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 24, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 22, Number 3

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bennett: I know I’ve heard other members say they don’t have many opportunities to introduce people from their ridings. I don’t, in fact, have many opportunities to introduce people from Kootenay East. It seems like it’s a long ways away, or maybe I just don’t have any friends. [Laughter.] It’s been a few years, in any case, since I’ve had the opportunity to introduce somebody.

Mike Sosnowski is up in the gallery. He’s area A director for the regional district of East Kootenay. He’s been elected three times and, in my view, is certainly one of the best area directors in the province. He solves problems for his constituents and just does such a wonderful job. He’s visiting today. I think it’s his first time in question period, so everybody should do their best to behave for him.

It’s also a pleasure to introduce another area director from a regional district, Al Richmond. Al, of course, is known by many people here. He’s the chair of the Cariboo regional district, first elected in 1993 — seven consecutive terms. He’s an area G director there in the Cariboo. He’s also vice-president and incoming president of UBCM.

What I want to say to the House about Al is that when the Mount Polley disaster occurred last August, the emergency response through the regional district led by Al Richmond and the lady, actually, who’s with him…. I also want to introduce her. It’s Janis Bell, the CAO. These two, plus the board of the Cariboo regional district, were just phenomenal in terms of how they responded to this disaster and how they really made almost a superhuman effort to look after the people that were impacted by it.

[1005]

I’d like to House to help me recognize and welcome Mike Sosnowski from Fernie, Al Richmond and Janis Bell from Williams Lake.

K. Conroy: It’s Kootenay week, because I also don’t often get to introduce people in the Legislature. With us today is Teri Ferworn, a longtime friend from Castlegar, and her four granddaughters, who are all here because they’re on spring break. Please join me in making them very welcome.

Tributes

SELKIRK COLLEGE SAINTS HOCKEY TEAM

K. Conroy: I also have some great news for the people in the Kootenays. The Selkirk College Saints celebrated their third consecutive B.C. Intercollegiate Hockey League championship on Saturday, March 14, in Castlegar, defeating Simon Fraser University by a score of 4-2. The Saints actually swept the best-of-three series, following a 3-1 win on Friday night.

This title extends an unprecedented series of wins atop the BCIHL, as the Saints are the first team ever in this league to record a championship three years in a row. Not only did they beat Simon Fraser to win the championships; they beat the University of Victoria in the semifinals. These are two fairly large campuses compared to little old Selkirk College in the Kootenays, so I think that it’s great that they’ve done this.

I also want to acknowledge the Selkirk College team members who were named to the 2015 BCIHL playoff all-star team: forwards, Ryan Edwards and Logan Proulx; defenceman Stefan Gonzales; and goaltender James Prigione. Please help me in congratulating the coach, Alex Evin, and all of the players at Selkirk College for this incredible win that they have done.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I’m pleased to rise in the House today and introduce members from the Secwepemc youth ambassador program. I’d like the House to join me in welcoming the following students today: Kiera Eustache, Shemica Harry, Cecile Bell and their chaperone, Kelly-Ann Connor. My colleagues and I will be spending some time with these First Nations youth ambassadors, and then they will be off to Ottawa to visit with representatives in the capital. Would the House please join me in welcoming Kiera, Shemica, Cecile and Kelly-Ann today.

M. Dalton: It’s a real pleasure today to have in the gallery Nicole Reid, the recently elected mayor for Maple Ridge. She’s thrown herself fully into the work and doing a great job. It’s a privilege to work alongside her. We have a number of meetings today. She’s here with David Pollock, the city engineer from Maple Ridge. Would the House please make them feel welcome.
[ Page 6846 ]

Hon. T. Stone: I think everyone in the chamber would agree that we wouldn’t be able to do what we do if it wasn’t for the support of our loved ones at home. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the chamber today my loving wife Chantelle — we’ve been married for 15 years — and our three daughters. My beautiful Hannah, Sydney and Caitlin are here to witness the good behaviour in question period today. If the House could please make them feel welcome.

M. Bernier: Today we have a lot of representatives from the mining industry, who are here in the precinct to meet with us. Specifically I want to address and identify one person, Federico Velasquez, who is with Anglo American, their director of external affairs. They’ve been just a shining light in the mining industry in my riding, in Tumbler Ridge specifically. I want the House to make him and all the people from the mining industry welcome here today.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think it must be close to Family Day. I rise to introduce my two grandsons, Charles and Andrew, who are in the gallery with their mother, Shelley. My plan is to introduce them to the Minister of Transportation’s daughters after question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1010]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it is Mining Day in the Leg. here today. I have several people from the mining industry to introduce as quickly as I can.

Up in this area of the gallery are Karina Briño, who’s the president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C.; Chris Dechert, who is a mine manager with the HD Mining Murray River project; Norm Johnson, president and CEO of New Gold Inc.; Jim Harrison, GM from Kamloops coal and metals business development, Finning Canada; Brian Abraham, a partner with the mining group Dentons; Andrea Clifford, director of business development with the great organization, Geoscience B.C.; and Dave Sharples, Mining Suppliers Association of B.C.

Two people are from MineralsEd, which is an organization that helps educate young people in the province about what mining is all about — Sheila Stenzel, who is the director and who does a wonderful job, and Leonie Tomlinson, who’s also the executive VP for Hunter Dickinson.

Also, from Highland Valley Copper, Greg Brouwer, manager of operations; from AMC Mining, Mo Molavi; Randall Thompson, the chief operating officer from Huckleberry Mines Ltd.; Glen Wonders, vice-president, technical and government affairs from the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C.; and Jim O’Rourke, CEO of Copper Mountain.

Jim O’Rourke is one of the few individuals in Canada or in the world who actually builds mines. It is an extremely difficult thing to do to build a mine anywhere in the world, and Jim has built more than one. Right now he’s operating Copper Mountain. There’s Dave Rouleau, VP of operations, Taseko Mines; Kevin Frame, regional manager for Kal Tire; and Kent Christensen, general manager of Huckleberry Mines.

Please help me make all these mining folks welcome.

D. Bing: I’m very pleased to have a member from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in the House today. She’s already been introduced, but I’d like to just acknowledge the mayor of Maple Ridge, Nicole Reid. Would the House please make her welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the
[ Page 6847 ]
Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2015.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: Madame Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce the Election Amendment Act, 2015. This bill will make several changes to the act, including implementing recommendations made by the province’s independent Chief Electoral Officer as well as changes put forward by government.

Most notably, the bill will increase voting opportunities by adding two more days of advanced voting in elections, namely the Saturday and Sunday prior to the week when advanced voting currently begins. The bill also includes an amendment to permit candidates and parties to send get-out-the-vote messages on general voting day. The bill will also remove all references in the act to the pre-campaign period, which continues to apply to political parties and candidates but not to other third parties.

Chief Electoral Officer recommendations that we are putting forward include making consistent identification requirements for people who vouch for other voters, providing voter turnout information to candidates during election proceedings, exempting leadership contestants from filing expense reports if they have been acclaimed and have not spent any funds, and permitting constituency associations to incur election expenses on behalf of their candidates throughout the campaign period.

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

Bill 20, Election Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 23 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous 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’m pleased to introduce Bill 23, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

[1015]

This bill amends the following statutes: the Employment and Assistance Act, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, the Liquor Distribution Act, the Local Government Act, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, the Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, the Public Agency Accommodation Act, the Queen’s Printer Act and the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act.

Bill 23 also makes transitional validation and confirmation provisions as well as a consequential amendment.

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 23, Miscellaneous 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)

SUICIDE AWARENESS AND
FORUM THEATRE ON MENTAL ILLNESS

S. Hammell: In September 2012 the city of Vancouver woke up to the news of an attempted teen suicide pact, a cry for help from the Grandview-Woodlands area in East Vancouver. But suicide is not only an issue of youth. According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, between 2004 and ’14, 160 Canadian soldiers died by suicide. Reading government of Canada statistics, it’s the ages between 45 and 54 that still experience the highest rates of suicide.

Theatre for Living realized there was a need for conversations on mental health. So they reached out to the community and asked for people who were directly affected by mental illness to participate and tell their story. Ninety-nine people applied, 24 made it for a one-week workshop, and six are now the official cast of the play maladjusted.

Maladjusted is created and performed by patients and caregivers. The nature of forum theatre is an opportunity for creative, community-based dialogue. It is driven on audience participation and challenges viewers to share their thoughts and opinions. The play maladjusted is what the artists are calling theatre-making policy, and over the last three months, maladjusted toured 26 communities in B.C. and Alberta.

Scribes in each community took notes on suggested policy change coming from the audience and facilitated by the forum process. These notes are being collected into a community action report. Led by artistic director David Diamond, who has 33 years of forum theatre under his wing, Theatre for Living has fostered and created a collective impact from a grassroots perspective. The tour is coming to an end with a final performance this Saturday night, a performance you should not miss.

MINING DAY

M. Morris: Do you use a laptop, an iPad or a cell phone? Do you drive a vehicle across bridges? Do you fly an aircraft or take commuter trains or ferries? If you do, then you can join me today in recognizing Mining Day at the Legislature.

When you get up in the morning and turn on the lights, recognize that the power travels through thousands of kilometres of metal wire supported by thousands of metal towers. When you turn up your thermostat, recognize that the natural gases travelled thousands of kilometres through metal pipes. As you prepare to leave for work and put on your jewelry — your gold and your silver, adjust your gold wedding band — these are precious metals found in British Columbia.

The products that we use every day in our lives demonstrate our dependence on mining and mineral exploration. Mining is an important component in B.C.’s diverse economy, providing over 30,000 jobs, and mining employs more First Nations than any other industry in B.C.

Since 2011 five new mines have opened, creating over 1,300 new jobs — Copper Mountain, New Afton, Bonanza Ledge, Yellow Giant and, in my neck of the woods, Mount Milligan. Currently five mines are under construction and permitted, and seven expansions have been approved. More than 30 major mines and expansions are currently in the environmental assessment and permitting stage. In northern B.C. Red Chris mine, located 80 kilometres south of Dease Lake, is set to open later this year.

[1020]

Mining is about partnerships, and I’d like to thank the Mining Association of B.C. for all the hard work they do to promote the economic and social value of mining. The association works with the government legislatures to further develop and grow our province’s mining industry.
[ Page 6848 ]

NISGA’A NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Austin: Last weekend I had the privilege of attending this year’s Hobiyee celebrations in the Nisga’a community or Gingolx, or Kincolith, at the mouth of the stunning Nass River.

Hobiyee is the celebration of the Nisga’a new year and signals the beginning of the food harvesting season that coincides with the arrival of the oolichan, a small oily fish that arrive in large runs and are collected by the bucketful to be processed in a variety of ways, as the Nisga’a have done for thousands of years.

The celebrations were held in the new community hall, where hundreds of people from all over the northwest came to witness the singing and dancing. The highlight of the evenings is the grand entrance, when all of the groups join together and assemble en masse in the auditorium to sing and drum in unison.

It is often said that the drum is the heartbeat of the Nisga’a Nation, and I can assure you it is quite a moving experience — dare I say it, even spiritual — to hear several hundred drummers and singers in a hall, full of pride for what they are doing and cherishing their long cultural history — one that is connected to costumes, drums and the land and water that supports their very existence.

I invite the members to join me in the Nass in person to witness this cultural phenomenon, but I acknowledge that it is a long way to travel. So to get a taste of this celebration, I encourage anyone to connect to CFNR, First Nations radio, who webcast the entire two days’ proceedings.

I wish to thank all of the organizers and the sponsors as well as the young team of cook trainees who served up wonderful food for the over 800 people who came on Friday night. All that remains for me is to wish everyone here a happy Nisga’a New Year: Hobiyee.

DELTA HOSPITAL
DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES FACILITY

S. Hamilton: On behalf of my constituents, I’m honoured to rise in the House to highlight the recently announced upcoming addition to Delta Hospital.

The new addition will be a two-storey building dedicated to new medical imaging and laboratory services. The new addition will consolidate the specialized areas into a single, two-storey space, which in turn will help provide more seamless patient care.

By doubling the size of the existing diagnostic facility, Delta Hospital will be able to serve an additional 32,000 patients a year. The space will also grant doctors access to state-of-the-art equipment and allow staff to treat patients more effectively.

In partnership with Fraser Health, this project has been made possible by donations from the Delta Hospital Foundation, through the support of other private donors and the Delta Hospital Auxiliary and the Toigo family.

The $12.5 million project will expand, enhance and relocate the hospital’s medical imagining and laboratory services department into a single facility. It’s being funded by the community through the Delta Hospital Foundation’s commitment of $7.5 million, with the additional $5 million funding by the province through Fraser Health.

The Delta Hospital Foundation’s Healthy and Growing campaign for diagnostic services has so far raised $6.5 million of that contribution. The new addition will be named the Peter C. and Elizabeth Toigo diagnostic services building in honour of a $2.5 million donation from the Toigo family, the largest single private donation ever made to the Delta Hospital Foundation.

As a longtime resident of the region, I’m confident this new facility will have a positive impact as more people will get seamless care through improved diagnostic services.

I’ve known the Toigo family for many years and commend them for their continued community support. The Peter C. and Elizabeth Toigo diagnostic services building will open in 2018 and will support improved access to diagnostic services for Delta residents and others in the region for years to come.

BMX SKILLS PARK IN POWELL RIVER

N. Simons: Earlier this month the city of Powell River opened a new world-class BMX mountain bike skills park and skateboarding facility.

Designed and built by Spectrum Skateparks along with Alpine Bike Parks of Whistler, it’s the first concrete pump track in North America. Early indications are that it’s exceeded everyone’s expectations.

Pump tracks are small circuits usually made from mounds of earth smoothed into rollers and berms designed for riding without pedalling to generate momentum. They were started in the ’70s by BMX riders to build skills and have recently gained in popularity with mountain bikers.

Volunteer trail builders from Powell River Cycling Association have contributed many weekend hours to help out with the facility. Many of those volunteers are grades 6 and 7 students of Andrew Shostak and the outdoor adventure program at Kelly Creek Community School.

Shostak is also a certified mountain bike instructor who’s guiding his students through the program to become certified as well so they can teach other students in the district, to encourage them to use the course.

[1025]

The $555,000 cost to build the park has been entirely funded by Powell River’s very successful community force with strong support from mayor and council and the city’s parks, recreation and culture department.
[ Page 6849 ]

The one-hectare park’s five ride lines are designed for all ages and skill levels. The design incorporates a blend of features, taking the best of Whistler and other competitive courses from around North America and inspired by parks in Europe. It includes advanced features like a 1,200-pound log cannon and up-ramp.

Morgan Benbough, project manager for Alpine, said that when they designed the park, they wanted to make it something that was unique and would really excite the riders.

Powell River is already a key destination for mountain bikers, home to some of the best back-country single-track riding in Canada and a key leg in the annual B.C. Bike Race. This new facility is just another reason why Powell River will continue to be a key destination and a training ground for lifelong outdoor enthusiasts.

FACTS AND BELIEFS IN SOCIETY

G. Hogg: “Facts schmacts,” said Homer Simpson. “Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true.”

Why does the same information get interpreted in so many different ways and thus lead us to different conclusions? Well, famous New York Yankee catcher Yogi Berra, the master of the pithy quote, had an answer. He said that: “There are some people who, if they don’t know, you just can’t tell them.”

I assume that he meant that because they already know something different, they won’t or can’t change. I suspect that each one of us has met someone like that. In fact, we may even be like that: someone who does not already know something so won’t or can’t change.

This is not like John Maynard Keynes, who said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” He said that, but could he do that? For it seems that the answer for most of us is as Yogi Berra meant it. We interpret the facts in a way that affirms what we already know. This, however, makes agreement somewhat difficult. For just as we seek to affirm what we already know, everyone else is doing the same thing, thus keeping our beliefs and, thus, our agreement separate.

That may be why Winston Churchill said: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” He was, of course, referring to his beliefs, not those of the voter. Again, the same information leading to different conclusions because of what we already believe.

Thanks, Yogi. You should have stuck to baseball — a game with rules and an umpire. Or as Homer Simpson said: “People can come up with statistics to prove anything. Fourteen percent of all people know that.”

It seems that we hold on to our beliefs like we hold on to our most treasured possessions, and it seems that it makes it so difficult for us to change our mind or to find agreement when we disagree on matters of substance.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF B.C. TREATY
COMMISSION CHIEF COMMISSIONER
AND STATUS OF TREATY PROCESS

S. Fraser: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation why the government destabilized the treaty process by pulling support of George Abbott as chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission at the very last minute.

They did this after the minister identified Mr. Abbott as a candidate, recruited him for the position, included him on the B.C. shortlist of candidates for review, met with federal and First Nations partners to agree that Mr. Abbott was the preferred candidate, received the First Nation Summit’s official resolution in support of Mr. Abbott and then waited five and a half months without giving a hint to any of the parties that there might be a second thought from the province.

Through you to the minister, who didn’t answer this question yesterday, what changed? What changed at the last minute that was so significant that it was worth breaking faith with our treaty partners and driving the treaty process into the ditch?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite: thank you for the question. We had a chance to canvass this yesterday in estimates as well as, of course, here in question period.

The treaty process is an important process for First Nations, for British Columbia and for Canada. We have seen success through the treaty process, and we remain committed to the nations that are in that process.

[1030]

However, the process is slow. We need to be thinking about how we can achieve the type of results and success that we’ve been able to see in that process in a much shorter time frame.

As we transition with the leadership on the B.C. Treaty Commission, the time is appropriate to work with our principals to talk about how we can move forward and look at ways of improving the process so that more nations can see the kind of success that we have achieved through the treaty process.

Madame Speaker: The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Yesterday, in trying to come up with an excuse for this about-face, the minister talked about the government following a new path. He referred to this again today with regards to treaty.

If that is so, can the minister tell this House why he did not consult with either of the treaty partners before making this last-minute decision? How is that a partnership?
[ Page 6850 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: As we move forward on this, whether it’s treaty or whether it’s through any of our relationships that we have with First Nations, it’s very important that we build those relationships in partnership. We have three principals that are involved in the B.C. treaty process with the First Nations Summit and, of course, the federal government and B.C.

Our thinking, as I had said yesterday, has evolved over the last six months. We’re at a point now where we’re thinking that we really need to initiate this discussion, and this is part of it.

I’d just like to provide a quote, because I’m not the only one that thinks that this process is too slow and that we really should be thinking about how to improve the system. This is a quote from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway from the Vancouver Sun on May 8. He says: “I think the treaty process is too slow, and I would like to see it improved.”

Madame Speaker: The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim on a final supplemental.

S. Fraser: Even for an active seismic zone, these answers are awfully shaky.

The minister needs to get his stories straight. Over the last two days he said many contradictory things, and he continues today.

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

S. Fraser: He says the government believes in the treaty process, but he also says that the government wants to find a new path. He says that the government believes in a collaborative approach, but he also says that the government has been thinking about new paths for the treaty process for six months and that “we plan to engage with the principals around these discussions” — plan to.

To the minister, why in the world would our treaty partners believe any commitment that this government makes?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think when you look at the success that we’ve had in negotiations with our partners through the treaty process, when you look at the success we’ve had in negotiations right across First Nations with all of the non-treaty agreements that we have in place, our government has been very focused on continuing to expand and build our relationships. We will continue with that with the principals on the treaty process.

However, after 22 years and more than $600 million being spent on the treaty process, it’s time to sit down with the principals and have a discussion about how we can take treaty, take the successes that we’ve seen in treaty, and be able to bring those successes forward in a much faster time frame.

C. James: The one thing that is clear to everyone in this House after those answers is that the minister can’t get his story straight.

The minister allowed the appointment process for Mr. Abbott to go ahead for six months, never giving a hint to treaty partners that he or his government had any doubts — six months. Then last week the province did an about-face and betrayed the faith of treaty partners by pulling support for the commissioner. I don’t know how that builds a partnership and relationship, as the minister said.

[1035]

Now this week the minister wants us to believe that government has all of a sudden decided that they’re going to change direction on the treaty process, without a word to its partners.

Given this breach of faith with First Nations in this province, does the minister still believe that he really has the confidence to continue managing British Columbia’s work towards reconciliation?

Hon. J. Rustad: This path forward is to work with the principals and have a discussion around how treaty could, and potentially should, take shape to be able to be more successful for the First Nations in the province of British Columbia. That’s the conversation that we have initiated now and that we’re looking forward to working with our principals on.

But to the member opposite’s point, I just want to maybe read off a few things that we have been able to accomplish just over the last couple of years. For example, we now have 18 incremental treaty agreements that we have signed, and those are in just the last couple of years. We’ve signed over 25 clean energy agreements between First Nations and the province to take advantage of opportunities. We’ve also signed 19 economic and community development agreements with First Nations associated with mining.

I look forward to the follow-up question to continue the list.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: It’s not just First Nations who have been blindsided by this about-face, to give the minister the doubt. The minister himself gave no indication of any concerns with this appointment to the treaty process and to the treaty partners prior to last Wednesday.

The only conclusion that we can draw is that the minister believed he had the support of the Premier when he walked into the cabinet room, and once there, he learned he did not. Will the minister come clean, and will he admit that his boss, the Premier, actually wanted Mr. Abbott gone?
[ Page 6851 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: The treaty process is an important process in British Columbia that helps us to reach long-term reconciliation between the province, the federal government and First Nations. There are only about a quarter of the nations in British Columbia that are part of that process.

However, we do want to see that process being able to move forward. We want to see the success that comes from that happen in a much more rapid time frame. We want to find a way, as well, to try to make it a simpler way and a more incremental way. These are all discussions that we are going to have with our principals, in terms of the process moving forward, and as we do that, we’ll then determine what the roles are and how the various processes should go.

Just to continue on with the agreements that we already have in place, because it shows our commitment to working with First Nations, we now also have more than 175 forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements. We have eight firm reconciliation agreements, eight strategic engagement agreements. We have reached agreements with more than 27 nations now on pipeline benefits. We’ve got economic benefit agreements. We have letters of understanding, atmospheric agreements, etc. There’s a whole lot that we are doing with First Nations, and we look forward to continuing that work.

INFORMATION ON WHOLESALE
LIQUOR PRICING CHANGES

D. Eby: This government promised many times to release the new beer and wine prices to the hospitality industry last week. Of course, last week was already too late for restaurants that plan their purchases and set their budgets months in advance, but at least they were finally getting the information they need. But one more time this Attorney General changed her mind and decided not to release that price list to the hospitality industry.

It’s not that she doesn’t have the information. She has told the media many times she does. She just doesn’t want to give it to restaurants or the public. Will the Attorney General release this information finally?

[1040]

Hon. S. Anton: One of the results of the liquor policy review was that we have done what industry has asked us to do for many years, and that’s to separate the wholesale side from the retail side of the Liquor Distribution Branch. This is a rather major change. What this means is that instead of having a retail price and working backwards, we now have a wholesale price that liquor wholesalers move forward from. That has resulted in a shift in the way the prices are calculated. But what’s important for consumers, for our constituents, for the citizens of British Columbia, is that prices are essentially unchanged.

What is important, as well, is that the various groups who need information have the information they need. The wholesale prices were released on the sixth of March. The hospitality industry, through their suppliers, had their prices released ten days before the end of the month, which is when those prices are always released.

There is a shift. The Liquor Distribution Branch is working extremely hard to make sure that people have the information they need, and they do.

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

D. Eby: This minister wants us to take her word on this, but we know that if prices were going down or staying essentially the same, there’d be a price list on every one of these members’ desks. There’d be a free price list in every MLA’s office. But that’s not what’s happening.

The price list is secret. This minister isn’t releasing the price list. It’s clearly not good news.

It’s going to be released just before the Easter long weekend. Given the quantities of beer and wine that restaurants buy, if prices go up even a little bit, it hurts their business. They’ve asked for a break on the full retail price of beer and wine.

Why is this government making restaurants pay full retail price plus whatever increases they’re hiding in this price list?

Hon. S. Anton: The hospitality customers have the information they need through the suppliers. They’ve got it ten days before the end of the month, which is when they get that information.

As to this top secret list, let me let the members of this House in on another top secret. The prices are on the Internet. For consumers, the prices that they will pay today are on the Internet. What’s more, there’s an app, and on April 1, if there’s any shift in prices, those, too, will be on the app. These top secret prices — they are very available to anyone.

As I said a moment ago, people who need the prices — the different industry groups and the consumers — have the information they need to continue with their good business decisions throughout the course of this year.

OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: For the past three weeks we’ve been asking the Minister of Community Development questions about the chaos at the Auditor General for Local Government’s office. Rather than accept responsibility for wasting $5.2 million on the Premier’s pet project, the minister reads from her message box, and sometimes she even reads her lines twice.

Yesterday the minister admitted that on January 15 the audit council told her…
[ Page 6852 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order.

S. Robinson: …that they lost confidence in Ms. Ruta. But when we asked, the minister told the House that all was well. To the minister, why did she ignore the audit council’s letter for three months?

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite: thank you for the question. Again, we absolutely remain committed to the principles of accountability and transparency that the are the foundations of the Auditor General for Local Government office. But let us be extremely clear. We’ve been working closely with the audit council for months. It has not been the last few rounds of question period that has enabled us to explore options to ensure the functioning of this office.

[1045]

Again, let me make it very clear. Our government remains committed to the principles behind the creation of the office of the Auditor General for Local Government. We want it to be successful, to do the job it was set out to do.

Over the next few weeks I encourage members opposite to go out into your communities, to talk to the taxpayers, to get a feel for how your citizens, your communities, are feeling about the fundamental principles of the Auditor General for Local Government.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. C. Oakes: Ask questions about how your local taxpayers are feeling about the compensation that is currently happening with local governments that is considerably outpacing that of other public service agencies.

I’m advised that the audit council will be making a recommendation for a qualified person to be appointed as the acting Auditor General for Local Government. We remain focused, determined and committed to ensuring that this office is successful.

Interjections.

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

S. Robinson: We will be going out to taxpayers and asking what they think about this government’s waste of $5.2 million on the Auditor General for Local Government. They’ll certainly be telling us that they’re not impressed with the decisions of this government.

The minister tells us that her staff received the audit council’s letter on January 15 but didn’t tell her about it. Just so that we’re clear, the minister wants us to believe that when she was appointed to run the Premier’s pet project, she lost confidence in Ms. Ruta, but her staff did not tell her about the letter. Instead, the minister came to this House and said that all is well.

To the minister, which other areas of her ministerial responsibility has she instructed her staff to not brief her on?

Hon. C. Oakes: We’ve been extremely clear that we’ve been disappointed by the lack of performance of the Auditor General for Local Government’s office. That’s why we exhausted every option over several months to ensure the success of the office. We absolutely remain committed to the success.

If it was up to that side of the House, there would never be the accountability and the transparency that we are currently looking at for working with local governments. It is absolutely prudent that we look at the work that is necessary to ensure the success of this office. We’re committed to doing that. We will do that work and ensure that success.

R. Austin: Yesterday the minister said she was determined, she was committed, she was focused on ensuring the success of the Auditor General for Local Government. In fact, she’s so focused that either she instructed her staff to keep her in the dark about the January non-confidence letter from the audit council or her staff just decided to keep the minister out of the loop. Either way, the minister allowed the office to waste $5.2 million on her watch.

To the minister, given her abysmal performance to date, exactly why should British Columbians believe she’s up to the task of stopping the waste of taxpayers’ money?

Hon. C. Oakes: The members opposite know full well that over the last few months the audit council has been working to resolve the lack of performance audits and undertake an independent review of the Auditor General for Local Government.

We exhausted every opportunity to ensure that there would be resolve. When it was felt that resolve could not be found, our ministry, our government, acted on that, and we took the steps that were necessary to ensure a successful Auditor General for Local Government’s office.

Madame Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.

R. Austin: You know, listening to this minister, I don’t know whether this is question period or an episode of Yes Minister.

[1050]

This minister told the House that all is well after her appointees and her staff told her in writing that the office is a shambles. The minister said she had a plan to fix
[ Page 6853 ]
the problems of the auditor’s office nine days before she decided to fire Ms. Ruta. Now she says she’s focused on making the AGLG work.

To the minister: the first audit cost $5.2 million. How much will the next one cost?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We will continue to work with the audit council and stakeholders to ensure that the office delivers on the principles that it was set out to do.

R. Fleming: Yesterday the minister actually had the gall to say in this House that the Premier’s pet project was a response to a grassroots movement all across British Columbia. Even worse, the minister said they’d listened to local governments and implemented what they asked for. In fact, the Union of B.C. Municipalities passed a resolution in 2011 voicing their disagreement with the need for the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. Yesterday the president of the UBCM got it right and called it “a complete waste of money.”

With validation like that, I would like to ask the minister this. After wasting $5.2 million, how on earth can she expect local governments to believe that the AGLG can ever, in fact, help them?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question to allow me the opportunity to provide some very essential background information. In 2010 the B.C. chamber AGM passed a resolution endorsing the notion of a municipal auditor to do regular, comprehensive value-for-money audits of municipal spending.

“Local governments are the closest to our citizens and provide some very essential day-to-day services. The auditor general’s role can work cooperatively with local government to identify best practices in the provision of those services.” That was from the Coquitlam mayor, released February 4 in 2012.

“This is an important step in bringing a much-needed addition to accountability of how city halls spend our property taxes. If something is a concern at city hall, residents need to have someone available to look at that problem with fresh eyes.” That was Jordan Bateman on February 4 of 2012.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: I ask the minister to take her seat because we are not continuing until this House comes to order.

Hon. C. Oakes: Local governments from across British Columbia, taxpayers from across British Columbia and organizations in communities throughout British Columbia — as I’ve provided the opportunity — see great value in having an Auditor General for Local Government’s office. We ensure to do the necessary work that sometimes leadership takes to ensure that this office is successful.

Madame Speaker: The member for Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the minister, if I can — because she has thanked me for my question — for taking us back to 2010, when they trotted out endorsers. She mentioned grassroots supporters like Jordan Bateman and Mike Klassen. That is a social movement that reverberated right across the province.

Here’s a news flash for the minister. Grass roots aren’t grown in the Premier’s office, but if they were they’d probably use the same heat lamp that cooked up the HST.

[1055]

It’s interesting to see the endorsements that couldn’t be secured for this office. You didn’t see an endorsement from the former mayor of Penticton. You didn’t see the former mayor of Pemberton endorse this office. But you did see on the press release an endorsement from the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education was there.

The Premier’s pet project is completely discredited in the eyes of local government leaders, in the eyes of taxpayers across British Columbia. It has been a disastrous waste. It’s completely off the rails. I would ask the minister this: how much more money does she plan to waste on the Premier’s pet project going forward from today?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we will do the necessary work. We remain focused, committed and determined to make sure the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government is successful.

M. Mungall: Well, I know one town that’s looking very forward to the fact that the AGLG is such an ineffective, big mess. That’d be the town of Jumbo. They’re not going to get audited, perhaps. Maybe they’re municipality No. 52; they’re so far down the line. How much would the government have to spend before they got to the fake town of Jumbo, before it ever got audited for all the money that’s just sitting there in its bank account, not going to a single citizen of the Kootenays?

So $5.2 million has already been wasted. How much more is she going to be wasting of taxpayers’ dollars?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, madam. Through the Chair.

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite: thank you for the question. Again, we remain committed and focused and determined to ensure the success of this office. We’re going to do the necessary work. We’re going to work with the audit council, and we’re going to be successful.
[ Page 6854 ]

M. Farnworth: The minister said something interesting. She said she’s going to do the necessary work to make this office work. One would have expected that work would have been done ahead of time. Had that been done, we wouldn’t have wasted $5.2 million. At the time that this idea was floated from the brain of the Premier, the questions were raised by local governments about the effectiveness and the way that the government was wanting to implement this particular program.

My question to the minister is this. She says she wants to do the work. Will she go back and work with municipalities on ways to improve the local government auditor general, perhaps looking at where it should be in the first place — with appropriate staff and an appropriate budget with the current Auditor General for the province of British Columbia, who would be more than happy to do the job?

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes, of course I’ll work with local governments.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations. In this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 17, Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — GUIDE DOG AND
SERVICE DOG ACT

(continued)

S. Hamilton: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to conclude my remarks regarding Bill 17, the guide dog and assistance dog act. I will try to stay brief because, given the tenor of the debate in this House yesterday afternoon, I don’t think there’s going to be a whole lot of opposition to this bill. Everybody loves dogs, and everybody loves what we’re trying to do, I believe, with regard to this act.

[1100]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The guide dog international and the International Guide Dog Federation are both well-respected, internationally recognized training facilities and will help ensure consistent training standards to protect the safety of handlers and the public. Now, these changes that we’re introducing today include high training standards for dogs that perform critical daily tasks or services to assist with their handlers’ disabilities. And under this legislation, someone requiring a guide or service dog will be able to keep their retired dog as a pet while still using their new dog for assistance.

On a personal note, one of the first dogs that my wife, Kristen, graduated was named Howie. Howie went to a young woman who lives in Coquitlam by the name of Lynn Jensen, who for years worked with her partner dog by the name of Mae, one of the first litter dogs that came out of B.C. Guide Dogs, actually from New Zealand. They spent many, many years working together and providing, obviously, love and loyalty but a very critical service for Lynn as well. When Mae was retired and Howie came onto the scene….

I will digress for moment. there’s nothing quite like having a dog spend nearly two years in your home and then having to give it up. It’s an emotional, gut-wrenching experience, but when you see what these dogs provide to the people that you’re training them for, it makes it all worthwhile.

Obviously, it would be unfair for a retired dog that’s provided years of service and companionship not to be able to continue as a pet for the rest of their lives. Retired guide and service dogs will retain tenancy rights — for example, in rental units, manufactured home parks and strata properties — while residing with their former handlers.

This legislation will also grant dogs and puppies in training the same full access rights as in-service dogs. Allowing dogs in training public access rights was something we heard frequently from stakeholders during our extensive consultations. Granting these dogs and puppies access privileges is critical to ensuring that they can be effectively trained.

Again from personal experience, my wife and I can’t count the number of times that we had problems accessing establishments. We watched taxicabs pass right by that would otherwise have been available.

I’ll digress again for a moment and let you know that the taxi associations in recent years have done extensive training with their drivers. That problem has pretty much gone away.

I use the word “attempted” with regard to the reference of my wife, because if you know my wife, Mr. Speaker, she can turn on the tenacity if she has to. So there were very few circumstances where we ran into problems, and we were able to get the establishment owner to understand. But still, it remains a problem with the way the legislation is written today, and I’m glad we’re going to be addressing this.

In order for an individual to show that they require the use of a guide dog or a service dog due to a disability, the regulations will require confirmation from a B.C. physician or a nurse practitioner. These requirements will be developed in the sets of regulations.

I’ll speak for a moment about enforcement. The Ministry of Justice security programs division will be
[ Page 6855 ]
responsible for enforcement. Police officers may also be able to provide enforcement.

This legislation is going to serve to protect people like transit operators, retail establishments, restaurants, etc., and it allows them to ask legitimate questions and request proof of licensing and certification without risk of recrimination. There are situations where people threaten human rights complaints, and we don’t need that. This legislation is going to protect us from those occurrences happening.

I’d also like to speak for a moment about those who attempt to falsify and misrepresent themselves and their animals. We only need to do a quick Internet search to find a myriad of unscrupulous suppliers who would, for a price, sell you a jacket and phony identification that would suggest that your dog is fully trained and certified and licensed so that subsequently, this dog should be allowed in your place of business. The person basically is trying to fake their way into your establishment.

The practice only serves to diminish and degrade the good work that these people are doing to train the proper dogs, the dogs that are actually providing a service to their handler. These dogs often will create disruption in an environment, and not just for the people around them. Quite often if a guide animal or a service animal is also in the area, these untrained, uncertified, unlicensed dogs can create disruptions when you get multiple dogs into a room.

[1105]

Also, to those who would falsify or purport that their pooch in their purse is actually a service dog, I’d ask those people to take heed, because this legislation, if passed…. Little Gizmo in your purse there could potentially help put you in the doghouse. It’s an exploding trend, and we need to protect people from those types of people.

This new legislation will increase penalties and fines for those who attempt this unscrupulous behaviour. I’d put it right up there that it’s no different in my mind than an able-bodied person using a handicapped stall. It’s misrepresentation. It’s plain wrong. Again, it serves only to hurt the dogs and the people that handle them that are doing the right business.

I want to conclude that I’m really proud today. For me personally, this legislation is going to address some of the really pressing needs of people with disabilities in our province. I want to thank members on both sides of the House for their support for this legislation in going forward. It’s going to mean a lot to the people who really need it.

M. Farnworth: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 17, the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act, here in the province of British Columbia.

I think all of us are familiar with the role that guide and service dogs can play in the lives of people with disabilities. For many of us when we were young, it was initially people who were visually impaired, who were blind or sight-impaired. You learned very early on, as a kid, how incredible a working dog, a guide dog, could be in improving somebody’s life and somebody’s condition, giving them mobility that they otherwise wouldn’t have had.

Over the last 15 or 20 years, we have seen advances to where dogs are now able to be much more than just a guide dog or a service dog for someone who is visually impaired. Rather, people with a whole range of disabilities have had the ability to live a more fulfilling, active, productive life, thanks to the abilities of these remarkable four-legged animals, guide and service dogs.

These are dogs that are not pets. They are working dogs. They have been trained to use the natural intelligence, the natural instincts of these animals to improve the lives of people. It is absolutely remarkable. When you see how much work goes into the training, when you see how much attention and what they’re able to do, it truly is inspiring.

What’s also remarkable has been the lack of regulation around this. The standards that need to be in place have been missing. This bill addresses those. This bill addresses them in many important ways — in terms of the dogs themselves, in terms of how they’re trained, in terms of requirements for people doing training. It sets a good, high standard, and that’s as it should be.

One of the interesting things that this bill will also do is overcome and deal with a situation or situations that are out there on two rather disturbing fronts. One is that there is still a prejudice against working dogs that are service dogs for people with disabilities, be it visual or physical, and there are those who would seek to take advantage of the strong reputation that working dogs have.

I just want to touch on the importance of those two factors in my remarks. I mean, on the prejudice side, it is still remarkable that there are places — whether it is restaurants, whether it is rental accommodations, whether it is retail — where a person is denied access or a person is denied service because they have a guide dog with them. When you think about it, it’s almost inconceivable that someone would deny service to someone because they have a guide dog.

[1110]

Guide dogs are trained to be…. They are not aggressive. They are well-behaved. They are calm. In fact, one of the key considerations in terms of their suitability to be a guide dog is their temperament. They are clean. They are looked after, yet in too many cases, service is refused, even though laws are there.

You have to ask yourself why. Why would anybody do that? All you have to do is look at a guide dog, and you see intelligence. You see commitment. You see all these characteristics that, frankly, are sometimes missing in many people.
[ Page 6856 ]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The Attorney General says: “Say it ain’t so.” You know what? I wish I could say, “Say it ain’t so,” but the fact is that it’s true.

When you look at the bond between an individual and a service dog, it truly is an absolute wonder. It is an incredible bond. It is an absolutely incredible bond. In my mind, it puts lie to the logic that is sometimes used that dogs are just animals and that they don’t understand, that they really don’t relate to people in the way that we think they do. One only has to look at that relationship between an individual with a disability and their guide or service dog to know that that is simply not true.

This legislation helps deal with that, and I think that’s important. It’s also important because as we have evolved and with the ability of guide dogs and service dogs to do more and more, and as we’ve seen the advances in technology that also allows people with disabilities to do more and more….

You’re in a condominium, and you’ve had a dog with you that’s worked with you for, let’s say, ten or 11 years, and it comes to the end of its working life. You don’t just throw that animal on the scrap heap. You don’t just say: “Oh, sorry. You know what? You’re no longer able to do your job, and guess what? This condo has rules that say no pets allowed. Because you are no longer working and therefore you’re are a pet, you’re not allowed to be here anymore.”

Can you imagine how traumatic that is? I mean, I know how hard it is to put…. I had a dog, and I had to put her down just before Christmas. She had lymphoma. I’d had her for 12½ years. I brought her back with me from Bulgaria. That was one of the most heart-wrenching things I’ve had to do in a long, long time.

So you can only imagine what it must be like to be in a building and suddenly be told: “Oh sorry. Your dog is no longer a guide dog. It’s no longer a working dog. It’s a pet, and we don’t have to allow pets. So you either have to move, or you have to get rid of your dog.” How heartless is that? That is unbelievably cruel. It is cruel to the person, and it is cruel to the animal.

This bill corrects that. This bill stops that from happening. This bill recognizes not only the value and the work, that this animal has earned a decent and fair retirement, but also that the individual has a deep, abiding emotional attachment with this animal, with this dog, with this companion, with this workhorse who’s been with them through thick and thin and never complained and is able to stay. And that’s exactly as it should be.

Which brings me to my second point. Why do these things sometimes happen? Why is there this prejudice that is out there? Why do buildings sometimes have these rules against these marvelous animals? It comes back to what the Attorney General says: “Say it ain’t so.” There are people who want to take advantage.

There are people who want to take advantage of what a guide dog does. They somehow think that they’re special, that they’re different, that they shouldn’t have to wait in line, that they should be able to take their dog into a restaurant when it’s not properly trained. They go on line, and they order a mail-order guide dog jacket for their dog. And it has not been trained. It may not be socialized around other dogs. It may not have been socialized properly around humans. As one advocate for this legislation put it, it is clearly too small to be a guide or service dog.

[1115]

What happens is that it gives a bad name. It causes people to say: “Hang on a sec. How do we know that this is a real guide dog or not a real guide dog?” It creates problems for people with disabilities, for people who rely on their guide and service dogs. It is basically an act of selfishness.

This legislation deals with that by requiring proper identification, and I think that that’s a positive step. I think that’s a very positive step. We have to make it, I think, unacceptable to people. They may think that it’s harmless, but the fact is that it’s not harmless. It’s not harmless. It makes life difficult for people who rely on their service dogs. So that’s another important component of this legislation, and it’s one of the other reasons why we will be supporting this bill.

I just wanted to say some brief remarks on this. I think this is a good piece of legislation. It’s one that I think all members of this House are going to support, and I, for one, am glad to see it here.

With that, I will take my seat.

V. Huntington: I am very pleased to be able to rise on Bill 17, the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act, particularly because one of the great organizations that train these lovely working dogs is in my riding of South Delta.

Bill and Linda Thornton founded the Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind, and Bill served as president and CEO till 1995. In 1996 Bill co-founded British Columbia Guide Dog Services, and he launched, in 2002, the Alberta Guide Dog Services as a division of the B.C. program. Bill and Linda are constituents, and they’ve devoted most of their lives to this organization. They train guide dogs from a young age to be specifically matched with the needs of their soon-to-be owners.

Last year a number of sister charities associated with the work of the organization amalgamated, and the umbrella organization is now known simply as B.C. and Alberta Guide Dogs. This charitable organization has worked for years in my riding, providing valuable service to blind and visually impaired individuals from across the region. Over the years they have graduated 108 guide dogs. The charity is a team of professionals and volunteers who I know are happy to see this legislation being brought forward.

I have to say that when you live in a riding where an organization such as this exists and you see these little tiny
[ Page 6857 ]
floppy-eared black Labs wandering around the streets with their little tiny jackets on, you realize that there is an incredible process at stake — volunteers who allow these dogs into their home and hearts to be trained, only to give them up to go to those individuals who need them.

You also realize that some of these little dogs aren’t…. Their personality isn’t adequate or is just too filled with flamboyance to become a guide dog. So it’s a very complicated, heartwarming process to watch as these dogs go through their training.

The purpose of Bill 17 and its regulations is to safeguard access rights for individuals who rely on guide dogs or service dogs and ensure clarity and safety for businesses and other members of the public. Bill 17 gives people who use service or guide dogs improved and specified access to public areas and service, with the aim to guarantee them the same rights and privileges as everyone else.

It also extends the access rights of dogs in training so that they can go into the same public place as a fully certified dog, when accompanied by a certified trainer. New requirements will be put in place about visible identification for the dogs like a designated tag or card to make it clear to business owners, landlords or transit staff that the dog is fully certified.

Tenancy rights for guide and service dogs will also be updated so that landlords and stratas are aware of the rules and people’s rights to keep certified guide or service dogs with them, regardless of bylaws restricting pets.

[1120]

Retired guide and service dogs will also fall under the new housing rules, meaning people who have relied on their guide or service dog for years will not have to separate from them.

If the bill is passed, guide and service dogs will be required to be trained by a facility accredited by Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation.

The Access for Sight-Impaired Consumers website describes how Bill 17 builds on the recommendations submitted to the Solicitor General by a working group committee led by Jane Dyson, executive director of Disability Alliance B.C. Apparently, they have continued to meet over the last two years to work through the bill’s details.

This bill replaces the Guide Animal Act, which is fairly basic and only nine clauses long. Bill 17 tries to address issues that have come up with the people and their service dogs, such as being separated from the companion dog when the dog is forced to retire.

I am extremely pleased to support this bill, as are all other members of this House. I congratulate all of those in the industry who provide such a dedicated and desperately needed service to those who are disabled in our province.

B. Ralston: Many speakers have already spoken to the bill, and very eloquently and knowledgably. Frankly, I’ve learned quite a bit by listening to the debate. I know the breadth of knowledge of this area is not something that I was intimately familiar with, but I’m convinced, based on the debate that I’ve heard, that this is an excellent piece of legislation.

One would wonder, parenthetically, why such an excellent piece of legislation would have taken five or six years to come forward, given that it was provided to the Ministry of the Attorney General in draft form, more or less in the manner that it’s coming forward as a bill now, some five years ago.

Originally, I think we had anticipated that the fall sessions, were they to be regularly convened, would be sessions where legislation would be addressed and the spring session would focus on the budget and estimates. That way the legislative backlog would not have stretched out. Perhaps that’s a salutary lesson about the importance of the fall session in bringing forward good legislation, such as this.

The comment I do have…. The member for Nanaimo has already alluded to this and addressed it. There is a fairly eloquent letter. It came from a lawyer who is familiar with this field and speaks about the wording of section 2, which is “Access to public places.” Subsection 2(1) reads: “A guide dog team, service dog team or dog-in-training team may….” It then goes on to say: “…enter and use any place, accommodation…or conveyance to which the public is invited or has access….”

Clearly, the standard statutory interpretation of “may” is that it’s permissive and not mandatory. The writer of this letter stresses that it appears to derogate from what she regards — and I think convincingly — as a right. It is referred to — and this would be used in any interpretation of this judicially — in subsection 2(2) as: “A person must not (a) interfere with the exercise of a privilege under subsection (1).”

She describes this language, using the word “privilege” rather than a right. I think she acknowledges that every right is circumscribed in some respects so that it’s not an unbounded right. But what she does say is that this is regressive language and unnecessarily weakens the strength of the legislation. She, in her view, argues that it’s contrary to the human rights code. She suggests that the word “privilege” be replaced with the word “right.”

That’s something that, as others have said…. Later in the legislative process, we’ll consider that section specifically, but I would be interested in the justification that the Attorney General offers, as the person who’s conveying the bill through the Legislature, for that choice of language, given what I think is a very strong representation on this particular point.

[1125]

It seems to strike at the very heart of the legislation and the intention of the many good organizations that
[ Page 6858 ]
have quite properly brought this legislation forward and are supportive of it.

Those are the only comments that I have on the bill at this time.

K. Conroy: I, too, rise to speak on Bill 17. I support the bill, but I’m raising some concerns from a rural perspective. I haven’t seen this in the bill. I’m sure it’ll be canvassed in committee stage, but I just want to raise an issue with people that live in rural B.C.

I, in fact, have a constituent who lives in the Slocan Valley. She’s on disability assistance. She has been working with a guide dog for a number of years now. She has been training her on her own, but as well, she has had some assistance with the training from dog trainers in our area. It has been amazing to see how this dog has evolved to help this woman with her issues.

The difficulty lies…. In order for the dog to be officially certified now — I don’t see anywhere in this legislation — what this woman would have to do now is travel to the community of Creston, which is at least a three-hour drive away from where she lives. It’s quite a distance. She wouldn’t be able to go home at night. She’d have to pick up and move there for at least six weeks to two months.

There’s no funding for that when I look at this bill. I’m not sure if, like I said, once they drill down in committee stage, this would actually be something that’s there to help people who are on disability pension. It’s a real difficulty for people in rural B.C. — where they can actually get the certification for their dogs when the dogs are in the process right now of being trained.

I’ve met Cosmo. He’s an amazing dog. He is one of the best-trained guide dogs I have ever seen. He just doesn’t have that piece of paper that says he’s actually a guide dog. He’s incredibly well trained. He’s been in my office a number of times, and he’s one of the more well-trained dogs I’ve seen. It’s amazing to see the work he does with my constituent.

It is a concern for people in rural B.C. who have a dog that hasn’t been officially accredited by the guide dog association, but they are in the process of trying to get that to happen. I’m wondering if there is going to be any kind of assistance for people on disability or social assistance who require some sort of help to make sure the dogs can be trained through this process. Will the government be providing any kind of funding for this process?

There isn’t training close to home, so to speak. I mean, it’s a little easier when you live in the Lower Mainland. If there’s training in an area that you can get to, you can always get home at night. We don’t have the same accessibility in rural B.C. This is a real concern for us.

I know it’s a real concern for this constituent, who brings her dog everywhere she goes. Most places are welcoming. Most places say yes. They see the work that’s been done with this constituent and Cosmo and see how effective Cosmo is when he’s providing support to this woman and allows her to effectively carry on with her life in spite of her disabilities.

I’m really hoping that this will be canvassed in committee stage and that there is somewhere within the bill, within the legalese of the bill — and we’re just not reading it — that there is going to be support for people in rural B.C. who really do work hard with their guide dogs, who need their guide dogs, who get out in the community with their guide dogs.

These dogs do an incredible job. They just don’t actually have that piece of paper that’s going to be required by this legislation. They don’t have the ability to get it now, because it’s too far away. There are cost barriers involved.

I just wanted to raise those issues. I agree with all the other statements that have been made by my colleagues in the House. Guide dogs are incredible. I’ve watched them. When you travel in the province, you see them and you see the incredible work they do with the people they’re working with. I want to speak out for rural B.C. and ensure that there is, hopefully, some consideration for the training and for the people that have guide dogs in our region.

D. Donaldson: I rise to take part in second reading debate of Bill 17, Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.
[ Page 6859 ]
I would like to express my support for the bill, although I do have some concerns that I’ll outline. Like the member for Kootenay West, I hope that those concerns will be addressed at the committee stage or at least that more information will be provided.

[1130]

The act addresses a number of issues and concerns and especially has brought to light the issue of the fraud, the nature of a fraud, where people with disabilities have guide dogs that perhaps aren’t trained to the level of what is expected and therefore are being taken advantage of.

I think that with the certification process outlined, that will be addressed to a certain extent. Then we should not have situations where people with valid reasons for having a guide dog will be refused access to restaurants and other public facilities. It also outlines penalties, and I think that’s appropriate as well.

In a general sense, I have some concerns about the length of time it took for this bill to come forward. I understand by advocacy groups, there was draft legislation provided to this government five years ago. We know in the last number of years, at least two falls ago, we didn’t have a fall sitting of the Legislature. That’s when a bill such as this could have been addressed.

Last fall we were consumed with two bills associated mainly with the proposed liquid natural gas industry in the province and therefore didn’t have the amount of time necessary to focus on other issues.

I think that is a cautionary tale around a government being obsessed and too focused with a single issue and not being able to address these important issues such as Bill 17 and the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act.

The bill also, as other speakers have pointed out, has come under some positive reinforcement, or at least critical comments that could be looked at as positive recommendations, around the incident where a guide dog is attacked by other dogs. This bill, according to a person with a lot of knowledge on the case, does not address that situation effectively.

There was a recommendation in the original draft legislation that was provided to the government that had provisions in there for remedies around a situation where a guide dog is attacked. For instance, there have been instances where a guide dog has been attacked by other dogs. That guide dog then is unable to fulfil its duties to the owner, which is pretty important for a person with disabilities.

As I quote from this legal expert on these cases, this means if my guide dog is viciously attacked or psychologically traumatized and is unable to work for the short or long term, the act provides no legal recourse to seek damages from the pet dog owner.

I hope that that issue is canvassed and the minister can respond to that concern in the committee stage around what kind of remedies a guide dog owner would have.

Finally, in my brief comments here at second reading, I would like to touch on some of the topics covered by the member for Kootenay West regarding rural areas and people in remote rural areas who either have a guide dog now that’s not certified as prescribed under this legislation or are looking to have a dog that they hope to be trained for a guide dog, certified.

The legislation, and on the Ministry of Justice website in regards to this certification, states that guide dogs must be trained by a facility that has been approved by the Ministry of Justice.

I just did a search over the Internet of the two organizations that have been designated under this legislation as overseers of the certification process. That’s the Assistance Dogs International and the International Guide Dog Federation.

The facilities that are accredited by these two organizations in B.C. appear to be in Delta and Burnaby. There might be others. I’m not sure. In an Internet search, the two certified facilities were in Delta and Burnaby.

[1135]

This creates a predicament for people in remote rural areas who either have a guide dog right now that requires certification or have a dog that they hope to become certified.

I would look forward to the committee stage around ideas, remedies, for that kind of situation — to deal with it in rural areas — whether there’s funding available to people with disabilities who want their existing guide dog certified, or whether there’s going to be some assistance to get facilities in other areas of the province accredited so that people who have a dog now that they want to attend one of the facilities, on the owner’s behalf, to become certified, have the ability to do so a little closer to home.

We know that transportation is an issue. We know that oftentimes the cost is prohibitive for people from rural areas to attend a facility in a larger centre such as Delta or Burnaby. It’s a large province, and the accredited facilities seem to be limited.

When you introduce legislation, I think it’s important to consider the implications and the remedies that the government would have available to address concerns, such as those of people in remote rural areas, and have some prescriptions for dealing with that, whether it’s a program to license more facilities in the province or whether it’s assistance for people who are caught in the predicament of having a guide dog without a certificate after this legislation passes — giving subsidies or assistance in getting people to the accredited facilities that exist right now.

With those comments, I’ll conclude my second reading debate on Bill 17, the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act, and look forward to committee stage.

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

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you to the members opposite and members on this side of the House for the comments during second reading. I can assure you staff are listening. There is certainly plenty of goodwill to make this act work.

It is interesting, in the context of this act coming in, how many news reports there have been from across the country recently about the issue of dogs not properly certified, people inventing certifications and so on. These, of course, are the things that this act is being brought forward to deal with so that there’s certainty for the teams and there’s certainty for the world around the teams. As the members have said, it is a very good thing to bring it forward.

I’ve been thanked a couple of times during debate, but in this case, probably more than many, the thanks really are due to the stakeholders and the community who have helped us in government with the thinking around the bill and the planning and issues that the bill needs to address.

Many of those people were mentioned by the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour and by the members opposite. I would like to repeat my thanks to all of the stakeholders who’ve been involved. In particular, in this House I’d like to thank the member for Delta North, who I have relied on often for his advice on it because he’s been a trainer himself or his wife is a trainer.

I’d like to thank your colleague, Mr. Speaker, Madame Speaker herself. I hope I get this right. She was the president of the guide dogs of British Columbia. I might have that title wrong. I know that she’s played a very prominent and leading role in this for some time now, and I really do appreciate her work.
[ Page 6860 ]

With the help from all of those…. There will be regulations. All of those stakeholders…. I think their work is probably not done. We will probably be calling on them another time for help with the regulations. But as I said, I really would like to repeat the thanks that others have given for the hard work that people have put in to bring this act forward.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 17.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 17, Guide Dog and Service Dog Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 18, the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act.

[1140]

BILL 18 — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 18 now be read a second time.

The introduction of the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act will support the administrative justice sector by the following: enabling the clustering of administrative tribunals, giving tribunals the authority to require that early dispute resolution methods be used and enhancing the accountability of tribunals through new reporting requirements.

These practical changes will give tribunals the tools they need to reduce cost delay and complexity. They enable tribunal chairs to improve access to justice for British Columbians, and they are an important part of our broader justice transformation program.

Many of us in this House will agree with Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s statement that access to justice is the single most pressing challenge facing Canada’s justice sector today. To address that challenge, government, courts and administrative agencies will need to focus very carefully on putting the needs of justice system users first before the needs of lawyers, judges, public servants or tribunal members and staff.

If we are going to respond to the Chief Justice of Canada’s call to address the challenges in access to justice, then we must develop a justice system that is sustainable, and we must work together — government, the courts, the administrative justice sector, the legal profession and all other players — to transform our system in a fundamental way.

This challenge is not unique to British Columbia. On a national level, justice system leaders are calling on all parts of the justice system to work together to solve the big problems we are facing.

Last year the Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters concluded: “The current system, which is inaccessible to so many and unable to respond adequately to the problem, is unsustainable.” The report calls for an overriding culture of reform, and the committee’s chair, Mr. Justice Cromwell of the Supreme Court of Canada, challenges all of us in the justice system to think big together.

We have learned that we cannot hope to address the fundamental challenges to our justice system with small, isolated changes here and there, nor is there any one solution. The proposed Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act is one step in a broader approach to addressing challenges of access to justice and contains a number of changes to put in place the legislative framework that will enable transformative change.

First, the legislation proposes to provide the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the authority to designate clusters of tribunals by regulation and appoint executive and tribunal chairs to lead each tribunal within a cluster. Clustering means grouping of some of B.C.’s administrative tribunals into common administrative structures to improve efficiencies and reduce duplication, where appropriate. Within the cluster, each tribunal will retain its current legislative mandate.

Our commitment to transformation in the tribunal sector, and specifically clustering, was outlined in our 2013 white paper. The goals of clustering are consistent with government’s core review, which is to ensure government is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible. For example, government spends $4½ million annually on office space, including hearing rooms for tribunals. We can bring that amount down by increased sharing of office space and hearing rooms by tribunals.

Clustering similar tribunals together has the potential to reduce duplication and silos in our administrative justice system, which in turn can reduce cost, complexity and delay for tribunal users. Clustering is not new in British Columbia. The environmental appeal tribunal, Forest Appeals Commission, and Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal have the same tribunal chair and members and share office space not only with each other but with several other tribunals. The proposed amendments will enable a comprehensive, consistent effort to cluster more tribunals in the province.

Second, better access to justice can also be achieved by providing 24-7 on-line service like the civil resolution tribunal proposes. The amendments will do this by providing tribunals with the clear authority to use electronic tools to support a range of dispute resolution processes. On-line services will provide a more accessible and early resolution of disputes for British Columbians — and indeed, no matter where they are in British Columbia.
[ Page 6861 ]

[1145]

Third, the amendments will enable tribunals to put in place enhanced early dispute resolution processes. Currently the legislation enables tribunals to conduct a dispute resolution process only where the parties consent. The amendments ensure additional tribunals have the authority to compel both parties to participate in early dispute resolution methods. This provision is enabling and will only be used by tribunals where they believe it is appropriate.

Fourth, the proposed amendments authorize the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations specifying reporting requirements. These may include measures such as user satisfaction, time from commencement to conclusion and cost per case. These amendments will enhance performance reporting and allow for greater performance transparency of tribunal clusters and tribunals. The result of these changes will be enhanced accountability, reporting and transparency across the tribunal sector.

These amendments will enable a number of changes in the tribunal sector. Next steps will be further analysis on which specific clusters to form. This will include business case analysis, mandate reviews and cabinet review. The tribunals themselves will determine which of their new authorities around early dispute resolution and on-line dispute resolution are appropriate for their processes. The proposed amendments will provide government and tribunals with the tools to implement transformative changes in the tribunal sector.

The bill also includes a number of changes to other tribunal statutes. Not all administrate justice–related matters are provided for in the Administrative Tribunals Act. Therefore, amendments to a number of tribunal-enabling statutes are required. These amendments will also enable improved efficiency and effectiveness of those tribunals processes.

The amendments include changes to the human rights code to provide complainants with protection from retaliation before a complaint is filed, rather than the current provisions, which only apply once a complaint has been filed. We are also allowing the annual report to be provided to the Clerk of the assembly when the Legislature is not sitting.

The bill includes a number of amendments to improve the processes of the labour sector tribunals. The Employment Standards Act will be amended to put in place a 30-day limit for a reconsideration of applications at the Employment Standards Tribunal. The Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal will be given jurisdiction over constitutional questions other than Charter of Rights questions. This change will enable the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal to decide whether a particular case falls under federal or provincial legislation if that question is a matter in an appeal.

A number of amendments are housekeeping in nature. For example, the legislation would bring the Forest Appeals Commission and Environmental Appeal Board under the framework of the Administrative Tribunals Act, enabling repeal of the act’s predecessor, the Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act. Doing so requires a significant number of amendments to the statutes relating to those two tribunals. However, the amendments do not change grounds for appeal, standing to appeal, where interveners are permitted, ability to award costs, standard of review or fees charged.

Further, amendments are proposed to the Residential Tenancy Act and the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to allow disputes to be resolved through a variety of dispute prevention and resolution processes, such as allowing the facilitated resolution of disputes in addition to adjudication and enabling the use of on-line systems and electronic communication in dispute resolution processes as well as in the service of documents between citizens.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, we believe the amendments in the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act will improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the tribunal sector. The reform of our administrative justice system is a critical component in our overall justice transformation program. By passing this legislation, we will be taking an important step towards improving access to justice for British Columbians.

L. Krog: When I commented on Bill 17 yesterday, I made a bit of a joke about it taking five years since the folks involved in pushing for that legislative change had actually presented a draft bill to the Liberal government. Here we are five years down the road, and it was introduced and spoken to in debate.

What we are really dealing with here today is another bit of history. It goes back to the Attorney General’s predecessor. I believe Geoff Plant was responsible for the Administrative Tribunals Act, which was assented to in May of 2004. Bill 18 represents a fairly significant revision of the purposes of that act and, as well, significant changes, as the Attorney General has outlined in her remarks.

[1150]

I think it is worthy of note that, subject to the argument that if it’s 61 pages long…. It’s equally as long as Bill 13. The difference is this bill has 204 sections to deal with. If you actually look at the bill, once you get past the first few sections — in other words, quite literally to section 30 — the rest of it…. Part 10 of the act all the way through is what is referred to as “Miscellaneous.”

This is a draftsperson’s nightmare. This is the kind of thing that drives public servants to early retirement or keeps them up late at night, trying to….

Hon. S. Anton: They love their job.

L. Krog: They love their job, the Attorney General assures me. And we love them. I certainly hope they’re
[ Page 6862 ]
remunerated appropriately, because this is a drafting nightmare.

I would be less than honest if I didn’t express to the chamber my own concern about my abilities to try and deal with this bill in an appropriate way, given the limited resources that government provides the official opposition and the incredible pressure our staff face trying to respond in a timely way to such a massive piece of legislation. Notwithstanding that, hon. Speaker, I assure you the opposition will do its best.

It’s interesting when you think about the whole concept of administrative tribunals. I think those of us who are old enough to remember will recall that, subject to the workers compensation system and WorkSafe B.C. and workers comp, as it was historically known, one of the major so-called administrative tribunals was the introduction of the B.C. Labour Relations Board under Dave Barrett, chaired initially, as I recall, by Paul Weiler. It was his baby.

It was one of the most progressive pieces of legislation of its type. It was a recognition by politicians — and, I suspect, no doubt at the pleading of judges who were tired of dealing with matters they had no particular expertise in — to reform the law, to recognize that there were specialized areas that didn’t necessarily require resolution in our traditional court system, whether that was a small claims court or, more particularly in those days, the county court of the B.C. Supreme Court.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

And so here we are today working with a statute that is 11 years old now since its passage and dealing with significant amendments, which are supposed to be progress.

Now, the growth of administrative law in this province is significant, as it is in every jurisdiction across the country. I am conscious of the fact that they very specifically set out that they are not to operate like courts. Indeed, the existing section 11 of the Administrative Tribunals Act says very clearly in sub (1): “Subject to this act and the tribunal’s enabling Act, the tribunal has the power to control its own processes and may make rules respecting practice and procedure to facilitate the just and timely resolution of the matters before it.”

Then it goes on in subsection (2), “Without limiting subsection (1), the tribunal may make rules as follows,” and it runs all the way through from (a) to (w). It just about uses up the whole alphabet, giving every possible section.

Now, for those of a legal bent in the chamber…. Of course, John Mortimer’s wonderful character, Rumpole of the Old Bailey, if you read any of those wonderful short stories and novels, will tell you that he doesn’t have much truck or trade or interest in the concept of administrative tribunals, believing essentially that the court system is the only place in which justice will be done fairly, where we have the right — in criminal cases, certainly, and in civil matters — to a jury of our peers in order to come to decisions, that there are processes and procedures and rules of evidence that govern all of this.

In fact, what we realize now with administrative tribunals is — and this is clearly set out in the legislation — they get to make their own rules. And now we’re going to try and make the system more efficient by clustering them.

Now, I want to, firstly, thank the Attorney General and her staff from the ministry who provided a wonderful briefing yesterday on both Bills 18 and 19. They are somewhat sister or brother statutes, depending on how you’re feeling about gender today.

They, again, represent some fairly complex changes, but this isn’t necessarily a step forward. The reason I say that — although I suspect the opposition will ultimately support this legislation — is because of what the Attorney General herself, I think, reflected on in her remarks earlier, when she said “has the potential to reduce.”

[1155]

What we have with Bill 18 is an awful lot of hopeful potential, but we are very, very short on specifics.

Hon. Speaker, I do note that I am probably going to speak for more than five minutes on this. So noting the hour, I would move adjournment of the debate, reserving my right to speak.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Polak 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 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
[ Page 6863 ]

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $38,633,000 (continued).

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and staff again. It’s a beautiful morning. Before I begin with the line of questions I prepared, I just want to follow up from what just happened in the Legislature.

The minister referred numerous times now to a significant new path that’s been recognized over the last six months to move the treaty process, and the Treaty Commission has lost their chief commissioner because of this. Obviously, very serious discussions or decisions are being made here around this new path over the last six months.

Where would I see reference to any changes or any new path, either in the budget, in the service plan or in any of the documents associated with the budget?

Hon. J. Rustad: Madam Chair and the member opposite, welcome back today. I’m glad we have a chance to be able to carry on into our discussions here today.

Maybe I should start by reiterating that there is a budget uplift for the ministry this year. That budget uplift reflects the fact that we know we will be out and doing some additional work with nations around the various things that we do. The core of what we do within our ministry has not changed. We are involved in building relations and trying to find ways to meet reconciliation.

The Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation leads the B.C. government in pursuing that reconciliation with First Nations and aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.

S. Fraser: There’s no clear link in the uplift that the minister was referring to, the 2 percent uplift. It’s not reflected as being designated to a new path in the treaty process. There’s no mention of it. No line item in there. There’s no indication that that would happen. The minister has never shown a link between the sudden removal of the treaty commissioner and any new path.

[1115]

There’s been no link, so far, that’s been established, certainly by the minister, although he refers to that. I guess the question remains. Will this new path that the minister is contemplating for the last six months and not disclosed with either of the principals — that’s the First Nations Summit or the federal government…? Will it include a treaty commission, and will it include a treaty commission with a chief commissioner? I see no indication in the budget documents that suggest that there will be a change there. Is the minister…? As part of that new path, is it contemplating doing away with the treaty commission and, especially, with a chief commissioner?

Hon. J. Rustad: Maybe I’ll start by just reiterating what’s in my mandate letter, which is to “continue to work with B.C. First Nations to secure long-term treaties that provide economic benefit and security for all British Columbians.” It is within my mandate letter to find ways to be able to move forward with the treaty process.

We have three principals that are involved, and we will have discussions with them in terms of what the treaty process could and should look like. I come into those discussions with the principals with the concept that 22 years and $600 million to achieve four treaties speaks to some success for the treaties for the nations that have gone through but doesn’t speak to enough success for the rest of the nations in the province.

The fact that there’s only a quarter of the nations in the province that are a part of the treaty process also speaks to the fact that we need to be thinking about this process. We need to be thinking about how we can be more inclusive, what ways we can reach those reconciliations with nations and the ways that can also make sure that it can be accelerated.

Specifically, to the budget. When you look at the budget and the budget increase, obviously, those funds that are in there are for engagement with First Nations to achieve reconciliation; to achieve and support nations in economic development; to review, of course, those tools that we currently have in place and our approaches in the various agreements that we have; and to look forward to those new paths together. How do we try to achieve long-term reconciliation? How do we work together to achieve what nations are trying to achieve?

For example, in talking with the Tsilhqot’in, they have no interest in treaty. Why? It’s a good question that needs to be thought about with the Tsilhqot’in people in terms of: how do we find our path forward in long-term reconciliation? What are the issues with treaty? How do we think about this overall process?

It’s a timely discussion that needs to happen between the province and the principals. We have the budget in place to be able to support those discussions. I look forward to the engagement.

S. Fraser: What’s the impetus for this? I mean, the minister said himself — 22 years of treaty, 14 years of this government. In the last six months there must have been some impetus to suggest a sea change in the treaty process that has not been discussed anywhere. I’ve seen no documentation on it. It’s not in the budget documents, in the implementation documents, in the service plan. There’s no mention of this at all. Yet it was a massive enough, fundamental enough change, as it appears, that it’s blindsided the summit and the principals with the removal of George Abbott at the last….

[1120]

We have no formal treaty commissioner, a chief commissioner, now. We have an interim commissioner, yes. So we’re going to go without a formal chief treaty commissioner based on the idea that the treaty process is
[ Page 6864 ]
too slow and it’s not incorporating enough, involving enough, First Nations. That’s been the case for 14 years. What changed in the last six months that would create this huge change, somehow precipitating the removal of the chief commissioner?

Hon. J. Rustad: I think we have, and I have, talked on numerous occasions about the fact that we would like to be able to see the treaty process advanced. That, I don’t think, is any secret. That’s something that has been discussed, and the former Leader of the Opposition said the same thing. He figures that the process is too slow and needs to be changed. The member opposite is saying, as well, they’d like to see this.

What has changed? Let’s think about this for a second. As we’ve been working with the nations…. I’ve now had an opportunity and the honour of being in this position for two years to go out and work with the nations. I’ve been travelling the province extensively. I’ve been out engaging with many, many nations and hearing feedback from those nations as to the things that they would like to see achieved.

At some point now you take that feedback, and you say: “Okay, now we have to start thinking about how we do things.” It’s not just the treaty process. We need to be looking at all of our tools. How do we adjust, and how do we reflect some of the changes? I would say that if you pointed to a single event in the past six, eight, ten months, it would be the Supreme Court decision from the Tsilhqot’in. That has sparked a series of things that have happened, including the All Chiefs meeting where the Premier signalled very, very clearly that we have a fork in the road.

We have to make a decision. Are we going to carry on with the standard path, or are we going to look at a new path? Our thinking has evolved from that time, from the time of that Tsilhqot’in decision, from all the information and feedback I’ve heard from nations from around the province and, of course, from the feedback we heard from nations during the All Chiefs meeting. Our thinking has evolved to the point now where we believe that it’s important to have the conversation with the principals about treaty, about the things that could be done to improve that process.

I look forward to that engagement. In the interim we will have…. The four commissioners that are in place have appointed an acting chief commissioner, someone who’s got experience. It’s not the first time this has happened. They’ve done this before in the past. They will be able to guide forward so that we can carry forward with the work of the treaty process so that the nations….

We’ve got a number of offers that are out there. They’ll still be able to move forward. We’ll still be engaged in those discussions. We’re hopeful that we’ll be able to advance forward and see some final agreements over the next little while. But in the meantime, while that’s going on, we will have this discussion with our principals.

S. Fraser: The minister refers to following the All Chiefs meeting. A decision was made, like, six months ago that we’re going to be looking at this new path, and that is precisely the month that the minister called George Abbott and offered him the job of chief treaty commissioner. What the minister says doesn’t reflect what happened. If the minister….

Right up till last week George Abbott was going to be the treaty commissioner. So I guess in this new path post–All Chiefs meeting…. There’s no documentation of the new path. Will the new path include having a permanent chief treaty commissioner? Is that contemplated?

Hon. J. Rustad: Although I guess this is only remotely related in terms of the budget, the path that we plan to do will be in partnership with the principals and talking about what that future would be. I’m not sure where those discussions go, but I very much look forward to having those discussions with the principals.

S. Fraser: Again, the treaty commissioner was just removed a week before he started his job, so we have no permanent chief treaty commissioner.

[1125]

The rationale the minister has given is because we want to look at a new path forward with the principals, although none of this was mentioned to the principals. Now we have no treaty commissioner — who was agreed to by all parties, including the minister, who precipitated having this appointment.

Again, was there something wrong with the chosen treaty commissioner, or will there no longer be a chief treaty commissioner? Why would a new path mean that you can’t have a treaty commissioner, that you have to cancel that appointment? What is the link there? I guess it’s never been made clear to me. I have not been able to see that in any way.

A new path is a separate thing. A new path — fine. Everyone’s been calling for a new path. There’s nothing in the last six months that happened, as the minister has explained it, that would explain doing away with the chief treaty commissioner. So what’s the link — and we can close this off — between some supposed new path — which no one knows about except the minister; none of the other principals do — and the removal and having no chief treaty commissioner? What’s the link there? What am I missing?

The Chair: Member, this line of questioning has been canvassed for quite a while.

Minister, you can obviously respond, but I think from now on we’ll go on to items that are pertaining strictly to the budget.
[ Page 6865 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: As you go forward and you’re thinking about how you can shape and change relations, all of this stuff takes time. There’s no question. In any sort of components you’re thinking about, time is obviously a process that will be involved, because it’s so complex.

I think the critical component is that we need to start. We need to start the process, and we don’t necessarily have a predetermined outcome of what that process should be. There’s an opportunity here because we’ve got a clean break from the term that is now ending, at the end of March, from the previous treaty commissioner. There’s a clean break and a clean opportunity to work with the principals to talk about what that future should be.

It’s going to be an interesting pass. It’ll be a very interesting discussion. I hope that we will be able to engage with the principals in a timely way to talk through these components, all of these sorts of components.

I want to just make one more statement clear, and I’ve said this many, many times through this process and in the House. We remain committed to treaty. We remain committed to the nations that are in the treaty process, working through all the complexities and things that they want to work through. That won’t change as we go and have this discussion with the principals about how the process can change to be more effective.

I think about the benefits that we’re seeing with the nations like Tsawwassen, and how they have now got a significant property development that is going on. They voted, I think, around 97 percent in favour of moving forward. They’re embracing their future. It is making a huge, huge difference. Those benefits are there because of being able to reach treaty.

I look at the five nations of the Maa-nulth treaty and the things that they’re involved in. Recently they’re exploring the potential of liquefied natural gas. I mean, it’s great to see what the nation is doing and how they’re embracing their future.

I look at Nisga’a. Even though they didn’t come through the treaty process, it’s a nation with a treaty. To quote Dr. Joseph Gosnell, aboriginal people, First Nations, are 100 years behind non-aboriginal people economically. It’s time to catch up and, if possible, surpass. The hopes and the dreams of being able to do that have come from the fact that they now have treaty.

[1130]

I look at Tla’amin and Yale and what they want to try to achieve coming forward, now that they have reached treaties. I talk to Kitselas and Kitsumkalum, or I sit down with Ktunaxa or Lake Babine Nation or Wuikinuxv or Te’mexw or the Northern Shuswap Tribal Council — all of these nations and more. I talk to In-SHUCK-ch and sit down and talk with K’ómoks. They all have hopes and desires to be able to achieve those same things.

We want to be able to continue to work with them and move this process forward. But I also recognize…. For example, I was talking with Lake Babine Nation. They’ve been in this process for 22 years, on the treaty process, and they’ve been able to make more progress in the last two years than they did in the previous 20. That’s because we’ve been taking a different approach and trying to work forward and looking at incremental. None of that is actually in the treaty process.

We have to look at a process with the principals as to how we can take those successes, the ones that we’re seeing with these nations that have been successful going through treaty, and say: “How do we get that to a broader group? How do we get more nations engaged with that?” How can we do that, not in a generation or two but in a few number of years so that they can see those benefits flow and we can have certainty for nations and we can have an investment climate that is going to drive the potential for economic development?

It was only a short time ago, a number of years ago, that PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm, came out with a report that said there’s more than $10 billion in lost economic growth potential in the province because nations don’t have treaty and certainty.

That was all ready quite a few years ago. You know, we have been making progress, but we need to find ways to accelerate that. We need it for First Nations, and we need it for non-aboriginal people within the province of British Columbia. We intend to engage with the principals on this discussion. How can we make this more effective? How can we make this more timely? What are the components that need to be in there? What are the stumbling blocks that have created the challenges? It’s going to be a good discussion, but it’s a timely discussion because of the opportunity that is being created at the moment.

S. Fraser: The minister has mentioned the K’ómoks and In-SHUCK-ch are at final stage. Is there any timeline for when we can see that? There’s always a celebration here when we have a treaty that all British Columbians can embrace, knowing that we’re moving forward. Do we have a timeline, any estimate of when we can see that happening in the Legislature and seeing us welcome the leadership of In-SCHUCK-ch and/or K’ómoks?

Hon. J. Rustad: I’ve met a number of times now with both nations, both In-SHUCK-ch and K’ómoks. For example, it was just recently I sat down with the Chief and council from In-SHUCK-ch and talked about their hopes and aspirations in moving this forward. We are actively engaged with both those nations, trying to get these agreements over the line, trying to get them to the point where they can then go forward and ratify within their communities. Then it would come to the Legislature for legislation, and then it would ultimately go to the federal government for legislation. Then there would be a period of time where you would have the transition, and you actually get to the full implementation of treaty.

Our hope is that we’d be able to achieve that as quick
[ Page 6866 ]
as we can. That’s the instruction to our teams, and they’re out there working with the nations, even as we speak, on trying to find ways to be able to reach that. However, negotiations are negotiations. You can’t say: “It’ll be done by tomorrow.” There is a process that is going through. But my hope, and certainly, I believe, the nations — for example, those conversations I have with In-SHUCK-ch — is to be able to do this as quickly as they can for their people.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. Are there budget implications? When a budget comes forward in a certain fiscal year, does that kick in some costs for the ministry that are over and above the negotiating costs? I’m ignorant of that, I’m afraid.

[1135]

I’m just wondering if we’re fortunate enough to have one or both of these treaties finalized, at least for the province, to move forward to the feds. But for the province, could that happen this year? If so, is that accounted for in this year’s budget?

Hon. J. Rustad: As we go through any negotiations, we have the funding and we have the support in place within the budget to go forward and do these things. When you actually reach final agreement, we take an ask forward through to Treasury Board, which then would release any of the additional dollars that would be required both for the short term and for the implementation. Then that would become part of the budget in the process going forward.

It’s not a line item in our budget for, say, those nations this year because, of course, we don’t know if we’ll be finished with those this year. If we are fortunate, and I’m hopeful that we do reach agreements, then we would take that forward to have a budget request and carry forward with the implementation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I learned something, which is always good.

Bill 23 was introduced today. I may be out of order, and I’ll need advice on this. But in the first reading it mentioned the Maa-nulth treaty. I know we probably can’t discuss a bill that’s before the House, so I’ll wait for some kind of ruling on that. I’m just curious if the minister can give me a heads-up about what it might…. Maa-nulth is in….

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Well, maybe I could ask a question. Are there any amendments or things moving forward with the Maa-nulth treaty and the ministry? I’ll not talk about the bill. If the minister has any answers.

Interjection.

The Chair: You’re correct that anything in front of the House can’t be discussed here.

Minister, if you want to comment.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the leniency on this particular issue.

Very, very briefly, it’s an issue that had come forward actually last year, I believe. We moved forward something around the Maa-nulth in terms of the foreshore agreements. So this is just a little bit of implementation of that component. I’m happy to talk to you more about it off line.

S. Fraser: I’m the spokesperson for Aboriginal Relations, but also, it’s my constituency. I’ve met with Maa-nulth a number of times. The minister’s right. They’ve got exciting economic plans afoot, and it’s good to see. There’s an energized community there since the treaty. I can attest to what the minister was talking about, the changes that happen if treaty is established.

If I could just touch on the Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women, MACAW. Their terms of reference outline a series of goals and tasks which are quite substantive, so I won’t go through them all.

According to the government website, MACAW was established in 2011. However, over the past four years none of the programs’, which I could have listed, outcomes, targets, etc., engagement plans or, more importantly, up-to-date progress reports appear to have been publicly released. I couldn’t find them.

My question would be: have any of these items, including reports, been produced, and if so, can they be made public?

[1140]

Hon. J. Rustad: The Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women was set up to provide advice to me as the minister or to my ministry with regards to aboriginal women, in particular on the violence side. Through the advice that they have provided us, we last year signed a memorandum of understanding with the First Nations Leadership Council around working together to try to find ways to bring about an end to violence against aboriginal women and children.

We also, through the advice that they gave us, initiated funding for the Giving Voices project, funding that went out to 37 different communities around the province. They continue to advise us on other aspects that we’re working on, including some advice that has fed into our recent action plan on violence-free B.C.

They played an integral role in terms of our trip to the round table in Ottawa to have a discussion on the national stage around missing and murdered women. The advisory council does that. It provides advice. We work with that council around the things that we do within government. They’ve been a very valuable component in
[ Page 6867 ]
terms of the advice that they have offered to us — to me, in particular, in the ministry, but to us as government.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour.

S. Fraser: Do I get one more question? All right. Thank you.

In the terms of reference for MACAW — the Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women; I shouldn’t rely on acronyms here — one of the goals is to “develop and review an inventory of current programs available to support aboriginal women.” Also, to “identify outcomes needed to improve quality of life for aboriginal women” and develop targets to achieve outcomes of goal 2 and to maintain a baseline and update outcomes annually.

This sounds more than just verbal recommendations to the minister. I don’t mean that in any disparaging way. But since these have to be, I would assume, written…. I mean, “inventory of current programs” and such — these have to be reports. Are they not available to anyone but the minister?

[1145]

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned before, MACAW is something, actually, that I’ve talked to other provinces about as well, simply because it is a way to be able to bring those voices forward from aboriginal women, prominent women from all corners of the province, who come forward and give government advice about the various things that are happening and make some suggestions around this.

The relationship that we have between my ministry and MACAW is one that…. We have some staff working with them, we talk through various things that government is involved in, we ask them for advice and opinion around that. I directly also meet with them to talk about some of those things and what we should be trying to achieve. That in particular, as I mentioned, when we went forth to Ottawa, was invaluable in terms of how we should shape the delegation, the things that we should bring forward in terms of our discussion.

We were, I think, one of the only provinces, if not the only province, that actually took one of our time slots and made it available, in terms of the discussions going on, to a family member so that they could bring forward their voice and their story. I had an opportunity to meet — this was, once again, on advice from MACAW — on the night before, with the families that were travelling, to be able to hear directly from them.

They’re a great group of ladies that are doing good work on behalf of the aboriginal community and great work for us as government. That’s the relationship that we have with MACAW. I hope that has answered your question.

I guess I’ll look to you to move the motion.

Vote 11: ministry operations, $38,633,000 — approved.

Vote 12: treaty and other agreements funding, $43,091,000 — approved.

Hon. J. Rustad: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions of Votes 11 and 12 of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 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