2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Monday, March 2, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 9

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

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I’m delighted to be recognized first in introductions today, and I’m delighted to ask the House to help welcome one of my constituents, Dave Parenteau. Dave is the former president of the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association and the current president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Vancouver Island region. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

V. Huntington: Several students who are members of my Delta student and youth advisory council have joined us in the gallery today. They will be meeting with officers of the House today, including yourself, Madame Speaker.

These youth advisers are presently engaged in a study of how Delta South seniors are able to access TransLink services. Would members please join me in welcoming Maggie Munro, Hannah Grigg, Michelle Leung, Sam Bamford, Jessica Steinwand and Ashley Ives. Please welcome them.

A. Weaver: I’d like to welcome today three members from the British Columbia Wildlife Federation — Ed George, who is their vice-president; Cheryl Johnson, the director of operations; and Al Martin, director of strategic initiatives, who is also an Oak Bay–Gordon Head constituent. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to welcome some of the resident hunters who are joining us in the House today. From up-Island in the Comox Valley we have Kevin Steele and Andrew Leblanc. From Prince George we have Troy Halliday and Steve Hamilton.

From Powell River we have Verity Kenyon, along with her sister Tina Kenyon and her young son, Taylen Trottier. Taylen gave a very impassioned speech today out in front of the Legislature about what hunting means to him.

Could the House please join me in welcoming all of these resident hunters to the chamber.

[1335]

S. Hamilton: It came as a bit of a surprise to me, but I’d like to join the member from the Kootenays in introducing my nephew Stephen Hamilton, who is here with the resident hunters. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

G. Holman: I’d like to introduce two of my constituents here today, both members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation: Phil Cotterell from Central Saanich, who apparently, has been unsuccessful in the elk draw for 32 years; and Mr. Bill Tozer, president of United Bowhunters of British Columbia and owner of VantagePoint Outfitters in North Saanich. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome a good friend, Ted Brookman, who is here along with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Ted’s an avid hunter, a conservationist and the guy we always turn to for our annual game dinner, which hasn’t been held in a couple of years. He’s always a great source of material for our dinner — not just the meat but also entertainment.

L. Popham: I would like to welcome my fabulous legislative assistant Teresa Scambler to the House today. She’s brought her good friend Donna Tomkins, from North Delta. Apparently, Donna dated Teresa’s husband Ric but is now married to Ric’s friend Doug. Regardless, Teresa and Donna are still good pals. Please welcome them both to the chamber.

V. Huntington: I neglected to mention that my constituency assistant Bernadette Kudzin is accompanying my youth advisory council today. Please make Bernadette welcome.

S. Hammell: I’d like the House to make welcome Danuta Scrapinky. She’s here to enjoy the music of Jan Lisiecki, who is playing at the Royal Theatre tonight — a young 20-year-old who is a star in his right in our music world. He’s of Polish extraction, from Calgary and someone we should all support.

D. Donaldson: Joining us in the gallery today is Mark Werner, the past president of Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.; and Scott Ellis, the executive director of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: I wanted to introduce a couple of constituents of mine from Victoria–Swan Lake who are here in the gallery with us today, who attended the wildlife allocation rally and who are members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Steve Dube and Gloria Boyd are here, and I would ask the House to make them feel welcome.
[ Page 6212 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains amendments to two acts: the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act and the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014. This package of amendments continues the annual legislative work needed to maintain and improve the B.C. parks and protected areas system. Such work includes adding lands, updating and improving legal descriptions and completing administrative corrections.

The provisions of the bill will add more than 1,500 hectares of land and marine waters to six class A parks. The amendments will modify the boundaries of one class A park to enable the replacement of transportation infrastructure. There are also amendments to rename two parks to reflect an agreement with the Osoyoos Indian Band.

[1340]

On an administrative note, I want to point out to all the members that the Office of the Clerk will be provided with copies of the official plans’ mapped boundaries for their review. They depict the boundaries of the ecological reserve and most of the parks in this bill. In addition, the official plans will be posted on the B.C. Parks website as part of a commitment I made during the spring 2014 legislative session.

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

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M208 — WILDLIFE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act, 2015.

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2015, for first reading.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that, if enacted, would restrict the practices of non-resident trophy hunters who come to B.C. to kill large game, by making two specific amendments to the Wildlife Act.

The proposed amendments remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations and ensure that all edible portions of animals harvested in B.C. are taken directly to the hunter’s residence. As the legislation currently stands, the edible parts of big-game animals — except cougars, wolves, lynx, bobcats, wolverines and grizzly bears — must be removed from the animal and packed out to one’s home or, importantly for non-resident hunters, to a meat cutter or a cold storage plant.

These last two options provide trophy hunters with legal meat-laundering opportunities. By adding “directly” or “through” to the clause, hunters can still use meat cutters and cold storage plants to process their harvest, but it can’t end there. The meat must make it to their home address. If they want to donate that meat to charity after the fact, they are welcome to do so, but they have to take it home first.

Hunters are required to remove the edible portion from black bears. If enacted, this bill would bring meat harvesting standards for grizzly bears up to the same standard. British Columbians and, in particular, B.C. resident hunters support these changes.

A 2013 McAllister Research poll found that 88 percent of British Columbians oppose trophy hunting. In addition to that, 95 percent of hunters said they believe you should not be hunting if you are not prepared to eat what you kill.

For local sustenance hunters, the vast majority of which are B.C. resident hunters, this bill merely echoes what they are already doing: harvesting wild game to bring the meat home to feed their families. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to kill an animal only for its hide, skull or antlers, this poses a logistical challenge of exporting large quantities of meat.

I look forward to the second reading of this bill, and I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M208, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WORK OF SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL
OF THE TRI-CITIES

L. Reimer: Today I am pleased to talk about an organization that is very near to my heart, Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities. Soroptimist means “best for women,” and that is what the organization tries to achieve.

Having attended the fifth annual Give her Wings Gala on Saturday evening, I’m deeply touched by all the stories I heard about the incredible women who have been helped by this organization — incredible women who have experienced adversity and have managed to change both their and their children’s lives around for the best.

An example of one story that very much mirrors all the stories I’ve heard from years of attending these galas and that dates back to 2012, is the story of Dawn Johnson. Most of Dawn’s childhood was defined by hardship. At age 11 she entered foster care after years of abuse at home. At 12 she became addicted to drugs. At 13 she dropped out of school and attempted suicide for the first time. At 16 she became a mother.

After years of struggle, Dawn chose to turn her life around. She sought help for her addictions and went back to school, settling in Coquitlam and enrolling in the University of Victoria’s distance education program. In 2012 Dawn was the winner of the Soroptimist International Live Your Dream Award. She received $10,000 to further her dream of going to law school.

The Live Your Dream Award is just one example of the many awards Soroptimist makes available to improve the lives of women living in the Tri-Cities. Soroptimist also recently launched a very important initiative called Bea’s Kloset, where recipients will be able to shop for free for the household items they need, allowing women and girls in our community to have the opportunity to select items that will transform their new living spaces into functional and comfortable homes — or, as Alison Berg said on Saturday evening, make a house a home.

In addition to this project, Soroptimist also runs A Warm Place for Women, CABE lunch and learn, hands-on projects and social events at the YWCA Como Lake Gardens and a monthly mentorship for women called Glory House evenings.

There are almost a dozen Soroptimist branches throughout B.C.

[1345]

ART ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF BUTCH DICK

M. Karagianis: It’s my great pleasure to share news of a great honour for one of my community’s respected elders. This past week Songhees master carver, artist and educator Butch Dick was honoured with a Lifetime Achievement Award from Leadership Victoria.

If you’ve spent any time in Victoria, you’ve likely seen a piece of his art work. Butch is one of the most prolific First Nations artists in the region, and his murals and carvings are inspiring and beautiful. He was part of the team that carved the house poles at the Songhees Wellness Centre. He created the Signs of Lekwungen, seven unique site markers that are bronze castings of original cedar carvings. His works can be found along the Inner Harbour, in Centennial Square and on the new Craigflower bridge.

Butch was born in Victoria, one of six children raised by his mother after his father died. He attended residential school and Indian day school before studying design at the Vancouver School of Art in the 1960s and at Camosun College. He then learned from artist and hereditary chief Tony Hunt.

Butch developed a passion for education after he was asked to teach a First Nations art and culture class at Shoreline Middle School 30 years ago. He mixed art with storytelling and lessons in First Nations language. For the last few years he has worked as a Songhees education liaison, giving back to youth, passing on the many skills he has learned and mastered. I know he’s very popular with all of those students.

He and his wife, Irene, have eight children, 31 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Their sons, Clarence and Bradley, are also renowned artists.

I hope the members of the House will join me in congratulating Butch Dick for this Lifetime Achievement Award from Leadership Victoria. He is truly a tremendous leader and a great inspiration in our community.

SMALL BUSINESS B.C.
AWARD RECIPIENTS

J. Sturdy: You might ask what float tanks, sustainable caviar fruit bouquets and baby blankets have in common. Well, they’re all connected by the entrepreneurial spirit and a commitment to excellence. At the 12th annual Small Business B.C. Awards held last Thursday, excellence spanned the entire province.

This year’s awards were a tremendous success, with record-breaking participation. Competitors had to prove their excellence amongst 460 nominated businesses from 70 communities in ten different award categories. Winners were selected after an intense process that involved applications, on-line voting and a Dragons’ Den–style pitch to a judging panel. These awards can serve as a launching point. They offer recognition, great opportunities for exposure and offer all winners a cash award of $1,500.

While the province was well represented, I’d like to highlight the achievements of entrepreneurs in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Four different businesses were se-
[ Page 6214 ]
lected as the top five finalists. Two of these were selected as final winners. I’d like to congratulate Nonna Pia’s Gourmet Sauces, who won best company. In the past six months Norm and Natasha have grown their sauce business from retailing in 358 stores, mostly in British Columbia, to more than 1,600 stores Canada-wide. You might have seen them, actually, on Dragons’ Den.

The second West Vancouver–Sea to Sky winner was entrepreneur Pepe Barajas of Infinity Enterprises Group, who won best immigrant entrepreneur. Pepe owns three successful Whistler businesses: the Mexican Corner Restaurant, La Cantina Urban Taco Bar and Clean Perfect Services Inc.

Across British Columbia and the Sea to Sky corridor small business is the engine that drives our economy. I’d like to thank small business owners for all that you do for B.C. To the nominees and winners of the Small Business B.C. Awards, a hardy congratulations.

MOUNT SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL
AND CHINESE COMMUNITY

J. Kwan: Mount St. Joseph Hospital is a very special hospital with deep roots in serving the multicultural community. In the first half of the 20th century, due to racist policies and practices, members of the Chinese community were not allowed to visit a hospital to seek medical treatment. The only way to get care was at a little house on Keefer Street through the charity of the Sisters of Immaculate Conception, who arrived from Montreal in 1921.

In 1936 the sisters arranged for Sister Teresa Fung, a trained health professional with Chinese language capacity, to come from China to help with the delivery of health care services and translation. Her arrival was exceptional, not only because she filled a much-needed gap; it was also extraordinary because Sister Teresa came at a time when Canada’s 1923 Chinese Immigration Act specifically prevented women from immigrating from China. Sister Teresa was a powerful force in the community.

[1350]

In 1941 the sisters bought a piece of land at Main and Kingsway, with one-third of the funds raised by members of the Chinese community. These contributions came from the Chinese associations, the wages of the Chinese workers in the mines and logging camps across B.C. Even Chinese community associations in American cities on the west coast pitched in to the effort.

The glorious moment came in 1946 when Mount St. Joe opened its doors, becoming the first hospital in B.C. to serve the Asian community. In 1949, B.C. Hospital Services took over the operation of Mount St. Joseph Hospital. However, Mount St. Joe still has a special place in the hearts and minds of the Asian communities. Throughout its growth, the Chinese community has continued to play a significant role in support of the hospital.

On February 7, I had the honour of attending the Tapestry Foundation’s Feast of Fortune fundraising gala, which raised a record-setting $728,000 for a new CAT scan at Mount St. Joe. Thanks to the members of the 2015 fundraising for their incredible efforts and honorary chairs Sing Yeo and Grant Lin for their special support for Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES
BY JAKE DEWITT

G. Kyllo: It is no secret that community volunteers are the heart that keeps communities beating. In fact, so many great organizations both large and small couldn’t exist without the generosity of their selfless volunteers.

In my hometown of Sicamous one such volunteer is Jake Dewitt. Jake’s family has deep roots in Sicamous with his parents starting the family business, D Dutchmen Dairy, in 1978, famous for their milk and dairy products, including their world-famous D Dutchmen ice cream.

One of the family’s commitments from day one has been to give back to the local community. Jake, who now runs the production side of the family dairy business, has certainly taken that family tradition to heart. When Jake and Bev’s children were younger, Jake became involved with their local softball teams. Each year it seemed Jake was becoming more and more involved — coaching, maintaining the ball diamonds and hosting softball tournaments.

Jake’s selfless commitment to attracting and growing tournaments has had an enormous impact on the local community. If the local hotel and motels are displaying “no vacancy” signs and the restaurants are bursting at the seams, there’s a good chance that there’s a softball tournament underway.

Jake’s involvement in softball became so great that it has spread beyond Sicamous. Today Jake is president of the B.C. Amateur Softball Association, SoftBall B.C., which is a volunteer position, needless to say.

As a local business owner in a small town, I can also attest to the fact that Jake is often asked for donations to various non-profit community groups. Whether it’s a donated gift certificate as a door prize, an item for a silent auction or a request to volunteer his time for another local group, if Jake can accommodate you, he will. Jake just doesn’t say no if there’s a knock on his door.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing the tireless contributions of Jake Dewitt that continue to make Sicamous a better community.

Thank you, Jake.

LEONARD NIMOY

M. Mungall: “He affected the lives of many,” said Adam Nimoy after the death of his father, Leonard, last week. Back in 1966 who knew that a Boston boy of
[ Page 6215 ]
Ukrainian-Jewish ancestry would have such an impact on the world, spanning generations? Who knew that Star Trek would break ground and capture the hearts and minds of millions — that both would boldly go where no man has gone before?

The original pilot — which also starred Peter Duryea, who later founded the Kootenay Lake Tipi Camp — was rejected. Yet here we are, 50 years later, reflecting on an artist who intertwined his life with the character and made us love him and Spock the world over. How fascinating.

As Mr. Spock, he gave us philosophies and moral codes: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” As Leonard Nimoy, he advocated for pay equity for Nichelle Nichols when she played Lieutenant Uhura. He also wrote, directed and produced Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, proving what he once said in his 1975 autobiography, I Am Not Spock — that he is more than just one character. He had numerous roles and was a photographer, poet, musician and writer.

But it was Mr. Spock that won him three Emmy nominations. It was Spock who was named one of TV Guide’s greatest 50 characters. It was Spock who appeared in countless cameos. And it was Spock for whom Trekkies would line up for autographs and pictures by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[1355]

So by 1995 Nimoy wrote his life story again with a new title, I Am Spock. Leonard Nimoy didn’t just spend a lifetime crafting and perfecting a character. Through art, he encouraged us all to be caring, to be human and to live long and prosper.

Oral Questions

HUNTING ALLOCATION POLICY CHANGES
AND RULES FOR GUIDE-OUTFITTERS

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today and out on the lawns were hundreds of representatives of the hundreds of thousands of people who hunt — resident hunters who hunt here in British Columbia concerned about the false consultation conducted by the B.C. Liberals in changing and amending the allocation formula that we’re faced with today. Hunters came from every corner of this province — from the north, from the coast, from the Interior and from right here in Victoria.

We’re having difficulty understanding Mr. Spock’s adage that the needs of the resident hunters should outweigh the needs of the non-resident hunters, but I’m hopeful that the minister, when I ask him this question, will be able to rectify that.

The people of British Columbia see these wildlife resources as a common resource that belongs to all of us. It should be apportioned in a way that is fair and equitable, as we do with other resources in British Columbia.

Through you, hon. Speaker, to the minister: will you take the opportunity today, hon. Minister, to stand in your place and tell the resident hunters of British Columbia that they will get a better crack than they’ve been given to this point in time?

Hon. S. Thomson: As we know, sustainable hunting in British Columbia is a very, very important economic resource for British Columbia — between guide-outfitters and resident hunters, $230 million in economic activity from the resident hunters and $120 million in economic activity from the guide-outfitting industry.

The allocation formula was designed based on a number of principles: first of all, conservation; secondly, First Nations considerations; thirdly, resident hunter priority.

We’ve been through an extensive process: over ten years of discussion on this issue, over 18 months of intensive facilitation between the parties — between the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the guide-outfitters and others in that process — to come to a decision on the allocation. That process did not yield an agreement.

Both parties knew that a decision needed to be made. We needed to make that decision to provide certainty for the future for both parties, and we needed to move from a long process of discussion on that issue on to broad wildlife management concerns, which are of interest to both parties.

The member opposite is wrong when he talks about false consultation. This has been an open consultation process, an extensive consultation process, in determining that balanced decision.

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

J. Horgan: When the minister talks about two parties, I think he’s missing the point. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of British Columbians — and a handful of British Columbians that are focused on giving access to non–British Columbians to this resource that belongs to all of us.

It’s not just an economic question. It’s a social, cultural and, in many instances, a family undertaking. I met today with people on the Legislature stairs that have been generational hunters on both sides, men and women. This is not just an economic question.

I agree with the minister, as would resident hunters, that conservation and First Nation allocation have to be paramount. You will get no argument from resident hunters on that.

Where the argument arises is the two parties that the minister refers to. Let’s talk about British Columbians, resident hunters, as a top priority. Then, when we’ve settled with that, we can look at other economic opportunities for non-residents.
[ Page 6216 ]

My question to the minister is this. If resident hunters deviate from the quota they’re given, there are harsh, swift, severe penalties, yet — through you, hon. Speaker — your government has put in place flexible quotas for non-resident hunters. Again, profoundly unfair. Will the minister, if he’s not going to address the faulty consultation, at a minimum ensure that the rules of British Columbia are adhered to by residents and non-residents alike?

[1400]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Again, as I commented, the policy, the principles that the decision was made on are conservation, First Nations, maintaining resident hunter priority. This decision maintains that priority. We are talking in the allocation decision about 60 animals across the allocation split. That compares to 47,500 animals that are harvested annually. It compares to about 3,500 animals that are harvested under the allocation formula. So we’re talking less than 3 percent of the total number of animals on allocation, less than half of 1 percent of the total animals harvested in British Columbia as part of this allocation formula.

It clearly maintains resident hunter priority in the allocation decision. It was based on an extensive process of consultation with all parties to reach agreement. Unfortunately, as I said, they weren’t able to come to that agreement — the parties — and a decision needed to be made. An allocation formula needed to be set. Both parties were asking for the allocation splits to be set in policy and in regulation so that they could provide certainty for both parties, and then we could move on to the broader wildlife management issues, in which they both have a very, very keen interest.

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

J. Horgan: To the minister: I think you’re missing, again, the point. This policy reduces opportunities for resident hunters and increases opportunities for non-resident hunters. That’s an allocation arrangement that’s not acceptable to the people of British Columbia, whether they hunt or they don’t.

What we’re trying to do today in this Legislature — the people’s House, where the people came and congregated right out front — is to send a clear message to the government that reducing opportunities for British Columbians and increasing opportunities for non–British Columbians is a non-starter.

The question. If you’re reducing access for British Columbians, if you’re changing the quota requirements in terms of how far you can break the rules…. If a resident hunter deviates from the quota, there are harsh and swift consequences. Guide-outfitters have flexibility, apparently.

I learned today that not only do they have flexibility in the quotas; access to our outfitting territories to non-residents is increasing as well. So we have non-residents purchasing guide-outfitting operations, further exacerbating the problem.

Resident hunters want the government to get back to the table and put British Columbians first. Will the minister do that today? Let’s start with B.C. first.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, a balanced decision based on those priorities, based on maintaining resident hunter priority…. Sixty animals out of a total of 47,500 animals are harvested in British Columbia, animals that are, for the greatest percentage, on general open season. In British Columbia we have one of the most abundant wildlife resources in Canada. That’s why we have such a great percentage of our hunts on general open season. That’s why we have so many opportunities for resident hunters — 30,000 deer out of 47,500 harvested not affected at all by this allocation decision.

The decision has been to maintain that balance, to recognize the economic contribution of both parties to the province — an important economic contribution. I recognize and understand that there’s a lot of emotion attached to this. I understand that people value the hunting history in British Columbia. That’s a long history on both parts — a long history on the part of resident hunters, a long, long history on the part of guide-outfitters in British Columbia. The decision was in place to set that balance of resident priority, provide the opportunities for both parties and to do it in a way that provided that certainty for the future.

[1405]

K. Conroy: If that in fact was the case, we wouldn’t have resident hunters in this province who have been waiting 40 years to get a limited entry, a hunting entry, and they never have gotten it. We’ve got foreign hunters who can come in, never have to apply, and they can get whatever they want. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense.

Also, the guide-hunting industry was supposed to provide for jobs in B.C., but under this government the opposite is happening. The B.C. Liberals are making it easier for foreign residents to own guide-outfitting territories, which means that hunting dollars are actually leaving B.C. For example, Anzac Wilderness Outfitters offers moose hunts on its guiding territory north of Prince George. According to the Guide Outfitters of B.C. and a story in the Rapid City Journal, Wilderness Outfitters is owned by Lee Weaver of Spearfish, South Dakota.

My question is to the minister. How does B.C. benefit from providing more hunting opportunities to American hunters like Mr. Weaver at the expense of resident hunters?

Hon. S. Thomson: I find the questioning from the members opposite very interesting. I know the members opposite have latched onto the misinformation, to the al-
[ Page 6217 ]
legations and everything that is out there in this debate around this issue. It’s very, very interesting. This shotgun marriage between the members opposite and the resident hunter community is very, very interesting. We’re now finally finding and starting to draw out a policy position from the members opposite.

Eight of the allocation decisions involved are with respect to the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia. I guess what we’re seeing now, and I hope what the members opposite will confirm, is that all the members opposite on that side of the House are now in support of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, because you have aligned and you are fighting for a greater allocation of that resource in the representation that you’ve been making.

Madame Speaker: The member for Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Well, over 100,000 resident hunters in this province don’t agree with the minister. They don’t agree with the allocations from this government, and they’re certainly looking at people that are going to speak out on their issues in this House.

Anzac Wilderness Outfitters is not the only outfitter owned by Americans. Under this government private interests are benefiting at the expense of resident hunters. This was never the point of the guide-outfitter industry. Anzac Wilderness Outfitters is not creating benefits for B.C. They are sending hunting dollars south of the border.

Again to the minister, why is he expanding foreign businesses at the expense of B.C. resident hunters?

Hon. S. Thomson: I know the members opposite are against investment in British Columbia. We see it every day when they oppose projects, oppose investment in British Columbia.

Again, I know we’ve raised the issue, and I haven’t heard the response there in terms of the members’ support now for the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia.

Let’s just look at what their position apparently was. Maybe it has changed. This is in an interview with the member for Victoria–Swan Lake on January 18, 2009, when asked: “Are you personally against the grizzly bear hunt? What is the NDP position on this?” The answer was: “We have opposed in the past. We point to the actions that the government has taken in actually implementing B.C.’s first moratorium.” It was the members opposite that put a moratorium on the grizzly bear hunt. The question was: “And is that is your policy now?” The answer was: “Yes, I believe so.”

That should call into question whether the members opposite really do support hunting in British Columbia.

[1410]

H. Bains: At a recent rally two days ago in 100 Mile House hundreds of resident hunters gathered in front of the office of the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin to voice their anger about the B.C. Liberals’ allocation policy. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin told the rally that she had heard their message loud and clear, that she would take their message to Victoria today.

Now, the minister had an opportunity to listen, through his own member, loud and clear, the message from resident hunters from 100 Mile House. Why isn’t he listening to the hunters from 100 Mile House? What message do you have for the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin to take back to those hunters?

Hon. S. Thomson: Ten years of debate and negotiation on this between the parties, 18 months of facilitated discussion to reach an agreement on the allocation formula, an allocation formula that was based on those principles, as I said, to put a balanced decision in place that reflected the economic contribution of all of the parties. An initial decision.

To say that I haven’t listened…. I have listened. We have made strategic adjustments to the initial decision, an adjustment that changed the number of animals from 120 down to 60 animals that are involved in the allocation formula. We have made those strategic adjustments for critically important hunts in specific regions.

That is recognizing the resident hunter priority, it’s recognizing those principles, and it’s recognizing a decision that creates a balanced approach to ensuring that we do recognize the important economic contribution that both parties make.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: The minister knows that it’s not about numbers. It’s not about a few animals. The resident hunters are deeply concerned about the principle that underlies this decision. They do not think that a government should put more wildlife into private and foreign hands. The minister ignored his own department’s recommendation on allocation.

My question to the minister again: doesn’t the minister agree that it’s time to go back to square one and protect the interests of resident hunters first and foremost?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, a balanced decision — 60 animals out of a total of 47,500 animals that are harvested in British Columbia, the greatest percentage of animals in British Columbia in general open season, providing those opportunities for resident hunters in British Columbia, ensuring that there is an allocation within the allocated species. That’s a total of 3,500 animals in that allocation — again, a small percentage of the total.

Making sure that we do recognize the important contribution that guide-outfitters make in British Columbia. They employ people. It’s jobs. It’s economic activity.
[ Page 6218 ]
There’s a very, very important economic contribution from resident hunters in British Columbia, as well, one that has a long history and importance. But the allocation decision maintains resident hunter priority in British Columbia.

The important thing, what’s important now, is for the parties and the stakeholders in this industry to come together and to work now on building wildlife populations in British Columbia, growing the resource in the future. That’s the critical issue that all parties are interested in. That’s what we need to do.

WAIT TIMES FOR
HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERIES

J. Darcy: Imagine waiting two years in severe pain for a hip replacement. That’s what Anne Morris from Salmon Arm is going through today. She’s one of 3,000 people in British Columbia on a wait-list to get a new hip.

Anne first saw her surgeon in October of 2013, and she was told that her surgery would be a year to 18 months down the road. Now she’s told it will be at least two years. That’s because her surgeon can’t get enough operating time in the Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

Does the minister think it’s acceptable for Anne to wait two years in sometimes excruciating pain to get a hip replacement?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for that top-five question. It is something on the minds of many British Columbians. When you are in pain, when you’re waiting for surgery, it is a long time sometimes because there’s a challenge in some areas of British Columbia particularly.

On average, British Columbians, in terms of wait-lists, are about middle of the pack across Canada. That’s not good enough. We’ve identified that a year ago in our priorities documents for the health care system. We’ve put a team together, led by Dr. Andy Hamilton — the provincial surgical executive committee. They’re looking at ways of optimizing the system to further reduce wait times.

We’ll continue to do the work to make sure British Columbians get access to the surgery they need when they need it.

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

J. Darcy: People like Anne Morris and others like her are not looking for excuses. They need action on unacceptably long wait times in British Columbia.

Anne Morris and 3,000 other people like her are waiting in pain and discomfort — some of them on morphine, some in such severe pain that they are now confined to wheelchairs — as a result of callous decisions by this government. Not only that, they’re paying more for health care while they’re getting less. It’s not acceptable.

Anne is 78. She’s a full-time caregiver for her husband, who suffers from COPD. She’s worried that her own pain management and her increasing lack of mobility will mean that she’ll no longer be able to care for her husband, who will then probably have to be admitted to care.

Why are Anne and other people like her having to pay more for health care while getting less, languishing on wait-lists because of callous decisions by this B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve made some great strides, actually, when you look back over the last 12 years of this B.C. Liberal government. We have increased the number of hip surgeries by 90 percent. We have increased the number of knee replacements by 138 percent, the number of cataracts by 50 percent, the number of angioplasties by 34 percent. We’ve taken the wait times for hip joint replacements from 19.6 weeks down to 14.6 and 25.3 weeks for a knee joint replacement to 18.4 weeks.

Talk about decisions. This is the group across the aisle here that didn’t train one extra doctor in the ’90s. We’d have 1,000 more doctors in British Columbia today had they done what we have done. That would have gone a great way to reducing wait times in the province of British Columbia.

LAUNDRY SERVICES AT INTERIOR
HEALTH AUTHORITY FACILITIES

J. Rice: Interior Health is transferring laundry services out of its hospitals. The director of support services says the decision “isn’t about the efficiency of our operations.” What he does say about it is that it’s about not wanting to spend money on replacing old washing machines.

Public or private, British Columbians will be paying for those washing machines. The issue is: these jobs could end up leaving British Columbia. There is not a good reason to send these jobs to Alberta. Why is the Health Minister allowing this to happen?

Hon. T. Lake: In a very concise way, I’ll say they’d rather spend those on hip replacements than on washing machines.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: So 175 jobs could be lost in Kelowna, Kamloops, Nelson, Vernon, Penticton and in the Cariboo. Again, there’s no guarantee that these good-paying, family-supporting jobs are going to stay within British Columbia.

[1420]

The health authority is following the mandate of the provincial government, whose preference is to priva-
[ Page 6219 ]
tize more and more aspects of the health care system. Considering that the health authority is clearly satisfied with the efficiency of the laundry services, why is the Liberal government insisting that they eliminate these good, family-supporting jobs?

Hon. T. Lake: The health authorities and the ministry are very consistent. We want to get the very best deal for the taxpayer. That is very consistent. And quite frankly, doing laundry and washing bed sheets is not health care. We want to make sure we get best value for the dollar.

I know the way the members opposite ran health care. They might have thought that was health care. We think health care is looking after patients to make sure they get their hip replacements in a more timely manner. We’re going to get the best deal for the taxpayer. Laundry is not health care. We want to put those dollars in front-line health care for British Columbians.

M. Mungall: Only a Liberal would think that cleaning and taking care of our hospitals isn’t health care.

This plan would see 17 family-supporting jobs….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the question and the answer.

M. Mungall: This plan would see 17 family-supporting jobs lost in Nelson — jobs that are integral to Kootenay Lake Hospital and it running efficiently. And it’s not just Nelson. Penticton, the minister’s own riding, Kamloops, 100 Mile House, Williams Lake are all about to see family-supporting jobs shipped out of their communities.

