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)

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 20, Number 10

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to welcome salmon farmers and those that represent them. We have Jeremy Dunn, B.C. Salmon Farmers; Claire Backman, Marine Harvest Canada; Stewart Hawthorn, managing director of Grieg Seafood; Tim Rundle, general manager of Creative Salmon Company; and Fernando Villarroel, COO of Cermaq Canada. Would the House please help them feel welcome.

S. Simpson: I’m really pleased to introduce, collectively, the leadership of the B.C. Federation of Labour, which is here with us today. I know they’re meeting with members on both sides today around a whole series of issues that are critical to working people in British Columbia — Irene Lanzinger, Aaron Ekman, the officers and all of the leadership. I’m sure many of us are going to join them this evening at a reception as well.

[1005]

I hope the House will make them welcome. Hopefully, the House will also spend a lot of time listening to what we’re going to hear from our friends in the Federation of Labour today. Please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: Joining us today is Mr. Scott Hannah, the president and CEO of the Credit Counselling Society. The Credit Counselling Society started in British Columbia in 1996. It has offices now from Victoria to Ottawa, with its head office being in New Westminster.

Credit Counselling Society helps consumers struggling with debt. It provides education for consumers, helping to manage their finances, including reaching out to youth. It will help 50,000 people this year; it helps 50,000 people every year. I would ask that the House please make Mr. Hannah feel welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: It gives me great pleasure today to rise and to introduce members of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Sue Taylor is B.C.’s regional director, and she’s in the gallery today, along with ten of their volunteer advocates.

Our ministry works closely with the Canadian Diabetes Association when developing programs and services for British Columbians with diabetes. They’re here today to meet with MLAs and educate staff in the building about the risks of diabetes and also prevention of diabetes. I ask the House to please join me in making them feel very welcome.

J. Tegart: It’s with great pleasure that I rise today to acknowledge the work of our dedicated constituency assistants, who are visiting Victoria and in the precinct today. These are the people who answer our phones, deal with concerns from our constituents and hold the fort down when we’re here in Victoria.

We thank them for their professionalism, their compassion, their empathy and their ability to serve in sometimes very difficult situations. Thank you from all of us to all of you. Would the House please make them welcome here today.

D. McRae: I’d be remiss, but…. Joining the salmon farmers mentioned earlier is Laurie Jensen from Mainstream. She’s a resident of the Comox Valley. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to join with the opposition Labour critic to welcome members of the B.C. Federation of Labour here to the gallery today. I can assure the member that both ministers and MLAs are happy to meet and discuss issues with the B.C. federation. We have made that part of our practice. We look forward to having those discussions both during the day and later this evening at the reception.

J. Darcy: It also gives me great pleasure to welcome to the precinct the B.C. Optometrists, who are visiting us in Victoria today. These are people who care for our eye health every day, and they also do wonderful work in our communities. They’re piloting various projects, providing eye checkups and the first pair of glasses to kids in schools who wouldn’t otherwise have access to them.

They gave us a wonderful presentation today about the connection between seeing and learning and education and employment and general health. Welcome please to the precinct the B.C. Optometrists.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — JUSTICE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I am pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. This bill amends the
[ Page 6276 ]
following statutes: the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the Coroners Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Judicial Compensation Act, the Jury Act, the Power of Attorney Act and the Representation Agreement Act.

[1010]

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

Bill 6, Justice Statutes 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)

BURNABY FAMILY LIFE SOCIETY
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

K. Corrigan: Burnaby Family Life has been offering programs and services to individuals and families in Burnaby since 1971. It provides a broad range of programs and counselling — parenting, pregnancy, English language, life skills — and has several child care programs. The members for Burnaby-Edmonds, Burnaby-Lougheed and I recently were hosted by executive director Michel Pouliot on a tour of various facilities and met with the immigrant women’s support group, spoke to a counsellor for women and children escaping violence and visited the pregnancy outreach program.

That pregnancy outreach program helps people like Erika. Erika was homeless, in an abusive relationship, and then she found out she was pregnant. Young, unsupported and inexperienced, she was not sure how she was going to take care of herself or her baby. She found the pregnancy outreach program. It was here that she healed, she says, from the trauma of being in an abusive relationship and learned to take care of herself and her baby. This group gave her a family and a safe place to be.

Unfortunately, last year the pregnancy outreach program had to turn away 58 women due to lack of funding, but for Erika, it was a refuge. She was provided with food and clothing. Staff supported her, advocated for her with her job, helped her find housing and support with documentation for B.C. Housing. She is overwhelmed and touched that Maria, the outreach worker, was actually there with her during her son’s delivery.

Thank you to Burnaby Family Life for all that you do to help to keep our community strong, inclusive, welcoming and safe.

WOMEN IN THE RCMP

E. Foster: March 3, 1975, was a day that marked a giant step for women in Canada. On that day, exactly 40 years ago today, 30 young graduate recruits from every part of Canada stepped into the drill hall at Depot division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police training centre in Regina and into the history books. What made this a memorable moment in the 100-year history of the RCMP was that each of these recruits were part of the very first class of women to train as front-line members of the force, changing the face of the RCMP forever.

The previous year, in May of ’74, the force announced that they would accept females in operational uniform roles, and the lineup of interested young women began. Hundreds applied, and 32 were chosen. Six were from British Columbia. Their previous careers ranged from nurse, teacher, model, single mom. What they all had in common was an inner drive to make a difference.

In September of that same year they reported to the academy in Regina, Saskatchewan, to begin their training. The force had very little time for planning, and they all knew they were treading on uncharted ground. These were the day of single-man shifts. Portable radios were yet to be invented.

After six months of intensive training, and on this day 40 years ago, 30 young women graduated and were transferred to communities across Canada. Seven of that first class, known as Troop 17, were sent to towns and cities across British Columbia and began their careers serving the people of this great province. Many stayed and, like those who followed, continued to pursue their careers and raise their families here.

One of this class, a lifelong friend of mine and my wife’s — a young teacher from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia — Bev Busson, first stationed in Salmon Arm, became the commanding officer of B.C. and later the commissioner of the RCMP. She attributes her success in large measure to the great support she received here early in her career.

These courageous women and their successors have provided powerful examples of the role that women continue to play to ensure the safety and security of our communities and inspire young people of the next generation with their legacy of honour and equality.

FORESTRY PROGRAM AT CARIHI
SECONDARY SCHOOL IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: Innovative education is an idea to which we all aspire, and it was with great pleasure that I went out with a class of grade 11 and 12s who were taking part in Carihi’s forestry courses. The students were heading into their exam and went out in what I guess could be termed a revision walk, their teacher using the examples of trees in both yards and in the bush around the school to ensure that his students recognized and could name various species. The grade 12s also had to give the Latin tags.

[1015]

Their classroom was overflowing with enthusiasm and with project work. One student had studied an infestation of the Beaver Lodge lands, another had built a
[ Page 6277 ]
model log boat and explained to me the log export industry, and three students worked together on a mechanical grapple yarder.

This is not a traditional academic course but attracts high-flying students as much as it does those who are struggling in regular class. Students are prepared at the end of it to go to UBC’s forestry program, into industry or choose another path. It gives them eight credits at the end of the two semesters. The course is wide-ranging, allowing students to explore orienteering and mapping, wilderness safety and silviculture. The students and their teacher, Jason Kerluck, who’s also the enthusiastic rugby and wrestling coach for the school, are very, very keen. The course has been running for three years and is now being used as a model for other school districts.

There’s a close working relationship with industry. Campbell River has been essential to the coastal forest industry for many years, and both local companies and the Truck Loggers Association have been highly supportive of the program. They’ve donated everything from gumboots through to a bus to allow the students to get out to worksites more easily.

There are numerous field trips associated with the class, including visits to the PRT nursery, to TimberWest harvesting blocks, to their dry-land sort, to Western Forest Products tree planting, to the museum in Campbell River, to T-Mar industries, the Beaver Lodge lands, Strathcona Park Lodge as well as to Holbrook Dyson Logging worksites.

School district 72 has long been one of the most innovative and stimulating school districts in the province, allowing this course to develop and thrive. It’s just one more example of why teachers and families have looked to Campbell River as a place for cutting-edge education.

DIABETES AWARENESS AND
CANADIAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION

D. Bing: I rise today to speak to the House about diabetes awareness and the Canadian Diabetes Association. The work that the association does every day makes a difference in the lives of over 400,000 British Columbians who live with diabetes. That’s more than one in ten British Columbians, but they are not alone in this fight against this disease. Today we have representatives of the Canadian Diabetes Association here in Victoria. I would like to thank them for all the work they do in prevention and treatment.

In 1920 Sir Frederick Banting was working as a medical practitioner in London, Ontario, when he first conceived the idea of extracting insulin from a pancreas to treat diabetes. Following his breakthrough, the Diabetic Association of Ontario was formed in the late 1940s. As other provinces and territories started to form their own associations, it became clear that if the provincial branches combined their resources they could more effectively serve their membership.

This culminated in 1953 in the formation of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Today the association is active in more than 150 Canadian communities and supports people living with diabetes through research, advocacy, education and services. Their mission is to lead the fight against diabetes by helping those affected to live healthy lives, preventing the onset and consequences of diabetes and discovering a cure.

In closing, I would like to thank the association for all their advocacy and work here in British Columbia and in Canada.

NUU-CHAH-NULTH FIRST NATIONS
FISHING RIGHTS

S. Fraser: On March 9 the Nuu-chah-nulth are going to court to implement their aboriginal fishing rights that have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada and are now protected by the constitution. Due to Canada failing to negotiate a new fishing regime that recognizes the aboriginal fishing rights of Nuu-chah-nulth Nations to fish and sell fish from their territories, the nations are returning to court for a new trial in which Canada will attempt to justify the indefensible — its past and ongoing infringements of Nuu-chah-nulth aboriginal fishing rights.

Aboriginal fishing rights are woven into the cultures, histories and economies of Nuu-chah-nulth Nations. There is a strong and well-documented history of harvesting seafood on Vancouver Island’s west coast, for both food and economy. Over the past 100 years Canadian regulations have decreased Nuu-chah-nulth access to seafood resources, transforming once thriving communities to places of poverty and desperation.

In 2009 five Nuu-chah-nulth Nations established a legal right to fish and sell fish through a court case known as Ahousaht et al. v. Canada. Both the trial and appeal courts involved in this case established a process to help the nations and Canada negotiate fisheries based on these newly recognized rights. However, there has been little or no progress.

[1020]

Nuu-chah-nulth ha’wiih and nations intend to start what will be a lengthy trial in a good way by gathering with supporters on the steps of the courthouse, singing the Nuu-chah-nulth song and praying to the Creator for guidance. They are going to the law courts next week in Vancouver, March 9, to implement their aboriginal fishing rights that have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada and are now protected by the constitution. This is about justice, and we in this House need to stand with Nuu-Chah-Nulth in their strong effort to seek that justice.

SALMON AQUACULTURE

D. McRae: As we work in British Columbia to grow our diversified economy, we must ensure that we’re
[ Page 6278 ]
working with industries in every region of the province — industries that are committed to economic, social and environmental responsibility. In many of B.C.’s coastal communities that means aquaculture, growing important products, including shellfish and salmon. Salmon raised here in B.C. are in high demand around the world — especially in the United States, where we know the economy is on the rebound, and in Asia, where it continues to grow as a crucial market for British Columbia.

Salmon farming in B.C. employs people in some of the most underemployed areas in our province and supports many businesses that depend on a steady supply of salmon for their survival. Cultured and farmed salmon raised in B.C. is our province’s No. 1 agricultural export and has been so for the past five years. In fact, farming salmon generated $595 million in sales in 2013, which represented 41 percent of B.C.’s $1.4 million seafood sector.

Salmon farmers work hand in hand with First Nations to employ people in remote coastal communities, areas that are creating sustainable jobs where it is often challenging and unemployment is high. We have great companies raising salmon in British Columbia. They’re bringing much-needed investment to our province. They have built lasting and equitable partnerships with many coastal First Nations. Our province is home to North America’s only certified organic salmon-farming company, and all of the companies have committed to reaching the highest level of third-party environmental certification by 2020.

As we look to grow our agrifood sector in British Columbia and do our part to feed a growing world, we look to salmon farmers as an important partner, an industry we can be proud of in British Columbia and one that can employ thousands of British Columbians.

Oral Questions

B.C. PAVCO CONTRACT
WITH PARAGON GAMING

D. Eby: This government is building a new casino and resort at B.C. Place in partnership with the Las Vegas company called Paragon Gaming. They chose this company after the B.C. Liberal Party received a $50,000 donation from Paragon during the tendering process. But after signing, Paragon said they just couldn’t afford the $6 million a year they’d promised to pay, so this government cut the rent in half for their pals.

When word about the giveaway got out just a couple weeks before the election, the Minister of Education did a number of media interviews in which he denied the contract existed. Well, we now have a copy of that contract. Its effective date predates the minister’s media interviews by more than a month. To the minister responsible, what does he think is worse: giving a $3 million break to a major B.C. Liberal donor or misleading the public about it two weeks before the election?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, on this side of the House we are very, very proud of the impact, the economic impact, that B.C. Place has on the economy not just of Vancouver but the entire province of British Columbia. The investments that we’ve seen in the revitalization of B.C. Place have directly led to the attraction of world-class events, the latest being the announcement just the other day of the rugby sevens tournament being hosted here in British Columbia.

Now, with respect to the question that the member posed. The development of the land just west of B.C. Place is an important part of the plans of PavCo to generate as much net new revenue as possible. We’re confident that the contract that’s in place now, and that PavCo is working through, is going to add to those benefits.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: What a remarkable opportunity to see a new dance invented in the Legislature: the Minister of Transportation sidestep.

The Minister of Education wasn’t alone in trying to mislead the public. In November in this House the Minister of Transportation stood up and said there was no giveaway contract signed before the election. He said: “At that particular point in time no decisions had been taken by the PavCo board. For the member to suggest anything other at this point is simply false.” Yet both Paragon’s website and the contract that we now have say the complete opposite.

[1025]

To the minister responsible, what else is he hiding from British Columbians about this deal?

Hon. T. Stone: As I said in my former response, this project is going to add to the economic viability of B.C. Place. Again, we are extremely proud of the fact that, because of investments that we’ve made in B.C. Place as a government, this project, this world-class stadium, is now generating over $100 million of economic activity for the people of British Columbia.

As the member opposite knows, the development of land to the west of B.C. Place has always been part of the plan to revitalize this site. In 2011, after an extensive public consultation process, the city of Vancouver approved the relocation of the Edgewater Casino under its existing gaming licence. The city of Vancouver has subsequently changed that, and that was the cause of the reduction in the anticipated revenue from $6 million to $3 million per year.

C. James: At the time of this contract giveaway, Paragon was operating two casinos in Alberta. Apparently, it never occurred to the then PavCo board members, the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Education to check out their
[ Page 6279 ]
friends’ references before signing this half-billion-dollar deal.

Based on our FOI requests, PavCo had absolutely no correspondence with the Alberta gaming regulator for the six months before the deal was made. BCLC also had no records of correspondence with Alberta’s regulator over the same period.

Can the minister responsible for B.C. Place explain why the government didn’t check Paragon’s references before signing a half-billion-dollar, 20-year deal with them on behalf of B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. T. Stone: Perhaps the members opposite should let British Columbians know why they have consistently — and this is perhaps one of the few issues that they have been consistent on — done everything that they can to cast aspersions upon what has been a tremendous economic generator for the province. Every opportunity that the members opposite get, they attack the success that we see at B.C. Place.

This is a world-class asset that is generating $100 million per year for the British Columbia economy, that’s attracting world-class events, whether it be the Grey Cup…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: …or whether it be the Alcoholics Anonymous conference, which is coming in a number of years, which will bring tens of thousands of visitors to Vancouver. Why is it that the members opposite take every single opportunity they can to kick B.C. Place and the incredible opportunities that B.C. Place provides for the people of British Columbia?

Madame Speaker: Member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: You’d think that checking references is basic due diligence when spending taxpayer dollars. Not according to the B.C. Liberals. If this government had actually bothered to check their major donor references, they would have learned the following about Paragon’s history of casino operations in Canada.

First, the Alberta regulator pulled the licence for one of Paragon’s casinos due to mismanagement. Two, the Alberta regulator trusted Paragon so little that they actually demanded financial security to ensure that Paragon would hand over slot machine winnings. The Alberta government audited Paragon and found it was misusing Alberta government aboriginal development grants. And then Paragon decided to declare bankruptcy at one of their resorts.

[1030]

Again to the minister, why didn’t this government ask the Alberta gaming regulator whether Paragon was a reliable company before they signed a two-decade-long development deal for B.C. Place?

Hon. T. Stone: Previously when I was asked this same line of questions here in the House, I indicated that I had confidence in the fact that the officials at PavCo, including the board but also the management…. I have confidence that they did their due diligence on this agreement. I stand by those comments that I made back then. I believe they did their due diligence, and I am confident that this is a good agreement for PavCo, and it’s a good agreement for British Columbia.

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND
FUNDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF TEACHERS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

R. Fleming: Last week the Premier tweeted that school districts spend 7 percent of their budgets on administration. That is simply not true. Government’s own annual report on operating expenditures shows that B.C. school districts spend, on average, 3 percent of their budgets on administration. In the minister’s own district, Surrey school board, it’s as low as 2 percent on administration.

My question is to the Minister of Education. He knows the Premier was wrong. Will he correct her today in this House?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question, because it gives me an opportunity, again, to help the opposition understand…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: …the reality of financing in this province. The opposition way of looking at budgeting is just spend more. Just keep spending. Keep taxing.

What is very clear to this side of the House…. We have made it clear that we as government are finding efficiencies. We are asking school districts to join us in that. We are working with them. We have seen amazing work done by school districts already to find administrative savings.

We’re going to continue on that path, because that is exactly what taxpayers in the province of British Columbia expect from us so that every dollar we can save on administration goes into the classroom for the benefit of the students.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Well, the words “low-hanging fruit,” I think, were used last week to describe what the budget exercise that’s being downloaded onto school boards
[ Page 6280 ]
represents. This minister ought to know that any low-hanging fruit was picked a long time ago by school boards, who have been cut for ten and more years in British Columbia.

Let me quote the school board chair from Surrey, Laurae McNally, who notes that school boards just in the last two years have absorbed tens of millions of dollars of downloaded costs for MSP premiums, hydro rate increases and WorkSafe pension adjustments, not to mention the full wage cost for settling with 25,000 support staff in this budget year. All of these are provincially imposed costs by the B.C. Liberals. The chair of the Surrey school board is not exaggerating when she says: “We really have nowhere to cut.”

The minister promised over and over again to every British Columbian that his government would fully fund the cost of the teachers’ contract. Why is he now making his broken promise to parents, to school kids and to trustees their problem?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I appreciate the question. Even the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation said that the agreement is fully funded, and it is.

[1035]

Again, I think the members could make some notes here. Let me give some clear examples of what we’re talking about. We know of one school district that saved $17,000 by renegotiating their banking agreement — one school district. We have 60 in this province. Those are the kinds of best practices that we want to see school districts working on.

Another one was able to save $300,000 by taking their professional development outside of the school day so that they could keep the money in the classroom and not have to hire TOCs. So $421 million in this budget, the third balanced budget, is being invested over the next three years into classrooms for more teachers, more specialized teachers to deal with class composition, more learning-assistance teachers. That is what the future of education is looking for, and that’s what the taxpayers expect from us.

R. Austin: Perhaps the most important number that this Education Minister should be concentrating on is the fact that we are ninth out of ten provinces in education funding in Canada — $1,000 less than the average of all Canadian provinces.

Let’s get to another example, in the Delta school district, which has administration costs of just 2 percent. That’s as lean as one can get while keeping the lights on. No wonder the school board chair says: “We are at a bit of a loss where we would go to find these efficiencies.”

The minister made a promise not to force cuts on districts to fund the contracts that he signed. Why is he breaking this promise?

Hon. P. Fassbender: An additional $1.2 billion invested by this government since 2001 every year in education is not a small investment in the future of education. Additionally, in that same period 75,000 less students in this province, yet this government has clearly said that we are investing in the children of this province. We are prepared to continue to do that.

All we are asking school districts to do — as we are prepared to do, as government — is to find efficiencies on the administrative side, which we know are there, and they know are there. That will free dollars for further investment in classrooms. That is our commitment, and we are prepared to work with every one of the 60 school districts to find those efficiencies so that we can continue to invest.

Madame Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.

R. Austin: Well, here’s what the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association has to say: “It is clear that the new provincial education budget will mean further cuts in school districts across the province.” This is after more than a decade of cuts to our classrooms.

The minister said that administrative savings would stay in the school system. He said that he would fund the contracts he signed. Again, why is the minister breaking his promise to parents, trustees and teachers?

[1040]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I again find the logic opposite astounding, to say the least. Here’s a direct quote from the president of the BCTF — who, I understand, is in the gallery: “We are thankful that they are covering the cost of the negotiated collective agreement.” Why did he say that? Because it means more specialist teachers in the classroom. It means more special education support. It means more learning assistants in the classroom.

All we are saying is: let us put the investment in the classroom. Let’s find those administrative savings that we and the school districts can find together, so that we can continue to invest in the future of children’s education. That is this side of the House’s policy. That is our belief that that’s why we were elected, and we’re going to stand by that, because we know we’re going to be able to deliver.

HEALTH CARE WORKER LAYOFFS
AT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
AND HOSPITALS IN LOWER MAINLAND

J. Darcy: Under this B.C. Liberal government we’ve seen hospitals get dirtier and frail seniors get less care. That is the shameful legacy of Bill 29, tearing up contracts affecting thousands of health care workers, which the Supreme Court of Canada found to be illegal.

But despite failed cleaning audits and despite continuing outbreaks of C. difficile, it’s only B.C. Liberals who don’t
[ Page 6281 ]
seem to understand that cleaning is absolutely critical in health care. It’s only B.C. Liberals who don’t seem to understand that continuity of care is absolutely critical to our seniors in residential care.

Now another 1,200 health care workers at Vancouver Coastal Health and at Laurel Place care home in Surrey are about to lose their jobs because of this government’s contract flipping.

Will the Health Minister step in and ensure that these health care workers do not lose their vital jobs, jobs that are vital to health care, to our seniors and to service in B.C. hospitals?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the question.

We do think that it is appropriate, when you’re looking at housekeeping services, after ten years with one company, to go out to the market, because we believe in the principles of the Institute of Healthcare Improvement, which says that we should be looking for better patient outcomes, better population health and value for money.

So while we ensure, and health authorities ensure, that people living in residential care are provided with the necessary services and the hours of care they deserve and need, it is appropriate to go out for cleaning services to the market. In fact, in this particular case, 56 more full-time employees will be at work because of this change.

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

J. Darcy: Once again, the Health Minister has missed the point. There is ample evidence, if the minister would study it, that contract flipping is bad for health care, and it’s bad for health care workers. It’s time the minister took a close look at that.

Even if these workers are lucky enough to hold on to their jobs, they will have to start all over again in accruing vacation and benefits. It’s also bad health care policy that hospitals lose continuity of care and that frail seniors in our care homes have the care providers who are closest to them torn away because of contract flipping, and that’s what’s happening every month in this province.

It’s also bad for the mainly women workers, who are already amongst the lowest-paid public workers in this province, and it is bad for families when workers have to work more than two jobs in order to make ends meet.

Will the minister stand up today and make a commitment that his government will bring in the strong, successorship protections that will be good for health care, good for health care workers and good for the province of British Columbia?

[1045]

Hon. T. Lake: Health authorities have contracts in place with their providers that do maintain a high level of quality care and services. When there are changes, health authorities — Fraser Health in this particular case —are given a period of time, 90 days, to look at the change and make sure that any impacts on residents are mitigated. They work with the provider and ensure that the high standard of care for people living in residential care is maintained.

In the question, the situation of Vancouver Coastal, this is about cleaning services. I recognize one unionized group will come into the place of another unionized group and there are changes there. The companies and VCH will work to make sure that employment opportunities are offered so that most of the former workers will continue on working in those environments.

At the end of the day, a higher level of service, more people working to ensure that our health care facilities are maintained at the very highest standards.

AUDITS BY AUDITOR GENERAL
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: In 2013 the Liberal government said that they would create an office of the Auditor General for Local Government. In May of that year, nearly two years ago, the Auditor General for Local Government promised to conduct 18 audits in the first year of operation. As of today only one report has been released. Just one.

Can the minister of local government explain why that promise hasn’t yet been delivered?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We’ve had the opportunity to talk about this in estimates, and I look forward, as we move into estimates, to have this discussion as well.

The important thing to understand about the Auditor General for Local Government is that it’s an agency that’s outside of government. They have the autonomy, and you know that, with the audit council to perform that. We continue to have that dialogue, and we look forward to those audits coming forward in the spring.

Madame Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: It’s an interesting response, given that it was this government that formed the office and that it’s this government that said that the mission of the Auditor General for Local Government is to ensure that local property taxpayers receive the greatest possible benefit from each tax dollar. This comes at a cost of $2.6…. [Applause.]

They seem happy with that.

This comes at a cost of $2.6 million each year to B.C. taxpayers. Does the minister believe that $5.2 million for one audit over two years is good value for money?
[ Page 6282 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: We are always looking for ways that we can support local governments with efficiencies and accountability. Ultimately, all B.C. residents stand to benefit from the work of the Auditor General for Local Government as it identifies ways to help local communities deliver effective, efficient and economical services to taxpayers.

The AGLG, as I said in the previous, is a functionally independent office with a high degree of autonomy. Government has no ability to direct the AGLG regarding reporting timelines on audit topics.

M. Mungall: Well, the taxpayers are footing the bill. They’re footing $5.2 million over these last two years, and they were expecting to see roughly about 36 audits. They promised 18 audits for the first year. We were expecting 18 audits then the second year. Big promise. We expected delivery. We expected 36 audits. We got one. That is a major shortfall, if I have ever seen one.

What is going on here? The Liberal government seems to think that this shortfall is perfectly acceptable. When is this minister going to fix this problem and make sure that taxpayers are getting value for their dollars?

[1050]

Hon. C. Oakes: Is that an idea that I’m hearing? Because I believe that you didn’t support the Auditor General for Local Government, and now we hear a position. Thank you very much. It’s great to have that clarity.

But again, we always look to support local governments in ways that we can support them as they move forward on understanding the importance of having the one-taxpayer principle.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: There is only one taxpayer. It is important for us to support local governments as we work through this.

I will remind everybody in the House that we did just finish a local government election. It was an opportunity. We talked with the Auditor General for Local Government. We heard from members opposite that as you go through a transition…. There are many members that have had local government experience. There is a transition period currently happening with local governments where people get elected. They’re going through budgeting processes. They’re also going through their strategic planning session.

This is an opportunity to work with local governments, to support local governments, to ensure that we’re making sure that they’re able to have the efficiencies that are required to meet their budgetary needs as they go through this budget process currently.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: At $5.2 million, this has got to be the most expensive report British Columbians have ever paid for. British Columbians would rather see dollars go to things like violence against women. This report got more money than what this government is putting into for violence against women — to prevent it and keep women safe. That is ridiculous.

Who’s asleep at the switch here? After failure to meet the plan for year 1, you’d think that this minister would actually take action, but no. The Liberals just sat around while taxpayers’ money was wasted again. This isn’t good enough.

But this minister seems to think it’s acceptable. Does the minister think that $5.2 million for one report is a success?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, I thank the member opposite for the question. We do feel that there’s great value in supporting local governments, ensuring that they have the supports around fiscal management. The AGLG, again, is a functionally independent office with a high degree of autonomy. It is my understanding that the AGLG has developed a revised plan to complete all of the outstanding audits. We look forward to these audits being presented shortly.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the little House I call continuing estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and here in the main chamber I call continued second reading on Bill 5.

[1055]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACT

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 5, the continuing debate on the Government Information Act. Certainly, the remarks I’m about to make have been guided in large measure by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who is an independent officer of the Legislature. Not a functionally independent officer but a genuinely independent officer. She’s selected by an all-party committee unanimously and performs her duties without any direction or suggestions from government ministers. So
[ Page 6283 ]
the office is a creature of the Legislature and reports to the Legislature.

The reports that she delivers are significant, and particularly on this bill, which falls within the broad jurisdiction that she provides guidance, her opinion, to the Legislature and to legislators. Indeed, in considering this legislation, she has written directly to the Legislature to offer her opinions about this legislation.

Now, the act that this legislation replaces, the Document Disposal Act, is very old and needed to be modernized. There’s no doubt about that. Her predecessor, Mr. Loukidelis, had made that position clear for a number of years in a variety of reports. So the general idea that the Document Disposal Act dating from the ’30s should be replaced by a…. It was an entirely paper-based era back then. It needed to be replaced to be reflective of contemporary reality in terms of electronic documents, is, in fact, probably overdue here in this Legislature.

We are broadly supportive of the principle of moving beyond the limitations of the Document Disposal Act. But significantly, what the Information and Privacy Commissioner has said is that this bill has — and these are not her words; these are my words — a number of major defects. Principally, the major defect is an absence of what is called a duty to document. What she refers to is something that she has advised government of continuously for some years now.

In a letter to the then minister, Mr. Ben Stewart…. He’s over in Beijing these days. It’s $6,000 a month, I believe, for his accommodation and a $5,000-a-month car allowance, so don’t worry about him. But what she said to Mr. Stewart then was that she referred in this letter to a recent investigative report entitled Increase in No Responsive Records to General Access to Information Requests: Government of British Columbia.

In her report she recommended that, and in her letter, she quotes herself: “…government create a legislative duty within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, FIPPA, to document key decisions as a clear indication that it does not endorse ‘oral government’” — and that’s in quotation marks in this quotation — “and that it is committed to be accountable to citizens by creating an accurate record of its actions.” The principle, I think, from that description is relatively clear.

Why is this important in her view? She goes on to say: “The idea behind this 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 the public body.”

[1100]

That’s what she recommended. The rationale is straightforward, clear and indeed, one would think, intrinsic to the operation of a parliamentary democracy.

As I stated at my opening, Mr. Loukidelis, the previous commissioner, had stated repeatedly…. He made a very similar request of the government. He had been urging the B.C. government to review the legislative framework around the Document Disposal Act, as well as the policies and practice around records and information management. He said in an interview: “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.” We’ll get to the historical record a bit later in my comments.

Certainly, it’s clear that these views of the Information And Privacy
[ Page 6284 ]
Commissioner and the previous one have been before government for some time and would have been well-known to the government at the point that they drafted this legislation and made the decision through cabinet to bring the legislation before this House for debate and approval — one assumes, given the government majority.

This is a decision not to include a duty to document in the legislation that’s been very consciously taken. Very consciously taken. They know about it. They’ve been advised about it. The legislation has been a long time in preparation. There’s an internal B.C. Liberal government caucus committee that examines legislation, so one can presume that there were internal debates. One would hope that this very important issue was raised by backbench MLAs — and questioned the minister responsible who is bringing the legislation forward. All of that took place inside the legislative process before the legislation became public.

The question, I suppose, that we would like the minister to answer…. He’ll have a chance at the conclusion of this debate. He’ll have an opportunity to reply and summarize the comments of members of the opposition, if he so chooses. I would be interested in his response as to why the government chose to reject the recommendation of two successive Information and Privacy Commissioners and, indeed, the practice in many other parliamentary democracies — I’ll give a few examples later on — of putting in legislation the principle of a duty to document. I look forward to that.

Just to give an example of this — the Information and Privacy Commissioner touched upon this in one of her reports: the rise of “no responsive documents” in requests. There’s been a dramatic increase when people ask for records. One of the reasons for that, apparently, is that the government has a practice — I would say inappropriate, and I am sure the Information and Privacy Commissioner would agree — of labelling e-mails as transitory. The government’s transitory record policy explains that when a record is temporarily useful — for example, draft materials or something like that — it can be considered transitory and then deleted.

When the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was investigating the increase of “no responsive records,” it identified the misuse of transitory e-mails to be one of the causes. The Premier’s office has been particularly notorious for abusing this policy and for deleting e-mails from the public record.

[1105]

That’s an example of a very good reason why enshrined in legislation should be this duty to document. That’s what gave rise, I think in part, to the concern that’s been expressed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. That is a major defect in this legislation. As I say, I would be curious to hear what the minister has to say about it. I’m sure the public would be equally curious as well.

The next area in the legislation that I want to touch upon is the way in which this legislation will impact archiving of records. What the Information and Privacy Commissioner has pointed out is that…. In her report — a lengthy report entitled A Failure to Archive: Recommendations to Modernize Government Records Management dated July 22, 2014 — she begins by saying, and this may not be obvious to every member of the public: “Archiving is a public good. Records about key actions and decisions of government must be preserved in a lasting historical record for future generations. Without a comprehensive public archive, access to information and the ‘right to know’ is significantly and severely impaired.”

In fact, the illustration of this point — it’s not simply an abstract point — is that 33,000 boxes of valuable government records have been accumulating in warehouses for the past ten years rather than being deposited in the B.C. Archives.

How this came about was that back in those halcyon days of the first term of the Gordon Campbell government, when the government was being retooled — let’s put it that way; I’m trying to think of a polite way to put it — it was decided that responsibility for the B.C. Archives would be transferred from a government ministry to the Royal British Columbia Museum. When that took place, the museum, examining its budget, as it had to, decided it only had sufficient resources to maintain the existing collection.

To resolve this funding imbalance, it established a fee schedule — a pretty expensive one — for the processing of archival material, which has led the ministries to warehouse rather than to transfer government archival records. In other words, the fee, which is mentioned in the report, of $454 per box — largely related to the cost of microfilming the records within each box — has been rejected by ministries as their budgets have been ground down. So the resulting approximately 3,000 boxes a year have simply been pushed off into warehouses.

That’s a concern not because…. There is, of course, an ongoing cost to warehousing these documents. Indeed, in the report some of the ministries are paying…. I think the Ministry of Justice is paying $1.5 million a year in warehousing costs for retaining documents. So it’s not a question of saving money by not putting them in the Archives. There’s an ongoing cost to simply keeping these 33,000 boxes in warehouses.

Leaving that aside, this is an ongoing issue. Lest anyone think there is no value to these records, it’s important, perhaps…. The commissioner does address this in the report. She makes a very compelling case, if it needed to be made.

Those people like, perhaps, the member for Chilliwack-Hope, who described himself as a historian — and, indeed, I think that’s an accurate title of his academic training — and others in the Legislature who have some training or interest in history will understand that archives are the corporate memory of societies, nations, provinces, municipalities and institutions. Many historical records, many explorations of the Archives, turn up documents and patterns of behaviour and actions of government that are profound and, indeed, very helpful.

[1110]

In the report the commissioner gives some examples.

“Government has routinely made use of records in the B.C. Archives to advance the public interest. For example, government has relied on such records in litigation against tobacco companies in order to recover health care costs. Along with other litigants, the government has used archived records to assist the court in assessing First Nations land claims, where public records were instrumental in documenting the history of indigenous peoples, providing evidence of historical land use and rights.

“Ministries often access the B.C. Archives for information about past decisions and actions, either as background to current policy development or to address challenges from the public. The Public Guardian and Trustee frequently requests divorce, probate and bankruptcy records to fulfil its public mandate.

“Government involvement in litigation relating to events that took place years or decades ago frequently necessitates the preservation and cataloguing of records. For example, when governments are involved in class action litigation based on allegations such as abuse in government institutions like hospitals and schools, the information preserved in public archives is instrumental in crafting a defence or in quantifying damages.”

A couple of direct references are included in the report to actual cases, decisions of the court at various levels.

“B.C. researchers have also used the Archives to shed light on many issues of significant public interest. University of British Columbia researchers have used patient records held by the Archives to study how psychiatric illnesses have changed over time.

“Archival research on government’s 130-year-old decision to levy a head tax on Chinese immigrants helped foster a public dialogue, ultimately leading to the recent apology to Chinese Canadians by the B.C. Legislature.”

That’s an event that we all participated in here in the Legislature. Some of the background to those discussions, to the position that was taken by the government, was assisted by access to archival records.

“Similarly, archived records relating to the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II helped inform discussion leading to the apology to the Japanese-Canadian community in 2012.”

There was a previous and earlier procedure that took place in the federal parliament in 1988, when Brian Mulroney was the Prime Minister, at the federal level.

These are, in my view, compelling illustrations of the
[ Page 6285 ]
principle that the archives are a corporate national memory, a provincial memory important and intrinsic to our understanding of our own history, our own culture and has some very direct applications, contemporary applications, whether it’s litigation, the righting of historical wrongs, health research. These are important functions.

The idea that for a number of years documents have been sitting in boxes in a warehouse or warehouses is disturbing and, in my view, a major failure on the part of the government.

There are other examples. It is possible and should be possible, as the commissioner points out, to find efficiencies — I think that’s a word we heard in question period — talking about generating a single report over a period of two years.

“…find efficiencies and cost savings in the archiving process to lower the cost of addressing the backlog…. The Archives of Ontario estimates the average box of government records costs them approximately $270 to process. In addition, while the B.C. Archives seeks to transfer most records to microfilm — perhaps the ‘gold standard’ for preservation, but at considerable cost — some other archives in Canada choose to store the paper records instead.”

There are other ways of dealing with this. Indeed, in creating a modern and responsive system for archiving electronic records, the commissioner does mention the city of Vancouver. In collaboration with software developers from the company Artefactual, the archive staff there “developed an open source digital archiving system comprised of several integrated software components, each of which can be easily upgraded or replaced to accommodate future digital developments. The system took three years to build with a total cost to the city of about $1 million.”

[1115]

There are certainly other examples of public records offices, whether it’s in other countries — New Zealand, Britain — or other provinces that could be looked to as an example to do the job in a cost-effective but responsible way.

It’s unclear…. This is the reason why I expressed this concern. It’s unclear whether this legislation will enable the British Columbia government to move forward in clearing that backlog of 33,000 boxes or whether this legislation will enable the government to simply sidestep that problem and not deal with it.

Certainly, that was a strong recommendation by the commissioner in the report that she produced on July 22, 2014. She urged, as a step to undertake that, that the B.C. Archives itself, as an agency, be repatriated into government and be funded on the same basis as other valuable public programs. I’m not sure that this legislation responds to that recommendation.

The other issue that I want to deal with, and this is an important issue in creating archives in the digital age, is the issue of what is called file obsolescence. Given that digital technologies rapidly evolve, one has to devise a system for retaining records that will accommodate future technological change.

I’ve spoken, a little bit earlier, about the contemporary practice of microfilming records. Indeed, some historians will tell you that in the past, records have been committed to microfilm, or sometimes microfiche. I believe that is the brand name. The original records were destroyed. The microfilm ages, cracks and generally becomes very difficult to use and to read, so the historical record, despite the effort to retain it, becomes compromised.

What the commissioner says is:

“A trusted digital repository should address long-term data preservation and provide a logging feature that clearly describes how a record has been accessed or manipulated. Further, it should accept a variety of file formats and be sufficiently flexible to allow the implementation of new technology and best practices.”

She goes on to say:

“File format obsolescence is a potential problem in both physical and digital records. For example, consider a 1960s-era computer punch card. Unless the information contained in the punch card was migrated to a contemporary file format, it would be very difficult if not impossible to recover. Digital formats pose a more significant problem because they evolve or change more rapidly. Government already has records that are difficult to access because of obsolescent file formats.”

She goes on to recommend:

“Government must develop a digital infrastructure that enables the transfer of electronic records to the B.C. Archives so that they can be stored in the trusted digital repository. Both of these pieces are necessary. It makes no sense to build a transfer infrastructure without a repository to store those files, and it makes no sense to build a repository without an infrastructure to enable the transfer of those files.”

That’s a bit technical, but I think the practical consequence of spending the money and then not being able to access the product is a self-evident problem, and certainly she addresses that.

Whether this proposal, the legislation that we have before the House, will address that problem, she has a recommended path in terms of bringing the B.C. Archives back into general government and addressing that problem through the data infrastructure repository that she speaks of. Whether that will take place or not is something that will be, I hope, addressed by the minister, either at the conclusion of debate here on second reading or during the later process where we consider the legislation in more detail.

[1120]

The other area that I wanted to comment on was on the procedure under the Document Disposal Act which requires that the proposal to retain records come before the Public Accounts Committee. Since in the past I’ve chaired that committee for some years, I’m somewhat familiar with the process.

The commissioner describes it as a cumbersome and somewhat slow process. I think that’s a fairly accurate description, although she does say, I think inaccurately: “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.”

In fact, there has not been agreement to meet while the House is sitting, both in this session and last session
[ Page 6286 ]
and in previous sessions since this parliament began. The committee does meet more regularly outside of legislative sessions. So it’s slow and cumbersome but not quite as slow and cumbersome as the commissioner seems to suggest.

That whole process will be altered, as I understand it, in the way in which this bill is constructed. The important principle of some version of legislative scrutiny of the process is, I think, an important safeguard to the integrity of the records that are being preserved. Generally, the process has been that the chief archivist, constituted as a committee, comes before the Public Accounts Committee with a recommendation. That is usually not the subject of a great deal of debate, but on occasion there has been considerable interest by members of the committee.

I’m thinking of a recent interest in records coming out of the former Riverview Hospital, particularly patient records. It’s an issue that the Public Accounts Committee, perhaps surprisingly to some, has discussed several times. It still remains unresolved, because there’s a profound disagreement about what should be done there. These issues matter to people. That’s probably an example of important local historical records that have some value.

If I might, just to conclude. In my view, on behalf of my constituents, this legislation, while generally an advance, neglects a very important recommendation and omits entirely a duty to document. That is, in my view, called for in view of the recent reports of the commissioner; of, indeed, the conduct of the government in deleting records described as transitory; and of the huge administrative backlog, which is rather a frightening one. If any of those warehouses were to encounter a fire or some other natural disaster, those records might well be gone forever.

This legislation raises those important questions. The commissioner has given her recommendations, and it’s regrettable that the drafters of the legislation and the minister responsible for bringing this legislation before the House have chosen not to include those in this piece of legislation.

With those comments, I would conclude my remarks.

C. Trevena: I take my place to discuss Bill 5, the Government Information Act.

I find that while, obviously, we need to be working on how to modernize how we handle all of government’s information, there are some very troubling parts of this act. My colleagues on this side of the House have underlined where I think our main concerns are — that is, the duty to document, which is not included in this act. We’ve seen that since 2003 there hasn’t been any archiving of paper records and that there dearly needs to be a complete overhaul.

[1125]

The question of the duty to document is one that I would like to focus on. We live in a time where there is a lack of trust in what we do as politicians and what happens in this sphere. People feel that we are not being honest, that we are not being open, that we are not being transparent. They feel very distanced from it. That is something which I think should trouble all of us in this House — the fact that people feel that they have no engagement with the decision-making and with the decision-makers.

I have to say that I think one of the reasons this is the case is that people feel that they are potentially being manipulated by the lack of information, are being told just what they need to know. They don’t have access to the whole truth, to the whole picture. They are just being fed the titbits that have come out of the growing communications teams — both here in this province and, we know, also in Ottawa — that the government puts together.

Instead of finding out what’s really happening, they are getting spin. They are getting what used to be called propaganda. Now we call it spin. It’s got a nicer term. It sounds a bit cleaner. They are feeling very distanced from that.

One of the real lacks here in B.C., and, I believe, in other jurisdictions, is an openness and a transparency. These are the words that we use quite glibly: “We need openness. We need transparency. We need to have this.” You’ve got to start somewhere in what this openness and this transparency is.

One of the ways we’ve had it…. We’ve had a much-vaunted freedom-of-information system. This is a way to find out just what is happening, to get behind the scenes, to find out the ways that decisions were made. But so often these days you put in a freedom-of-information request, or you put in a request on behalf of an issue or on behalf of a constituent with whom you are working, and you get back that there have been no records, that there are no e-mails relating to this issue. Things are blacked out.

There is a sense that the information that has gone into making a decision is being manipulated — that people aren’t able to find out just what the decision has been, how the decision has been reached. We suddenly get a blanket with: “This is what the decision is. This is what we’re saying.”

That really, I think, is very problematic for finding out what the government is thinking, how the government is working, whether as an opposition, as a journalist, as an individual who is trying to find out more about the mechanisms of the operation of government — trying to get that information.

The glib cliché or statement of “Information is power….” Information is essential. It is what gives us the education to act thoughtfully. Unless you have that access to information, you are not going to be able to have a thoughtful debate or have a thoughtful insight.

The duty to document is really a very important one. We know there are areas that the public will never see, and that is covered by cabinet confidentiality. But in a government making decisions, like any authority that
[ Page 6287 ]
was working on its behalf — the health authority, any other body making decisions — there has to be documentation. There has to be that record so people know how that decision was made. What were the steps to get to that decision? It’s all very well to come and say: “This was it.”

I recently put in a freedom-of-information request. It was asking for letters and e-mails about a certain subject. I got the end result. I got none of the…. What I had requested was: what was the thought process before you got to the end result? None of that was available. I assume it has all been shredded because of this sense that you don’t have to document. There is no duty to document.

[1130]

We live in a written culture. Our written culture goes back millennia. We don’t have an oral culture. Our First Nations have an oral culture. The B.C. First Nations have a very, very proud, very long oral culture. Their histories, their legacies, their ways of working have gone on for many, many millennia themselves through this oral tradition and through a tradition of art, through a tradition of song, through a tradition of dance. This has been a way of sharing their information. That obviously has changed now, since contact came. There was a rapid, rapid change that was imposed upon them. But they have lived with an oral tradition.

We haven’t. As a western democracy, we go back to the Greeks. We have had a written tradition for thousands of years. We have had that tradition. It’s the way we work. It’s the way we evolve. We look to writing as not just proof but as the evidence, as the information, as that basis on how decisions are made.

Having that level of…. It’s not necessarily sophistication; it’s just writing down notes saying: “This is what so-and-so said, and this is how we got to those decisions.” It’s important. This lack of the duty to document….

I’ve got to say that if a not-for-profit was applying for funding from the government and they didn’t provide documentation, they’d be told: “You can’t get the funding.” They’ve got to have that documentation. Or if a not-for-profit wants to open an account at the credit union, they’ve got to have documentation. They’ve got to have the minutes from their AGM.

Documentation is part of doing business. We are long beyond the gentleman’s agreement, the handshake, the verbal agreement. Documentation is how we do business. Documentation is how we show how we do business. We go back and we can follow through that chain of how decisions were made.

In this important piece of legislation, in bringing the recordkeeping into the 21st century, we should not be ignoring, literally, our culture, our history and our legacy of having a written culture — of having that importance, of having that need to have documentation.

I’ve got to say that if anybody went to the government with this lack of documentation and asked for any assistance, they would be laughed out. If you go along and say: “Well, it’s okay. We’ve agreed this. We’ll tell you about it, but no, we didn’t…. We decided that the information we had wasn’t important. It was transitory. We just shredded it. Don’t worry about it. But trust us….” Government wouldn’t trust such an organization, and maybe they shouldn’t do.

It’s good to have a sense of honour and a sense that you can trust your neighbour and so on. But there are certain things you really need to have documentation for. The fact that this bill does not include it is very troubling.

Again, I’m very saddened that this is a one-sided debate, because there are very many issues that we could be discussing here and moving this bill along that could be better, really. It could become better if we could have more of a debate.

As my colleagues on this side of the House have mentioned, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has twice recommended that there’s a provision for this duty to document, both in a 2013 investigation report and a 2014 special report. Two times the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has asked for this.

It’s not that it’s coming out of the blue. It’s not that we’ve only just suddenly decided that this is something important. It is important. We have the body…. The Privacy Commissioner thinks that this is very important, and I completely agree. The duty to document does ensure that government actions and decisions are recorded and archived. That then allows them to be made available to the public.

That basis is important, because our democracy is built on an electorate that has trust in the system and has access to information. Information, transparency and openness are fundamental to a healthy democracy.

I understand that this government really prefers people to be kept in the dark. It’s a bit like their colleagues in Ottawa. They prefer to keep people in the dark, prefer to just put out the spin, because they hope that that most people don’t care and those that do will eventually give up. That is hugely damaging to democracy.

[1135]

What we need and what would be fantastic to have in B.C. is a really healthy and incisive media that is probing and probing the government. But as they do, if they do, they’re going to find out that there are no documents when they’re probing, that the government…. You ask a challenging question. You try and find out, try and get that background information. There will be no documents, because the government is giving itself, effectively, a clean slate. It doesn’t have to do it.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Denham, wrote in a previous report, the one that I referred to — the 2013 report:

“I have recommended a legislated duty to document key government decisions. This ‘duty to document’ should also be a compon-
[ Page 6288 ]
ent of the new information management legislation” — which is that which is before us.

“I think there is general agreement about the need for government to record its key decisions and how it arrived at and implemented them. It is only with the creation and preservation of adequate documentation of action and decision-making that access-to-information regimes and public archives can be effective.”

If you don’t have the documentation, you can’t ask questions. Well, you can ask questions. You’re just not going to get anything, and that access to information is fundamental. It’s fundamental to be able to hold the government to account, not just us here in this chamber but the media — for individuals to actually be able to stand up and talk about this and to ask questions. If there is no information, people are stuck.

We have seen many times that this government doesn’t just not document records, but it shreds them. We know that there is much information. Again, on this side of the House we use freedom of information regularly to try to find out beyond the spin that the ministers give us or what we hear in the public information. We use freedom of information to try and get behind certain issues too. So often, you get that there are no records and that they have been deleted.

The other troubling part of this is the description of records as transitory. “They’ve been written in an e-mail, so they’re not important. We can get rid of them.” To say something is transitory means, obviously, that it’s in passing. It’s not important. It doesn’t have to be kept. This isn’t always appropriate.

You can say something is transitory, basically, if it’s ephemeral. But many decisions have been made to delete information or to shred information that is important. There is, again, this oral culture in the government. They don’t want written records. They will shred from a notebook, and they will shred e-mails.

What we see, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner highlights it as well, is that they look at not the substance or the content of the information as what is important, as material, but the mode in which it was transferred.

For this government and for the many staff who work in this government — the political chiefs of staff, the others who work through the government system…. The highly politicized side of the government sees e-mails as transitory.

Now, I think we all know that we use e-mails for a lot of business. E-mails have replaced letters in many, many cases. I know I’m not alone in sending someone an e-mail because I know they’re going get it that day — instead of putting the same substance into a letter, signing the letter and putting the letter in the mail. I’m sorry to Canada Post. I still do those, but e-mails are there. They put in a lot of information. The material in that information is not necessarily transitory. Yes, the mode of communication is.

[1140]

We know that the government does this. I’ve got to say that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was investigating the “no responsive records”, and it did identify the misuse of these transitory e-mails to be one of the causes. I’ve got to say that it found the Premier’s office had been particularly notorious for abusing this policy, deleting e-mails from the public record.

But it’s this oral culture that has evolved here. It’s an oral culture rather than a written culture. An oral culture does not allow for decisions to be analyzed, decisions to be questioned, and that is — again, I go back to it — important for our democracy.

I go back to the report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, her 2014 one of last year, on the transitory record. She writes:

“Similarly, it is important that government clearly define in legislation what constitutes a transitory record.”

When you have it there, you have it written. It’s something that could be referred to. It’s the touchstone. It’s a lodestone.

“Transitory records are not required to meet statutory obligations or to sustain administrative or operational functions and are routinely destroyed shortly after they are created. My office has found that some government ministries and program areas apply a liberal interpretation to what constitutes a transitory record, basing the determination on the medium of communication, such as e-mail, rather than on the content of the communication, such as whether it is a record of action or decision-making.”

She goes on to write:

“I believe that the determination of whether a record is transitory is technology-neutral and depends solely on the content of the record or communication. It is critical that this matter be dealt with in legislation or regulation and not left to policy or agency best practices.”

This piece of legislation doesn’t cover that. It does not cover the issue of transitory communications and the labelling of e-mails as transitory and then the deletions of them.

I go back to the fact that the access to information is so fundamental for a healthy democracy. Relying on a centralized system where you have decisions made in a small group and then transmitted orally is not going to support this institution. I mean, this institution from the 1870s, the parliamentary democracy that we’ve seen and we have, I think, in the Commonwealth. It’s coming to Canada. It reaches as far west as Edmonton.

In the Commonwealth, coming from Britain this year, we have the celebration of 800 years of the Magna Carta, a written statute which started up what now has evolved into our parliamentary democracy, the relationship between the King and the barons. That’s being celebrated — 800 years of that, just for us as an Anglo-Saxon western democracy, but we have others.

The other issue that really troubles me is…. We’ve mentioned it. My colleague from Nanaimo-Ladysmith mentioned it in detail, and my colleague from Surrey-Whalley mentioned it and the importance of it. It’s the archiving of documents, the ones that are boxed in the warehouse, the 33,000 documents that have been gathering dust or been
[ Page 6289 ]
eaten by mice, or who knows what, since 2003.

The last core review — we’ve had the other one where we were told there is still some low-hanging fruit to reach. I would like to see where it is. In the first core review the archives became part of the Royal B.C. Museum. The museum wanted the government to help to pay for the archiving. The government refused. It refused, because it’s $454 per box. So we got into a problem of having a lot of written records that have not been properly archived.

As my colleague from Nanaimo-Ladysmith so admirably spoke, this is not just ephemeral information. It’s not just the small things. It’s not the decisions on, you know, how the government is going to do a small job.

We’re talking about records that impact the people of B.C., whether it’s the Ministry of Children and Families, whether it is the Ministry of Social Development, whether it is the Ministry of Health. These records relate to the people of B.C. We’re talking about infrastructure — the decisions on how infrastructure projects were made.

[1145]

These impact the people of B.C., and it is important. It’s very, very important to have these properly archived. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley did a very good analysis in his speech, showing the examples of the value of archiving, of being able to go back and learn from those archives that impact decisions and legislation after the fact.

It’s not just for historians. It’s not just for the archivists. It’s not just for the people who love digging around in museums. It’s important for all of us to have the decisions of government archived well, the decisions that impact the people of B.C. and records about the individuals of B.C. archived properly and appropriately.

There is a responsibility. You don’t just take government on…. We’ve had this discussion many times, at least on this side of the House, about what a government does. It isn’t like running a household. It’s not like running a small business. There is a huge responsibility in running a government.

That goes to the information — where it gets its information, how it handles its information and how it stores its information — because it is running a province of more than four million people not just for now but for the future. It’s not just the decisions made now but how those decisions reached are going to be important for the future, as are the decisions in the past important for us to be looking at for how we go forward.

You can’t just take out this moment in time, discuss it around a table and say: “That’s it. Move on.” Or write a few e-mails on your BlackBerry or your iPad and just say: “That’s it. Made the decisions.” Oh, and remember to delete at the end of every day.

That is not healthy for a way government should run, nor is it healthy for the continuation of a democracy of any style, whether it is the Western-style parliamentary democracy or other sorts of democratic systems. You need to have that record. You need to have that record open. You need to have it accessible. But you do need to have the record.

My two main areas of concern on this…. I think there are other issues. This whole concept of the oral culture that this government works with is one of real concern. This bill does not address that because it doesn’t have the duty to document, because it hasn’t dealt with the transitory deletion of information.

This bill, while it is an important step in modernizing the system and bringing us into the 21st century in document filing and document recovery, does have very major gaps. I hope that the minister will be looking at resolving those gaps because it’s a legacy piece. We don’t want to be having to go back all the time to work out how we’re going to store the information and decisions made. Let’s get it right this time, and let’s hope that it’s going to last a few years.

That includes being willing to document decisions made by government, willing to have the trust and the faith in the electorate, in the media, in the opposition that they can ask those questions, that they can find out that information, because surely if we are running a province properly, there should be nothing to hide. Everything should be able to be in the open, and we should be able to get on and work together, doing business together.

A. Weaver: This bill before us, in my view, is a step in the right direction for how we manage government records in British Columbia. I do understand that the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan does plan to, either himself or someone else from the official opposition, introduce duty-to-document legislation. I recognize that’s not the discussion of this bill here, but I believe that that is an important step to be coupled in with this legislation as it is brought into this chamber.

It is important not only to document digitally but have a duty to do such documentation. So in this regard, I very much look forward to seeing the official opposition’s bill in this area.

[1150]

Elizabeth Denham, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C., has written a rather detailed letter concerning recommendations for this bill. I find her comments on this legislation to be a rather huge public service, things that I truly believe are important to reflect upon as they help shine light on the best practices concerning government information.

Before I highlight some of her recommendations, perhaps I could read a couple of sentences from her letter, in the introduction. This what she said. “Information rights are of vital importance to citizens. Access to government information and to an individual’s own personal information are essential elements of a transparent and accountable democracy. The rights of citizens to control and access information and records is regulated by a carefully balanced legal framework that guarantees these
[ Page 6290 ]
rights, subject only to narrow statutory exceptions.”

These are profound words, profound words that I think we should reflect upon as we move to committee stage. The passage is critical because it frames how we must approach any legislation that impacts government information — that is to say, with an eye to ensuring transparency and accountability.

In general, I’ll have two broad areas of inquiry that I hope to explore in committee stage. The first of these is the question: why does this bill not firmly establish independent oversight for the information management systems? The second: why does it not address the massive backlog in records, which currently exists?

I think that if the purpose of this bill is to update how government manages records and information, ensuring that their approach is modernized, then both of these issues will be critical to address as we move forward. Government records, whether of historical value or information sought through information requests, should be managed under the eye of an independent office that can ensure that the principles of transparency and accountability are protected.

I look forward to committee stage and further deliberations on this bill in the days ahead.

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

Hon. A. Virk: It’s been my pleasure to hear all the comments. In fact, I had a discussion with the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I did congratulate him for his oratory endurance and, perhaps, stamina in the length and the quantity of words that he used to raise his view. Mind you, it was somewhat repetitive, but still — stamina and endurance.

A number of themes certainly arising. The Government Information Act certainly clarifies what constitutes government information to include documents in key decisions. The act specifically requires the retention of any record that documents key decisions of a government body’s organizations or policies or procedures or transactions or operations, in accordance with information schedules.

The questions raised — there will be plenty of opportunity at the committee phase of the bill to have those discussions. So I move that we go to the committee phase of the bill.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 5, Government Information 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.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Hamilton in the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

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

S. Chandra Herbert: My colleagues have a few short questions that they’re going to raise, and then we’ll get back to talking about climate action.

N. Macdonald: What I’ll do is read in eight questions to the record. I’ve got them written down as well, and I’ll provide them for you. They relate to environmental assessment, and the questions are quite precise, but hopefully this afternoon you can come back and just read into the record the answers. There’s a bit of a preamble to each, just to give them context, but the questions are quite precise. As I say, we….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Not right away, but you’ll have time in the afternoon, I think, to just come back and do the eight questions.

This is all on the legal term “substantially started” — how it’s determined by government in the B.C. environmental assessment process.

The first question relates to a legal opinion that the minister and the environmental assessment office were
[ Page 6291 ]
given in October. Just the questions on that opinion. The legal opinion that I have says that “substantially started” under section 18(5) of the Environmental Assessment Act must be determined by looking at the whole proposed project and not simply individual elements of the project.

I guess the first question is: is that the government’s position? If it is or isn’t, does the minister have a legal opinion on that position? That’s the first question.

The second is: according to the Environmental Assessment Act, the environmental assessment office’s user guide and the Taku decision…. It says: “Project components that should be considered in determining the term” — the legal term “substantially started” — “are the permanent physical aspects of the project.”

I have a legal opinion that what will not be considered are things such as project reports, project report supplements, reports on master plan concept, preparation of master plan and preconstruction studies. Again, the second question: is that the government’s position, and if it is, or if it isn’t, does the minister have a legal opinion to support the particular position of government?

The third question. The Environmental Assessment Act states that a person commits an offence if they contravene section 8(1) or (2) or fail to comply with an environmental assessment certificate. Is it the minister’s position that construction that is built without being compliant with provisions of their certificate is considered by the minister in determining the substantially started status? That’s the third question.

The fourth. A proponent must cause the project which has an environmental assessment certificate to be designed, located, constructed and operated in accordance with both conditions of the certificate and documents and correspondence listed in schedules. Any changes need to be applied for in writing and must be supported by plans, analysis, records and other information.

The question is specifically about the day lodge at Jumbo Glacier Resort. The location was changed. Was the change in location approved properly by the environmental assessment office executive director? Were the Ktunaxa and Shuswap consulted as constitutionally they have the right to be? Of course, the change in day lodge has a cascading implication for other infrastructure such as road layout, sewage lines, hydro lines, parking, and puts the day lodge potentially in an avalanche path — I know the minister is having that checked out — and possibly outside the permit area.

If no permission, are the proponents allowed to rely on unlawful construction in the government’s consideration of substantially starred status? There is a number of questions in there, but that would be the fourth element.

The fifth. Will the environmental assessment office start defining what is meant by substantially started when it issues project certificates?

The sixth. Why doesn’t the environmental assessment office provide a recommendation as to whether projects have been substantially started? Isn’t the environmental assessment office the expert in this regard, not the minister personally? That’s just a question on this process.

The seventh. Why is the environmental assessment office attempting to prevent the public from making submissions on substantially started determinations? Shouldn’t the parties who have participated throughout the project review be allowed to provide submissions on whether a project is substantially started?

The last is: what quantitative metrics were used to determine if a project is substantially started, and how are they weighed against each other?

[1105]

Finally, if such metrics exist, would the minister provide me with a copy of those quantitative metrics?

Those are all quite…. The answers, I think, can be fairly precise, but to be fair and to try to help the process along, I’ve written all of those questions down so you don’t have to wait for Hansard to come out. Maybe this afternoon you can answer those.

By the way, I think I’ve commended the minister before on the trip that she made herself to the site. I think that was very important. I know you went there alone. I know that you went, and you took the time to look. It’s not an easy place to get to, but it is a beautiful trip. In that sense, I think you’re fortunate.

Now I’m going to switch over and do one other question on a completely different topic. This one I know that you’ll be able to answer. I know the budget for preventing zebra and quagga mussel infestations getting into B.C. waters sits mainly with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Ministry, but the minister is involved in this file. She’s answered questions.

I am very worried that we’re not doing enough to prevent an infestation. I think we should be monitoring. This is my personal opinion. This isn’t an NDP position or any other position. This is my personal opinion on this. I think we should be monitoring all entry points to B.C. and have the capacity to clean boats at each entry point.

I come from Manitoba. It’s establishing in Manitoba, and I think that we should be doing everything to make sure that that’s not going to happen here. I know the minister has raised this issue with other provincial ministers, but I don’t think, as I say, that we are doing enough.

Having said that, I know that you’re working on this. Would the minister update this committee on the work she is doing to prevent zebra and quagga mussels from becoming established in B.C. waters? That’s the only question I’ll have. I won’t ask any other questions. I know you that have things to report, so I’ll look forward to that.

Hon. M. Polak: I can report significant progress. Probably the most substantial and the one that we are most pleased about is the action of the federal government.

[1110]

The member will probably recall from estimates last year that we were anxious to see the federal government move with respect to their legislation that would allow the CBSA to be able to detain suspected infested boats travelling into British Columbia, travelling into Canada. They have put it forward in Gazette 1, and we expect that they will complete that process by the end of this year. So we’re very pleased with that.

Nevertheless, we are already undertaking work, together with CBSA, so that we are notified when boats cross into British Columbia. Last year there were ten boats that were detained and then cleaned.

There is certainly more to be done. We’re working very closely with our other provincial counterparts. I was just in Ottawa a short time ago. One of the major topics for discussion was the invasive species issue, in particular with respect to zebra and quagga mussels. We’re working closely with them.

We continue to work with the Invasive Species Council. We provide them with ongoing funding. I think to date, since 2012, we’ve provided them with $2.1 million. We’ll continue to work with them.

We’ve also completed the dreissenid mussels early detection and rapid response plan together with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. That is currently in the final review and approval stage. Again, we expect to have that to be able to be released shortly.

All of this is significant progress, but the member is right to be concerned. All of us should be concerned. It is something that could potentially cost British Columbians millions and millions of dollars. We’ve seen the kind of damage that’s been done in other jurisdictions in the U.S. and eastern Canada. It’s certainly something we should all be very concerned about.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and her staff. A couple of topics — two completely different topics, really. I want to touch bases on the issue of the Heiltsuk First Nation’s bid to try to address the environmental cleanup on the site known as Namu.

I first of all want to acknowledge and thank the minister for meeting with members from the Heiltsuk. I know Harvey Humchitt Sr., one of the hereditary chiefs, and Ken Campbell, another hereditary chief, and Marilyn Slett, the elected chief councillor, very much appreciated the meeting and felt that it was productive.

I would like to confirm, without getting into details, that we are on a road to developing a cooperative agreement with the Heiltsuk in the form of a committee that was to be established. If the minister could confirm that here today and maybe let me know the timeline or if there has been progress made on setting up that committee.

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, it’s only been a short time since we had that meeting, but I believe we are making progress. The member is referring to the senior officials committee that we discussed putting into place. We think that within a couple of weeks we can have that happening. Nevertheless, we’re not waiting for that, in terms of action.

The member will know from the meeting that we have been working together with the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard issued an order to the registered owner. The owner now has until March 6 to remove the pollutants from the vessel, and the Coast Guard is planning to take action on March 10 if the owner hasn’t complied.

We’ll continue to keep that action going and get into place the committee so that we can start to talk about what is hopefully a more positive future for Namu and for the Heiltsuk.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I share the minister’s hopes and aspirations for the Heiltsuk people. That is good news. The timeline is pretty quick. I know that there was another attempt and a previous deadline with the Coast Guard to try to deal with that listing boat. The vessel is quite a bit of concern.

[1115]

Just a bit of clarification on that. Since March 6 is approaching rapidly, does she know if the boat has to be made seaworthy, as in to be towable, by that time? Is that what she’s referring to?

Hon. M. Polak: The member will recall from the meeting that the Coast Guard, in their investigation of the ship, have determined that it certainly isn’t seaworthy and that they wouldn’t be able to tow it. The action that they would be taking would be to remove the pollutants from the vessel. So if the owner doesn’t comply by March 6 in doing that, then on March 10 they would take action, move in and remove the pollutants.

It isn’t by any means the final action that needs to be taken on that site, but of course we prioritize based on what seems to be the most hazardous at the time. Right now the issue with the ship and the potential sinking with pollutants on board is the one that we find of highest priority.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I agree. I think, from what I’ve learned, that that is the priority. I appreciate the minister’s efforts here, and I look forward to meeting with the Heiltsuk in the near future and seeing their future plans unfold. I know the minister probably feels the same way on that — she’s nodding — so I thank you.

Just one other issue. I learned about this yesterday. The environmental assessment office has posted on their website that the Compliance Coal Corp. has withdrawn their application for the Raven coal mine on the last day of the 30-day period for review. This is the second time that this application has been put forward. The first time, in May of 2013, it was rejected by the EAO. This time
[ Page 6293 ]
around can the minister confirm that it was on the last day of the 30-day review process that this application was indeed withdrawn? And was it withdrawn voluntarily by the applicant?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, it was on the last day, and it was a voluntary action on the part of the company.

S. Fraser: The process…. I need some learning on this. Does the EAO contact the company and let them know if there are concerns that have been raised through the review process — public concerns? That’s the time the public has to actually address concerns and review an awful lot of material, which I know local groups have done — and put a lot of time in on their own, volunteer time. In the last second it’s pulled. Is there an interplay between the EAO and the company, in this case Compliance?

[1120]

Hon. M. Polak: First, I think an important point to make is that any proponent has the right to withdraw from the EA process at any time, and it occasionally happens.

With respect to the role of public input, in the preapplication stage, that takes place as the EA designs what the information requirements will be for a particular project before the application is screened. That public input would have influenced what items of information the EA would have requested of the proponent when they put in their application.

Once the application is received for screening, there is ongoing communication with a proponent throughout the 30 days. During that time the technical working group, which involves the agencies of government together with the First Nations and the local government, then reviews the application according to the criteria that was set with the public input to see if there are deficiencies.

Again, communication is ongoing with the proponent to advise them as to any deficiencies and make requests for additional information if items are not clear. Indeed, that took place in this case, as it does in any other.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I’ll just lay out my concerns here. I appreciate the answer.

This application failed in a lot of ways in 2013. It wasn’t withdrawn. There were so many deficiencies, it was rejected by the EAO. Then two years later, give or take, we’re back again. Every community that’s been involved with this…. There are many.

The minister mentioned the community, the local government. I’ve seen resolutions from Courtenay, Comox, from Cumberland, from islands — you know, Hornby and Denman Islands — the trust. The city of Port Alberni set up their own working group to try to assess the application so that they could make an informed comment on their concerns, and it’s withdrawn.

It’s taken a lot of effort and work for those that have been tasked — on their own time, not professionally — to try to oversee these applications and see if they’re meeting the needs of the community. Or, indeed, they might be harming the community in the future.

How many times can a company just keep doing that? If it’s endless, if a company can just keep doing this and essentially putting in a deficient application that doesn’t meet the needs laid out by the EAO, initially or subsequently, then in essence they could wear down communities and community groups by attrition.

[1125]

The companies themselves, in this case, Compliance…. The tax regime is such, I’ve learned, that they can build credits up, essentially, the longer their stay in the game and invest money into a project even if it seems hopeless. There’s an actual monetary benefit that is accrued there.

I’m not necessarily complaining about that. However, it does create an unlevel playing field where volunteers and communities or committees of councils — mayors and councils — that are doing this on their own dime may eventually be worn down and lose their enthusiasm for taking on a company that can just keep reapplying.

Is this an issue that the minister recognizes? Is there any precedent for this? Can the company reapply over and over and over again?

Hon. M. Polak: There’s an old saying: “I would have written you a shorter letter, but it would have taken too much time.” I’m going to try to outline this in as least complicated a way as I can.

With respect to information requirements that are designed through a public input process, firstly, that wouldn’t happen. There wouldn’t be a new set of requirements, necessarily, each and every time there is an application. The information requirements have a set period of time after which they expire, and then we would go back to the public and seek their input in designing that.

There’s a balance to be struck there, because on the one hand, it’s important to know that if there was to be a new application, the environmental assessment office would certainly continue to rely on the information that they gathered in previous public input sessions.

[1130]

Nevertheless, they also want to maintain the opportunity to take in any new information that may be provided by the public. But I can assure those who take the time to provide their input that that information is not lost. We don’t wipe the slate clean if we’re restarting an application or receiving a new application from the proponent. There is no limit to the number of times that a proponent can apply.

The issue of wasting the public’s time and wasting the time of the EA is one that we take very seriously, and it’s why we pay so much attention to having that rigorous screening process at the beginning. It can certainly be
[ Page 6294 ]
onerous for communities, especially if there are a number of projects taking place in their local area at the same time. Nevertheless, it’s striking that balance and ensuring that while there’s that 30-day time period of screening, it allows us to reject deficient applications in that 30 days rather than exhausting everyone throughout the entire 180-day period.

G. Holman: While we were speaking of environmental assessment, I had a question. It came up yesterday with regards to Mount Polley. The spokesperson asked a question regarding the community impacts, both economic and environmental, of the Mount Polley disaster on the community, on fisheries, on a whole number of stakeholders.

My understanding…. The minister, in response to the question, said that while the ministry would be recovering its costs with respect to investigations currently ongoing around Mount Polley, if the community members or stakeholders affected by the spill wanted recourse, they would have to go to the courts to do that. I just want to make sure that I understand that response — that, in fact, communities, individuals, industries affected by industrial spills like Mount Polley or other unmitigated impacts of industrial projects basically have to go to the courts to get satisfaction in terms of compensation. I want to make sure I understand that.

[1135]

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, with respect to individuals — individual homeowners, individual companies — their first recourse always is that they could go to the company. It’s not uncommon for companies in that situation to provide compensation voluntarily and directly.

There is another tool that we discussed yesterday during estimates that can be used more broadly by a community with a willing partner in the company, and that’s our community environmental justice forum. Also another tool that exists…. There are significant fines that be can be levied under the Environmental Management Act.

When we levy those fines, it is open to a judge. It has happened where a judge will award those penalties, the dollars, to a fund that would be utilized for compensation.

Another item that we discussed yesterday in estimates is that through our “Land-Based Spills Response” intentions paper, we have had in the public domain discussion about moving to a place where there would be an opportunity to collect funds from proponents that would ultimately be available for compensation or to be able to force compensation much like other jurisdictions do.

That’s the current framework and the tools that are available. Then, of course, in addition to that, an individual or a company could pursue the matter in court. If the company was not willing to compensate voluntarily, then they could take them to court to force the matter.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m going to move back to climate action. As we finished up yesterday, I’d asked about where the plan was, where climate action 2.0 was, if we’re going to get to an 18 percent reduction by 2016 of greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, the minister will be well aware, will know, that while 18 percent may seem like a lot in terms of how much action is required, really, in order to fight climate change, it would be better if we had a 30 percent or a 50 percent reduction by 2018. The changes we make today will have a much higher impact than if we get to an 80 percent reduction in 2050. Certainly, if we can do those kinds of things much earlier, we’ll have a much bigger impact.

I wanted to follow up. The minister had mentioned that climate action plan 2.0…. There wasn’t a timeline for bringing that forward, but she said that she felt confident that we would meet our 18 percent reduction by 2016.

What sectors are we going to see those reductions in? I know in the earlier climate action plan there was really a strategy in terms of how much emissions reduction we would get by sector with a goal, with a plan of how we would incentivize changes, how we would support changes, but I don’t see that anymore beyond what was originally addressed. What’s the plan to get us there by 2016?

[1140]

Hon. M. Polak: It’s important to note, and I’m sure the member understands this, that the first climate action plan is still active. There is still work ongoing, not only with respect to government but with respect to industries out there who are continuing to move forward with work to reduce their emissions.

As I look forward, though, part of my confidence comes from what I know is potentially still possible with respect to opportunities in the transportation sector, the built environment. Already the work we’re seeing that companies are doing in the northeast of British Columbia — much progress that companies have been making on upstream natural gas, with electrification of the upstream. We’re certainly seeing lots of innovative ideas that companies can employ in their work up there. We know that’s a substantial contributor and is one that companies are anxious to proceed with, because, of course, it makes their operations more efficient as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: This, with all due respect to the minister, is more rhetoric. It’s not substantive. “We expect to see a 20 percent reduction in this field, given the actions they have done,” and saying that a lot of people are doing good things. I’m glad people are doing good things, but in order to actually see the specifics…. I want
[ Page 6295 ]
to see the specifics.

I think the public deserves to know that the ministry has a very good handle on “We expect to see within the ranges of certain percentages for certain sectors, and we support them in this,” rather than: “A whole bunch of people are trying to bring down their emissions.” That does not help me in terms of understanding how the budget is being used to better improve our climate. It doesn’t help me understand that the government really is approaching this with the full urgency that they need to be.

I would hope that the ministry is able to say, “We expect, within this year, that we’ll see emissions reductions in the northeast by this much, given these companies have adopted this technology. We expect within transportation that we will see emissions reductions of this percentage, give or take, given this adoption of this technology,” and so forth.

Surely, the government has these figures, has this idea, has a plan. It isn’t just hope and goodwill, that there is actually some rigour behind the minister’s statements, because I know she’s very keen to ensure that her statements are backed up in data.

Can that be provided — the actual estimates by sector? We’re approaching 2016. That’s a 6 percent reduction we’ve had to make between 2012 and 2016. The climate action plan 2.0 says very clearly…. The first climate action plan — I’m hoping for a 2.0 — says very clearly that the carbon tax maxing out, as it has done, is going to become less and less effective as a tool to fight carbon pollution.

I need to see some substance here. I’m hoping that the minister is able to provide a breakdown where they think that they’re going to make the gains. Otherwise, it’s just relying on hope and good luck. I don’t think it’s good enough.

Hon. M. Polak: As I’ve said, we have not completed work with respect to a second climate action plan. We can certainly provide information, such as what I’ve outlined, that identifies the relative amounts of emissions that come from different sectors, and therefore, that’s why we see those as opportunities to work within those sectors.

Of course, the development of the first climate action plan involved significant work with various stakeholders, including important environmental organizations that bring very much good information to the table for us. Certainly, the development of a climate action plan for the second time also needs to engage those people, hear from them and gather their ideas and input. It was so valuable in the first go-round. We know it will be this time.

[1145]

We’ve been leaders since we brought out our first climate action plan in 2008. As the Premier has made clear, including in my mandate letter, British Columbia intends to continue to be leaders. We certainly saw that recognition when we were in Lima

for the COP 20 discussions, and we’re looking forward to continuing that as we go on the pathway to Paris.

S. Chandra Herbert: Certainly, in 2008 a climate action plan was — and still is — very important. But that’s seven years ago now. We have not seen new progress. We have not seen new initiatives, aside from a concrete initiative in this budget — the cement industry — but that’s not in the context of a greater plan.

I would hope, and I think citizens would hope, that we would approach this with more urgency. Last fall municipal leaders asked: what’s the plan to get us to the next percentage-cut reduction? I remember that the answer was: “Well, we’re going to go after some low-hanging fruit.” It wasn’t a specific plan. There was not a specific action.

Is there going to be the launch of a consultation period this year, reaching out to environmental leaders, reaching out to industry, reaching out to community leaders to draft and create that new plan? We need one. We cannot approach this, as many other communities have, with slow, plodding action. We need urgency.

I think if we want to stay a leader, if we want to really be a leader in this, we need to show that we’re ready to make the next step rather than relying on what was done back in 2008, seven years ago. I think it’s vital that we act now and that we bring people into the conversation so that we can lead once again.

Is that in the plan? Are we going to see that launch this year? I think it should have happened last year. It didn’t. We need action this year for climate action plan 2.0.

Hon. M. Polak: It would be wrong to think that because there is not a second climate action plan in place nothing is occurring. We have the initiatives that were already in place there that are continuing. In addition to that, though, the member will be aware that the Premier, together with the governors of Washington, Oregon and California, signed the Pacific coast collaborative action plan, which has a range of initiatives that we are engaged in with them.

We also have recently renewed the clean energy vehicle program. There are the initiatives that the member mentioned with respect to the cement industry and, of course, the legislation that we brought into play last session around our requirements for the liquefied natural gas industry. So there is still action occurring.

There is, of course, development that needs to take place on a second climate action plan. Nevertheless, we are confident that the actions we are taking and the ones we will take will see us through to meeting our commitments.

Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.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