act, which applies to the entire
[ Page 5429 ]
province, not just to the Nisga’a Nation, which is why the wording is in there. There could be other circumstances outside of what you may find in the Nisga’a Nation.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

Hon. J. Rustad: If I may, I’d just like to ask for a quick recess.

The Chair: That’s fine. The committee is adjourned for five minutes.

The House recessed from 4:02 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

S. Fraser: Section 20 refers to: “In the case of the North West Regional Hospital District, in addition to the information provided under subsection (3), the assessment authority must provide free of charge the net taxable value of all land and improvements in Nisga’a Lands.”

Wouldn’t that happen automatically again? Why is that a consequential amendment? Wouldn’t that already be being done?

[1610]

Hon. J. Rustad: As the member may know, the uniqueness of the Nisga’a treaty, compared to other treaties, means there are a few other little complexities that we have to manage through. What this section 20 does actually makes it so that it will be automatically available. That’s just an adjustment to the Assessment Act.

S. Fraser: Again, for simplicity, my next set of questions will be on section 25.

Sections 20 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

S. Fraser: In section 25 (4.3)(a)(iii): “(a) a requisition for the amount…(iii) bearing interest at the rate prescribed under subsection (7) of this section on any part of that amount remaining unpaid on August 1, and (b) a statement of the rates referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection….”

Just a question about interest being charged. I mean, I’m assuming that’s on late payments. But are we referring to…? Is the party responsible for the interest the individual property owner? Does any of that fall on the Nisga’a Lisims Government, or is it the individual property owner that is being assessed that that applies to?

Hon. J. Rustad: This particular component refers, of course, to the services being provided to Nisga’a Nation, and Nisga’a Nation pays for that service. If for some reason they do not pay that by the prescribed date, then there would be interest which would be charged to Nisga’a Nation, which is the same as what would be for other treaty nations or municipalities.

Sections 25 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

S. Fraser: We’re dealing with the hospital district section here. I understand what’s being stated here:

“(2) Subject to this section, this Act applies in relation to the membership of Nisga’a Lands in the district.

“(3) In addition to the matters set out in section 3 (1), the letters patent of the district must specify (a) the boundaries of Nisga’a Lands as a member of the district, and (b) the terms and conditions of arrangements, agreements or transactions between the district and the Nisga’a Nation.”

[1615]

I’m just curious. What happens now, prior to these changes? What’s the relationship right now with the northwest regional hospital district? How does it exist currently, and how will this change with Bill 7?

Hon. J. Rustad: What is currently happening is the regional district — I believe it’s area A — encompasses all of the Nisga’a lands, the various components. What this will do is…. Actually, it carves out the Nisga’a lands themselves as now being a separate entity that then would have membership in the regional health board.

In essence, that’s what this section does. It creates that partnership now that the Nisga’a can become full members in the regional health district unto themselves without being under the regional district in its current form.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. Further to that, are there fees being paid now to the hospital district to cover the costs associated with usage of the hospital or medical facilities in the region, and will that change through the taxation provisions that are in Bill 7?

Hon. J. Rustad: As it currently stands, there is a small amount of Nisga’a lands that, under the taxation, are currently contributing.

What this agreement actually does now is it means that all of the Nisga’a lands and the taxation that they collected will now contribute towards the regional health district for that component of the tax, which is why there is also the representation on that board.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Just so I have
[ Page 5430 ]
it clear. I understand the provisions here in this section that allow for the representation on the board. It’s an important step. But does the financial arrangement change? Will the hospital district get an increase in funding because of Bill 7? Would that increase their ability to provide services?

[1620]

Hon. J. Rustad: To my understanding, and I think it’s important to note, the hospital taxes go towards the capital investments in the health facilities and the hospital. What will happen with this is…. Because the assessment to the taxation roll actually expands now under this, there will actually be the opportunity for a larger revenue share to go towards those capital improvements as they are levied by the regional hospital district.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

On section 34.

S. Fraser: Does the funding for tax-in-lieu to the Nisga’a include federal and private funding for the B.C. Hydro northwest transmission line?

Hon. J. Rustad: The northwest transmission line would not actually be taxed under this, but there would be a grant-in-lieu that would be provided by B.C. Hydro to the Nisga’a Nation.

S. Fraser: Is that something new? Is that a change with Bill 7? Does that alter anything agreement-wise? What’s happening now compared to after Bill 7 and, specifically, after section 34 of Bill 7?

Hon. J. Rustad: The member is correct in that there are currently no grants-in-lieu going. So this provision, this act and that section actually will allow for the opportunity for there to be the grant-in-lieu on that northwest transmission line from B.C. Hydro.

S. Fraser: That, I’m sure, is good news for the Nisga’a. Do we have any idea what dollar value we might be seeing? Are there other examples of this happening where the grant-in-lieu…? There must be some basis for this. Or does that have to be just negotiated from scratch?

Hon. J. Rustad: We don’t have a specific number that we can provide, but it will depend on the assessed value.

S. Fraser: Did the B.C. provincial government address the Nisga’a’s concerns in the negotiation of Bill 7? Was this something that was requested, I assume, by the Nisga’a?

Hon. J. Rustad: Under the Hydro and Power Authority Act, for other treaty nations, we have provisions that were in place for the grants-in-lieu. This will bring the Nisga’a Nation and the Nisga’a treaty in line with the other treaty nations in terms of the opportunity for the grants-in-lieu.

S. Fraser: Are there other grants-in-lieu anticipated? Besides B.C. Hydro, are there other facilities or operations or uses that were anticipated that might also apply here?

[1625]

Hon. J. Rustad: To the best of my knowledge, there are no other situations within Nisga’a that may require a grant-in-lieu — just the B.C. Hydro situation.

Sections 34 to 46 inclusive approved.

On section 47.

S. Fraser: In section 66.2(1)(b) it’s added the following definition: “‘Nisga’a pipeline lands’ means Nisga’a Lands, including improvements, that are owned, held, used or occupied for the purpose of the transmission of natural gas or petroleum by pipeline or for purposes directly ancillary to that purpose, but does not include any improvements, whether or not using or occupying the same land, if the improvements are for any other purpose.”

I am confused by just this statement. I’m not sure I quite get it, but I’m curious. Since Bill 7 is empowering the real property tax coordination agreement — it’s an enabling piece of legislation — did Bill 8 inform Bill 7? In the writing of Bill 7, was this reference to pipeline directly related to Bill 8 and the Nisga’a lava bed issue and the 12-kilometre section of property that would go through the park? Is there anything in Bill 7 that reflects what Bill 8 is meant to do, which we’ve already had committee stage on just prior to this?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it’s important to note that the Lava Bed Park is outside of Nisga’a lands. The area that had been discussed under Bill 8 actually would be outside of Nisga’a lands and, therefore, not applicable under the taxation rules under this piece of legislation.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for reminding me of that. I did know that. I did forget it. But that helps clarify that.

We’re dealing also in this section with the Police Act specifically. I had some help from your staff — thank you — in a bit of questioning on this in the briefing a few days ago. But with Bill 7, is policing expected to change significantly on the ground for Nisga’a? Is there a tax requisition that comes out of Bill 7 that would go towards policing? If so, is it in any way different than what exists right now?

[1630]

Hon. J. Rustad: If I’ve heard the question right, there will be no changes to policing. How funding flows is im-
[ Page 5431 ]
pacted by this. As I mentioned in the comments earlier, the Nisga’a and the province have entered into an arrangement to reach a qualifying agreement, under the provisions of the Police Act, which would specify the policing and the contributions thereof.

S. Fraser: Just so I’m clear, is policing now provided by the RCMP, through the Kitimat-Stikine regional district? Is there an arrangement already in place for policing in Nisga’a lands now, and will that change at all?

Hon. J. Rustad: I hope I’ve got the question right in my mind here for this as well. Policing is currently provided through the RCMP, of course, funded through the province, just as it would be for other rural areas. That’s like the way that the policing is currently being provided.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister in bearing with me here. Moving forward, post Bill 7, will there be any change in that? If you’re a municipal government now, if you’re a community and you are under 5,000 population, you’re not required to pay for that policing. If you’re over 5,000, if I’m not mistaken, it’s a graded scale towards that for the community. At a point, the city would pay for all of its policing costs.

Again, with this bill, is there a change in that? Will the Nisga’a be required to pay for any of the policing costs? Will that change from what is currently happening?

Hon. J. Rustad: Under this piece of legislation, the Nisga’a would be required to provide or to pay for policing, similar to other jurisdictions in their circumstances, unless they enter into a qualifying agreement. The Nisga’a and the province have agreed to work through and create or enter into that qualifying agreement over the next period of time.

[1635]

S. Fraser: It’s not in the real property tax coordination agreement. The details of that aren’t there. This is yet to be negotiated or worked on with the Nisga’a, between the province and the Nisga’a? I’m getting a nod — if the minister has anything.

Hon. J. Rustad: Yes, that’s correct.

S. Fraser: I’m comfortable with the rest of this act. We’ve gone through the details on most of it. I would note that the rest of the act is all consequential amendments. It seems straightforward in most ways for me. So in the interests of time, I’m just letting you know that, Chair.

Sections 47 to 64 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Rustad: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 7 — NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 7, Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 4, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 4, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, now be read a second time.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Bill 4 amends a number of statutes. This bill will amend the Agricultural Land Commission Act by clarifying regulation-making authorities and modifying the application of certain Administrative Tribunals Act sections. These legislative amendments affect the Agricultural Land Commission by changing the members’ initial terms, allowing appointments to be made without consultation with the chair of the commission and giving the chair of a panel the deciding vote in the case of a tied vote.

In addition, the proposed amendments clarify the scope of authority to make regulations related to local and First Nation governments’ ability to prohibit farm use and non-farm use of agriculture land as currently expressed in the agriculture land reserve use subdivision and procedure regulation.

The legislative amendment to the Mines Act will increase the time limit for laying an information — that is initiating a prosecution — for any offence committed under the act to three years. The current time limit for permit-related offences under section 10 of the act is one year, and the time limit for all other offences under the act is six months. These amendments ensure that there is adequate time for all investigations under the act.

[1640]

This bill also amends the Gaming Control Act to provide greater clarity around enforcement actions that the gaming policy and enforcement branch may take against gaming service providers and gaming workers who violate the conditions of their registration under the act.

The amendment will also make it clear that enforcement actions may be taken in relation to a gaming service provider or gaming worker, as well as one or more gaming premises of a gaming service provider or gaming worker. Under the current wording of the act, the gaming policy and enforcement branch’s authority to take enforcement actions for violations under the act may not be entirely clear to gaming service providers and gaming workers.

Amendments to the Police Act continue the work of our government to respond to the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry and the B.C. Policing and Community Safety Plan by providing government with the enabling authority to enhance and reorganize specialized policing services across a geographic area.

We all know that criminals and the crimes they commit have no regard for municipal boundaries. That’s why we need new approaches like integrated policing teams. That’s also why we must ensure that the tools are in place to enable all communities across the province to benefit from specialized policing skills, technology and equipment that are increasingly necessary to combat modern criminal activities.

This bill also includes amendments to the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act. The proposed amendments will do two things. Firstly, they will remove a provision in the act that expired in 2011. Secondly, they will allow municipalities served by the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline to charge franchise fees, which they were not able to do before.

Finally, the bill also makes a validating provision and a number of consequential amendments.

L. Krog: I’m delighted to rise on Bill 4. It’s the only bill, as I recall, apart from the initial Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament, that the Attorney General has been able to present this year and the only opportunity I’ve had to rise in my role as a member of the shadow cabinet.

Like all miscellaneous statutes amendments acts, it’s like an old friend come back to greet you. They pop up every session — different formats, sometimes with little tricks hidden away in them, sometimes with some things that are somewhat more pedestrian, but often things of note, of course, that require a comment by the opposition.

I must say I don’t think there’s anything terribly dramatic in the suggested amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. That damage was already done in the previous session, when the government moved British Columbia backwards from what was one of the most progressive and far-reaching and important pieces of legislation that was ever passed, I would argue, by a Legislative Assembly or body in North America, which so well recognized early on the importance of agricultural land.

I would have thought that if you were talking about things to deal with the Agricultural Land Commission Act, we’d be talking about something that might promote local farming.

An interesting article today in the paper talking about the significant impact that the continuing drought in California will have on food supply for British Columbia. We have relied historically so much on the agricultural product of our neighbour to the south, the great state of California, and all of that is fast disappearing. It’s no wonder that so many British Columbians are so concerned about food security, and quite rightly so.

All these amendments seem to do, though, is allow for the expansion of the definition of agricultural land to include non-farm uses and increase the minimum size of the Agricultural Land Commission to 13 members. I don’t think that’s going to be earth-shattering, but again, as I said, there was an opportunity. If the government wanted to bring forth legislation, they could have brought forth legislation that might actually have some significant benefit or impact on agriculture in this province.

Goodness knows, the government could have proposed through a legislative change bringing back Buy B.C. Now, there was a popular program, a program that met with support from every facet of the agriculture industry in this province, from farmers, from consumers, from retailers, from wholesalers, from anyone who was connected with the food chain and the food supply in this province. But of course we’re not going to do that because that, after all, is so identified with the New Democratic Party.

[1645]

Now I can honestly say, whenever this criticism arises, having heard from the Minister of Energy and Mines yesterday when I happened to mention the performance of the former leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, Mr. Campbell, during the debates around the Nisga’a treaty…. He so eloquently referred to it and almost damned, with a certain amount of criticism and mockery, my remarks by saying: “That was the last century.” So I want to remind all members in the opposition that from here on in whenever the government brings up the ’90s, we can now say: “That was the last century.”

The Mines Act, the changes there….

Interjection.

L. Krog: I heard a member say “out of date.” I believe that was the Minister of Transportation — yes, yes. Well, how quickly we wish to wash away the sins of our parents by forgetting that Gordon Campbell was ever the leader
[ Page 5433 ]
of the B.C. Liberals or the Premier of the province, but we won’t go there.

I mean, after all, we don’t speak about Phil Gaglardi anymore, so we won’t bring up Gordon Campbell again, perhaps, during these remarks, unless I’m so encouraged by the wit and wisdom of the Minister of Transportation and highways, the greatest flip-flopper and the fastest flip-flopper in the chamber — subject only to the other member for Kamloops, who managed to turn around his position so quickly the other day with a simple question from the Leader of the Opposition, showing the raw political courage of the government, of course.

The Mines Act changes, I think, respond to an obvious failing of the government. When I was growing up, the Socred policy towards forestry was referred to as sympathetic administration. Of course, that was basically the nudge, nudge, wink, wink. The forest companies got to do what they wanted, the province was prospering, the people didn’t care if the environment suffered a little bit, so be it if there was overcutting — all of those sorts of things.

But now with the disaster at Mount Polley driving home what it means to the province’s resources and our reputation and what it means to business and communities and the environment when you don’t regulate properly, suddenly we’ve got some concerns now. And the Mines Act is the government’s, I will say, somewhat clumsy and simplistic response to what was an incredible environmental disaster, and not one that arose through the forces of nature but arose through the negligence of who knows who — and how many people will have to share the blame for that mess?

What the proposed changes do is allow for an extension of the period of investigation, up to three years. Now, I’m reminded of that phrase justice delayed is justice denied. I can’t help but think that although I am pleased that there will be more time for an investigation, perhaps we should really be thinking about the issues that arise when things aren’t accomplished in a speedy way and there isn’t some pressure to complete them in a speedy way.

We’ve all become a little — how shall I say? — jaded on this side of the House with this government’s ability to provide for investigations that actually lead somewhere. I’d be negligent myself if I didn’t mention a few of them: investigations into Basi-Virk, the quick wins, Burns Lake, Health firings, efforts of Mr. Boessenkool.

We all know that these things take time, but the concern from the opposition is that this will be an excuse to delay responding to the public’s right to know what has actually happened. If it preserves the opportunity to prosecute, so to speak, that’s wonderful. That is one thing. I mean, it does provide that the limitation period for offences now is three years after the date in which the chief inspector learned of the facts on which the information is based.

You can argue on one level that that’s a good thing. But one does become concerned that there will be political pressure, as the disaster is something that passed two and a half or three years ago, to simply forget it and perhaps not deal with it in the way…. We know that the Ministry of Forests has looked at situations and basically said, “Now, don’t do that again,” instead of levying the appropriate fines. So the opposition has some distrust of the government’s approach.

We’re not convinced that this section represents anything more than perhaps a political fix for one of their most significant political problems, as opposed to a genuine response to a significant legislative weakness.

[1650]

Surely, the public, and the environment that we expect to turn over to our children and our grandchildren, deserves a more appropriate response. Perhaps if we talked about more significant fines or an announcement, in conjunction with this bill, of significantly more money to allow for the kinds of oversight and regulation and inspections — which were obviously so clearly absent from Mount Polley. If there had been that kind of announcement, then we would see it as a more sincere effort.

But isolated and separate and on its own, section 4 doesn’t appear to be, as I say, anything more than perhaps, essentially, a political response as opposed to a genuine response.

Now, the Gaming Control Act. I suppose we could say that this wasn’t a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. This was a government acknowledgment, “We made little boo-boos along the way,” act. But that would hardly be a distinguished and appropriate title for a piece of legislation.

Instead, we’re calling it the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Of course, the Gaming Control Act…. The reasons for these changes aren’t entirely apparent or clear. But there’s a vulnerability, if you will, suggested, when the opposition released FOI documents earlier this year that showed that the Finance Minister — that brilliant, witty fellow, always so confident in his ability to manage the affairs of the chamber — had in fact okayed a $114,000 severance package for Michael Graydon, when he left BCLC, to immediately turn around and work for — guess who? — Paragon Gaming.

I don’t want to dwell on the suggestion I’m making that this is the correction-of-boo-boo statute. I don’t want to dwell on that possibility. But there might be some relationship between what’s proposed with the Gaming Control Act amendments and, in fact, this recent history.

Now, in fairness, I think one should always tell the complete story, like the member for Prince George–Mackenzie the other day. He waxed so eloquently about the greatness and the political contribution of Chief Frank Calder — the “Little Chief,” the first aboriginal member of this assembly. I know it was in his speech. I’m sure it was. He actually acknowledged that Mr. Calder was, of course, elected as a CCF member — not a Liberal
[ Page 5434 ]
or a Social Credit member or Progressive Democratic Alliance or a Conservative member.

I think it’s only fair that I, likewise in the spirit of fullness and full description and closure, do remind everyone, of course, that Mr. Graydon actually repaid $55,000 in salary and holdback. Again, it points out a certain looseness in the government’s arrangements. This bill, I suspect, may be some attempt to, again, clean up that little mess.

I’m not suggesting the government’s like a little puppy running around the House leaving little messes all over the place. Far be it from me to suggest that. Perhaps that’s essentially what we’re attempting to accomplish here.

Then there’s the Police Act. Notwithstanding he was so known in this chamber for his best, and often, only answer, “It’s before the courts,” Wally Oppal had a pretty distinguished career as a lawyer and a member of the judiciary and as Attorney General. Then the government…. And I criticized it. I’m the first to admit it. I criticized the appointment of Mr. Oppal to head the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, what became known as the Pickton inquiry. I criticized it.

There were many other qualified British Columbians who could have done the job and not started off with that political cloud hanging over their head. That would have been the appropriate thing to do. But one would never accuse this government of exercising wisdom when foolishness was available.

We know that Justice Oppal — and I’ll call him Justice Oppal — made a series of recommendations, as he had way back when, when he led another commission on policing in the province.

[1655]

This is a distinguished British Columbian, a distinguished lawyer and jurist and former Attorney General who has some intimate knowledge of policing matters in this province, both from an historical perspective and from the perspective of someone who is responsible for making decisions in the criminal courts over several decades in this province.

Arising out of that last inquiry were a number of recommendations. We’ve raised the issue simply of a bus along Highway 19 — just a bus to protect aboriginal women. But the government wasn’t prepared to do that. What the government is prepared to do…. Again, that’s why I would suggest that this isn’t really a serious bill in terms of addressing real problems.

We’re going to have a few changes here that essentially give the government some authority to bring about some integration around policing. Now, I think many British Columbians are extremely interested in the concept of integration of police forces in the province. Indeed, I have lived long enough to have known many members of the former B.C. police force, and British Columbia moved away from the B.C. police force, well, about 60 years ago roughly.

From the public’s perspective, the concept has great appeal. It appears eminently logical — not to say that it is, necessarily. What we know is that many local government officials have suggested that these measures as proposed are sort of halfway measures, that they’re not going to do what really has to be done.

It’s interesting that one of those who welcomed the changes and said, “It’s all about making integration work, and that’s what we’ve been asking for,” was Mayor Frank Leonard of Saanich, now, soon-to-be former mayor Frank Leonard of Saanich. He was supportive of the concept. But there are many mayors who have expressed opposition. That includes Mayor Jackson of Delta and, I believe, the mayor of West Vancouver, if I’m not mistaken.

Again, this is a bit of a half-measure, but it does appear to be giving the government some authority and ability. I think you could refer to one section as the hammer section in a sense. I do note that the minister herself — and I’m quoting from the Surrey–North Delta Leader — said….

One of the members for Surrey is extremely pleased that I’m quoting a Surrey paper. The excitement in this chamber — I can hear it rising much like the temperature of a pneumonia sufferer.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Wait for it. I know the members are anxious to hear what the Attorney General had to say. “It is a hammer, but it’s not intended to be used as a hammer. Most of the time you want this to be done cooperatively, not by the minister requiring it.”

Now, is it a hammer? Is it not a hammer? I’m reminded, and I have no doubt that many members of the chamber took time to watch Ken Burns’s magnificent series on PBS about the Roosevelts. Of course, the great Teddy Roosevelt was well known for doing what I think the Attorney General is really doing here, which is to speak softly but carry a big stick. Maybe it’s a hammer; maybe it’s a stick. But whatever it is, it appears to give the government some authority to do some things.

[1700]

She also said, and this was on CKNW: “So this is enabling legislation allowing me to create integrated units should I need to. As I said, the preference is to do this by cooperation between police departments.”

The problem is that the act itself, the proposed changes, sets out the duties of the municipality in section 10. It says section 15 is amended. “The duties of a municipality under subsection (1) of this section include the duty set out in section 4.03 to use and pay” — listen carefully — “for specialized services provided by a specialized service provider.”

This is where the rubber always hits the road when it comes to issues in the province. Who’s going to actually
[ Page 5435 ]
pay for it? The Attorney General may be carrying the big hammer, but — and I mean this in a completely non-sexist way — she’s not carrying a big bag of money with her. That’s what I think the municipalities are quite rightly and justifiably concerned about, as are the police forces.

We know that with the integrated homicide investigation team the mayors of Delta and West Vancouver have been concerned that they’d be forced into joining integrated teams like IHIT. From the public perspective, that again may well be a very good thing and very good public policy.

The Attorney General, in fairness, as I’ve quoted her already, has suggested that we want to do it cooperatively — not by the minister requiring it, to use her own words.

Firstly, is this a serious attempt? Will it do what Justice Oppal wanted done? Will it make policing more effective? Will there be some significant public benefit from it? Not entirely clear.

Of course, like all bills of this nature, the proof will be, so to speak, in the pudding, and that will occur during committee stage of debate. There will be an opportunity to ask the kinds of pointed questions that will enable the minister and, hopefully, give her an opportunity to convince us that in fact the government is actually even moderately sincere about respecting the incredible work of Justice Oppal over many years and implementing recommendations that will actually ensure, in a real way, the safety of people in this province, particularly vulnerable women.

They continue to be victimized, not just in this province but across this country, because of an unwillingness by right-wing governments and, in particular, our own federal Conservative government — I know many members of the cabinet across the way are happy supporters of the federal Conservatives — and continue to be forgotten and ignored by public-policy-makers who have a duty to defend those who are vulnerable in our society.

The final aspect of this bill relates to natural gas development amendments. I must say that I hope the former mayor of Nanaimo, Gary Korpan, is listening. He would use the term himself. He spent a great deal of time ranting around the unfairness with respect to natural gas on Vancouver Island. It’s not surprising that my old friend Joe Stanhope, the chair of the regional district of Nanaimo — at least for now — has been quoted as saying: “I would like to thank the province for being so responsive to our concerns. We’re delighted to see the introduction of these legislative amendments that will benefit the AVICC economy and promote greener energy alternatives.”

From what I understand and everything I’ve heard and with the recent announcement by Fortis, Vancouver Island is finally — finally — going to get some fair treatment around the cost of natural gas. We are finally going to get some genuine benefit. A community, in the sense of the Island, that promoted the pipeline, that paid for things, will actually, finally, it appears, receive some benefit. I thank the good work of Fortis on this. I thank the good work of the former city manager for the city of Nanaimo, who’s been working with Fortis on this issue, Jerry Berry, and others, and local governments and Chairman Stanhope and others and our outgoing Mayor Ruttan.

[1705]

They have all worked hard to ensure that this reform would actually, finally occur. I’m delighted to offer, as I assume this is what it’s designed to do, support for those provisions.

With that, I look forward to the continued debate in second reading and, obviously, the opportunity for the Attorney General, in the course of committee stage — and other ministers, of course, who will take their full responsibilities for their respective sections — of defending this piece of legislation.

As I say, again, it seems to be in some respects, by and large, government’s political response to the series of mistakes it’s been making for a long time and a half-hearted attempt to assuage the public anger and frustration over a number of areas. Whether it’s gaming problems, where you get a big payout and you get to wander off across the street and make a great deal of money….

I know there are a few lawyers in the chamber, and the general concept was that if you were terminated unreasonably, you certainly had a claim. But if you found work right away, the general concept legally and historically was that that had to be deducted from any award — unless, of course, you’ve been fired by the B.C. Liberals, in which case you got to walk out with the cash and immediately jump back into the trough someplace else and get some more cash. It’s a great system. I’m sure somewhere along the way a few lawyers must have skimmed a few bucks off the top of that as well.

I’m tempted to ask, of course, if somehow Mr. Graydon might have had some indemnification from government for payment of his legal fees in defending this, but that would only be said in jest, of course, because I’m sure that’s not the case, although we do look forward with interest every year to see who has received the benefit of indemnity.

With that, I’ll cede the floor to the many other interested members who wish to speak to Bill 4.

N. Macdonald: Well, I was waiting for a government member. Hey, come on. You guys are mailing it in. These bills need scrutiny. Some of the worst legislation that’s come from this place has been in miscellaneous amendment acts.

All the IPP legislation — which cost $55 billion, by the way — started in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, where they tried to remove local government from having a say in the Ashlu.

I would just say to members that are new here, govern-
[ Page 5436 ]
ment members that don’t have an opinion on this, that this is worth looking at, because it does impact people that you represent. In fact, part of this represents an area that has two B.C. Liberal MLAs, and it impacts it, in my view, negatively.

My focus is going to be on section 4 of the bill, which amends section 37 of the Mines Act. Now, it extends to three years — and the minister, in introduction, laid this out — the period available to prosecute infractions and specifically related to Mount Polley.

In a normal world — not a B.C. Liberal world, but in a normal world — one might be able to trust that there is nothing nefarious about this, but, in the end, I know how this is going to be used. My opposition to the change proposed here hinges on my deep distrust of this government. It’s a distrust that has emerged over ten years and over an experience with how this government operates consistently.

Is this change being made by the B.C. Liberals to avoid political fallout at the expense of being properly publicly accountable? Accountability, by the way, ensures safety and protection of individuals and the environment. Anybody who looks at this and has any experience with the B.C. Liberals would have to reach the conclusion that certainly the answer is yes. It is intended to push away the political fallout of a major failure at Mount Polley to the detriment of the greater public good, which is consistently what happens.

For the Speaker’s benefit, I’ll just give you some experience that I have with the B.C. Liberal government’s lack of accountability and putting their political interests ahead of public good — so that the public and members can get some understanding of what’s at stake when that is done.

I was the Forestry critic when we had two tragic explosions of mills here in British Columbia — Burns Lake and the Prince George mills.

[1710]

First, dust explosions are not new at sawmills. WorkSafe is supposed to enforce rules that prevent dust explosions. After the first tragedy and the resulting deaths and the horrific injuries, the cause — a dust explosion — was talked about here in the House. It was talked about by union members. It was not at all a surprise that that is what took place at Burns Lake. That was not a surprise.

The first explosion should never have taken place, but what is criminal is what followed. It was unbelievable that a dust explosion happens and that three months later in Prince George the exact same thing happens, with more deaths and more horrific injuries. What does it say about the integrity, the effectiveness, of the government’s response to the first explosion — which, by the way, should never have happened in the first place?

Even after two explosions, we have no one held responsible — not the companies, not the management of WorkSafe B.C., no one. Despite promises to get to the bottom of the thing, the Premier refuses a public inquiry, refuses families’ requests to have some support at the inquest that the coroner’s office is going to do. Time and time again, it lets down the families.

Other investigations — B.C. Rail, the trial, the payoff of Basi and Virk to shut down any truth from coming out, quick wins, the health care firings. Now this. There is a pattern — a pattern of hiding facts for political purposes, to the broader detriment of the public that this House is supposed to serve.

All of this happens, by the way, because of the indifference of B.C. Liberal backbenchers who go along with this. You’re complicit. The B.C. backbenchers are complicit in all of this. When I say that you have a duty to look at these bills and participate in debate, you also have a duty, in my view, to ask tough questions. If not here — clearly, not here — then in caucus, or whatever mechanism you have, ask some tough questions.

Ask some tough questions about what is actually going on with Mount Polley, for instance. Here’s what happened at Mount Polley. The government cut inspection staff by one-third since taking office — by one-third. They reduced inspections by one-half since taking office. Mount Polley was granted the right to increase mining operations, which, predictably, required more capacity to safely store the tailings. The government was unable to allow permission to handle the increased tailings for four years, leading to the collapse.

Just so that you understand this, the government cut inspections. The government gave permission to Mount Polley to increase the production of tailings and then for four years did not allow the company to deal with that increase. They asked for permission to spill some water. The Ministry of Environment, four years on, still could not give them permission to do that and, at the same time, didn’t stop them from building up the amount of water and tailings in a tailing pond that was clearly inadequate for what was needed.

Knight Piésold were Mount Polley’s engineers. They told government that the walls were being built up too high. They told government. The engineers…. That firm decides to leave, and they tell the Minister of Mines that they need to look at what is going on at Mount Polley. So that’s there. That is there, sent as a record. There are cracks in the tailing pond wall that the Ministry of Mines is told about.

Now, you’d think that would get some attention from government. Is it reasonable that you’re being told by the engineering firm that is responsible for the building and maintenance of Mount Polley…? When they say: “Hey, we’re out of here. We’re leaving. And by the way, you’d better have a look at what’s going on….”

[1715]

When you know that there are cracks at any point in Mount Polley, when you’re told that there are monitoring devices, which every tailings pond needs to have…. Forty percent of them at Mount Polley, the government
[ Page 5437 ]
is told, that monitor the integrity of the wall do not work.

The ministry is told there is water lapping over, according to an employee. It is clear that it’s supposed to be two metres from the top. An employee says that there’s water lapping over the top. We know that the government was aware of high-water issues because they addressed them by indicating to the company that they shouldn’t be doing that. There are lots of warning signs.

What’s the response of government? Just so that you understand the lack of rigour that we’re talking about, in 2009, 2010, 2011, while this is happening, there are no geotechnical inspections by government, because this government got rid of the geotechnical engineers who do that work. Do you know how many geotechnical engineers there were in that period? We just talked to the mines inspector, the ADM. In fact, the minister himself says: “Hey, that was a period I got kicked out of government. Those were dark days for that period I was out of government.” There were zero. There were none.

You have the government responsible for making sure that these tailings ponds, the 50 or 60 of them, have some integrity, and the way they manage that responsibility is by doing nothing. All those warnings — nothing done.

Now, I need to remind members here that the minister is the one person that is ultimately responsible to the public for the proper construction and safe operation of mine tailings ponds. He is responsible ultimately when there is a failure. From the beginning, the honourable thing for this minister to do would have been to step down. That is what should have happened immediately. You don’t need to investigate. The facts speak for themselves.

One person is publicly responsible for the integrity of those tailings ponds. They are responsible for the rules. They are responsible for making sure that the rules are followed. They’re responsible for making sure that the tailings pond is operated properly. When 25 million litres of tailings poured into Quesnel Lake, the facts spoke for themselves. The person responsible failed.

I mean, to use a sports analogy, if you’re the goaltender, and in the first five shots you let in three goals, you get pulled, right? You get pulled. The facts speak for themselves. The legal term is — what is it? — res ipsa loquitur. They speak for themselves. A minister with honour would have, in my view, stepped down. So a change to section 37 of the Mines Act that allows the B.C. Liberals to cover things up for three years, claiming that charges are imminent…. I just see it as more of a cover-up.

Here’s the minister’s situation. He received donations personally from the principal shareholder, the owner of Mount Polley, Alberta billionaire Murray Edwards — personally. The B.C. Liberals were also given hundreds of thousands, and Murray Edwards organized a B.C. Liberal fundraiser in Calgary just prior to 2013 so that Albertans could finance the B.C. government of their choice. They raised, I’m told, $1 million — not insignificant. It’s not too likely the B.C. Liberals or this minister want to make that company or that individual’s life too difficult.

You see it right away. What does the minister say as soon as it happens? I think one of his first comments was: “Hey, we were lucky.” We were lucky — that was one of his comments. “It’s not unlike an avalanche.” Well, it’s really unlike an avalanche. Since then it has been deflection after deflection. Can the opposition get even the most basic information? No.

[1720]

But hey, there are investigations. We have investigations, B.C. Liberal investigations, going on. Well, what are they? We have the Ministry of Environment investigating the Ministry of Environment. We have the Ministry of Mines investigating the Ministry of Mines. Well, how’s that going to turn out?

Then we have the three-person panel. Okay, they seem like credible individuals. The minister says they are doing an investigation. But we asked the ADM, and we asked the mines inspector: “Are those three individuals actually going to be looking at the Ministry of Mines and their complicity in this?” Their answer was that they don’t know.

What exactly is going on here? Is there going to actually be any rigour? And with this change, the ability to push it off for three years, what is the possibility that we are actually going to get to the bottom of this?

Now, I admit that my trust in this government was broken a long time ago. It came as early as mid-May 2006, and it took place at the Sullivan mine. Four died in Kimberley at the closed Sullivan mine. The company who owns the property is the B.C. Liberals’ biggest donor, by the way.

The tailings from Sullivan are high in sulphides. When in contact with air, oxidation takes place. When oxidation takes place, there are certain predictable and well-known problems. First, as some members will know, water in contact with tailings becomes so acidic that it needs to be treated, and it needs to be treated for decades after the mine is closed. That’s the case with the tailings at Sullivan.

So oxidation is predictable. It’s well known. The miners have known about this forever. The acidity, of course, is just one part of the predictable consequences of having these sulphides in the tailings. Now, the mines often deal with this by keeping the tailings in water, in massive tailing ponds. But in Kimberley some of the tailings were piled and exposed to air and rain. So there is acidic water that is collected and treated by the mining company before being released to the St. Mary River.

Now, the mining company built pipe to collect the water and gases from this pile of tailings and bring them to a pit where the water could be gathered and periodically checked for pH levels. Because gases can flow through these pipes…. We know this. We routinely…. Well, we always use a simple mechanism to prevent dangerous gases from getting into our houses and our buildings.
[ Page 5438 ]

You just look at any plumbing in your house, and you’ll see this. It’s that U-shaped part under the sink or drain or toilet that stays filled with water, and it acts as a block to dangerous gases, right? It acts as a trap. I call it a U-trap.

The pit that was built did not have a U-trap. Okay, it was outdoors. Still, there is no evidence that it was thought through for safety. There is no evidence of due diligence at all.

Then the mine company found that rain was getting into the pit, so a hut was built over the pit, and an enclosed space was created. No evidence, again, of due diligence. No protocols followed. Still, the rain on the tailings and lots of water to treat, so an impermeable clay layer was placed over the tailings. It limited water in, but it also kept oxygen-deprived air from being dissipated.

You again had something fairly predictable happening because, as members will know, oxidation creates acidic water but also oxygen-depleted air. It’s simple chemistry, and it’s predictable that you get this oxygen-depleted air.

[1725]

With no due diligence, the company had created perfect conditions for an oxygen-depleted, enclosed space. So on the first hot day the conditions were, for the first time, set for oxygen-deprived air to flow along the pipes. With no U-trap and an enclosed space, predictably, there was the creation of a deadly pit, and it awaited its first victim.

The victim was a subcontractor. It was actually a friend of my brother-in-law’s, and it was somebody who had been hired as a subcontractor to check water readings. He was supposed to, according to the Mines Act, have sign-in protocols established to follow. That did not happen. He was supposed to be contacted every two hours because he was working alone. That did not happen.

This poor man entered the hut, and upon stepping into the pit down a short ladder, he would have immediately succumbed, and he died shortly thereafter. He lay there for two days until friends started to ask where he was. On the morning of the 17th, 2006, an employee of the mine went looking for him and, seeing him lying on the floor of the pit, went to help him. That person also died. Shortly after that, another employee came and saw the most recent victim and called for the paramedics, who also died. Two of them just reaching in. So incredibly sad.

Sadder still was what followed. I was there when the ministers responsible, having said at the massive community funeral in Kimberley that they would get to the bottom of things, instead told this story to the media several weeks later at a news conference in Cranbrook. Basically, the story from government was that there was nothing predictable about the oxygen-deprived hut. It was an accident — very sad, no penalties. “Nothing to see here, folks.” The gathered media parroted that, and it was over.

We worked in Kimberley to get a coroner’s inquest. It gave some closure to the families. But of course, the purpose of a coroner’s inquest is not to establish blame. I think that there’s no question that there were predictable mistakes made that cost four lives. Of course, you come to know the family members that are left behind.

I mean, I may be wrong, but to this day I never saw much interest in this government getting to the bottom of things. Because it was a subcontractor and the other one was from management, you didn’t have the union there in the way that you would expect in an operating mine. There was no accountability. So there was no lesson learned, therefore, just like with Burns Lake and with other accidents. We’ve had a number of them here. It’s predictable that it will happen again. It’s predictable.

Government needs to be on the side of the little guy. That’s what I think. I don’t think many of these big companies need government’s help as well. They’ve got unlimited resources. Whenever you’re in a situation where you’re with families or with individuals trying to fight against something big, to see the resources of government come in on the side of what is already an almost impossibly powerful corporation is hard to watch. I don’t think it’s government’s role. I certainly don’t think it’s appropriate to say that you’re serious about solving a problem when the opposite is true.

Back to Mount Polley. There are people in this province, many of them, who live below tailing ponds. What was the government thinking with no inspections? Is it not true that you are rolling the dice? The minister said we got lucky. The only thing we got lucky about at Mount Polley is that the people were not beneath it. I mean, one has to go there and see the force that was there. Or just watch the video.

What a massive failure. Was there a heavy rain? Nope. Was there an earthquake? Nope. Was there a terrorist attack? Nope. This is something that is supposed to last forever. Can it last forever? Yeah. In India there’s a dam still working — 1,800 years old. You’ve just got to build them properly and watch them, and they can last a long time.

[1730]

Is it important for government to do this work properly? Yes. Revelstoke sits below Mica dam, sits below Revelstoke dam. Everyone presumes the government is doing its job to look after that properly. It’s not only Revelstoke impacted, by the way. Mica, which is an earth-filled dam, goes all the way down to Portland, right? It is important to do these right. People presume government is doing this work. Clearly, in the case of Mount Polley, I think any sensible person would say that they weren’t.

What are the consequences for the public if the government gets away with hiding behind an investigation, claiming that there are going to be charges laid for three years, which is clearly, in my view, where this is headed?

I mean, let’s be honest here. The chance of the B.C. Liberals being found responsible by an investigation that they set up is zero. The chance of the B.C. Liberals setting up an investigation that finds them responsible is zero.
[ Page 5439 ]

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Right. They just do it themselves. The Ministry of Environment inspects the Ministry of Environment, and that’s hands off, and that’s going to arrive at something.

Point to the investigations the B.C. Liberals have done that have ever found the B.C. Liberals responsible for anything — quick wins, Basi-Virk, any of these. Never. You cannot point to that taking place over the last ten years.

The chances of Imperial mining and Murray Edwards being held responsible or accountable by an investigation the B.C. Liberals set up? I would say practically zero on that one too.

This change, in my view, is to escape justice, not to enable it. That’s my position. That’s my belief. I don’t know if I speak for all members of the party, but that’s certainly my belief. I believe that government must serve the public good. In this case, the public good is clear. The tailings ponds must never fail, ever. That should be the objective that overrides the short-term political needs of a particular minister and the government. If you’re not putting that first, then you are doing a tremendous disservice.

The other point that I would make is: I get it. I have very little hope that that minister would actually do the right thing on this. I just don’t believe it. But he is enabled by every member of the B.C. Liberal caucus to continue doing what he’s doing here.

You need to look to yourselves. You did not participate in this debate. Maybe you will now. But if you are enabling this, then you bear the same responsibility that the minister does.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Let’s remember Burns Lake and what happened at Prince George. It’s a mean thing to say that individuals are responsible for these things, but you cannot separate yourself completely from the cuts and what you created in WorkSafe and the Burns Lake explosion. And you cannot, as members, separate yourself from what happened at Prince George. That is inexcusable.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

N. Macdonald: With that, that’s the change to the bill. It’s a change that I don’t trust. I’ve laid out the reasons why that’s the case. I think what the public expects is that members come here and think for themselves. I know that’s a difficult thing. I don’t underestimate the pressures that one is under. But on this bill, you need to be looking at it, and you need to asking those tough questions, if not here, then within your caucus.

The consequences are ones that I’m sure you can rationalize at times, but if we have another failure of a tailings pond after what has taken place so far, which to date has been all about covering up what took place, then it sits on shoulders of people that are here. There was an old saying that most of the evil things that happen are done through complicity. It’s complicity — saying nothing.

[1735]

There we are. That’s the change: section 4 of the bill, amending section 37 of the Mines Act. With any other government I’d say: “Hey, sounds reasonable.” But with the record this government has, I say: “Don’t trust it.” No reason, no thinking person would trust this.

Thank you for listening politely. I have to say you listened politely, and I appreciate that.

M. Farnworth: I rise to speak to Bill 4, entitled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014.

It’s always interesting to speak to a miscellaneous statutes bill. As my colleague the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke pointed out, miscellaneous statutes bills are the kind of legislation where things are often put in. It’s sometimes not like a standard bill, where the title is clear and its purpose is obvious, but rather, it’s a collection of amendments and changes to a number of bills that are tabled before the House. That’s why it’s called a miscellaneous statutes bill.

The changes contained in the sections or the pieces of legislation that are to be amended can be quite significant. As my colleague has pointed out in the amendments that he is speaking to, that’s certainly the case.

Today I want to address my comments on this particular piece of legislation to the sections of the bill which are numbered 7 through 12. They are justice amendments to the Police Act, an important piece of legislation that governs policing in British Columbia; the impacts of the changes that are proposed by the government with the implementation of this act; a number of issues that I think these particular changes raise; a number of questions that have arisen since the introduction of this particular piece of legislation, especially around the independent police forces in British Columbia and local governments; and exactly the purpose of the legislation — why it is being implemented, how it is being implemented.

One of the things that I look for as a critic, and that other critics look for — and I would hope that government members also look for — is: is the purpose of the bill, the sections of the bill…? Are they concise? Are they saying exactly what is going to happen in the bill? How much is being enacted through the passage of the bill — in essence, through debated sections, through law — in this chamber, and how much power is being given to order-in-council to enact changes by regulation?

As all of us in this House know through experience, sometimes painful experience — and local government the same way — regulation is decided in cabinet, in secret, outside of this chamber, away from scrutiny. It is
[ Page 5440 ]
often sprung upon the public or communities without any sort of consultation rationale, and no requirement, in fact, to do so.

We have seen from this government over the past decade that they are more than happy to engage in that kind of public policy-making. I mean, after all, who can forget that fateful day on the 23rd of July, 2009, when out of nowhere the government suddenly sprang, upon the unwary people of British Columbia, something called the HST? Done in the middle of summer, when no one is supposed to be paying attention, and they thought that it would just fly under the radar and that there would be no consequences.

That’s why, when we have legislation such as this that is amending sections of legislation or is making changes, and much of that power is put in place or changes are to be made through regulation, it requires particular scrutiny. It requires the minister to be accountable in this place and to be clear as fulsomely as possible with this House, with the public and with the affected parties that this legislation is going to impact on.

That’s one of the things that I can tell the minister that we’re going to be looking forward to in committee stage, because committee stage is really the time and the place where we’re going to be able to get answers to some of the questions.

[1740]

Now, these particular amendments in this particular piece of legislation deal with the relationship between police forces in British Columbia, particularly around the specialized teams, as they’re referred to — the integrated teams. The one that the public is most familiar with would be IHIT, for example — the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team. That is something that is a very important component of policing in British Columbia, and we want to make sure that it’s done right.

There have been, over time, issues raised on policing at the local level about levels of cooperation between different jurisdictions in ensuring, in terms of allocation of resources and cooperation and the ability to work together on cases…. There have been numerous reports around how that could be improved.

There have been recommendations that range from…. Some people have advocated a provincial police force: have one police force and not a patchwork of police forces in the province of British Columbia. Others have said that what’s required is a regionalization of police forces, that there needs to be a metropolitan police force, for example.

There have been all kinds of ways suggested to improve the integration of policing in British Columbia between the independent police forces and the RCMP and the provincial component of the RCMP.

All of those are important issues. But whenever you want to make changes, there’s always one underlying component, and there’s always one thing that I have found has always been best in terms of public policy. That is when it is done on a cooperative, consultative basis. That is the foundation of good public policy. Good public policy rarely comes about through imperial government edict, which we have sometimes seen this government do. I think they have had painful experiences with that in the past.

One of the questions that we need to ask in terms of these sections is: how did these sections come to be? They give the minister an enormous amount of power to force the integration with municipalities who make their own local decisions on policing in their communities, the level of policing in their communities, how that is paid for and who is doing the paying.

One of the areas where I’m concerned is that the initial reaction from municipalities has not yet been one of complete agreement. There is a wide range of opinions. You have had, for example, the mayor of Delta say that the changes in this particular bill are unacceptable, that she does not support them, and she has raised concern about that.

You have had the chief of police of Vancouver raise issues about how it will impact on Vancouver. You have had other municipalities, such as Victoria, also offer comments. Some have said that it does not go far enough.

You have questions now being asked by communities that are served by RCMP detachments. Exactly how is it going to impact on them? Exactly what is the nature of the powers that the minister will have under this legislation to change the integration and how integration takes place and the ability to force it? I can tell you that in my experience, when government has the ability to force it, it often does not end well, particularly if they go down that route.

The issue of cost has come up. Who is going to be paying? Will there be increased costs to municipalities who are already integrated? Will there be increased costs to those communities who are not? And if they are forced into it, who is going to be paying for those costs? Will there be additional costs in terms of provincial RCMP? And again, who is going to be picking those costs up if there are any? Will it be the province, or will those costs be downloaded onto municipalities?

Is the integration one-way? Is it from independent police forces to RCMP? Or is there the potential for RCMP to be integrated in with some independent forces, such as Vancouver, for example? It is by far and away, as the minister knows — I mean, she does represent a Vancouver riding — the largest independent police force in Vancouver. It has many of its own specialized teams in place already.

[1745]

Those are really important questions that need to be answered. The reason I say this, and some of the concerns that we have, are statements that the minister herself has made publicly in regards to the introduction of
[ Page 5441 ]
this legislation.

I said earlier that the mayor of Delta, Lois Jackson, who has just won re-election, has been out very strongly on this particular piece of legislation, and we’re told by the minister: “Oh, it’s not going to apply to Delta.” Okay, so it’s not going to apply to Delta. Then, “Oh, it’s also not going to apply to Vancouver” in concerns raised by Vancouver. So it’s not going to apply to Vancouver. It’s also not going to apply to Victoria, we’re told.

Now, those comments were made before the municipal elections, but….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear laughter from the other side. I don’t want to be cynical and say: “Oh boy, the critic is on to something there, that we said one thing before an election, and we’ll do something different after an election.” That certainly would not be the first time that that’s taken place in this chamber.

I can tell the minister that one of the questions I will be asking in committee…. I’m glad that the member for Delta North is sitting and paying attention on this particular question, because I will ask the minister this question in committee: will this legislation apply to the municipality of Delta? Will this minister ever use this legislation on Delta? Will this minister give the municipality of Delta an iron-clad guarantee that she will not use it on Delta?

That’s what she said outside of this House, and I want that on the record inside this House. I will be asking that question, and I will ask that question repeatedly. I will be expecting a direct and straightforward answer on that. And I go through the Chair. I know that the Speaker is looking at me.

I make this point, and I’m making this point repeatedly because of the comments of the minister, who said that it does not apply to Delta, it does not apply to Victoria, and it does not apply to Vancouver. So if it doesn’t apply to these municipalities and, in particular, two of the largest independent police forces on the Lower Mainland, of Vancouver and Victoria, then who does it apply to?

Does it apply to Terrace? Does it apply to Oak Bay? Does it apply to Port Moody? Does it apply to New Westminster?

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Does it apply to Jumbo? I mean, that’s a very good question from my colleague from Saanich South, and that wouldn’t surprise me.

That would not surprise me given the reaction of this government to the piece of legislation to date where municipalities have jumped up and said, “We don’t want it here,” and the action of the government in saying: “Don’t worry; it won’t apply there.” One can quickly see where those municipalities where English is the primary language make it clear to their elected representatives that they don’t like it or they don’t want it, so then it’s not going to apply to them.

I guess that only leaves a municipality where the first language is either raccoon, ursine, squirrel or elk that speak their own — and bear. If they’re the only ones who are unable to speak in a way that the minister can respond to, you really have to ask the question — I’m being humorous there but also serious at the same time: who is this legislation going to apply to? Which communities is this legislation going to apply to?

The statements of the minister clearly seem to limit the ability of the legislation to do what was set out when it was tabled in the House. I think it’s going to be very important to get that clarified.

[1750]

Again, it brings us to the issue of regulation. We will want to know exactly the scope and nature of regulations that the minister is proposing, the timeline and the time frame that is going to be required to put those regulations into place. What consultation has taken place already with local governments and with local municipalities that the minister has no doubt will be impacted by this legislation?

Also, what consultation processes are going to be in place with the passage of this legislation? What time frames are there going to be in terms of that consultation to take place? Under what circumstances are the powers — and they are significant powers to be able to compel to force municipalities into integration…? How exactly is that going to work? Those are a lot of the questions that we have.

A final observation on these sections of this particular bill again comes back to some of the minister’s opening statements. That is that this bill is here because it is implementing one of the recommendations from the Oppal Commission report. The reality is that this is not the recommendation of the Oppal Commission report.

Justice Oppal’s recommendation was for regional policing. He was very clear. A regional police force. Regional policing. It was not saying bring in some amendments and give the minister the power to force integration of specialized teams. That was not the recommendation, and the minister knows that.

When the minister says publicly, though, that this is the implementation of one of these recommendations, that does a disservice to the work in that report and that does a disservice to Justice Oppal. I want to put that on the record because I think it’s important that that particular acknowledgement is made.

I’m not going to speak too much longer on the second reading of this particular bill. Suffice it to say that we will have a lot of questions to ask at committee stage on this bill. I’ve outlined a number of the concerns for the minister. I will reiterate again that those commitments
[ Page 5442 ]
that have been made to municipalities — I will be putting them on the record. I will most certainly be putting them on the record as it relates to Delta, because clearly, the mayor of Delta has come away with a very strong sense that — you know what? — this legislation will not be used in the case of Delta.

I think committee stage is going to be interesting. We look forward to the discussion and the answers to the questions and particularly those issues around the regulatory powers and how they’re going to be created, the consultation process structured and implemented.

With that, I take my place, because I know there are other members on this side of the House who are anxious to participate in this second reading debate.

L. Popham: I hesitated for a moment to make sure there weren’t any government members who were wanting to stand up and speak. It’s quite ironic that today during question period the Premier was quite critical of the opposition and scolded us for not embracing the moment and talking about the issues of the day. Right now we’ve got issues of the day, and the government is refusing to stand up and add anything to this conversation.

The Premier did mention that she was really proud of her team, but I don’t think that she’d be proud of this, if she really wants them to participate in issues of the day. They don’t have to speak for that long, really. They could just give us a little snippet of how they’re feeling about some of these changes.

Now, the part of Bill 4 that I’m going to be concentrating on is, obviously, the Agricultural Land Commission changes. The strange thing about this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is that we’re really just rejigging some of the legislation to make way for the changes that were brought in by Bill 24 in the spring. Bill 24, as we all know, was one of the most contentious bills that we’ve seen go through this chamber.

[1755]

I think it’s pretty well a given that most people in B.C. know that the legislation was misleading in a lot of ways, because the government did claim that it was to make agriculture stronger, but obviously it wasn’t. It was to destroy the agricultural land reserve. So watching these amendments go through in Bill 4 is just another ugly reminder of what we went through in the spring.

These amendments are making sure that the chair of the commission is basically neutered. So that was coming. That’s too bad, because when you have an independent commission — independent — and we see the government making changes that allow some to participate in that commission and take their place in that commission as far as decision-making goes, it fails to be completely independent. It has a lot of room for government influence, and that’s a dangerous road to go down, for sure.

We have a very well-respected chair of the Agricultural Land Commission who is dedicated to making sure the commission and the reserve work well together and that it’s a fair process. But when you get rejigging of legislation that allows government members to participate in ways that they maybe shouldn’t, it’s a sad day for B.C. We really depend on that commission to keep the agricultural land reserve strong and to make sure that the process is fair.

Well, it’s not going to be fair anymore. We’ve had appointments of new commissioners. In fact, there are 18, and I can go as far as saying that some of those appointments were obviously political — not all of them, but some of them. That’s a common conversation around B.C. too. We have to watch that process and that commission really, really carefully over the next little while. They’re getting trained up right now, and from what I hear, that training process is going very well. It’s being handled very well. Applications will start to be processed again after Christmas, after the holidays.

That’s really where the rubber is going to hit the road, because we’re going to see how this new large and more expensive commission is going to handle the loads of applications that have been stacking up ever since the B.C. Liberals took the commission out of commission by handling that legislation so badly. Neutered the chair. We’ve created two zones.

Some of this legislation now is making sure that we understand, yet again, that non-farm use can be done in zone 2. We can do anything that we want in zone 2 now if it helps a farming income, which we know it won’t. If you want to help farming income, you actually have proper agricultural policy. You don’t encourage a diesel repair shop to go up in the middle of a wheat field. But you know, that’s a difference of opinion that we have in this chamber.

This side of the House really believes in good agricultural policy, such as the agricultural land reserve. The other side of the House believes that the agricultural land reserve and the land in the reserve…. The highest and best use is: “Whatever you want. Do whatever you want, and we’ll call that farming.” Now it’s called farming, even though it’s not farming. It’s non-farm use on agricultural land. But we’re going to call that farming now. That’s another kind of stark reminder how bad Bill 24 was for the province.

One of the things that I’ve brought up in this chamber from the day I got elected, basically — I can’t remember how many times I’ve brought this up — is that we need a select standing committee on agriculture. That is something that you would think…. That’s almost a no-brainer, a select standing committee on agriculture. It’s a legislative committee. It’s a committee that both sides of the House can participate in. I’ve put it on the order tables I don’t know how many times. I did it again yesterday. Again, I’m going to assume that it will fall off the order table by the end of next week, and when we start a new session in the middle of February, I can table that again. So it’s maybe been five times so far. I can’t remember.
[ Page 5443 ]

Anyway, that’s the sort of thing you’d think we would spend time on in this chamber, but no, we’re going to just kind of make sure that we put through major changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act in a miscellaneous bill. It’s the easy way to just push it off to the side, make sure it’s not too significant in this chamber. And that’s pretty sad.

[1800]

Now, something that’s even more ironic that happened this week is that while we’re doing this — while we’re destroying, by new legislation, the agricultural land reserve — this government has taken a very symbolic agricultural marketing logo, called Buy B.C., one of most widely recognized agricultural marketing tools that we’ve had in this province, and at the same time as destroying the ALR, we’re now destroying that well-recognized logo. Buy B.C. is going to be used. You betcha it’s going to be used in this chamber. But it’s all about LNG, so it’s: “Buy B.C. LNG.”

How ironic. But even more, how disrespectful of the agricultural community. They still believe that Buy B.C. was something very important to the agricultural community. But this government, in their ways, has slapped agriculture across the face so many times that this is just the icing on the cake.

Now we’re going to take this marketing tool, and we’re going to change it into something that has nothing to do with agriculture. It’s unbelievable, and it’s astounding. The e-mails that I’ve gotten over the last little while are people that just think that it’s so pathetic. It’s almost funny it’s so bad.

I haven’t seen any of the members on the other side of the House, who repeatedly get up and talk about how much they love agriculture, how they’re supporting Young Farmer programs…. “The average age of a farmer is 55. We’ve got to do something about it.”

Well, they’re destroying agriculture at the same time. The credibility on the agriculture file is so low, it’s below zero now. It’s gone to zero. It’s like sub-zero. It’s so sad to watch. And I said this in the spring — that it’s been very difficult on my watch as an elected official to watch this process happen, because it’s very sad, and I think it bodes very badly for our future.

Almost weekly now our major newspapers are coming out with articles talking about the state of our food-sourcing regions — like California, for example. Another report came out yesterday — and obviously our climate change is having a massive impact on agriculture — and one of the main things is drought. California is struggling with a horrendous drought, and it’s not something that’s going to turn around. It’s something that we have to deal with. But we are not going to be able to source from California.

We have been growing our imports into our province more and more over the years so that California is basically where we source most of our food, and we’ve gone away from growing some crops that we traditionally grew here because we can easily source from California. All that’s changing now. So when that changes….

We’ve had a heads-up for many years. Now it’s getting to the critical point. But instead of planning ahead…. You would think that — emergency preparedness and all of that — there would be enough of an idea that if you plan ahead, you have more resilience when an emergency happens. We’ve missed that boat for the last 12 years. We have had no emergency preparedness as far as climate change and food production. So now as….

Deputy Speaker: I’ve been giving the member some considerable latitude, but if we could bring debate back to Bill 4, please.

L. Popham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I understand what you’re saying, and I am addressing these changes that are happening. But I’m thinking that we could have had better changes in this act at the same time, proper work that should have been done. But I get your point.

I also would like to say thank you for being understanding, because I know sometimes I do get a little passionate, especially when you’re in the chair, it seems. [Laughter.]

Deputy Speaker: I won’t touch that. Perhaps I should just let the member continue in any direction she’d like.

L. Popham: Okay, back to the bad news then. One of the things that I think the government has missed the boat on: instead of doing these sorts of amendments to legislation, there could have been some long-term planning. Most agricultural stakeholder groups do understand that this government….

[1805]

I think the government can probably admit, themselves, that we don’t have a long-term agriculture plan. We don’t have a long-term agricultural sustainability plan, a self-sufficiency plan, a food security plan. We don’t have that in place, and that’s a huge problem.

Instead of doing these amendments, we could’ve spent a lot of time looking at what’s being done in our own backyard. Kwantlen University has an agriculture sustainability program. They’ve really put all they’ve got into making a…. It’s called a bioregional food system. It really takes into account everything that British Columbia has to offer as far as our special bioregions and what we can produce there and what we can process there.

So instead of making changes where you can do non-farm uses on agricultural land, you actually look at every different region and what it can offer and what it can produce, and you make that part of an agricultural plan. I think that’s a very good idea, and in fact, it all ties together.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 5444 ]

If you look at the southwest British Columbia bioregion, which includes Powell River, Squamish-Lillooet, Sunshine Coast, Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley…. If you look at that and you were to feed, for example, everybody who was eating a hospital meal…. This would be food that the provincial government purchases with its health budget. If you look at all of that food, it’s about $50 million a year. Just imagine, instead of making these amendments here, we put a long-term agricultural plan in place, and we spent that $50 million in our own province.

It’s nothing to laugh at, and it’s not a quaint idea. What it would do is it would make a very stable marketplace for agriculture. You would see that agriculture becomes an even bigger, more important economic driver, because we could drive it ourselves as a province.

When you look at this system that Kent Mullinix, Professor Mullinix, has designed and that he’s talking about, it’s really, really interesting. Instead of doing these amendments, why don’t we instate the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and start talking about real ideas instead of trying to work around the agricultural land reserve?

Why don’t we embrace it and make it work for us the best we can? If we keep eroding it the way we’re doing, we’re not going to have this choice anymore. It’s the choice that we’re going to need for the future. We all talk about our children and our grandchildren in this chamber. The best thing that we could be doing for those kids and their kids is to make sure that we have a sustainable long-range agricultural plan.

I’m going to continue to talk about this for as long as I’m elected in this chamber. I hope that one day the government side will listen.

D. Eby: I hesitated a moment there to see whether any members on the opposite side wanted to stand up and speak to this act at all.

Glad to rise and fill the vacuum left by the government in speaking to the second reading of this. In particular, I’ll be speaking to part 3, which are the Gaming Control Act amendments.

Now, these amendments propose to change section 69 of the Gaming Control Act, which means that the gaming policy and enforcement branch can put conditions on licences for individual workers and gaming service providers if they violate the conditions of their registration under the act.

This means that they can cancel registrations, which means you can’t work in gambling in B.C. anymore. This means they could suspend reservations, which means that it’s a cancellation for a period of time. Or there could be new conditions in place. There are other conditions, like you’re not allowed to sell lottery tickets anymore. I think that the most interesting amendments are these ones about cancelling registrations that already exist and placing conditions on registrations.

Now, the government hasn’t told us why they’re bringing these amendments forward, but I can share with this House two obvious incidents that lead to the need for these changes. Both of them are related to Paragon Gaming and the B.C. Place mega-casino resort development in downtown Vancouver. I know that some members of this House are very, very familiar with these issues.

An Hon. Member: Who might that be?

[1810]

D. Eby: It could be anybody.

This spring the opposition released FOI documents that showed that the Finance Minister had signed off on $114,000 severance for Michael Graydon. Now, who is Michael Graydon? Michael Graydon was the head of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

The B.C. Lottery Corporation has a really important job. They manage the casino industry on our behalf. They oversee the operation of casinos, they oversee the companies that provide services in B.C. casinos, and they manage day-to-day casino operations. They’re responsible for casino security. They’re responsible for casino compliance programs. They say they continuously monitor and review the activities of casino service providers in the province. That’s the role of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Well, Mr. Graydon was the head of this organization. While he was in the position of being the head of the BCLC, he secretly, for two months, negotiated himself a job with one of the very service providers that he was supposed to be overseeing. Not only that; even after it became public that he had done this, he maintained access to his BlackBerry — to computer records within BCLC which contained very sensitive records of all of Paragon’s competitors — and his access wasn’t cut off.

If you were the government gaming policy and enforcement branch and you received an application from Mr. Graydon saying, “I would like to be certified as a gaming worker in British Columbia. I would like to work for one of these companies that I was overseeing at the same time as I was secretly negotiating a job with them,” wouldn’t you like to be able to say: “No, you are not able to work for Paragon. You had access to sensitive, proprietary information of Paragon’s competitors. You could easily use that information to Paragon’s advantage. You secretly negotiated this, in violation of provincial conflict-of-interest rules, no”?

Or: “We’d like to put some conditions on your participation with Paragon. You should have no role in these areas where your conflict of interest would have jeopardized that.”

Michael Graydon’s story is exactly why I hope all members of this House support these amendments that allow B.C.’s gaming watchdog to prohibit or put conditions on
[ Page 5445 ]
people who would like to be involved in the gaming industry. I don’t suspect that Mr. Graydon ever thought that he would be the reason for legislation coming forward, but it seems to me he’s one of the big reasons why we’re seeing these amendments in this House today on second reading.

When we found out that the gaming policy and enforcement branch was investigating Mr. Graydon and deciding, even six months after he left BCLC, whether or not he should be allowed to participate in gaming in B.C., we also found out that they were investigating someone else. This is the second case, which is why I hope the members of this House support these amendments.

They were also investigating Paragon Gaming. Paragon Gaming is a very critically important gaming company in British Columbia. It wasn’t always this way. They’re a small Las Vegas company. They’re not well known. They’ve only built two casinos in Canada; B.C. Place will be the third. But they are a very important player. The reason for that is that they were awarded a half-a-billion-dollar mega casino resort and development at B.C. Place.

The significance of the gaming policy and enforcement branch investigating Paragon is that it puts into question the awarding of this contract at Paragon. It puts into question the development that is headed by Paragon — proposed to be headed by Paragon, anyway — that includes a casino. And this casino development is supposed to pay for the leaky B.C. Place roof. So here we have the foundation of the house of cards at B.C. Place, and the leaky roof, being threatened by an investigation of the lead proponent, Paragon.

Why is Paragon under investigation? Why are these amendments important? It’s a very simple answer. Paragon only built two other casinos in Canada — both of them in Alberta. One of those casinos, the Eagle River Casino, went completely bankrupt. It never made a penny when Paragon was operating it. When Paragon walked away from Eagle River, it was losing $1 million a month in overhead alone. That does not count the interest that they owed to a large U.S. hedge fund.

[1815]

They built a casino in rural Alberta that managed to lose $1 million a day in overhead alone. This is quite an accomplishment. They ran this casino at 356 percent of the overhead of a local competitor of comparable size. Three times the overhead — that’s quite an accomplishment. They managed to bankrupt it in four short years. When you have a company that has left their previous development partner with $81 million in debt, an empty parking lot, an empty lot where a hotel was promised to be built and was never built, and there are affidavits in court swearing that this is what happened….

As a government regulator, you see this company coming down the street, and they’re saying, “We’d like to open a mega-casino in the middle of downtown Vancouver worth half a billion dollars.” As the regulator, wouldn’t you like the ability to say: “I know that you have a licence to operate right now in British Columbia, but you are a bankrupt. You walked away from $81 million in debt in another province. You are not the kind of company that we would like to have operating in British Columbia”?

That is why these amendments are important. It allows the gaming policy and enforcement branch to take that information — information that was available at the time this 70-year deal was signed — and say: “No, you no longer have a licence to operate a casino in British Columbia.”

I do have to say I am impressed with the integrity of this government that they would bring forward these amendments at a time when it threatens the very existence of the keystone development partner in downtown Vancouver at the B.C. Place casino.

There is no question but that Paragon is under investigation by GPEB. There is no question but that Paragon is a bankrupt company that bankrupted their casino in Alberta in short order. There is no question but that these amendments would apply squarely to Paragon and would give the government regulator the ability to cancel Paragon’s gaming licence, which means that they could not be involved in the casino at B.C. Place, despite the fact that they were awarded this massive 70-year deal.

I do respect the government’s integrity in bringing these forward, but I do have to wonder about how we got in this situation in the first place.

I know that I can call on the integrity of all members of this House in asking them to support these amendments even though they know that passing these amendments may jeopardize the B.C. Place development which is being developed by a company with a history of bankruptcy, with a history of major problems in Alberta. But we still need to pass this, because we need a regulator that can protect and ensure the integrity of B.C.’s gaming casinos, because without that reputation of integrity, we should not have a gaming program.

There are many people in B.C. who rely on the gaming industry and many community members who rely on the revenues of gaming. That is not an outcome that any of us are looking for. We want to preserve the integrity of our gaming process. We want the regulator to have the power that they need, even if they threaten to undermine decisions that may have been made by members of this very chamber.

B. Ralston: I’m dealing, on second reading, with the last two sections of the bill — sections 13 and 14. They are proposed amendments to the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act, passed back in 1996 to assist in the development of a pipeline. It gave the government some power to grant or loan money to a proposed pipeline, to set rates and to regulate them going forward — and some references to the Utilities Commission.

These two particular sections of the bill. The first one is completely uncontroversial. It simply removes that par-
[ Page 5446 ]
ticular provision from the act. It expired December 31, 2011, so that’s obviously uncontroversial.

[1820]

Section 14 amends section 7 of the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act. What this provision does is it removes a prohibition preventing municipalities from entering into what are called franchise agreements with a natural gas provider. It’s a provision of section 22 of the Community Charter. It would authorize the council to “enter into an agreement that grants an exclusive or limited franchise for….” In this case it’s focused on gas, and energy supply systems.

What the explanatory note with the bill says…. I have not yet had the opportunity to have a briefing from ministry staff. That’s arranged for tomorrow, so by the time we get to committee stage I’ll have, I suppose — I hope — a somewhat more detailed idea of the intent of this section. What it appears to do is to give municipalities the opportunity to raise revenue by entering into these agreements.

The supporting material says that the likely charge, referring to franchise fees, would be that these fees, typically 3 percent of the utility bill, provide the municipality with the funds needed to cover costs associated with having natural gas utility system infrastructure operating in their community.

There are some supporting documents from local municipal leaders who seem to support this provision giving them that opportunity. It’s not clear, despite the reference to 3 percent on a utility bill, whether that would in fact be the case. This would obviously be something that would have to be negotiated. Whether that would be subject to a regulatory approval, and whether the requirement to take these franchise fees, since they are part of the utility bill, before the Utilities Commission….

These are questions that will be explored at a later date in the committee stage. It seems innocuous enough, but, much as the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has noted, sometimes in the most simple and apparently transparent legislation there’s another intent. I’ll want to explore that. I’m not necessarily prejudging it. It may be simply as stated.

But one can well imagine that consumers of natural gas on the Island might be concerned about additional fees on their utility bill. Obviously, there’s a historic issue about the cost of natural gas on Vancouver Island. Fortis has moved some way through some agreements to begin to equalize the charges that consumers on the Island are charged with those on the mainland. That is an ongoing process, but it seems to be moving forward with general public assent.

The issue here, then, is the meaning of a franchise agreement and the meaning of a franchise fee and to what degree municipalities will be constrained from imposing exorbitant fees or progressive fees or annual fees and the impact, generally, on the utility bill for ratepayers of natural gas on the Island.

Really, that’s all that’s here before us. Ordinarily, this falls, given that it’s natural gas, within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Natural Gas Development. I expect that when we get to the committee stage he will be here armed with the answers, and we’ll have a clear and elucidating discussion about the meaning of these provisions.

With those brief comments on, essentially, this one section, I’ll conclude my remarks.

A. Weaver: The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, proposes a number of changes to a variety of different bills, but I’m only going to take a few minutes to comment upon two aspects of this bill. These are the proposed changes to the Police Act and the proposed changes to the Mines Act.

[1825]

First, with regards to the Police Act, I’d like to applaud the government for taking steps to address some of the recommendations that came from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. While these proposed amendments address only a small component of a much larger set of recommendations, it is, nonetheless, a positive sign that action is being taken.

I’m curious, however, how these new provisions will affect policing in other jurisdictions across the province and how the costs of its implementation might be shared. For instance, in the capital regional district, policing accounts for a very large portion of the budget expenditures in many municipalities. The threat of additional pressure on municipal budgets at a time when the governance and policing within the CRD is already under review may present some challenges.

I also hope that these provisions have been brought forward in a manner that will allow for consideration of the recommendations of the upcoming report to be considered by the Auditor General for Local Government. March 2015 is the expected date of release of this report. The local government performance in managing policing agreements and police budget oversight report — that’s a lot of words — will be particularly relevant to the CRD, where I live.

As the government is aware, the results of the municipal elections in the capital regional district showed clear support for conducting a governance review in the region. This governance review would include the exploration of potentially sharing services such as policing.

Secondly, I wanted to raise an issue concerning the proposed amendments to the Mines Act. While I fully support the extension of a time limit for commencing a prosecution for an offence, I believe it’s important to understand the impact that this will have on the current Mount Polley investigation.

Government has consistently used the fact that an investigation is ongoing to refuse to make certain documents public. Since this act would be retroactive to the Mount Polley investigation, I wonder. Does this mean
[ Page 5447 ]
that the government would also or could also or will also withhold documents for an extended period of time — these same documents that the opposition and others are pressing to be made public?

Obviously, I believe that it is in the public interest for government to release these documents as soon as possible, not sometime after the next election, when the B.C. Green Party is forming government.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Let me rephrase that: not sometime after the next election, when the new three-year limit has expired.

With that said, I’d like to thank the minister for bringing this legislation forward for debate, and I look forward to the committee stage of this bill, where I’ll be able to explore issues that I’ve raised in further detail.

V. Huntington: I’m pleased to stand and speak to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014. I specifically want to speak to part 1, which contains agricultural amendments which complete the intent of Bill 24, and part 4 of the act, “Justice Amendments.”

I did not support Bill 24, and I will not be supporting the miscellaneous amendments considered by Bill 4. Section 1 modifies the Agricultural Land Commission Act by eliminating consultation with the chair on appointments — consultation which was a requirement of the Administrative Tribunals Act, a requirement which the government obviously thinks thwarted their ability to appoint panel members pursuant to the controversial, disappointing and widely criticized Bill 24.

The government and the Agriculture Minister continue to claim that their vision is for an independent ALC, but the minister hasn’t taken his own words to heart. I sent the minister a letter with over 30 questions in June that, due to time allocation, I couldn’t raise in the House. Unfortunately, the minister was unable to answer a number of important questions about what data the government had to support the bill or what the ministry-projected additional exclusions and job losses might be a result of the bill.

I also asked about consultation with the chair on appointments to the ALC. The minister said: “Government has decided to streamline the process of appointments to the ALC by eliminating consultations with the chair.” I pointed out that consultation was still required under the Administrative Tribunals Act, to which he said they were “considering options to redress the potential for conflict.”

[1830]

What that meant for this summer is that the minister still had to undertake consultation with the chair, consultation which I understand was basically the equivalent of presenting a list of names with no chance of providing meaningful input.

That type of minimal consultation might have upheld the letter of the law, but it didn’t meet the spirit of the law. The board resourcing and development office says consultation with the chair on appointments is “intended to ensure that the views of the chair and the operational requirements of the tribunal are key factors that government considers in making tribunal appointments.” But the minister says he wants to streamline the process and eliminate consultation, which brings us to the amendments today.

When it comes to the future of agriculture in this province and the future of our province’s food security, I would trust the ALC chair’s opinion on commission appointments over a government that pushed through legislation against the will of both the public and B.C. farmers. And the public agrees. A poll this September found that the public had more confidence in the chair of the ALC than the minister when it came to protecting B.C. farmland.

If the government believes in the independence of the ALC, then it shouldn’t remove the legal requirement that the BRDO says is essential to ensure that the views of the chair and a panel’s operational requirements are met.

What consultation with the chair entails can vary depending on the tribunal, the ministry and the relationship between the two. The consultation with the ALC is already limited to providing the chair with a list of names and asking if there are any concerns, yet here we are removing even that minimal protection from political interference. The government’s endless commitment to streamlining comes at a price when it strikes at the heart of our independent institutions.

Then we come to part 4 of the act — the Justice amendments, amendments which no Justice Minister in Canada should consider, let alone introduce. For these amendments to the Police Act are, in my opinion, unacceptable in a free and democratic society. I doubt the minister has even contemplated the fact that the bill is an egregious insult to our prevailing system of government. It is not part of our democratic tradition. It does not have the consent of the people. It doesn’t even have the consent of local government, which it impacts most. It is a bureaucratic dream of ultimate control, and it lacks any pretence of accountability.

Exactly what are we here to do in this House? What do our daily prayers ask God to help us to do? They ask him to give us wisdom as we go about our duty to protect our fragile democracy. That’s what I’m doing here. It’s why I came here — to protect democracy, ensure consent and preserve accountability. I am not here to help a government centralize its control of our justice system and police.

How is it we have a bill that gives our Minister of Justice the naked power to dissolve and reinvent and reorganize our police forces? How is it we have this powerful bill in front of us that no one wants and not one that
[ Page 5448 ]
establishes a provincial bus service along Highway 16 — something everybody wants? That was also a recommendation of Justice Oppal. The government is picking and choosing, and its choices reflect sadly on its commitment to democracy.

Have the members opposite reflected on the layers of legislation that, over the last few years, are transforming how our system of justice actually operates, how we are moving to bureaucratic decision-making, how we are moving to administrative justice with no independent appeal mechanisms, how we are creating a system that gives the decision-maker the power of reconsideration, how we are removing trained jurists from our civil system, how we are enabling forfeitures and searches and closures with no evidence that is examined by the courts? It’s a system which is removing the checks and balances so critical to democracy and the rule of law.

We have a motor vehicle superintendent that while charged with saving lives has also ruined them. What we are trying to do may have merit, but how we end up doing it does not protect the common law.

Legislation has provided officials — not the courts, not our legal system — with powers that the courts have struck down. Is government concerned? No. It argues. It tries to find another way to do the same thing. It’s not thinking about what it is creating — without, I might add, the consent and understanding of the people.

[1835]

We have bureaucratic groups of enforcers that can take a complaint from anyone, surveil a residence and decide whether or not they should end a lease. They can decide that people can be evicted from their homes.

Again, what we are trying to do may have merit, but the way we accomplish it is neither democratic nor representative of what we think is democracy and the rule of law.

The civil forfeitures in this province are often done with hammer in hand, with no proof, at the whim of an official who has shown time and again that the heavy hand of authority will be used, in spite of the cautions expressed by our courts. Does this government step in when the courts express concern over the powers being exercised? No, it moves to protect those powers.

The rule of law is the foundation of democracy. Without it, public respect disappears. Without it, chaos can rule. Without it, thugs and dictators and corruption take over a system. A thousand years of blood and struggle to create what we have is being frittered away in ignorance, in the failure to understand that every time government removes a check and balance in our fragile system, it makes that system weaker.

For whatever reason, the government and its members do not see the accumulating number of powers they are creating, powers outside the traditional rules of common law. And because there is no insidious conspiracy to remove legal barriers, they don’t see the dangers of what is being built.

We have seen time and again throughout this world how easy it is to take over an election, to take over a parliament, to react to periods of economic stress or fear. It happens, and it happens frequently. We have fought wars this last century against countries far more historically sophisticated and ancient than our own. Countries that also had laws. Countries that manipulated law and removed the checks and balances that centuries of experience taught us were vital to protect us from uncontrolled power.

We build laws to protect the individual from arbitrary decisions by officials or from police, but over the last four years we have done a lot in this place to make those arbitrary decisions more and more possible. Even more significantly, we are allowing officials, not judges or lawyers, to make these decisions with no opportunity for an independent appeal process. This is bad business, and it’s bad government.

The tragedy of Bill 4 is that we go one step further. We dig even more deeply into the democratic process and show utter disdain for another pillar of democracy. We do away with the principle of accountability.

Fundamental to our process, our belief, our trust in the power of the vote is that those who raise the taxes are held accountable to those who pay the taxes. But not anymore. With this bill, the government not only moves into the municipal policing sphere; it also make it a legislative duty — a duty, no less — to pay for the complete provincial reorganization of a municipal policing authority activity.

The province can dissolve a local police force and create operational services a municipality may not need. Who pays? Not the province. Oh no, it makes the decisions and forces the municipalities not only to comply but also to pay — and richly, for these are not cheap services. How is that accountable? How does that support the fundamental principle of democracy?

What are you doing to our understanding of power, I might ask the government? Of responsibility? Of accountability? Of governance? You create a bill, to quote one your own members, that is a Trojan Horse, a Trojan Horse sitting in wait. A Trojan Horse that unloads its cargo when the minister — not the people, not the municipalities, not the mayors or police boards — and her officials decide they want to change the way we police our neighbourhoods.

What is the minister wanting to amalgamate? The police forces and municipal jurisdictions in greater Vancouver already have amalgamated many of the specialized services, or perhaps the minister is unaware of that fact. We have the B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force, the municipal integrated emergency response team, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, the integrated municipal-provincial auto crime unit, the integrated border enforcement team, the port intelligence team, the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team.
[ Page 5449 ]

What more does the government want in the way of cooperation and money? They’re even looking at a combined police dog team. All of it paid for, all of it voluntary, all of it supported by the municipalities and by the resident taxpayers.

This bill enables bureaucracy to make decision-making about police. It centralizes control. It is removing accountability. It is making decisions that belong to the local taxing authority. It is being arbitrary. There are no limits to the costs it imposes. There is no requirement for agreement or even for consultation.

[1840]

Then there is the laughable section 4.02(3)(e), which says that government will determine the process to be used to inform the community about the provision of services. Inform them of the agreement and then obtain their input after the fact — another dog-and-pony show, another fiction in the new language of democracy, or lack thereof.

My own mayor, Her Worship Lois Jackson, came to this House to talk to the Minister of Justice. She expressed the serious concerns Delta council had with this bill. It represents losses — the loss of services and local control. It represents serious new costs that could undermine our own highly respected, highly successful police force. It represents a loss of democratic accountability.

To quote a council report, the Delta police board is mandated under the B.C. Police Act "to provide civilian governance, accountability and oversight of the Delta police department" and ensures that "the direction of the Delta police department is consistent with community expectations.” Under the integrated police units, this local governance and accountability would be lost.

I’m grateful my mayor spoke of Delta’s objections to this bill, and I congratulate Delta’s staff and council for responding so quickly to a distasteful piece of legislation that has enormous impacts on the communities in this province. But the minister’s assurance that Delta or the Lower Mainland are not affected by this bill is akin to the story of the emperor with no clothes. The fact is the language is in this bill, and it exempts no one — no community, no police department and no city.

This government has given no thought to how this legislation could unfold in the wrong hands, no thought to history and the fact that people who want power historically create these types of documents in order to legitimize their intentions. In the wrong hands, this creates a perfect scenario for central control of our policing authority. I find it remarkable that this bill is supported by the province’s Minister of Justice.

I end my comments by reminding members opposite that their sense of security in our democracy is so absolute that they have failed to remember what we have committed to protect. Democracy is fragile. It must be treated carefully, and its fundamentals should never be forgotten. We spent last week assuring ourselves and our communities that we will never forget those fundamentals of democracy. But Bill 4 forgets those fundamental pillars and should be defeated by this House.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I move second reading of Bill 4.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 4 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now would like to call continued second reading of Bill M203, intituled the Terry Fox Day Act.

BILL M203 — TERRY FOX DAY ACT

(continued)

J. Martin: It truly is a pleasure to be able to speak to a piece of legislation of this nature that brings all of us in this House together for a momentous occasion. I don’t know that I’ve been happier to speak to anything since I’ve been here. The legacy of Canadian icon Terry Fox is world-renowned, obviously. Terry’s story is unparalleled in this country and is a source of inspiration and courage for each and every one of us.

Being the member for Chilliwack, we have a special connection to Terry Fox. His mother, Betty Fox, moved to Chilliwack in 2003. She lived in our city until her passing in 2011. I got to know Betty over the years. She and I were members of the same Royal Canadian Legion branch. I remember Betty Fox really liked her old-time country music. I was playing bass in a Hank Williams cover band, and Betty Fox would be in there, and she’d always be encouraging us to do one more. “Can you play one more. Can you hang around 30 minutes longer.” She made sure the band never went thirsty as well.

[1845]

Terry’s father, Rolly, continues to live in Chilliwack. He makes appearances with the other family members at the Terry Fox Run and events and all the programs that we put on. It’s a common sight in Chilliwack for Rolly to be telling stories and swapping jokes in a coffee shop in the city.

The Terry Fox Foundation national office also calls Chilliwack home and carries forward Terry’s goal to raise awareness of all cancers and to further fund cancer research.
[ Page 5450 ]

Betty’s work and the work of the entire Fox family have had a lasting impression on the Chilliwack community. Local businesses regularly conduct fundraising events, such as the annual pie day at the Airport Coffee Shop I was so happy to talk about last year.

My constituency assistant, Desmond Devnich, co-chairs the Chilliwack Terry Fox Run event on an annual basis.

Recognizing the Sunday following Labour Day as Terry Fox Day in British Columbia promotes the iconic yet humble nature of Terry. I think it reminds us and encourages us to all think less of ourselves, more about those around us and how we can make for a better neighbourhood, better community, better society and a better country.

As I say, I don’t know that there is a more inspiring figure in this country’s history. It is with confidence and on behalf of everyone in Chilliwack that I, like everybody else I’ve heard from in this House, will recommend support of this bill. It’s been a pleasure to speak to it.

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to be rising and speaking in support of the Terry Fox Day Act and also following the comments from the member for Chilliwack.

I wanted to share just some personal reflections on the meaning of Terry Fox and the Terry Fox Run and, I think, what it means to me and my community and to cancer survivors, Canadians and people right around the world.

I was in a number of schools in Vancouver-Kensington. It’s a big event where students organize, supported by their teachers, in taking part in the annual Terry Fox Run. It’s something to really see and witness where it’s an event that students look forward to with excitement and participate in. It involves the community and their parents and families. It’s something to really witness and to really experience the ongoing legacy of Terry Fox and his dream that he had as an 18-year-old British Columbian from PoCo, born in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

When he, at such a young age, was struck by a diagnosis of cancer — osteogenic sarcoma bone cancer — and had his right leg amputated above the knee in 1977…. While he was recovering in hospital Terry Fox was touched by the suffering of other cancer patients, many of them young children. That’s where he decided to run across Canada to raise money for cancer research.

I knew about that and, as a young child, also participated in those runs. I think the legacy that Terry Fox leaves us today is a tribute to him as an individual. His character, his determination and his courage in the face of adversity and difficulty really inspires Canadians and gives hope and inspiration to people who are struck by cancer, a very devastating illness. It really inspires and moves people to get involved and really work towards a cure for cancer.

It’s inspirational to…. And I think it’s one of the values about the Terry Fox Day Act — recognizing the second Sunday in September in British Columbia. The value of that is also encouraging other British Columbians to learn about his story and to learn about that legacy. That’s the value in marking that, and I’m very much in favour of that.

[1850]

I think that just the experience of him when he was training, 18 months of training and running over 5,000 kilometres…. I’ve heard stories of folks who saw him training when he was a student up at SFU Burnaby Mountain, running around the oval up there to get ready for his historic journey.

While it started with little fanfare in the beginning, dipping his leg in the Atlantic Ocean, enthusiasm grew. And he ran an incredible 42 kilometres a day on average — a marathon a day through the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario.

It was on September 1, after 143 days and 5,373 kilometres, that he was forced to stop running outside of Thunder Bay, Ontario, because the cancer had appeared in his lungs. He passed away on June 28, 1981, at the age of 22.

To date, over $650 million has been raised worldwide for cancer research in Terry’s name through the annual Terry Fox Run held across Canada and around the world.

A couple of quotes I think are very revealing. It can be characterized that his dream and his journey “was a journey that Canadians never forgot.” I think that has been picked up. I think it’s revealing, as well, in terms of Terry Fox and the type of person he was. There’s a quote that he said: “It took cancer to realize that being self-centred is not the way to live. The answer is to try and help others.” It was one of the reasons why, at such a young age, he was voted Canada’s greatest hero in a national survey and received many accolades.

We have here in B.C. a peak in the Rocky Mountains designated as Mount Terry Fox. Simon Fraser University, where Terry was a student, award a Terry Fox Gold Medal, given to a student showing courage in the face of adversity. Terry was named Canadian of the Year in 1980. He was inducted into the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame. Also, one of the greatest legacies is the Terry Fox Research Institute. Really, an incredible array of attributes and institutions going to benefit survivors of cancer and working towards a cure for cancer.

The closing quote I would like to mention is attributed to Terry. He said: “Even if I don’t finish, we need others to continue. It’s got to keep going without me.” I think we’re seeing this in the Terry Fox Run worldwide. It’s not only taken up in B.C. and across the country, across Canada, but internationally. It’s no longer just a Canadian tradition. Countries around the world stage annual events in support of Terry’s dream of finding a cure for cancer.

It’s really a tribute, I think, to the human spirit and inspires all of us — just the strength of the human spirit and what we can aspire to as a human race, where we see a British Columbian from Port Coquitlam who endured adversity but had a dream to help others. Today that’s
[ Page 5451 ]
continuing, growing.

I’m very proud to be standing and speaking in favour of the act, the Terry Fox Day Act. I think it certainly will continue to inspire British Columbians, Canadians and people around the world to dream for and to work towards an end to cancer and fulfil that legacy.

Noting the hour, I conclude my remarks, and I move adjournment, for the day.

M. Elmore moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone 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.

[ 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