Minister, taxpayers are going to foot the bill for these services regardless of who’s doing them. So let’s do them in our communities, and let’s save on the shipping costs. My question is to the minister. Will he commit to that today?

Hon. T. Lake: I get the point, and I certainly don’t want to leave the impression that the work being done by people that are doing laundry service isn’t….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: It’s obviously an important service, but it is not front-line health care. Those jobs are going to be staying in British Columbia.

We’re looking for efficiencies. The members opposite talk about making sure that we are doing more with our dollars to make sure we get best value for the taxpayers. In health care the only way we have managed to reduce the cost increases and make the health care system sustainable is to do things more….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: The only way we can make the system sustainable is to increase efficiencies so that we can do more hip surgeries and we can do more knee replacements.

The Interior Health Authority had discussions with their unionized employees about ways of reaching those efficiencies. Unfortunately, they could not come to an agreement, so they are going out to an RFP — a request for solutions, actually — to see what the mix will be. At the end of the day, the desire is to get the most for taxpayers, so that money can be in front-line health care.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, if the minister bothered to read any of the quotes, any of the newspapers that are about this very issue — and if he would listen to the questions — he would know that this is not a matter of efficiency.

[1425]

The chief of operating services was clear that this is not a matter of efficiency. Rather, it’s because they don’t want to replace washing machines. Those washing machines, those jobs, those efficient jobs — every single one of them, all 17 of them — are wanted in Nelson, at Kootenay Lake Hospital, because cleaning the hospitals and taking care of the hospitals is important to the health care system. The same is said in Kelowna, Kamloops, Vernon, Penticton, 100 Mile House, Williams Lake, Lillooet and Ashcroft.

The question to the minister, on 175 jobs: will you commit today that those family-supporting jobs will stay put?

Hon. T. Lake: We have a record capital budget for health care. We’ve spent over $12 billion, including the capital cycle that we have in front of us. Yet every single day members opposite stand up and say: “Spend more here. Spend more there. Build this. Renew that.”

Interjection.

Hon. T. Lake: Interior Health is doing that: making choices. Interior Health is saying: “We would rather buy endoscopes. We would rather buy operating room lights. We would rather put our money into health care capital rather than buying washing machines.” Only the NDP would choose washing machines over endoscopes.

[End of question period.]
[ Page 6220 ]

K. Conroy: I seek leave to present some petitions.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

K. Conroy: The first one is a petition from the city of Kamloops — over 300 hunters asking the government to repeal their hunting allocations.

The second one is from the city of Kelowna — over 1,000 signatures asking the government to repeal their hunting allocation decisions.

The third one is a petition from hunters all over the province asking the government to repeal their hunting allocations, with over 3,000 signatures.

A. Weaver: I would like to introduce a petition of 16,139 signatures, of which about 400 come from the town of Quesnel. These signatures are from resident B.C. hunters seeking for the government to repeal its changes to the wildlife allocation policy. In particular, it’s to limit non-resident hunters and guide-outfitters — to a maximum of 10 percent of the wildlife harvest allocation for moose and elk and 25 percent for sheep, bears and goats — so that British Columbians could have adequate access to this valuable wildlife resource.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the little House I call the estimates for the Ministry of Environment. Here, in the main chamber of the assembly, I call second reading of Bill 2, intituled BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act.

[1430]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BC TRANSPORTATION
FINANCING AUTHORITY TRANSIT ASSETS
AND LIABILITIES ACT

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

As I’ve said, the legislation being tabled today is administrative in nature, but it does involve strategic provincial assets. The province currently owns rapid transit assets in Metro Vancouver through a variety of entities. The Expo Line and the West Coast Express assets are held by B.C. Transit. The Millennium Line is held by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd., or RTP 2000 for short. The Evergreen line is held by the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, the BCTFA.

Now, the consolidation of these billions of dollars of assets within the BCTFA supports greater control over their management and operation, enables cost savings through efficiencies, as well as administrative, financial and legal requirements that will now be simplified.

This bill fulfils a commitment made during spring 2010 estimates to “review the current management structure of the rapid transit rail assets and consider consolidating rapid transit rail assets to ensure the most effective use and management of the assets was achieved.”

Now, the rapid transit assets are operated by TransLink under various agreements and leases, and these agreements will continue. Consolidation of the assets will allow these agreements to now be between TransLink and the BCTFA only. The transfer will be done entirely through this legislation. The legislation allows the BCTFA to take over and continue to manage the transferred assets and liabilities seamlessly. It provides the BCTFA with powers that B.C. Transit and RTP 2000 currently have with respect to these assets, to allow for a smooth transition in owning and operating them.

Transferring the Expo Line and the West Coast Express from B.C. Transit to the BCTFA also allows B.C. Transit to focus solely on its mandate, the delivery of public transportation throughout British Columbia outside of the greater Vancouver region. Transferring the Millennium Line from RTP 2000 Ltd. allows government to proceed with the orderly windup of that company, as it has now served its purpose.

G. Heyman: On the face of it, this bill would appear to be administrative in nature. Certainly, the short duration of the minister’s speech would indicate that he thinks so. We, on this side of the House, certainly are interested in exploring this.

It is with some regret that I have to state that it would be a lot easier for us to determine exactly what our position is on this bill and what the possible implications of it might be if the minister’s staff at any time in the previous two weeks had responded to our repeated request for a briefing on the bill, only to schedule one last Friday for tomorrow, after the bill is scheduled for second reading today. We await that briefing.

The result of the briefing we receive tomorrow will help us to understand the implications, both short term and long term, of this bill in some greater detail. There’s certainly not enough information in the minister’s comments today for us to determine that.

The minister, as I said, and the government have described this bill as simply administrative. But it potentially could have some significant effects, and it certainly deals with key assets such as the Expo and Millennium lines.

I note that the Transportation Financing Authority is run entirely by the ministry. In fact, it’s almost solely under control of the minister and the minister’s deputy.

[1435]

That doesn’t, in fact, lend itself to dealing with the significant issues that members of the public have raised in this time of TransLink referendum, a referendum on funding of TransLink, where much focus has been on the accountability, or the lack of accountability, of TransLink — certainly, the lack of transparency and accountability of the TransLink board. This will do nothing to that.

The sole director of the Transportation Financing Authority is the minister. The DM, the deputy minister, is the chief executive officer. Certainly, in terms of the government reporting entity, there will be no change through these transfers, so we see no significant implications there.

The minister states that he made a commitment to this transfer for a number of reasons, including efficiencies and control over management and operations, in estimates. I must admit that I thought perhaps the minister may have reacted with some shock when he heard the Premier state that TransLink was completely under control of the mayors and thought that perhaps by bringing in legislation like this he could put a stop to that.

It’s clear that notwithstanding the fact that the minister wishes to have greater control over management and operations of TransLink, he has no compunction whatsoever about continuing to fail to work with the mayors of the region over appropriate funding for TransLink improvements. So I wonder what exactly the end result of this will be.

For instance, we’re currently undergoing a referendum in the Lower Mainland over….

Interjection.

G. Heyman: I understand that the Minister of Education is correcting my language. I’m simply referring to his government’s election promise to hold a referendum. I will use them somewhat interchangeably, although I do understand that the significant difference is that a plebiscite is non-binding and a referendum is binding.

That does lead me to question whether the Minister of Education, the Minister of Transportation and the rest of cabinet believe that by changing to a plebiscite, they’re actually keeping the election promise that they claim is underlying the whole purpose of the referendum/plebiscite. Or if, in fact, the government intends to abide by the result of the plebiscite or go a step further and indicate to the people of Metro Vancouver that if they decide to pay a bit more for transit investments through an addition to the sales tax — or congestion relief tax or whatever the minister has chosen today to call it or might choose to call it tomorrow — the government, in fact, will put up funds that they indicated to the mayors by letter that they would intend to supply to enhance transit investment.

But let me return to the bill, hon. Speaker, because I can tell that you would like me to do that.

Greater control over management and operations. That is something that I would like to explore in committee stage — exactly what potential for control over management and operations the minister thinks that he, the government and the ministry should have, as opposed to control over management and operations that the board theoretically has in directing the senior executive of TransLink or the management and operations control that the Premier seems to believe rests solely with the mayors, although the mayors would likely take issue with her on that.

They have claimed for quite some time — since 2007, in fact…. They were unceremoniously booted off the board for exercising management and control in a way that the government of the day didn’t like and replaced with a board that meets in secret, without transparency or accountability, giving rise, I would claim, to much of the mistrust of TransLink that currently exists among residents of Metro Vancouver.

[1440]

We are consolidating ownership of finances under the Transportation Financing Authority, a provincial entity. If we go back in history — and I intend to pursue this during committee stage with some questions — at the time this model was put into place through a number of entities which are currently being consolidated, the provincial government actually put up 100 percent of the financing for TransLink — for the various lines, the Expo Line — and a number of other things. So it made some sense that the government, through the Transportation Financing Authority and other entities, actually had control and ownership over all of the finances.

But as we’ve seen, and as we continue to see today in the referendum/plebiscite — to humour the Education Minister — the government no longer puts up 100 percent of the funding or even, necessarily, a third of the funding, unless the minister is willing to answer in estimates that that is, in fact, the government’s intent, although we can find no evidence of it in the budget or the capital expenditure plan.

What is the rationale, I would ask — and I will ask, during committee stage — for government to have 100 percent control over assets that they, in fact, have not financed at 100 percent? I think the residents of Metro Vancouver may, as well, be very interested in this.

I’ll also be exploring during committee stage…. I certainly would have explored it during a briefing by the ministry, had one been put on offer. But unfortunately, I will be taking up time in this House, perhaps unnecessarily — with a number of senior staff who probably could be better spent doing other things, who will be standing next to the minister in committee stage — exploring a number of questions that I will not have had the chance to explore in a briefing prior to rising today to speak to this bill.
[ Page 6222 ]

Could there, in fact, as a result of this consolidation and the consolidation of ownership, control and management over the operations of TransLink and its various routes and responsibilities through this legislation…? Is this a precursor of possible other changes in TransLink’s structure following the plebiscite, no matter what the result is? On the face of it, there’s nothing to indicate that, but certainly it would appear that within the changes being made and put forward, that is a possibility.

Even on an administrative change to the bill there are a number of questions that we’re interested in on this side of the House that some stakeholders have raised as we’ve gone about trying to see and explore what the possible implications of this bill might be to which we and others would want answers. One of the questions would be: why now? There were numerous other opportunities to do this in the past. There have been changes to the legislation. In 2007 the TransLink governance was changed. There was an opportunity to do it then, but it wasn’t important then, although nothing is particularly different now.

In 2012 the then Minister of Transportation, Blair Lekstrom, introduced a number of other changes, but this wasn’t on the radar at that time. The Minister of Transportation himself in 2014 made a number of changes to legislation governing transit in the Lower Mainland, in addition to the referendum bill — which I would point out to the Minister of Transportation was, in fact, being referred to by government at that time as a referendum, not a plebiscite — as well as to the governance bill. No changes then.

This is, in effect, a shuffling of provincial assets. One of the things I would like to explore in committee stage, and would have explored in a ministry briefing, is whether, in fact, something has changed that has made this a priority today.

Is there some connection between the impending vote that is to take place in Metro Vancouver? Is there something in connection with the governance changes that have taken place? Is the minister considering, possibly, some future governance changes which I might, in fact, be very interested in supporting, particularly if they make the operations of the TransLink board more open and transparent, more inclusive of elected, accountable representation in Metro Vancouver and, of course, very importantly, addressing a number of the issues that some opponents of investment in transit have raised with respect to TransLink?

[1445]

Whether they’re correct or not, there’s certainly public perception, and public perception is usually best dealt with, especially if the public perception is one that is rooted in mistrust. That public perception is best dealt with through accountability mechanisms and transparency mechanisms. Mechanisms, I would point out, aren’t particularly present in this bill, when assets are being consolidated under complete control of the minister and the minister’s deputy.

What is the issue today that has given rise to this legislation? If it’s important and if it’s a matter of efficiency — if it’s a matter of better management, if it’s a matter of enhancing the ability of government to oversee the operations, management and efficiencies of TransLink in operation of its assets — why now? This is a government that claims that it has been after efficiencies since day one, the first day it was elected. It’s a government that claims and takes a lot of pride in being able to run the store and run it efficiently, so why now?

Has something changed? That’s a question I would like to ask. I will ask it tomorrow. If the answer is not satisfactory when I meet with ministry staff, I will ask it in committee stage.

Again, one of the things that I would ask the minister and will ask the minister in committee stage is…. There’s a lot of noise around TransLink and the referendum. This is a touchy time in the future of congestion relief and transit expansion and service in Metro Vancouver. We all know that investments have to be made in transit, with one million more people coming to the region over the next two decades. There is significant agitation in the public around TransLink and its operations generally.

Why would the minister choose the middle of this referendum, as opposed to last year or 2007 or 2012 or next year, to bring in changes and potentially further muddy and cloud the waters around a referendum for which his government is solely responsible, that the mayors did not request and that could have potential disastrous results, at least in the short term and very likely in the medium term, both economically for all of British Columbia and particularly the region, as well as for livability in the region?

Did the mayors ask for this change? It’s an important question. I would have liked to hear the minister stand up for more than two or three minutes and give a bit more background so we could understand this more fully.

Frankly, I would have liked the minister to be respectful enough of the role of every member of this Legislative Assembly to ensure that staff at an appropriate level in the ministry could respond to a simple request for a briefing on legislation that was introduced in this House over two weeks ago, instead of waiting until after the day the bill was scheduled for second reading to answer legitimate questions by members elected to this chamber, who have a responsibility, even on a bill that seemingly, on the face of it, is inoffensive and administrative in nature. Even on that kind of bill we have a job to do.

I would think it would be in the minister’s interest, and certainly the interest of British Columbians, that ministry staff have enough respect for members of this assembly to take the time to give a briefing to the official opposition and, in fact, to independent members of this Legislature if they so request it.
[ Page 6223 ]

Did the mayors ask for this? Do they support this? I don’t know. I don’t know if they know because I don’t know if they’ve had a briefing either. I don’t know if they’ve had a chance to question the minister on the implications. I don’t know whether the minister and ministry staff even think it’s important that the elected representatives of people in Metro Vancouver are given the respect that they should be given to have a detailed explanation, be able to ask questions and understand the implications of this legislation.

Another question for committee stage: did TransLink ask for this? Does TransLink support it? Does TransLink think this will make things more efficient?

[1450]

Does TransLink think that this is the right way to proceed? Does TransLink think it’s appropriate for the province to own assets for which it no longer puts up 100 percent of the financing and, in fact, has not even committed to put up 33 percent of the financing?

Did B.C. Transit ask for this? Does B.C. Transit support this? Does it make sense? It may well make sense. But the minister stood up in this House for something like a minute and a half when the bill was introduced and perhaps, charitably, five minutes to open second reading of the bill.

I’m sure ministry staff have many important things to do. But if this is a bill that is going to increase efficiency, be more responsive to effective and efficient use of government — i.e., taxpayers’ money…. If it’s going to make the operations of TransLink be better, if it’s going to better connect the government with the operation of all of the different forms of assets, whether it’s SeaBus or West Coast Express or built and yet-to-be-built rapid transit in Vancouver and south of the Fraser, or of the bus fleet, of the roads, of the Pattullo Bridge, of the bicycling infrastructure….

If all of this is important, surely ministry staff could have taken the time to go into some detail with myself, with other members of the opposition, with other members of this Legislature so that we don’t have to stand in this chamber, where there are many other things to do, during second reading of a bill about which we’ve received very little information from either staff, deputies or the minister himself and take up time pointing out for the public and the public record the important questions that could have been answered that haven’t been answered, so the people of British Columbia can know that this government has reached a point where, when they think a change is necessary, they just make it with minimal explanation, even if, as may well be the case with this bill, it makes perfect sense.

If it makes perfect sense, why were we not afforded an opportunity to get answers to simple questions? If, in fact, this is more efficient, why has Rapid Transit 2000 been kept alive for so long? Why wasn’t this done in 2007 when the board was changed, or 2012 when the minister made changes, or 2014 when the current Transportation Minister made changes?

I would ask the minister during committee stage whether there was any consideration given to transferring these assets to TransLink itself, which might make more sense. And if so, was there an analysis done — whether that would be beneficial or whether it would be more beneficial to do what he proposes to do and transfer them to the Transportation Financing Authority?

TransLink operates this infrastructure and these assets under long-term lease. TransLink is responsible in many ways for ensuring that these assets operate efficiently, that they’re maintained. TransLink has to struggle with balancing the various needs of transportation in the region under a funding formula that clearly hasn’t kept up. It hasn’t kept up with the needed investments, hasn’t kept up with the growth in population, hasn’t kept up with congestion, hasn’t kept up with what the public desires in Metro Vancouver and hasn’t kept up with the regional planning processes that take place.

I’ve sat in meetings at TransLink where mayors in the region have said: “We built developments based on the premise that there would be transit and people would choose to take transit. Now we have developments that weren’t set up for cars where people are now making commitments to buy cars because they can’t get to where they have to go any other way. It is bad for the region. It’s bad for our communities, and once they make those investments in personal vehicles, they will not go back.”

The minister and his government are responsible for that state of affairs by not having the courage, the foresight or the policy responsibility to work with the mayors in the region and make investments.

TransLink is asked to continually make improvements to assets that it does not own. Why has the government made a decision to continue the model where the ownership does not rest with TransLink but rests with government entities and, in fact, is consolidating it into a government entity?

[1455]

It may well make perfect sense, notwithstanding the change in funding models that has taken place over time and the continually reduced financial interest of this government in the assets under discussion, notwithstanding the continued failure of this government to act responsibly and help TransLink and the mayors in the region make the investments needed to ensure that we reduce congestion.

Notwithstanding all of those facts, it may make sense, but we simply do not know today. We might know tomorrow when we get a briefing. We could have known yesterday if we’d had a briefing, although it was Sunday. We could have known last week if we’d had a briefing. We could have known the week before when we first requested a briefing. But we don’t know because we haven’t had answers to the questions.
[ Page 6224 ]

In the interest, perhaps, of a little bit more efficiency than the minister and his staff seem to think is appropriate or respectful for members of this Legislature, we will be asking for a list of all of the assets in question, the ownership history, the lease history, the value of all of the assets in question, any changes over time and any debts in question. We might be able to get that at a briefing. I honestly can’t say, because the ministry hasn’t seen fit to give us one. So I’ll put it on the record here in hopes that we will get the info tomorrow or, if not tomorrow, at committee stage.

With that, having spoken far longer than I thought I would be able to or than I thought would be appropriate on a bill that is strictly administrative in nature, perhaps the minister will take from this a message back to his staff, one that he probably shouldn’t have to deliver directly but may well have — that if a bill is administrative in nature and we’re trying to increase efficiencies, perhaps we should start with a little respect for the role of members of this Legislature and give them a briefing when they ask for one. With that, I’ll take my seat.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on a transportation bill. We don’t have many of them in front of us, so I did want to have the opportunity.

While I do understand my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview’s concern about the briefing, I have to say that I did personally have a chat with the minister, who did describe the administrative nature of it. I think a lot of the issues that there are concerns about, which might come from a briefing and can be discussed when we do have the briefing tomorrow, we still will want to get on the record in the committee stage, so I think there is that opportunity there.

As has been said, and as the minister said in conversation and has said twice, now, on the record — both in the first reading introducing the bill and then the start of second reading — this is essentially the administrative piece of legislation. I think that one of the questions though is: why now? What is the thinking of this particular timing for it? If you’re going to be streamlining it, you’re going to be streamlining it. But there have been other opportunities.

When there was a change to the governance structure of TransLink back in 2007, that might perhaps have been a time to bring that streamlining together. I think that with the highly politicized nature of the debate that is going on at the moment around TransLink, there is inevitably a raft of questions about the timing and just what it is going to mean.

I mean, by looking at it and by conversation, it does sound to be simple. It does sound to be administrative. But there is always that, dare I say, suspicion, whether it is administrative or whether it is simple, that there is something more behind it, particularly since, as my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview mentioned — and he takes the lead on TransLink issues and is very well versed on them — the Transportation Financing Authority is run by the ministry, and the directors are the minister and the deputy minister. So it’s within the government reporting entity.

There is possibly an issue of transparency. We know that this is becoming a very…. It’s not non-transparent, but it’s an oral government. We don’t get much in writing. We’re going to be discussing this in a subsequent bill this afternoon, I understand, about the oral nature of government.

[1500]

With the Transportation Financing Authority having that directorship, just literally the minister and the deputy minister…. While, obviously, the minister is an honourable minister and the deputy minister is a public servant who we respect, there is a question of what sort of transparency there will be, how much recorded information there will be about what happens.

It’s very interesting that by bringing this all into the Transportation Financing Authority, it means that any of the debts aren’t actually on the government books. It’s something that we’ve seen with B.C. Ferries when the government took B.C. Ferries outside the Crown corporation model that it had been running under for a good many years. That was partly to move the B.C. Ferries debt off the government books.

We have a government that is dealing with a massively escalating debt and trying to find ways of showing that they aren’t actually holding this debt. It’s very interesting to see. In this, we’re seeing that this move won’t have any implications for the provincial debt, which I think is hitting almost $70 billion now. I think that’s what we’re aiming towards with the rapid rise under the present Premier, that ratcheting up of provincial debt. But this won’t be seen on it.

It’s very interesting, a little playing around with the books. Again, whether or not there is the briefing note, these are questions that we will want to get on the record, the answer to these questions, when we get to the committee stage.

There are a couple of other just small points. One is that while it is a thin bill…. I mean, there are 11 sections and then, obviously, the consequential amendments to the Transit Act and the Transportation Act, the South Coast Transportation Authority, the Financial Information Act and so on. Again, we see this time and again in government legislation. We’ll be questioning when we do get to committee stage, whenever that is — again, it’s something that we can discuss in a briefing. But it would be very good to get it on the record: section 10, the power to make regulations.

We see this time and again when we have a piece of legislation. Here it seems to be, as we’ve discussed, the administrative moving, bringing everything together under
[ Page 6225 ]
one body. If that’s all it is, if there’s a very rational explanation for why now and why this model, it might just be fine.

But there is this issue under section 10. Basically, cabinet can make regulations on this which can remedy any difficulty encountered in the transfer and respecting any other matter or thing that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council “considers necessary or advisable to carry out the intent of this Act.” That, I would suggest is quite….

It might be nothing, but it also could be interpreted as quite a broad brushstroke of what we’re going to do. And then what we don’t actually have down in legislation, what they may have forgotten…. “It’s okay. We’ll deal with it all in regulation.”

This is a method that we’ve seen in a number of pieces of legislation, whether a major piece of legislation like we were talking about last fall, the LNG legislation, or smaller pieces. We are expected just to sign over somehow carte blanche to the government. “It’s okay. We trust cabinet to make the right decision, and they will sign off on it.”

So when I do see a section that does have this power to make regulation, I do get a little concerned. That being said, we have had twice on the record from the minister that this is administrative. It appears to be administrative.

I think that it will be very interesting to get more clarity when we get to committee stage and be able to, through committee stage, get on the record just some of the questions that my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview has had and some of the other questions that are coming up in this — the questions of why now, why this model, how it’s all going to work. It just does seem to be…. If nothing else, the timing alone seems a little strange.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I do look forward to having more clarity when it comes to committee stage.

B. Ralston: I rise again to address this bill very briefly. My colleague from Vancouver-Fairview has posed, I think, most of the questions that should be posed and as of yet are not answered.

[1505]

Coming from Surrey-Whalley, where the Surrey city centre is so important to the future of the city and to the region and rapid transit — certainly the SkyTrain line and TransLink and the desire of the city to expand public transit service to the urban core and, indeed, to the city of Surrey itself — is so important to the future of Surrey, that I feel compelled, at least, to signal my interest in this bill and to follow it regardless of whether the minister has said it’s administrative or not.

What we are advised is that the present collection of entities all fall within the government reporting entity, and the new combined entity will equally be within the government reporting entity. I suppose one wonders, given that the title of the organization is the Transportation Financing Authority, what implications there are for future financing using transit assets as collateral.

Was this something that was requested by prospective lenders? Was this something that was advised in policy? Are there any implications for the future function of the Transportation Financing Authority as a financing authority, using those assets to finance future construction? As we know, the Evergreen line is underway, a project of some $800 million or $900 million in costs. So these are important questions of public policy and of finance, potentially.

Again, I’m sure the minister can easily explain these, but they remain questions that are merely posed at this point and not answered.

I don’t really understand — as the member for Vancouver-Fairview has said — the reason why this moment was chosen. Certainly, in 2007, when the legislation created TransLink, as it’s presently constituted, with its funding sources, there was a very lengthy debate — although it was ended by closure here in the Legislature, as is sometimes the wont of this government on important public policy matters. They’re not prepared to entertain lengthy debates.

One wonders, given the interest of the minister at that time in creating a new corporate structure, why it wasn’t dealt with at that time. Is that an oversight? Not considered important? Hence, what is the timing now?

I really want to just, as I said, signal my interest and that of my constituents and of the city of Surrey in the future of public transit in the region — which is, of course, being considered very widely in the discussion that we’re having in the Lower Mainland. I look forward, like others, to either the minister answering some of these questions when he closes on second reading or perhaps, when his officials are here, if he doesn’t know the answers, in the committee stage.

H. Bains: It is also a pleasure to stand and speak on this very, very important topic, to say the least, when we talk about public transportation in the Lower Mainland — especially the region that I represent, the south of the Fraser.

Bill 2 talks about, as the minister put it, the administrative changes, but as the speakers before me have mentioned, there are a number of unanswered questions. Well, one of the questions was: why now, especially when you’re looking at the priorities and the needs of public transportation in the Lower Mainland?

The mayors have been asking to change the governance. That should be the key priority for this minister and for this government, and they have done nothing. Well, they go, kicking and screaming, very, very slowly in that movement. I guess they don’t want to accept that they were wrong when the changes were made in 2007 by the then Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, who fired the duly elected members of the board — the mayors and the councillors — and replaced them with handpicked, non-elected members of the board who meet behind closed doors — no accountability, no transparency. That’s where the priority should have been.

[1510]

If this is administrative, then I think we need to ask a lot of questions, many questions, as has been raised by the member for Vancouver-Fairview and others. They need to be answered during the committee stage.

At the end of the day, we’re really, really concerned about the extension into the south of the Fraser and the extension of the Expo Line, or the LRT, as they call it, for that part — more buses. Those are the real priorities — the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. I think those are some of the key priorities, but the minister chose to do just the administrative changes rather than real, substantive changes that are needed in order to serve the region that I represent and many of the members south of the Fraser represent.

According to Metro Vancouver, there will be an additional million residents moving into the Lower Mainland by 2040. Most of them will be calling south of the Fraser their home, or the northeast sector, and yes, many others will be going to other communities.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? We don’t have the transportation facilities and the services to serve the population that we have today. Can you imagine what it would be like having another million residents moving into the Lower Mainland? If we don’t move fast enough, then we will be running behind. That would be a disaster as far as the economy of this province is concerned. That would be a disaster as far as climate change is concerned, and extended traffic jams.

I’m really worried, because so far this government has not shown very much leadership on this issue. Every time they had an opportunity, they used delay tactics. The most recent one is the referendum. They threw it at the population of the Lower Mainland: “If you want any more improvement south of the Fraser, then you tell us how you’re going to pay for it.”

They never asked those questions when Port Mann was announced. They never asked for a referendum when the Massey Tunnel was announced. None of that, none of those issues were raised at that time — none of that concern about a referendum at that time. The time for Surrey came, and then, all of a sudden, the Premier announced a referendum, and I think that is a real concern. It was our time. It was our turn. And we have to stand in the lineup now, hoping that the referendum will pass and we will see some improvement.

We’re working hard to make sure that the public understand, despite the fact that this government has let them down when it comes to improving public transportation for the region. Mr. Speaker, you probably know. You were there in Coquitlam when the then Premier, Mr. Campbell, came, along with all of the ministers — the Minister of Transportation there. We went to this golf course clubhouse, and with great fanfare an MOU was signed, committing this government to work with the local mayors to find a long-term sustainable funding formula. The Minister of Education was there.

What did they do? Ignored that MOU. They did nothing all those years, despite constant effort by the mayors, trying to find a formula. But the government, all the ministers, including this Minister of Education, just disappeared after signing that agreement. Again, it was just a political piece of paper they signed. They had no intention of complying with it.

Again, they had an opportunity to sit down with the mayors and come up with a long-term sustained funding formula to work on expanded public transportation south of the Fraser. What did they do? They just said: “Well, it’ll be a referendum on that.” Bill 2 doesn’t address that either. So what happened? Delay, more delay. Now we are told: “If you want more public transportation, then you have to tell us how you want to fund that.”

[1515]

Bill 2, which we are talking about, does not address all those concerns. Again, it’s just administrative, as the minister said. But there are a lot of questions that will be raised during the committee stage. Rather than just being interested in administrative changes, the substantive changes are needed, and they are nowhere to be seen. Rather than being in the leadership position, being at the forefront to promote the yes side of the referendum, they were just hemming and hawing.

One day the Premier said: “I will not support it. It’s not my referendum. It’s the mayors issue.” And the Minister of Transportation said: “Oh well, I think I will be on the yes side.” They can’t even make up their own minds. As a result, the public is left confused because of a lack of leadership from that side. Bill 2 does not address any of those concerns.

When I was a Transportation critic, I was actually very much surprised to see how many different entities existed at TransLink. Expo Line is owned by one entity. Millennium Line is owned by another entity. Now we have West Coast Express. We have buses. It just did not make any sense. I understand that if they can be brought under one entity — administratively and, I think, also logistically — it may work better in the future.

At the end of the day, again, you have to see: how is this going to save taxpayers? Where are the efficiencies going to come from? Are there going to be any efficiencies found by going through this change? I think there are many, many of those concerns. Those concerns and those questions will be raised during the committee stage.

I think I was trying to find if West Coast Express was also part of this transfer. Right now it’s listed under, if I’m not mistaken, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, I believe. If it is, that entity is being merged into the Transportation Financing Authority as well.

I mean, those are a number of questions that we need to ask. What is the end result? I think, as they say, the devil is in the details, and I think that’s what we’ll find out at the committee stage. But my main concern is on
[ Page 6227 ]
behalf of residents of Surrey. How is this bill going to help them get better public transportation? I mean, that’s the bottom line.

No answer is coming, so far, from the minister or any of the other Liberal representatives from the Surrey area. They’ve been missing in action. They have never been anywhere to answer any questions about public transportation. Are you on the side of a yes vote, or are you on the side of a no vote? They are nowhere to be seen — kicking and dragging.

Finally, the Premier may have said: “Yeah, I think, you know….” First she said: “It’s the mayors issue. It’s not my issue.” The Minister of Transportation corrected her, and she said: “Well, I think I’m going to campaign on the yes side.” Then she said: “I will vote yes.” Although she lives in Kelowna, she may have voted in Vancouver. I don’t know. We’ll have to figure that out. They were all over the map and, again, left confusion with the residents of the Lower Mainland because they couldn’t make up their mind. How are we going to improve the public transportation, number one?

They used the delaying tactic, abrogating their responsibility of making decisions — what they were elected for: to make decisions on behalf of the public that they represent. The abrogation of their responsibility as elected members is beyond comprehension. Bill 2 — there’s nothing in here to address any of those issues. I think there are many, many of those issues and concerns.

[1520]

Hopefully, the government will look positively at improving public transportation and investing in public transportation. We can use 500 buses in Surrey alone today, south of Fraser — 500 buses today. Can you imagine the effect of having 500 buses in south of Fraser — all of those cars left behind, parked in their driveway rather than on the road? Can you imagine that and the effect it will have on the owners’ carbon footprints?

Walking the talk is what I’m asking of the government, and they’re nowhere. All talk, but there’s no walking the talk. That’s the issue here.

Bill 2, if we examine it in detail…. We have to figure out how it is that it’s going to address many of those concerns.

I have said — and I must say again; I must repeat this — that we have three ministers from Surrey. That should give good comfort to the people of Surrey. Bill 2, when you look at it…. How much input do they have? What are they doing to improve public transportation? What kind of clout do they have at the cabinet table? People expect them to have some clout, bring some resources to the south of Fraser, bring some money — capital funding in schools and public transportation. All that stuff is missing.

I think we need to figure out…. The people are wondering what these ministers are there…. How are they representing their interests? Rather than taking the Premier’s message to Surrey, how are they bringing the message from Surrey to the Premier? I mean, that part…. It only seems to be a one-way communication from these ministers.

I think we need to really, in detail, look at what Bill 2 talks about. If it’s only administrative, well, I think they’re looking for…. It’s like a make-work project — right? — for the minister. Is it going to improve public transportation? I will see, through committee stage, with all those questions.

With all those questions in mind, no answers coming so far from the minister. You would think the minister would stand up and speak more than two or three minutes on this bill, explaining their position of why we are bringing these changes rather than advocating for more funding, advocating for better public transportation, advocating for more investment in public transportation, working with stakeholders.

Administrative changes — that’s the best they can do? I think maybe that’s the only expectation we have, I guess, and that’s the only ability they have to deliver. If that’s the case…. Well, we’ll see what’s in the bill, and during committee stage we will be asking many of those questions.

At this time I’ll take my seat, and hopefully the minister will answer some of those questions at that time so that our three ministers from the Surrey area will take some of that information back to Surrey and so that the people of Surrey will see what they are getting for their dollars, the taxes that they pay.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and recognize the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A. Weaver: The most beautiful riding in the province of British Columbia.

I rise to speak just briefly at second reading of this bill to outline an issue that I think may have been overlooked in this bill. As the bill notes, there are currently…. These rapid transit assets owned by the province are split amongst three Crown corporations in the area: Expo Line and the West Coast Express held by B.C. Transit, the Millennium Line held by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. and the Evergreen line held by B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Bill 2 would consolidate these into one entity while maintaining the level of service.

Now, it’s hard to argue that consolidation of assets spread around three is not actually a good thing. It would streamline administration, provide cost savings and, presumably, better management of the whole system at all. These assets, of course, would be transferred into and operated by TransLink.

Cutting down the bureaucratic clutter in the region of Metro Vancouver, I would argue, is a good thing. Nobody quite knows who is on second base at times, or first base at times, with the plethora of these Crown corporations with their different jurisdictions.
[ Page 6228 ]

Here is the problem. TransLink has lost the support of the public. Nowhere is this more true than seeing the discussions happening with respect to the upcoming plebiscite in Vancouver.

[1525]

This no longer becoming a question of: should Vancouver have transport or not? This is not a question of: is the PST increase a means and ways of funding the transit improvements in Vancouver? What’s happening in Vancouver is that this plebiscite is becoming a plebiscite on TransLink, and that is most unfortunate.

That’s most unfortunate because here in this bill we have a bringing together of assets into a Crown corporation that has lost the public trust. In doing so, the public will question the rationale behind this. The public will question whether or not bringing in TransLink is the right thing to do. The public will question whether or not this is actually going to improve service.

Accountability is the keystone — and was the keystone — of the original vision of TransLink. It was envisioned as a regional authority to be run by a local and elected board. But now, of course, it’s no longer the case. We have an appointed board. We have an appointed board which is not accountable to the voters. The council of mayors, which makes recommendations and has to live with the consequences of decisions being made, is elected. But they don’t actually have the control over the process and decision-making.

This bill is bringing more assets into an organization, TransLink, a Crown corporation that will have more control and more voice over what the mayors must implement, at the same time as it’s losing the confidence of the general public. In order to deal with the root cause, the root problem, that exists — that is, the lack of public support for TransLink — we’ll need to explore, in committee stage, how the government plans to actually assure us that as it brings more and more assets into the Crown corporation for transit, it does so in means and ways that do not ignore the underlying fundamental issue, which is rebuilding public trust and public confidence in TransLink.

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

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly do appreciate the interventions from the members opposite on this particular bill, and I look forward to a spirited debate back and forth. I’m not certain how spirited it will be, though, because this really is a housekeeping bill.

To the member for Vancouver-Fairview, my understanding is that staff were more than willing to set up a meeting. We heard back from the member’s staff just this last Friday, and the earliest date that we could make happen was this Tuesday.

Furthermore, the member for North Island actually came over to this side of the chamber a few weeks back and asked me a number of questions about this bill: what the intentions were, if there was anything that she was missing, anything she should be really honing in on. I indicated very clearly: “No, this is an administrative piece of legislation. However, if you or any of your colleagues wish to have a briefing, I would be more than happy to ensure that that’s provided.”

Perhaps the members opposite don’t talk as often as they should, but I did make that offer, and the offer stands.

Finally, on that point, the member for Vancouver-Fairview…. It has never stopped him before — to stop me in the halls and ask me a couple of quick questions about a piece of legislation or a particular issue. He certainly didn’t come to me personally on this.

I encourage him and other members opposite to know that I very much appreciate the role that the opposition members have in terms of scrutinizing and asking the tough questions of legislation that this government puts forward. I’m certainly willing to facilitate, if nothing else, technical briefings to ensure that coming into these debates, they have a basic level of understanding about what the intent of the legislation is. So those offers are out there.

Why were my comments so brief at the beginning of second reading? Again, very clearly, because this is simply a case where there is not a lot to see here. There’s not a lot going on. This is very much an administrative piece of legislation.

The question was asked by members opposite a number of times: “Why now?” Very simply, this piece of legislation — the concept that underpins this piece of legislation, which is consolidating all of the rapid transit assets in the Lower Mainland — was an initiative that actually came out of the core review process.

[1530]

As you will recall, we made a commitment to the people of British Columbia, coming out of the last campaign, the last mandate that we were so honoured to receive from the public, that we would continue with our efforts to ensure that for every single dollar that we spend on behalf of the taxpayers, we do so wisely.

This file came across my desk, as files tend to do on a daily basis, and it was very clear to me that there seemed to be an opportunity here, through the simple consolidation of rapid transit assets, for efficiencies and some savings for the taxpayer — nothing more, nothing less.

I want to stress that this bill has no implications whatsoever for the plebiscite. While I fully expect, from a number of the comments made by members opposite, that there may be questions that are plebiscite-related that will come up in the committee stage of this bill, I want to say now, on the record, very clearly, that there are absolutely no implications whatsoever for the plebiscite.

I do want to say, though…. I’m not sure I can hold myself back on this, but in response to the member for Surrey-Newton, I can assure both the member and all members of the House that my colleagues in Surrey,
[ Page 6229 ]
which is, I believe, the strongest caucus that has ever represented Surrey, are out there advocating for the plebiscite vigorously.

Last time I checked, the Minister of Children and Family Development is on the record many, many times saying she supports (1) giving the people of the region a say, giving them the final say, over this, and (2) she supports a yes vote.

I know certainly that there are very few members in this chamber that come anywhere close to the experience — the upfront, close and personal experience — that the Minister of Education has when it comes to transit in the Lower Mainland. He has said many times on the record that he supports giving people in the region the say and, indeed, supports a yes vote.

The Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, also from Surrey, has said on many occasions that he supports this process, giving the people the final say, and he supports a yes vote. And indeed, our colleagues the MLAs for Surrey–White Rock and Surrey-Panorama are also on the record in supporting this referendum. They are certainly not strangers to the transit file as well.

I want to also say again, in response to the members opposite, that there are no implications within this bill for TransLink. This bill is not about TransLink. TransLink does not own any of these assets. TransLink will not own the Evergreen line. TransLink does not own the Millennium Line. TransLink does not own the Expo Line or the West Coast Express. There are contractual agreements between these different Crown entities and TransLink. This bill changes none of that. There are no implications whatsoever for TransLink.

Furthermore, there are no implications in this bill with respect to the actual provision of transit services — rapid transit services, in particular — for the people of Metro Vancouver. Now, I don’t want to stray, as a few members opposite did in their comments, too far from the actual subject that this bill deals with.

I’m all game to talk about the $2.2 billion that this government has invested in rapid transit and TransLink over the last 12 years. I’m all game to talk about investments that we’ve made in the Canada Line, which is recognized around the world as one of the best rapid transit lines in terms of connecting a downtown core with an international airport.

I’m all game to talk about the first rapid bus over the Port Mann Bridge in a long time, which is moving 50,000 passengers per month. Indeed, I would be all game to talk about the Evergreen line and just how incredible it’s going to be when that line is done, the extension of SkyTrain all the way out to Coquitlam and how wonderful that’s going to be.

In fact, that will position the rapid transit network in the Lower Mainland as the longest rapid transit network in all of the country. I would be only too game to also talk about the fact that we spend more per capita on transit here in British Columbia than any other province does.

[1535]

Again, I don’t want to stray too far from the subject of the bill. This bill does not contain any of the conspiracies or any of the hidden agendas or any of the juicy, interesting little tidbits that members opposite have suggested may be at play here. This is a very standard, very straightforward and, in many respects, boring piece of legislation. It is purely administrative in nature.

As I said in my opening comments to second reading, here’s what it does. It consolidates all rapid transit assets within the BCTFA. That’s the Expo Line and the West Coast Express assets, which are currently held by B.C. Transit. Those assets would be moved to the BCTFA. The Millennium Line, which is currently held by RTP 2000 — those assets would be moved to the BCTFA. And of course, the Evergreen line — the assets will be held by the BCTFA. So this is a consolidation of rapid transit assets into one entity, the BCTFA.

Secondly, it enables cost savings and efficiencies. I said, actually in first reading, that these cost savings are going to be modest. We’re not talking millions of dollars of savings. We’re saying that tens of thousands of dollars of annual savings is what we expect. But there will be administrative, financial and legal savings because the requirements for all of the above will be simplified.

Next, all the rights and responsibilities, including in relation to the assets and liabilities of these rapid transit assets, will all transfer seamlessly to the BCTFA — nothing more, nothing less. There is no change in status of any of those rights and responsibilities, those assets and liabilities.

Next, as I said a moment ago, it consolidates all of the agreements that TransLink has with each of these Crowns into one relationship. So instead of TransLink having an agreement with RTP 2000 and a separate agreement with B.C. Transit and a separate agreement again with the BCTFA, there will be one agreement that will manage the relationship between the Crown, through the BCTFA, and indeed, TransLink.

There are no debt implications with respect to the changes. I believe, as the member for Surrey-Whalley pointed out quite correctly, it’s all Crown-reported debt at the present time. It will all still be after this consolidation has taken place. So there’s no increase or decrease in the provincial debt position.

Last but not least, this move also addresses the reality that B.C. Transit no longer actually has a mandate in the Lower Mainland. So it seems to make sense to us that assets which are currently held by B.C. Transit — again, being the Expo Line and the West Coast Express — should be held by a different agency. BCTFA makes the most sense to us.

Hopefully, I’ve gone to some extent there to address a few of the questions and the concerns that have been
[ Page 6230 ]
raised by members opposite. I certainly expect that there will be a further delving into all of the issues I’ve just mentioned, and I certainly look forward to that in the committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that Bill 2 be referred a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 5, intituled Government Information Act.

BILL 5 — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACT

Hon. A. Virk: Bill 5, Government Information Act, brings modern information management legislation to the province of British Columbia. This year, 2015, the Document Disposal Act, our current information management legislation, would have turned some 79 years old.

Before I move to how the Government Information Act will modernize the management of information, let me, by way of background, highlight some of the challenges that we currently face.

First fact. Information is being created and duplicated at an ever-growing rate, which is stretching our ability to manage it in an efficient manner.

[1540]

Second fact. Storage and retrieval costs for this growing volume of information continues to rise.

Third. Access to information is delayed due to our inability to locate information quickly in our old paper-based system.

Another fact. We store currently a million boxes of paper in off-site storage facilities. Just for reference’s sake, if we put all those boxes in a row, that would stretch from Vancouver all the way to the interior, to Kamloops.

The fifth fact. Any decision relating to the retention and timely disposal of these records must currently be approved by multiple committees in the Legislative Assembly, which typically takes one to two years to obtain.

Fact six. As highlighted in a recent report by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, we have a backlog of paper records that have not been archived for over ten years due to the high costs associated with archiving paper records.

Now, one may ask how the Government Information Act addresses these challenges. The Government Information Act focuses on electronic information and modern information management needs.

It moves government to the electronic storage of information, which will increase efficiency and make better use of taxpayer dollars as well as making it easier to manage and retrieve information. This will result in increased productivity, timelier service, improved access to information for citizens and better overall information management. It also establishes digital archives, which will preserve government’s documentary heritage and enable convenient public on-line access to government’s archival records information.

The Government Information Act will also strengthen the government’s record retention regime by appointing a chief records officer with a mandate to oversee records management. It will also establish a cross-sector advisory committee to support the CRO’s oversight and provide expert advice on the appropriate retention and disposal of government information.

Finally, the Government Information Act clarifies what constitutes government information to include information that documents decisions. The act specifically requires the retention of any record that documents key decisions or a government body’s organization, policies, procedures, transactions or operations, in accordance with information schedules approved by the chief records officer. This will ensure that such information is kept for an appropriate period of time for operational and accountability purposes and is available to the public, subject of course to limited exceptions under freedom-of-information legislation.

Just in terms of jurisdictional comparisons, in moving to electronic storage and archiving information, British Columbia is joining other innovative, leading-edge jurisdictions not only in Canada but around the world. The government of Canada and the province of Ontario are establishing similar digital archives. Internationally, Australia, the U.S. government and Washington state have all established digital archives, with many other states in the planning phase. In addition, the United Kingdom and the United States have all implemented digital-by-default or digital-information-only strategies.

We propose that this is done in a phased implementation period, as was done in other institutions. The requirement to digitize information will be phased in over a three-year period and will be subject to limited and reasonable expectations. My ministry will transition first and will pilot new tools and technologies for classifying and managing electronic information before deploying them more broadly.

A broad group of stakeholders, including government stakeholders, were unanimously in support and look forward to the improved information efficiencies, access and governance this act will bring.

We also consulted with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and worked closely with her office to clarify and strengthen the act. While the commissioner
[ Page 6231 ]
sees elements that could be further strengthened, her overall opinion is that it’s an important first step to a modern management framework.

I quote further from the Privacy Commissioner. “I am encouraged that the government is proposing legislation that will provide a framework for modern records management within government,” and “I am pleased that the bill provides for the establishment of an information management advisory committee which would assist the chief records officer with the approval of information schedules.”

In summary, the Government Information Act is long overdue, and it’s a long-overdue solution to a number of growing problems.

[1545]

It is the collaborative result of consultation with a number of key stakeholders, including the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and, as such, contains practical and forward-looking provisions that will ease transitional challenges.

Once fully implemented, this modernized approach promises to improve government efficiency, improve findability and access to information and services for citizens, and make better use of taxpayer dollars. It will also establish British Columbia as a leading jurisdiction with digital-based information management and archiving services. This leading-edge approach will enhance efficiency and ensure timely access to information.

D. Routley: It’s an honour to rise in response to the Government Information Act. I intend to take a number of perspectives on this important piece of legislation.

It’s important that the government recognizes the need to advance its recordkeeping practices. It’s something that the opposition supports: that we bring the recordkeeping functions of government forward into the 21st century, with a view on the 22nd century; that the historical record of British Columbia be protected; and that people’s rights to access information be enhanced — not simply protected but enhanced.

Given that the government has a rather sketchy history in the whole sector — the whole field of document handling, document disposal, document of government actions — it’s important that we look at the history of what got us here.

First of all, I have tried to acknowledge the positive aspects of the bill up to this point, and I’ll acknowledge another positive aspect — that is, that the government wrote it down. That may seem flippant, and it may seem simplistic, but it’s true.

The government has a record of relying on an oral culture, increasingly relying on government and governance without documentation. This is a problem that’s been pointed out by successive Information and Privacy Commissioners of British Columbia going back a decade now — going back to the previous three commissioners back, David Loukidelis, who made the observation that he was concerned that “the public policy objectives of openness, accountability and good management — and frankly, the historical record — are not being well served at this time.”

Well, not much has changed. In fact, several of these concerns, one could argue, have worsened.

The recent scandals in the last term of the B.C. Liberal government around the ethnic outreach, quick-wins issue pointed to increasing reliance in the Premier’s office on an oral culture and a lack of documentation of government business at government meetings. We’ve heard recently of 80 meetings with stakeholders along the Highway of Tears concerning missing and murdered women — 80 meetings for which there is no documentation.

This would seem to most people to be an impossibility. Unfortunately, under this B.C. Liberal government, this has become regular. It has become increasingly the practice of government to do business simply by oral communication or by deleting e-mails on the grounds that they are transitory in nature — transitory information, transitory documentation — so they are destroyed.

We can go back through several different scandals to see this has been the practice of government. The B.C. Rail scandal led to the deletion of e-mails that could have been significant in finding fact in that scandal.

[1550]

Government, unfortunately, oversaw the destruction of documents, the disposal of e-mails that were deemed to be transitory but could well have been important to any defence that might have been undertaken by Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, who were accused and eventually pled guilty in that case on the eve of important testimony from the former Finance Minister Gary Collins.

These are significant issues of public record. We see the government willing to simply destroy or dispose of documents that are essential to recording history in British Columbia. We support the move to a modernized archiving system, a digitized archiving system, but we support that with considerable reservations about this act. It is a small but important step forward in archiving, but it has three significant holes.

The first and biggest hole in this legislation is that it does not include a duty by government to document. There is no duty to document decisions, meetings, calendars or any other government business. That is a significant shortcoming in this act that does not address the current and historical practices and shortcomings of the B.C. Liberal government when it comes to openness and freedom of information and access to information.

One of previous Premier Gordon Campbell’s great golden goals from a throne speech now long past but not forgotten was to have the most transparent, open and accountable government anywhere — I assume in the known universe but at least, you would think, in terms of related jurisdictions.
[ Page 6232 ]

If we compare B.C. to other jurisdictions, we’ll see that a couple of years ago the Canadian Journalists Association ranked B.C. at the bottom of the pack when it came to freedom-of-information access requests because of significant changes that were made to limit access. Changes were made to the Freedom of Information Act that might have been addressed in this act, changes that limited access to information.

One significant change was that the required length of time to respond to a request was changed from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, effectively increasing the allowable period of response by some 40 percent. This was a significant change. It was clearly intended to reduce access and allow government a longer time to respond to requests, which is not in the public interest.

All of these situations and circumstances, scandals and shortcomings of government have been issues that were not vexing or perplexing problems. They were problems that were clearly identified by successive Information and Privacy Commissioners. Steps to address these problems, solutions, were offered repeatedly and successively by the same officers of the B.C. Legislature and were in large part ignored by the government.

This significant hole in this act, the lack of a duty to document government decisions, really effectively mutes the effect of this or any other measure that government might take to improve access. You cannot archive a deleted e-mail any easier than you can archive a shredded document.

If government is not creating documentation, if government is disposing of documents on the premise that they are transitory — when in fact they are simply transitory in government’s view, because they are in the form of an e-mail, but still may contain significantly important information — then we are imperilling the historical record of British Columbia, as has been pointed out by previous Commissioner David Loukidelis and by the current commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, in her recent report.

[1555]

In a report in 2013 to the then minister, Ben Stewart, the commissioner recommended again that government create a legislative duty within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to “document key decisions as a clear indication that it does not endorse ‘oral government’ and that it is committed to be accountable to citizens by creating an accurate record of its actions.”

The idea behind this recommendation was that government should entrench in legislation a requirement for public bodies to document decisions, actions, advice, recommendations and deliberations of their officials. The duty to document would include requirements for the securing and preservation of records in the custody of the public body.

This is a recommendation that has been repeated over and over again by successive commissioners and by special committees reviewing the act. This Government Information Act was an opportunity for government to act on that significant and important recommendation from successive commissioners, and the government has failed to do so. This is a significant failing of this act, and unfortunately, it is considerably weakened by the omission of a duty to document.

One of the acts that this Government Information Act repeals is the Document Disposal Act. This act was enacted, I believe, in 1936, and it was designed in a paper-based society. So recordkeeping today, in an environment where documents are developed and shared through mobile devices and instant messaging, is a huge challenge. These are the words of the Information and Privacy Commissioner: “Recordkeeping in an environment where documents are developed and shared through mobile devices and instant messaging is a huge challenge.”

Documents prepared and, in effect, e-mails transferred and shared through mobile devices or any other digital platform are deemed by government often to be transitory and, therefore, subject to immediate disposal without going through the required processes of the disposal act. This means that much of the current business of government would be deemed to be transitory in nature. This means that much of the current business of government would be deemed to be immediately disposable.

This is why there is a marked and significant increase in the response rate for FOI requests that come back claiming that no documents exist. When British Columbians, organizations, stakeholders, the official opposition and journalists make FOI requests of government, it is becoming more and more commonplace that those requests come back listing that no relevant documents exist.

This cries out for a duty to document. This cries out for a satisfaction of the recommendation from the commissioner and successive review committees of the Freedom of Information Act. This cries out to take the first opportunity…. Government should seize upon the first opportunity to introduce a duty to document. This legislation, the Government Information Act, represented a perfect opportunity for government to do just that. The government has failed, and we will continue to pay the consequence of not having that provision.

The fourth President of the United States, James Madison, aside from his unfortunate leading of the War of 1812 and his permanent connection to Canada through that misadventure, had a very significant thing to say about information and peoples’ right to information in a democracy.

[1600]

He said: “A popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
[ Page 6233 ]

He was saying that a popular government, a democratic government, a government of the people without free access to information about governance was but a prologue to farce or tragedy. We have seen that so many times in this province, where the government has failed to produce information, has produced incorrect information, has produced misleading information that has led directly to tragedy in people’s lives and a farce of good governance.

You can point to the B.C. Lottery on-line gambling site as an example of where a lack of information or misleading information led to farce and tragedy. In that case, the government introduced its on-line gambling site and, within hours, pulled the site down. The minister at the time, who is now the Energy Minister, the Natural Gas Minister, claimed that it was simply the massive, overwhelming popularity of the site that had led to it being pulled down, that it was overwhelmed with traffic.

Well, not very long…. In a matter of days it became evident and it became disclosed that in fact the site was pulled down because it had serious security flaws which were allowing people to gamble with other people’s money — access to other people’s accounts.

Here we had information produced by a minister of the government that was both incorrect and misleading and led to a tragedy for people who were experiencing on-line theft and were in fact exposed to significant loss.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This became, really, a farce of good governance, that a minister of the Crown in British Columbia could produce such information that was both incorrect and misleading about such a significant issue to British Columbians. There are many examples like that of government failing to address this important issue and having that lead directly to significant harm to British Columbians and to the public interest.

Perhaps it might be that this lack of responsiveness from this ministry in dealing with issues of access to information and storage of information could be attributed to the short-term nature of the stays that ministers have had in this position.

Since 2008-2009 we’ve had six ministers. In 2008-2009 it was Ben Stewart. He was followed up by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. Then the next minister was Dr. MacDiarmid. Then Ben Stewart was replaced into the position again. He was followed up after the recent election by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, and now we have the current minister from Surrey-Tynehead.

In a space of six years, we’ve had six different ministers — one of them two times in the position, but six different ministers. So perhaps it’s not a surprise that significant work that should have been undertaken that could have addressed many of these problems hasn’t been carried out, that significant recommendations from successive Information and Privacy Commissioners have not been followed through on because, simply, ministers haven’t had the stay in the position or the length of attention to be able to address these issues properly.

Hopefully, we can see a change there and the current minister will seriously undertake to answer some of these recommendations.

[1605]

One of the great golden goals of the Gordon Campbell government — five, six, seven throne speeches ago — was that we would have the most transparent, open and accountable government anywhere. Unfortunately, along with many other promises and several of the other golden goals, we’ve seen a miserable shortcoming and failure to meet the target.

We have the historical record imperilled as B.C. Rail documents have been destroyed. We had thousands of documents turn up in a dumpster a few blocks from the Legislature. An employee of government had taken documents home and simply disposed of them in a dumpster. These are examples of the most abysmal failures to handle information, often significantly important personal information that could be very harmful to individuals if it is lost or misused.

We have seen ministers…. The Minister of Citizens’ Services, in fact, was implicated in the pay scandal at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. It became apparent that e-mail communication in that case was outside of official channels. The minister who was responsible for advanced education, previous to his service as an MLA was involved in the Kwantlen Polytechnic University pay scandal, and outside, unofficial e-mail channels were used in that instant. He is now responsible for overseeing government’s handling of information and government’s handling of communications, including e-mails.

This seems unlikely, but it’s true. This is the situation that we’re confronted with. We have a government that is noted by successive Information and Privacy Commissioners to be failing the test of adequate handling and archiving of information, is failing to meet repeated recommendations to create a duty to document the business of government, is failing to take care of the information of government that has already accumulated.

The next great shortcoming of this bill is that 33,000 boxes of government information sit in a warehouse, unarchived, unfiled and disorganized. This is a major contribution to the costs of government in satisfying freedom-of-information requests and information access issues. Whether it’s an issue related to a court case, whether it’s an issue related to the history of a Health Ministry decision, they are boxed, disorganized and next to impossible to sort through, creating huge expense for government in satisfying requests.

This bill, although it reaches forward in committing government to digitize records and to store records electronically, fails to deal with that backlog, which is a
[ Page 6234 ]
significant problem and will not go away until the government grapples with the problem and finds a solution. This bill should have included some measure to deal with the accumulated backlog of information in a warehouse waiting to be sorted by hand. Time and time again, each time information is required it is like reinventing the wheel because, again, a ministry or government employee or a contractor of government must sort through box after box of information to find basic information as well as significant information.

[1610]

The third great shortcoming of this bill is that it removes penalties. Under the Document Disposal Act, the disposal of documents in an improper manner would have resulted in the application of the Offence Act. This bill specifically removes the Offence Act from consideration so that if government agents, agencies, employees, contractors fail to follow the provisions of this act in handling, storing, creating or disposing of documents, there is no possibility of penalty.

This seems a real step backward in a time when we’re trying to address a major shortcoming of government’s ability to govern effectively. It seems that the failure to handle information is becoming a more and more serious issue as the implications of the information that’s being handled by government become greater and greater.

The opportunities for the loss of information, the opportunities for the improper disposal of information and the opportunities for information to be shared improperly in a way that harms people are becoming greater and greater with the technologies that are being developed. The same technologies that make this electronic storage possible, the same technologies that make adequate handling of information and efficient sharing of information in proper channels and proper practice possible, also make it possible for greater and greater harm to be done to citizens of British Columbia, should information be handled incorrectly or shared incorrectly.

The commissioner released a report this past July called A Failure to Archive: Recommendations to Modernize Government Records Management. This report is somewhat the precursor of this bill. I assume that the government was answering at least a few of the recommendations from this report, and there are two or three that are answered.

One of the things that the commissioner said was: “Stashing away electronic records indefinitely on ministry servers, without appraisal for archival value, is not a solution….” So simply storing information without consideration of its value, without consideration of the priority of access, without consideration of the implications of what improper access might cause, the problems it might cause, is simply not a solution and not satisfactory.

She goes on to say that “it is analogous to warehousing paper records without evaluation for preservation and historical value — those records either need to be destroyed or archived depending on their value to government and to British Columbians.” The standard of electronic documents handling and archiving currently was analogous to the current standard of warehousing paper documents, which is totally inadequate, and is pointed out by the commissioner.

Insofar as this bill answers some of that concern, it’s worthy of support. She goes on to say: “Without the proper creation and management of records, any statutory right of access to records will prove unenforceable in practice.” So it won’t matter what steps to advance freedom of information, open government and access to information are taken and legislated by government. Without proper creation and management of records, all of those rights are unenforceable.

All of those rights mean nothing if you can’t reach into the box electronically to find the file you need or physically to find the organized and simple access to the information required. These things are going hand in hand, even in this simple statement by the commissioner: “Without the proper creation and management of records.”

[1615]

Without the proper creation of records, we cannot manage records. Without enforcing standards on which documents are created, from what type of government business, we can’t possibly hope to have an accurate and fulsome record of government. All of these things make it impossible….

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker?

D. Routley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

D. Routley: All of these things seriously impair the citizens of British Columbia’s right to access to information.

Going back to James Madison: “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to farce or tragedy or, perhaps, both.” Without ensuring that government creates documentation, without ensuring that that documentation is properly managed, without ensuring that people’s rights to access it are upheld and not obstructed through high fees or difficult channels or the improper application of exemptions from freedom-of-information law….

Without all of those things working together, none can work well. Without that first step in the process, creating the document, all subsequent issues of document management will fail or be less effective. This is why it was of paramount importance that the government recognized the immediacy and the need to create a duty to document with this act.
[ Page 6235 ]

The government came to power in 2001. Shortly thereafter, they undertook a core review of all the aspects of government’s business. In the core review it was decided to transfer the B.C. Archives to the Royal British Columbia Museum. Prior to 2003, B.C. Archives was a part of the core of government. It was a responsibility of the Ministry of Management Services.

Once the responsibility for archiving was transferred to the Royal B.C. Museum under the Museum Act, a significant problem developed in that the government then expected the Royal British Columbia Museum to archive government information; however, government did not provide the museum with adequate funding.

They created a chargeback system so that the museum would charge back to ministries to contract the service of archiving their documents. The government did not provide the ministries with the resources to pay this fee, so no government records have been transferred to the B.C. Archives since 2003. Since 2003, a period of 12 years, no government information has been transferred to archives.

It seems unbelievable to even say that, but it’s true. As a result, approximately 3,000 boxes of information have accumulated each year in a warehouse while the Royal B.C. Museum is in a dispute with government over the amount of funding required to archive this information.

The Royal British Columbia Museum has told the B.C. government that it would charge $494 per box to archive that information. The government has balked at that figure, and it has become a contentious disagreement that has not been dealt with, and no solution has been found.

For 12 years the historical record of British Columbia has essentially been piled up in a closet. It’s unbelievable. In a modern society such as ours, where government has become more and more complex, where the business of ministries of government have become more and more intrusive or engaged in people’s personal lives, whether it is the Ministry of Children and Family Development, Social Services, Health, Housing….

[1620]

Significant personal information about people has not been properly handled or has been handled in such a shoddy fashion, as we’ve seen in so many of our information breaches of government, where it’s been shown that government has not applied the best standard of managing people’s information.

If your credit card is compromised and somehow your information is stolen and the credit card is used incorrectly, you can be made whole. The credit card company can make you whole. They can reverse the charges. They can issue you a new card. Your identity can be restored and your finances repaired.

The information that government handles is of a different nature. It is information that, once out there, cannot be retrieved. Once the bell has been rung, it cannot be unrung. Once information about people’s personal lives, whether it be through the Ministry of Children and Family Development or the Health Ministry or several other functions of government…. Once that information is out there, it is not retrievable.

It is impossible for government to make a citizen whole after a privacy breach of government’s information, unlike a credit card company. This is a very important distinction. This means that government should be leading by example and by principle, showing citizens and giving citizens the confidence that government’s handling of information is as close to flawless as possible.

People require that, not simply through convenience, not simply through a hope that some sort of financial disadvantage might occur, but integral to their very rights to privacy, an essential right. As essential a right as the right to a free trial, as essential a right as the right to free speech, is the right to privacy.

Government’s lack of consideration of how important it is to handle information carefully, consistently and with purpose completely undercuts people’s confidence, and it ought to. So 33,000 boxes of information were stored without consideration as to their value, their importance, stored without consideration to indexing, cataloguing. It’s hard to believe that this could be possible.

Another major challenge pointed out by Commissioner Denham is the challenge facing records management when it comes to the legal framework for government records management. With the Document Disposal Act having been designed in 1936 to regulate the retention of a much smaller assortment of paper records, it does not address the full life cycle of a record from the record’s creation to its disposition. It does not provide for oversight or sanctions where records are improperly disposed of or where important historical records are not transferred to the B.C. Archives.

This paragraph in Commissioner Denham’s report that I have loosely quoted points to the importance of updating and modernizing the Document Disposal Act. This act, the Government Information Act, does repeal the Document Disposal Act. But it weakens the provisions for document disposal, the management of disposal, because it does not provide sanctions.

What the commissioner asks for is an act that address the full life cycle of a record from creation — in other words, a duty to document, a duty to create a document in the first place — to disposition, to the disposal of a document.

[1625]

The previous act, the Document Disposal Act of 1936, in fact was, in that way, more advanced, in that it actually provided sanctions for improper handling of information, improper disposal of documents.

The Offence Act could be engaged if a breach was considered to be worthy of that application. This act, the Government Information Act that we’re discussing, Bill 5, specifically removes any possibility of sanction under the Offence Act. This is a major step backward, and I hope
[ Page 6236 ]
that the government reconsiders that aspect of this bill.

What it has not done is address the increase in “no response” records to general access-to-information requests. This is, again, a significant shortcoming of Bill 5.

“The B.C. Archives is responsible for the preservation and provision of access to those government records that have lasting historical value and represents the final stage in the life cycle of government records.” In other words, after information is no longer in active use in a ministry, and it is deemed to be significant or important to the historical record of government, it should be stored in the Archives of British Columbia. Not only should it be stored — as in 33,000 boxes in a warehouse, as in a closet full of boxes, disorganized and inaccessible — but it means that we should apply a higher standard.

“As public archives are often the sole reliable record of government action and decision-making, they play an essential role in our society and system of government. Through the creation and preservation of government records, archives sustain society’s cultural and historical identity, help preserve our rights and obligations and define our sovereignty.”

Those are pretty big concepts that the commissioner is identifying as being impaired or imperiled by a failure to adequately handle information of government. We’re talking about some of the most basic concepts of democracy and governance, and we are, again, linking the creation and preservation of government documents.

Creation — in other words, the duty to document — is a failed aspect of Bill 5. Preservation of government records is a part of the failed record of the B.C. Liberals in handling the information of British Columbia. Sustaining society’s cultural and historical identity, preserving our rights and obligations, and defining our sovereignty are the big-concept issues that are imperiled by this failure.

Yes, it’s a step forward on one aspect of the issue — one aspect: digitizing the records; archiving the records in an accessible, searchable, organized fashion. That’s a step forward. But it is no step forward to fail to impose a duty to document on a government that has been noted to be creating a culture of avoidance; an oral culture of government; and strategic, wilful steps that have evaded the spirit of open government, have undercut the spirit of freedom of information and have become a threat to British Columbia’s democracy.

[1630]

Some of these records, such as child welfare records, have to be maintained by government for 99 years and then disposed of, destroyed. Could there be an example more important and more worthy of government’s attention than records such as child welfare records? Yet now they languish in 33,000 boxes in a warehouse.

The government clearly hasn’t taken seriously its obligation to citizens, to democracy and to the historical record. Those records with historical value…. The commissioner estimates they comprise approximately 3 percent of all records — so 3 percent of all those boxes. Three percent of those have historic value and ought to be cared for in a way that’s worthy of the history of British Columbia.

They’re supposed to be transferred to the care of the Archives, where they’re supposed to be arranged, described and assessed for any preservation issues. Not assessing all of those documents for preservation issues? Well, that means some of them will deteriorate. If they’re not stored adequately, if they’re not preserved in a way that preserves the physical integrity of those documents, they may disappear or be rendered useless.

Even more concerning, perhaps, would be that digital records are even more subject to erosion and deterioration, or to accidental disposition — the simple pressing of a delete button when someone should have saved a document.

Government currently provides the Royal B.C. Museum with some funding. In 2003 that funding was $2.7 million. That funding has actually been reduced by 20 percent over the last decade. So while we expect the Royal B.C. Museum to undertake this monumental task of archiving and documenting this 12-year history and ongoing history of British Columbia, we in fact have reduced resources to the museum. The museum has reduced resources to undertake its core purpose, let alone take on this huge additional role.

You might ask: how do we compare to other provinces? Well, we are the only province or territory where government agencies are charged a fee to archive records, aside from Saskatchewan. There are two provinces that charge such a fee. And in Saskatchewan, ministries are charged a nominal amount of $15 per box to transfer records into archives.

British Columbia lags behind all other provinces in per-capita spending on public archiving. The annual B.C. budget for the Archives is 62 cents per British Columbian. Alberta spends 83 cents per person. Ontario spends $1.39.

Even in terms of total actual dollars, B.C. spends less than all provinces except for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The result of that: 33,000 boxes in a warehouse, unarchived, disorganized and imperiling the well-being of British Columbians and the continuity and integrity of the historical record of British Columbia.

The costs of conserving documents escalate as those records age. The future costs of preserving documents will be determined by the age of those documents. So as the years go by — 12 years now for the first box of those 33,000 — the costs escalate. As the government ignores its obligation to adequately handle our information, to adequately store our information, the costs continue to mount, the costs increase, and the job gets harder. Ontario estimates that the average box of government records costs them approximately $270 to process.

[1635]

Rather than grapple with this problem, work with the Royal B.C. Museum for a solution, government has been in a stalled confrontation over a bill of $494 per box. The Royal B.C. Museum has stood ready to negotiate and provide the assistance and the agreement that could have addressed that problem. Thankfully, there’s an indication that the B.C. government is finally undertaking some negotiation to deal with that backlog.

That backlog is not only an increasing cost to the cost of archiving, but it is an ongoing increased expense to freedom-of-information access. Again, an employee of government or an employee of a contractor of government must go in and physically sort through boxes in a most inefficient manner to find basic, complex or any freedom-of-information request documents that might be required.

Ministries process large volumes of information requests. There were approximately 80,000 requests over the last ten years, and it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to meet timelines in responding to those requests, partially because of a failure of government to properly archive or efficiently store information.

It is of considerable benefit to the public to transfer information to the Archives because access is so much more convenient. Archived records are easily accessible to the public, easily accessible to the government, easily accessible to the courts.

There are important judicial decisions that hinge on information from government. Be it child welfare information, health information, housing information or information from the Ministry of Environment — important information that is essential to judicial decision-making is equally difficult to obtain because of this failure to adequately store and archive information.

The first recommendation of the commissioner in her recent report of July 2014 was to repatriate the B.C. Archives into government and fund it on the same basis as other valuable public programs. Well, this bill does not do that. It does increase government’s role and increase the potential efficiencies of archiving. Those are positive steps which we support.

We support the modernization of archiving the record of B.C. We support the increased organization, the digitization and the digital management of records of British Columbia. Those aspects of this bill we support.

What we do not support is the failure of the bill to act on so many of the other recommendations and criticisms of commissioners and review committees.

The Document Disposal Act and current government policy and practice related to information management and archiving are based on a premise of paper records. It is a big step to move a monolithic organization the size of the B.C. government forward in terms of archiving.

We are fortunate to have an Information and Privacy Commissioner whose training and special interest is in archiving and recordkeeping. We must take advantage of that excellent resource — currently the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia — and heed the recommendations, adopt the recommendations, and transform government business according to her recommendations. This is an opportunity that this government shouldn’t miss. This is an opportunity that this government has only partially grasped with Bill 5.

[1640]

Bill 5 does take advantage of the notion that government records ought to be digitized going forward and easily accessible, properly cataloged and adequately protected in storage. It fails to impose a duty to document in the first place. This is the most significant failing of Bill 5.

Currently most of government’s digital information resides in government servers, where it’s essentially disorganized and essentially bulk stored. Essentially, it’s in the electronic closet, a box full of electronic documents in a closet poorly organized. This bill will address some of those shortcomings, and for that we’re grateful.

Given the rapid evolution of modern technology, the government has a duty to ensure that its electronic records are not growing obsolete. In other words, we must ensure that the means of storage are still accessible with the next generation of technology used to search and retrieve documents. If we store documents in a form that becomes irretrievable, they are as good as shredded.

The second recommendation in the report was that the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services initiate the creation or procurement of an electronic records archiving infrastructure to ensure the management and archival preservation of government’s electronic records. This recommendation has been partially answered. The extent to which this is done will only be determined through regulation — another shortcoming of this bill and so many other B.C. Liberal pieces of legislation. So much of the devil is in the details, the details to be determined after enactment.

We have in this bill the creation of a committee, an advisory committee, that will advise the minister and the ministry on techniques in technology, on practices of preservation and storage. We will see in the outcome of that whether or not this recommendation is answered in a fulsome way.

We have for a long time relied on outdated legislation and outdated practices in handling information. The Document Disposal Act set out cumbersome and lengthy processes for creating record schedules for disposal of records.

Ministries first must submit a proposed schedule to the Public Documents Committee. That committee includes among its members the provincial archivist and the comptroller general. Once that committee has approved the schedule, the ministry must submit it to the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly. This is a committee of members of the Legislative Assembly that meets a couple of times a year and only when the Legislature is in session.
[ Page 6238 ]

Finally, a vote in the Legislative Assembly is required for those schedules that the Public Accounts Committee approves. Ministries often face challenges in getting approval for their schedules on the agenda for the Public Accounts Committee and the Legislative Assembly.

This cumbersome process may have been state of the art in 1936 when records were produced by manual typewriters. However, in 2014 it has resulted in a one-year backlog in approving and amending record schedules. If a government ministry wants to seek approval to dispose of a class or a set of documents, they must go through this lengthy year-long process of getting approval.

Hopefully, this committee and this bill will streamline that process, but this remains to be seen, and there are some potential pitfalls in the manner in which that is being achieved. This will create a chief records officer of the Legislature, who will then have power to determine whether or not these schedules are acceptable. This creates a locus of power when it comes to management of documents that may not be in the public interest, depending on how it is imposed. And we won’t know that until after the bill is enacted — another shortcoming, again, of this act.

[1645]

The commissioner essentially sums up her report in this way. Let me quote from the report:

“As I have expressed throughout this report, providing proactive public access to government records through public archives is a fiscally efficient means of enabling open government and access to information. However, the value of a comprehensive and adequately resourced public archive cannot be measured simply in dollars. It enables the development of effective government policy by providing both the public and government with a historical perspective of government action and strengthens our democracy by providing transparency in government decision-making.

“As commissioner, I am deeply concerned about the state of records management and its impact on the public’s right to access government information. There is a decade of neglect in this state of affairs. A lack of sound records management has impaired the ability of ministries to create, maintain and effectively use institutional memory. As a result, wheels are reinvented, the ability to audit decisions is compromised, and the right of access is undermined.”

This is a description of a very miserable state of affairs when it comes to the handling of essential and important information to the government and to the people of British Columbia.

Some of the commissioner’s concerns are addressed in Bill 5, but some of the most basic and important concerns expressed by the commissioner, successive commissioners and successive review committees of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are being ignored by this bill. This bill was an opportunity to address several of those concerns — primarily, the concern around the duty to document, the duty by government to document.

A government that has increasingly become known as one that has created and relied upon an oral culture, a culture of avoidance when it comes to freedom-of-information requests and open government…. Those are the types of phrases being used by stakeholders who give evidence to the committees that I sat on reviewing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and by commissioners reviewing the information standards and practices of government. That is essentially the state of affairs in British Columbia.

We had a Minister of Citizens’ Services who, in estimates debate in 2009, when I was undertaking estimates debate with then minister Ben Stewart, repeatedly referred to the Document Disposal Act as the document destruction act. One slip of tongue is explainable, but five times in half an hour describing the act as the document destruction act I think really informed the government’s view of how it handles the information of British Columbians.

The Health Minister shakes his head, but he represents a government that has had cataclysmic, monumental breaches of the information of British Columbians. And if the Advanced Education Minister wants to call that success, he has a perfect right to do so.

I would think that the tens of thousands of British Columbians who have had essential personal information breached by their government, by the government of the Health Minister, the government of the Advanced Education Minister…. They have seen their information breached in a way that has been personally harmful to them and a government that has attempted to obfuscate and hide the importance and severity of those breaches time and time again — in fact, a government that only reports breaches at a fraction of their occurrence.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The Health Minister disagrees with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I’m not surprised.

[1650]

The shortcomings of the bill are clear. It removes any penalty for failing to act appropriately under the act. It removes sanctions, something that the Information and Privacy Commissioner explicitly advised against — explicitly advised that consequences should occur when the act is breached.

It fails to create a duty to document the public record. So we are going to see an ongoing problem that has not been addressed. In fact, the Premier chose to appoint, as the minister responsible for the handling of information and the potential disposal of documents, a minister who himself is implicated in the Kwantlen Polytechnic University effort to avoid disclosure of salaries of administrators, using personal e-mails to communicate outside official channels; a minister appointed by a Premier whose Premier’s office is implicated by the Information and Privacy Commissioner in creating oral government and purposefully avoiding freedom of information and document creation by using personal e-mails and by destroying e-mails.
[ Page 6239 ]

It’s a government that after the 2009 election, or during the 2009 election, intentionally destroyed e-mails essential to the B.C. Rail investigation; a government famous for dumpster loads of files of personal information of British Columbians being disposed of on the street; a government famous for hiring individuals who had records of fraud and having those individuals breach government documentation and personal information.

So if these ministers are happy calling that success, and they’re proud of that record, so be it. They have a warehouse full of boxes of documents — 33,000 boxes of documents, important to the public record, important to individuals’ rights and the historical record, the governance of British Columbia — sitting, languishing in a warehouse, disorganized and improperly stored, in peril of deterioration, as pointed out by the commissioner.

This bill does nothing to address any of those problems. You cannot store a deleted e-mail. You cannot archive a deleted e-mail. You cannot archive a personal e-mail that should have been official. You cannot archive a shredded physical document in the same manner. This is the reduced standard that has been achieved by the B.C. Liberal government, and Bill 5 takes a baby step towards addressing that — one aspect of that. The most essential aspects of the problems that the B.C. Liberal government has with archiving, storing and sharing information go unaddressed by Bill 5.

Bill 5 could have been the most significant step taken towards open government, but in that manner, it fails. We celebrate the modernization of records-keeping in British Columbia. We celebrate the bill’s components which advance the archiving and recordkeeping of British Columbia. We lament its shortcomings.

Another significant shortcoming of this bill is that the bill, through its measures, does not identify which public bodies must come under its scope.

[1655]

Unfortunately, the bill identifies government agencies and government bodies but does not specifically name what bodies or agencies come under that scope. This means that the addition or subtraction of government bodies from that list is up to either the minister or his delegated authority through the chief information officer of British Columbia.

This is a weakness, and it leaves the bill open to dilution. This will be an aspect of the bill that will be beyond the scope or reach of this legislative body and will not be something that will be debated in the public realm.

The chief records officer will have sole discretion over identifying the addition and subtraction of public bodies from this act, and that is a power that is potentially misplaced. We won’t know the effectiveness of that until the bill is actually enacted and is in practice, until the advisory committee is assembled and defined and we get to see what that structure looks like. That won’t be debated in this House.

This is a weakness of this bill. It gives the power to the chief records officer “to promote the preservation of valuable government information for current and future use.” Whatever is meant by the word “promote” we won’t know. In third reading we will certainly endeavour to have some of these terms defined and some of these clauses more clearly communicated.

It gives the chief records officer the power “to manage the digital archives and promote its availability to the public.” Again, promotion of availability to the public means several things, and we will have to reserve our judgment on certain aspects of this bill, particularly the powers of the chief records officer.

The chief records officer, unlike the current system…. The approval of a schedule for information — in other words, a schedule for its storage and a schedule for its disposal — currently takes a year to undertake. This chief records officer will have the power to approve or disapprove an information schedule, which is a considerable power in terms of the integrity and consistency of archiving.

The minister will “establish an information management advisory committee to advise the chief records officer.” This will be a very important role, and the bill, as it’s offered to the House, does not adequately describe what that advisory committee will do, what its power will be and what its makeup will be. This will be something that is established after the enactment of the bill and something that will have entirely important influence on the outcome of the effectiveness of that organization.

While the bill takes that baby step towards modernization of the information and records management of B.C., it fails on so many significant aspects. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has shown time and time again, successive commissioners have shown time and time again, that the essential flaw in the way government handles information primarily, number one, is a failure of a duty to document.

[1700]

That’s how we get 80 meetings with stakeholders along the Highway of Tears related to missing and murdered women, 80 meetings through the Minister of Transportation, none of which are documented in any way. It seems absolutely impossible in a modern democracy that I can even stand in the House and say that — that we have a government of British Columbia that had 80 meetings with stakeholders about missing and murdered women on the Highway of Tears and not a single document exists. We had high-ranking officials in the Premier’s office fired because of impropriety, in the case of Mr. Boessenkool, and in an investigation by the head of the public service not a single document could be produced.

It is impossible that government can function in a way that supports subsequent judicial decisions if it does not create documentation. We have a complex and large government with a scope beyond anything imagined when
[ Page 6240 ]
these acts were introduced — the Document Disposal Act in 1936. We have a government responsible for environmental assessments of important projects to the economy of B.C. but also with potentially huge consequences to the environment of the province, and we don’t see a duty to document.

We see public meetings on ferry fare increases that are not properly documented. We see the business of government generally becoming oral and undocumented. So the number one failing of the act and the number one recommendation of successive commissioners is to create a duty to document so that the full life cycle of a document can be properly managed.

If you haven’t created the document in the first place, you can’t archive it. Again, a deleted e-mail is just as impossible to archive, store and share as a shredded document, and we have a government that has routinely disposed of e-mail communications, classifying e-mail generally as being transitory in nature and, therefore, eligible for immediate disposal without that long process to consider whether or not that is the correct thing to do.

The chief records officer has many powers under this act: “may request information from a head of a government body in relation to the government body’s management of government information.” The chief records officer can, if requested by a government body, “access information, including personal information, held by the government body.”

How is this power limited? What are the checks and balances on the role of the chief records officer? These issues are not adequately disclosed or described in Bill 5 — another shortcoming.

We agree that digitizing the information of government will be a step forward and will advance the cause of modernizing the archiving of the record of British Columbia, but it also has potential pitfalls. The same technology that makes possible more advanced archiving methods in a digital environment also presents the opportunity for unintended or improper loss or destruction of information.

If we have a system that is digitized, we have then the potential for thousands upon thousands of people’s, citizens’, personal information to be lost, destroyed or improperly accessed at once. So we must be confident that the measures put in place are adequately secure and are adequately managed and that the practices are, without exception, impeccable and best practice.

[1705]

The chief records officer can also decide if an entire class of government information is exempted from the act. We have, then, given the power to the chief records officer to essentially exempt an entire class of documents or require that information still be recorded in a non-digital form.

These provisions are not adequately described or justified in the act as it’s written but, I’m assuming, as with so much other B.C. Liberal legislation, will only become clear after enactment.

When no information schedule applies — in other words, there’s no schedule for when a document would be disposed — the government information must be held until the chief records officer approves an information schedule applying that information or approves the transfer, archiving or disposal of the information. This also opens up a huge unknown, because as has been previously described, so much of the government information has not had information schedules applied because of the length of time, up to a year, that it takes in order to have that schedule approved.

Then it’s very difficult for a ministry to get that schedule onto the agenda of the Public Accounts Committee and onto the agenda of the House. This, again, will place significant power in the hands of the chief records officer, and currently there’s not an adequate description of how that will be achieved or how it will be empowered.

There’s also, in the act, several powers of the chief records officer to delegate or enter into contracts for the handling of information. When we look at the record of the B.C. Liberal government when it comes to contracting out and engaging in agreements to handle information, we have a rather uncomfortable feeling, because the record is poor. The record is one of successive failures to properly handle information.

In the archiving of government information under this act, the chief records officer may approve transfers of information in non-digital form to the museum archives. But it also says that information must be digitized before archiving and that the chief records officer may exempt information from application of this subsection. It will certainly be interesting in third reading to have a description of why and how this power might be enacted.

It also provides that copies of archived records be admissible in court. The copy of a record held in the digital archives that is certified as a true copy under the chief records officer’s signature will be “admissible in evidence without proof of the official character of the person appearing to have signed the copy.” Whether or not that is a significant subsection, we won’t know until third reading — perhaps not until after enactment.

The next subsection of the same section says that this evidence has, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, “the same evidentiary value as the original would have if it were proved in the ordinary way.”

[1710]

I suppose it will be up to descriptions in third reading and eventually judicial decisions as to the power of that clause, that section of this act. It seems to anticipate disagreement over the value of digitized information in a courtroom in British Columbia. It would be certainly reassuring if the minister were to be clear and concise and precise about what that means and how that will be defined.
[ Page 6241 ]

The responsibility, under this act, of a government body is to ensure that “an appropriate system is in place within the government body for managing and securing government information.” Right now there is a large degree of inconsistency from ministry to ministry, even within ministries, as to how information is stored, collected and archived.

Particularly, I’m sure the Health Minister would be well acquainted with the important implications of systems that don’t speak to each other properly. When we have seen the introduction of health data initiatives in this province, electronic health record initiatives, we’ve seen failures to protect privacy, we’ve seen failures of one system to speak to another system, and we’ve seen total re-engineering of systems after creation and imposition, at huge cost to the public purse.

Ensuring that an appropriate system is in place is, on the face of it, a simple sentence, but the implications of that are huge in consequence. The potential cost consequence of failing to adequately follow through with the appropriate systems is huge.

The responsibility of the head of the government is that they “must take reasonable steps to ensure that the government body complies with directives….” When we say that they must take reasonable steps to ensure, what does that mean? In the case of the Document Disposal Act where the Offence Act could be imposed, we had essentially at least an assurance that there was a consequence to failure — not so with this bill.

“The head of the government body must respond to a request,” so the chief records officer may request information from the head of a government body, and the head of the government body must respond to that request. Again, what provisions are in place to ensure that this happens without any consequence being in place, as with Bill 5, as opposed to the Document Disposal Act? It’s difficult to see how these things are immediately enforceable.

“The head of a government body must take reasonable steps to ensure that the government body complies” with government information being digitized and that government information be digitized before archiving. We see that that’s the responsibility of the head of government, but then the chief records officer has complete authority to exempt or to include government bodies or agencies as he sees fit. How will these mechanisms be translated, and how will we ensure that these ministries are kept up to date?

The record of the government so far is to make orders but not, then, to support those orders with resources. Currently ministries are responsible to archive through the Royal B.C. Museum. They are under a chargeback to the ministry, but the ministry has no funding to pay for that chargeback. If we again see this type of lack of support for initiatives engaged by government, we’ll see another bottleneck and a failure of this bill.

[1715]

When they transferred the B.C. Archives to the Royal B.C. Museum, they then followed through with a 20 percent cut to Royal B.C. Museum funding. So the record of the government in supporting its own decisions and its own initiatives is poor.

“…the head of a government body must ensure that no government information held by the government body is disposed of, except in accordance with an information schedule or approval by the chief records officer….” Again, there’s no consequence to failure. The Offence Act, which did apply to the Document Disposal Act, which is repealed by Bill 5, does not apply to Bill 5. Therefore, there’s no consequence to any failure under this act. This is one of the four primary failures of this act.

It goes on. In fact, section 18 of this act explicitly addresses section 5 of the Offence Act. It says: “Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act.” Again, this is a complete withdrawal from any enforcement or consequence to failure under this act, as opposed to an act which is in existence since 1936, the Document Disposal Act. Not that the government was particularly well known for observing the provisions and requirements of the Document Disposal Act, but nonetheless, this is a removal. This is a step backward and a removal of consequence for a failure.

As with so much legislation brought forward by the B.C. Liberals, the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — in other words, the cabinet — is the deciding factor, and the devil is in the details. The details are undescribed, the details to be delivered in the form of regulations assembled and imposed by order-in-council by the cabinet.

This act reinforces that practice. It says that the power to make regulations includes “designating a government agency as a government body for the purposes of this Act.” Not only are these extraordinary powers delegated to the chief records officer, but the cabinet will decide and designate a government agency as a government body for the purposes of this act.

In other words, the long list of public bodies in B.C., which I believe are approximately 2,000 in number, will be picked by the cabinet of the B.C. Liberal government for application of this act. If we don’t know…. This is a major flaw in the legislation. This is a potential hole in this bill, where the government itself, the cabinet, will decide who this applies to and who it doesn’t on an ongoing basis.

It gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or cabinet, the power to make regulations “designating an individual in a government agency designated as a government body as the head of the government body….” So it will be up to cabinet to identify who is responsible in each body for performance under this act and to exempt whoever they choose.

It will allow the cabinet to prescribe “fees payable by a person to the government for archival services in relation
[ Page 6242 ]
to the digital archives.” So the power of the cabinet is preserved and expanded, and the power of the bill is diluted.

[1720]

The cabinet will have the power of “defining any word or expression used but not defined in this Act.” This is a broad and sweeping subsection that grants even greater and increased power to cabinet under this act.

This is a significant failing. We wish that the government would be more specific, and we wish that the government would be more explicit in its legislation as to where it applies, who it applies to and how it applies. But this has not occurred. This is a huge open door for this bill.

Transition, the removal of a person or a body from the list of government bodies. “Subject to subsection (4), if a person or body is removed from the list of government bodies, this Act no longer applies to the person or body.” Then the next subsection says: “A person or body that was formerly a government body under this Act must continue to hold, transfer, archive or dispose of the recorded information in accordance with an information schedule prepared under subsection (1).” So subsection (3) says that once a person or a body is removed from the list of government bodies, the act no longer applies to them. Subsection (4) says they must continue to observe the provisions of the act.

It seems to be contradictory. Hopefully, we’ll have an explanation from the minister in third reading. But so far what we’ve seen is a government that relies on regulation and order-in-council to define what it meant later on. It is a government that has introduced legislation that has been the source of court challenge in almost every ministry, where the public purse has been impacted by decisions that have run against the legislation that’s been introduced, when it has been so vague. I think it’s incumbent on the government to be more specific and detail its intention more explicitly.

In summary, the official opposition supports the notion that the B.C. government will modernize its archiving. The official opposition supports the notion that B.C. will digitize its archives and make them more accessible and more organized and efficient in terms of the role of information in open government.

What we are concerned with are four things primarily. As I’ve stated, the duty to document is the most essential piece that the bill is missing. The bill attempts to deal with the life cycle of a document from its creation to its archiving and, eventually, its disposal.

It starts at the point of archiving. It fails to step one step further back and make this bill far more effective and far more valuable to B.C. by creating a duty to document, so that we do not have a situation where a government can hold 80 stakeholder meetings with people and organizations concerned with the missing and murdered women along Highway 16, the Highway of Tears, and then have no documents — no documents of those meetings. It seems an insult to the people who participate, and it seems an insult and a threat to the historical record of the province.

The second concern is the failure of the bill to deal with the accumulated backlog of information that has not been archived, that is not digitized, that sits languishing in a warehouse — 33,000 boxes of disorganized information, much of which is highly important to the people of B.C.

[1725]

Thirty-three thousand boxes of information. The Information and Privacy Commissioner estimates that 3 percent of that information would be of historical significance to the record of governance of the province. We’ve seen court cases delayed. We’ve seen court cases impacted by the failure of the government to adequately store information, by the inaccessibility of information when it sits disorganized in a box in a warehouse, like stuffing the information of B.C. into a closet.

We’ve seen warnings from the commissioner that the actual physical integrity of these documents is in peril because they are not being adequately stored. They are not being adequately judged as to how vulnerable they are to physical deterioration so we don’t know how many documents in those 33,000 boxes are simply degrading to the point where they may not be of use.

This is significant. This is a major threat to the integrity of the historical record of British Columbia. We’ve heard from the former commissioner his concern, and I’ll quote him. He’s concerned “that the public policy objectives of openness, accountability and good management and, frankly, the historical record are not being well served at this time.”

I don’t think a commissioner could be any more explicit and clear than that. The current state of information management by the B.C. government is such that the historical record of this province is in peril. This is a real threat to the integrity of governance in British Columbia.

The third concern is the removal of penalties by explicitly exempting this bill from section 5 of the Offence Act. In other words, it’s a step backward from a bill that was introduced in 1936. It’s hard to imagine that a government now, so much more complex….

I’m sure that every British Columbian would acknowledge that government’s business is far more complex and complicated and potentially important to people’s personal lives now than it was in 1936. Yet in 1936 the government of the day saw fit to apply the Offence Act to breaches of the Document Disposal Act.

Bill 5 repeals the Document Disposal Act and explicitly exempts this act from the Offence Act. This means that there is no consequence to failure, something that may be attractive to the government but I’m sure does not give reassurance to the citizens of British Columbia.

Fourthly, the cabinet will determine who this act applies to. By order-in-council, the cabinet will decide
[ Page 6243 ]
whether a body is a government body and who in that body is responsible, and they can add and subtract at the will of cabinet approval by order-in-council.

Rather than describe in this act what “a public body” means, which would be a relatively simple step to take, the power is vested in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet of the B.C. Liberal government, to add and subtract bodies to which this act applies at will.

[1730]

What should the government do? Well, it should modernize the records of British Columbia. It should modernize the archiving. It should create a digital record that allows for simple and efficient search. It should ensure that that digital, technological record is never allowed to become obsolete — that it is stored in a form that is current with technologies that would be used to retrieve it today and in the future.

Those things we commend. Those things we support. But it should also do these other things. It should also protect the history of the province. It should also ensure that the records that have accumulated and are disorganized are not lost. It should preserve the record of British Columbia.

It should preserve and organize the record of British Columbia in the best practices of archiving so that all of the record of the past 12 years is available to the citizens of British Columbia so that we can say that we understand and acknowledge that “a popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring, it is but a prologue to farce or a tragedy or perhaps both,” in the words of James Madison.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The government should ensure that it properly defines what bodies are included as public bodies and public agencies of government in this bill and not leave that to the discretion of cabinet, present and future. It should impose a duty to create documents. That is the number one recommendation of successive commissioners. It is the number one recommendation of numerous review committees on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

This bill represented a sterling opportunity to address major shortcomings in the document-handling practices and the archiving standards of the province, but the government has failed. It is important, because during the 2009 election the person in charge of e-mail service for government, a woman named Rosemarie Hayes, swore in an affidavit that e-mails of significant importance to the long-running trial of three political aides who had been charged with fraud and breach of trust related to the B.C. Rail sale in 2003 were destroyed.

Had the trial advanced past the point where those individuals pled guilty, and had the former Finance Minister, Gary Collins, and other high-ranking B.C. Liberal government officials testified, we would have discovered what this woman swore to — that digital records potentially critical to the case were destroyed during the provincial election of May 2009. There was no duty to document, and e-mails are considered to be transitory and therefore subject to immediate disposal.

The defence lawyers had argued that leaked information….

Interjections.

D. Routley: Anyway, this is the main shortcoming of the act: that the government has failed to introduce a duty to document. We intend, through amendment, to address that failing of the act. It has failed to address so many of the other issues that challenge the openness of government in British Columbia.

[1735]

The “no records” response of government will continue to be a problem. The culture of avoidance that has developed will continue to be a problem. The development of an oral government will continue to be the problem that it is today. We will see fees for information access continue to be a barrier to access.

All of these things were elements of open government that could have been addressed by the bill. When we look at 33,000 boxes of information improperly and inadequately stored in a warehouse and the potential of a $494 bill to handle each of those boxes, a bill that is only increasing with time…. The commissioner warns us that, in fact, the costs of archiving that information increase with time because of the degradation of the physical state of those documents. We have no way of knowing how many of those documents are deteriorating beyond practical use.

We know, through the estimation of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, that 3 percent of them may be significant to the historical record of the province and its governance. While the government fiddles, the documents rot. Without adequately assessing them, we cannot know the impact of that.

Even once the documents are digitized and stored in a digital format, they then, if the systems that are contemplated by this bill are inadequate in any way, continue to be vulnerable — in some ways more vulnerable in a digital form — to loss, improper use or improper access.

Once the documents are digitized, if adequate safeguards are not in place, the information of tens of thousands of British Columbians can be released by the tapping of a button on a computer. The access or deletion of information can be just as simply mistaken. If that’s the case, then I believe that the step backward, away from mechanisms of accountability — such as the section 5 of the Offence Act, which has been explicitly exempted from application to this act — become that much more important.
[ Page 6244 ]

The potential for people to very simply misuse information…. They needn’t carry off a truckload of boxes in order to access the information of tens of thousands of British Columbians. They merely open a file on a computer. When the potential for an offence is that much easier — that much more likely, perhaps — it seems an entirely backward step to reduce the consequences of such a breach.

We’ve seen it. We’ve seen it with the B.C. Lotteries website, with people gambling with other people’s money, and the government explaining that the site was shut down simply because it was so overwhelmingly popular that it was overrun by use and overloaded. In fact, days later we discovered as a province that people were inappropriately accessing each other’s money and that was indeed the reason for the government shutting down the website.

That undermines people’s confidence in government, in the ability of government to manage their information but also the willingness of government to be forthcoming about mistakes that have been made.

I think most people understand that in this context, mistakes can and indeed will be made. But when the government is unwilling to openly be responsible for that and openly acknowledge that this has occurred, it significantly undermines confidence in all of government’s handling of information.

[1740]

Again, the removal of consequences under the Offence Act applying to Bill 5, the Government Information Act, is a step backward, is something that is unnecessary and will harm the integrity of government and people’s confidence in the openness of government.

When we look at the ability of the cabinet to add and subtract public bodies, what will be the priority that will guide government in deciding what public bodies are exempted from this act? Will it be simply cost? This is a government that demanded that each ministry archive its records with the Royal B.C. Museum on a chargeback basis but then provided no funding to achieve that, leading to the 33,000 boxes stacked up in a warehouse.

Every year 3,000 more boxes are stacked up in that warehouse. This bill does not address that backlog. It had the opportunity. The government had the opportunity to address that shortcoming, and it failed.

These are potential amendments that should be made to this bill. If they were made, it would generate a kind of support that would be of great benefit to the government, politically and in terms of popularity.

I believe that if the government were to support amendments that would create a duty to document, they would earn the support of thousands of British Columbians who otherwise will remain very skeptical about the government’s intentions. I believe that if the government were to support an amendment that would address the 33,000 boxes of documents that are backlogged in the warehouse and are unorganized and not stored adequately, it would strengthen this act and would generate significant support and popularity for the government. But that will require cost, and that will require effort.

If the government were to support an amendment that the public bodies and agencies that come under the scope of this act be described in the act, misgivings that people might have over the government’s intention and lack of confidence that people may have in the government’s ability to adequately manage this endeavour would be resolved. People would feel much more supportive of the government, and this side would feel much more supportive of this bill.

I am, as always, honoured to represent my constituents and to undertake the role of being a spokesperson for a certain aspect of government business. For some time now I have had as my concern the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and the handling of information by the government. The freedom-of-information and open government standards of the B.C. Liberal government have been something that I’ve been commenting on for several years now.

I am dismayed by the record of government in terms of privacy breaches, in terms of access to information, in terms of preserving records and creating documents. I am not encouraged by this bill in all of those ways.

I am encouraged that this bill takes us a step forward in the modernization of the archival standards of British Columbia. That has been acknowledged by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. That has been acknowledged by several stakeholders groups. That has been acknowledged by us in the official opposition, but we expect so much more from a government that has delivered so little in terms of a duty to document the history of the province and its governance decisions.

[1745]

It is impossible for people to have confidence in the integrity of government if government is engaged in creating an oral culture of governance and a culture of avoidance when it comes to open government initiatives like freedom of information.

These are things that this government has an obligation to address. Bill 5 was an excellent opportunity to address those issues and answer the criticisms of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of this province, who have, one by one, criticized the government’s handling of information — their oral government, their destruction and deletion of e-mails that are important to the public record based on defining them as being transitory. I am confident that the government could have done much better.

L. Throness: I want to thank the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan for his extremely lengthy intervention. Certainly, he has the stamina of a North Korean general negotiating over the DMZ. But I want to assure a worried
[ Page 6245 ]
House that my remarks will be very concise and focused.

I want to start my remarks by talking about a former political life I had in Ottawa. I did a lot of access-to-information work there working as a researcher for the official opposition. I was with the Reform Party of Canada.

Prior to the Reform Party of Canada at that time, in the ’90s, the access-to-information law which is the law on the federal side, was used mainly by commercial companies, companies that wanted to gain a commercial advantage over their competitors. For instance, a temporary employment agency, a temp agency, would make a request about the contracts that its rivals would get from the federal government. That’s how the law was made use of.

When the brand-new Reform Party researchers came on the scene, we started to make substantive policy requests of government to dig for information about government spending. That resulted in scandals that revealed a lot of very bad government spending that really made a dint in the government at the time. We exposed abuses of taxpayers’ money, and we think that perhaps we changed, just a little bit, the spending culture in Ottawa.

That experience forms the basis for my remarks on this bill. Because I’ve used the access-to-information process so extensively myself, I’m a supporter of transparency of government. I realize there are legitimate reasons to withhold sensitive government information, but transparency in government needs to be the general rule rather than the exception.

That’s why I support our government in what we’ve done in being transparent. We’ve been tremendously transparent. We’ve put huge data sets on the Internet, voluntarily and spontaneously. We’ve revealed the costs of ministerial travel. We’ve put on the Internet releases of freedom-of-information requests, and we’re about to put up very detailed MLA expense reports. So I think we are at the forefront in Canada of transparency in government, and this bill only continues that great tradition.

Now, information presents a real problem in the modern era of big government. I would point out that the Fraser Health Authority alone, for example, has 27,000 employees, and 27,000 employees can generate a lot of paper. That’s just one of five health authorities in B.C., just one of a couple of dozen ministries. Add Crown corporations. Add boards and commissions and agencies. The volume of information that used to be a trickle in 1936, when the Document Disposal Act was first created, has now become a flood in the modern era, and the act is in dire need of an update. I think everyone agrees with that.

Public servants, in particular, are presented with a problem in this regard. There were 9,611 freedom-of-information requests in 2013-14. If public servants have to look through all of their documented information to fulfil all of these freedom-of-information requests — and the number is increasing every year — it will take increasing amounts of time of public servants.

Only a public servant knows their own file best. They know of connections to other files. So it’s hard to give that job to another public servant. We have public servants spending more and more of their time looking at the past instead of paying attention to their present job and looking at the future. It’s not good government policy that we would ask our public servants to be focused more and more on access to information.

The first problem that this bill intends to solve is the increasing volume of information and access to it. As we’ve heard so many times already this afternoon, we currently store 1 million boxes of paper in off-site storage. I saw a picture of one warehouse. It had racks of information in long, narrow aisles perhaps 30 feet high. I’m told that if we put all those boxes in a row, they’d stretch from Vancouver to Kamloops.

[1750]

So access to information is delayed because of the huge volume of information. Perhaps this information would never be seen again. It can be solved by what this bill intends to solve. By digitizing information, we’ll be able to access information electronically — more quickly, more cheaply, more thoroughly than ever before. That supports transparent government. It reduces the cost of searching for that information, and that’s a positive thing.

I want to point out that according to section 15, if a record is digitized, it must then be archived as well. This means that all government information is going to be treated in the same way. We won’t have pockets of information held by this or that ministry. It will make our government even more transparent and accessible.

The second problem we’re trying to resolve is the cost of storing information. Currently to archive a box of paper costs about $454 a box, so we haven’t been archiving a lot of information, and that makes sense. Ministries have been holding on to it for more than a decade now. To archive all of the information we currently have in storage would be $30 million. I would submit this would be a waste of taxpayers’ money, since much of that information is repetitive and unimportant anyway.

However, if information is born digital, as we say, instead of created in paper form and then converted into a digital format, the cost of archiving an equivalent amount of information is just $10 to $20 rather than $450. It wouldn’t make any economic sense to do other than digitize it.

The final problem this act resolves is to find a way to decide what is important and what is not important information. We now keep innumerable pieces of paper that are repeated in other places in government, anodyne information that doesn’t matter to anyone and probably won’t matter in the future either.

Under the current law, any decision relating to the retention or disposal of these records must be approved by multiple committees and even the Legislative Assembly. It takes one or two years for that to happen. We don’t have
[ Page 6246 ]
to, and we shouldn’t, be keeping all the information that more and more public servants produce.

The act establishes a digital archives. It appoints a chief records officer, along with a committee which will be tasked with putting together schedules that describe what should and should not be archived so that we don’t have to archive every single keystroke that a public servant produces nor come here to the floor of the Legislature for approval to throw away a useless piece of paper.

Those schedules are going to be public, so there can be public debate about what’s contained in those schedules. That’s pretty important.

Now, I’m a historian by training, so I’ve carefully inquired about the act. As a historian, I want to make sure that we identify and keep information that’s in its original paper form that’s of historic value to the province. We call paper records ephemera, because those records are by nature ephemeral. They’re fleeting. They’re passing. It’s a medium that can easily be destroyed.

Digital records can be more ephemeral than paper. I’ve destroyed more than one important document just with a push of a button. I’m sure we all have done that. But in archives I’ve also read paper records that are 500 years old that are in very good shape. Paper can last a long time.

I want to underscore that our most important paper documents of historical value need to be kept. I would note that the act provides for this in section 15: “The chief records officer may approve the transfer of government information” in non-digital format “to the museum archives of government.” I rest satisfied with that.

The other elements of the act are perhaps of lesser importance. There’s a three-year transition period for the move to digitization. There have been consultations with the Privacy Commissioner, who has given her guarded support for the act.

I want to quote from the letter that was sent to the minister on February 13. Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham says this: “Bill 5 provides modern information management legislation for the digital age and is a clear improvement over the current, antiquated Document Disposal Act, which was first enacted in 1936.”

We’re doing a great thing here. I want to thank the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for bringing this forward. It’s a very timely act. And I want to give special thanks to the present Minister of Advanced Education, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. When he was Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, he worked very hard to put together the policy and legislation, and he gave leadership in this regard. I want to thank both ministers in bringing about this fundamental change in the way government works.

[1755]

In closing, I believe that this piece of legislation is going to herald a new era in the transparency of government information. It’ll make it more available to the average person without overly taxing our public service, so our public servants can get on with their business of serving the public on a daily basis. By taking advantage of modern information storage tools, we’re going to be more responsible with taxpayers’ money. Finally, the act will provide the means to sift out what is important from what is not, preserving the most important records of government on a permanent basis.

So, of course, I’m going to be voting in favour of this legislation on behalf of my constituents, the good constituents of Chilliwack-Hope.

Noting the time, I would move that the House adjourn debate for the day.

Deputy Speaker: Well, I’m sure the member would like that to happen. [Laughter.]

G. Heyman: I was going to open my remarks by noting that it’s becoming almost habitual that I’m following the member for Chilliwack-Hope. Perhaps he was trying to foreclose that option with his comments.

I appreciate the enthusiasm of the member for Chilliwack-Hope in his speech in support of this bill, and I may refer from time to time to some of his comments about transparency in government and his experiences with both seeking and using information kept by government in other roles he’s played at other times. Certainly, he seems to have found that a useful enterprise, availing himself of the opportunities that should be there for the public to examine and peruse records of government activity — subject to, hopefully, some very limited exclusions.

I also noted his thanking the current Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for bringing this bill forward as well as the former minister and the current Minister of Advanced Education, who said, on more than one occasion when I was questioning him in estimates or in the House, that it was time for a modernization of various government acts with respect to recordkeeping.

I know I’m not allowed to use props in the House, but I have, just to inspire me in this speech, a copy of Fortune World with a picture of the current Minister of Advanced Education smiling up at me. I know that will keep me on track and focused on the many comments that he made in response to a number of questions at various times during his time as the minister responsible for freedom of information and protection of privacy.

It is indeed time to modernize our approach to information management. Certainly, digitizing records is arguably long overdue. As many have pointed out, the wheels of government occasionally move slowly. I know the Minister of Transportation has pointed that out in response to statements I had made earlier and on other occasions.

The fact that transitioning to digitizing government records will begin this spring — assuming this bill passes,
[ Page 6247 ]
which I have no doubt it will — is a good thing. The fact that it will take some time to do that is just something that I think we all live with and we have to live with.

It is important to note that despite the fact that perhaps we should have started digitizing records quite some time ago — and we wouldn’t be facing some of the archival problems we currently have — our current system of archiving government records is deficient and has been deficient and outdated for quite some time. In particular, this stems from a number of decisions made by this government that have essentially resulted in paper records not being properly archived for about 12 years now and a system of recordkeeping that just doesn’t work and has resulted in warehousing large amounts of paper.

This makes it difficult, if not impossible from time to time, for freedom-of-information requests to be met — requests by members of the public or the media or the opposition, who have a legitimate interest in examining the various records of government that pertain to either important policy decisions or, from time to time, that pertain to questionable activities in government.

[1800]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Whether it’s the failure to archive paper or, more recently, simply the failure of government to keep any records at all or, at least, admit to keeping any records, we have seen interested members of the public, opposition members and the media frustrated in attempting to figure out just what makes this government tick and on what basis certain decisions have been made.

I’ll use, as perhaps the most recent example, the supposedly extensive series of consultations on transportation on the Highway of Tears that was conducted by the Minister of Transportation. Apparently, there is not a single record anywhere in government that addresses what was put forward at those consultations, what people said at those consultations, whether there was any discussion back and forth in those consultations, whether there is a trend line in these submissions that were made by people who attended the consultations. I think the number of consultations was 18.

It defies credulity to believe — one of two things, I suppose — that either no records were kept whatsoever of these consultations because…. Well, who knows? Perhaps we’re relying on some super-sophisticated brain circuitry in the staff who attended these consultations. Maybe it’s all stored on the minister’s personal mental hard drive, or maybe the government just really didn’t care what happened in the consultations. The point was to put on a show, and nobody really gave much concern to what was said.

In any event, it does seem inappropriate that on an issue of such significance and import to people, particularly aboriginal people in the north whose families have seen and lived with tragedies for a couple of decades, at least, now — disappearances, situations in communities where there isn’t sufficient transport and young women hitchhike, and far, far too often have disappeared or met an untimely death….

It seems to me completely inappropriate that government should be able to offer no records whatsoever. It doesn’t seem to me or to members on this side of the House to be a respectful or appropriate response to conduct and stand behind a consultation on what needs there are in the north, what needs there are to prevent future tragedies and then to have no record whatsoever of that consultation. I will confess that it just astounds me.

On the one hand, we have a bill, Bill 5, that proposes to modernize recordkeeping by digitizing it going into the future but still leaves open the question of what should happen to the massive amounts of material that were not archived but warehoused — warehoused by a body at arm’s length removed from government which then chose, to cover its own cost, to charge a fee back to ministries for any archiving. In a time of great constraint and tightened budgets, ministries chose, whether to save money or simply to avoid the archiving of materials that would then be subject to freedom-of-information requests, to not pay the fee and therefore to not see the records properly archived and accessible.

It’s not good enough. I know that the Minister of Advanced Education, in response to some questions I asked in estimates…. In the very first session of this Legislature, which occurred after my election, I was questioning the minister about oral recordkeeping or the use of private e-mails for conversations in government about different initiatives and why those were not released when the Information and Privacy Commissioner had made it clear that it didn’t matter if it was a private e-mail. If it was to do with government business, it was to be considered government information that was covered by the act.

The minister responded…. I wish I could give an absolutely precise quote, but the quote was something like: “I’ve made it clear to people that if it’s written down on the bottom of their shoe, it is government information and it’s subject to the act.”

[1805]

Well, apparently, the latest way this government has chosen to avoid requests for information is simply to not keep any records at all — although how one can conduct government business without keeping records, as I said, strains credulity, astounds me, seems totally inappropriate and, in some ways, unlikely. Whether they’re redacted records, whether they’re records that simply don’t exist at all, I think it begs the question of this government’s commitment to conduct its business in the open and transparent methods that the member for Chilliwack-Hope referred to.

The member for Chilliwack-Hope said he supported this bill because this was a government that was committed to transparency and openness. Frankly, the record
[ Page 6248 ]
with respect to so many issues and so much information simply doesn’t bear that out. If that was the case, there would be records. If they were records that were subject to confidentiality for a variety of legitimate reasons, the government would make that case, and ultimately, the court of public opinion or the Information and Privacy Commissioner could make those decisions.

Instead, we simply have records that are warehoused and not archived and therefore very difficult to access, if not impossible to access, or people ask for information and they get “no responsive records” in return instead of actual information. I wish people were keeping things on the bottom of their shoe and that the former Minister for Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, the Minister of Advanced Education’s dictum to them — that if it was kept on the bottom of a shoe, it should be available — could actually be implemented. But apparently, people have lost their shoes along with their ability to keep records.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner made a number of points with respect to this bill, but before I go into them, let me just look back into history a little bit. Other commentators besides myself have noted how it’s an incredible claim that the government has no records whatsoever of any of the dozens of meetings with more than 80 people that took place along the Highway of Tears in northern B.C. But the government claims there is no record. The government says: “No responsive records.”

One of the problems with Bill 5 is that while it will digitize records, it also changes what existed in the Document Disposal Act, which provided for the possibility that someone who gets rid of government records improperly will face consequences under the provincial Offence Act — that violating the Document Disposal Act could result in charges. No longer, once this bill passes, if it passes without amendment.

The government, while at the same time proposing to digitize records, is also proposing to ensure that if somebody is actually caught, for instance, in saying that there were no records of consultations about the Highway of Tears when in fact there are, or if someone made sure that there were no records to release because they improperly destroyed or otherwise disposed of them, there could be consequences. No longer will that be possible under this piece of legislation, and that’s just not right.

If we have a law that is in the public interest, that states that people have a right to access information and that talks about the forms of accessing that information and how information will be stored, then there should be consequences for violating that legislation, particularly legislation that is put in place to ensure that the people of this province — who pay the bills for government, who pay the bills for this legislation, who pay the bills for government programs — actually have the right to know and examine what the government they have elected and whom they fund is doing.

This government has gone to incredible lengths for the last 12 years to avoid that kind of scrutiny — whether it’s, essentially, contracting out the archiving of government material and then making it both expensive for ministries to archive it and ensuring that ministries don’t have the money to do so or whether it’s hiding behind private e-mails.

[1810]

Whether it is using oral conversation to avoid recordkeeping; whether it’s redacting excessively; or whether it’s the most recent tactic of this government, which is to say whole classes of e-mail correspondence are transitory and should be deleted, when the term “transitory” was clearly designed to relate to issues such as exchanges of information about where you might be meeting somebody for a lunch meeting or who might be invited to a meeting. The record of the meeting ultimately would show who is there.

Instead, we have deputies essentially covering off the possibility that the public may get access to information about what government is doing or discussing — whether it’s proper activity of government, potentially improper activity of government, the backgrounds to policy discussions — by saying: “Oh by the way, all of you on my e-mail circular here, treat all of this discussion as transitory and delete it.”

That’s not appropriate. It’s not in the spirit of the term. It’s not in the spirit of the act. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has pointed that out on more than one occasion. The association that was set up to protect the public interest with respect to privacy has also pointed out that that’s inappropriate and railed against it, as they should. As far as I know, that is still a tool in this government’s toolkit, to avoid appropriate scrutiny by the people of the province.

Let us go back some years to a variety of requests for correspondence with respect to B.C. Rail, as reported by Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail in July 2009. “A government lawyer had earlier said all e-mails from the period in which the defence is seeking records, 2001 to 2005, had been destroyed. But the Globe and Mail revealed that an affidavit was filed…indicating that many of those records were ordered to be deleted…during the provincial election” — not before that particular election but during that election.

One more piece, one more example, of the lengths to which this government has gone over the years to avoid scrutiny in areas in which the public clearly has a public interest. People were very concerned about what was being done in their name, why it was being done, how it was being done, if it was being done in accordance with proper procedures and laws. Instead, things were simply removed from physical presence that could be accessed.

My colleague who spoke before me made some reference to conversations that took place with the former Minister of Citizens’ Services and Open Government, Ben Stewart.
[ Page 6249 ]

The Information and Privacy Commissioner in March of 2013 made a number of points to do with the increase in “no responsive” records to access-for-information request. She made that in a letter dated March 18, 2013. She made some reports. This was to do with the recommendations she made in her report, Increase in No Responsive Records to General Access to Information Requests: Government of British Columbia.

She notes that she recommended that government create a legislative duty within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to document key decisions as a clear indication that it does not endorse “oral government” and that it is committed to being accountable to citizens by creating an accurate record of its actions. The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan spoke at length about this, at length about the duty to document that does not exist in B.C. legislation and is not part of this bill, and it should be.

If this government was truly committed to transparency, as the member for Chilliwack-Hope indicated, this government would respond to the repeated requests by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, repeated requests by the public, repeated requests by the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy association for there to be a duty to document.

[1815]

If the people of British Columbia have a right to open government, have a right to know, have a right — as enshrined in the legislation — to review documents to do with government business subject only to some very specific exemptions, then there should be a duty to document. Whether it is, as the Minister of Advanced Education once said, a record kept on the bottom of a shoe, whether it’s a private e-mail, whether it is an e-mail on government business or whether it is a conversation, there should be documentation, because without documentation the public is frustrated in their legal right to access information.

What good is a Freedom of Information Act absent the information? It’s empty. It’s meaningless. Frankly, I would argue that it is contemptuous of taxpayers.

If this government is doing the right thing, let it be proud of what it is doing. If it believes its policy decisions can withstand scrutiny, let those be scrutinized. Let the rationales for those policy decisions be scrutinized. Let them be scrutinized by the media, whose job it is to commentate on the decisions. Let it be scrutinized by the public, in whose name the decisions are being taken and who pay the bills. And let it be scrutinized by the official opposition and independent members of the Legislature who are, under our British parliamentary system, charged with holding the government to account.

We’re not charged to come here and do nothing. We’re not charged to come here and put on a show in question period. We’re charged to hold the government to account because the British parliamentary system is built on the premise that government functions best if their feet are being held to the fire by an effective opposition.

I’m sure that when the Liberal government was in opposition, when the members were in opposition, they believed that. They certainly acted as if they believed that. To do that, one needs information.

Government needs to act in an open and transparent manner. The commissioner went on to say that the idea behind the recommendation was that government should entrench in legislation a requirement for public bodies to document the decisions, actions, advice, recommendations and deliberations of their officials. The duty to document would include requirements for the securing and preservation of records in the custody of a public body.

The commissioner went on to speak at some length about the whole concept of transitory records. She said it is important that there be regulations that clarified the concept of transitory records so that substantive records were preserved. They couldn’t simply be eliminated by a government deciding it was inconvenient to have them be accessible and therefore calling them transitory as a rationale for deleting them.

She went on to say that the use of personal e-mail accounts should be limited in the conduct of government business. Perhaps it would be all right, given the comment, when he was the minister responsible, by the Minister of Advanced Education that it didn’t matter if it was a personal e-mail. It didn’t matter if it was on a napkin. It didn’t matter if it was on the bottom of a shoe. It was government business and subject to release under freedom of information. It does make me wonder. If some of the information on the bottom of shoes was transitory, exactly what happened to the footwear?

Finally, the commissioner issued a challenge to the government and said: “Government can demonstrate leadership in this field by committing to a modern information management regulatory regime of which a duty to document is a key element. It would be a new and important step towards improving accountability, transparency, good governance and good government. It would enhance public trust and confidence in elected officials and in the public service.”

[1820]

Those seem like worthy goals. We should all in this House want to rebuild public trust in governance and government. To do otherwise would be cynical. It would enhance the trend that is so unfortunate: people have so little regard for whether the processes of decision-making by elected officials are aboveboard, transparent and accountable that they have chosen, in many instances, to simply forgo voting.

They forgo voting, a right that people fought for; a right that many people’s parents and grandparents, including my own, either didn’t have or had removed from them at some point; a right that people around the world give their lives for and which we sanctimoniously say
[ Page 6250 ]
we support — that we should be promoting democracy around the world.

If that’s true and if we really wish to promote democracy around the world, then we should understand what underpins democracy here in Canada and British Columbia. That is transparency, trust, accountability and openness. Any actions by government that undermine these are inappropriate, and we in this House should all strive to do better.

I would challenge the minister to consider including in Bill 5 a duty to document, to tell the people of British Columbia that except for necessarily confidential information that truly is proprietary or necessary for contracts or truly confidential information from cabinet discussions that would prejudice, in some way, public business by being revealed, everything else is, in fact, accessible in a timely and appropriate manner.

I’ll simply go back to what the previous Information Commissioner, David Loukidelis, said in 2009: “I am concerned that the public policy objectives of openness, accountability and good management — and, frankly, the historical record — are not being well served at this time.” That’s a pretty damning comment by the former commissioner. It’s not one for which any government should be proud.

Whether it’s the failure to keep records or inappropriately labelling some records as transitory or trying to hide from disclosure of important policy discussions by using private e-mails or storing huge numbers of documents in boxes, off-site, and failing to provide for their proper archiving and, therefore, accessibility to release — all of these point to a failure by this government.

It’s a failure by this government to take people’s right to access information seriously, to take the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act seriously, to put in place measures that would reassure the people of British Columbia that the information about the inner workings of government is accessible to them on a reasonable basis in a reasonable time frame at a reasonable cost and is accessible to the media so they can do their job and accessible to all members of this Legislature so we can do our job, which is to represent the interests of the people who sent us here.

There is much to commend in this bill. It does modernize recordkeeping, and it will, going forward, one hopes. But it could and should be better. It should deal with issues like inappropriate use of the term “transitory” with respect to information. It should deal with the 33,000 boxes that need to be archived — that have not been archived and have piled up since this government chose to ship all the records to the Royal B.C. Museum without any resources whatsoever to archive them and without providing ministries the dollars to pay the fee.

This bill does not address that. It does not address a duty to document. It does not address the inappropriate use of the term “transitory” as an excuse for deleting e-mails.

[1825]

It doesn’t address in any way whatsoever the inappropriate actions of far, far too many working for or in this government to hide what they have been doing from the eyes of the opposition, the media and the public.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner has made many recommendations, including one that would not set up an independent officer to oversee recordkeeping but would give that responsibility to her, because she is also responsible for information and privacy. That should be included….

Madame Speaker: Noting the hour.

G. Heyman: Hon. Speaker, I will wind up my remarks, and noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

G. Heyman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $118,122,000.

The Chair: Welcome, everybody. It’s a great day. We’re going to open up the Committee of Supply today for the first time this session. I’d like to call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.

Hon. M. Polak: I will dispense with opening statements in favour of simply introducing the staff who will be joining me at various stages of the estimates debate.
[ Page 6251 ]

To my left is my deputy minister, Wes Shoemaker. We will also, over the course of estimates, be joined by Doug Caul, associate deputy minister, environmental assessment office; Mark Zacharias, assistant deputy minister, environmental sustainability and strategic policy division; Lori Halls, assistant deputy minister, environmental protection division; Susannah Laaksonen-Craig, head of the climate action secretariat; Jim Standen, assistant deputy minister, B.C. Parks and conservation officer service; Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister of corporate services to the natural resources; Michelle Carr, assistant deputy minister, environmental assessment office; Paul Craven, executive director, policy and quality assurance, environmental assessment office; and Anthony Danks, executive director, policy and legislation, from the Ministry of Environment.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister and her staff for what I hope will be fulsome answers. I’m sure they will be, so that we can get to the bottom of questions British Columbians have on environmental policy and priorities that they may have for their government in terms of how we address protecting the environment; resilient, healthy land, air and water; and, of course, a healthy climate.

I’ve got a lot of questions, quite a few, based on requests that I’ve sent out to many groups across the province. What do they want to hear? What are they interested in? It’s not simply things I’m interested in, but really: what are some big questions and priorities across the province?

We’ll go through those. I’ll try to keep them in some sense of order. However, some MLAs may come in with specific questions which may be slightly out of order, in terms of how the ministry funds programs and invests in things. As much as possible, we’ll try to keep it seamless. I don’t know that that word is ever actually used or ever actually achieved in an estimates process, but we’ll try.

Just looking at the resource summary for the Ministry of Environment, one of the first things that jumps out — I think it was commented on by a few people — was under environmental protection. There is an approximately $600,000 decline — a cut, so to speak — in environmental protection. Given the huge interest in protecting our environment, to see the government pull back to such a large degree and then a further cut in 2016-17 of over $200,000 more — it’s almost $1 million in total — is troubling, given that demands are so high.

Can the minister explain why her government has not prioritized environmental protection by cutting to such a large degree?

[1440]

Hon. M. Polak: The two amounts that the member references are for specific projects that will have an end. The $600,000 is the Prince Rupert airshed study. When that’s complete, of course, it won’t be an annual expense.

The second component of that — and I forget the amount just off the top of my head, because I didn’t write it down — is the amount that was allocated — I believe it’s about $300,000 — for the development of our LNG policy framework. It’s things like ambient air quality guidelines, things like that. Of course, again, it’s not an annual cost. Once that work is complete, the budget won’t be needed.

S. Chandra Herbert: So there were no other priorities for environmental protection in the province of B.C. that could possibly use that money?

Hon. M. Polak: I suppose one could look at it one of two ways. The fact is that rather than being asked to conduct those two very important pieces of work within our existing budget — as is the case often when governments are challenged with fiscal priorities — in this case, we were allocated those moneys to conduct some very important work.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just ask the question because I understand that in this budget there was a decision to give the richest 2 percent in our province a tax break worth $230 million, and I know the demands for environmental protection are vast. The challenges to protect our environment are increasing with population growth, with continued industrialization, with climate change and so forth. I just felt that it was not the appropriate budgetary decision to make when the demands are so high, but we’ll leave it at that.

How many vacant positions are currently within the Ministry of Environment? Somebody may retire, or they may leave for another job. I’m curious. How many of those positions are currently in existence, and what’s the average time it takes to fill a vacant position in the ministry?

[1445]

Hon. M. Polak: I don’t have the numbers on vacancies here with us. We will get them for you.

I can tell the member that in particular, with respect to the environmental protection division as an example, our orientation currently is not toward trying to keep positions vacant in order to save money. In fact, it’s the opposite. Given the activity that we’re seeing on the ground, we’re actually trying to expedite recruitment. But we’ll get those numbers to you.

S. Chandra Herbert: Would that be the same for all divisions within the ministry, trying to expedite recruitment, or are there certain divisions where it’s a longer process?

Hon. M. Polak: When it comes to across the ministry, I wouldn’t go so far as to say we’re trying to expedite recruitment across the ministry. But I will say this. We are
[ Page 6252 ]
certainly not in a position where we’re attempting to save money by holding open vacancies. Where we have vacancies, we are attempting to fill them. The one exception — and again, we’ll get you the numbers — may be in some areas of administration. Our focus has really been on those front-line types of services. There may be some of that budgetary vacancy holding in administrative positions, but not on the front line.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m going to move into some questions around enforcement, conservation officers, those kinds of areas.

The first question is a general one. I wondered if the minister might provide a bit of an update on what happened in Mount Polley, on what kind of work the government is doing right now around investigating what occurred. I’ll get to mitigation of the damage as well.

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will know that the conservation officer service investigation continues. The member may also know that Mount Polley Mining Corp. has applications in for permitting in terms of trying to restart the mining operation. Some of those relate to Ministry of Energy and Mines, some to Environment.

Our ongoing work right now is continuing to enforce the pollution abatement order that was issued, I believe, the day after the incident occurred and the ongoing monitoring of water quality and all the other analysis that has been taking place since the event.

S. Chandra Herbert: How big is the special investigations team that’s monitoring and looking into what occurred at Mount Polley?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the conservation officer service investigation, there are six conservation officers who are dedicated to the Mount Polley investigation through the major investigations unit. They are working in conjunction with members from the RCMP, Environment Canada and also the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

S. Chandra Herbert: How many members are in the major investigations unit?

Hon. M. Polak: There are 17 in total.

S. Chandra Herbert: How many members have quit or let go or were not continuing with the investigations of Mount Polley?

Hon. M. Polak: There has been, at the same time, some reorganization of the major investigations unit overall. Nevertheless, the six members dedicated to Mount Polley will remain six members dedicated to Mount Polley.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister explain what this reorientation change in the major investigations unit is? I’ve heard that a number of members were asked to go to Mount Polley, had some challenges with it and then were let go. I’ve just been told this secondhand, so I don’t have all the information.

[1455]

Hon. M. Polak: I’m assured that the changes didn’t have anything to do with Mount Polley. What has occurred is…. We used to have our members dispersed broadly across the province. Instead, in order to make the unit function more cohesively, they will be located in three central locations: Chilliwack, Kamloops and Prince George. It allows them to collaborate. Given the kind of work that they do, we believe it’s a better model than having individuals all across the province.

S. Chandra Herbert: What costs has that brought on? I was just looking at…. I know there were a bunch of regional offices across the province. Members are more familiar with more regions, I guess, because they were based in them. When was this decision made, and at what cost?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll answer the question sort of back to front. In terms of the decision itself, the process began in spring of last year — well ahead of what occurred at Mount Polley. It was part of our desire to really build a highly elite investigative team and to model it as such.

Insofar as costs, the only costs would be relocation costs for those members who decided to move to the regional offices. As a provision of their collective agreement, they have a choice as to whether or not they make that move or, indeed, if they take a role somewhere else. For those who choose to take a role somewhere else, we would not cover those costs. Typical relocation costs are between $4,000 and $5,000, and I think in this case there were only one or two for which we had to supply that.

S. Chandra Herbert: How many did agree to relocate, and how many did not? And what happened to those that did not?

[1500]

Hon. M. Polak: There are provisions in the collective agreement that we follow, around allowing them to make that choice. Given the very small number, though, of people that it involves, I can’t talk specifically about how many or which choices they made because that would make it fairly easy to identify who the people were.

S. Chandra Herbert: If I can’t learn how many did not continue on, I guess my concern really is that these are experienced investigators. The potential loss of investigators because they didn’t move to a regional office could
[ Page 6253 ]
hamper investigations, slow them down, do the opposite of having an elite team of investigators. That’s why I wanted to know how many chose not to move.

What happens to those that chose not to move? Where did they go? Maybe, rather than being given the numbers, what happens with those who chose not to move on?

Hon. M. Polak: I can say that those who chose not to remain did continue in enforcement roles in the natural resource sector in the civil service. I should also point out that all of our conservation officers have an investigative skill set. I am advised that we have seen no indication of any delays or problems with timing in the investigation as a result of any of the changes.

S. Chandra Herbert: Obviously, I think people were concerned, as this didn’t seem to be announced anywhere — that this decision was made to centralize in three places and the question of what would happen. Anyways, I’ll move on from there.

In terms of Mount Polley, I’m not sure that it will be possible for the minister to answer some of these questions. But I’ll ask them — and fair enough, because I don’t want to compromise the investigation in any sense.

[1505]

I’m curious how much the investigation — not just the investigation but, really, the response to Mount Polley from the government — has cost so far. The minister, I know, has said she plans on trying to seek those costs from the company itself. Everything from press conferences to flights to and from, to research, to the staff’s time — it’s a big, big amount of money, I would imagine, given the severity of the issue.

Hon. M. Polak: We estimate the cost overall to government — not just the Ministry of Environment — to be in the range of about $2 million right now, to date. In terms of recovery, we will be seeking to recover what we are allowed to, which would include salary, overtime, expenses, travel, sampling costs for the initial spill response. We are not legally able to recover the cost of the investigation itself or any other things that would be of a standard nature in terms of our role as government. We wouldn’t be able to recover those. I think that, hopefully, answers the question.

S. Chandra Herbert: So $2million — that’s a lot of money. Am I correct in assuming that the minister is going to try to get all of that money back? Certainly, the New Democrat opposition believes that polluters should pay. Our concern is that legislation may be set up in such a way that we may not be able to ensure that the polluter pays every last penny and that, instead, it’ll be put on the backs of British Columbians. Can the minister confirm whether the $2 million is recoverable and will be sought after?

[1510]

Hon. M. Polak: I know that the member appreciates it’s going to be quite some time before the final chapter on Mount Polley is written. We certainly will take all the steps possible to recover as much as we possibly can of what it has cost government. We will also, of course, be insisting that the company do all that they need to in terms of ensuring that their work on the site is to a degree that we would expect.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does that include ongoing monitoring? Do we have any sense of a timeline in terms of this investigation, given there’ll be an investigation, then there could be charges and there could be a trial? It could be years and years, and that amount of money can just go up and up and up. Ongoing monitoring will have to occur, as the amount of money sitting on that $2 million, in terms of interest, grows. That’s just what we’ve spent so far.

I just want to make sure that every last dollar, every last nickel is accounted for, because $2 million so far could go a long way in environmental protection and conservation. We’ve not been able to use that because of this incident.

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the timeline on the investigation, it functions in much the same manner as an RCMP investigation would. So we have absolutely no wisdom to provide with respect to when the investigation may be complete.

With respect to ongoing monitoring, it’s one of the reasons that we try as quickly as possible after an incident like this to move to a place where the company is responsible for funding and providing the ongoing monitoring. We move into an auditing role. That way, the costs are borne up front by the company. Our role is to ensure that they’re conducting that monitoring appropriately, that they have the appropriate professionals and that the data they are providing is meeting the standards that we would need.

S. Chandra Herbert: One of the concerns that I know the Ombudsperson has raised and the Auditor General has raised in the past is that sometimes this professional-reliance model — relying on the company to hire the company to do the monitoring and so forth — can lead to potential conflicts of interests but, also, just concern that the reports are not adequately monitored or not adequately audited. I concur with a lot of the recommendations in their reports.

My question really is: is that auditing also funded through the company? We need to make sure that there is the budget to do the auditing. In the past we know that in a number of circumstances proper audits have not been done of professionals to ensure they’re actually responding in a way fair to British Columbians and in compliance with what we would need to properly protect the environment.

[1515]

Hon. M. Polak: Consistent with the commitments that we’ve made to the communities surrounding the area — and those that are concerned further downstream, for example — we have made this a priority in the ministry. We were granted access by Treasury Board to contingencies of just over $900,000.

In terms of our audit practices, here is how we conduct that. We, first of all, set the protocols for the monitoring. We set the standards as to what they have to monitor and what type of testing they must conduct. They must use certified labs. We approve the professionals that they use, and from time to time we conduct side-by-side testing in order to validate the results.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ll come back to professional reliance and some questions around that shortly, because I’m not so sure that I completely understand the minister’s response given some challenges they’ve had in a number of other spills that we’ll get to shortly.

Is the government documenting the costs to local folks around Mount Polley, in Likely and further downriver, who’ve done their own assessments, their own testing, had to change their own water meters, had to travel to get water when the water was not allowed to be drank out of the lake?

It wasn’t their fault that Mount Polley had a disaster, yet they had to pick up numerous costs themselves and so far have not been compensated.

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to additional testing that others conducted, I’m aware that First Nations have done that. Through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, they have provided funding to cover those costs. You can pursue that with the minister.

With respect to individuals who live in community and the cost to the regional district, for example — things like that — those costs can be pursued with the company. I’m aware that there are some members of the community who have already done that. In that case, it would be over to the company to either cooperate with them, or, of course, there are always legal proceedings if they choose to go that route.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess from that answer, I’m to take that the ministry will not be supporting folks in that neighbourhood to get their costs recovered. It will only be focusing on its own costs.

The reason I ask it is because the ministry is responsible for protecting the environment. The government is responsible for protecting British Columbians in safety, and so on. That did not in the end, of course, take place here. There was a catastrophic failure in many respects, in many different areas. I don’t think that we should be saying to the person who has lost their business or who has had to shell out lots of money because the government didn’t do its job that it’s up to them to try and get costs returned from a company that failed, in part, because the government didn’t do its job.

In Washington State, I know if there was an oil spill, and they had lost their right to use a public beach, those people could be compensated from that company. And that would be a requirement of the government.

That’s not the case here. Why is that so?

Hon. M. Polak: Firstly, I would just caution the member. I know he doesn’t intend this. All of us, though, have to be very sensitive to any issues of indicating liability at this stage of the investigation. The member will know that the geotechnical panel did not assign liability, blame or fault, yet the conservation officer service or the chief mines inspector’s investigation could indeed do that. At this stage we need to be cautious about language that may imply that.

With respect to pursuing compensation, the Ministry of Environment plays no role in tracking what may be compensable or, indeed, in pursuing compensation on behalf of individuals. It just is not our legal role, nor do we have any authority to pursue that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister provide an update in terms of the mitigation, in terms of actually trying to repair some of the damage?

I was up there, saw the site, and that stream is no longer a stream in many respects. There were conflicting reports about fish using that stream as habitat — some saying that there were many in there, some saying not so many at that time, some saying that historically it was a big fish-bearing stream, others saying not so much.

[1525]

How are we going to get that place repaired? It’s a mess. It’ll never look, of course, like it did. But with the number of tailings spread all over the area, I’m not sure how we’re going to get it back to being a healthy ecosystem with a strong, healthy riparian area unless there’s a lot of work put in.

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to fish — to get that off the table to begin with — I’m advised that there was only one dead fish found as a result of the incident. I’m advised that that fish likely died of suffocation, not from any kind of chemical toxicity or what have you, having been at the mouth of the creek when the incident happened. It has to do with time of year. That doesn’t, of course, deal with the impact, perhaps, on those that may have hatched later on, but there wasn’t any significant fish kill at the time of the event.

With respect to the immediate work that the company has been asked to undertake, the very first priority was for preparation for the spring freshet, to ensure that there wasn’t any further discharge from the mine. That has been the priority work in the short term.

In the long term — and it will take many years —
[ Page 6255 ]
plans will evolve between the company and in consultation with First Nations and working with the Ministry of Environment to determine which actions will be the best overall for the local environment. It is impossible at this stage to fully imagine what those may look like.

In terms of actions already taken, the member is probably aware that there were sediment ponds constructed at the base of Hazeltine Creek to ensure that with any runoff that could occur, any dangerous sediments would be caught in those. There was also significant overplanting to ensure that there wasn’t further erosion. Of course, all of these will evolve over time.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m curious as to how many calls were made last year to report a poacher or to report a polluter.

Hon. M. Polak: I’m advised that we have, on average, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 calls to the RAPP line every year. Now, a significant number of those are human-wildlife conflicts.

Staff are just looking to see if we can find the breakdown. We know we have it. We do keep data with respect to the breakdown of which ones would be poaching and polluting. If staff find that in the meantime, I’ll provide it to you. If not, they have some homework.

[1530]

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: In terms of the number, the 30,000, I’d appreciate the breakdown. I’d also appreciate a further breakdown, if possible. Historically, over the last few years, what has been the rough breakdown between human-wildlife interactions and actual pollution and poaching being reported?

I’m also interested in how many of those led to investigations, in terms of reporting a polluter or reporting a poacher, and out of that, how many of those investigations led to fines or compliance actions, enforcement actions.

I’m sure not every piece of that will be available at your fingertips, but I’m just interested in what the trend is. Are we getting more poachers, more polluters? Is that on the downturn? Are we actually investigating, and what is our success rate in investigations?

Hon. M. Polak: I could provide ballpark numbers. I think I won’t do that. Staff don’t have the detailed breakdown here, but we do have it and can provide that. If we don’t have it before we finish our estimates route, we’ll provide it to you in writing.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just to confirm, that will include last year — maybe, say, 2008 through to now, or something like that — just so we can see if there’s a bit of a trend line emerging.

I see the minister shake her head in an affirmative, so I will just take that there.

Hon. M. Polak: We’ll get you all of that.

S. Chandra Herbert: What’s the difference between the RAPP line, as they call it, versus the natural resource operation tip line? I had a few folks raise that while there are two places you can call to report a problem, they’re not sure who to call with, say, somebody ending up in a conservancy on an ATV tearing around or somebody mud-bogging in an area that’s ecologically important — not sure who to call. I’m not sure who actually gets sent out to deal with these situations.

Hon. M. Polak: Conceptually, the difference is between compliance and enforcement on the FLNRO side — for example, in mud-bogging in an area where you’re not allowed to versus poaching and polluting on our end. However, there are well-established protocols between the two, so for the public, whichever number they call, they will be directed to the right place.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think the reason why folks raise this with me is they said that if they were phoning the NRO tip line and it was not between 9:30 and 4:30, they would get a message machine. They told me it’s something — maybe it’s not open on Fridays — where there were real issues with capacity, yet they were told that’s the one to call. Yet they didn’t seem to find that that was very effective. Now, maybe I’ll have to raise that in FLNRO. I just don’t understand why…. In terms of protecting our wild places, yes, there’s a need for poachers and polluters to have a tip line.

[1535]

But why aren’t we having one service where, if you see somebody destroying the land — whether it’s through polluting, poaching, ripping a vehicle around through sensitive areas, chopping trees or what have you — that you call, and the service responds in a coordinated fashion?

They said that there had been real issues, particularly in the Okanagan, with people not getting a response because of the time of day they called and then finding that the officers, between the two departments, couldn’t determine who was really responsible for dealing with the issue.

Hon. M. Polak: Obviously, in terms of specific questions around the NRO tip line, one would have to deal with the minister in charge. With respect, though, to the integration of the two, it is ongoing work, but it’s work that we have focused on quite carefully over the last number of years as we seek to have our conservation officer service better integrated with the other natural resource investigators and officers on the ground.
[ Page 6256 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m not sure I’ll get much more out of that line of questioning. It’s just that it is a real concern. The public needs to know who to call. Sometimes departments are set up in such a way as to serve the departments. They don’t serve the public that well — or not as well as they could, I should say. So I will pursue this with the Natural Resource Ministry as well.

But I must admit it’s very confusing sometimes for people between Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and — the minister will know this very well — Ministry of Land, Water and Air. They tried that, and that didn’t go so well when the budget was cut quite drastically in the early part of this last decade.

Moving on from there, there has been a real challenge, as the minister will know well, around the question of how to protect the caribou. I know this is partly Natural Resource Operations as well. It’s the question of wolf culls, killing of wolves, in order to protect the caribou, a tiny, dwindling herd dying for a whole number of reasons — predation, lack of food, in large part because of the actions of humans, not wolves, whether or not it’s through some of the forestry practices decided on years ago and what have you.

One of the issues that people have raised with me is: why aren’t we doing more to stop folks from snowmobiling where the caribou are? There may be zones saying, “You can’t snowmobile here,” but the snowmobiles don’t see signs. They may not even follow the signs because they know that the chance of anybody actually being out there on the land to stop them is incredibly low given the lack of officers. The lack of enforcement is due to a priority of not funding these positions to the degree that might actually make this possible.

I guess, in terms of that, I’m wondering what new actions the government is going to take to stop human interaction in areas where caribou need space. Are we going to see an enforcement blitz to try and stop snowmobilers from getting into that area, which then provides pathways for wolves to follow to kill the caribou? You can kill all the wolves, but that still does not help the caribou because I’m told bobcats and other things, other predators, can follow those same pathways to kill those same caribou. So what next?

If you’re going to make an action like a wolf cull, you would think you would at first stop human interactions in those areas. So what’s being done to stop human interaction in the sensitive caribou habitat?

[1540]

Hon. M. Polak: As part of our plan for recovery of the mountain caribou, here are some of the highlights of what we have done. We have protected 2.2 million hectares of mountain caribou habitat from industrial logging activities. We have prohibited the sale of commercial tenures for back-country recreational purposes across two million hectares of habitat, and we’ve closed one million hectares of habitat to snowmobile use.

With respect to snowmobile use, these areas are very well signed. Our conservation officers patrol them regularly during the season, with respect to snowmobiling, and these are also adaptive plans. We spent many years developing the science around which areas we should target, but if we find that those areas are not the ones meeting the need, we can make changes to that approach as well.

In addition to that, our work continues across other provinces to work together on habitat recovery plans across a wide range of species but, in particular, with our neighbors to the east. All of these things are ongoing as we learn more and more about the species and about what multiple causes there are for their decline.

S. Chandra Herbert: How many tickets or fines were issued in and around the areas where no-go zones had been issued, where protected zones have been put in place for the caribou?

Hon. M. Polak: We’re not sure if we have the data broken down in that way. We certainly don’t have it with us. Staff will endeavour to find out that information if it’s available to us.

S. Chandra Herbert: I ask that because I think it’s important to know if those no-go zones have actually worked, whether or not there are people there, seeing people going through. Or have people changed their behavior?

Certainly, anecdotally, from people in the communities both in the southern Selkirks and in the Peace…. They tell me that no-go zones are often ignored or often not known about. The rules are often broken, in their experience, in that it’s a line on a piece of paper but not a real restriction zone. People pass through them all the time and often don’t know that they have, or if they have, they don’t care. I really would appreciate information on if it has made any difference in terms of stopping access and enforcement.

Hon. M. Polak: What I can say is: we have not left this entirely to the work of enforcement, but we have been proactive in working with the clubs who are involved in either snowmobiling or, in some cases, heli-skiing.

We have established 12 stewardship management agreement areas. We manage those together with local clubs to manage the snowmobile activity in the mountain caribou habitat, and we’ve also developed and implemented some best management practices for the heli-ski industry. They, in turn, require mandatory compliance and reporting. We are also now implementing a snowmobile compliance and effectiveness monitoring program.

S. Chandra Herbert: Maybe while we’re talking about protecting habitats and protecting caribou and species
[ Page 6257 ]
that are at risk, I’ll just jump forward a few questions, go into that, and then we can come back to the questions I was going to ask around spills and other mines.

A constituent asked me what we’re really doing for endangered species. I know we’ve talked about how B.C. does not have its own endangered species legislation, unlike many other provinces, preferring to use the federal government’s species-at-risk legislation. Many have pointed out that that doesn’t — in their view and in my view — apply to a vast amount of land in this province. We have one of the largest numbers of federally listed species at risk of any province, and we know that many of the species have been identified by the province as threatened.

I guess it’s a two-part question. How many species are provincially identified as species at risk with their own plans, and how many more will be added this year?

[1545]

Hon. M. Polak: Forgive me if I don’t answer these in order. I’m piecing together information from various places. The member may be interested to know…. I don’t have — we’re seeking to get it — the precise number of species at risk listed under B.C.’s framework, but it is larger than what is listed under the federal Species at Risk Act.

In terms of response, currently almost 37 percent of our province’s land base is managed according to one or more conservation designations. With respect to species-at-risk recovery planning activity, we have right now, in total, 172 recovery plans that are completed. That is out of 228 B.C. species that are listed under the federal Species at Risk Act. We stack up fairly well in terms of other provinces.

With respect to ongoing work, we have another ten or 15 that are currently in the works and should be finalized soon.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know there are probably five-plus — maybe five, six, seven more — pieces of legislation that have pieces which can connect to endangered species.

The challenge — and I’ve heard it from industry; I’ve heard it from ecologists, biologists and just those that want to make sure we don’t lose the incredible biodiversity we have — is that by having so many pieces and having so many people responsible, in some ways nobody’s responsible. When everyone’s responsible, many people think: “Well, somebody else is going to manage it. Somebody else is dealing with it.” It’s very difficult.

[1550]

I had a First Nations elder say to me: “You know, we have race-based policy in B.C. to protect endangered species.” I said: “What do you mean?” He said: “Well, on my reserve, if I have to do a development or want to do a development, I can’t do this development because there’s a federally regulated species at risk on my reserve. However, if I’m just a block away, not on the reserve, you can do that development on habitat that affects that species.”

He said: “How does this make any sense? Why do I, because I live on a reserve, have to care more for the species than you white folks who live just across the street?”

Again, he wanted that species to survive but had no clue why such policy would exist. Can the minister clarify why that situation exists?

Hon. M. Polak: Your First Nations friend identifies a challenge that doesn’t just reveal itself in terms of species at risk but many, many other things, because of course, Indian reserves are federal lands.

The Species at Risk Act applies immediately in terms of critical habitat to all federal lands. With respect to provincial and private lands, in the case where there are listed species, the minister provincially is required to report to the federal minister every 180 days with respect to the steps taken to provide for consideration of that habitat. One of the reasons that we have not sought to put in place our own stand-alone legislation in British Columbia is that we were the first province to reach a bilateral agreement with the federal government, in 2005, as to how we would manage together, with them, using the Species at Risk Act and the tools within that.

I can say that we’ve made significant progress not only with the federal government but also with my provincial colleagues. I just returned from Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, where we had the first federal-provincial-territorial meeting about species at risk in about 20 years.

There is certainly attention being paid, and the work being done cross-provincially is quite encouraging. But British Columbia is certainly in the lead and has been for many years with respect to the responses and the development of recovery plans for those species.

S. Chandra Herbert: So if B.C. is in the lead in terms of supporting endangered species recovery…. Compared to last year, do we have more species at risk or endangered, or fewer?

[1555]

Hon. M. Polak: Again, it’s something that we’ll have to get back to you on, simply because every year there are species that come off the list because their numbers have improved, and then there are species that are newly listed. We’re not sure how the balance breaks down between last year and this year.

S. Chandra Herbert: I asked the question because we often have goals and outlines and plans, performance measures, in the ministry service plan. I’ve never seen a performance measure that would say fewer species at risk over five years, fewer species endangered over five years or something to actually reach for. It seems that endangered species legislation, whether you have it in name or not, has not, in many ways, worked. We seem to have more species at risk rather than fewer.
[ Page 6258 ]

Would the minister consider developing a performance goal, a performance measure, to actually hold our feet to the fire as a province, as a people, as the minister, to ensure we actually are having fewer species at risk, fewer species endangered and healthier biodiversity?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s certainly something we’re open to considering and, in fact, forms a significant part of the dialogue between provinces and the federal government as to how to approach this. One of the challenges, of course, is how one wishes to employ the data.

As I’m sure the member can appreciate, the number of listed species doesn’t necessarily tell you the whole story — if that, for example, results because of better examinations on the ground to discover species that are at risk. Sometimes that occurs when we discover that there are species present that we didn’t know were present here in British Columbia. So there would need to be some finer work done with respect to how those goals could be articulated.

We’re always looking for new and better targets to guide the work that we do and help us with our prioritization. It’s also something, as I say, that we’ll hope to accomplish together with our other provincial counterparts.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ll expect a report back, then, within a year. [Laughter.]

No, I’ve looked at the data centre’s information in terms of our species, and it’s very clear in how they list it year to year. While there’s this species or this list is bigger this year because “we discovered we had this” or vice versa, I don’t think that would be a big problem.

[1600]

I do think the political commitment would need to be there because, of course, it’s not just an endangered species. It’s an endangered ecosystem, in many respects. I know the ministry is looking at ways to identify ecosystems that are endangered. I hope that they can continue that. It’s very important that we’re not just putting a circle around one species. When you protect one species, you really need to protect the ecosystem that feeds them.

Anyway, I’ll leave it there, just to say that I think that is vital. I think that specific legislation around endangered ecosystems could be required, because so far, we’ve worked on a species model that has not adequately, in my view, protected the ecosystem which feeds the animals. Is that something the minister might consider — bringing in ecosystem-based thinking to legislation?

Hon. M. Polak: The member will be happy to know that that is some of the work that has come out of the federal-provincial-territorial meeting — to improve our data-based management and work toward an ecosystem-based management model. We’re certainly working on that internally here in government.

In addition to that, one of the things that was highlighted at that meeting was the importance of engaging in multispecies planning. It is often the case that protecting habitat for one species causes harm to another species. So there needs to be integrated planning, considering multiple species within a certain area of habitat. That is, right now, work that the provinces together are undertaking.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m going to move back to some questions around spills and fines and enforcement, being tough on environmental crime — as the minister knows I am and have said on more than one occasion.

Specifically, I’m interested in a couple of spills that hit the news. I don’t always get notified when there’s an accident or an issue at an industrial site or when major pollution occurs, of course. Nor would I be. But once in a while we hear about these things. We often don’t hear about the results and what came out of them.

I’ll ask about a few specifics. Up in northern Vancouver Island there was a spill at the Myra Falls mine. I understand it was acid, or partially acid, spilling into the creek. As a pump had malfunctioned, it went down the creek. I don’t know what it impacted. Just curious if I can get an update on that one. Were there ever any fines issued? Were there any bills paid by the company for their pollution?

Hon. M. Polak: I can tell the member that the spill was reported. It was responded to. It was very localized. Insofar as whether or not there were penalties levied, we’ll have to get back to the member on that.

S. Chandra Herbert: When the ministry does get back to me on that — whether penalties were levied — if they can help me understand what the cost was to the British Columbia taxpayer for having to deal with the spill so that I can get a sense of: did the penalty pay for, in a sense, what the cost was to the taxpayer for the company’s mistake? That would be helpful.

Hon. M. Polak: Just to be clear, what we’ll be able to talk about in terms of cost to us, of course, would be outside of our normal operations.

[1605]

If you consider what the Ministry of Environment does in its environmental protection division, you could argue that pretty much every person involved in it has something to do with either preventing a spill — so company activities — or responding to some kind of a discharge. So there will be, just to manage expectations.

There’s certainly an expectation on the part of the ministry that much of this work is part of our ordinary day-to-day operations so wouldn’t be either recoverable or certainly wouldn’t be something we would pursue from the company. But we’ll break that down for you.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ll give a list of a few more, just to see, because I know there was significant work done.
[ Page 6259 ]
Silver Creek in Burnaby — were any fines ever issued against the train company that blamed a beaver for the fact that their train went off the tracks and spilled coal into the stream? Significant work had to be done to try and protect fish and turtles that were in that stream. I never heard of any fines being issued — maybe federally, certainly not provincially. So that was Silver Creek in Burnaby

Also, I’d be interested in the Tulameen River. There was a coal spill where, I guess, a coal slurry pond broke open and coated the river bottom, I’m told. Again, I never heard of any cost for the company’s pollution. I think that’s important. If you do pollute, you should pay. If I could get a commitment for those as well, that would be helpful. Okay, I see a yes over there.

I’m interested in Lemon Creek. Again, I understand it is before the courts perhaps. A judge decided to allow a woman to proceed with her legal case. Marilyn Burgoon managed to convince a judge that the government was liable for pollution, as was the firefighting company. It just surprises me that this woman had to go to considerable expense to try to get the government to proceed with fines in a case where potentially they themselves might be liable.

Rather than asking about the specific case itself, because the government is now being sued, I’m just curious: what happens when a government makes a mistake or has a problem? Maybe it’s an issue of pollution. They give somebody bad instructions or advice, and that company or that organization does something which leads to considerable pollution. Does the government ever fine itself? It sounds silly, but if we’re going to charge companies and people when they pollute, shouldn’t the government also be responsible when it does?

Hon. M. Polak: When it comes to compensation for a private citizen, if they were to go to court and the British Columbia government was proven to have been at fault, then of course we would have to respond to that judgment and be responsible for whatever compensation the judge deemed appropriate.

When it comes to activities on Crown land where government has been responsible for pollution, then government can be fined. Government can fine itself. It is treated no differently than any other company. One of the most well-known, best examples of that would be the Britannia mine site. In that instance, a pollution-abatement order was issued against the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. That’s probably the best example. But yes, we indeed hold ourselves to the same standard.

S. Chandra Herbert: Could I get an update on what’s going on with the Lemon Creek restoration, with compensation to citizens?

[1610]

Hon. M. Polak: The long-term end point that the ministry identified, which was no detectable hydrocarbons in the environment, has largely been met, but there are ongoing monitoring efforts. They will continue, both in Lemon Creek and the Slocan River, to keep an eye on ecosystem recovery.

We are continuing to oversee the monitoring that is undertaken by Executive Flight Centre and their contractors, similar to Mount Polley and similar to any other spill cases, in terms of our actions and overseeing the monitoring that they conduct.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is the government pursuing fines or court actions against Executive Flight Centre?

Hon. M. Polak: Unfortunately, because this is a matter before the courts currently, I really can’t comment beyond what I’ve just offered the member.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister will know that sulfur dioxide can lead to acid rain. It can lead, potentially, to health impacts to people, should they breathe it in, in large amounts, of course.

I understand that both the Pine River and McMahon gas plants in the northeast have exceeded sulfur dioxide limits — at Pine River, five times; McMahon, three times — yet have received no fine, no penalty, no cost, effectively, for their excess pollution.

Can the minister explain why?

Hon. M. Polak: What I can tell the member, first and foremost, is…. I just have to piece together a few pieces here. All the enforcement actions since 2006, so any fines under the Environmental Management Act, are all summarized in the environmental violations database. It is not an easy one to find, so I will ensure that we get the link to the member. I think if I try and read it out now, it would be almost impossible to copy it down correctly.

Having said that, when it comes to the two specific plants, both of which were…. Or at least Pine River. I don’t have the data on McMahon. Pine River gas plant operates under a permit that was issued in 1979. It’s been there for quite some time. It has had five exceedances related to point source SO2. McMahon gas plant has had three. But these exceedances were well within reasonable ranges, and any issues were quickly dealt.

[1615]

As is the case with pretty much all of our enforcement, we work first on a progressive model. That is, if there are monitoring stations that report exceedances, we approach the company immediately and see that they get back into compliance. There’s a difference between something that is happening inadvertently versus something that is happening as a result of purposeful action.

I can also tell the member, if I can find it here, that one of the things we have done is increase the number
[ Page 6260 ]
of air monitoring networks. For example, on a per-capita basis, B.C. has one of the largest air monitoring networks in the country.

We’re also proceeding now into the second phase of the northeast air monitoring project. That will really help to inform some of the future air emissions decisions and public health protection decisions that we need to make in the region in the northeast.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister will forgive me for relating what I hear from British Columbians. They tell me that they don’t get such leeway if they have an exceedance on speeding. If they just go a little bit above the speed limit, they don’t get progressively disciplined in terms of just being given a warning and then let go again. They get fined.

The environment doesn’t know the difference between an exceedance level of 10 percent, 20 percent, 100 percent, in the sense that it’s still pollution, and acid rain is still an issue.

I would just hope that rather than allowing companies to go a little bit over the limit, so to speak — pollute a little bit more — there would actually be very much a firm belief this is the law. We’ve set these rules in place for a reason, and if you go above them, you actually have to pay, because the environment pays for their pollution regardless of if we charge the company or not.

I wonder why we’re so lax on these rules. Why would we just let a company pollute more than they’re allowed to?

Hon. M. Polak: We are absolutely not lax. I’ll use the member’s analogy. The member will well know that police officers have significant discretion with respect to enforcement of traffic violations.

I can think of many instances in terms of people who I know who have been stopped for a speeding infraction, and because it was minor, or because perhaps the officer saw them start into a school zone and they slowed down right away when they realized it, they warn them but they don’t give them a ticket. Whereas if somebody was whizzing by the police officer in a road racing incident, the penalty would be much worse.

It’s important that our statutory decision-makers do have discretion on the ground. Because of the way that violations of the Environmental Management Act occur, there’s no distinction between a minor or major violation. They’re all violations. For our statutory decision-makers, though, it’s important for them to be able to have the discretion to provide for different circumstances.

If there was, for example, a discharge from a facility, say from seepage from some kind of a mine site…. Well, there’s a very big difference between negligence of the company that involves millions of litres of toxic material versus a small leak that went undetected for a while and maybe resulted in a gallon or so of material.

It’s important for our statutory decision-makers to have that discretion. We expect them to operate within that responsibly, but it’s certainly not the case that we are lax. When we do see exceedances, we immediately respond by having those addressed. We are fortunate in that responsible companies like Spectra Energy are typically very quick to respond when we advise them of an exceedance.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks for that answer. I think the challenge is that the environment still pays. In the case of entering a school zone, if you’re driving and you’re at 40 instead of 30 and you drop to 30 as quickly as you can, as long as there were no kids on the road that got hit, that’s just your own responsibility. That’s your own duty as a driver to follow the rules.

If there is an exceedance in sulphur dioxide, that can lead to more acidification of lakes. That can lead to more pollution. If there is a seepage out of a tailings pond — not a full-blown disaster, but a seepage — that can also impact the creatures that rely on that water system.

[1620]

There is a difference, I think, between a traffic incident of driving through a stoplight, a red light, when you didn’t mean to and no one was around, I suppose — although I still don’t advise that, and I wouldn’t support somebody doing that — and actually polluting.

I just think that, yes, there needs to be a variation in terms of what the penalty is, absolutely. If it’s just a little bit over, your fine may not be as big, but there still is a cost to the environment. I would urge that, rather than just letting a little bit over be okay in numerous circumstances, that we say, well, maybe there’s a smaller fine and that goes into an environmental protection fund, so that we can actually try and repair some of the damage that was done by that pollution, but by other pollution as well.

Hon. M. Polak: It’s not correct to say that all exceedances would cause damage to the environment. In fact, all permits that are issued are issued with space between what would be the upper limit versus what we would expect in terms of our guidelines.

In fact, the permits under which these plants operate also allow for exceedances during emergency shutdowns, maintenance related to shutdowns. There’s acknowledgement that the permitted amount is not necessarily…. In fact, it isn’t an amount that would be the maximum that would be allowable in the case of damage to the environment. That would be a foolish way for us to permit.

So it’s not correct to say that all exceedances will have damaging effects on the environment. In fact, our permits are issued recognizing that there needs to be some room for issues such as shutdowns or maintenance and shutdown-related activities.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think the minister would agree, though, that industrial activity…. There is an environmental consequence in many cases, and that when you look at an environmental assessment for projects, they
[ Page 6261 ]
will often very clearly say that, yes, there is an impact. It may be not so drastic that it kills all the species or leads to forests dying out or lakes becoming unlivable, but there is an impact.

I guess that’s the point that I’m making. It’s not that it’s a maximum impact, but that there is an impact. And I think that if you make an impact, we need to acknowledge that. That’s what polluter-pay, I think, is about.

I’m going to ask a few questions about professional reliance. It’s an area that the ministry has relied on. They’ve decided that, through supporting whether or not it’s biologists, foresters or others in many other cases, we will rely on their professional code of ethics, their own responsibilities, in order to ensure that they’re actually doing what they say.

Now, constituents and folks across the province will say to me that, yes, most of these folks are doing the right thing, but their challenge is the company pays their bills to go out and assess an environmental problem. The company pays their bills. The report goes to them. It goes to the ministry, and they’re concerned that who pays the piper calls the tune in their line.

I wondered how many have lost certification. How many have been penalized for not following their professional codes? That’s, as far as I can tell, the only thing that really is there to ensure that the public interest is served.

Hon. M. Polak: That’s not something that we are responsible for, nor do we track. Their professional associations provide records of that, and I think in most cases, if not all, that’s public information — when someone does lose their certification.

But let me speak to the issue of who is paying the individual. Remember, these are not simply contractors. These are professionals who need to maintain certification with their associations just as a doctor might. They are independently a professional in respect of those who provide for the monitoring for companies.

[1625]

We also approve those professionals. They don’t simply get to go on Google and find out who they can choose and we don’t have any say over it. We can also stipulate with respect to what type of qualified professionals.

But if one is going to question the professional behaviour of one of these individuals simply because of who’s paying their bill, then quite frankly, there would be no basis for having professionals who are certified.

S. Chandra Herbert: That’s the thin edge of the wedge for how people understand it. They really question whether or not the government is actually really following these reports, is actually really making sure that people are professional.

The question is: why did the government allow the hiring of shoreline cleanup and assessment techniques, a company that was hired to look at the Tulameen coal-mine tailings that were released? Why was that approved?

If I can just explain. I don’t have the company name here. What I mean is that there was a company hired. Sorry, it looked like it to me for a second. No, the company was hired to deal with the coal-mine tailings release into the Tulameen River.

I’m told they claimed they had training in shoreline cleanup and assessment techniques but basically didn’t. Then, that meant that the ministry was not able to see what actually went on. The coal spread further and further down the river, and it increased public and local government concern that there was no response. It was slow, and it was incompetent, according to this Ministry of Environment briefing note that I’ve got here.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize. With respect to the specifics around Tulameen, I don’t have that with us here today. Again, it will be added to the homework list.

S. Chandra Herbert: The reason I ask it is because this document on world-leading spill preparedness and response goes through a number of issues with the government’s ability to deal with spills on land and, in this case, water.

Another one that they’ve asked about and they’ve raised questions about is the incident at Silver Creek that I raised earlier today. Actually, no. Sorry. This is around Sumas tank farm, where Kinder Morgan spilled an amount of oil and product on their land, which led to community members saying they had nausea, headaches, strong odours, etc. In that case, they said there was no appropriate air monitoring or testing done — this according to the government.

In terms of the rail coal spill incident, what I’ve got…. I think this is the Silver Creek incident. The government is quoted as saying that the company did not undertake environmental sampling and monitoring for days, which shows that…. I don’t think a strong response was given.

It’s a creek. It moves, and you cannot monitor the impact on a creek of when it was healthy and when it was polluted if you only respond once it’s polluted. I understand that there were red flags raised within the ministry, but it doesn’t seem to give me confidence that the ministry is actually on top of these things.

What has changed between when these incidents occurred and now to give me greater confidence that these things won’t happen again?

[J. Martin in the chair.]

[1630]

Hon. M. Polak: We’ll deal with the specifics of the number of them that the member has raised when we get that information. I can say, though, that even with respect to the ones that have been raised, I do have a note with respect to the Sumas spill. Here, for example,
[ Page 6262 ]
initially the company was reporting monitoring that they had conducted initially, when it occurred. Staff subsequently identified that there were some deficiencies in the initial air monitoring but when they did subsequent testing were able to confirm that there was no health or environmental concern. So we certainly follow up if there isn’t adequate work done at the beginning.

To give the member a sense of perspective on the numbers, we average per year 3,500 calls, reported spills. More than 80 percent of them are what we would characterize as quite small. We cannot ever believe that we’ve reached perfection. Nevertheless, the member will be familiar with our land-based spills intentions paper. I think there’s some very progressive work being done there, and we hope to finalize that soon. But we do always follow up with these companies when there are deficiencies in their reporting or in their monitoring.

S. Chandra Herbert: You know, it’s all well and good to say we follow up after the fact, but the issue that I’m trying to raise here is how to be preventative. In this case you can’t really follow up with a company that has done inadequate work around a coal spill into a stream, and you don’t know what the stream looked like because an assessment of the stream’s quality, what was in it, etc., may not have been done for many years. Yet the issue here is that the assessment was done too late. It took days and days before anybody actually went out to the site, and in that case, I’m told, they weren’t really qualified to do the work anyway. That’s time you can’t win back.

Is there a set list of prequalified people who can actually do the work, who have been shown to do the work, who know what they’re doing — that it’s not just relying on their word? From what I read here, it seems we put a lot of stock in what somebody may say they know, with no actual evidence that they might actually know how to do a response.

Then, I guess, just the follow-up is: when the company, like the rail company, hires a company that is inadequate and does not respond quickly, what can be done to make sure they actually do respond quickly? It’s clearly not supportable the way that it has been done here.

Hon. M. Polak: I wouldn’t agree that on the basis of a small number of problematic issues, no doubt, we would say the entire system doesn’t work. In fact, I think overall it works quite well. There’s always room for improvement.

In terms of the approval of professionals that companies hire, it is criterion-based. It’s not a hard list. It would always be changing and always be subject to updating. But the company is the one that is liable if they do not hire someone with the appropriate professional expertise. They are the ones who have to pay.

In cases where we do not see a company acting responsibly or acting within the orders we have given, we have and use the legal authority to step in, conduct that work ourselves and bill the company for that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Of course, it may seem like a small number. I guess, from my side, what I see is a report which outlined: “We could point to hundreds of spills on an annual basis where gaps occurred or improvements are needed. Compiling a report, however, would involve significant staff resources that we currently do not have.”

[1635]

That, of course, just waves a red flag when we’re hearing about export proposals for diluted bitumen, etc. If we’re not even able to deal with where we are today, how can we deal with something in the future when we don’t even have the staff resources to identify the number of gaps, as they’re so vast? It just seems to be a big red flag when, of course, the resources going to environmental protection in this budget have declined. When is the spill intentions paper…? When is legislation expected to deal with this issue?

Hon. M. Polak: We, of course, acknowledge that there are gaps — some large, some small. It’s one of the reasons that we’ve done such significant work around the land-based spills intentions paper, why we’ve had the two rounds of public input and public comment into those. We’re making good progress together with industry. I won’t comment — as the member I’m sure expected — with specifics as to potential legislation. But we are making good progress, and of course, we want to complete that work as soon as we can.

S. Chandra Herbert: This report from the government is about a year old now. Over that year we’ve still been exposed to potentially hundreds of spills where gaps can occur. Of course, the minister can understand the urgency about addressing this.

One of the areas that certainly caught my eye was a discussion about a Goldstream fuel tank spill that fell into the Goldstream and of course led to a significant loss to the environment and the fishery. In this document it says:

“The Goldstream fuel tank truck incident exemplifies the current lack of process or requirements of restoration of the environment after a spill. The ministry continues to work with Columbia Fuels and numerous stakeholders on a restoration plan, but without clear rules and guidelines, the process has continued on and the responsible party could ultimately walk away if it so chose, leaving either restoration undone or the province to identify funds and undertake the required restoration planning and work.”

Is that still the case? Are we still in a situation where the responsible party could have polluted in such a way and could still walk away?

[1640]

Hon. M. Polak: It’s a good illustration, really, of why this work has been so important and why it’s been so complicated.

Take the Goldstream example. The transportation of all hazardous materials is regulated by the federal government. Then we have jurisdiction when materi-
[ Page 6263 ]
als enter our land base. Of course, if it’s navigable waters or it has to do with fish, then that’s also the federal government.

The important work that we’ve been doing through the land-based spills response initiative involves not only industry but also work together with our federal counterparts. These are longstanding issues that we hope to resolve as a result of this work.

S. Chandra Herbert: Effectively, we still are in the same place we were a year ago. That’s challenging. I know the minister agrees and, I’m sure, hopes that this work could happen quicker. It is a real thing to leave British Columbians exposed to the costs of both the environmental damage and the liability to try and pick it up and clean it up if somebody chose to walk away or, potentially, went bankrupt or what have you.

I’m wondering. In the specific case of Goldstream, where are we at on that now? Has the company paid the full freight for their pollution? Or are we still trying to negotiate the best deal for British Columbians? They, too, know they don’t have to, in the sense of the way the laws are written right now.

Hon. M. Polak: We’ll have to provide that information to you. We don’t have it with us.

S. Chandra Herbert: We know that in British Columbia there was a Kinder Morgan pipeline rupture in Burnaby which travelled to the marine environment. It made numerous local parks closed for a significant time period. It cost people their favourite places to play, and it was a cost to them in terms of loss of quality of life and enjoyment for that period.

According to the government, if a Teck Cominco spill went into the Columbia River in Trail, the public on the U.S. side would be entitled to compensation for loss of public use for its lands and resources, while British Columbians would be entitled to no compensation, even though the spill occurred here and involved a B.C.-based company.

With Kinder Morgan there was a spill — no public consultation. If it occurred in Washington state, they would be compensated for loss of public enjoyment. A Teck Cominco spill could happen here. Again, British Columbians get nothing; folks in the states would.

Is this something that the minister is going to change and make sure that British Columbians, should there be a spill, are compensated, just as they are in Washington state?

[1645]

Hon. M. Polak: We currently do have tools in place, such as the community environmental justice forum. While that’s not mandatory, it has been something that has worked well in many instances. The question of pursuing a mandatory route for that is part of the discussion that’s taking place around the intentions paper and has been raised in many of the discussions already.

I wonder if I might ask the Chair to indulge us in a ten-minute break.

The Chair: We’ll take a ten-minute break.

The committee recessed from 4:46 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.

[J. Martin in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: We were just finishing a discussion around compensation for British Columbians should a public park, or something like that, be kept from their use because a polluter has polluted to such a large degree — as happened with Kinder Morgan in one case.

I wonder if the minister might repeat…. She said that that’s a possibility now. It’s voluntary. I wonder how often that process has been used.

Hon. M. Polak: The tool that we have in place is the community environmental justice forum. It’s a voluntary approach that has been around for only about two or three years, so it’s in its infancy. But in that time my staff estimate that it’s been used about a half-dozen times. It involves, more or less, a mediation involving the company, First Nations and the community, and then compensation is provided directly to the community.

S. Chandra Herbert: I will look more into that later. Certainly, I think compensation for residents affected through no fault of their own is something that we should be doing. Washington state has done it. I’m not sure why we still aren’t.

I’m going to move now to talking parks — B.C. Parks. I guess I’ll start with asking a little bit about a freedom-of-information request that we had made, which we received just the other day, looking into potential “regularized fee increases” at B.C. Parks.

[1655]

Is the government considering yearly fee increases for B.C. Parks? Is that the plan, for regularized fee increases?

Hon. M. Polak: We haven’t completed that work. Right now the fees are…. These are park facility park operator fees, right? So these are camping fees that are reviewed annually, and decisions are made as to whether or not to raise them. But one of the topics that we have in front of us for discussion is whether or not it would be a good idea to put those on a more regular footing, not necessarily once a year. You could tie it to another instrument. You could tie it to CPI. There are many other ways one could do it, but we have not finalized those. We’re in the early discussion stages.
[ Page 6264 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that according to the ministry, financial pressures of aging infrastructure and the fact that the government has not invested in those areas due to a number of priorities outside of B.C. Parks — the Ministry of Environment has decided to prioritize things other than investing in our parks — have “forced B.C. Parks to shorten operating seasons, eliminate park ranger positions, reduce preventive maintenance and implement other program cuts.”

Could the minister explain in a little bit more detail what that has really looked like in B.C. Parks? I know in the past I’ve asked questions and I’ve always been told: “Oh no, it’s just efficiencies. It’s not a problem. Nobody’s going to really notice a difference.” But this sounds pretty drastic. We know park rangers…. There are fewer of them, and the maintenance, at least to my eyes, is not being done to the degree that it should be in our parks.

Hon. M. Polak: The member will probably recall that reductions were made in 2010, as they were across many ministries, to try and respond to increasing pressures as a result of the financial downturn. Since 2010 there have not been any additional reductions. To give the member a sense of the quantum, there were 221 prior to that reduction. There remain now 164. Those continue to this day.

What has happened in terms of facilities, though, is that we have continued to make investments in our park facilities. In the last five years there has been $60 million invested in our park facilities. Those go anywhere from replacement of campground shelter water systems to expansions of campgrounds, in some cases electrified campsites, accessible picnic tables, reconstruction of sanitary and electrical infrastructure, interpretive materials for First Nations, campground refurbishments. Those might include toilets, park furniture, connecting trails and communal cooking shelters — so a whole range of different investments in our park facilities.

S. Chandra Herbert: In 2010 we had a fee hike as well, and despite that, we still had cuts to park rangers. It’s quite drastic to lose, well, 60 park rangers. That’s a pretty big loss to the system — given that we’ve seen more parks and more demand for parks, with fewer people.

[1700]

Maintenance has also declined in parks that may not have camps and that may have camps. It’s a pretty big deal. I guess the concern I have is that we’ve seen a fee hike this time. Is that going to lead to more park rangers — this latest fee hike? Is it going to lead to improved maintenance in all parks? Or is it just going to mean that less money is coming out of another budget to go to park facility operators?

What’s the actual on-the-ground difference going to mean to British Columbians with this latest fee hike?

Hon. M. Polak: The member appears to be putting together two aspects of the budget that are actually quite different and operate quite separately.

The camping fees are collected by park facility operators. As such, they don’t have a direct impact in terms of providing greater resources for the ministry — greater revenues. What they can do is decrease the amount of deficiency payment that we have to put out. In turn, that can be returned to improving those parks and facilities and providing greater maintenance.

Some will make greater revenue and return that to us. Others don’t, and we pay a deficiency payment. But those are our front-country parks where there are campsites. That does not deal with the overall parks budget, which would also have to do with back-country parks and then the roles of park rangers, etc. It’s important not to mix the two together.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister was quoted as saying that increasing camping fees would lead to, potentially, new parks. I don’t see an increase in the parks budget for purchasing new parks. Can the minister explain the seeming disparateness between those two views so that I can understand it better?

Hon. M. Polak: In some cases we are able to see expansions of parks and park facilities. What it does for our budget…. If we don’t have to pay as much in a deficiency payment, then of course the rest of our budget is not impacted. When we have to make a deficiency payment, it takes away from the rest of our overall budget.

To maybe put it a different way that might be more easily understood, when we increase the camping fees, it’s not that it provides us additional revenue. It’s that it stops the taking of revenue away from other areas that would allow us to potentially expand other park facilities or perhaps better support what’s going on in our back-country parks. It’s not a direct line, if you will.

Of course, in terms of our park facility operators, if they’re doing better financially in terms of the operations of their parks, they are then able to expand opportunities. One of the discussions around parks that took place in the media…. A well-known park commentator, Bob Peart, was also commenting on some of the options we could be looking at for parks to better support them — things like involving philanthropy to a greater extent.

There are many options for us to consider, but this is one that we know. In order to be sustainable and not draw resources away from the rest of our parks budget, we need to ensure that the park facility operators are covered.

S. Chandra Herbert: Will the $1.3 million — I think that was the figure estimated to be generated from these park fee hikes — be used to hire more park rangers or improve another park? What’s the plan for that money?
[ Page 6265 ]

Hon. M. Polak: We don’t earmark from it. What happens is — assuming we are successful and we don’t have the degree of deficiency payments that we need to make — then we have greater resources within the B.C. Parks budget that we can deploy to priorities like that. It’s a decision that we would make every year once we know what the totals are with respect to deficiencies — payments versus revenues that come in.

Again, what it does is reduce the cost of operating the camping facilities, therefore meaning that the rest of our budget stays intact. All of that stays within the B.C. Parks budget. It doesn’t go elsewhere within the ministry.

[1705]

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve heard from a number of constituents and others a real concern that for them, their wages have remained flat. They’re not seeing large increases in their take-home pay, yet their rents, their MSP and other things have continued to climb.

For them, they raise the concern that long-weekend camping at a favourite park may get further and further out of reach for them. It’s just one of those things that they used to always be able to afford but have real concerns that they might not be able to now.

The ministry document talks about how for one to two years we may see a drop in total numbers of people attending camping in B.C. parks. I’m assuming that’s because of the price. Maybe there’s some other reason, but in the context of the document, it looks like the price has gone up so fewer people will camp, which, to me, says that there is a problem of affordability.

Was any analysis done in terms of making sure that lower-income people — people who are working full-time but not getting paid enough to actually have a lot of savings — are not shut out of B.C. parks? Constituents are telling me that’s a big concern for them.

Hon. M. Polak: We continue to believe that the fees that are being charged are affordable. There was analysis conducted to compare our fees with those of private campsites. Also, we conducted analysis with respect to the kinds of amenities that are provided. Currently the most expensive per night, after the increase, is $35. The cheapest is $5. The range is there that can allow for all types of experiences. The $35 range would be your most popular campsites with most of the amenities available. And then there is everything in between.

We continue to believe that we are providing an affordable option. We’re well within the range of what private campsites charge and what is charged in our neighbouring jurisdictions, both east and south.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well now, the private campsites are in the business of making money. The B.C. government is supposed to be providing a service for all British Columbians, so I think there’s a bit of a difference — that it’s not about making money, in the sense of parks. It’s about profit, which it is for private campsite owners, because they have to do all those things. We need to put an equity lens on the idea that all British Columbians — rich or poor — should be able to camp in our parks.

I think comparing to other jurisdictions, saying, “Well, Oregon charges this” or “Washington charges this,” isn’t quite enough, in my view, to make sure that British Columbians actually get a chance to use our parks. Are there any programs within the ministry to ensure that low-income British Columbians can actually access parks?

[1710]

If you’ve got a bunch of kids and you’ve got to pay for your vehicle, you got to pay for your camping fees, maybe you have to pay for an extra vehicle spot, a reservation and all the other things that go with it, that can add up for a low-income family. I think it’s important that we not shut off people from accessing these places. So $35 a night may not be much for somebody making a good chunk of change, but if you’re working a minimum-wage job or you’re on disability or you’ve got a part-time job because you can’t get work, that adds up very quickly.

I think it’s important that we not shut off these experiences. Is that something the ministry would consider: making sure that low-income people can actually access our parks?

Hon. M. Polak: We don’t have any straight income-based discounts. What we do, though, is offer a discount to seniors, and for those who are disabled within a certain income range, their camping is free.

It’s important to note that $35 is the most that you would pay, and that would be for a campsite with all of the top-of-the-line amenities. Again, the range is from $5 to $35. When we look at the private ones that are there for making a profit, those can be, in terms of maximums, $45, $60 a night.

We certainly believe that what we are offering is an affordable service to families. We recognize that it’s more than just about maintaining our parks; it’s also about balancing that against the need for our public to be able to enjoy Crown land and park spaces in a camping environment.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, B.C. — as the minister knows — has one of the highest rates of child poverty, and that’s family poverty, in the country. We also have one of the highest debt loads and some of the highest housing costs in the world.

[1715]

I’m troubled that there’s not more priority being put on making sure that lower-income families can actually afford to go to the parks, that they can actually afford to be there. A $5 park, I know, is often back country, and there are no services. Not everybody can actually use that.
[ Page 6266 ]
They’re not outfitted for back-country-style camping because they can’t afford it. A $35 campsite, with all the top-of-the-line amenities, is an amenity that’s been provided by all British Columbians through our taxes and one that should be available to all British Columbians.

I don’t think that we should say: “Well, you can’t afford it, because your job does not pay you well. Thus, you cannot go to a top-of-the-line facility in a B.C. park, where you’ve got a nice picnic table, you’ve got a nice place to sit and it’s a popular place where you can look out and see a lake. Because you’re poor, you only get to go to these ones, which are cheaper because they don’t have anything.”

I’m sure the minister didn’t mean that. But I think the ministry does have to find a way to do this. In Vancouver and Burnaby we have a program, the leisure access program. It’s a program designed so that if you’re low income you can actually afford to go swimming. You can actually afford to go to the gym. You can actually afford these things because they’re important for your health. They’re important for us all. All of those people in the city pay for those services, and it’s not a class-based system in terms of who is allowed to go and who is not.

I really think that B.C. Parks, if it’s going to continue to jack up fees, has got to deal with the social justice issue of making sure that low-income families can attend parks. I’m not sure if the minister agrees, but there’s got to be a way. There’s got to be a priority in terms of making sure that those that have the least can still actually go camping in our parks. I think we have to address the poverty issue.

That’s not a Ministry of Environment decision, but the impact of its decisions are felt most strongly on poor families and families who are working full time but just not making a lot of money. Would the minister consider looking to adopt such a program?

Hon. M. Polak: We recognize that there’s a responsibility we have to maintain camping rates at an affordable level. In the regular reviews we’ve conducted of the rates and the amounts — remember, they’re in a very small range of between $2 and $5 a night — that they’ve been increased, we still believe that that maintains affordability. Again, the range is between a low of $5 and the top price of $35 a night for a family. We do believe that that continues to be affordable.

S. Chandra Herbert: Families told me, before the fee hikes, that it was unaffordable for them. While the minister can believe and the government can believe that every family can afford it, there are families who objectively can’t. I’m disappointed that this government will not try and help those people out in this case. It is creating a situation where going to the local camp…. Many of us, our childhoods…. We remember when things were more affordable, when government had a higher priority for camping and our parks. But not so much anymore.

We know the gap between the wealthiest and those with the least is even wider now. While it may be affordable for somebody like ourselves in this circumstance, making good dollars, or for somebody making even less than us, I think there are those who cannot. I’ll continue to raise this issue, because those are people being left behind, and I would have hoped for some compassion from the government and some sense of justice, that they, too, are just as deserving as we are to be able to access those parks.

Within the parks department there are many questions people have raised with me about lack of maintenance and cuts happening in the parks. But they’re now also raising questions about why we’ve seen fee hikes go up and maintenance decline — yet we’ve made it easier for industrial organizations, companies, to potentially access our parks, to take out sections of parks for their own uses, for their own companies’ industrial needs, and away from the public.

One of those companies — and the minister acknowledged it when we were in debate around Bill 4, amending the Park Act — was Kinder Morgan. They were interested in doing so-called research in parks for their diluted-bitumen pipeline proposal.

[1720]

I’m curious as to what kind of work Kinder Morgan has done. Have they cut any trees? Have they dug up sections of grass or riparian areas or bogs or bushes? What really have they done in parks? We’ve seen what they’ve done on Burnaby Mountain, but much of the area that they’ve impacted has been outside of main population centres. Can the minister tell me what they’ve done specifically in each park?

Hon. M. Polak: First, just to correct the member. Bill 4 did nothing to change the ease with which a boundary could be changed or land could be taken out of a park. It had no impact on that at all. If there are boundary changes to be made to a park, the same process applies as always has. That has to come to the Legislature, and there’s a significant public input period as well and, of course, consultation that takes place.

With respect to Kinder Morgan, I don’t have the specific park use permits here with us. I can tell you that I’m advised there hasn’t been any logging associated with this. There may have been one or two small trees that had to be cut. We can seek to confirm that.

What we do know is that the vast majority of their work to date has been plant and soil samples. And let’s remember that the amendment did not formally authorize any of the research activities. It granted the legal authority to statutory decision-makers to authorize those permits. They will only be issued for low-impact activities like soil sampling, collecting plant and animal specimens, installing gauges or instruments to measure environmental conditions.
[ Page 6267 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I would be interested in seeing those documents just because I know that in the Burnaby case there was a media report saying, “Well, there were almost no trees cut at all. Don’t worry about it,” but the Burnaby city arborist said something quite different — that there were actually a good number of trees cut and that they did matter. It would be helpful to know exactly what happened in each case, so I appreciate the minister’s willingness to give me that information.

On Bill 4, I guess what I was saying was it was in part designed to make what Kinder Morgan was already doing legal in the sense that it could stand up to a challenge. So it was potentially not lawful before that. I’m not sure if a legal challenge is still continuing on that question, but I’d understood it was at one point.

Now, I’m curious. What are currently up for consideration? Which parks have applications come in for, for boundary adjustments, and what stage are we at for them?

Hon. M. Polak: I can tell you the following boundary adjustment proposals are in stage 2 development. With Kinder Morgan, there are proposed right-of-way passes through Finn Creek Park, North Thompson River Park, Lac du Bois Grasslands protected area, Coquihalla Summit Recreation Area and Bridal Veil Falls Park.

Important to note that some cases, Lac du Bois in particular, are as a result of public consultation wherein the public advised that they did not want to see the pipeline go along its existing route and were instead accepting of an alternative route that then does require a change to the Lac du Bois Grasslands protected area.

[1725]

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has proposed a project where they would remove 30 metres of right-of-way in Kalamalka Lake Park. That enables a widening and an upgrade of an existing road.

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has also proposed to remove some land from Nahatlatch Park. That would be transferred to the Boston Bar First Nation as part of some negotiations that are taking place, an agreement that has been reached.

The Seabird Island band has proposed a project to remove existing and deactivated roads from Sasquatch Park. That would enable the use of those roads for their timber hauling.

Finally, the owner of a private property adjacent to Kleanza Creek Park has proposed a boundary adjustment to have an existing road removed from the park to provide legal access to the property, and another existing road to the property would subsequently be decommissioned and then added to the park.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that when the ministry has to consider these, they must consider whether or not there’s a social benefit, an environmental benefit or an economic benefit for the removal — that it would improve things for the park and the society.

What benefit is the minister considering has been put forward in the case of Kalamalka Lake Park?

Hon. M. Polak: Given that the decision has not been made yet, it would be inappropriate for me to make specific comments with respect to the potential success, or lack thereof, given a particular application.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve been trying to get information on that particular park. I know Friends of Kalamalka Lake Park have as well. They’ve made freedom-of-information requests, as have I, and they have gotten stalled and stuck with large fee costs, and so on.

I have driven through that park just to see how dangerous the so-called road was. The Ministry of Transportation had argued that they needed it widened. There have been very few accidents on that road, so I don’t see how that could be justification. The Ministry of Transportation actually advocated for the potential of putting power lines through, along the side of the roadway in that park.

I’m not sure if the minister has any influence or if she’s able to get me all the background documents that they’re using around Kalamalka Lake Park. We’re trying the freedom-of-information route, and it’s taking forever.

[M. Morris in the chair.]

It would be good to know the background documents that the ministry is considering as they make this decision. Is that a possibility? Certainly, I know the community members would appreciate it and not feel that there was some sort of ulterior plan to hide information until it’s too late.

Hon. M. Polak: While not all that information is posted together with their proposal, nevertheless, the public will have an opportunity and communities will have an opportunity to explore that information during the public consultation that must take place before legislation is introduced. So that information will be provided to the public, and the proponents will have to answer questions with respect to their intentions and various other issues surrounding that.

S. Chandra Herbert: For what reason has the ministry decided that public consultations should be run by the person that’s advocating for the removal of land from park land — instead of, say, the Ministry of Environment, whose job it is to maintain that park?

[1730]

Hon. M. Polak: This is standard practice and has been for some time — that proponents conduct public consultations. Part of our evaluation of their project application is whether or not their public consultations were
[ Page 6268 ]
adequate. In some cases we send companies back out to do more of it because we don’t think it was adequate enough. The same is true with respect to First Nations consultation that they must conduct.

S. Chandra Herbert: The reason I ask it is, again, because people will look at a report, and the way you write a report can often change your outcome, can often change what you decide.

If you downplay concerns of some people who were consulted — maybe it’s a smaller group; maybe there’s a whole bunch of folks connected to the company that put in their feedback — and you up-sell that information, a report can look very different than if it’s a neutral person looking at a report, just looking at a consultation, taking all the feedback in and then bringing something forward.

I think the concern that I’ve heard from a number of these proposals is that when you have the company writing the report and sending it to the government, the government wasn’t involved in the consultation process in terms of looking at the park as an area they need to protect and, only in the most extreme circumstances, decide to remove land. It’s the company who wants to see the project succeed. Obviously, that’s why they’re proposing it, writing the report and bringing their own inherent bias into the report for the ministry to then consider.

In the case of Kalamalka Lake Park you have the Ministry of Transportation, part of the government, advocating to the same government to remove land from a park. Does the minister see a conflict here?

Hon. M. Polak: No, I don’t see a conflict, in that this is only one component of the overall boundary adjustment process, and it is evaluated by our staff for adequacy. Again, if we feel that what they have done in terms of consultation or the information and analysis they’ve provided is inadequate, we can ask them to go back and provide additional opportunities for consultation and input and provide us with additional information.

It’s only one part. One of the most significant checks and balances we have here is the fact that each and every one of these, in order to be finalized, would have to come to the Legislature. The member is well aware of the profile that boundary adjustments get in the Legislature. In addition to that, staff also require that proponents provide them with analysis as to why they need to see an adjustment to a park boundary as opposed to making some other choice. The staff also examine the merits of the proposal itself.

It’s quite a rigorous process, and it is one that has been in place for many years. We believe that it works well and that it has a significant amount of accountability to it, especially given that these changes can only be made in the Legislature.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just so I understand the process, one more time. If it gets to the point where there’s a division — maybe some people really want it; some people really don’t — the ministry staff make a recommendation to the minister. Would the recommendation be to approve it or deny it, and then the minister makes a decision? Or is it: “Here are the factors to consider. We’re not making any recommendations”? How does that work?

Hon. M. Polak: Similar to the environmental assessment process, staff have the discretion to either provide a direct recommendation, yes or no, or not to provide a recommendation and leave it to the minister.

S. Chandra Herbert: There have been many land and resource management plans across this province — a number that were finished in the late ’90s and brought into force in the early 2000s, some finished in the early 2000s.

One, I’m told, is in the South Okanagan–Similkameen area. People were asking me why lands that were identified as goal 2, as for protection…? Vital conservation goals have yet to be protected 15 years after the plan was brought into force.

[1735]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will be aware that for quite some time there was ongoing discussion and analysis, together with the federal government, around the potential for establishing a national park. That, of course, meant that there wasn’t further action taken on the part of the province until those discussions wrapped.

The member may or may not know that we are currently engaged in discussions with stakeholders in the community, with First Nations, about how we move forward now. Absent a national park, what are the other means of protection that they wish to see on the land base there? Of course, part of what we are including in that discussion are previous decisions and recommendations made through the LRMP process.

S. Chandra Herbert: People tell me that, given the length of time the government was involved in the national park discussion, they still very much support a national park in the South Okanagan–Similkameen, as do I, for a whole bunch of economic and environmental reasons. But regardless, the government has decided they don’t want any national park.

Over that time they point out to me that more and more land that is vital, that is endangered — ecosystems that are limited in the South Okanagan–Similkameen — have continued to be paved over and continue to disappear. They worry that, unless action is taken now, many of these other areas will be lost. What’s the timeline in terms of better protecting these vital ecosystems?

Hon. M. Polak: We — myself, together with the local MLA — met with a number of representatives from com-
[ Page 6269 ]
munity groups, and also with the local First Nations, to discuss what next steps would look like. I intend to be up there again this spring — we’re trying to finalize dates — to continue that dialogue and present them with options that staff have developed based on the conversations that we had.

I need to point out, I think, though: it’s important to know that the discussion around a national park, or the potential for it, is still an extremely divisive issue in the region. We’re hopeful, though, that by presenting some options to move forward, we can achieve the protections that are necessary and at the same time bring the community together around some shared goals. I think we made some very positive progress in November when we were there and, again, hope to do the same this spring.

S. Chandra Herbert: It’s an issue that I know the chambers of commerce, local town councils, local First Nations and tourism industry have all raised with me saying: “We need this. We need this now.” I know there’s a vocal minority who are absolutely opposed to it, but the polling seemed to show that the community supported it. However, the government decided not to proceed.

I’m hoping that these areas can be protected soon and that maybe, in future, a national park could be established because that’s actually what gets you the economic boost in a bigger way for sure.

There’s also an LRMP up in the Peace River district, up in the Peace country, vital in terms of the connecting Yukon to Yellowstone project — the idea that we need a connection. Certainly, ecosystem-based planning will tell you that when you protect a park, that’s great for that park. But you, in many cases, create an island, because there’s nowhere else that the creatures that live in that park can go without being killed by cars, by people, what have you.

I wonder what is the plan in terms of connecting corridors along the Yukon to Yellowstone corridor, but also specifically in the Peace River area, because that’s one of the areas with the fewest areas that are protected for species that need it.

[1740]

Hon. M. Polak: Some of the work that’s going on right now involves planning for boreal caribou in the area that will likely result in protections over certain areas on the land base.

One of the more significant initiatives we’re engaged with, though, is in working with Treaty 8 to define their interests. A good example of that is what I’ve asked staff to do in terms of response to their interest in the Peace-Boudreau area and perhaps analyzing that for the potential for greater protection. That work is being undertaken now.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, the Peace-Boudreau region is exactly what I was interested in. So if it’s possible to get an update on that as it comes — it sounds like it’s just in formative stages — I would be really interested. The longer we wait, the more challenging it is to act. I know that is of importance to local First Nations as well.

Given the Tsilhqot’in decision but also, of course, other legal precedents — which governments of past have sometimes ignored, unfortunately — I’m curious what the government is going to do around issues of tribal parks. The minister will know that the Tsilhqot’in recently announced that they were establishing…. I think it’s Dasiqox tribal park. I’ll get the pronunciation down later. I don’t have it. I’ve just been sent this question from a British Columbian, asking: “Will the province recognize this tribal park?”

How will they deal with these situations of an assertion that an area is a park to be protected by the First Nations for their own long-term interest? Will that be recognized as a protected area? Or what will the government do?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, the member will know that, with respect to the Tsilhqot’in National Government, we have a letter of understanding with them. We are using that tool together in a government-to-government relationship to work out the operational realities that result from the declaration of title on their lands.

I fully expect that they will wish to discuss our approach to the tribal park, and I’m not going to, unilaterally, from the Ministry of Environment, insert myself into that. Suffice to say that we recognize this is a brand-new environment in which we are operating together with the Tsilhqot’in. I’m confident that, through the work together under the letter of understanding, we will be able to arrive at some conclusions, including what will occur with respect to their declaration of the tribal park.

S. Chandra Herbert: Will that be the same for the First Nations in and around Tofino? I know there are a number of tribal parks that have been declared in that area, including an area where there had been a proposed mine. Is it a court decision which leads to this? Or is it a real nation-to-nation decision that is going to lead to this conversation across B.C. where tribal parks are declared?

[1745]

Hon. M. Polak: In all circumstances we try very hard to respond to the interests that are expressed by First Nations. Each case is individual. We don’t have a standard practice whereby we recognize the declaration of tribal parks. However, as I say, as part of the relationship we build with First Nations, we do our best to try and incorporate their interests into our planning for protections, but we don’t gave any standard response to the declaration of a tribal park.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know the minister will be aware that in her letter of expectations, discussion of the Klappan or the Sacred Headwaters and finding a way to find some means of protecting it have been required. Can the minister provide an update?
[ Page 6270 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to make sure we’re clear on the record with respect to the expectation. It was to work with the ministries of Energy and Mines, and Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to potentially develop a provincially designated area in the Klappan.

I can tell the member that we have been engaged for quite some time with the Tahltan with respect to the disposition of land in and around that area. It’s clear that they are not interested in a class A park type of designation, so we are currently exploring what other types of protection may be employed on the land.

The member will probably also know that while the discussions have been underway with the Tahltan, the mining company remains interested in moving forward. Yet we have, through the Klappan strategic initiative, announced that we will be deferring issuance of permits and permit amendments in that tenure area to support the discussions with the Tahltan. That certainly, we think, will help with the discussion.

It’s been challenging, of course — many, many interests at stake — but we nevertheless remain hopeful that, through our work with them, we will be able to achieve something that is agreeable to all parties.

S. Chandra Herbert: What is the timeline? I know it’s complicated, and it’s a challenge. It’s in an expectations letter, which I would…. You know, in most cases they want that done relatively soon — within a year or two years. Is there a goal, a timeline? I remember last year I had people telling me, “Oh, it’s going to be done this fall,” and here we are, and it’s not done yet.

Hon. M. Polak: Because this involves a very significant consultation and negotiation with a First Nation, it’s very, very difficult to put a timeline on it. It isn’t just a matter of government deciding to take action with respect to protection. We are still involved in undertaking that work with Tahltan to determine what the best approach would be, so it’s really impossible to put a timeline on it.

[1750]

I would note, though, that with respect to living up to the expectations that the Premier has for me, the mandate is careful to say to explore the potential for that. So I hope that the Premier looks kindly on the work that we’ve undertaken, regardless of how quickly we’re able to complete that work.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, exploring — you’ve explored — and continuing to explore.

I wonder about the Great Bear rainforest, if we can get an update in terms of finalizing that agreement. Also, the Flathead, where we’re at with that conversation.

Hon. M. Polak: Both of those items are the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

S. Chandra Herbert: We’re going to move to a conversation about water, as the minister has a glass. Many British Columbians have approached me — I know the minister is well aware of it — concerned about what they see, and what I see, as an undervaluing of our water resources. You know, the question of $2.25 for a million litres of water when you can buy a litre of water for $4, not a million of them. It just doesn’t seem to add up for most British Columbians, I would argue.

I’m curious. How many new staff will be hired in the Ministry of Environment to actually implement the Water Sustainability Act?

Hon. M. Polak: The area of water is one where the Ministry of Environment provides the policy approach. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations actually provides the operations on the ground. So we will have a very small staff complement added. That would be six full-time-equivalents that will be permanent in the Ministry of Environment. A much larger number will be involved from FLNRO.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does the policy side also include things like mapping aquifers or testing to see where the water resources are and that kind of thing? Or is that FLNRO?

Hon. M. Polak: Essentially, the breakdown is like this. We are responsible for science, standards, legislation and policy. So the mapping, for example, would be something that we’d be responsible for, but we would also work together with other agencies of government to accomplish that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know when we discussed the Water Sustainability Act in the Legislature, when it was coming through, a lot of the questions…. I heard it in the community as well. They liked the act, but in the end, the devil would be in the details. Would there be enough resources to actually see it achieve success? And concerns that there wouldn’t be enough resources to have community water boards established, appropriate mapping of our aquifers.

I’ve got to say that six new staff, while I wish them well, isn’t a lot for a province of our size and for the demands that are being placed on our water. That’s, of course, to be clear, within the Ministry of Environment.

[1755]

I’ve heard from mining companies, I’ve heard from environmentalists and I’ve heard from First Nations and communities that they don’t see how we get to certainty when they don’t know where the aquifers are. They don’t see how we come to certainty on projects when we can’t adequately map the water channels in their communities’ subsurface, and so forth.

Does the minister believe that six new staff within the Ministry of Environment are adequate to actually do the
[ Page 6271 ]
mapping that’s required so that we can finally appropriately protect our water resources? Because it doesn’t sound like that to me.

Hon. M. Polak: Important, though, to have the context in that they’re not starting from scratch. A significant number of our aquifers have already been mapped. We also work together with the Oil and Gas Commission and also with local governments around aquifer mapping.

I should just say — although you can pursue it with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — that we have our six full-time-equivalents in addition to the rather large water program that we already have. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations will have a complement of 80 FTEs that will be added to them to support the act. There is substantial staffing to go with this. Again, our responsibilities are largely on the science and policy end.

We have a figure on what percentage of aquifers have been mapped, but we didn’t have it in our material here. If I get that in the meantime, I’ll share it. But they aren’t starting from scratch, and that’s important to know.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is the minister able to share, I guess, the background documents which led to the decision to charge the fees as they are, whether it be the $2.25 for a million litres or the other figures for other categories of water users? How did those fees get determined? What were the background documents, the decisions that led to those fees being charged in that way?

I argue that the value of water is not high enough to properly protect them. I know the minister has argued otherwise, so it would be interesting to see the background documents that she had to give her that point of view.

Hon. M. Polak: This has always been a cost recovery operation. It has been since the B.C. government started allocating water. We certainly can provide the math with respect to how we projected what we expected to be the costs, with respect to how that was divided amongst different industries and different organizations like local governments, etc.

That’s something that took place over the lengthy consultation, in part around fees, that began back in 2009 and then was also affected by putting out some draft ideas for amounts and then discussing with the different industries on how we fine-tuned that so that it was fair.

We certainly heard a lot in the consultations about the principles that we ought to approach water pricing with. Making sure that the cost was spread fairly across different industries, based on impact on the resource, was something that allowed us to make the final adjustments that saw the water-pricing regime as it has been released.

[1800]

S. Chandra Herbert: Is there a discussion around inflation or reassessing the amount of money, given that salaries increase, costs increase, but the fee, at least, might stay the same? How is that going to be addressed?

Hon. M. Polak: What’s new, of course, is not the process whereby we arrive at fees. That has always been the same. What is new is that now groundwater will be included in that. So we would expect that we would approach the pricing of groundwater similarly to the way we have always approached surface water. That is, we tend to review it every five or six years, and if we believe there is a lift that’s needed, then we approach Treasury Board for approval to charge an increasing fee.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand the discussion in parks is still ongoing about regularized fee increases in order to deal with deficiencies that might come up. Why is that same principle not being used here?

Hon. M. Polak: In part it’s because what we are doing is recovering our cost for administration, which, as the member can appreciate, is not affected by inflation to the same degree that the kinds of costs a park facility operator might encounter for supplies and for their regular operations. That’s part of that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is it a set formula that is required by law that the amount of money taken in from water fees goes right back out into Ministry of Environment–FLNRO support for water, or could some of that end up in general revenue? How is that?

Hon. M. Polak: It was Treasury Board direction that the cost be recovered and returned into the system. Of course, any government any time can make decisions about how they want to allocate funding, but the decision that has been handed down by Treasury Board is that that money recovered through fees would go into the system of managing the resource.

S. Chandra Herbert: One of the aspects of the Water Sustainability Act was about — I wouldn’t say control — community advisory, community support for the use of water, the suggestion being that pilot projects be established for community water boards of a sort.

I know up in the Cowichan Valley there’s real interest in this. A number of communities across the province want these. The Okanagan already has had a water board for many years.

Are there new initiatives coming to support greater community advice, control — whatever the words you want to use — on the use of their own water resources?

Hon. M. Polak: The act does enable that. That will come over time as the regulations are developed to see
[ Page 6272 ]
exactly how that will unfold. I imagine it will unfold differently in different communities depending on what their level of involvement is, what they would like to have in terms of their level of involvement.

We began with the fees as the first part of the regulation, because of course, without the cost recovery, we don’t have the capacity to then staff up and deliver on the rest of the implementation of the act. But we expect that the regulation development would be largely conducted over the course of this coming year.

S. Chandra Herbert: At what point…? I won’t ask that question. I’ll be good.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yeah, no water puns there. Anyway, I will restrain myself, as we sometimes need to remind water users to do. Oh wait. I guess I just did that.

I will move on. There will be more questions, I know, in FLNRO around their potential use of water. Once the numbers of how many aquifers have been mapped arrives, I would be interested.

[1805]

I’d also be interested in at what point within the next while will we actually have them all mapped. What is the goal? Because if you don’t know it, you don’t know you’re hurting it. It would be really good to know that at least in the populated areas or where industrialized activity is — at least right now — those are done.

Hon. M. Polak: I can tell the member that we have part of the answer and that we’re pursuing the second part of the answer.

The first part of the answer is that we have mapped more than 1,000 aquifers in B.C. Of course, the crucial information missing from that is that I can’t tell you right now out of how many. But we will endeavour to have that information for the member. We certainly recognize that that’s a crucial part of understanding the allocation.

One of the key pieces of the Water Sustainability Act is the fact that we will be managing surface and groundwater as one integrated resource — which, of course, is how it should be — and the fact that we will now be able to have powers to restrict water usage during times of drought and scarcity which may negatively impact either surface environmental flows or aquifer levels.

S. Chandra Herbert: A concern that’s been raised with me…. I believe it’s in an area known as Steele Springs. It’s out in the Armstrong-Shuswap area, where a dairy farmer in Spallumcheen has been spreading manure and other things. That’s been getting the nitrates to enter into the community water well.

People are saying that they have to now pay for new equipment so that they can actually drink the water, when they didn’t need to do that before. They had been warning that there was a problem for years. They just want to be able to drink their water, which they have paid for and put the resources into. They don’t understand why this problem has been allowed to go on for so long.

Can the minister explain what has happened there? What is being done to address the problem? People shouldn’t have to pay for somebody else’s abuse, ignorance or what have you that has polluted their water system.

Hon. M. Polak: We do know, from working with Interior Health, that there is a combination of factors that are affecting the aquifer — one of which is the impact of agricultural activity, some of which was not appropriate. There is a water-quality advisory. It’s not a do-not-drink order — so it stopped short of people having to boil their water — or a do-not-use order. Nevertheless, it’s certainly concerning to the community.

Staff inspected the farm in March of 2014. As a result of that, they issued an inspector’s order — several requirements that were placed on the farm owner. Those needed to be met. To date, they have complied with the order. Part of that involved stopping any of the applications for 2014. They in turn have to develop a nutrient management plan, hire a qualified professional and do regular soil and water sampling.

We are working with the Interior Health Authority, with the Ministry of Attorney General and with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to coordinate further sampling and discuss a comprehensive approach in the entire valley. As I say, we’re aware that there’s a combination of factors that are affecting the aquifer. It will take multiple actions to improve the water quality, not just the work that’s being undertaken with the farm.

I apologize. I misread the abbreviation. It’s MAG. That’s Ag, not Attorney General. I apologize. Don’t ask the Attorney General about it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you. I won’t.

Certainly, there were farmers….

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: I could, yeah.

Certainly, I heard from folks that it wasn’t that they were concerned about farming. They were farmers themselves. It was just that they’d been raising concerns, and it seemed, in their view, to take a long time. It’s going to take years for this to pass through the system, given that it is an aquifer. Once you pollute an aquifer, it is very difficult and time-consuming, I understand — depending on the aquifer — to actually get it to a clean state again.

[1810]

Moving on to something that will lead to, they say, much more water in this province at extreme times: climate change, climate action. What are we going to do
[ Page 6273 ]
about the fact that we are overcooking the planet, that we have turned on the jets, so to speak, for many years, heating it all up and now having to deal with the impact of our pollution of the atmosphere?

I know that in climate action plan 1.0, not 2.0, there were very clearly identified plans to reduce climate emissions through to about 2012. We don’t know…. At least, I haven’t seen a comprehensive strategy to get to an 18 percent reduction by 2016. Now, I know the 2020 goal is often the one…. That’s the legislated goal, but of course, in order to get to a 33 percent reduction by 2020, we’re going to require a whole bunch more reductions before then.

When will we see a climate action plan 2.0 that communities can embrace, that citizens can get involved in, that will help us all unite to get to our necessary greenhouse gas emissions reductions?

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, we’ve always known that in order to continue to see emissions reductions, we have to continue to increase the number of actions that are being undertaken both within government and without government, quite broadly across our society. I don’t have a timeline at which we would be considering the implementation of a second climate action plan at this stage.

S. Chandra Herbert: I believe I asked this question about a year ago as well, and I guess I’m concerned that here we’re coming up towards 2016. We have a goal. We have, I say, a moral requirement to continue to be reducing our emissions. That we don’t have a plan to get us potentially to an 18 percent reduction by 2016 is concerning, given that that’s a year away. Is the minister confident that we will get to an 18 percent reduction by 2016 absent a climate action plan 2.0?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s important to remember that just because there isn’t a published plan doesn’t mean that actions aren’t continuing. For example, the announced incentive program around the cement industry is one that, while it’s not part of any formalized climate action plan, certainly has the potential to create some significant benefits in that area with respect to reducing their emissions, which are significant, and perhaps even adding a benefit in terms of development of new technology and new resources that could be applied to other industries.

It would be wrong to suggest that actions don’t continue in the absence of a formalized second volume to the climate action plan.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is the minister confident that we will achieve an 18 percent reduction by 2016?

Hon. M. Polak: I do have confidence that we will be able to meet our targets. Now, we track those. We work hard to ensure that the things that we are responsible for are continuing. We work hard to look for other opportunities, other initiatives that we can engage in more broadly across the community. I do have a high degree of confidence that we can meet that.

It’s always a challenge, and it’s especially a challenge when your economy is growing. But I look at the evidence with respect to how we achieved our 2012 target. Of course, we did that at a time when our GDP improved better than most of the rest of Canada, yet we still managed to reach that target. At the risk of putting myself out on the line as minister, I do have a high degree of confidence that we can.

S. Chandra Herbert: What percentage is the cement industry currently in terms of climate change emissions within B.C., and what’s the goal in terms of reducing those emissions?

[1815]

Hon. M. Polak: Currently cement production accounts for 3 percent of the province’s greenhouse gas emissions, and that’s broken down into approximately 60 percent process emissions and 40 percent combustion emissions.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand. I have one more question for today, so I’ll make it a two-parter. The previous question I’d asked: what was the goal in terms of the actual reduction in the cement industry with this new plan? If they are 3 percent, are we looking at halving the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions? Is it 1 percent reduction? Is it 20 percent? Is there a goal? Obviously, the government has put a bunch of money into it so would probably have a plan or a thought of what it could lead to.

I guess the other part to that is: at what timeline does the government think those emission reductions will actually be achieved? Certainly not in time for 2016, unless they’ve got a real genie in their sleeves or something like that. I don’t know. Those metaphors don’t really work together, but it’s 6:15 at night, so I would hope that’s acceptable.

Hon. M. Polak: It is a five-year program, but we’re still in the process of analyzing just what is reasonable to expect from that program. A lot of that will depend on the science around it.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.m.

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

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada