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, May 7, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 25, Number 8

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

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure this morning that I welcome new staff to the parliamentary education office. This summer 13 post-secondary students have been hired to work with the parliamentary tour office. Over the next four weeks these nine tour guides and four parliamentary players will provide guided tours to about 100,000 school children, tourists and others from around the world who will visit the precinct.

You will certainly notice the parliamentary players, and many have noticed them in previous years, dressed in period costumes to portray prominent personalities from British Columbia's history, including Queen Victoria, MLA Mary Ellen Smith, Francis Rattenbury — what better than to get a tour of the precinct by the person that designed it himself — and, of course, Amor De Cosmos.

I would like to welcome Emma Byskov, Aidan Correia, Anna Dodd, Haley Garnett, Laura How, Josef Methot, Monica Ogden, Jacqueline Parsons, Esther Rzeplinski, Maude Le Bouthillier Shaughnessy, Ian Simms, Lauriane Soutif and Melissa Taylor.

[1005]

May the House make them truly welcome. For those that I've pronounced their names wrong, I'd be happy to have coffee with them in my office.

D. Eby: I see in the gallery representatives of the brand-new B.C. Gaming Industry Association — people from Paragon Gaming and Gateway Casinos, just a couple of the members of this new association.

Very glad that this association has been set up. It provides the opportunity for a unified voice for gaming facility operators to speak with government about best practices and how to ensure the greatest public benefit possible from gaming in British Columbia.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'd like to acknowledge two special guests that are in the gallery today. Glenda Ollero and Heather McKenzie-Beck from the B.C. School Trustees Association are with us to watch question period, tour the Legislature and be part of a meeting with Ministry of Education staff as part of our ongoing commitment to our partnership with their organization.

I'd ask the members to please join me in welcoming them to the House.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me celebrate a birthday, and this isn't any ordinary, everyday birthday. This is a 108th birthday. Mr. Keith Turner, a constituent of mine from Ladysmith, turns 108 today, having been born May 7, 1907, during the era of silent films, before the Titanic made its maiden voyage and during the prime-ministership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Mr. Turner has no real secrets for his longevity. In fact, he brags about having smoked like a train. He has a drink every day. He hates broccoli and Brussels sprouts, and he's just plain stubborn. He gave up driving, not because he had to but because he couldn't find a parking spot at his assisted-living building. In fact, he could have continued driving, but he gave it up out of frustration with the parking situation.

He moved from Vancouver to Cedar with his wife of 60 years, Betty, in 1944. He worked at a shipyard in North Vancouver and quit his job after he was asked to fire all the women welders and refused to do so. He retired at 73. Mr. Turner worked for Madill's, who made logging machinery on Vancouver Island. He travelled the world demonstrating their equipment and promoting B.C. manufacturing.

He took a trip to Egypt when he was 100 years old. His granddaughter says that he broke his neck after a fall in the dining room and didn't even notice until he got home a few days later. He's stubborn, she says.

He has three sons, six grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. His dear wife died in 1997 at the age of 84. He is probably one of the three oldest people in B.C. — says he's not seeking a record. He says he could live forever. He just doesn't care. Strangely, all three of these people were born in southern Manitoba. So something is right in southern Manitoba.

Happy birthday, Mr. Keith Turner, from the B.C. Legislature.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd ask the House to make welcome a group of students from Immaculata Regional High School in Kelowna who are touring the building today. I had a chance to meet with them this morning — 31 students along with teachers and some parents that are accompanying them. I know they're going to have a great day here in Victoria.

I was recounting to them the fact many, many years ago — I won't say how many years ago — of the great crosstown rivalry between KSS, which I went to, and Immaculata High School on the football field. They don't have a football program now, but I was telling them some of the stories about what, at that point, was a road trip going across town in Kelowna.

I'd ask the House to make them welcome today.
[ Page 8152 ]

D. Eby: I'm a bit red-faced. I misspoke, and it wasn't a minor mistake. These are the two companies that actually founded the B.C. Gaming Industry Association. It's Great Canadian who is here today and Gateway Casinos.

Would the House please make the groups that are actually here today welcome.

[1010]

M. Bernier: I, too, want to welcome the same guests. We all enjoy having gaming grants in our communities, which wouldn't happen without gaming centres and casinos. From Gateway Casinos and Entertainment we have Jag Nijjar, the vice-president of operations; Shiera Stuart, the director of government relations and public policy.

From Great Canadian Gaming Corp. we have Chuck Keeling, who's the vice-president, stakeholder relations and responsible for gaming, and Peter Goudron, who's the senior vice-president of operations.

I know they're excited to be here in the House today to witness question period. My advice to the opposition today, and I can't resist, is know your limit, stay within it. Please make them welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it gives me great pleasure to welcome — and they will be arriving shortly, I know — students from King George Secondary School in my constituency, joined by, of course, their great teachers, Pat and Sherry.

I do just want to say to the students that as much as people will sometimes in this House tell you that you are the leaders of tomorrow, you indeed are the leaders of today. We all could use a more youthful perspective sometimes, and this House could certainly use your perspective more often as well.

Please make them very welcome.

Tributes

DARREL WONG

H. Bains: With sadness, I inform the House today that the forest industry lost one of its best advocates. The workers lost one of the best activists that fought on their behalf for their rights for many, many years. Darrel Wong was my good friend. He was president of our joint Local 2171, and then became — when they merged with the Steelworkers — president of Local 1937.

He was a mentor to many of us. This was a person who garnered respect from both sides. The industry listened to him. The workers knew that there was someone on their behalf advocating for their rights. He was part of many delegations, the government delegations which went to different parts of the world to promote our forest industry.

There are very few, I would say, that could speak on behalf of the forest industry and on behalf of the workers as Darrel did. He passed away about a week ago. Please join with me in passing condolences to his wife Ann and to the rest of his family. He will be missed, because he was always there when we needed him.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: I would seek to make two introductions, if I may. In the gallery today we have from the Comox Valley a person who has done a great amount of work to make the Comox Valley a better place. We have Robert Mulrooney. He's a local businessman who donates his time and efforts to tons of great organizations, including YANA. Recently he helped spearhead a fundraiser for an organization called L'Arche, which is to build a building with semi-independent living and programs for persons with disabilities.

He's done an absolutely phenomenal job. He's made the Comox Valley a better place. So I'd like the House to say hello to Robert Mulrooney, who is joined today by his in-laws, James and Elizabeth English. I believe they're up in the gallery behind me. Would you please all say hello.

Lastly, I have a slight confession. I am getting a little bit older in my tender years. I've reached the age of 45, and my eyes are not 100 percent. If my wife finds out, she's going to make me go to the optometrist one more time. But as I walked in, I looked over to my right, and I believe I saw another resident of the Comox Valley, a lady by the name of Janice Caton, who is a school board trustee who does great work serving the residents and the students of the Comox Valley. Would the House please recognize Janice and say hello.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES

J. Kwan: This week is Neighbourhood House Week across Canada, and last night I got to celebrate with the Association of Neighbourhood Houses of B.C. The event was called Neighbours Growing Neighbourhoods, and I can't think of a more appropriate way to describe the incredible contributions of neighbourhood houses to our community.

Believe it or not, the Association of Neighbourhood Houses has been serving B.C. for 122 years. Their members are an integral part of the development of the social service sector and our community safety net. Neighbourhood houses leverage small budgets into mighty programs that build connections with local residents.

[1015]

They build welcoming and inclusive communities because a neighbourhood house is a hub that brings people together, from seniors and newcomers to Canada alike.

Their programs offer something for everyone, from
[ Page 8153 ]
the smallest children, to youth programs, to adult daycare. Whether it is career mentoring, or multicultural family groups, or dancing and art for seniors, it's a place where connections are built. They celebrate the holidays of many cultures with joy and always underscore their programs with healthy food.

For low-income neighbourhoods such as the Downtown Eastside, neighbourhood houses offer a place of sustaining calm, with their focus on food security and meeting people where they are at. They understand that food is a way of bringing people together. Their food programs are a springboard for improving the physical and social health of everyone who comes through the door and for respecting the diversity of the Downtown Eastside.

The incredible value that neighbourhood houses bring goes far beyond the money that's put into them. They build our social capital. They build our capacity to know, understand and care for each other. If home is where the heart is, then neighbourhood houses are where the wider community shows its heart.

I ask that everyone please join me in thanking neighbourhood houses in our communities and in pledging to do whatever we can to sustain and grow the work that they do.

MENTAL ILLNESS AND
CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

J. Thornthwaite: According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, almost 20 percent of all Canadians will experience mental illness in their lifetimes. It can strike anyone regardless of age, ethnicity or economic status, affecting their ability to work, their relationships with friends and families and increasing their chances of becoming the victim of a crime. It's the single biggest cause of disability in the western world, but because of the stigma attached to it, many either postpone treatment or don't seek the help they so desperately need.

Youth mental health is particularly important because the highest incidence of depression now occurs in people under the age of 20. At any given time, more than 80,000 youth in B.C. are dealing with mental health disorders such as anxiety, attention deficit, hyperactivity, bipolar and eating disorders and schizophrenia. Symptoms often begin as early as adolescence and, if left untreated, continue into adulthood.

May 7 is National Child and Youth Mental Health Day in Canada, and today we wear green to raise awareness and end the stigma surrounding mental illness. Through the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, we've been investigating issues at the ground level, conducting consultations with health professionals, service providers, aboriginal groups and stakeholders and parents and children themselves.

Our goal is to find out where services can be improved so that we can build safer, more inclusive learning environments, help families and educators recognize early warning signs, empower youth to seek help and provide better support for recovery.

Today let's stand together to tell those who are suffering that they are not alone. Let's tell them that there is hope and that it's safe to reach out and ask for help.

HEALTH CARE AUXILIARIES

N. Simons: Our province has proclaimed May 10 as B.C. Health Care Auxiliary Day, so I'd like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members to thank, congratulate and celebrate the work that members of the 87 health care auxiliaries do for their communities all around this beautiful province.

As members of the B.C. Association of Health-Care Auxiliaries, which recently celebrated its 70th anniversary, they perform their work under the patronage of Her Honour Judith Guichon, the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia.

The Powell River Health Care Auxiliary, with over 230 active members, recently raised over $800,000 worth of equipment and furnishings for the new seniors facility, Willingdon Creek Village and, over their own 70-year history, for the hospital, Evergreen care centre, and the Olive Devaud residence. President Rhondda Schreurs and her board and volunteers saw the need to make sure the new facility was not just equipped but comfortable for those moving from the Olive Devaud residence to the new centre on the hospital campus.

This weekend I'll be joining Vicky Forest, president of the Sunshine Coast Health Care Auxiliary, and many of its members to celebrate their successes and to bring attention and awareness to the important work that they do on the Sunshine Coast.

With branches in Hopkins Landing, Gibsons, Roberts Creek, Sechelt, Halfmoon Bay and Pender Harbour, they are over 500 strong, running the medical equipment, loan cupboard, pampering seniors in long-term care, providing bursaries to students, running the thrift shops and the gift shops, encouraging and training volunteers and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for important medical equipment for the Sechelt Hospital, Totem Lodge and Shorncliffe extended care. Recently I attended a ceremony at the Sechelt longhouse where the auxiliary was honoured for its contributions to the community.

[1020]

In conclusion, in the spirit of the proclamation I ask my colleagues to remember to keep patronizing the gift shops and the thrift shops. But equally important and meaningful, when you see an auxiliary volunteer giving of their time in a hospital or health care facility in one of your communities, thank them for all of the work they do for us.

TB VETS AND 70th ANNIVERSARY OF
LIBERATION OF NETHERLANDS

R. Lee: On this day in 1945 in France, Germany signed a military surrender agreement, silencing the guns in Europe and ending the Second World War on that continent. Last Monday I had the honour to attend an event in Burnaby at the George Derby Centre, a senior care centre that's home to a number of elderly Canadian veterans. The event, organized by the TB Vets Charitable Foundation and the consul general for the Netherlands, honoured Canadian veterans and commemorated several events of the Second World War — the liberation of the Netherlands and the 70th anniversary of TB Vets.

Established to help veterans suffering from TB and other respiratory illnesses, TB Vets has evolved over the decades to offer support for disease research, treatment and prevention, along with raising funds to fight respiratory illnesses affecting British Columbians of all ages and from all walks of life.

This week, May 4 through 10, has been proclaimed as TB Vets Week in British Columbia. The week marks the contributions of its founding veterans and recognizes TB Vets Charitable Foundation for its unwavering commitment to fellow Canadians.

The word "hero" is used to describe brave men and women, and there are few braver than those who volunteer to serve our country — today and over the decades. In the Second World War 45,000 Canadians made the ultimate sacrifice, including 7,600 who died liberating the Netherlands.

Tomorrow, May 8, is the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. It's an important day. It's a day to reflect on the sacrifices of our fellow Canadians. Please join me in honouring all those who served, especially those who did not return and are buried where they fell, thousands of miles from our shores. We will remember them.

MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS
IN PORT COQUITLAM

M. Farnworth: This coming Saturday will be the second Saturday in May, and that can mean only one thing: that it's May Day in Port Coquitlam. In fact, this year will be the 92nd annual May Day festivity in the city of Port Coquitlam — one of the oldest in British Columbia. It is a celebration of our past, of our heritage and of our future.

It truly is a community event. It's put on each year by community volunteers. This year the May Day committee is chaired by Bob Lee, and he and his team will be doing a tremendous job.

All of us in Port Coquitlam look forward to it. I remember, as a kid growing up with my brothers and sister and my friends, we'd go down, and we'd sit on the sidewalk, and we'd watch the parade go by. In those days it went from the south side of town, under the underpass to the north side of town, and they closed the Lougheed Highway in both directions for the parade to go across.

Unfortunately, we can't do that anymore, but the thing that hasn't changed is the enthusiasm and excitement that exists in Port Coquitlam around May Day. It's an opportunity to see maypole dancing and the lancers — a lot of good community fun. The May Queen is crowned in the original chair that was made back in 1923. It truly is a remarkable event.

For those of you who want to see a real great community celebration, a traditional May Day in British Columbia, come on down to Port Coquitlam. The weather is going to be fine, and you're guaranteed a great and welcoming time. Thanks very much.

HEMOCHROMATOSIS AND
WORK OF MARIE WARDER

Moira Stilwell: Last October British Columbia lost a health advocate who had devoted her life to informing the medical profession of a deadly and underdiagnosed genetic disorder. Marie Warder made B.C. her second home and worked tirelessly here to advocate the cause of those suffering with hemochromatosis, as the founder of the Canadian Hemochromatosis Society. Her work to raise awareness of this relatively common genetic disorder is a legacy that will continue to save lives for years to come. It is because of her that May is now recognized as Hemochromatosis Awareness Month.

Hemochromatosis is an incurable genetic disorder where there is excessive and potentially toxic accumulation of iron in the body. It can affect many organ systems, including the liver, pancreas, heart and joints. It's potentially fatal but can be treated if diagnosed early, before the excess iron causes irreversible damage.

[1025]

Treatment is simple: regular removal of blood. And that blood is acceptable for donation. Diagnosis is done through genetic testing and blood tests.

Interjections.

Moira Stilwell: There's going to be a test at the end of my statement.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Moira Stilwell: One in 300 Canadians has hemochromatosis, meaning that approximately 15,000 British Columbians have the genetic capacity to experience serious organ damage due to excessive iron in their system. It's expected that most people with the condition do not know that they have it. Early testing, diagnosis and treatment can reduce or eliminate most of the severe compli-
[ Page 8155 ]
cations, including cancer, heart failure, cirrhosis of the liver, diabetes and arthritis.

The month of May presents the opportunity to continue Marie Warder's work by raising awareness of hemochromatosis. Doing so will help save lives, reduce health care spending and ease the financial strain on families with avoidable disabilities and loss of life.

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

J. Darcy: Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians don't have access to primary medical care. In communities like Chetwynd after July 1 there will be no doctors on call all summer.

The Liberals made a promise that every British Columbian would have a family doctor by 2015, but the Health Minister admitted earlier this week that this is yet another promise that the B.C. Liberals will be breaking. Of course, breaking promises is nothing new to the B.C. Liberals. The Premier herself is quoted as having said: "We all say things when we're trying to get elected."

To the minister: was the Premier's promise in the last election that every British Columbian would have a family doctor by 2015 just another one of those promises made in order to get elected?

Hon. C. Clark: It is true that we as a government set an ambitious goal in the GP for Me program. There's no question about that. As part of that program, we included making sure that people had better access to primary health care providers and long-term, quality care for patients. Over 54,000 vulnerable patients are now being matched with a primary care provider.

There are many parts of that program that have worked, but I will say this: we certainly set a goal in the GP for Me program for connecting a doctor to every single patient. We still intend to get there, although we aren't getting there yet. I will say something, though, further, which is that the thing about setting goals — the thing about setting ambitious goals — means that you'll be able to achieve things. You'll be able to make sure that you make a difference.

Contrast this to what the NDP did during their term. They didn't build a single hospital in the 1990s, compared to over $7 billion invested in health capital all across British Columbia. They closed 3,000 hospital beds. They eliminated nearly 1,600 full-time nursing positions, and they failed to create a single new space for training doctors.

Yes, on this side of the House we set goals. We set ambitious goals, because we believe in an ambitious future for British Columbia, and we believe in the people of British Columbia.

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

J. Darcy: The people of British Columbia want answers on health care today. They're tired of this Premier and this government living in the last century.

You know, the first step to achieving a goal is understanding it, yet this government doesn't even seem to know how many people don't have a family doctor in British Columbia today. This week we learned that the number of British Columbians who don't have a family doctor has gone up, not down.

[1030]

It's gone up, and according to the Auditor General's report, the government doesn't even track its own progress towards meeting its own goal of A GP for Me by 2015.

Again to the Premier: is that because the promise of a family doctor for every British Columbian by 2015 was yet another Liberal promise just to get elected?

Hon. C. Clark: She accuses us — me — of living in the last century. I will quote a former New Democrat, I think, who very aptly said: "What we have sitting across from us in the New Democrats are politicians from the 1990s trying to solve problems from the 1960s."

On this side of the House we want to make sure that we are solving the problems of today and the problems of the future, that we're adjusting to make sure that we're reflecting the real realities that British Columbians face.

How do we create a growing economy so that government can have the revenues…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …that we need to be able to look after people? How do we make sure that we're making the wise investments in future that are going to protect people who are becoming senior citizens now and young people who are going to find their way into the health care system as time goes on? How do we pay off our debt so our children don't have to worry about the burden of decisions that we made but couldn't afford?

How do we protect our climate so that our environment is in the kind of magnificent shape that they deserve it to be? How do we build a health care system and spend money wisely so that we can make sure that we are spending less per capita than almost anywhere in Canada and getting the best health outcomes? Well, in answer to those last two questions, I can say this. Best health outcomes, lowest cost per capita — we've already done it in British Columbia.

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

J. Darcy: The Premier may want to go back and check something very important about the 1990s, and that is
[ Page 8156 ]
that those best health outcomes that she referred to have been in place in British Columbia since the 1990s.

Now, it would be one thing if the commitment about A GP for Me by 2015 was just made last year. But this government promised it back in 2010. Then it repeated it in the election campaign over and over again in 2013. Now we hear the Minister of Health, and presumably the Premier, saying it was an aspirational goal. It would appear that if you look up "broken promise" in the Liberal dictionary, what you're going to find there is "aspirational goal."

My question to the Premier is: if this was strictly an aspirational goal, why did the Premier and every single Liberal candidate repeat it at every campaign stop across B.C. in 2013?

Hon. C. Clark: Of course, the difference between the record of the 1990s and the record of today is that it's a lot more difficult to achieve the best health outcomes in the country when you're making sure you're spending money wisely.

The second-least money per capita in health care anywhere in the country, and we get the best health outcomes. That's the difference — that we are husbanding people's money, their hard-earned tax money, much, much more wisely, much more carefully, thinking about how we can get the best outcomes in health care at the same time that we aren't burdening our children with billions of dollars in unnecessary debt. That is the difference.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: The reason we're doing that is because our focus as a government has always been to think about what's best for British Columbians. I heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about the election in Alberta yesterday. His response was to say: "I think this could be good for me." When I read that, I thought to myself: "What about British Columbians? What is good for the people of the province?"

[1035]

As leaders, it is not our job to ask ourselves how circumstances, how our goals, can somehow fit our personal ambitions. Our question is to ask ourselves how what we can do every day is going to improve circumstances for the people of British Columbia. That's what they sent us here to do, and that's what I call leadership.

EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE SERVICES
IN FORT ST. JAMES

K. Conroy: What this Premier is also responsible for is the biggest debt in this province's history. That's not a goal we heard much about during the election.

The problem in rural B.C. is getting worse. In Fort St. James they have found out that they will be without emergency room services for eight days in May. Imagine a community where women and men work dangerous jobs in the resource sector but where, for eight days this month, there is no emergency room available.

Does the minister or the Premier think that it's okay that Fort St. James will have no emergency room services for days on end this month?

Hon. C. Clark: The shortage of doctors across British Columbia is not unique to our province. It's happening all over the country and all over the world. It's certainly one of the challenges that we're facing and one the Health Minister and the government have been working very diligently to try and make sure we address.

One of the most important parts of that has been making sure that we are not only training doctors — which is a novel idea, I know, for the opposition — but training doctors in the north, making sure that we're adding more doctor training seats. We're doing it in northern British Columbia, because we know that when people are trained in the north, they're more likely to stay in the north.

Having said that, it hasn't solved all of the challenges. We do, certainly, have more work to do, but the very significant investments that we've made in health care, the very significant commitment we've made to making sure that doctors are able to train and then locate in the north, continues. We have more work to do, no question about it, but the reason British Columbia has the best health outcomes in the country is because we have worked very, very hard and diligently in the interests of British Columbians to make sure, every day, that we're getting closer to those goals.

K. Conroy: So hard that Fort St. James is going to be without emergency room services for eight days this month. How's that working out for people up north?

It was this Liberal government that promised health care where you live and when you need it, or was that just another example of the Liberals promising anything so that they could get elected? What is the Premier or the minister — what is anybody — going to do to fix the emergency services up in Fort St. James for May? People are not going to get services, and they need it. What are they going to do about it?

Hon. C. Clark: We are certainly working with communities around the province, including this one, through the health authorities, to make sure that their health care needs are addressed. As I said, it's not a challenge that's unique to our province.

In terms of building new hospitals — the new hospital in Fort St. John, the new training centre and the new additions to the hospital and the cancer care centre in Prince George….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: Very significant investments in northern health care that benefit people all across the north, including in Fort St. James.

Having said that, individual communities want to make sure they have access to physicians. It's something that I personally spoke to the mayor and council about when they were down for UBCM. We are continuing to work on that challenge.

I was very interested, though, to hear the member's sudden interest in British Columbia's debt load. I was fascinated by that. I hope that if she gets a chance to get up and answer another question, she can explain to me the NDP's position on the debt. Maybe she can explain to me the NDP's position on taxes.

Maybe she can explain to me the NDP's position on balancing the budget. With eight consecutive unbalanced budgets, with six consecutive credit downgrades, I'd be very interested to see if she's had a revelation on the road to Damascus, has a plan, and knows how we're going to get there. Until this day I haven't heard a single one of them talk about caring about the debt in our province.

[1040]

PORT DEVELOPMENT AND
STATUS OF FARMLAND IN DELTA

V. Huntington: Last month 17 acres of prime Delta farmland were advertised for sale as an ideal holding property. To quote, "This property is surrounded on three sides by properties owned by B.C. Rail. There is no doubt" that one day this property is part of a bigger scheme for port expansion. It's effective advertising because developers know this government will do nothing to stop speculation on the ALR.

Vancouver Port says it needs 2,300 acres of additional industrial land by 2025. B.C. Rail already owns 159 acres in Delta, and a prominent industrial developer has options on over 400 acres of Delta farmland. Tsawwassen First Nation has devoted 335 acres of former ALR land to port-related development, and Port Metro Vancouver operates Fraser port on 790 acres in Richmond and has purchased an additional 240 acres of ALR land. With federal government involvement, none of these lands will be subject to the ALC oversight.

Does the Minister of Agriculture support the industrialization of the ALR as a suitable use for the agricultural land in Canada?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Since 2001 there have been 38,000 new hectares included in the ALR than there were back in 2001. The position of this government is to continue to support the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. We've also increased the amount of funding to the ALC. It was under $2 million a year back in 2001, and now it's approximately $3½ million per year for them to do their work.

We expect that they will continue to do their work independently of the government, to make sure they make those decisions based on applications that are made to them. In the case of this particular example, we totally expect that whoever owns the property will have to go through the normal process of applying to the ALC, like anyone else would be expected to do.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I think the Minister of Agriculture has forgotten that the Canada Marine Act has been changed and that the port doesn't have to answer to the ALC for any land it owns.

The city of Richmond has repeatedly objected to the port's purchase of farmland. It has a resolution before the Lower Mainland Local Government Association, then to go to the UBCM, asking the federal Minister of Transport to prohibit the port from purchasing ALR land. It has repeatedly asked local MLAs and the minister to support its struggle, but not one member on that side of the House has said a single word about the industrialization of farmland for port-related uses.

When there is federal involvement, the minister cannot deflect the problem to the Agricultural Land Commission. If this government wants to protect agriculture, the minister and his colleagues need to step up and lobby the federal government to change its regulations. And they need to let the people of B.C. know they do not support the port's voracious appetite for B.C.'s farmland.

Will B.C.'s Minister of Agriculture stand up and condemn the industrialization of the ALR for port-related purposes? Will he help us protect B.C.'s farmland from the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority?

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again I have to reiterate the same answer to the member opposite. It is the expectation of this government that anyone who has land in the ALR would have to apply to the ALC. We will continue to make sure that we fund the ALC appropriately so that they can hear those applications — $1.5 million more in funding this year than there was back in 2001 for the ALC.

We have seen an increase of 38,000 hectares in the ALR than was back in 2001. With all of that, we still have 60,000 people directly involved in agriculture in B.C. today. We have 20,000 farm families. We've seen an increase of 3½ percent per year in economic activity in farming, compared to 1.9 percent in the general average of the economy. I think agriculture is strong.

[1045]

As I go throughout the province, I hear great news on agriculture everywhere I go. We'll continue to support agriculture throughout this province of British Columbia.

METHADONE DISPENSING FEES

S. Hammell: No doctors, but meanwhile, elsewhere in the Ministry of Health we are paying more for methadone dispensing fees than any other province in this country — in fact, to quote a recent ministry report: "Far more than any other province." These dispensing fees for methadone have increased by 7.6 percent per year since 2001 and in 2014 totalled $44 million.

Why is the government paying the highest methadone fees in the country when money is desperately needed for other addiction services like detox?

Hon. T. Lake: Methadone treatment is a salvation for many, many British Columbians that are addicted to opioids. We want to ensure that the appropriate patient receives the methadone treatment. That's why we have a witnessing fee. That's why we ensure that pharmacists are held to account — to make sure that the right patient is consuming the methadone so that they can get on the path to recovery. This is an internationally recognized best practice for harm reduction and aiding people on the road to recovery.

We have introduced new regulations that ensure that pharmacies all over British Columbia follow the rules, and if they don't, they will no longer be able to dispense methadone or participate in the PharmaCare program. It is important that the right patient receives the treatment. That's what our methadone program is intended to do.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The reality is that we have the highest methadone dispensing fees. We're not talking about the drug. We're talking about the dispensing fee, and we have the highest in the country. There's an old adage: follow the money. That is the reason we have an excessive number of hole-in-the-wall methadone dispensing pharmacies that prey on the marginalized in our communities. These excessive fees have resulted in one pharmacy billing PharmaCare over $1 billion in methadone claims.

The heart of the matter is the lucrative fee structure for dispensing methadone, the highest in the country by far. When is the minister going to bring our dispensing fees in line with other provinces?

Hon. T. Lake: I know the member misspoke when she said $1 billion. It's close to $1 million for that particular pharmacy. I just want to correct the record.

We want to be leaders in the province of British Columbia to ensure that our programs are the most effective. That's why we have stood up and ensured that we have a safe injection site in Vancouver — to reduce the harms of people that are addicted to heroin. We have stood up, through our support for the Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, to support people in the Downtown Eastside.

We have done that because we want the best outcomes for our vulnerable patients here in British Columbia, which includes a methadone treatment program. I am committed to ensuring that everyone follows the rules on the methadone treatment program, which is why there are over 40 pharmacies that have been put on notice to make sure that they are following the rules.

B.C. PLACE ATTENDANCE TARGETS
AND FACILITY ISSUES

D. Eby: In the 2012-13 service plan for B.C. Place, the attendance target for last year was 1.5 million people, but in this year's service plan, the same target for the same year was reduced by 450,000 people.

[1050]

Can the minister tell this House what the point of attendance targets are if he's just going to lower them to meet the actual attendance anyway?

Hon. T. Stone: Yet again we hear questions from the members opposite which always seem to be intended to cast aspersions upon one of the greatest sporting facilities in North America.

The member knows full well — we canvassed this in estimates only a few days ago — that this facility is generating hundreds of millions of dollars of economic opportunity, not just for Vancouver but for all of British Columbia. The member also knows that the attendance numbers are always disclosed as part of the public accounts process, which happens in a couple of months. I said that to him in the estimates, and I'm saying it again to him here today.

D. Eby: The aspersions are cast at this government, certainly not at the targets the minister was suggesting.

Speaking of targets, when B.C. Place was renovated just 3½ years ago, one would assume that it would have been built ready for the FIFA Women's World Cup or the rugby World Sevens that we're all looking forward to. But the AstroTurf at B.C. Place is being ripped out and replaced because it doesn't meet the standards of FIFA or world rugby. Similarly, there won't be an exhibition game involving the Jays or the Mariners anytime soon. The video board at B.C. Place hangs too low. It interferes with pop flies.

To the minister, $563 million spent on B.C. Place, can't hit attendance targets, has the wrong turf and can't host a baseball game. How can this place be so mismanaged?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, as I said a moment ago and I
[ Page 8159 ]
said a few days ago to the member, the actual attendance numbers are always disclosed on an annual basis as part of the public accounts process. That takes place in July. So he will have those numbers. What I said to him in estimates I'll say again today. The attendance numbers are increasing.

B.C. Place, despite the opposition's complete and total lack of support for this facility from day one, generates $145 million of economic activity for the province of British Columbia each and every year.

I would be interested to know if the members opposite support the rugby sevens, which are coming to B.C. Place. I'd be interested to know if the members opposite support the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, which is coming to B.C. Place. Or how about the Grey Cup? Or how about AC/DC?

These world-class events would not be possible if this government hadn't made the investments that we did, which, again, have created jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic opportunity for British Columbia.

SEA TO SKY HIGHWAY REPAIRS AND
INDEPENDENT ENGINEERING AUDIT

C. Trevena: To the Minister of Transportation. A couple of weeks ago we heard it was just routine maintenance on one section of the almost new Sea to Sky Highway. Last week the Minister of Transportation admitted that there is another section of the road that isn't living up to its 75-year life span. This week Mike Pearson, the former blasting superintendent for Kiewit construction on the West Van portion of Sea to Sky, publicly raised more questions on a third section — bulging walls, open panels…

Interjections.

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

C. Trevena: …problems with drainage for walls that rely on drainage stability.

[1055]

The minister has said that all is fine and that everything is going to be fixed. Rather than addressing these emerging concerns on a piecemeal basis, I'd like to ask the minister whether he'll agree to an independent audit of engineering on the Sea to Sky Highway.

Hon. T. Stone: It simply amazes me that the opposition chooses to use this valuable question period time to ask the same questions over and over and over again. If you ask the same question, you're going to get the same answer.

As I said last week, there are no safety concerns whatsoever for the travelling public or for the residents along the Sea to Sky Highway — no safety issues. The professional engineers within the Ministry of Transportation as well as those with the contractor did identify two retaining walls, as I mentioned last week — one at Pasco Road, one near the Brandywine Park.

These are walls that require some mitigation work to ensure that the walls adhere to the standards in the contract related to the 75-year life span, which is what the contractor was supposed to build the walls to. So that mitigation work will be underway very, very soon.

Again, I will thank the member for asking questions about infrastructure in the Lower Mainland, because when they were in power through the 1990s, they didn't invest a single dollar in transportation in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair would ask the member for Port Coquitlam to withdraw the remarks he directed towards the Chair during question period.

Please get to your feet and withdraw.

M. Farnworth: I withdraw whatever I said.

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour of tabling the WorkSafe B.C. 2014 annual report and 2015-2017 service plan.

Madame Speaker: The Minister of Aboriginal Relations seeks the floor to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Rustad: There are a lot of events that are happening in my life right around now that I want to take an opportunity to be able to celebrate and introduce. In particular, of course, Mother's Day is coming up, and I want to wish my mother a happy Mother's Day.

Yesterday was, for my wife and I, our 20th wedding anniversary. Of course, we spend so much time around the House that we rarely get a chance to be able to be home for these types of events. It was also my parent's 63rd wedding anniversary yesterday.

I want to be able to wish my wife a happy birthday. I'm looking forward to coming home and getting a chance to celebrate it with her tonight.

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Weaver: Above us in the gallery…. It gives me great pleasure to introduce a class of 29 grade 5 students, accompanied by six adults and their teacher, Ms. Christine Patterson, from Willows elementary school in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly I call continued second reading of Bill 11. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of Justice.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm very pleased to continue my closing remarks on Bill 11 today. As I said in my short comments the last time that I stood on this bill, I listened with a lot of interest to a number of things that were read into the record by the members opposite.

[1100]

Much of it was repetitive, but what concerned me the most about it is there were statements made about education in this province and the status of education.

I need to stand here today without any hesitation and say that British Columbia has one of the best education systems in the world. We are ranked in the top three, along with Finland, which is often quoted as being the best in the world, and Japan.

That doesn't come just because of good, sound policy. It comes as a result of the dedicated efforts of teachers across this province day in and day out. I stand here and say that I respect the profession, I respect the work that they do and I respect the commitment on the part of teachers to providing the best they can for every single student, day in, day out, month in and month out.

I do know that British Columbians expect our K-to-12 system to be run efficiently, that teachers and students have the supports they need and that everyone is focused on what matters most. And that one thing is student learning and outcomes — to build upon a great system and to make it even better in the future.

Contrary to the opposition comments on Bill 11, that's what the amendments to the School Act, the Teachers Act and the Independent School Act are all about. It is to build on that. Not to hamper it, not to take control of it, but to absolutely ensure that we have the flexibility to build on a system in a world that is changing so quickly that we do need to be nimble. We do need to be flexible, and that is what the amendments are all about.

Education transformation is at the forefront of the work that we started three years ago with the introduction of the B.C. education plan. We need to pursue new and innovative approaches that promise better results for students and that continue to build for the future.

Our key focus in the Ministry of Education, in the government of British Columbia and across this province, in every single school district, is on personalized learning, where students have more opportunity to pursue their passions and their interests while maintaining our high standards on foundational skills like reading, writing and numeracy.

We will never give up on those fundamental skills, but how they are applied in the education system of the future, and how we personalize that for every student, is the key. The amendments that are in this act provide a stronger and more flexible legislative foundation for the work that we have ahead.

Bill 11 will help the K-to-12 system reduce overhead costs, ensure that teachers get the professional development they need and put a much stronger focus on what matters most — and as I have said, that is student outcomes. These amendments provide a stronger legislative foundation for the work ahead and will allow the government to do the following.

First of all, contrary to the opposition comments on Bill 11, to work with the teaching profession to build a modern framework for professional development. Our commitment to the B.C. Teachers Federation, my personal comments to the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, is that we will work on that framework together once Bill 11 is put into place. We will build a framework that will work for teachers, support teachers and give them the tools that they need as we go through transformation.

School districts that are looking to find efficiencies through shared services will continue to be supported by this government in finding those efficiencies, again, to ensure that every single dollar that can be dedicated to the classroom is done that way.

[1105]

One of the things that concerned me the most of what I heard was the opposition's suggestion that the data protection for students was going to be compromised when, in point of fact, the amendments allow us to ensure that they keep pace with protection-of-privacy legislation that is implemented across the public sector in British Columbia.

I stand here on behalf of this government, honoured to serve as the Minister of Education, and I make this commitment without any hesitation. The Premier and this government are committed to working with our partners in education to improve accountability for education in the interests of students, teachers, parents and taxpayers. That is our job. We're committed to it, and we have a clear
[ Page 8161 ]
vision of what that will look like.

Some have asked on the opposite benches: "Why now?" Well, the answer is very simple. We must not only maintain the great outcomes that we have; we need to continue to improve the education system.

We've been working hard to look at opportunities to transform education in the province, and we've done that by looking around the world, talking to leading experts, looking at the best pedagogies in the world for education. That's why we are looking at the amendments that we're making to Bill 11 — because they are necessary in order to ensure transformation that will help us to implement the K-to-12 accountability framework in the coming years.

Again, a lot was made about the shared-services component of the legislation. We are committed, as I said, to working with districts to find those efficiencies that ensure that the maximum investment is made in the classroom. I know there were many letters read and quotes, but I will quote the president of the BCSTA, who had this to say — that boards of education and trustees are not opposed to shared services.

This legislation will provide boards with clear authority to enter into those kinds of shared services or alternative service delivery agreements with other boards or other public sector entities. We are not going to be mandating those. We are going to work with them. We are going to build business cases that make sense, and we are going to ensure that they have the ability to do that.

That doesn't mean that one size fits all. There is flexibility that will be built into that because of geographic differences, local community initiatives, but we do want to…. Where provincewide initiatives make sense, we will be making the case with the trustees across the province as to why those are there and how we are going to implement them.

You know, during the debate the issue of funding was brought up time and again. I want to make it very, very clear. We are investing new, record-level funding in public education. Yes, there are costs that are going up across every sector of our society, but when you look — that in the next three years school districts will receive an additional $421 million in operating and learning improvement funding, that is not a reduction of funding. That is an increase in funding.

Total funding to school districts will top over $5 billion next year. That's $1.2 billion more per year, or a 31 percent increase, since 2001. That increase has been done at the same time as we've had a reduction of 75,000 students in the province of British Columbia. But we recognize that, even though we've had reduced enrolment, we've had to continue to invest, and we are committed to doing that.

[1110]

Average pupil funding is at a record level this year at $8,800, and it's expected to increase again next year to a new record of $8,900. This is more than 40 percent since 2000-2001.

There was again by the opposition a lot of talk about the negotiated settlement. Their focus was on the negative, the longest disruption that we had, but it was this. It was our commitment to find a negotiated settlement.

In labour relations sometimes you have to stand up and say: "Here is the bottom line. We are prepared to be committed to that on behalf of the taxpayers and, ultimately, for the teachers and the students." The teachers got a fair increase. We have unprecedented stability in the system for the next five years as part of a six-year agreement, and that is going to serve every single student, teacher, parent and community well.

I remember the opposition, during our negotiations, twisted like pretzels because they said that first they wanted us to negotiate. Well, we did, and we continued to negotiate with over 70 meetings during that period of time.

Then they said: "Mediate." We were open. We allowed for that. We believed that mediation could help, and we were prepared to do that.

But then they said, when they thought it was taking too long: "Well, why don't you arbitrate, give the public purse away to someone else?" We said: "We are not prepared to do that because our balanced budget, our fiscal policies are important for the taxpayers and, ultimately, important for the investment in education in the future." So we did not arbitrate, and we do not make any apology for that position.

In the end, our government got the longest negotiated agreement with the BCTF in the history of our province. I know we still have lots of work to do. We have to build the relationships, and our commitment is to do that with the BCTF, with the teachers of this province, and we will continue to do that.

We were thankful that we were able to get that negotiated settlement. We were thankful that our budget was able to provide the funding to cover that agreement and the ability for the system to hire additional teachers and school support staff — and a 33 percent increase in the learning improvement fund that goes directly to deal with class composition issues, which we have agreed and which the Premier has agreed time and time again is one of our priorities. We put a focus on that by putting more money into the classrooms, where it is going to be effective.

I even quote Mr. Iker, when the budget came out, saying: "We are thankful that they are covering the cost of a negotiated collective agreement." It's very clear, if you look at the budget and you read it, that the five-year collective agreement commits an additional $125 million over the next five years to the learning improvement fund. That brings the total up to $500 million to meet composition challenges.

The fact is that there are nearly 9,400 educational assistants working in schools today because of this gov-
[ Page 8162 ]
ernment's fiscal policy. And there is an increase in that category alone of 2,800 full-time positions, or a 42 percent increase, since 2001.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the opposition wants to try and suggest that we're going backwards. What's disturbing about that is that that message is not true.

[1115]

To the people of British Columbia, to the teachers of British Columbia, to the taxpayers of British Columbia but, most importantly, to the students of British Columbia, this is one of the best systems in the world. We stand on it, we are going to build on it, and we're going to move ahead because of our vision for the future, not by the lack of vision that I see across the aisle.

While we provided a record level of funding, we know that we have more to do. That's why we're asking the school districts across this province to work with us, as other sectors did — in the health care system, in the post-secondary institutions. We know many districts have already found savings and are continuing to work on that. We're going to continue to help them.

The suggestion that there was no consultation about this, that there was no dialogue about this is absolutely wrong. Over the last two years ministry staff have worked with district staff. They have established a committee on shared services that has looked at opportunities, looked at formulas. That work has gone on for two years and is going to continue into the future.

To suggest that we have not talked…. Since the Premier asked me to take on this responsibility on behalf of this government, I have stood up….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have stood up at BCSTA AGMs, at regional meetings, at all of those opportunities that I could be at.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have taken every opportunity that my schedule allowed me to. But I have been very, very clear from the get-go.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the members opposite want to try and shout me down. But you know what they can't shout down is the truth, and the facts.

I know that my staff in the Ministry of Education were at the last BCSTA AGM. They had tremendous meetings with staff and with trustees talking about the very issues that I have been speaking about in my closing remarks.

I know the members opposite want to throw aspersions, and they can do that all they want. The one thing that I've learned in the role that I have is that I will always be transparent and honest with the trustees, with the BCTF and even with the members opposite. They may not want to accept it, but I'm okay with that.

What I know is that the vision that this government has for education is based on sound research, based on good advice from experts around the world — and with the dedication of all of the teachers in this province who have worked with the ministry throughout the last number of years on developing the new curriculum for K to 9 and now 10 to 12. That shows that we can work together when we have a common vision, and that common vision is very clear and has been articulated time and time again.

In developing the new curriculum, in discussions that I have had with the BCTF executive, we made it very clear that professional development and the support the teachers need to implement a new curriculum is what we are going to work on together. Bill 11 sets the foundation on how we will work collaboratively with the BCTF to develop that professional development, to build a new modern framework. We want to work with the B.C. teachers to strengthen the profession, to enhance public confidence in it but, most importantly, to help the students reach their full potential.

[1120]

I look at what is happening in the world. At the conference that I attended with the president of the BCTF in Banff where leading countries around the world gathered, and leading experts, professional development was absolutely seen by every one of those jurisdictions as being one of the key elements for the future of education and for one reason. Many world experts say the outcomes and the capability of students are directly related to the quality of the teachers in those classrooms and the tools and the support they have. Bill 11 gives us the opportunity to work together to get there.

The members opposite like to talk about funding. I'm going reiterate once more, just so that they can make notes and have the facts. Over $5 billion invested. A $1.2 billion increase. A 31 percent increase over 2001. Public school enrolment is down by 75,000, but investment is up.

In addition to that, we provide CommunityLINK funding of $51 million to the 60 school districts in this province to help vulnerable students. Program services like breakfast and lunch and snack programs, academic supports, counselling, youth workers and after-school programs are funded by CommunityLINK. In addition, we've provided more than $11 million to PACs around
[ Page 8163 ]
the province for local priorities.

We have engaged with the sector over the last two years. The bill clearly shows that we are going to continue to do that. Before we initiate any changes, we will have a robust consultation process on all of the elements that are in the bill. We're going to continue to develop the framework with our partners, and we're going to flesh out the details that we need to.

I'm glad the members opposite took the time to review the legislation, but their interpretation of it is completely backwards. It is all about working with the sector. It's all about helping the sector succeed. It's all about giving teachers the tools they need to succeed. And it's all about developing accountability within the system so that the taxpayers, the parents and everyone who watches us around the world will know that we have a system that is both accountable and delivering results.

This bill does not amount to a dramatic increase in ministerial authority. In the rare event that the government would consider appointing an official trustee…. And we have. We know today in that community that the community thanks us for the step we took, because they now have a solid foundation.

That's the last resort. But we do need to have the ability if we cannot see the kind of cooperation that needs to happen for the sake of the students in that district and the teachers. And you know what? Those powers are already in the act. We're not putting something new in. It's already part of the School Act.

The one thing I want to say to British Columbians — and this is really important — with respect to student information and privacy: the amendments relating to the use and disclosure and protection of student data link directly to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The members suggested that we did not consult with the Privacy Commissioner, and again they are wrong. We took the bill to the Privacy Commissioner, they reviewed it, and they said they have no issues and no concerns with the proposed amendments.

More than ever, the K-to-12 sector is going to have to rely on solid research and analysis to deliver approaches that work better for everyone in the system. Access to high-quality data is going to be essential to providing the education programs and monitoring the impact of the new curriculum and other learning information.

[1125]

At the same time, student information and the privacy of that will remain a high priority. The protection and use of that information was managed through the School Act, which restricted the sector's use of data tied to personal education numbers. These amendments simply align the protection of student data with more modern provisions and safeguards found in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In closing, I want to say very clearly to the members opposite and to the people of British Columbia that Bill 11 is absolutely essential to moving our education system forward with the focus on one thing, and that is outcomes for students and the satisfaction of teachers in their profession and the support that they both need to be successful.

With that, I move second reading.

[1130]

Second reading of Bill 11 approved on the following division:

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 11, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 25, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

[1135]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 25 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that Bill 25, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, be read a second time.

Just before I start, I wanted to add my personal comments and echo the comments of the member for Surrey-Newton on the passing of Darrel Wong and the contribution he made to the forest industry. Very appropriate words this morning, and on behalf of the ministry and government, I'd just like to add my own personal comments and thoughts and prayers for his family.

The bill, the statutes amendment act, addresses legislative gaps in the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, the Land Act, the Land Surveyors Act and the Land Title Act. It continues our initiatives to streamline our regulatory processes and improve business operations and opportunities.

The province is planning changes to the Forest Act, Forest and Range Practices Act, with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales and acting on recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales effectiveness review. The changes will support more accurate timber pricing, help B.C. Timber Sales generate more revenue and improve the agency's overall business practices.

Specific changes will increase competitiveness in the industry and support the accurate pricing of Crown timber by allowing non-BCTS licensees to provide timber to B.C. Timber Sales for auction, improve the marketability of lower-quality, beetle-kill timber by equalizing the financial risk associated with cruise-based and scale-based timber sale licences, generate revenue by allowing B.C. Timber Sales to recover unamortized value of Crown assets and provide forest management services to licensees and government organizations and to support sustainable forest management and market access by empowering Timber Sales to enforce its environmental management system.

Collectively, these changes could increase B.C. Timber Sales annual net revenue by as much as $4 million.

B.C. Timber Sales was founded in 2003 with a mandate to provide cost and price benchmarks for timber harvested from public land in British Columbia. In June 2013 the Premier directed my ministry to review the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales. This review was carried out by John Allan, the former CEO of the Council of Forest Industries and a former Deputy Minister of Forests.

It was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 set out clear goals for B.C. Timber Sales, which are to provide price and cost data for the market pricing system based on auctions of timber harvested from public land. Three supporting objectives were identified, calling on B.C. Timber Sales to sell the full annual allowable cut, generate revenue and pursue continuous improvement. Phase 2 included recommendations designed to improve the effectiveness of its operations and ensure it is well positioned to deliver on its role.

The legislative amendments that are in this amendment address some of these recommendations. B.C. Timber Sales auctions timber and issues hundreds of contracts to deliver services such as road construction, forest development, seedling production and tree planting. The changes to the two acts will implement some of the recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales role and effectiveness review and will ensure that Timber Sales continues to play an important role in supporting economic prosperity in rural communities through safe and sustainable forest management.

The province is also proposing changes to the Forest Act that will once again allow for the transfer of pulpwood agreements. Pulpwood agreements are non-replaceable, volume-based timber tenures that provide a secure fibre to supply large-scale pulp mills. These agreements provide pulp mills with access to a secondary source of low-quality fibre when sufficient, suitable, reasonably priced wood chips, sawdust and logs are not readily available. Although the province no longer issues pulpwood agreements, they remain a valuable asset and are actively sought for purchase and sale in the forestry sector.

In 2003 the province removed pulpwood agreements from the Forest Act, although the existing pulpwood agreements could remain in place until they expired. However, this change to the act inadvertently took away the agreement holders' ability to sell or otherwise transfer these agreements.

[1140]

The amendments to the act will also ensure that rules regarding change in corporate control, suspension and cancellation, and continuing liability will apply to pulpwood agreements as they do all other forms of Forest Act tenures. These legislative changes restore tenure holders' business security and will keep mills open by ensuring that there's an adequate supply of pulpwood available.

The province is also proposing changes to the Land Act to make it easier to regulate and manage low-impact community recreation and commercial activity on Crown land. Low-impact activities have minimal impact on the land base and its ecosystem. These include things like basic investigative activities, camping, organized events and private moorage.

Over the last 40 years demand for Crown land use has dramatically increased across the province. The proposed changes to the act will streamline decision-making and provide greater business certainty for government and
[ Page 8165 ]
its clients while ensuring provincial resource interests are protected.

Currently the Land Act has a very limited scope of regulatory powers. New regulation-making powers will allow the government to establish time limits and other criteria related to how an activity can occur on Crown land, require clear notification of the proposed land use or activity, restrict areas for season activity or use and create clear remedies to address non-compliance.

Other changes include updates to the public notification guidelines to bring the legislation in line with current practice and better accommodate on-line technologies and to enable new regulations that consolidate payment of fees, rents and royalties, making it easier for users to pay and government to collect.

All other legislation governing activities on Crown land still applies. In updating this portion of the act, the province consulted with municipalities, regional districts, First Nations, industry user groups and conservation organizations.

The province is also proposing changes to the Land Surveyors Act to allow the Association of British Columbia Land Surveyors to register land surveyors who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents. The association sets the standard for entry into the profession and for registering those who meet established standards.

As with other professions, many land surveyors are approaching retirement age. The change will help the province avoid labour shortages in the future, and the changes are consistent with other self-regulating professions in the province.

The legislation puts the onus on the regulatory body to adopt procedures and requirements to ensure workers meet, and continue to meet, the appropriate qualifications. Instead of stipulating any condition for citizenship or residency, the legislation focuses on qualifications and credentials.

The changes are also designed to meet B.C.'s obligations under various interprovincial and international trade labour agreements for increased labour mobility between partnering jurisdictions.

If the changes are not made, B.C. would have no ability hire qualified surveyors from other jurisdictions should there be a surveyor shortage due to demographics or to accommodate increased natural resource development.

At the same time, the province is proposing amendments to the Land Title Act to streamline service fees by reducing the number of categories in schedule 2 of the act. The proposed changes will improve customer services by combining provincial fee categories based on common customer themes and eliminating obsolete categories.

The fees are also recalculated so that the highest fee is for the most complex service, such as surveyor general services, and the lowest fee is for the least complex service, such as title search.

The changes will also eliminate fee differences between on-line and face-to-face services, as most of the business of the Land Title and Survey Authority is already on line.

It will include new fees for surveyor general services, for statutory right-of-way and covenant designations that allow organizations and individuals to hold statutory right-of-way covenant. The fee categories and individual service descriptions in the current fee schedule are an evolution of the province's land title survey system of over more than 100 years.

The proposed legislation also provides the opportunity for the province to rebalance the fees and to reasonably account for inflation. The provincial portion of the fee schedule has not been increased since 2004, before the establishment of the Land Title and Survey Authority. With this increase, B.C. fees for a number of categories remain below the Canadian average.

The Land Title and Survey Authority's advisory committee was consulted on the proposed amendments, and the stakeholder advisory committee includes members from the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors, Law Society of B.C., Society of Notaries Public, the B.C. Real Estate Association, the B.C. Association of Professional Registry Agents, First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

The stakeholder committee understood the necessity for the fees, and they agreed to the proposed changes as long as enough prior notice was given before the changes are brought into force, which is what will take place.

[1145]

These are the gaps and initiatives in the Forest Act, Forest and Range Practices Act, the Land Act, the Land Surveyors Act and the Land Title Act that will be addressed by the proposed changes to the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act. I look forward to the comments from the members of the House.

N. Macdonald: I want to thank the minister and the staff for the briefing on the bill. I think all MLAs who go through that process with staff are impressed with the quality of civil servants that we have here in the province.

I also want to state again, as I have many times, the appreciation that I have for the Minister of Forests. My colleagues…. As we're talking, we do not take for granted the fact that this is a minister who is consistently honourable and respectful with not only the opposition but community members that we bring to him to deal with issues. Recently, he has worked with me on an issue in Canal Flats and Revelstoke, and Begbie Falls as well.

Underlying all of these are changes that the B.C. Liberals have made over the years that have led to those problems. Now that I've got the nice things out of my system, I've got to move on to a consistent refrain that I have around forestry, and it's as much what is not in the bill as what is.

We are going to go into the details of what is really a bill that tinkers at the edges, when we have, with forestry, huge opportunity and huge challenges that, in many cases, were caused by this government's action and remain as problems or missed opportunities because of this government's inaction.

What I would look for in a forestry bill are changes, because the fact is that we are not seeing the LNG jobs that we were promised. In fact, this government was wrong to be so misleading on the LNG file. That opportunity that was promised was never real and is not real.

The same thing with mining. Mining has issues around things that government cannot control — around the price of coal, the price of copper, which has picked up a little bit. But we are losing jobs in the mining sector because of those issues. Even with zinc moving up and being strong, we still have Myra Falls closed.

There are people that need jobs here in British Columbia, and forestry sits as this incredible opportunity. I've talked about challenges. The minister knows the challenges. The members here know the challenges in the Cariboo around fibre. That is something that we have to deal with.

We also have, though, the opportunity that comes with a low Canadian dollar. While it can hurt some industries, it is very helpful to forestry and to opportunities for forest products to be sold, particularly into the United States.

We have an incredible resource here in British Columbia, and 94 percent of the lands here in British Columbia, these beautiful lands, are public lands. Forestry done properly means that we can generate wealth now, and we can still leave the same opportunity to future generations. But it has to be done properly. Only this provincial government has the ability and, in fact, the obligation to ensure opportunity in the short term while balancing the needs of future generations.

I would have hoped at some point in this legislative session that we would have focused on getting as much value as possible from our forests. We get less jobs per cubic metre of wood here in British Columbia than any other jurisdiction in Canada. Other forestry provinces like Quebec and Ontario get three and four times the number of jobs, the wealth, that we do here in British Columbia. In B.C. we have the best wood to make wood products of any province in Canada, and yet we squander that. The province sets up a regime that allows that wealth to be squandered.

At the same time, we have almost 7 million cubic metres of raw logs that are sent offshore. We have been saying this again and again. It is the most irresponsible use of a resource that I can think of — to take a resource that could be translated into thousands of jobs on Vancouver Island and on the coast, because it's mainly a coastal issue, and instead send them offshore, getting the minimum of value out of them.

[1150]

With that, of course, comes the job losses. Since the B.C. Liberals have taken over, there have been, at times, between 30,000 and 40,000; at other times 27,000 to 28,000 jobs lost. We have lost all of those jobs when the opportunity for manufacturing jobs was there. There have been 207 mills that have shut down since the B.C. Liberals took over. Now this is a familiar refrain.

All of this came about because of decisions the B.C. Liberals made. The decision — again with a piece of legislation — to not even attempt to try to address those issues…. That opportunity is there — the obligation, as well — to look after the future.

When are we going to have a bill or something in the budget that deals seriously with forest health? We do not have an up-to-date inventory. We do not have an appropriate tree-planting strategy. We don't have community input into planning. All of those come with a cost, but I think anybody who understands forestry understands that when you are investing, first you create jobs in communities that need jobs.

Secondly, you build the wealth of that forest. It makes no sense to not replant the almost one million hectares that need to be replanted, which is solely a government responsibility. That makes no sense at all. That's like saving money by not putting oil in your car or not re-shingling your house. It makes no sense at all for the long-term value of the asset. Yet they argue there's no money to do that.

Well, there is money for a tax cut for the richest 2 percent — $1 billion over four years. If you even took 1/10 of that and put it into forest health, you would be doing something immeasurably beneficial to future generations. But it never happens.

Instead this government creates the scenario where our forest resources are depleted again and again in value. There are a dozen major reports or papers that call for action in forestry that one would expect the government to act upon. You might see it in the budget. You might see some legislative changes instead of the tinkering that we see with this bill.

We had a special legislative committee on timber supply. The recommendations that we put forward, I think, would have gone some distance in helping to address the unavoidable timber supply shortage in the Cariboo. I think any fair person would look at those recommendations and realize that none of them have been seriously acted upon.

That was a major effort that asked hundreds of community groups and industry to come and make presentations. They all participated. We did our work. We spent $300,000 travelling around to produce a report where we unanimously agreed — B.C. Liberals, NDP — and nothing has come of it.

Let's go further. There are seven significant reports by the Forest Practices Board. All of them, by the way, are indictments of government policy. The board points to weak government compliance and enforcement work. Has that been acted on? Is there a bill in front of us that
[ Page 8167 ]
will deal with that serious problem? No.

Is there any action on the criticism by the Forest Practices Board on the safety of resource roads and bridges? We talked to the Forest Practices Board two days ago. Is that a job completed? No. There's all sorts of work, they say, to be done.

A third report makes a point that B.C. has no framework for managing cumulative effect on public land. So what is happening in oil and gas is not considered when somebody is working on forestry plans. There's no cumulative planning. How can that possibly be? When are we going to see legislation that will address that obvious shortcoming? But we don't see it.

The Forest Practices Board talks about the lack of an effective old-growth strategy. It points out that there are over a million hectares of public lands that should be replanted but will not be.

[1155]

Let's just understand where this all started. In 2002 the B.C. Liberals came to this House, changed the law that required the government to replant land that was lost to fire or disease or pests or wind. Then they cut the budget for replanting by 90 percent, and we went from a situation where there was no land that should be replanted that wasn't replanted to now having one million hectares. How is that not incredibly irresponsible? Yet we don't see bills.

How is that not incredibly irresponsible? Yet we don't see bills that reinstate the requirement for government to do what it should be doing if it felt any obligation to future generations.

There was a report outlining the lack of proper inventory. How do you make decisions on the land base when you do not have proper inventory? You don't know how many trees are out there. How do you set the AAC? How do you plan for the future? This is not me saying it. This is the Forest Practices Board that this government appoints.

Then there are more coming, of course. This month, we're going to get another one on forest stewardship — the wildfire interface fuel management. I would assume that those will similarly be an indictment of government policy.

The opposition has talked about these failures in forestry for the decade that I've been here. It is a ten-year story of B.C. Liberal failure to look after the public forest in a responsible way. It is a ten-year story of B.C. Liberal failure to get jobs for B.C. forest workers, with over 200 mills closed, almost 30,000 jobs lost and raw log exports up to seven million cubic metres. It is a documented story of failure that demands action, not the tinkering that we see here with Bill 25.

I understand it's time for the committee to report out and for us to recess for lunch. With that, I take my seat.

[Debate adjourned.]

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

Hon. S. Thomson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Hunt in the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $1,039,955,000 (continued).

[1105]

A. Dix: A few questions. Most of what's known as the Ministry of Health dismissal scandal are, obviously, relevant to the Ministry of Health. There are some elements that touch on the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice.

In particular, a statement on page 33 of the Dyble report states as follows: "At no time before the termination decisions" — that's the case of the termination of Health Ministry employees, terminations that have been, as the minister will know, largely rescinded and apologized for — "were made was advice with respect to whether there was just cause to dismiss the six ministry employees either sought or provided." This came from evidence provided, I presume, from the Deputy Attorney General in the Ministry of Justice.

I wanted to ask specifically whether staff of the department of Justice wrote or reviewed the dismissal letters to the employees.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm dubious whether that question is related to the budget at all. In any event, solicitor-client privilege would apply to those kinds of communications, if any.

A. Dix: The minister will know that…. Of course, solicitor-client privilege only applies, I guess, when it's
[ Page 8168 ]
negative for the government. The part that's positive for the ministry was included in the report and allowed to be included in the report. The part that wasn't was hidden, as the minister will know.

Specifically, when they dismissed the employees — as the minister will know, because her ministry was intimately involved…. "The Ministry of Health" — I'm quoting from their press release — "has asked the RCMP to investigate allegations of inappropriate conduct, contracting and data management practices involving ministry employees and drug researchers." This was the headline of the government press release.

Does the department of Justice see this kind of smear as appropriate, and were they consulted before this reference was put in this press release?

The Chair: I would ask the member to relate his questions to the budget, since that is what is before us.

A. Dix: As I've said, hon. Speaker, I'm asking if ministry staff related to this budget…. The Deputy Attorney General did provide advice on this question. We know this from the McNeil report. So it's specifically to the budget estimates of the Ministry of Justice.

The Chair: I would ask the member to rephrase his question so that it specifically applies to the budget.

A. Dix: Did the staff, the Deputy Attorney General provide…? This issue of the role of the Ministry of Justice was subject to the McNeil report, over which the Deputy Attorney General…. The report reported to him specifically, as the Chair will know. So I'm asking questions about that and about the role of the Ministry of Justice.

The minister can reply as she sees fit, but it's clearly within the mandate of the Ministry of Justice and says so specifically in the McNeil report. The decision was taken by the government to smear these employees with the taint of an RCMP investigation, even though nothing had been referred to the RCMP at the time.

[1110]

My question is specific. Did the staff of the Ministry of Justice, the Deputy Attorney General, anyone at the Ministry of Justice provide advice on the question as to whether this reference in this press release, using the dollars supplied for under this vote…? Did they provide advice as to whether this smear and this press release should be allowed to go ahead?

Hon. S. Anton: Once again, I express my doubt that this question relates to the current year's budget. I think it relates to the past budget.

Secondly, any advice given by any ministry in government by legal services staff is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

A. Dix: This is clearly within the realm of the Ministry of Justice. We are used to questions not being answered, so I understand that. I understand that the minister…. It's embarrassing to the government, because in this case the government decided to smear employees of the government.

The McNeil report says specifically that the ministry employees were involved in providing advice on issues related to this. That's what the report says on page 33. The Deputy Attorney General, I'm sure, and Minister of Justice are familiar with that. It says that they were involved in providing advice.

The question, I guess, is: is the minister, given the failure of this, given that it turned out to be a smear, given that they turned out to be wrong…? Given that they led their press release smearing these employees on an issue where her ministry was providing advice — it's a pretty significant question — is the department reviewing its policies in this regard? In other words, in the current budget year, given that they were involved in this smear of these employees, are they reviewing their policies with respect to the review of these releases?

Remember, this release was done under the leadership of a close friend of the Premier. That's what happened here.

Did the Ministry of Justice provide advice then, and is it proposing to change its policy now to ensure that future employees and, in future, people are not smeared by their government?

[1115]

Hon. S. Anton: Any legal advice, if given — or even whether or not it's given — is subject to solicitor-client privilege. What I can confirm is that the McNeil report did come to my Deputy Attorney General. It was provided to the Public Service Agency, and they are considering the implementation of the recommendations in the report.

A. Dix: Specifically, on page 33 of that report…. The Deputy Attorney General and the ministry gave evidence that they provided advice on parts of the report.

What I'm seeking to determine, given that all of these employees were smeared by the government — the government's had to apologize, but that smear wasn't taken away; the ministry responsible for that relationship, of course, is the minister's ministry — is whether, in fact, advice was provided on that question, whether Ms. Mentzelopoulos received advice from Mr. Fyfe as to whether it was appropriate to include, as the lead in the press release or anywhere in the press release, such a statement.

It was so lacking in substance. It had such legal implications for the government and for the individuals involved and their reputations. I guess what I'm trying to determine here is what advice the Ministry of Justice
[ Page 8169 ]
provided on that.

Further, since the smear had continued for years and was allowed to continue for years…. You will recall, because you follow these things closely, hon. Chair, that last fall the RCMP got in touch with the government and asked them where the information was that they were proposing to forward.

Here's what the government said. They said that the request to investigate was "tacitly rescinded when the cases were settled" with some of the employees. In other words, they said it was tacitly rescinded at that time, and yet the RCMP didn't know that. No one knew that.

I want to know whether the Ministry of Justice…. Given that the government's position is that they tacitly rescinded their request to investigate and didn't tell the RCMP, who was responsible in the Ministry of Justice for telling the RCMP that the position of the government had changed?

They say it changed in early 2014, when they started to settle with some of the employees. They said: "We are no longer asking the RCMP to pursue it. We consider the matter closed." Except they didn't tell the RCMP, because the RCMP, in November, was still asking for information.

Now, this involves the reputation of government employees. I would like to know: when the government decides to stop smearing its employees, when it rescinds a request to investigate employees, how is that communicated to the RCMP? In this case, even though the government said they tacitly rescinded this smear — when they settled with Dr. Maclure, when they settled with Mr. Mattson, when they settled with Mr. Hart — they didn't actually rescind it.

Is the Ministry of Justice responsible? When the government decides to end a smear of its employees, is it the Ministry of Justice, in its current vote, that is responsible for communicating that information to the RCMP? In this case, with the lives of people on the line, with their reputations on the line, nobody did it.

[1120]

Hon. S. Anton: We provide advice to other ministries. That's the job of the legal services branch. Our legal services lawyers act on instructions from other ministries in many different ways. We could think of all kinds of them in this room right now.

In the event that there's some kind of allegation of wrongdoing, a ministry itself can contact the RCMP, but then the pursuit of the investigation is at the discretion of the RCMP, who conduct that investigation independently.

A. Dix: Specifically, though, I guess I ask if it's a matter of policy when employees are dismissed in this way, for cause, that those letters be reviewed by the ministry's staff. Further, though, specifically on the point I asked the minister that she did not answer, what the minister says is that the Ministry of Justice provided advice. In this case, settlements were made with some of the employees. The government continued…. The RCMP was continuing with its open file, and the government consistently referred to that — "It's up to the RCMP" — in question period and elsewhere.

Then, when it became evident from freedom of information in the fall that the RCMP was still asking the government for more information and whether they would be forwarding the promised information soon, the government said, and I'm just quoting what they said: "We are no longer asking them to pursue it. We consider the matter closed and that we have given all the information that there is to the RCMP, and we are not pursuing it any further."

The government made the complaint. The government said that it had withdrawn the complaint, and they didn't tell the RCMP. I'm asking because this is an important question of standards. As you know, the Law Society has standards for the conduct of the people involved here. I'm asking if that's appropriate conduct.

Why the Ministry of Justice, given that this is the policy the government took…. This was their official statement. This was their response, which is: "We withdrew our complaint. We withdrew our complaint to the RCMP, but we didn't tell the RCMP. It was implicit."

Did the Ministry of Justice not have an obligation, did the government not have an obligation, a legal and ethical obligation, if that was its position — that the smear they had made of these employees was rescinded — to advise the RCMP?

[1125]

The Chair: Could I ask the member to very clearly make his question apply to the budget or to policy.

A. Dix: Well, I can understand, hon. Chair, why the minister doesn't want to answer these questions. It is the Ministry of Justice's role, and they state it on page 33 of the McNeil report, to provide advice on these matters. In this case, they did provide advice on these matters. It's not what I say. It's what the Deputy Attorney General said. They did provide advice on these matters.

What happened? The employees were smeared by the government. They were smeared by a press release sent out from the government communications office, directed by a friend of the Premier. They were smeared in the fall of 2012. In the spring and summer of 2014 the government settled with some of the employees in question. Mr. Mattson had settled with it. They'd settled with others earlier. Mr. Mattson and Dr. Maclure had settled at that time.

[The bells were rung.]

A. Dix: I think we have a vote, hon. Chair. So we'll take a five-minute break.

The Chair: A recess. The committee is recessed until we return.

The committee recessed from 11:26 a.m. to 11:37 a.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

A. Dix: When we broke for the vote I was asking the minister about the extraordinary behaviour of the government with respect to the dismissal and smearing of Ministry of Health employees, of researchers — smearing that the government has apologized for but, in its conduct, continued long after they knew it was a smear.

Specifically, you will know that the government, obviously, in this ministry budget…. It's an ongoing matter before the ministry. I know it's ongoing because the Deputy Attorney General said so in a letter to me, so it continues to involve the government's budget — which is why all of these questions, as I know you know, are in order, hon. Chair.

The question I have is quite specific. The government has stated that it rescinded its request to investigate at the time that it settled with Mr. Mattson, with Dr. Maclure and with Mr. Hart in the spring and summer of 2014. That is its position. Yet we know that they did no such thing. We know because the RCMP was contacting the government, asking them to finally submit the information that they said was coming, in October of 2014.

What I'm asking, I guess, of the government is: when you smear employees in this way and discover you no longer have a need to investigate and you make a complaint, what policy is taken here? What legal advice is provided?

Is it the policy of the Ministry of Justice that when you discover that instead of properly assessing the situation, you wrongfully dismissed people and subsequently smeared them and had to apologize…?

Is it the position of the Ministry of Justice that when the government makes a complaint to the RCMP, a complaint that it determines is no longer justified…? Is it not the obligation of the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General to provide that information to the RCMP — who, you will know through FOI, was still waiting for that information months and months later, while the smear hung months and months longer?

[1140]

Hon. S. Anton: In a general way, we provide advice to government ministries. Our government legal services branch lawyers act on instructions from those ministries. If a ministry chooses, it can contact the RCMP to pursue an investigation. Once the RCMP embarks on an investigation, it is up to their discretion as to whether or not they continue with the investigation.

For example, nobody in this room can phone the RCMP and tell them not to continue with something. It's at their discretion. That's how the system works. That's how it's worked in the past, and that's how it will continue to work.

A. Dix: If only that's how the system worked. The incompetence and bad faith in this case is unbelievable. In fact, what happened….

Hon. S. Anton: These questions are not in order.

A. Dix: The minister doesn't want to answer questions. I understand that. I understand that she doesn't want to answer basic questions about the conduct of the government here.

Specifically, because the minister said "in general"…. She is correct. Her ministry does offer advice, paid for in its budget vote, on these issues. On November 6, 2014…. The minister says, "Oh, we're like any citizen who just made a small complaint," and then put out a press release and smeared them on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. We're like any other citizen that does that. That's the minister's position.

Specifically, the government has told the public that they withdrew the complaint implicitly when they settled with Mr. Mattson, Dr. Maclure and Mr. Hart. Only on November 6, 2014, Const. Dean Miller of the RCMP e-mailed the government and said: "Are you any closer to being in a position to forward us your findings?" In other words, the RCMP was waiting for the findings to be put forward by the government, and the government had failed to do so.

They actually had an obligation here. They said they had withdrawn the complaint in their mind. They had nothing to pursue. Then the ministry responsible, the Attorney General, giving legal advice to the government, and the government failed to send that information on to the RCMP, allowing the smear to continue.

I'm asking if this is common practice. You make a complaint. The RCMP ask you for more information. You don't provide the information. Then you decide, oh, there's no complaint there at all. You don't tell the RCMP. Is that the standard of advice and the standard of action that the minister finds acceptable? In other words, does she think, given that the government states that it withdrew the complaints…? When they received a letter from the RCMP on November 6 — "Are you any closer to being in a position to forward us your findings?"— did the government, in fact, act properly?

Was there legal advice here to the effect that even though they made a complaint and even though the RCMP told the government — and we know this from their freedom-of-information issues — they were waiting for more information from the government and the Deputy Attorney General, who was receiving the McNeil report that was dealing with these issues concurrent with this period…?

We're talking about the ministry budget. Is it the government's view that when the RCMP is waiting for material on something they have put on the front page of the Vancouver Sun by leak — they're waiting for material from them — the government doesn't have the obligation to tell the RCMP there's no more material when there's no more material?

[1145]

The Chair: Since the minister has asked me to rule on the legitimacy, what I would suggest is that it is very clear through this discussion that the questions that have been asked have been very repetitive. It has been basically the same question worded differently, but it has been basically the same question.

The minister has given her answer, although it may not be to the satisfaction of the member. That would be my ruling on it.

I would suggest that we can continue the same question repetitively again, or we can note the hour.

A. Dix: The first question, which the minister didn't answer, was whether they advised before the press release was put out. That's one question.

Then the question was: what was the advice? Then the question was about the specific reference to page 33 of the McNeil report. None of these are repetitive questions. They are all new questions.

Then the question was: when the government concluded that there was nothing more to investigate, and the RCMP was waiting for more information from the government, why didn't the government provide that information? Those are all consecutive questions, none of which are repetitive.

Just because the government is embarrassed doesn't mean that they don't have to respond to the estimates of this ministry. They are going to continue to have to respond to this ministry. At the same time…. This is a new question. We'll give the minister time over the lunch hour to consider it.

At the time when the government had formally stated that it was their position…. "We consider the matter closed. We have given all the information that there is to the RCMP, and we are not pursuing it any further." They were before the Privacy Commissioner saying that because there is an RCMP investigation, they can't release information about health contracts. That was their legal position before the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I'll be asking more questions about that when we return at 1:30.

I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

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