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)

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 22, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I’m pleased to rise and welcome 18 shop stewards from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 247, who are here in Victoria. I’ve met representatives from all across Vancouver Island who are here today to watch politics in action.

Joining them is a very close friend of mine. Regrettably, he’s a fan of the Montreal Canadiens and continually reminds me. [Applause.] Oh, there are two others in the universe. That’s good to know. He’s John Lewinsky. John is a constituent of mine and an irrepressible Habitants fan. He’s a better person for letting the Canucks win every time they come out here.

Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m pleased this morning to rise and introduce a group of people who are working very hard to ensure that we have inclusive workplaces right across the province. This morning we were joined by members from both sides of the House, and independent members as well, to talk about inclusion and to celebrate the work of the Ready, Willing and ABLE program under the umbrella of Inclusion B.C.

[1005]

I know that all members will want to make welcome Faith Bodnar, Kathleen Moir, Michael Prince, Bendina Miller, Doreen Shaw, as well as Sheenagh Morrison, an employee and self-advocate, and Katy Harandi, the CEO of the Canucks Autism Network. We were all very moved this morning with a story presented by Thrifty Foods here, where we met Lee and Carl, people who have abilities and who have been included at Thrifty Foods.

Please join me in making the members of Inclusion B.C. most welcome.

J. Kwan: I would like to join with the minister to welcome everybody from Inclusion B.C. this morning. They gave a fantastic set of presentations, as the minister mentioned, attended by all members of the House. They’re doing incredible advocacy work in support of families for people with developmental disabilities. Of course, they’re advocating very strongly and educating very strongly that for everybody their goal is really to make sure that everybody has their opportunity to maximize their potential. An extension to that are the employment opportunities with their Ready, Willing and ABLE campaign.

I want to ask the House to please join me in welcoming everybody and thanking them for the good work that they do.

Hon. T. Lake: March is Epilepsy Awareness Month, and today has been proclaimed Purple Day, where we all can take the opportunity to learn more about epilepsy and show our support for those who live with epilepsy.

Joining us in the gallery today are volunteers and members of the Victoria Epilepsy and Parkinson’s Centre — Sonya Dhudwal, Tessa Hawkins, Terri Beaton and Ron Trusswell, along with Kash the Labrador retriever, who, after a fulfilling career and, I note, a few too many Milk-Bones, will soon be retiring.

I would ask that the House please make them all very welcome today.

V. Huntington: I’m thrilled, having joined many members of the House this morning with the breakfast with Inclusion B.C. It’s completely serendipitous that I have three young men in the gallery today who have been ready, willing and able to work with my office and help it run smoothly for the last number of years.

I’d like to introduce Peter McCurdy, Richard Hooks and Jamie Ross, who have been helping us since I first became a member. They are joined by Jamie’s mother, Phyllis, and Peter’s sister Jennifer. I hope the House makes these ready, willing and able young men very welcome.

D. Horne: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce a gentleman in the gallery today, Blair Qualey, who is the head of the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia. He was here today for the announcement of the AJAC EcoRun tour, a great tour that’s back here in British Columbia because of our great network of charging stations. It was made clear this morning that British Columbia is leading Canada in that accord.

As well, I’d like to remind all of the members that the 95th annual Vancouver International Auto Show is on until Sunday at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. I hope you’ll be able to make it.

C. Trevena: The leader of the opposition introduced a number of people from the UFCW. I was very pleased to meet with a group who are with that delegation, from Campbell River, earlier this morning. Julie Brown, Pat O’Handley, Jeff Youde, Sandra Geldart and Fiona Harmiston are up in the gallery. For a number of them it’s their first time in question period. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the precinct my brother’s wife’s brother’s family. Keith Mitchell is a lawyer in Vancouver, and his wife Janet is here for a second time. She’s with the Canadian Breast Cancer
[ Page 7004 ]
Foundation. They’re here with their children Colin and Michael, who are both very interested in the political process and attend St. George’s School in Vancouver.

Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.

[1010]

J. Rice: I’d like the House to make welcome a face that everyone knows very well here — my predecessor, former MLA Gary Coons, who’s also a mentor and friend. People may remember Gary as a tireless advocate for the ferry system and for promoting safe transportation options along the Highway of Tears.

I would like to let you know that Gary, in his retirement, has not only bought himself a rusty redneck truck, but he is now a proud grandfather. I’d like the House to make welcome his daughter Breton Coons and his granddaughter Ellie. I’d also like to welcome Lois Elliot, his very patient wife, who’s in the House as well.

M. Morris: Today I’d like to recognize one of our sessional security officers, Mike Collet. After 31 years of active service, today is his last day in the Canadian Armed Forces. Mike served our country as a member of the military police and is retiring as a warrant officer. He also served for over 200 days in the Canadian peacekeeping mission to Rwanda under Gen. Roméo Dallaire.

In April Mike will join us as a full-time member of the Sergeant-at-Arms sessional security staff. I’d like to ask the House to thank him for his service to our country and welcome him as a full-time member of our staff.

Tributes

WES THOMAS

M. Dalton: I’m sad to announce the recent passing away of Wes Thomas. Wes was a longtime principal in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. I got to know him when I was a teacher in Pitt Meadows Secondary School. I admired him and valued his friendship and leadership.

Before going to school district 42, he taught PE and English for many years in Lake Cowichan. Afterwards, he was VP in Terrace, at Skeena Secondary. Wes was from Liverpool and raised in the neighbourhood of the Beatles, but rugby and athletics were his thing — not so much singing. Wes had a real heart for students and touched the lives of thousands of them.

His memorial service is this weekend. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Lyn, to his daughters Jacquie and Janet and to the grandchildren.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud today to introduce one of my newest constituents, little Siddahlee Marianne Kyllo Martselos, Georgina’s and my newest granddaughter, who is 14 days old today. Proud parents are my oldest daughter, Sarah, and her spouse, Gerry Martselos. I just want to make the House please make her feel very welcome.

N. Simons: In the House today I’m pleased to welcome His Worship the mayor of Sechelt, Bruce Milne, a former federal treaty negotiator and former professor at the University of Victoria.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that one of his students is our very own member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who was his student in public administration and public policy. I’m sure all members here would be disappointed if I didn’t take this opportunity to throw in a shot about perhaps missing the class on marine transportation administration.

Would the House please make His Worship welcome.

R. Lee: March 21 was World Down Syndrome Day. Down Syndrome Research Foundation is one of the best non-profit organizations in Burnaby North, led by Dawn McKenna. I would like the House to recognize that organization together, Down syndrome and the World Down Syndrome Day.

A. Weaver: I’d like to introduce Kerry Davis, who’s the director for Cowichan Valley regional district area A, Mill Bay–Malahat, who’s here in the House today to have discussions about the recent awarding of a toxic soil permit in Shawnigan Lake. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

D. Ashton: I’d like to welcome today to the House my daughter Chantal Ashton. She’s down on spring break. I thought she was going to be staying with dad down here, but she’s staying with a good friend of hers, a young lady by the name of Elena Dehain, that lives in Mill Bay. If the House would make them both welcome, they’re up there.

Also, I would like to thank the young gentleman that’s been shepherding them around the House this morning, Mark Levesque, a young fellow that’s going to have a great career in politics at some point in the future. Congratulations.

[1015]

V. Huntington: Madame Speaker, I neglected to mention that I have unexpected visitors from Ladner in the House today. I know not where. The Krems are visiting the precinct unexpectedly, and I welcome them.

I forgot to mention that Bernadette Kudzin, my constituency assistance, has accompanied Jamie, Peter and Richard today. Will the House welcome them all.

Statements

HOCKEYVILLE

G. Holman: I just want to briefly inform the House
[ Page 7005 ]
that there are still two communities in British Columbia that are in the running for a $100,000 Hockeyville prize to be used to upgrade their arenas. Those communities are Dawson Creek and the Saanich Peninsula.

The voting is done, so there’s nothing for the House to do at this point in time. The winner will be announced at the Vancouver hockey game this Saturday, 8:00 p.m., at which point the voting starts for a third round to see who gets the NHL game.

In a unilateral gesture of non-partisanship, the member for Peace River South and I have agreed that whichever of the B.C. communities wins — hopefully one of them will win — we will encourage all of our colleagues and British Columbia as a whole to get behind whichever of those British Columbia communities wins. I urge the House to vote early and vote often at khv2015.ca.

M. Bernier: I rise today, obviously, to echo those comments. Vote early; vote often. I think the best question in question period last week would have been: who are you voting for? Now we don’t have an option, because what we’re choosing is which — we’re hoping — one of the places in British Columbia will be chosen to represent the west.

Starting this Saturday night during the Hockey Night in Canada games, they will be announcing for the west which the winners were, and hopefully, one of them will be here in British Columbia. You will have until Monday night to vote.

I will be tweeting. You will be tweeting. We are hoping everybody will be getting the message out to make sure that British Columbia hosts the next Hockeyville city.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the preliminary report of the British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. P. Fassbender presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m pleased to introduce Bill 11, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, which will make a number of amendments to the School Act, the Teachers Act, and the Independent School Act.

These amendments are focused on four major objectives: enabling the development and implementation of an improved accountability framework for the K-to-12 sector, supporting the implementation of shared service initiatives across B.C. school districts in order to achieve savings and share best practices, modernizing the requirements related to the use of students’ personal information for the consistency with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and finally, enabling the establishment of a continuing professional development framework for all certified teachers in the province of British Columbia.

We all know that British Columbia expects our K-to-12 system to run efficiently, that teachers and students have the supports they need and that everyone is focused on what matters the most, and that is student outcomes. That is why these amendments are all about…. We have one of the best education systems in the world, but we know there’s always room for improvement and to do better.

As we move forward with the system, transformation is key. These amendments will give us the flexibility and a solid legislative foundation for the work ahead.

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

[1020]

Bill 11, Education 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.

BILL 22 — SPECIAL WINE STORE
LICENCE AUCTION ACT

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act.

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 legislation that provides authority for the government to hold an auction for a limited number of licences made available specifically for the 100 percent B.C. wine on grocery store shelves model.

Our wine-on-shelves model is unique to British Columbia and one of the many ways we are changing B.C.’s liquor laws to grow local businesses in this province. The auction will limit applicants for this class of licence to the successful bidders and raise additional revenue for government. As auction revenues will be considered
[ Page 7006 ]
a direct tax, the authority for their collection must be set out in a statute.

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 22, Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act, 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 27 — LIQUOR CONTROL
AND LICENSING ACT

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquor Control and Licensing Act.

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 the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. This bill repeals and replaces the existing Liquor Control and Licensing Act, modernizes outdated provisions in our current legislation and creates a more flexible framework for regulating liquor.

A more flexible framework will reduce the need for amendments in the future as we further fine-tune liquor policies in British Columbia. This bill will also enable government to implement the remaining recommendations stemming from the liquor policy review that require legislative change.

The goal of the liquor policy review, and by extension this legislation, is to transfer B.C. liquor laws in a host of different ways, enhancing convenience, sparking the economy, cutting red tape, creating new opportunities for businesses and continuing to protect health and public safety.

The current regulatory regime has become outdated, overly complex and excessive at a time when the public has a far more diverse and evolved set of tastes and is acutely aware of the damage and dangers caused by overconsumption of alcohol.

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 27, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, 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 M214 — DISTRESSED
ANIMAL ACT, 2015

S. Robinson presented a bill intituled Distressed Animal Act, 2015.

S. Robinson: I move that a bill, intituled Distressed Animal Act, of which notice has been given on my name in the order paper, be introduced and now read for a first time.

Motion approved.

S. Robinson: In May 2014 six dogs were left in the back of a pickup truck covered by a canopy while the driver went into a store to pick up a few things. When the driver returned to the truck about 40 minutes later, she found that all six of the dogs were dead.

It was over 20 degrees outside, and the truck was parked in the shade. Although there was water in the truck, it wasn’t enough to keep these dogs cool. As a result, all perished in what would have been a horrible death.

The driver subsequently lied to authorities on what happened to the dogs, suggesting that they had been dognapped, which initiated a substantial search for those beloved pets. After six days the driver confessed, and we learned the horrible truth. She dumped the dogs’ bodies into a ditch after discovering them dead in her overheated truck. Necropsies indicated that the dogs had pulmonary congestion and reddened skin consistent with heat stroke.

The B.C. SPCA reminds us that a dog can be overwhelmed by heat in as little as ten minutes. All six of these dogs likely experienced exaggerated panting in an attempt to cool off and eventually experienced a rapid or erratic pulse, weakness and muscle tremors, lack of coordination, convulsions, collapse, seizures and coma.

[1025]

In 2013 the B.C. SPCA received 850 calls regarding animals left in hot cars, and in 2014 they received well over 1,000 calls. With only 26 special provincial constables working across the province, the B.C. SPCA liaises with RCMP and municipal bylaw officers to respond to these urgent calls.

The Distressed Animal Act amends the Community Charter and Vancouver Charter, permitting bylaw enforcement to seize animals in distress where there is inadequate ventilation in a vehicle. It amends the Motor Vehicle Act, noting that a person commits an offence if they are transporting an animal without providing for adequate ventilation.

These proposed amendments would permit first responders to take immediate action and ensure more awareness and compliance so that animals need not die such a horrible death while the driver runs a few errands or only intends to leave the animal for a few minutes.
[ Page 7007 ]

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 M214, Distressed Animal Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WORK POINT BARRACKS
AND MILITARY HERITAGE

M. Karagianis: Located in Esquimalt on the west side of the entrance to Victoria Harbour, Work Point barracks has a glorious history that reaches back more than 125 years. Work Point barracks was established in 1887 and became the command headquarters of an expanded coastal artillery defence system to protect the Dockyard and Victoria. Work Point remains a part of Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt to this day.

Several of its historic buildings are recognized federal heritage buildings, including the former enlisted men’s barracks, built in 1888; the artillery barracks, constructed in 1902; and the administration building, completed in 1921.

These are remarkable examples of military garrison architecture, built to be functional and durable. They were built with quality materials and exceptional craftsmanship. Buildings like these require ongoing maintenance and care, and I’m very hopeful that the federal government will be allocating dollars needed to ensure their survival and continued use.

Dedicated members of my community, including Jack Bates and Colin MacLock, are working to raise the profile of these very important buildings and the importance of recognizing and preserving our Canadian military heritage. Work Point is an essential part of that story, and I’m grateful to those who are donating their time and energy in my community into making sure we don’t lose these vital connections to our proud military past in Esquimalt and all of greater Victoria.

PURPLE DAY FOR EPILEPSY AWARENESS

L. Reimer: March is Epilepsy Awareness Month, and today is Purple Day, the internationally recognized day for epilepsy awareness. The colour lavender represents isolation and solitude, something that many people living with epilepsy experience over the course of their lives. Purple Day started in Nova Scotia in 2008 when eight-year-old Cassidy Megan came up with the idea for people to wear purple in order to show those with epilepsy that they are not alone.

Epilepsy is one of the most common conditions that affects the brain. One in every 100 people is diagnosed with epilepsy. That’s about 40,000 British Columbians. Even though epilepsy is common, it is still misunderstood, and those living with it continue to face considerable stigma.

The purpose of Purple Day is to dispel myths about epilepsy by teaching our community to identify the many different types of seizures and respond appropriately so that people with epilepsy in our communities remain safe and can be properly cared for.

I’m proud to report that last year PharmaCare spent $10 million on 17 medications so that people with epilepsy can live their lives without being unnecessarily constrained by their condition. The B.C. Epilepsy Society also provides information about seizure, first aid and safety.

I urge everyone in this House to spread the word so that people with this condition may take advantage of all of the resources that are available. Together we can increase understanding, reduce the stigma and improve the quality of lives for people with epilepsy.

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

K. Corrigan: The Municipal Finance Authority is holding its annual general meeting here in Victoria as we speak. I wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate this unique local government–run organization on its great success over the past 45 years.

The authority, whose membership consists of every community and regional district in the province, with the exception of the city of Vancouver, pools the borrowing and investment needs of B.C.’s communities through a collective structure and is able to provide a range of low-cost and flexible financial services to municipalities equally. The MFA provides long- and short-term financing, investment management, leasing and other financial services to communities and public institutions in B.C.

[1030]

It has raised over $5 billion for community capital projects, pooled long-term borrowing needs by guaranteeing each others’ loans and being able to negotiate low interest rates and favourable terms each year and has saved B.C. taxpayers millions of dollars in debt repayment due to its triple-A credit rating and low interest rates. In fact, its credit rating exceeds those of chartered banks.

The MFA is governed by the members of the authority, with an elected board of trustees made up of municipal councillors and mayors. Those elections are going on as we speak today. It’s an excellent, well-thought-out organization that has saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

With over 40 years of demonstrated fiscal success, the MFA’s original mandate has flourished, evolved and continues to enhance and increase the financial well-being,
[ Page 7008 ]
equality and autonomy of B.C.’s local governments. It is yet another example of local governments pooling their collective expertise and doing a superlative job of independently and cooperatively managing their own financial affairs.

Congratulations to all of those who are elected today. Thank you and all the member municipalities on behalf of all property tax payers across British Columbia.

SCHIZOPHRENIA

R. Sultan: Schizophrenia is a terrible disease. It is also tragically frequent. There are about 40,000 people with schizophrenia living in British Columbia. It usually strikes people in their prime, between 16 and 25. Symptoms can include social withdrawal and paranoia.

The disease can lead to alcohol and drug abuse. It can lead to homelessness, hospitalization and the criminal justice system. It destroys lives. The good news is that in most cases it is treatable. The bad news is that many refuse treatment because their thoughts are disturbed by the illness.

The North Shore Schizophrenia Society, a volunteer organization under executive director Nancy Ford, supports and educates the families of those dealing with serious mental illness, including bipolar, anxiety and depression. The society operates with a family peer support model. Trained volunteers, who have been through the mill themselves, share lessons with other families across the Lower Mainland — hence, their slogan: “Families Helping Families.”

The society receives broad support from such organizations as the community foundations of West Vancouver, Vancouver and Whistler; both the city and district of North Vancouver; Safeway; Rotary; IGA; and the province of British Columbia.

Thank you, North Shore Schizophrenia Society, and thank you to those who support them.

PUNJABI MURAL EXHIBITION
AT SURREY ART GALLERY

B. Ralston: Last Saturday the Surrey Art Gallery hosted the official opening of an exhibition entitled From Punjab, With Love. The piece of art in question is a digital reproduction of Orijit Sen’s famous 75-metre-long fibreglass and acrylic mural on display at the Virasat-e-Khalsa Museum designed by Canadian architect Moshe Safdie and located in the city of Anandpur Sahib in the Punjab.

The city of Anandpur Sahib itself has a historical significance to Sikhs, second only to Amritsar itself. I recently visited the museum there in January, together with my colleague the member for Surrey-Newton, our spouses and our mutual friend Amarjeet Khorode. We were dazzled by the original mural. It is so vast that a lengthy, ascending internal walkway was constructed to make viewing easier. The reproduction displayed in Surrey conveys much of the grandeur of the original.

The mural represents a tableau of Sikh and Punjabi life done in a highly detailed miniature style. The mural blends history and the everyday, with festivals, weddings, people washing clothes, shopping, cooking, plowing the fields, tying turbans, riding motorcycles and children flying kites, enjoying school life and playing sports. It is an engaging panorama of traditional and modern Punjabi life.

The artist himself has said: “It is a special something that I have set out to capture through my artworks, which I hope serve, at the very least, as a reflection and affirmation of the irrepressible, indomitable Punjabi spirit.”

The exhibition, presented in partnership with Surrey summer arts society and with support from the province and Simon Fraser University, continues until August 2, 2015.

VERN HEIDEBRECHT

S. Gibson: When teaching my human resources students, I ask them if they’ve ever worked for a manager, and they all raise their hands. But then I ask them: “How many of you have worked for a leader?” For a moment they seem perplexed, and none of them raise their hand. I tell them a manager implements, but a leader inspires.

[1035]

Today I want to share with this House a leader who has inspired thousands of Abbotsford residents. Vern Heidebrecht grew up in Abbotsford, and after obtaining a BA, he moved to a small town in North Dakota, where he worked as a pastor for a small rural church. He then moved to California with his wife, Carol, and his growing family.

He earned a masters and a doctorate while serving as a pastor for agricultural churches in the communities of Fresno and Visalia. He also served in a church in San Jose, which, we now know, is the epicentre for Silicon Valley. He returned to his hometown of Abbotsford in the late ‘80s to accept the position of senior pastor of Northview Community Church, which would grow to be the largest church in Abbotsford and perhaps the entire valley.

My wife and I had the privilege of attending the church for over a decade. We were always inspired by Vern’s teaching and preaching. Sadly, about a decade ago Vern was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, yet he continued to serve part-time as long as he was able. Just recently he moved into a long-term residence to receive the care he needed.

I want to say thank you to Vern for his passion and strong leadership. You’ve left an amazing legacy that has impacted thousands of people provincewide. Vern, please know that you’re appreciated, and we know that you continue to inspire, encourage and draw people to God through your warmth, your caring personality.
[ Page 7009 ]

Oral Questions

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

J. Horgan: Yesterday the Premier stood in this House and tried to explain the unexplainable. She tried to make some sense out of walking with First Nations, walking with the federal government for six months on a plan to recharge and rejuvenate the leadership at the B.C. Treaty Commission. In the course of her discussions, she said that the status quo was no longer acceptable.

I think that for the first time she agrees with the majority of people on this side of the House and, certainly, the majority of British Columbians that we do need to recharge the process. But you don’t recharge a process by exploding that process and not consulting with your partners, your legally bound partners.

First Nations and the federal government have an integral role to play in the decisions that we make in this place. We pass legislation here to join with the other two parties to meet mutual outcomes that benefit Canada, British Columbia and First Nations.

The first question to the Premier. It’s not your decision to make alone. That appears abundantly clear. But will you advise the House today…? And let’s focus on the question, not the rhetoric that you’re brewing up off your speaking notes.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

J. Horgan: Through you, hon. Speaker, will she advise this House about her conversations in the past two weeks with Grand Chief Ed John; the federal minister, Bernard Valcourt; and, most importantly, the current chief treaty commissioner, Sophie Pierre? Will she tell this House what conversations she has had about exploding the treaty process in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: First Nations and aboriginal people, like all British Columbians, are rightly frustrated with the slow pace of change. “The treaty process is long, cumbersome and slow.” That was the NDP platform, which I know was written by two of the members who sit across there today.

I agree with that. The treaty process in the course of 22 years has rendered four modern treaties. We have expended $600 million of citizens’ money on that process. It’s been the product of a lot of goodwill and a lot of hard work on the parts of hundreds and hundreds of people, but it hasn’t worked as well as it needs to.

First Nations cannot wait another century before all of them are included in treaties, in finalized treaties. A process where there are over 200 First Nations in the province and only 50 of them are participating is one that is not working.

[1040]

The job of a leader, when you find a process that is not working appropriately and efficiently, is to fix it. We are going to get it fixed.

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

J. Horgan: The Premier is correct, and that is a novelty in this place. She’s correct. This side of the House does want to see the treaty process invigorated.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Continue.

J. Horgan: British Columbians do want the treaty process invigorated, but you don’t do that walking with your partners for six months as if all is well, putting forward a name of an individual that you have confidence in and then after six months pulling the rug out from under that individual, pulling that rug out from underneath the federal government and pulling that rug out from underneath the First Nations — the First Nations that the Premier just referenced, who have spent 22 years and hundreds of millions of dollars that they don’t have in a partnership to find resolution.

An arbitrary decision to make up for a bad public policy decision is not what the public needs, and it’s not leadership at all.

Again, I’ll come back to my first question to the Premier. Will she advise this House, after her epiphany, after discovering that she had left her minister hanging out to dry, she had shortchanged one of her former colleagues…? When did she talk to Sophie Pierre, Ed John and Bernard Valcourt, the legal partners with the government of British Columbia — not just people to put on a checklist; the people we’re working with? When did you talk to them? That’s the question: when?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. C. Clark: The member thinks that the treaty process is bad public policy. I disagree with him about that. I think the treaty process that was started 22 years ago under an NDP government that he advised was well intended. I think that the people who’ve worked on it have done it with goodwill, but it has not rendered the result that First Nations and British Columbians deserve.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: Twenty-two years, $600 million and four treaties as a result; a century ahead, on the timeline that they’re working, before all First Nations would be
[ Page 7010 ]
covered by treaties. It is not good enough.

Yesterday one of the senior members of the NDP, one of the top five, said she thinks that First Nations issues are the most important issues facing our province. I agree. They are important. But for the NDP to say that and then for this week to be the first time that they have asked a single question about the treaty process, the first time that they have gotten up in this House and expressed concern about where we are going with First Nations, stands in stark contrast to their behaviour. It stands in stark contrast to what the member said yesterday.

We know we need to conclude treaties with First Nations. We know that we need to continue to build on the 250 non-treaty agreements that we’ve concluded since I’ve become Premier. We need to make that work happen, but we need to make it happen a lot more quickly.

When there’s a problem, you need to recognize it, and you need to fix it, and that’s what we’re doing.

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

J. Horgan: Is it any wonder First Nations in this province are cynical about progress with this government? Is it any wonder?

How can you walk with partners for six months without saying at any time that there was a problem with the process, the B.C. Treaty Commission? There are a whole host of other issues involving First Nations that government and communities have to focus on. No question.

But I have asked the Premier twice — twice — when she spoke with Grand Chief Ed John, when she spoke with Sophie Pierre and when she spoke with the federal minister responsible. What I get back is: “I heard someone say yesterday this.” Here’s a news flash, Premier: people record what we say in this place, and they record what you say.

[1045]

The inconsistencies of the Premier are baffling to me. That’s fair enough. But what about the First Nations? What about the resource communities that are depending on certainty on the land base? What about the people of British Columbia? The Premier is trying to cover up a bad decision about an individual by completely blowing up 22 years of good faith, throwing our partners under the bus and leaving it to Twitter to get answers to basic questions.

Again, the third time, Premier: when did you speak to the chief negotiator, the head of the summit and the minister responsible? Simple question. Three people — when did you talk to them?

Hon. C. Clark: He stands up today and says that he supports resource communities. Let’s look at his record, because he’s quite right: things in this House do get recorded. How often has this Leader of the Opposition stood up and even inquired about the treaty process since he’s been leader? How often has he stood up and supported projects like liquefied natural gas? Instead, they tried to stall it for six months. How often has he stood up and supported the hard work of people in mining communities, in forestry communities?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: He never does it. When the chance comes around for this member to stand up and support the working people in the communities and resource communities, he is almost always entirely absent — and equally absent on this question.

The treaty process is something that even the New Democrats have admitted in the past is not working. They’ve said that it’s slow, it’s cumbersome and it’s frustrating for First Nations. I agree with that.

We need to fix it. We need to engage the federal government more fully in the process so that they are a full partner at the table. We need to make sure that the process is working in a way that works for First Nations, and we need to make sure that it’s one that is going much faster, much more efficiently, because First Nations cannot, should not and must not wait another century before these questions are settled.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

S. Fraser: Last Wednesday, after dumping George Abbott as the new chief treaty commissioner at the last minute, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations issued a statement. In this statement he said: “We will continue to work with the principals to appoint a chief commissioner and ensure that the work of the Treaty Commission goes on.”

As we all know, yesterday the Premier said there would be no new chief commissioner and maybe no commission at all. To the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: have you ever spoken to the Premier about this issue, or is she just making it up as she goes along and ignoring you?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: I never know how to please the…. It’s like a marriage. You never know how to keep the other side happy. Sometimes when I’m here and I answer questions, they’re unhappy. Sometimes when I’m here and I don’t answer questions, they’re unhappy. Sometimes when I’m not here and I don’t answer questions, they are happy. It’s very hard to keep them happy, but having been through one marriage, I’m determined to make sure that
[ Page 7011 ]
this marriage works better.

Our cabinet and our caucus have been working together on all of these issues. It has become clear over the course of our discussions, particularly at the cabinet committee with First Nations and in our discussions with First Nations. We had an historic all chiefs meeting — the first time in the history of the province with the entire cabinet and all deputy ministers present. It became very clear at that meeting from First Nations leaders that they thought the treaty process is not working. Over 150 of them are not even participating in the process at all. Of the 50 that are participating, for most of them, there has been very, very little progress.

The federal government needs to be more deeply engaged in the process as we rebuild it. And we need to make sure that we are creating a process….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1050]

Hon. C. Clark: We are going to make sure that we’re creating a process hand in hand with First Nations that is better than the one that exists now. What that will look like…. I don’t want to prejudge the outcome, but I will say this. I want to make sure that it is a process that we build together with First Nations and that it answers their concerns about the fact that if it continues on the way it is, they will not only end up waiting a century for resolution, they will end up deeply in debt by the time they get there.

It’s not good enough. We have to do better. First Nations deserve it, and we are going to deliver that for them.

WORKSAFE B.C. AND CORONER’S INQUEST
INTO LAKELAND MILLS EXPLOSION

S. Simpson: When the Premier and the Minister of Jobs rejected the call for an independent inquiry into the Lakeland explosion, the minister said all government agencies would be expected to cooperate with the coroner’s inquest.

We’ve now learned that WorkSafe, an agency that the minister is accountable for, withheld knowledge of significant evidence from the inquest, leading to the adjournment that we saw yesterday.

We now have the chief coroner, Ms. Lapointe, saying today in the media, “You don’t get to filter. That is not your role,” in talking about WorkSafe. She went on to say: “And in fact, I would say that, as participants, you have a legal responsibility that anything you have in your possession or information that you know about needs to be brought forward, and then I can decide if it’s relevant.” That didn’t happen. As a result, there has now been serious doubt cast on the future of this inquest.

My question to the minister is simple. We asked this yesterday. We’ll ask again today. When did she learn about the separate investigation into the Lakeland explosion and WorkSafe’s knowledge of it?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to recognize that, first of all, I understand that worker safety is a core value for every MLA in this House. And I also want to recognize the fact that all of us want the same outcome. We want to be sure that families in British Columbia, that communities in British Columbia, get the answers they deserve.

We know that the inquest and the coroner have very far-reaching power. In fact, when a witness is summoned, they must testify and they must answer the questions. The normal rules of evidence also do not apply. The coroner is doing exactly what we expect the coroner to do.

My deepest regret is that this process will take longer than we had hoped or expected. But the coroner will continue to do her job, and in fact, the process needs to be completed in an appropriate way.

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

S. Simpson: For all of the minister’s sympathetic words, she has responsibility for a critical agency that has acted irresponsibly, if not illegally, and compromised this inquest by withholding information. This isn’t about the coroner. It’s about WorkSafe B.C.’s conduct. It’s not about the minister being sympathetic. It’s about the minister being accountable for her file.

There have been two government reviews into WorkSafe and the mill explosion: one by the Premier’s deputy; one by Mr. Macatee. Neither report made any mention of this separate investigation. So there are two plausible explanations. Either they were incomplete reviews that didn’t discover the investigation, or the decision was made to stay silent and quiet about the investigation.

Will the minister tell us: which one was it?

Hon. S. Bond: I am happy to stand in this House any day and speak to the accountability of a minister. When I took responsibility for this file in 2013, we made it clear that there needed to be changes made at WorkSafe. I can articulate those changes to the member.

[1055]

But the member also has the responsibility to be held accountable. If the member would choose to stand in this House and rush to judgment…. The last time I checked, he is not the coroner. There is information that the coroner is exploring. In fact, the coroner is doing exactly what we would expect her to do.

I also want to advise the member opposite….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.
[ Page 7012 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I am advised that WorkSafe today will be responding directly to the concerns of the coroner. That information will be provided, as appropriate, in terms of the process that WorkSafe undertook, directly to the coroner. I would suggest to the member opposite, while I appreciate his interest and passion….

I can tell the member opposite that there are very few members in the House that have the deep concern that I have over this particular circumstance. While it may be a bit much to the member opposite, it is my community. It is a place where my families, my constituents, actually had to go through that circumstance. If he wants to stand in the House today and suggest that I am not interested in finding the answers, he would be very wrong.

A. Dix: What’s happened is that the government, through WorkSafe, has undermined the credibility of the inquest by holding back evidence that they knew — in their possession. Now most of the witnesses are off the witness stand, and this evidence comes forward. It should have been given before. Everybody knows that, and the minister and the government are responsible to this House for that fact.

Lakeland’s offer to WorkSafe of the forensic report occurred, as we understand it from the evidence yesterday, in November 2012. Can the minister explain to us, explain to the House, WorkSafe’s decision to refuse to look at that information? Can she explain to this House and justify how an investigatory body — that’s designed, as she says, to get the answers that people deserve in the investigation — refuses to review clearly relevant information compiled by a forensic firm?

Hon. S. Bond: I can tell the member opposite that I, first of all, don’t intend to justify, but I also don’t intend to debate the facts that are in an independent process that will be pursued by the coroner. While the member opposite is extremely passionate about this matter and I very much respect that, I also respect the process that is underway.

It is an independent process. It is being determined by a coroner. It is important that all of the information be on the table. It is important. It’s absolutely essential for families. It’s essential for us to know what recommendations the coroner will provide.

I don’t intend to stand in this House and justify anything. What I do intend to do is ensure that we allow an independent process and a coroner who is doing her job to complete that work without political interference.

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

A. Dix: What there were, were repeated investigations by WorkSafe, including one into this terrible explosion that killed two and injured many more. That’s what this is about: those investigations.

In the course of those investigations, in November 2012, relevant information from the investigation was offered to the government through WorkSafe. This was 14 months before the Babine report came out and 16 months before a report from WorkSafe that showed that 42 percent of mills were not in compliance on dust. And they were refusing to even look at information — not look at it and discard it — refused to look at it.

How can the minister justify this? How can she explain this action that has nothing to do with the inquest, that has to do with investigations that happened under her mandate? How can she justify a body that’s dealing with something that, in the moment, affected the health and safety of everyone working in a mill in British Columbia? How can she justify her agency refusing to even look at it?

[1100]

Hon. S. Bond: Unfortunately, I reluctantly correct the member opposite. His statement that this has absolutely nothing to do with the inquest is absolutely incorrect. This has everything to do with the inquest. It has everything to do with the fact that the coroner has the ability and the responsibility to conduct an independent investigation.

For the member opposite to suggest that no action has taken place at WorkSafe is also fundamentally wrong.

I asked Gord Macatee to come and review WorkSafe after the investigation that did not result in charges, which was a disappointment to everyone. In fact, Mr. Macatee presented government with 43 recommendations.

To the member opposite, I welcome him to go to the website where we post — monthly — the progress. Madame Speaker, 27 of those recommendations have been completed, and four are underway. I would also remind the member opposite that the first bill that was introduced in this session was to provide WorkSafe with a greater suite of tools to ensure that we hold employers accountable.

STATUS OF TREATY PROCESS AND ROLE OF
TREATY COMMISSIONER TOM HAPPYNOOK

A. Weaver: Yesterday the Premier claimed that government made “a principled policy decision” regarding the direction that First Nations treaty negotiations will take. I must admit that this is the first time I’ve heard of a principled policy decision being announced in a media scrum after question period.

Last month cabinet appointed Tom Happynook, the highly respected hereditary whaling chief of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, to the Treaty Commission. As the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will know, trust and respect are two essential characteristics of relationship-building.
[ Page 7013 ]

My question is this. Did the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation inform Mr. Happynook, prior to his appointment, that the government’s new direction would include no longer appointing George Abbott or anyone else as chief commissioner and potentially dismantling the entire Treaty Commission?

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, although I really appreciate the note that you sent me. You’ve broken from your tradition of sending written questions to us, but that’s fine. I get how that can go.

I do want to thank the member, because Tom Happynook is an excellent individual, and we’re very honoured that he has accepted the appointment to the B.C. Treaty Commission office.

The B.C. Treaty Commission office is structured in that there needs to be four commissioners — two appointed by the summit, one by the federal government and one by the government of British Columbia — in order to be able to function.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Rustad: Without those four people being in place, the Treaty Commission office cannot continue forward with their work. So I had discussions with Mr. Happynook about the appointment. I talked about the fact that we are thinking about the treaty process, and we’re excited about being able to work with nations and being able to find ways to be able to do things better. Mr. Happynook said that he’d be excited to be part of the B.C. Treaty Commission process and the work that they will be undertaking.

Madame Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I would suggest that the minister call up Mr. Happynook, as I did yesterday, and ask the same question of him.

I’ve heard that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is a man of integrity. I’ve heard this not only from his constituents but also from First Nations. However, in order for a minister to be able to do his job, he must have the trust of the cabinet and the Premier. This is especially true for the portfolio of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, which comes with the added burden of historical B.C. governments dealing in bad faith with First Nations and with the complexity of navigating an intricate treaty process.

The events of the past few weeks have thrown into doubt whether this minister can speak with authority to First Nations, given the fact that the Premier is making major decisions that affect the foundation of his work, apparently without his knowledge.

[1105]

To the minister: an honourable man of integrity as he is, how can he continue to head up this portfolio when his ability to build trust and respect with First Nations is being undermined by the Premier?

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I have spent the last two years travelling around the province building relations with First Nations, nations that are in the treaty process, nations that are outside of the treaty process, nations that we already have treaties with. We continue to find ways to work with all nations on progressing with our relationship with First Nations.

I find it interesting that nations that are in treaty and not in treaty have all said the same, similar things to me: “The process needs to be reviewed. We need to find ways to be able to improve things.” So I’ve been working very closely with all nations. We’ve been listening to them. We’ve had the All Chiefs meeting. We heard this message come forward.

Even with the wide range of groups that we have, there is one thing that is consistent; that is, First Nations want to see good things for their people. They want to see healthy and wealthy communities. They want to work with the province and the federal government on the relationships, and they want to be able to build a prosperous future. We plan to work with them as partners in doing that.

FUNERAL SERVICES ON HAIDA GWAII

J. Rice: Recently while I was on Haida Gwaii, I spoke to constituents who told me about the funeral services that George Westwood has provided Haida Gwaii families for over 20 years. One person said: “Without George, we really would not have known what to do.” Another person asked me: “Help make sure George is not punished for helping families who have nowhere else to turn in times of grief and loss.”

The Minister of Justice said that Mr. Westwood is unsuitable to provide funeral services. The mayor of Queen Charlotte, Greg Martin, disagrees. He has written to the minister’s staff to say: “Before we can effectively repair the damage that your agent has caused, it is important that you acknowledge the facts of the situation and apologize to Mr. Westwood.”

To the Minister of Justice, what steps has she taken to help George Westwood continue his much-needed services on Haida Gwaii? Will she apologize for her callous remarks?

Hon. S. Anton: When you lose a loved one, there is no question that there are many people who can help you,
[ Page 7014 ]
and a knowledgable volunteer can be of great assistance to families. Mr. Westwood was a knowledgable man and helped families — and may be continuing to help families in Haida Gwaii. He may do that as a volunteer. He was simply given a letter by Consumer Protection, reminding him of his obligations.

Volunteers can help people. They can help them in their times of need. That’s the assistance, I gather, that Mr. Westwood was offering on Haida Gwaii. He was not able to cross the line. He is not to cross the line. But certainly, helping families is a helpful thing and a good thing for him to do.

At the same time, Consumer Protection B.C. is working with the Funeral Association of British Columbia to find out if there are other ways that remote communities can be helped where there’s not the ability to have a full-time funeral director but where the community can be helped in other ways.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Thornthwaite: I have the honour to present a report by the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, and I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to move adoption of the report, after making some brief comments.

The report summarizes the results of the committee’s statutory review of section 6(1)(b) of the Representative for Children and Youth Act. Section 6(1)(b) provides for the representative’s monitoring, review, audit and research function.

The committee was required to complete by April 1, 2015, an assessment of the effectiveness of section 6(1)(b) in ensuring that the needs of children are met. The committee undertook the review at the start of this current session.

[1110]

At that time, we received a joint letter signed by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The letter stated that the representative and the ministry share the view that the representatives’ monitoring functions under section 6(1)(b) remain a required and important aspect of oversight and public accountability of the performance and outcomes of the ministry.

The letter also stated that there has been progress by the ministry on measuring and reporting on performance. However, both the representative and MCFD agree that further work is required to achieve the performance and outcomes reporting envisioned by the hon. Ted Hughes in his April 2006 B.C. Children and Youth Review.

The committee subsequently met with both the Representative for Children and Youth and MCFD to discuss the letter. In accordance with shared views of the representative and the ministry, the committee agreed to recommend that section 6(1)(b) of the Representative for Children and Youth Act not be amended at this time.

The committee further notes that there will be an opportunity to review this section during the next statutory review of the act, which is required to take place before April 1, 2017. This report formally records this decision.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

D. Donaldson: I, too, would like to lend some comments to the committee statutory review of section (1)(b) of the Representative for Children and Youth Act. The background on this is that the hon. Ted Hughes was appointed in 2005 to review and investigate the child welfare system following the tragic case called the Charlie case, the death of a child in care.

He cited constant turnover in leadership, major policy shifts and budget cuts as undermining the child welfare system. Hon. Ted Hughes envisioned that when the Representative for Children and Youth office was established there might be a day when the monitor, review, audit and research functions would be taken care of by the ministry and that function wouldn’t necessarily have to reside with the Representative for Children and Youth. This depends on measurables, on performance standards, on quality assurance standards.

I congratulate the Representative for Children and Youth and the deputy minister in their joint letter to our committee where they said that although some progress has been made, considerable work is required to achieve the performance and outcomes reporting envisioned by the hon. Ted Hughes in his April 2006 B.C. Children and Youth Review report. That was a quote from their letter.

This will not impact the investigative functions that the representative has when it comes to death or injury of children, but she and her office will continue to perform the monitoring, review, audit and research functions. I welcome that, the committee welcomes that, and we also welcome the collaborative nature between her office and the deputy minister’s office that’s gone into this report and review. I support our committee’s report today.

Madame Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the report.
[ Page 7015 ]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly here, Section B, I call continued committee debate on Bill 18, and in Section A, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Madame Speaker: While we await the committee chairs, the member for Vancouver-Kensington seeks leave to make an introduction. Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’d just like to welcome two classes from Sir Charles Tupper school. They’re accompanied by teachers Bonnie Burnell and Auton Lum; as well as retired principal Iona Whishaw — she’s also a writer; student teachers Jenna Benko and Steve Sorrenti; and parents Stuart Cameron, Ellan Suan, Megan Neary and Stephanie Crosby.

[1115]

We have members of the debating club; the winner of a speech contest, Alison Wick, who will be taking a free trip to the United Nations in New York; as well as members of the newspaper Tupper Writes; and from the ultimate frisbee league.

They speak 31 different languages at Tupper. I ask everyone to please make them welcome.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:18 a.m.

Hon. S. Anton: Supporting me today, from the Ministry of Justice, are David Merner and Julie Williams. Because there are many consequential amendments proposed in this bill, I’ll just mention the other names of the people who will be in and out depending on the portion of the bill.

Cheryl May and Janet Donald are from the residential tenancy branch and the office of housing and construction standards. They’re representing that group.

Christine Webb is from the building and safety standards branch, also in the office of housing and construction standards. Linda Bates and Jim Collins are from the Ministry of Agriculture. Marg Shamlock is from Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; and Michael Tanner is from the Ministry of Labour. All will be here. But we’ll start off in a general way with David Merner and Julie Williams.

On section 1.

L. Krog: Well, I suspect this is going to be a very long day. I say that not as a threat, but simply as a comment on the obvious nature of the complexity of Bill 18, the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act.

The original statute that we’re going to presumably be amending, unless the government loses its majority in the next few weeks, is a fairly complex piece of legislation.

[1120]

It’s for that reason that I believe Alex Shorten, who is the president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, has written to the minister. I think it’s only appropriate to confirm that she has in fact received his letter dated March 24 and has had a chance to read it. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: I’m aware of the interest that the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, has in this statute. In fact, staff met with Mr. Shorten yesterday. I will say that in everything that we do in Justice we do rely constantly on our stakeholders and our partners in law and justice. And of course, the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, and current President Alex Shorten, is a very valuable partner of ours.

I would observe, and we’ll go through this more as we go on, that this is enabling legislation. There is no implementation. If this bill passes for this House, which I will hope that it does, the implementation remains in the future. With any clustering, any implementation, we will be meeting with the bar association and other stakeholders. We’ve agreed to consult because we do value their advice as we move forward with the clustering and with the proposals that are contained in the legislation.

L. Krog: Well, I appreciate the Attorney General’s comments. It certainly is enabling legislation. It enables the government to do a great deal. Of course, that’s why I used the term — I believe in second reading debate on this matter, when I referred to it — of a “blank cheque,” essentially.

I think it is important that the Attorney General and the public be reminded of the importance of this legislation. Mr. Shorten’s letter is fairly clear. It says:

“Dear Madam Attorney General:

“I’m writing today on behalf of the 6,700 members of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, to ask that you not proceed with consideration of Bill 18, the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, until such time as meaningful consultation can be held with the legal profession and those directly engaged in the administration of tribunals in B.C.

“Significant changes have been proposed in Bill 18 across a large number of pieces of legislation, without any time for consultation or analysis as to the implications of the multitude of individual amendments proposed, never mind their collective impact on the administration of justice within B.C.

“Of specific note, on a very preliminary basis, our administrative
[ Page 7016 ]
law section chairs have identified three key concerns: potential risks of a clustering approach, potential risks related to a security-for-cost requirement and consequential amendments that may affect right to counsel.

“The CBA supports effective law reform and stands willing to participate in processes that lead to that end. I ask that we have the opportunity to do so in the case of Bill 18.

“Sincerely, Alex Shorten”

I’m just wondering if the minister has in fact prepared a formal reply to that letter and whether or not she is prepared to share it with the House.

[1125]

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, the bar association is a valuable partner of ours and a valuable stakeholder of ours, and we appreciate their advice. I gather that there is a reply drafted, but I have not yet seen it, and I have not signed off on it.

Just to emphasize what I said a moment ago, this is enabling legislation. We will be consulting. Any proposed clustering that takes place — there will be extensive consultation with the parties involved in that particular cluster. We have committed and agreed to consult with the bar association as we move forward.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s emphasis on this, that it’s enabling legislation, but nevertheless, it is legislation. It is legislation that will give significant authority to the government, particularly by way of regulation, to institute what are seen, by the bar certainly, as very significant changes.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the very serious concerns of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, has in fact the Attorney General or her ministry officials consulted with the B.C. Trial Lawyers Association and/or have they received any correspondence from the Trial Lawyers Association within the last week or two respecting this particular bill?

Hon. S. Anton: There has been extensive consultation with the tribunals. Personally, I myself have spoken twice at the British Columbia Council of Administrative Tribunals outlining our plans and asking for feedback. The White Paper on Justice Reform in 2013 contained recommendations.

There are many of our partners out there in the community — stakeholders, tribunals, etc. — who are very well aware of the legislation, that it’s coming. As I said, as to the specifics — specific clusterings, specific tribunals which are impacted — that detail comes later in implementation. There will be further consultation and advice sought at that time as to the best way for us to move forward.

L. Krog: Knowing the Attorney General as I do, and being the sensitive person that she is, I’d certainly never accuse her of this. But it seems to me that the government hasn’t done its homework any more than the Premier and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations did their homework with respect to consultations with Mr. Abbott and the B.C. Treaty Commission — with respect to essentially blowing up that process.

This legislation, you can argue, is the kind of bill that is very much aimed at a small segment of society who would either understand or have a present interest in it. This is the kind of legislation that affects only the tribunals of the province. It affects lawyers. It affects people who are interested in that kind of thing. This is not like a tax bill that may increase or lower the provincial sales tax that everyone is going to have a very direct interest in.

In terms of consultation, it’s obvious what groups should be consulted when this kind of legislation is proposed or brought forward.

[1130]

As much as I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General respecting the white paper and what was discussed, I do find it surprising that as much as there may have been consultation — and, indeed, there’s a glowing remark from the chair of the administrative tribunals association with respect to this legislation — I would have thought that there would have been, both with the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and the trial lawyers, a more explicit, direct and obvious kind of consultation.

This is not dramatic legislation in the sense that we’re talking about perhaps blowing up the treaty process. This is not a highly politicized, ideological approach. This is what I will call a more public-oriented approach to trying to make the justice system work better. Surely the active participants in that system, being lawyers quite often and, indeed, very often — I would have thought that it would have been appropriate to consult with them, at least in a broad sense.

My impression from Mr. Shorten’s letter and my conversations with Mr. Doyle at the Trial Lawyers Association is that there hasn’t been that kind of direct and obvious consultation. I’d like the Attorney General to confirm: apart from what she said about the white paper and addressing a couple of speaking engagements, is there any correspondence she can point to? Are there any meetings? Are there any committee hearings? Has there been any form of direct outreach saying: “Look, the government is considering doing this, and we would like your opinion”?

It’s not as if it comes as a great surprise that groups, historically, are consulted around legislation that affects their particular interest or area. The opposition…. Quite candidly, we don’t expect to get consulted. That’s not the way the vicious game of B.C. politics is played. But we do, rather, expect that interest groups — bodies that represent those individuals who may have a particular interest in it — and their representative associations would in fact be consulted in a very serious way, perhaps taken into confidence.

I’m looking to the Attorney General to advise the
[ Page 7017 ]
House: did any of those kinds of consultations in fact take place? Were they ever consulted about the wording of this legislation or the proposed wording of this legislation so that they could indeed have offered what I suspect would have been extremely useful commentary?

[1135]

Hon. S. Anton: As I have mentioned a couple of times, this is enabling legislation. It’s implementation which is the time that we will do the full consultation with the stakeholders interested in the particular tribunal.

To give an example. There are quite a number of tribunals in British Columbia. If we choose two or three of them that might be appropriate to cluster together, at that time there would be extensive consultation with the tribunals, with the stakeholders, with the bar association, and so on.

I’ll remind the member opposite that a lot of what we’re doing here is administrative. We are grouping some of our tribunals into common administrative structures to improve efficiencies and reduce duplication where appropriate.

If I might, I’ll tell a little story. When I was first elected I went to a meeting in an office of a tribunal, which I will not name. I went into the office and was a little surprised at the emptiness of the office. It is the case that…. In other words, there were a lot of hearing rooms that were not being used at that particular time.

Those are the kinds of efficiencies — from simple things, like sharing hearing rooms, sharing administrative back offices. It’s those kinds of administrative efficiencies that we’re looking at. As to the nuts and bolts of it, when we actually get on to implementation, as I’ve said, that is when we really move into the much more complete consultation with the partners and stakeholders who will be impacted at that time.

L. Krog: I appreciate what the Attorney General has to say in terms of this being a much longer process, and the working out of the timing of this may take a very long time. But it doesn’t get past the fact that this is still a fairly significant change, particularly in the areas that are mentioned in Mr. Shorten’s letter and, indeed, outlined in the material that the ministry itself put out when this legislation was introduced.

Again — I come back to it — it’s not as if the existence of these organizations was not known to the ministry. It’s not as if they haven’t been consulted in the past on other matters.

It begs the obvious question. Since I think I’ve received a very clear admission that the consultation didn’t take place because the belief is the consultation will take place later, the very obvious question is: why didn’t the consultation take place while this legislation was being prepared?

What possible harm could have come by actually sitting down and having a discussion with, and I use them as just two examples, two major organizations that would have a very direct interest in this?

[1140]

Hon. S. Anton: It’s been very well known in the tribunal world that this piece of work has been underway. I think, in terms of who else we’ve consulted with, we’ve consulted with the tribunals themselves, as I have said. We’ve consulted with the ministries responsible for tribunals. We’ve consulted with sector organizations. We’ve consulted with the Private Managed Forest Land Council. We’ve consulted with the policy and practice consultative committees of employers and worker representatives. We’ve consulted with LandlordBC, and we’ve consulted with the tenants rights group called TRAC.

I myself have spoken at the bar association’s provincial council…. Now, not on this topic — the topic was not brought forward to me. It was a very robust question-and-answer after that meeting, and I haven’t had the issue addressed.

Just to reiterate, organizations like the bar association and the trial lawyers are our stakeholders. They are our partners in thinking about access to justice in British Columbia. When it comes time to actually think about specific clustering that we’re going to do, there’s no question that we will be consulting with our partners.

L. Krog: I thank the Attorney General for her response. She listed a number of organizations that have been consulted. I know that the emphasis of her answers is around the concept that they will be consulted — in a fulsome way, I’m sure — with respect to actually bringing this legislation into force, assuming it passes. But again, the consultation that would have been important would have been the important consultation around the very issues that this bill deals with, which are summarized in Mr. Shorten’s letter. Clustering is just one example.

Again I ask the question. I understand who has been consulted, and I understand who has not been consulted. Given that even the Attorney General, in her response, referred to the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and the Trial Lawyers Association as partners, we come back to the same mess around the Treaty Commission and the pulling out of the rug from under George Abbott. The question is: why weren’t they consulted?

Hon. S. Anton: I think I’ve answered that question. I’m striving to find a further answer, but I really have answered the question, which is that the consultation will be done at the time that the actual proposals start to come together. There will be extensive consultation at that time.

L. Krog: Well, with great respect, I happen to be aware of the level of education the Attorney General enjoys and
[ Page 7018 ]
her qualifications for the job and her intelligence. So I hate to come back to it, nor do I wish to appear to be sarcastic, but the question was: why?

[1145]

If the answer is simply “It’s because we didn’t feel like it now” or “They’re not our partners” or “We made a mistake, and oops, we’re sorry,” I can accept an answer along those lines. But when the answer to the question “Why didn’t you do it?” is “We’re going to do it later,” if that is in fact the best and only explanation I’m going to get out of the Attorney General, I don’t suspect that the lawyers of the province who have a particular interest in this are going to be overly enamoured of that response.

It appears to me that I’m not going to get a response to that very basic question as to why. Perhaps the Attorney General is missing my point. The clustering, the issue of costs, those things that are mentioned in Mr. Shorten’s letter, the effect to the right to counsel — all of those things are important changes that may not meet with universal approbation or acceptance. It would have behooved the government, in my respectful submission, to have consulted with those bodies first instead of pushing ahead.

Now, if the consultation had told them at the start they didn’t like the idea, you know what? So be it if that’s the government’s policy. The government has a majority. The government can proceed in whatever way it wishes within the boundaries of the constitution and is entitled to do it. But at least they wouldn’t have faced the criticism which they are now getting, not just from me but from those very bodies I’ve mentioned, who are asking the same question: “Why weren’t we consulted?”

If the government had chosen to consult, as it very often does in matters like this, this problem and this issue would have been avoided. Now, presuming this bill proceeds apace and is passed, there are going to be a number of people who will have to work with this new legislation over time, who are not going to be very happy and who otherwise might have been somewhat more supportive — or at least have been able to explain to their clients or interested persons or the citizens of the province why, in fact, the government was doing what it was doing.

They may even have been able to say that they didn’t agree with the rationale, they didn’t agree with the process, and they don’t like the result. But at least they wouldn’t be stuck with saying: “They didn’t even speak to us, and when the government was asked why they didn’t speak to us….” It’s because: “We were going to speak to you later.”

With great respect, it makes as much sense as booking a…. To use the analogy of the Premier earlier this morning — I love quoting the Premier, of course, because we all have such respect for her — when she talked about the unhealthy relationship: it’s a bit like booking a major holiday with joint family funds and not consulting your spouse about the destination. I mean, it’s inconceivable that you would maintain a happy, working and productive relationship if that were the case.

The Attorney General talks about these people being her partners and the partners of the government and the ministry. One would have thought it would have been appropriate to actually have had that little discussion ahead of time and saying: “By the way, we are going to bring in these changes. We’re thinking of doing it along the lines of the Ontario model, perhaps with clustering, and this is what we’re going to do. So what do you think? Do you think this thing has merit? Do your members…?”

The thousands of members of the Law Society who practise in this area, potentially, or the thousands of members generally might have had something useful to say.

To get back, then, since I’m not going to get the answer I was hoping to get or some kind of explanation, this legislation, as I understand it, has more to do with the Ontario model. I’m wondering if the Attorney General this morning could explain how the clustering model in Ontario works and why that particular model was chosen as opposed to some other model.

[1150]

Hon. S. Anton: I don’t know that I could go into a great deal of detail around what they do in Ontario. However, what we’re looking at that they do in Ontario is…. For example, they have a cluster of environment and land tribunals. They have a cluster of social justice tribunals. They have a cluster of safety standards and licensing tribunals.

I would not say that we are wedded to that model, but it’s certainly something that we’re interested in. We do at the moment have an informal cluster in British Columbia, which is the environmental appeal tribunal, Forest Appeals Commission and Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal, which share the same tribunal chair and members and also share office space with each other and also with several other tribunals. So there is a model here in British Columbia. There are models in Ontario. Those are the kinds of things that we are looking at.

L. Krog: Given that we have a model in British Columbia that’s already in practice with respect to the three tribunals mentioned, I’m just wondering the obvious question. Why do we need the legislative change if, in fact, we’re already doing it in a practical way with three tribunals that may be the appropriate model for a cluster?

Hon. S. Anton: The goal is to provide consistency across the sector. We have the one example, but it remains the one example.

Generally, this is to provide guidance and direction in the clustering. In order to cluster and to make this happen — the implementation — we would need to take three steps. We’d need to do a business case review, a mandate review, and it needs to have cabinet approval.
[ Page 7019 ]
Going back to the consultation, that is the time we would be consulting with many stakeholders in the individual cases that were being addressed at that time.

L. Krog: In the very kind briefing provided by ministry officials the other day, there was some suggestion that the Ontario model was better and that the government actually looked at the Quebec and Manitoba models, as I recall from that briefing. I’m just wondering how those models worked. Are they significantly different from Ontario? If so, what was the advantage the government believed in the Ontario clustering model?

[1155]

Hon. S. Anton: In Quebec they did approach it differently. They collapsed groups of tribunals together and created broad new mandates for those new tribunals. We are looking more at the Ontario approach, which is essentially leaving the tribunals, each one individually, in existence but clustering them together for administrative efficiencies and for other benefits that that would provide.

L. Krog: With respect to the Manitoba model, how is that different from Quebec’s model, and what did they do? And again, why was it not chosen as the potential model for British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: I gather that in Manitoba they just chose a few tribunals. In Quebec they collapsed tribunals together. But in Ontario they essentially kept the tribunals in place and clustered them in the manner that we are proposing here in British Columbia.

L. Krog: With respect to the Quebec model, in terms of collapsing them in, has thought been given to, in fact, a model whereby the same persons are sitting on all of the panels? And does the minister foresee some difficulty with that, given that these tribunals have historically been set up to deal with very specific problems and areas of concern and, presumably, the members therefore having particular expertise to deal with an issue?

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I think in some cases that can work, and in other cases it probably would not work. That’s why we have to review each of these individually. But as I mentioned earlier, a case where the tribunal chair and members are the same are the three tribunals I mentioned: the environmental appeal tribunal, the Forest Appeals Commission, and the Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal.

L. Krog: Given the potential complexity, my understanding from the briefing was we’re looking between 25 to 28 tribunals. In fact, what’s the total number of tribunals to which this legislation could potentially apply under the government’s jurisdiction?

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, maybe you can provide the answer afterward.

Hon. S. Anton: Noting the hour, Chair, I propose that we rise and request leave to continue at 1:30.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:59 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:24 a.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $64,823,000 (continued).

[1125]

K. Conroy: I’ve taken this question to the Ministry of Environment, and they said I had to take it to FLNRO. So I took it to FLNRO, and I’m bringing it here because now it seems that the responsibility lies with the Agricultural Land Commission. Hopefully we can get an answer today.

It’s about a company called Miller Springs, which sells bottled water in the Boundary country. They have a current licence to bottle 4,000 litres a day. They’ve recently submitted an application to increase to 50,000 litres a day.

There is some concern about the water table in the area. It’s ranching country. There’s a lot of agricultural
[ Page 7020 ]
land around there. We were told that any new licence for groundwater would have to go through a supply-and-demand analysis which would include an analysis of the capacity of the aquifers to see if they could actually sustain 50,000 litres a day.

My concern, because Miller Springs is not seeking a new licence — they have an existing licence — is if they, too, would have to do an analysis of the aquifer.

It also said that the Agricultural Land Commission would make the ultimate decision on this. I want to know if the Agricultural Land Commission will wait until the aquifer study has been done, to ensure that there is actually the capacity to handle 50,000 litres of water a day.

[1130]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for an excellent question, which I will now attempt to answer. It’s a very good question which goes to the heart of the process that local panels make when they make their decisions. I’ve been advised that the local panel has received the application — some three weeks ago. The application came through the regional district with their recommendation to wait until the water study, which the member opposite has brought forward.

The target, usually, for decisions with our panels is about 90 days for their decisions. I have to say again, as I did yesterday, that the decision is one of the local panels only. It’s an independent, of course, decision that they make, that the ALC will make, without any influence from the government.

They will take into account all the information that they have, including the recommendation from the regional district as to what to do, and then the local panel will be the ones to make the decision at the end of the day as to what happens with the application.

K. Conroy: Is there an appeal process? If there is, how does that work if the decision goes in a way that people are concerned about?

[1135]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. What I’ll do is read into the record so all constituents know, as well as the members. In the ALC Act, section 33, “Reconsideration of decisions,” it says:

“(1) On the written request of a person affected or on the commission’s own initiative” — I would interpret that as anybody that’s affected — “the commission may reconsider a decision of the commission under this Act and may confirm, reverse or vary it if the commission determines that “(a) evidence not available at the time of the original decision has become available, (b) all or part of the original decision was based on evidence that was in error or was false, or (c) a recommendation by a facilitator under section 13 relating to a dispute warrants a reconsideration of the original decision.

“(2) The commission must give notice of its intention to reconsider a decision under subsection (1) to any person that the commission considers is affected by the reconsideration.”

And lastly:

“(3) If a local government, a first nation government or an authority makes a decision in a matter delegated to it under an agreement entered into under section 26 (1), subsections (1) and (2) of this section apply as if the local government, first nation government or authority were the commission.”

The short answer is yes, people who are affected may, on written request, submit a letter to the commission.

L. Popham: My question goes back to an answer that the minister gave yesterday about the cost of the new panel system, the regional panel system. The estimate is about $620,000 for the new system. As far as I know, that’s about double the cost of what the system used to cost, and maybe that’s a fairly conservative estimate at this point.

Where would the minister see the commission getting the money for this new system? Within their own budget, or is the minister planning on giving them more to operate with?

[1140]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The $620,000 that’s in the budget is the budget for operating the panels. We have taken, as I said yesterday, a lot of the money that was put aside for two years of projects — that was done and through contingencies — and actually provided that on an ongoing basis, a go-forward basis, to the commission. Those dollars will provide the ALC with the dollars it needs for its operations, including the $620,000 for operating the panels.

But the commission is also looking for efficiencies, like most organizations do. I’ve been advised that one of the projects they have been working on, which is the on-line applications, will save a lot of money when it comes to operating the commission. That portal should be ready quite soon.

As the minister, of course, I will always be there to fight for, advocate for, my ministry when it comes time to put the best case forward to our Finance Minister and the decision-makers there.

You can rest assured that I will be monitoring the progress of the ALC — in terms of its efficacy, of course, not in terms of making decisions, because they’re independent. If it seems like the efficiencies that they have achieved are not enough to provide the resources they need to do the effective job that I have asked them to do, or will be asking them to do through some accountability measure, then, of course, I will be going back to my colleagues and saying, like every other minister probably says: “I’d like you to reconsider the budget.”

L. Popham: Is the minister considering a new fee structure for the ALC?

The Chair: Noting the hour.
[ Page 7021 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: Already?

The Chair: Already.

Hon. N. Letnick: Time goes quickly when you’re having fun. Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The answer is: in 2010 the chair of the ALC provided his report, which said that we should consider fee changes for submissions. The act was changed in 2011 to allow for that to occur.

And your last answer is yes, I am considering whether or not we should be changing the fee structure for the ALC.

Before you ask me the next question, which is now delayed till this afternoon, I can tell you that at this point I have nothing to announce on that matter as far as if and when. That, of course, is subject to caucus and cabinet confidentiality. Just in case you were thinking about asking me the question, I, hopefully, answered it before you got a chance to do so.

With that, noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada