2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 33, Number 10

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF
COMMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE

D. Routley: I’m standing to withdraw remarks that I made in my speech yesterday in this House. I used unparliamentary terms. I apologize to the House.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: Joining us today in the precincts to witness the introduction of groundbreaking legislation are Chief Marilyn Slett of the Heiltsuk First Nation and the president of the Coastal First Nations, Dallas Smith of the Nanwakolas Council.

As British Columbians, we all know that the land sustains us. The land in British Columbia makes us unique, and it makes us who we are. These two leaders and the groups of First Nations that they represent…. I understand it was something like 80 chiefs, thereabouts, over the ten years that the Great Bear Rainforest agreement was being negotiated, that saw their way to and from the table.

[1005]

Those First Nations, their leaders, have been our partners in the land use planning that has led us to the historic creation of the Great Bear Rainforest. They have worked with us to ensure that this jewel is protected, while also in continuing the ancient tradition of sustaining themselves through using the land.

I know that members of this House, on this historic day, will make both of them feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: Also joining us today to witness the introduction of this groundbreaking legislation are our other critical partners in achieving this very, very important agreement. In the gallery joining us today are Ric Slaco from Interfor, Eduardo Sousa from Greenpeace Canada, Jens Wieting with the Sierra Club of B.C., Valerie Langer with ForestEthics Solutions, Jody Holmes with the Rainforest Solutions Project and Gary Gwilt from our ministry, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

All played leadership roles and great work in collaboration to achieve this groundbreaking agreement — this very, very important agreement — which will be introduced in legislation today.

J. Rice: I, too, as the MLA for the Great Bear Rainforest, would like to invite and welcome our guests from the Great Bear Rainforest. I would particularly like to introduce Marilyn Slett, who is also a constituent of mine. She comes from Heiltsuk territory in Bella Bella, which is part of the North Coast constituency, so I’d like to make a special welcome to Marilyn.

S. Hammell: Today I’d like to welcome to the House Deborah Conner. Deborah is the executive director of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I’d like to join my colleague in welcoming Deborah here today. The B.C. Schizophrenia Society is a non-profit organization. It was founded in 1982. They have a head office in the hon. Speaker’s home community of Richmond, but also 13 branches across the province. Its mission is to improve the quality of life for those affected by schizophrenia and psychosis through education, support, public policy and research, with a particular focus on families.

This organization has a strong history of working collaboratively and effectively with the B.C. government and with community partners. We’ll be meeting with them later today. So again, would the House please join me in welcoming Deborah Conner of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society here today.

C. Trevena: I have to acknowledge that the Great Bear Rainforest does come as far south as part of my constituency. I think everybody is trying to claim a bit of it. I would like to acknowledge there’s been a huge amount of work by all parties to get to this stage. It is a groundbreaking way of going forward with the ecosystem-based forest management, as it’s now being described.

I think everybody is going to be watching whether or not this really works and hoping that it does really work. I know that my constituents will be. And I would like to add the welcome to Dallas Smith, who is on the floor of the House at the moment, of Nanwakolas Council, who is also one of my constituents and has been working extraordinarily hard with his council to ensure that this moves forward.

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my privilege to introduce to the House today Steve Forseth, the very hard-working regional district director from the Cariboo. I’ve known Steve for many years in my previous hat of local government. I know he works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents, which we share. Would the House please make him feel welcome.
[ Page 10866 ]

J. Horgan: I have a number of introductions to make today. Joining us from eastern Canada today is Ramneet Boparia, joined by Harleen Kang and Sunny Kaylon from my constituency of Juan de Fuca. This is Ramneet’s first visit to the Legislature of British Columbia. I would love members to please make them very, very welcome.

[1010]

My second introduction is a special one, and it’s to introduce Alexandra and Katerina Kurz and their mother, Sarah Beukema, which is a great Frisian name. They’re visiting us today from the West-Mont Montessori School in my constituency of Juan de Fuca.

Why this is special is because Alexandra worked very hard to convince her class and students to come to the Legislature earlier in the year, in February, for the opening of the session, and she wasn’t able to make it. So they’ve made a second trip today, and I want a big, big welcome to Alexandra and to Katerina and their mom, Sarah. Everybody up. Let’s go.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, particularly as the daughter of a professional engineer, to welcome into the precinct today the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. Professional engineers and geoscientists protect the public. They keep our buildings safe. They build our province, and we owe a great debt to them.

At the same time, they maintain the highest of standards, and their number one priority is to work in the public interest and to protect the public interest. I wanted to thank them for hosting the official opposition at a breakfast today and hope that the House will make them very welcome.

S. Hamilton: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and introduce a number of guests. First of all, visiting from the corporation of Delta, here to discuss issues of mutual concern with various individuals, we have Mr. George Harvie, the chief administrative officer.

We also have the chief constable for Delta, Neil Dubord, and at this time, on behalf of the Legislature, I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome the chief to his new role in Delta. He’s been there a few months, but he’s doing an exceptional job. I’d like to congratulate him on our behalf.

We also have Dona Packer, the executive assistant to Mayor Lois E. Jackson.

Finally, we have the iron lady herself. We have a person who understands the importance of building for the future, who understands that a new crossing to replace an aging tunnel is of vital importance both to her community and to the region and, besides opposition, stands in her resolve to see that happen. Ladies and gentlemen, would the House please welcome all of my guests, including Mayor Lois E. Jackson.

C. James: I am pleased to welcome a guest and a friend to the Legislature today. Sheenagh Morrison is a very active self-advocate for people with diverse abilities. She’s a very strong spokesperson. She’s a Special Olympics swimmer. She’s a proud Thrifty’s employee. I’d like the House to please make Sheenagh very welcome today.

I see a surprise visitor in the gallery today, a former UVic professor, a volunteer extraordinaire. We’ve been very fortunate that she has remained in Victoria in her retirement because, I have to tell you, I think Victoria wouldn’t survive if it wasn’t for the hours she put in. Would the House please welcome Marilyn Callahan.

G. Hogg: In an effort to tie or defeat the record of most introductions to one person, I’d like to also welcome an individual who participated in a White Rock Sea Festival parade with then Premier Vander Zalm and myself as mayor. I think he was seven or eight years old at the time. I’d also like to welcome and thank Dallas Smith for all the wonderful work he’s done in getting us to this point.

G. Holman: To extend that record, I also want to greet our First Nations guests. I do have a history with land use planning on the central coast. I wanted to reintroduce the House to the 1990s, when the land and resource management plans were initiated by Mike Harcourt and resulted in the Central and North Coast LRMPs, which established many of the protected areas that are in effect today. Congratulations to all involved.

[1015]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST
(FOREST MANAGEMENT) ACT

Hon. S. Thomson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: Today I’m very pleased to introduce the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. This act will enable implementation of the forest management aspects of ecosystem-based management, EBM, for the 6.4-million hectare Great Bear Rainforest, an area the size of Ireland, one of the largest intact, temperate rainforests remaining in the world. This act signals to the world that our province understands the Great Bear Rainforest as a global treasure with unique cultural, economic and environmental values.
[ Page 10867 ]

Ecosystem-based management is the outcome of agreements arising from unprecedented collaboration involving the B.C. government, First Nations, environmental interests and the forest industry. Ecosystem-based management is an adaptive, systematic approach to managing human activities that seeks to ensure the coexistence of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities.

The act will help to: stabilize B.C.’s coastal forest sector, providing certainty in investment; develop unique forest management and administrative rules that move beyond the current forest legislative framework, while ensuring the normal rules under the Forest Act apply as needed; along with other tools, such as the recently announced Great Bear Rainforest land use objectives order and reconciliation protocols with First Nations, achieve implementation of ecosystem-based management and address that these unique provisions apply to this unique place — the Great Bear Rainforest.

I move that the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 2, Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 20 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2016

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2016.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move first reading of Bill 20.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 20 will provide interim supply for government operating expenses during the first two months of the 2016-17 fiscal year. It also provides interim supply for government’s financing requirements for the 2016-17 fiscal year, including one-third of the year’s voted capital expenditures and loans, investments and other requirements and 100 percent of the year’s requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities.

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

Bill 20, Supply Act (No. 1), 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

GURU NANAK’S FREE KITCHEN

H. Bains: “Love all; feed all” is the motto of Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen, or langar, established in the summer of 2007 to help feed those in need in the Lower Mainland.

The langar, or common kitchen, is a term used in the Sikh religion, where food is served, usually in a gurdwara, to all visitors. It was designed to uphold the principle of equality, regardless of religion, caste, colour, creed, age, gender or social status. In addition to the ideas of equality, the tradition of langar expresses the ethics of sharing, community and an inclusive oneness of all humankind.

The Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen was developed to encourage Sikh youth to volunteer their service and time unconditionally to others. It has done just that and is a great success.

The first Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen event took place in November 2007, setting the stage for the service they provide today. They operate weekly, serving food, clothing and other items to residents in need, and 3½ thousand meals are served every month. In 2012, they arranged their first annual Christmas toy drive, where hundreds of individuals and families donated toys for families in need.

On Valentine’s Day, they deliver roses and chocolate to aboriginal centres and shelter homes. On Mother’s Day, mothers of all faith are honoured.

I had the honour to attend a few of these events over the years, and I tell you that it is really heartwarming to see the generosity in the community.

I would like to commend Indy Panchi, Paul Hundle, Raman Khaira, Raveen Kandola, Tes Kaur and the hundreds of volunteers for their continuous dedication and hard work in helping people in need.

[1020]

I’m sure, on behalf of everyone in this House, I can say thank you for the work you do. Keep up the good work.

EMILY OVERHOLT AND
ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENT

R. Sultan: I believe this is the only time a member of this Legislature has won four Olympic medals. I refer, of course, to the member for Parksville-Qualicum. She will compete in another Olympic Games in Brazil in August. I predict another British Columbian will also stand on the podium in Brazil — my constituent Emily Overholt.

Emily joined our Otters Swim Club at age eight. At age 16, she was the youngest member of Canada’s team at the Commonwealth Games, anchoring the 4 x 200-metre freestyle relay to a silver medal. A year later, at the Pan Am Games, she won three medals, including a gold, for the 400-metre freestyle. Then at the world champion-
[ Page 10868 ]
ships in Russia, she won a bronze and set a Canadian record.

This superbly trained athlete graduated from West Vancouver high school only last year and was accepted into science at UBC. But she knew that if she wanted to go to Rio, she would have to train full time. She put UBC on hold. She currently trains six days a week, starting at 6 a.m. in the pool, then dry-land training, then back into the pool for a very long day. This is what it takes to win. Olympic trials take place in Toronto in about six weeks.

Go, Emily, go.

ST. JAMES COMMUNITY SQUARE

D. Eby: In March of last year, residents of Vancouver–Point Grey learned that, after operating as a community centre at West 10th and Trutch for over 21 years, St. James Community Square was likely going to be sold and redeveloped.

Here’s just some of what takes place in this humble former church building. St. James hosts the Vancouver Youth Symphony Orchestra, founded in 1930. It’s home to the 30-year-old Rogue Folk Club, who present 50 folk, Celtic and roots concerts every year. The office for the 80-year-old Kitsilano Showboat stage is at St. James. There’s a child care and a preschool. All-candidates debates for every level of government always take place there. Martial arts classes, music, arts classes, Japanese classes, yoga, theatre, community meetings. Hon. Speaker, 5,000 people regularly attend St. James. It hosts over 500,000 visits total per year.

You can imagine the news that this place was closing was a shock, but you don’t operate for 21 years as the heart of Kitsilano without making some friends. Owners Trinity United Church and the United Church presbytery brought time, energy and goodwill. The city of Vancouver brought financial support and a desire to preserve the space. And the St. James Community Square Society and well-loved local activist Mel Lehan worked overtime to bring everyone together with a business plan and a fundraising strategy to make saving St. James a reality.

On Saturday, February 12, of this year, I was lucky enough to witness the announcement by the city of Vancouver that they would purchase St. James Community Square to ensure community ownership of the facility and its continuation as a cultural community asset and thriving space for all ages.

Congratulations to the city of Vancouver, the United Church, Trinity United Church and the informal coalition of community members who saved this special place. An extra thank-you to Mel Lehan and the whole of the St. James Community Square Society board, staff and volunteers for all of their work saving St. James and keeping the heart of our community alive.

EAGLE RIDGE HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

L. Reimer: On behalf of my constituents in Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Coquitlam, it’s my pleasure to congratulate the Eagle Ridge Hospital Auxiliary on celebrating their 40th anniversary last Thursday, February 25. Since 1976, the auxiliary has been supporting patients and staff of Eagle Ridge Hospital as well as the wider Tri-Cities community.

The auxiliary is a 100 percent volunteer non-profit organization. They rely on the dedication and hard work by over 100 regular members who collectively donated 17,000 volunteer hours to the hospital and surrounding community last year. The auxiliary worked with hospital staff to care for and console patients through projects like their weekend coffee program and the comfort kits they prepare.

[1025]

On top of this work, their bake sales, thrift shop and other fundraising efforts raise money to purchase new equipment that helps hospital staff provide first-rate care to patients. Each year the auxiliary donates approximately $25,000 to Eagle Ridge Hospital. Since their founding, their fundraising has totalled over $1 million. Additionally, each year they award a $1,000 bursary to an outstanding Tri-Cities student to pursue post-secondary studies in the field of health care or medicine.

Eagle Ridge Hospital Auxiliary is a shining example of individuals who have come together to make a difference in their community. In 2014, they were named Port Coquitlam Community Organization of the Year for their outstanding work. I’m incredibly proud of this organization and its members for their dedication and service to the community we all love and cherish. I wish the auxiliary all the best and look forward to another 40 years of excellent work by them.

SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL

J. Wickens: For over 16 years, the Soroptimist International of the TriCities have been committed to improving the lives of women and girls, both locally and internationally. The name Soroptimist means best for women, and the Soroptimists of the Tri-Cities are truly women in my community at their best, helping other women to be their best.

I had the great pleasure this past weekend to be invited to their sixth annual Give Her Wings Gala. It was my first time attending the gala, and I was truly inspired by the stories told about some extraordinary women. Attendees had the pleasure to hear stories of resiliency, stories of strength and stories of women of various ages who truly define what it means to give back to their community.

Because of the great fundraising efforts these amazing women do, so much is accomplished for women and girls in the Tri-Cities. Just a few of the programs they provide
[ Page 10869 ]
are Bea’s Kloset, CABE lunch and learn, To Dream It, Be It career counselling, A Warm Place for Women. The vision that these ladies have is a world where women and girls have access to the resources and opportunities they need to reach their full potential.

Standing here today in the Legislature as the youngest woman and mom to a little girl, I really wish that in 2016 we didn’t still have to work for these things. But sadly we do, and it’s because of women like the Soroptimists that we are one step closer to an equitable and just society. Will everybody join me in thanking these ladies for their wonderful work.

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN PENTICTON

D. Ashton: With 17 sports, 22,000 meals and more than 1,300 athletes from all corners of British Columbia, the 28th edition of the B.C. Winter Games was held in my hometown of Penticton last weekend. In all, there were 533 medals awarded. There was a wonderful sense of camaraderie and good sportsmanship that flooded the city. New friendships were made, and the spirit of good will burned as brightly as the B.C. Games flame.

Some of those young athletes will be household names in the years ahead as they achieve Olympic glory, and behind every one of those athletes were incredible parents’ and coaches’ continual dedication. For the games themselves, more than 1,900 wonderful volunteers and sponsors made it all happen flawlessly, along with the guidance of Bill Bidlake and his fellow organizers.

The vision of the B.C. Games, winter and summer, is to strive to inspire exceptional experiences through sport. Generations of British Columbia athletes have had unforgettable experiences since the games were first created — in Penticton, actually, in 1978 — something Kelly Mann and his team from the B.C. Games Society continue to consistently provide.

It was an honour for me to take part in the games in Penticton. It was the fourth time that we’ve hosted them, and I would like to thank the members for Coquitlam-Maillardville and Burnaby-Lougheed, who also attended.

For those who may question if the B.C. Games are worth the effort year in and year out, let me tell you the answer is a resounding yes. I urge all of you to support your constituency’s young athletes as they gather in Abbotsford on July 21 to 24 for the B.C. Summer Games.

Oral Questions

PRIVATE FLIGHTS AND USE OF
CAMERA CREW BY PREMIER

J. Horgan: Last week we learned the true extent of the Premier’s penchant for private jets over WestJet, Air Canada and other commercial airlines.

[1030]

I appreciate that the Premier has a busy schedule. That was certainly the first line of defence of the indefensible — half a million dollars in private jet flights back and forth to places in British Columbia and around Canada — but there are dozens of flights a day to the Premier’s constituency, where she visits periodically, of Kelowna. The Minister of Agriculture can make it on commercial flights. The Minister of Natural Resource Operations can make it on commercial flights.

My question to the Premier is: why is it that private jets seem to be more common for you than your colleagues?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, certainly when it comes to travel, my staff work as hard as they can to make sure that we find the most cost-efficient ways to travel around the province. And the numbers, in terms of the amounts that have been charged in my office for me, are very consistent — about the same as or a little less, in many cases, than previous Premiers, including previous Premier Glen Clark.

But it’s not just the government that’s defending this. The former NDP president also said that if you take a look at the necessity to be able to run an effective government, you have to be able to move around the province efficiently, and I think the criticism in this instance is overstated.

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

J. Horgan: Again, the Premier just doesn’t want to be accountable for her actions. She prefers to go deep into the past, and it’s always nice to hear her quoting New Democrats in this place. It’s always nice to hear her doing that.

But let’s see if we can focus on….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It’s great to have the minister of defence clapping at the appropriate times.

But maybe the Premier can help us understand. If we’re not going to talk about the excessive use of the jets, how about the people that are travelling with the Premier? And I can understand the Premier would need a press secretary. I travel with a press secretary. I can understand….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: I can understand a personal assistant. I don’t travel with a personal assistant. But I have a little bit of trouble, and I think most British Columbians would, with having the camera crew, having the videographer on board to go and visit my constituency. If I’m driving out
[ Page 10870 ]
to Juan de Fuca and I’ve got a camera crew in my car, my constituents are going to say: “What are you all about?”

My question to the Premier is this: what possible value to taxpayers is there to travel with your own camera crew when you’re visiting your own constituency?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me just say again that staff do find the most cost-efficient ways to travel, whether that’s commercial or non-commercial. I make the biggest effort that I can to travel the entire province. That includes making sure that I am a regular visitor to places like Nanaimo, Bella Bella, Port Edward, Fort Nelson, Cranbrook — all places that I have been over the past five years, some of them many times more than once.

As Premier of British Columbia, as someone who is in charge of the policy levers of government, I have a responsibility to make sure that I’m staying in touch with the people of the province, visiting communities, making sure I have a full understanding and a grasp of their wishes and aspirations for the future of British Columbia and talking to them about all the ways that we want to work together — just like with the Great Bear Rainforest — to get to yes.

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

J. Horgan: I meet people in airports, I meet people on the bus — I travel on the bus quite regularly — and I talk to British Columbians about their hopes and their dreams and their aspirations. I’m curious what the videographer is providing to us in that regard.

If it’s not just going to your own constituency…. How about this one. This is a real, real peach. The Paris conference on climate change — critically important to all of us in this place, all British Columbians. It’s appropriate that the Premier should be there, appropriate that she should take the appropriate public servants to ensure that that conference, a science-based conference — not a photo op, not a red carpet but a science conference…. Wouldn’t it be better to take along the people who understand climate change? Instead, the Premier took the camera crew.

[1035]

Can I ask you, hon. Speaker, if the Premier could tell the people of British Columbia how we are benefiting the Climate Action Team by sending along a videographer to watch the Premier walk along the Seine and up and down the Champs-Elysées? Why is that?

Hon. C. Clark: I don’t know if the Leader of the Opposition is positing an argument for him to have attended. I didn’t invite him because he and his entire caucus opposed the carbon tax.

British Columbia had one of the smallest delegations….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. C. Clark: I feel like I’ve hit a sore spot with the opposition here today.

Our government took one of the smallest delegations — I think the smallest — of any of the provinces that were attending. That was appropriate, but we also wanted to make sure we were there to profile the work that British Columbia has done.

The carbon tax, which the Leader of the Opposition campaigned against and lost an election on, was the centrepiece of what we were able to present at an invitation of the World Bank and of Canada when we went to Paris to talk about a revenue-neutral, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax that’s been in place for eight years in British Columbia.

This wouldn’t have happened if we’d taken advice from the opposition. It certainly wouldn’t have happened if British Columbians had listened to the opposition in the election. Instead, they rejected their opposition to the carbon tax.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: They supported a government that wants to change the future of British Columbia and protect our climate for our children so that we can leave this place better than we found it.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES
AND BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Sheenagh Morrison is here today. She receives disability and is an active self-advocate with Inclusion B.C. She is a swimmer and has a job at Thrifty’s. To get to the pool and to get to work, Sheenagh needs to take a bus. As she put it, she simply has no other choice.

She wants to know from the Premier why she has to pay an extra $624 each year for her bus pass, while the Premier gets to take a private jet.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The guest that the member opposite has brought here today deserves to know the truth. It is so disheartening for me to know that the member opposite is misleading this lovely young lady in her belief of what we have actually done to change and makes a difference for people with disabilities. She still has her bus pass. She will have an increase in the rates for $25 a month, as well as continue working at Thrifty’s, because it is the annualized earning exemption that this government put in place that allows for people to earn.
[ Page 10871 ]

M. Mungall: The minister should just be ashamed of herself to suggest that Sheenagh doesn’t know what’s going on in her own life. Sheenagh most certainly does.

Interjections.

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

M. Mungall: Madame Speaker, Sheenagh knows what’s going on in her own life. She knows that she’s been paying more for B.C. Hydro, for food and for other necessities these last nine years without an increase to her disability. She thought she was going to get to keep the $77-a-month increase that this government proposed so that she could pay for those extra costs.

[1040]

Then she found out that she was going to have to pay this new bus pass fee of $52 a month because of B.C. Liberal choices. She’s going to be paying more for rent too.

Here’s what we have. The Liberals gave with one hand, and they are taking away with the other, and that money is going straight into the coffers of the Minister of Transportation and the Minister for Housing. Meanwhile, the Premier is on private jets. So can the Premier explain how this is fair to Sheenagh?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, the fear and the anxiety that the member opposite is creating for people with disabilities around this province is wrong.

I understand that people would have liked to see a bigger increase in the income assistance rates. We have done what we can, and we continue to invest — $170 million that we’re investing to help raise the rates and provide bus passes for individuals in this province while equalizing it for everyone in the province. Everyone receives the same amount of money no matter what their ability is.

B.C. HYDRO POWER DEMAND PROJECTIONS

A. Dix: There’s a growing gulf between B.C. Hydro’s exaggerated electricity demand forecasts and the real world — the real world, where the amount of electricity we are actually using is going in a completely different direction. In the minister’s imaginary world, where the sky is apparently gold, B.C. Hydro’s domestic requirements are still going up by 40 percent over the next 20 years. In the actual world, where people actually use electricity, B.C. Hydro is already way off target.

Actual domestic demand this year is off 1,750 gigawatt hours. That’s this year alone. Over the past ten years, industrial demand is down 15 percent.

In the minister’s world, 28 percent rate increases are low and affordable. In the actual world, they do harm to low-income people, to working people, to small business and to jobs.

In the minister’s world, where reality doesn’t interfere, these demand forecasts for Site C are still on track. In the real world, for at least Site C’s first four years, it will be built entirely for export at a $1.2 billion loss.

Can the minister explain why he and B.C. Hydro have been covering up the impact of the reality of the rate forecast up to now and why he needs six more months to update B.C. Hydro’s integrated resource plan?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I can certainly give the member a dose of reality, if that’s really what he wants.

I can tell the member that the electricity prices that the people of B.C. are paying today are actually the same as they were, if you account for inflation, in 1976. I can remind the member that British Columbia residents pay the third-lowest electricity prices in North America. He knows that’s true. He knows that that is true.

Now, the member and other members on the other side of the House like to talk about Site C. “We don’t need it right now.” Well, that’s true. We don’t need the electricity from Site C right now. But I think the member knows that Site C won’t be completed for at least a decade — a decade.

B.C. Hydro forecasts…. I am the Energy Minister, but I don’t presume to do the forecasts. We have people at B.C. Hydro who are actually educated in how to do forecasts properly.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is always saying that we should take things to the BCUC. Well, actually, B.C. Hydro — here’s another dose of reality for the member — has taken their forecasting methodology to the BCUC. And what did the BCUC say? He thinks it’s funny, but this is what the BCUC said. They said that the forecasting methodology used by B.C. Hydro is the best in the world.

[1045]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: I note that the minister didn’t mention LNG. The load resource balance — he’s talking about the BCUC; it is provided to the BCUC — claims 3,000 gigawatt hours of load from LNG projects a year. The Premier may have her fantasy fund, but there the Minister of Energy has his fantasy line item. And while the Premier’s line item only cost $100 million — her fund — his costs $300 million. His fantasies have more ambition than the Premier’s but no more basis in reality.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, contradicting what the minister just said, B.C. Hydro is racing around trying to find customers for Site C — Alberta, costly new transmission lines, a new industrial rate in April and May.
[ Page 10872 ]
And, oh yes, the minister was begging in the Globe and Mail today for a federal subsidy for Site C.

In short, the minister and B.C. Hydro know that they exaggerated the load forecast and that ratepayers will pay the price. Why didn’t he just acknowledge today that B.C. Hydro was wrong and that the business case they put forward is in tatters?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, if the member can hold on until May, June, July when B.C. Hydro files its final revenue requirements application, he will be able to see for himself what B.C. Hydro forecasts for the next ten years and the next 20 years in terms of demand.

The members on the other side of this House are so negative, so pessimistic that they can’t envision that this province is actually growing. This province is actually expanding. We have the strongest economy in the country, we lead Canada in employment growth, and we’re going to need Site C.

Now, the hon. members on the other side obviously don’t support Site C, and everybody knows that. They don’t support anything. There’s nothing that they support.

I say to the hon. member who asked me the question: we’re proud on this side of the House that our economy is growing, that there are people moving to British Columbia, that there are people moving back to British Columbia. We’re going to need more electricity, and we’re glad about that.

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Okanagan residents are subject to a whopping 125 water system safety advisories. In Spallumcheen, locals are legitimately concerned about the safety of their drinking water, and they want a public health order to stop provincially approved liquid manure spraying above their water source. Yet this government won’t even provide the local waterworks district with the test results and documents the Environment Ministry relied upon in its decision to allow manure spraying above the aquifer.

Can the Minister of Environment tell Spallumcheen residents and others why she believes they shouldn’t have the information they need to ensure that their drinking water is safe and protected?

Hon. T. Lake: Safe drinking water is obviously something that we in the Ministry of Health and in all health authorities are concerned about. Interior Health is working closely with the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health to ensure safe drinking water for the residents of Spallumcheen.

The reality is that the nitrate levels are slightly elevated above normal. In the short term, that’s not a problem. Over the long term, we know, that’s a concern, which is why the ministries are working together to try to pinpoint the source.

[1050]

There are four different agriculture operations that could be impacting that aquifer. It’s important to understand exactly where the problem is. The members opposite would like us to shut down an agricultural operation without the proper evidence to take that kind of action. We are continuing to do the hard work necessary to ensure we’re making evidence-based decisions on this file.

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

G. Heyman: This question is about evidence and information and the provincial government’s duty, under legislation, to provide that information to the local waterworks district.

In 2013, following the collapse of the Testalinden dam near Oliver, the freedom-of-information commissioner said that this government failed in its duty to warn the public of a risk of significant harm. She said that the duty to warn about risks to public health and safety was mandatory, not discretionary. Yet barely two years later, this government continues to conceal information as basic to public health as water test results.

Why does the Environment Minister continue to dismiss her duty to let British Columbians know and see proof and evidence that their drinking water is safe and not contaminated?

Hon. T. Lake: I think what’s really important is to know that the ministries involved are working together. In fact, just recently the Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Environment and myself sat down to talk about this to ensure that all of our officials are working together to ensure that we’re keeping the waters serving the Spallumcheen area safe to drink.

That work is ongoing. The testing is being done. The ministries are working together to ensure that the water is safe. We will do the hard work necessary to make decisions based on that evidence. Action will be taken if we can define exactly where the nitrates are coming from, and we will address it once we get that information.

L. Popham: The Minister of Health recently assured Spallumcheen residents that their drinking water poses no health risk. According to him, the water quality advisory associated with the nearby spraying of millions of litres of liquid cow manure over sandy soils isn’t serious, despite the dangers of nitrate pollution and E. coli.

Trustees of the waterworks district disagreed. Board Chair Brian Upper sent a letter to the minister stating that the present level of contamination represents “a proven constant risk from which there is no escape unless the source is avoided.”

When will the minister stop dismissing serious health concerns to the Okanagan Valley residents and take action to protect their water?
[ Page 10873 ]

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, the member is deliberately mischaracterizing my comments around this. What I said was that there is not a do-not-use order. There is an advisory letting people know that the levels of nitrates, at certain times, have been elevated. Over the long term, that is not a good thing, and it poses a risk for babies under six months of age. That is the concern. That is why the ministries are working hard to understand the source of that nitrate.

Now, the member opposite, I guess, would rather a housing development go up and take land out of the ALR, as she has supported in the past, in order to solve this problem. We, actually, want to find out the information so we can get to the bottom of the problem and fix it once and for all.

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

L. Popham: I absolutely support agriculture, but on this side of the House, we believe it’s unacceptable for the minister to expect British Columbians to drink the residue of cow manure.

High nitrate levels are a serious health concern for infants and can increase the risk of stomach cancer in adults. Area resident Al Price installed a nitrate filtering system, costing him $3,000, and says: “It really rankles that we are expected to pay through the nose to solve a problem we had no hand in creating and which the government seems to have no desire to solve.”

[1055]

My question is to the Minister of Health: why does your government have no desire to ensure the safety of the water that Al Price and other Spallumcheen residents drink?

Hon. T. Lake: I can only imagine the reaction from the member opposite, who claims to stand for agriculture yet voted to take land out of the ALR for a housing development, if the government were to shut down an agricultural operation — not in her riding, of course, but in another riding — without the evidence necessary to understand that is the point source of the problem.

There are four dairy operations in that area. I had a very long discussion with the provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, about this issue this morning. We are working hard to understand the source of the problem and to take the corrective action necessary to ensure the water is safe for the people of the North Okanagan.

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
PROJECT ISSUES AND COSTS

J. Darcy: Last February, we raised the latest IT failure under this Liberal government — the debacle of the clinical and system’s transformation project in Health. This $840 million project had gone off the rails, and the contractor, a little company called IBM, had walked away from it.

Well, in the fine fashion of Liberal failures, this one has become even worse. Sources at Vancouver Coastal Health now tell us that the project will cost another $250 million and go well over a billion dollars. That’s billion with a “b.” These are precious health care dollars that are being squandered at a time when home support for seniors is being cut.

Can the Health Minister tell us if he intends to cut care for seniors even further to pay for his government’s latest computer technology failure?

Hon. T. Lake: You know, I’m almost speechless at the member’s accusations in terms of….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, thank you.

What we have done for the people that built this province — in terms of building new residential care facilities, being the first province in Canada to have a seniors advocate, increasing home supports, focusing the energy of the Health Ministry on keeping people in their homes longer — that speaks for itself.

The clinical and systems transformation project in the Lower Mainland will modernize the health care system to ensure that there’s one electronic health record for a patient, to ensure seamless care throughout a complex system. That will empower patients. It will empower the whole health care system. It’s the right thing to do, and we’ll make sure that we do it correctly.

J. Darcy: Every time we raise this debacle about the clinical and systems transformation project, the minister acts like everything is just fine or he completely ignores the question, as he did just now.

When IBM walked away last spring, the minister came up with a notable analogy. “This marriage didn’t work out,” the minister said, “but the children are beautiful.” Well, it seems he was wrong on that score too. Sources now tell us that this project will be delayed to at least October 2017, that it will cost more and it will be scaled back.

So just to be clear, last May in estimates, the minister said the project would still cost $840 million, that it would be delayed for a year but that it would go live in October of 2016. Is that what the minister is still telling this House today?

Hon. T. Lake: This is a complex project. There’s no question about it. We are taking steps to ensure….

[1100]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.
[ Page 10874 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

It’s a complex project that will make real difference to patients. But what we’ve done is we’ve created a….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Continue.

Hon. T. Lake: What we’ve done is created a governance structure that ensures accountability, transparency and proactive risk management. We have external advisers on the project board with relevant industry experience that will help in decision-making and a shift in responsibility for project management and delivery from a contracted service provider to the health organizations. They are taking ownership of this project. I’m confident that it will be done and make a huge difference in terms of health care in the Lower Mainland.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

M. Mungall: I rise on a point of personal privilege.

Madame Speaker: Continue.

M. Mungall: I reserve my right for a point of personal privilege.

Reports from Committees

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the fifth session of the 40th parliament.

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to the report that’s just been adopted, it of course lays out the names and populates the various committees. I think members of the government and official opposition caucus either have that information already, so I won’t read it into the record. The independent members of the House, I believe, are aware of their placements on the committees as well.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SELECT STANDING
AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Hon. M. de Jong: In addition, I am seeking leave to move a series of motions activating six parliamentary committees. These motions continue the work of four select standing committees and activate two new special committees of appointment. The text of the motions has been provided to the Opposition House Leader and to both independent members.

By leave, I move motion 1 regarding the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, and in particular to:

1. Receive and review the annual service plan from the Representative for Children and Youth (the “Representative”) that includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal year;

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical injury or death of a child;

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans transmitted by the Representative to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia; and,

5. Pursuant to section 30 (1) of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, S.B.C. 2006, c. 29, undertake a comprehensive review of the Act or portions of the Act by April 1, 2017 to determine whether the functions of the representative described in section 6 are still required to ensure that the needs of children and young adults as defined in that section are met.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to conduct consultations by any means the committee considers appropriate;

d) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

e) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.
[ Page 10875 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move motion 2 regarding the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered:

1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 23, and, in particular, to:

a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate;

b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2016, on the results of those consultations; and

2. a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers:

(i) Auditor General

(ii) Chief Electoral Officer

(iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner

(iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner

(v) Merit Commissioner

(vi) Ombudsperson

(vii) Police Complaint Commissioner

(viii) Representative for Children and Youth; and

b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other matters brought to the Committee’s attention by any of the Officers listed in 2 (a) above.

3. To be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 2, and that the performance report in section 22 of the Auditor General Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 2, be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move motion 3 regarding the Select Standing Committee on Health.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered to:

1. Identify potential strategies to maintain a sustainable health care system for British Columbians; and

2. Consider health capital funding options.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Health, the committee shall be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to conduct consultations by any means the committee considers appropriate;

d) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

e) to retain such personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move motion 4 regarding the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

[1. That all reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia transmitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report referred to in section 22 of the Auditor General Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 2, which is referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services; and,

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 2.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the committee be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move motion 5 regarding the Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a Representative for Children and Youth, pursuant to section 2 of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, S.B.C. 2006, c. 29.

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move motion 6 regarding the Special Committee to Appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an Information and Privacy Commissioner, pursuant to section 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165.

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Finally, for the information of members, independent members included, there is one remaining committee that I have not charged today for which there is some ongoing work and discussions taking place. That is the Committee on Parliamentary Reform. Hopefully, we’ll be in a position to settle that in the next few days.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

L. Popham: I rise to reserve my right on a point of personal privilege.

[1105]

Madame Speaker: Thank you. So noted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Environment. And in this chamber, second reading continues on Bill 5.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on Bill 5, the minister to close.

Okay, we are waiting for a member to speak.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister wanting to rise, but I do know that there needs to be some more discussion on this particular bill. I know that there are members in this place who sometimes have questions about exactly what a miscellaneous statutes bill is, so I’m going to take some time and talk about a miscellaneous statutes bill.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I see my colleague across the way going: “Oh ho.” He’s waiting for this. That’s good, because I know the member is a new member, and he’s not familiar with everything yet in this chamber.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, no, no. I would not accuse the member of being wet behind the ears. I would never do that.

But certainly, in terms of outlining to people what a miscellaneous statutes bill is…. There are a number of types of bills that come before this House. Many of them deal with a single particular item, and the item on the
[ Page 10877 ]
legislation will be a stand-alone bill. For example, today earlier we saw the government table a piece of legislation that dealt with the Great Bear Rainforest. The bill is entitled that, and it deals with that, just a single topic. Other bills we have had in this chamber do exactly the same thing. They deal with a single piece of legislation that the government wants to advance.

There are times, however, when the government decides to amend a number of statutes. When they do that….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway says, “Tell us more,” and I am more than happy to do that.

Government sometimes wants to amend a series of statutes. In doing so, they bring in a piece of legislation that, for example, can amend…. It can be as few as two or three statutes, or it could be as many as six, seven, eight, nine, ten statutes.

[1110]

Sometimes those amendments can be substantive. Sometimes those amendments can be minor. In fact, in terms of the minor amendments, there is another miscellaneous statutes amendment piece of legislation that we will be dealing with later in this session that, amazingly, deals with comments, commas, periods — correcting punctuation and grammar. It will surprise people.

Now, there will be considerable discussion on that, but I will be focusing my remarks today on the miscellaneous statutes act known as Bill 5. What this particular piece of miscellaneous statutes amendment does is implements recommendations…. Get this. This gives you some indication as to how slowly sometimes the wheels of government actually do turn. I see some strange looks from….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: You may well be right. The recommendations are from a 2006 British Columbia Law Institute report, but it is 2016. It has taken ten years in the making, my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ten years to read it.

Now, I know the Minister of Advanced Education, whom I know may harbour ambitions to be Attorney General someday….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Or perhaps even higher. Who knows?

He says people read slowly. I know he’s not referring to the current Attorney General. But it has been ten years since the report was done, ten years clearly fermenting, fulminating in the bowels of government, working its way up the chain within the bureaucracy, within the various ministries to the point where it is deemed worthy of potential consideration for a piece of legislation.

It could have been brought in as a stand-alone bill. The decision was made not to. It was brought in as a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. But it’s now before us. It is an update of the law from a 1976 report. The genesis of this legislation has been ten years in the making. You really wonder sometimes, given the fact that we sat here last spring, we sat here in the fall, and we sat here in the summer. There’s been lots of time.

The last fall session, for example, we really had to struggle at times to extend debate, so thick was the government’s agenda. In particular, I remember the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. Who can forget that particular piece of legislation?

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Fascinating, as my colleague said. A whole legislative session devoted to making one day, to put it up there with B.C. Day, Terry Fox Day, Holocaust Memorial Day and Remembrance Day — Red Tape Reduction Day.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Envy will get us nowhere, the member says.

Let me put it this way, hon. Member. I may be envious about many things, but getting envious over the creation of Red Tape Reduction Day is not one of them, particularly when you see bills like this, and you go: “You know what? There’s a lot of good work here. We could have done that last session. Why did it take so long?”

That’s one of the questions that I’m looking forward to the minister being able to answer. Even by the snail-like speed with which this government moves to deal with important public policy issues, except of course when it involves the Premier needing to catch a flight to Kelowna…. Then, all of a sudden, heaven and earth is moved.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: It may be operations in the mind of the minister but, clearly, it’s the Premier’s policy to take private whenever she can when she’s flying to Kelowna. I mean, the records are pretty clear on that.

Back to the legislation at hand.

[1115]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I know that. I’m glad to see that the hon. member across the way fully understands that we
[ Page 10878 ]
should be talking to the bill during debate and is, in fact, listening.

Anyway, one of the key questions we have on this particular piece of legislation is: why has it taken ten years to achieve? Why has it taken ten years to implement these changes from a report that was done back in 2006? It’s not just the Law Institute recommendations, but this particular piece of legislation…. This amends numerous pieces of legislation. In fact, some 38 pieces of legislation are affected by this particular bill.

It’s important that we go through all of these sections on a clause-by-clause basis, which we will do at committee stage. We’ve got the time to do it, and the ministers will be able to answer the questions that the opposition will ask. I’m sure they’ll be detailed questions, so we look forward to the responses to them.

Just for people who are at home, sometimes — as we’ve learned from governments in the past, particularly this government — the devil, as they say, is in the details. The government likes to say, with miscellaneous statutes: “Oh, nothing to see here. Move along. It’s just miscellaneous statutes. We’re just adding a comma here, a period there, an exclamation point there, the salutation.” Who knows?

Just so we can go through some of the pieces of legislation that this particular bill will be amending…. For example, it will be amending the Local Government Act, section 13, which will change requirements for requests to reduce the area of a municipality to only require a signed statement.

Now, that may be a good thing; it may not be a good thing. That’s what committee stage will be about, to ask why the change is being made. Who has requested the changes? What are the consequences of the change? Are there unintended consequences that the government has not thought about? Will they be open to amendment? Who knows? But these are the kinds of things that we will be able to ask at committee stage after we get through second reading.

Another section — section 2, for example — deals with the School Act. Again, this is something, I’m sure, that the Education critic will be particularly interested in. This School Act section, 166.13…. What will happen here is it will require “the use of a signed statement as the method of applying to become a member of a francophone education authority.” Now, this one, again….

I see my colleague who used to be the executive director of Parents for French in B.C., if I am not mistaken, nodding in the affirmative.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: It may not have anything, but I’m sure he may have some thoughts or some queries about exactly what the government is doing. Again, this is one of those things that will come into force by regulation from Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Whenever that happens, that’s always an interesting topic for discussion because, as many in this House know and people watching might not be aware of, when regulations are proclaimed by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, they are done so without debate, in the closed door of cabinet, and then issued in the Gazette. The ability to question the decision-making at that time is virtually nil, unless you’re sitting around the cabinet table.

Another section of the School Act, a section that’s going to be amended by this particular piece of legislation, is School Act section 166.24. This, again, will involve “the use of a signed statement in respect of an application to enrol a child in a francophone educational program.” Again, it sounds pretty dry, but it’s one of those things that’s worthy of some questions being asked around it.

Another section of the School Act is what is referred to as consequential to amendments made to the act. Again, it’s done by regulation. And whenever you see the word “consequential,” that should trigger a few warning bells, because, as we know, “consequential” means consequences, and whenever government passes a piece of legislation, there are consequences.

As we have seen, when this government tables a budget, for example, there are consequences, as people in the disability community have been saying loud and clear to this government. They don’t appreciate the government’s consequences or the consequences of this government’s decisions around bus passes in this budget. Again, issues that need to be raised in this House during the committee stage.

[1120]

But, as I say, I’m outlining in the second reading debate, around the principles of this bill, some of the things that we’re going to be looking at and need to address.

There are changes to the Cooperative Association Act, section 184, in regard to “the use of signed statements in respect of persons who verify instruments of continuation.” Now, that sounds really interesting, and I’m quite sure the lawyers in this chamber will have some interesting discussion around that. A similar change is being contemplated for the Credit Union Incorporation Act under section 15.1 — another regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Again, we will see what changes are being proposed by the government in that section.

Ah, here’s one that will no doubt interest many people. It may, I think, need or, I’m sure, have some scrutiny applied to it. Section 7 will be some changes to the Gaming Control Act, sections 62, 65, 66 and 67. These changes will remove affidavits “as a class of material to be included in an application for registration as a gaming services provider or gaming worker.” Again, wow. Maybe now I can see why it’s taken ten years for this piece of legislation to get here — in fact just ten years, because complicated it certainly appears to be.

Ah, yes. Now, this one many people will no doubt…. This has the word “tax” in it. Clearly, with this govern-
[ Page 10879 ]
ment and the word “tax,” one has to pay close attention. This one, section 8, will deal with the Insurance Premium Tax Act, section 9. That will involve “the use of signed statements in respect of persons who verify, on receipt of a demand from the Commissioner of Income Tax, the correctness of a return.”

Hmm. Now, does this mean that they’re going to get serious about people from offshore buying property here in British Columbia, as to where they pay their taxes? That might be a useful piece of information. Somehow I don’t think this section quite deals with that, because in the statements that I’ve heard from the minister, he doesn’t seem to be too interested in that issue or that question. I know that lots of the public are. Again, that’s one of the areas that we’ll be able to ask questions on and see whether or not, in fact, that’s what this section addresses.

Certainly, I don’t think the insurance premium…. It’s a shame it didn’t have the word “medical” in there, because that’s clearly a tax that this government doesn’t want to think of as a tax but is very unpopular with my constituents and, I know, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway’s constituents and in fact, just about everybody’s constituents in this province.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: “No question about it,” says my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill.

A. Dix: Are you the designated speaker?

M. Farnworth: Yes, as a matter of fact, I think I am the designated speaker on this particular piece of legislation.

I see the member from Prince George….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, the member from Prince George — I agree — did nothing. She said nothing, but the roll of her eyes said everything. I don’t blame the minister, either, by the way, because I probably would have had the same reaction if I were her.

Having said that, section 9 deals with land, the Land Act, section 37. It involves proof by affidavit replaced by a signed statement “in respect of a matter arising out of an application for the disposition of Crown land or in respect of the financial affairs of the applicant,” and establishes an offence for using a false or misleading signed statement.

[1125]

Now, that’s really interesting, because I would have thought that anything involving land and land sales would have already had in it a section that establishes an offence for using a false or misleading signed statement. I would have thought that that would have been, like, standard in every piece of legislation that deals with transactions involving land. But apparently not.

Hmm, I think. Perhaps there needs to be some questions asked around like that. You know: what is happening here? Again, those are questions that could be asked in committee stage, and I’m sure that the appropriate members of the House will ask those questions.

The Land Title Act is also going to be amended. This involves replacing a sworn declaration with a sworn statement “in respect of an application to register” — now, this does sound interesting; maybe the Minister of Mines will be able to help us with this one — “a crystallized floating charge in a land title office.”

Now, what is a crystallized charge? Does that have anything to do with crystals? I know the minister once stated that this province was literally a giant emerald mine waiting to happen. Maybe this applies to that. I don’t know, but I am fascinated about what on earth a crystallized charge is.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Yes. He said…. The minister….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, he did, and it was fascinating, the thought. After all, if the Northwest Territories is full of diamond mines…. People used to pooh-pooh that. “There are no diamonds in Canada. They’re all in South Africa or Australia” or wherever.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We digress.

M. Farnworth: No, no, we don’t digress. This is relating to the crystallized charges.

No, the minister said: “Emeralds. We have the geological conditions for emerald production in British Columbia.” There was an expectation that emerald mines would yield. It is absolutely true. I know, because it’s been so long that we’ve been waiting for an emerald mine to open up.

But anyway, I don’t want to digress too far because I know that the Minister of Advanced Education, with his advanced knowledge of parliamentary procedure, will call me to order.

So that’s what that does. “Crystallized floating charge.” That does sound interesting.

Following that there’s a section which will amend the Water Sustainability Act, section 33. That’s important, and I know that the Minister of Health was on his feet today in question period answering some questions around
[ Page 10880 ]
water, which we found interesting. We look forward to the answers around the section dealing with water sustainability. Sworn statements that “confirm a licensee’s payment of compensation to the comptroller and the failure of the owner to execute the conveyance or instrument.” Hmm. Sounds pretty dry.

Section 12 deals with the Weed Control Act, section 7 — “the use of a signed statement setting out the costs of the control in respect of the inspector’s control of noxious weeds.” Hmm. I’m looking forward to the minister’s definition of what a noxious weed is. That has many possibilities.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Hmm, he says it could be legal soon. Well, I guess that’s up to the Prime Minister for that particular weed.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Yes, it is. I mean, if the minister thinks it’s wasting time, that’s unfortunate, because it’s the government that’s put the agenda on here, and….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh please, Member. I’ve been speaking to the bill. You just interrupted me, and I was addressing your interruptions.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Uh-huh, and all of them relating to the bill. As the member knows — and I know the member for Vancouver-Quilchena likes to say he’s wet behind the ears now, and you’ve been here a lot longer than he has — there’s extremely broad latitude when it comes to the second reading of any particular bill, particularly when it comes to a miscellaneous statutes bill, because it is so wide-ranging.

Anyway, back to the Weed Control Act, section 15 — “establishes an offence for knowingly providing information that is false or misleading.” That seems to be a pattern here in this legislation about establishing an offence for knowingly providing information that is false or misleading. We saw it in the Land Act, and now we’re seeing it in the Weed Control Act.

[1130]

Hmm. Again, it’s kind of like: why has that not been in place before? I would have thought that a knowingly false or misleading statement would have been an offence. But we shall find out.

Now, following that, there are amendments. This will, obviously, apply to the Minister of Health. He seems eager to interject from time to time, so he’ll be more than happy to answer questions around amendments involving the Continuing Care Act, section 5; the Continuing Care Act, section 12; and the Hospital Act, section 7.

Again, it involves our establishing an offence for the use of a false signed statement. The number of times that this is now appearing in the different sections of the legislation…. One wonders why the government didn’t just bother to table a piece of legislation saying: “This is the establishment of an ‘offence for using a false signed statement act.’” That would have been a straightforward piece of legislation that this government would have tabled, and it would have made sense. In fact, we’re now going through it and having to find these things in terms of the bill.

This is one of my favourites. Section 18, “Repeal of amendment that may become inoperative.” The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may repeal section 16 of this act by regulation if it becomes inoperative. Well, that kind of makes you scratch your head.

Section 19. Labour relations code section 149 replaces an affidavit with a signed statement for some directions for applications by a union. Section 20 deals with the labour relations code. Section 150 replaces the statutory declaration with signed statements for the principal officers of a trade union assuming supervision over subordinates.

Here we see it again. Labour relations code section 158.1 establishes an offence for providing a false signed statement. Just confirming that they really should have put in an additional piece of legislation, which would have given them some additional work to do, and it could have been the establishment of a piece of legislation that provides an “offence for providing a false signed statement act.”

Then there are a series of amendments to the Election Act. Sections 22 through 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 deal with the Election Act, and that’s always important.

As we saw in Ottawa, we had a federal government — many of whom parachuted here and found landings here in various ministers’ offices — that brought in, I think, some of the most odious changes to election laws in this country that we have seen in a very long time, making it more difficult for people to vote, creating and fabricating election issues or election infractions that, in fact, were not an issue, were not a problem. So I think we do need to pay close attention to whenever changes to the Election Act are contemplated, and there are a number of sections here that I’m sure will get considerable discussion.

Oh, the Recall and Initiative Act, sections 3, 19, 50, 97, 125 and 144. Again, that’s also an important piece of legislation. When there are changes contemplated to that, we want to understand exactly what they are. I mean, after all, who can forget the Initiative Act that was brought in — in the 1990s, I believe — under the leadership of Premier Mike Harcourt? I remember being privileged to serve on the committee that came up with the recommendations around the Recall and Initiative Act.
[ Page 10881 ]

It was this government, this government sitting there right now, that was the subject of the first successful initiative campaign in the province’s history.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Yes. I see my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville saying: “Wow.”

[1135]

Hon. Member, I know you’re asking me: “What was that issue? What was that issue that was so successful?” What could it be that a government was so out of touch that people would form, get together right across this province…? Petitions would be signed. They would be at shopping centres. They would be at Vander Zalm’s garden centre. They were all over the province, and it was around the HST.

Who can forget that? I know that the members opposite sometimes may wish to forget that debate, and I know that the Minister of Finance has made comments about perhaps making some changes to our sales tax structure in this province, but he always takes great pains to say: “Oh no, we’re not bringing back the HST.”

Well, let’s put it this way.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: No, I’m just explaining this section, the importance of this section. And the importance of this section, as the member should understand, is that when a government has been burnt….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just to confirm that you’re the designated speaker.

M. Farnworth: Oh yes.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

M. Farnworth: I’m just reminding the member that given the fact that his government has gotten burnt — in fact, badly, badly burnt — over the handling of the HST….

An Hon. Member: He’s addicted to the HST.

M. Farnworth: He’s addicted to the HST. That would not surprise me.

Given how the government got burnt, when we see a change to the Recall and Initiative Act, again, we want to pay close attention to it, and so we will.

Other changes include the Trustee Act, section 14; the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. Oh, wills and estates always get public attention.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. As somebody once said, wherever there’s a will, there’s always a relative.

The Wills, Estates and Succession Act, section 77, “replaces the use of a statutory declaration with the use of a signed statement in respect of the proof…of the death of a person named in an application made under section 77 of the act” and establishes an offence for using a false statement. Hmm. Again, I would have thought that making false statements about the death of a person would have already been an offence, but it’s, again, one of those areas where there will be questions asked.

Oh, and then there will be a number of sections around Petroleum and Natural Gas Act amendments, the Rent Distress Act…. Ah, the Liquor Distribution Act — sections 11.2 and 11.3, are going to be amended. The Employment Assistance Act, section 11. The Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, section 11. That will be interesting. We will see if that is received by the disability community as well as the other changes have been received that this government has made.

Anyway, that’s just a brief outline of the changes made in this particular piece of legislation. I know that my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake was interested in weighing in on some aspects of the bill, particularly some areas around the Law Society. I know she has some very thoughtful comments that she wishes to make on that.

I see that we are getting close to 20 to 12, and I think it would be good to hear from other members in this chamber on this particularly important piece of legislation.

A. Dix: More, more, more.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Kingsway says: “More, more, more.” However, I do feel at this point that, having gone through all of the sections, we should hear from the member from Deer Lake, who, I know, is waiting patiently to take her place in this discussion. So I take my seat and await with considerable pleasure my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake.

K. Corrigan: I’ve spent a great deal of time looking at this bill. I know that it sounds like it’s…. In some ways, some people might think it’s trite and it’s not important, but it is, and that’s why we’re speaking on this bill. It is important because, essentially, what it’s going to do is….

[1140]

We are going to be supporting the bill, by the way. Essentially, what it does is it’s going to make many people’s lives easier and going to save them some money. What this bill does is…. It goes back to 1976 and then, much later than that, to a report that was done in 2006. What it deals with is the concerns of the B.C. Law Institute and, previously to that as well, right back to 1976, about the fact that people in this province have to sign sworn statements in a variety of places in their lives.
[ Page 10882 ]

Just for background, a sworn statement can mean a statement under oath, an affirmation, an affidavit, a statutory declaration or a solemn declaration. They all have distinct meanings, but essentially, that is what sworn statements are.

There have been many, many cases over the decades where people have had to sign sworn statements. This is where, for example, lawyers…. We really love the chance to take an affidavit because we get to use that seal. Now, I’m sure there are going to be many very disappointed lawyers after this, because they’re not going to use that cool seal as much that they have.

The truth is that there are many circumstances and there are reasons to say that we should not be requiring a sworn statement in the form of affidavits, affirmations, statutory declarations or solemn declarations or oaths in as many circumstances as we presently do, and that’s why this piece of legislation has been brought forward. But you don’t want to take that lightly, because there are reasons that we have had people do sworn oaths in the past.

While we want to make things easier for people — we want to save them time, and so on, and perhaps money — we also want to make sure that we protect the processes that were being served by having sworn oaths. I’ll give you some examples of why that can be important. If you have a sworn statement, it reinforces the veracity, or the truth, of the written or oral communications, and there’s some legitimacy to that.

There are times when having, for example, an affidavit or a solemn oath sworn introduces an element of solemnity or dignity or a ceremonial occasion, and there is validity for that under certain circumstances. There are times when it’s important to interpose a third person into proceedings where that person will benefit the parties. For example, one of the reasons why it is important at times to have sworn statements is that you can have a commissioner for taking affidavits who then verifies that person who is there.

Also, having a commissioner for taking affidavits or having a sworn statement in some other form often imposes a certain responsibility on the individual who is signing that statement by lifting the proceedings a little bit with a little more solemnity. Having the seal, having the solemnity and the formality of the situation sometimes does make a person who is signing that statement perhaps…. It interposes a little more expectation and belief that they have to be telling the truth. That is important, so you don’t want to remove that in all circumstances.

One of the problems that we’ve had, though, and what the institute decided, was that there has been a great deal of delay and inconvenience that’s been caused by the requirement to give a sworn statement. There are many circumstances, so you really have to look. I think this is what has happened with the Law Society and also with this piece of legislation. It’s that you have to look at a variety of circumstances and say: is this a place where you need to be swearing an oath, or is this a place where you don’t?

[1145]

I think the extreme would be that…. Nobody would think that when you go into criminal trial proceedings, a murder trial, the person should not be swearing an oath and not be swearing that what they are about to say is true. On the other end of it, there are certain types of situations, such as some of the ones that are brought out in this act or covered in this act, where you don’t believe that there has to be the same level of scrutiny. It’s not the same level of seriousness — for example, replacing the use of an affirmation with the use of just a signed statement. That’s what this bill is doing. It’s replacing sworn statements with simply signed statements.

Becoming a member of the Francophone Education Authority…. Well, I think we can all agree, and we will all support, that you shouldn’t have to use an affirmation, the more formal mechanism, in that situation. There are certainly many circumstances where it’s appropriate, and that would be one of them.

What is trying to be done with this legislation is to get rid of some of the delay and inconvenience and costs that are associated with it. There are times that there can be harm not only from the delay and the cost…. You do have to balance it. Intentional non-compliance with the requirement to give a sworn statement by giving a false statement can result in criminal liability. You need to continue to have mechanisms by which there are some penalties. If you’re not going to have a sworn statement, then you need to include penalties for people who just simply sign a document but are not telling the truth.

That is why the legislation also includes a number of types of situations — not all of them. Some of the more serious ones include provisions that there will be offences established. For example, in the case of the Land Act…. Section 9, which deals with the Land Act, says…. It “replaces the authority to require proof by affidavit or otherwise with the authority to require proof by signed statement” — so you don’t have to do an affidavit; you can do a signed statement now — “or otherwise in respect of a matter arising out of an application for the disposition of Crown land or in respect of the financial affairs of the applicant.” You don’t have to do an affidavit anymore. You don’t have to have the inconvenience, the time and the costs associated with that.

On the other hand, because the formality and the confirmation of those circumstances by having somebody swearing before a commissioner for affidavits is gone, then there’s a penalty that is newly being attached to it. Therefore, that section “establishes offences for knowingly providing false or misleading information with respect to a material fact contained in a signed statement or producing or relying upon a signed statement given by another person while knowing the signed statement to be false or misleading in respect of a material fact contained in it.”
[ Page 10883 ]

There are many provisions where there are no penalties attached, but in some of the more serious situations, penalties are attached. With regard to the Land Act, penalties are attached. There are several other ones with regards to health care, health amendments: the Continuing Care Act — there are penalties with regard to that as well — and the Hospital Act and some of the other acts.

It is trying to find a balance between the convenience to people and reducing costs while, at the same time, maintaining the integrity of the process and making sure that when people sign their name, they are telling the truth — that when they’re signing a statement, they’re telling the truth — and if they are not, that there is going to be a provincial offence which can be attached to it.

I dealt with this in my office once — a problem. We had a constituent come in who had owned a commercial vehicle and had had a partner. I can talk about this because I’m not going to talk about any of the particulars or, obviously, the individuals who were involved. He had had a commercial vehicle and a small business. The commercial vehicle was owned by the company that he owned, and he had a partner.

[1150]

The truck had been in his name. The partner had then signed documents, which were then passed on to ICBC — had forged his name — saying that the truck was being transferred from this complainant, who came into my office, over to the other partner. There was, essentially, not a lot that could be done about it. The police became involved.

It does show that when people are simply signing…. In that case, I don’t believe that the document that was required for ICBC was anything more than a signature. It concerned me that somebody could fraudulently sign a document using somebody else’s name, and then ICBC accepted that.

That demonstrates that this is not cut and dried, that there are times that you need to have the third-party verification. You need to have the solemnity of the situation. You need to have the seal attesting that that signature is correct. In the case of ICBC, it wasn’t the case. It wasn’t needed. The truck ended up in the partner’s name, and I believe the police were involved. It does demonstrate why you don’t just suddenly make these changes without carefully considering it.

One of the other things that the institute pointed out was that…. One of the reasons to change — they do make the recommendations in this 2006 report, the basis for this legislation — is the inconsistency of application. In this province, we’ve been all over the place in terms of the standards and so on, and the institute took a look at that in this very lengthy report of 81 pages or so. It was confusing to people. You want the law to be consistent in its application. You want it to make sense to people. People sign a lot of statements. They sign a lot of declarations.

I’m hoping that maybe now, when I go to my local bank and I want to change who the signing authority is, I don’t have to go through quite the hoops. I believe that the…. Most recently I had to sign a power of attorney in order to get a third person on to sign cheques in my office. Now, that may have been that particular bank. On the other hand, I was required to do a very limited power of attorney with respect to that bank account. So one of the other reasons to continue to have sworn statements is to confirm identity and to motivate people for making honest statements.

These are all issues and things to balance that the institute took very seriously when it was making this report, on the basis of which this legislation has come before us now.

Now, there is some concern…. There were many, many more types of situations that the B.C. Law Institute recommended — that there should be a change from sworn statements to signing. When we get to the committee stage, we can certainly ask a lot of questions about why it was decided to include some types of statements and others and to reject some of the recommendations that were made by the B.C. Law Institute. It may be that some of those changes have been made already, but we will certainly, at that point, ask those questions.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I do think that this is…. Although it could be described by some people as housekeeping, it’s actually a little more serious than that. It’s something that has been asked for, for a long time. You also have to balance it off with protection of the public and make sure that when you are saying you don’t need to have a sworn statement and instead that you can do a signed statement, you are also protecting the public interest. Convenience balanced against protecting the public interest.

With that, with those notes, I’m looking forward to the committee stage.

K. Corrigan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
[ Page 10884 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:09 a.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $117,182,000 (continued).

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll just quickly introduce my staff who are with me today. On my left is Deputy Minister Wes Shoemaker. On my right is Assistant Deputy Minister Mark Zacharias, the head of our environmental protection division. We also have Assistant Deputy Minister Jim Standen, with B.C. parks and conservation officer services; Assistant Deputy Minister Kaaren Lewis, who is celebrating a birthday today, I’m told — not that that’s a subject for estimates, but worthy of acknowledgment.

[1110]

Susanna Laaksonen-Craig is head of our climate action secretariat. Our acting executive financial officer is Michael Lord, and the director of compliance is Gwenda Laughland.

The Chair: First off, happy birthday. I’m sure everybody would like to recognize that.

G. Heyman: When we left off yesterday, we were asking some questions about species at risk. I may pick that up again at 1:30, or shortly after 1:30, when we convene.

I have some questions on Mount Polley now. My first question is: has the Ministry of Environment met the February 26 date requested by Mount Polley Mining Corp. to issue design consultation and approval on an alternative discharge option?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m going to have to ask for some clarification. We’re trying to identify what deadline it is that the member is referring to.

[1115]

There are a number of different pieces and requirements, but we don’t have any that line up with February 26, unless perhaps it could be something that’s conditional within the actual permit itself. That may be, but if I could just get some clarification.

G. Heyman: The reference comes from a Mount Polley Mining Corp. report with respect to the discharge plan that referenced an amendment to short term and served during the time needed to consult on and permit a long-term water management solution. So it was an interim measure. There was a request, according to the report, that MPMC would like to have received design consultation and approval from the Ministry of Environment. If the minister would like, I could, over the lunch break, actually bring the document to show her.

Just to offer some further clarification, Mount Polley Mining Corp. noted that without a timely confirmation of the selected discharge alternative, they might be impelled to make design and construction commitments to meet the permit deadline, without assurance that the design and constructed option would ultimately be approved by Ministry of Environment. It’s why they asked for a response by that date.

Hon. M. Polak: We think that what the member is asking about is the alternative discharge mechanism that was to be decided with respect to the short-term water discharge. They were granted that in the fall. Then there is, of course, the long-term water plan that they need to have to us by June.

If there is further detail, though, we would appreciate getting the documents to which the member is referring. That way we can make sure that we’re responding with the accurate information. If it’s about the alternate discharge mechanism, then that has all been dealt with already. But it could be that there’s something else at issue.

G. Heyman: I will either bring the document after the lunch break or forward it to the minister outside of this process.

Could the minister comment on how the water is being treated and whether the Ministry of Environment has been involved in reviewing the treatment or testing of the discharge?

[1120]

Hon. M. Polak: Firstly, on the way in which water is being treated, I wanted to just mention that we had fantastic involvement from the First Nations, the local governments — both Williams Lake and the Caribou regional district — the community of Likely, DFO and Environment Canada as part of the technical review that occurred. That was very, very helpful.

The permit requires that the treated water will be discharged into Hazeltine Creek and flow to a sediment pond, and from there the treated water will enter a pipeline that discharges about 30 to 40 metres below the surface of Quesnel Lake.

The treatment being used is a filtration system to remove sediments. Any treated and discharged water will be required to meet the Ministry of Environment water quality guidelines for aquatic and public health at the edge of the 100-metre dilution zone in Quesnel Lake at all times.
[ Page 10885 ]

As far as the amount of testing and who’s doing it, as of December 2015, Ministry of Environment had taken more than 325 water quality samples near the breach in Polley Lake, Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake and Quesnel River. The Mount Polley Mining Corporation has taken over 3,800 samples.

The latest water quality tests show that there are levels of some metals — copper and aluminum — still reported at levels above provincial guidelines for aquatic life in Quesnel Lake. However, these are in the total form, which is far less bioavailable to aquatic life forms than the dissolved form.

Events with greater erosion result in more sediment going into Quesnel Lake. The complete length of Hazeltine Creek channel is now protected against erosion. The Quesnel River at Gravelle Ferry monitoring site has recorded elevated levels of total phosphorus, chromium, copper and dissolved aluminum exceeding aquatic life guidelines, but this is the result of contributions from other tributaries to the Quesnel River downstream of Quesnel Lake — in particular, the Cariboo River.

Fall late turnover in Quesnel Lake, in late November and early December, resulted in a green coloration appearing in Quesnel Lake near Likely. The coloration was not as extensive or as great as fall 2014, and the sampling did not show elevated water quality levels.

[1125]

I can say that the monitoring from both the ministry and Mount Polley shows that since December 1 permit discharge limits are being met at the treatment plant outlet and that drinking water and aquatic life guidelines are being met in the receiving environment.

G. Heyman: Could the minister tell us what the scientific basis is for taking tests and readings further out, where the effluent has been somewhat dispersed, as opposed to when it first hits the water, or some sort of average of the two?

Hon. M. Polak: The use of an initial dilution zone — or IDZ, as the technical folks call it — represents best practices for water testing worldwide, and we follow those same approaches.

G. Heyman: Before I ask my next question, I want to go back to the issue about the alternative discharge design and construction plan. I think the minister will likely believe, after I give the reference I was using, that she has in fact answered the question.

It’s a report, Alternative Discharge Design and Construction Plan, submitted to Mount Polley Mining Corp. and dated January 27, 2016. On page 17 of that report, it has a section 4.2 called “Permitting timelines” that says:

“Dates by which MPMC would like to have received design consultation and approval from the MOE are provided as follows: selection of alternative discharge option to move forward to detailed design — February 26, 2016….”

Then they go on to note:

“Without timely confirmation of the selected discharge alternative, MPMC may be impelled to make design and construction commitments to meet the permit deadline without assurance that the designed and constructed option will be approved by the MOE.”

I’ll just let the minister confirm that that’s the basis on which she answered the question.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, we believe that’s correct — that they’re referring to the short-term discharge, which now, of course, has been approved.

G. Heyman: I have another question before my colleague has some questions. The current discharge system delays the re-establishment of fish habitat within Hazeltine Creek.

Is the ministry tracking fish populations and health in the area while this impact is being experienced? And what are they finding?

[1130]

Hon. M. Polak: Current status. Hazeltine Creek has been almost fully restored. It has been restored in such a way as to promote fish and fish habitat. In addition, the company is required to submit a comprehensive environmental monitoring plan, including fish monitoring, to the province by March 31 of this year. In addition, a comprehensive report-out of impacts on fish and fish habitat is required by the end of April this year.

Also, there is a long-term project, led by FLNRO, called the Quesnel Lake acoustic study. It’s underway and will track the movements, behaviour and mortality rates of lake trout, rainbow trout and bull trout in Quesnel Lake.

N. Macdonald: Just a couple of questions. Do we have a time frame for the completion of the conservation officers’ investigation into the collapse of the Mount Polley mine tailings storage facility?

Hon. M. Polak: We do not.

N. Macdonald: Is there sort of an average time that something like this would take? Is there additional money that has put towards the investigation so that the conservation officers have the resources they need to do this in a timely manner?

[1135]

Hon. M. Polak: Both last year and this year, there has been an additional $300,000, approximately, provided for the purposes of the investigation. In addition to the financial resources, this is also a very, very complex investigation. I’m told they’ve already gathered more than a million pages of information. They are conducting this investigation jointly with the federal government. There is no average, if you will, in terms of timing.
[ Page 10886 ]

We feel confident at this stage that they have what they need to conduct the investigation appropriately. But if there is any indication that they are in need of further resources, we will allocate those resources to them.

N. Macdonald: Just so the minister isn’t held to a timeline that she doesn’t control completely…. It’s not unusual for these to go on for several years with the complexity. I’ve been told that. But in terms of waiting for it to come down in the next number of months, I’ve been told that it could easily be an extended period. Of course, you don’t control the timing of it.

Now, the tailings storage facility, of course, wasn’t designed to store water. In the end, it was built up again and again and ultimately held, I think, 10 million cubic metres of water as well as the tailings. The actual slump — there’s a series of causes, but the main cause was the slippage at the base on a soil type that wasn’t recognized. But the actual cause of the damage was the water, right? So it slumped. The wall came down about, I think, three metres. But only one metre below was the water, and, of course, that then flowed out.

So the question — and it was raised again with me by somebody this morning — is around the extended period. It’s sort of in the public realm that between 2010 and 2014, there was a four-year period where Mount Polley asked for permission to manage the water. The ministry didn’t give permission until, I guess, it was too late.

Can the minister explain — is that an accurate perception? What was going on? What was the process that perhaps made it that extended period of time?

The next question is…. We have Gibraltar and Mount Polley now where it’s being done very, very quickly. Agreement is made. Perhaps because of Mount Polley, we’re moving quickly. But part of what I hope the minister will get to is: is this because now there are more resources? Or are you doing something different with the process?

I’m not prejudging the four-year period. It’s very possible, with the requirements to go and consult with different groups, that this is just the period of time. But there are sort of two elements to it. Was there something wrong in that four-year period that the minister has now corrected?

Or, because of urgency in getting to a place…. Can we still assure the public that the rigour — which the minister recognizes, I’m sure — that needs to be applied to permission to release is still in place, that we’re not skipping steps and allowing discharges like Gibraltar? It’s a significant amount of water, as the minister knows.

[1140]

Can the public and First Nations and other groups that have been stakeholders…? Can they still be sure that there’s rigour to decisions by the ministry to release the water rather than simply being driven by the urgency of operations to avoid something like what happened at Mount Polley?

That’s a long question, all dumped in there, but I’m sure the minister understands, essentially, what I hope she’ll put on record.

Hon. M. Polak: Noting the hour, I’ll try to make this answer as short as I can.

With respect to the issuing of water discharge permits, in the past, to Mount Polley, that specific issue has actually been dealt with quite extensively in the chief inspector’s report.

[1145]

I will say this, though, to the overall question of: was there something wrong, then, that’s been fixed, in terms of delay, or are you now skipping steps, looking at how Gibraltar has happened so quickly? This is precisely why these decisions are made by a statutory decision–maker — so that they’re made on a technical basis, not as a result of pressure that a politician might be under to have something advance just because a company wants it to, or have something halted just because people don’t want it to happen.

The good news here is the improved relationships, really, that we have with the First Nations on the file. We’re now in level 4 engagement with Tsilhqot’in on the Gibraltar file. This is a temporary increase in their discharge. As part of that permit’s conditions, the mine must inform local First Nations whenever the increased discharge is initiated as well as when the discharge is reduced or suspended.

There are conditions around the additional environmental effects monitoring, which must happen. And of course, if they do want to make the increased discharge rate permanent, they will have to submit another application to the ministry for a permanent change to their discharge amounts.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 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 © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada