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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 11

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Continuing debate on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once the dust settles across the way here, I’ll be glad to suggest to the House that we’ll also be continuing Committee A on the Ministry of Environment estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

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

(continued)

K. Corrigan: I’m continuing on from the remarks that I made this morning on Bill 5, Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, and I will repeat, a little bit at the beginning, what the background is on this.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

There was a report from the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia that goes right back to the mid-1970s. In that report, the Attorney General referred the following tasks — it was a project — to the Law Reform Commission. They were to “(a) examine the extent to which the Statutes of British Columbia require or provide for the use of affidavits and statutory declarations in non-court matters; and (b) explore the rationale behind those uses and consider the desirability of eliminating the need for them or developing less complex alternative devices designed to achieve the same end.”

That was a very extensive report with recommendations in 1976. They are still relevant, and they provided a useful blueprint to modernize and simplify the law.

[1335]

Basically, what the report was about, what was carried forward into another report of 2006 of the B.C. Law Institute…. What they say is that there is a place in British Columbia for sworn statements to be taken.

For example, when you have evidence in a court case, when you have criminal trials, when there are hearings and investigations, those kinds of things, you do need to have sworn statements, whether that’s by affidavits, under oath, affirmation, statutory declarations or solemn declarations. But there are also an awful lot of times in British Columbia where sworn statements are taken and, along with that, all of the inconvenience and costs and work that are associated with sworn statements when it’s not entirely necessary.

So the purpose of this piece of legislation and the report of 2006 by the B.C. Law institute…. I believe that many of the recommendations that were in that report are being carried out or fulfilled in Bill 5.

The point was to look at the statutes of British Columbia and figure out what kinds of situations — relying on the report — required sworn testimony, sworn statements, and which could simply be done by way of a signature, keeping in mind that there are downsides to doing this. The downside is that there is a certain solemnity, a certain veracity, a certain reliance that is associated with somebody swearing a statement.

You have to recognize that when you take away, for example, that process of a lawyer or a notary affixing their seal, asking an individual whether they swear that the contents of the document are true, signing it along with them, that adds some gravitas to the situation and solemnity. It is believed, and I think the evidence is there, that people are more likely to think twice about not telling the truth. Also, those sworn documents, of course, can later be used as the basis for a prosecution under the law.

When you take away that requirement that you have those sworn processes, then you have to be sure that you’re protecting the public interest as well. It’s not an easy task. For example, when you do have a hearing or where you have evidence, where you have criminal proceedings or court proceedings, you don’t want the written testimony to simply be in writing or a signed statement, although those can sometimes be introduced for some reasons.

On the other end of the scale, when you’re doing something that is routine, where there is not a great deal on the line, where there are perhaps only two parties involved, a whole variety of types of things…. I won’t go into them all, but there’s a whole variety of types of statements where you simply don’t need to have a sworn statement.

What Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, is doing is providing a whole bunch of changes — thus the word “miscellaneous” — in various acts: the Land Act, Weed Control Act, the Land Title Act. There are health amendments — the Hospital Act, Continuing Care Act and Hospital Insurance Act. There’s a whole variety of pieces of legislation where it has been decided that it’s okay to have a signed statement instead of a sworn statement.

One of the things you have to be careful of is that people then do not take their responsibilities as seriously. Because the documents, even though they’re not sworn now, may not have a seal on them or may not be done under oath, still represent the same thing, the same level of importance. You want to be able to rely on that information.

What this act also does is it provides for, in some cases, where it’s not already there…. In those pieces of legislation, it adds a further provision that says that if you are
[ Page 10888 ]
now going to sign a statement, as opposed to, earlier, have an oath or swear an affidavit…. If you’re going to sign a document and you lie, then there is now a new provision for an offence to be attached to it.

[1340]

You can see that many of the amendments do provide for the fact that if you get to sign a statement instead of swearing an oath, the added piece is to just make sure that you tell the truth. If you’re not telling the truth, then there will be an offence attached to it.

It’s interesting. This is another balancing act that had to be done by government under this legislation. With some of the changes, the amendments where affidavits are no longer required…. Although the affidavit is no longer required — you can simply sign a document — there are no offence provisions aligned with it or attached to it or added to it.

So government has made a decision. I think when we get to the committee stage, it will be interesting to ask questions about the decisions that have been made about false signed statements that do or do not have offences attached to them — in other words, a way to prosecute — and whether the right decision has been made by government in terms of which provisions, which types of signed statements, could, if somebody lies, essentially, have an offence that they could be charged with, presumably under the Offence Act, I would assume.

The basic recommendation of the 2006 report by the British Columbia Law Institute was that “the requirements to give a sworn statement on occasions upon which their sole purpose is to reinforce the veracity of statements required in out-of-court” — and I think that’s important — “situations pursuant to a provision in a provincial enactment be repealed and replaced with a requirement to give a signed statement without the formalities embodied by a sworn statement.”

One of the main reasons for this is the cost — and the lack of convenience. You know, to get an affidavit sworn, you’d have to go to a lawyer, go to a notary. You have to make an appointment. It costs you, usually, 20 bucks or something like that. This adds a burden to the individuals and a cost to individuals, particularly if you have a number of affidavits that you have to swear. It takes time, and it is inconvenient.

So that’s the basic premise. There are, of course, exceptions, and I’ve mentioned them already. But the report did say that there should be a number of exceptions. In other words, there should still be situations where we retain the requirement for affidavits or sworn evidence. That would be, for example…. The main one would be investigations and hearings. The commission recommended that the requirement for sworn statements found in the provisions listed in category A, investigations and hearings, not be repealed.

There are good reasons for that. In most cases, the person conducting the investigation or hearing has a discretion not to impose any formalities of verification.

Secondly, another reason why you want to keep affidavits or keep sworn statements in investigations and hearings is that complying with the formalities does not cause significantly higher levels of inconvenience and expense in this setting. In other words, if you are in an investigation or a hearing, you’ve already set the situation up where you’re not going to have to go off. You’ve already been sworn in, so you’re going to have to go through that process anyway. Having a sworn statement is not going to add any extra inconvenience.

The third is that the nature of the requirement in category A — in other words, the investigations and hearings — is less likely to lead to invalidity if it’s inadvertently breached.

The Law Institute concurred with that. I do believe that the legislation is also consistent with that.

Overall, I do believe that most of the provisions in the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act are consistent with the report. There are a number of provisions. There are a number of recommendations that have not been implemented in this bill. I believe that when we get to committee stage, we can ask about that.

[1345]

The Law Institute created draft legislation which had 201 provisions, which could have further reduced unnecessary delay and inconvenience, and the bill only has 39 provisions, although I believe that some of those 201 may have been changed since 2006, but not all of them.

I think that’s probably all I need to say on this particular bill, and I will take my seat.

A. Dix: I rise to speak in support of Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act. I’ve just been receiving some sartorial advice from someone that I trust in these matters, the Minister of Advanced Education.

This piece of legislation is actually an important piece of legislation. I think it’s important that people recognize that sometimes legal changes that have the most impact on the public are legal changes that are the least controversial. They come forward over time because of the practical difficulty in following laws that were maybe appropriate in a certain time but whose appropriateness has changed.

In this case, we’re part of an extremely long process of reform. What is essentially being proposed here is the shift for a whole bunch of obligations for individuals in the province of B.C. to move from sworn statements to signed statements.

In other words, we’re taking away the obligation for people under those circumstances when they’re making a declaration — for example, declarations around whether, in the case of one of the provisions of the act, someone is deemed a francophone and, therefore, falls under the
[ Page 10889 ]
authority of the Francophone Education Authority. We’re shifting the responsibility in those provisions or the requirement on individuals from a sworn statement to a signed statement.

We’ll go through the list of bills, the very significant list of bills and acts of legislation that this affects, including, in this piece of legislation, the Local Government Act; the School Act; the Cooperative Association Act; the Credit Union Incorporation Act; the Gaming Control Act; the Insurance Premium Tax Act; the Land Act; the Land Title Act; the Water Sustainability Act; the Weed Control Act; the Continuing Care Act; the Hospital Act; the labour relations code; the Election Act; the Recall and Initiative Act; the Trustee Act; the Wills, Estates and Succession Act; the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act; the Rent Distress Act; the Liquor Distribution Act; the Employment and Assistance Act; and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.

What we have are particular provisions by which people can make declarations are being shifted from sworn declarations to signed declarations. Now, this has a number of advantages and the reason in general and reflects the evolution of the law over time.

In other words, even though there was a proposal in 1976 by the then Law Reform Commission, one that was advanced further in 2006 by the B.C. Law Institute, in spite of the fact that we’ve been through a long process of that, in fact, of course, in practical legislation, such as the Land Title Act itself, we’ve been moving towards signed statements and away from sworn statements for some time except in specific circumstances.

Members will know that one of the most significant election cases…. I know we have a former mayor of Vancouver here and an MLA from Vancouver, the Minister of Advanced Education. Well, we have a former mayor of Penticton here. One never wants to not genuflect towards that.

In this case, I’m referring to something that occurred in Vancouver, which the Minister of Advanced Education will be well aware of, that is actually specifically and significantly relevant to this act. That was a famous recount in Vancouver municipal politics involving Philip Owen, who’s also a former mayor of Vancouver, and Bruce York, who’s a former councillor of the city of Vancouver. An election was essentially overturned on these very questions.

[1350]

In other words, legislation forced sworn statements. They weren’t properly sworn. The legislation was overturned, and there was a full municipal by-election.

I don’t think I was in the same headquarters as the Minister of Advanced Education that night, but I remember the subsequent by-election which elected Mr. York, who was a remarkable figure in Vancouver and in British Columbia politics in many, many ways. We had quite an election night celebration in 1984 after Mr. York beat Mr. Owen.

What that resulted from, in fact, was a law that was, in some respects, inconsistent with the practical realities of election day and of ensuring a fair election. Nonetheless, the law was applied, as it ought to have been. A new election was called, and the result was the result. However, it must be said that all of that was done at significant public cost.

That was the specific example of how this shift, in terms of applying a law and the challenges of applying a law that requires sworn statements that may or may not be necessary, can impact, in a practical way, the electoral process. Indeed, two of the provisions that I listed off at the beginning of my remarks relate to both the Election Act and the Recall and Initiative Act.

Now, why would one want to move from sworn statements to signed statements? Well, principally and significantly, where it has no other impact — as it might do in, say, a legal case or a ceremonial oath of office of some sort — we move in that direction because, of course, of issues of convenience and cost. Anyone who has had to go and seek a sworn declaration, for whatever reason, knows that even though that doesn’t always cost money….

In other words, some people provide that service for free, effectively, in their work. Nonetheless, the cost of finding people and of establishing and getting a sworn declaration — where it is not otherwise necessary, where it is sufficient to have a signed declaration with the penalties associated with that signed declaration — makes a lot of sense.

The first and important reason why one would move towards a signed declaration is one of convenience. This is particularly true in something such as the Election Act. It’s particularly true, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of making and declaring statements around one’s eligibility for certain services.

It ought to be sufficient to be able to lay out and make a signed declaration with all of the consequences associated with that, including legal responsibilities and so on of the individual. It should be sufficient, in those cases, to be able to sign a declaration and not to have one sworn. One can imagine the case of someone who would be eligible for francophone education having to go through that process.

Seeing those kinds of changes, as we see in the legislation, seems to be a useful process — for example, in enrolling a student under those circumstances. It doesn’t mean that the declaration is any less important. It just means that, as a practical matter — when, for example, there are 4,000 or 5,000 students in the Francophone Education Authority who must, in that case, declare or demonstrate their eligibility for that program, which is based on a series of requirements — it would be sufficient for such an individual to be able to sign a declaration and to declare legally what they’re saying to be true and not to have to find some sort of third-party sign-off on that.

The first set of reasons, which make a lot of sense…. It was the reason why, prior to 1976, a very significant
[ Page 10890 ]
Attorney General of British Columbia, Alex Macdonald, who was a considerable populist…. It’s fair to say, I think, that history records him in terms of the long-acting impact of what he achieved as Attorney General, one of our most significant Attorneys General.

He saw this as a reform that was necessary to bring about and set the Law Reform Commission on its path, a path to reform this aspect of law; to make, essentially, the law easier for individuals to work with; and to reduce not the obligation on the individuals but the details and the financial demands on the individuals that come with sworn statements.

[1355]

Alas, the NDP government lost the election of 1975. This isn’t the only thing that British Columbia lost as a result of what happened on December 11, 1975. Nonetheless, it was one of the reforms when we went from a New Democratic government to a Social Credit government that was lost in the process. That’s the first thing.

The second reason, I think, fundamentally, is that if you go through laws — and this will be an issue for committee stage — the application of sworn statements against signed statement is so inconsistently upheld. In other words, sometimes the same kind of action is required under one set of laws of signed statement — because the law had been updated over time — and then the exact same measure under a different statute required a sworn statement.

One of the things that we are attempting to do in, effectively, cleaning up the act and taking these measures, in the case of these several dozen pieces of legislation, is to bring some form of consistency to the law — in other words, what it does.

This is important for us to do over time. I think it’s absolutely always vitally important, when one considers the application of laws, that it be readily understandable, that there be circumstances in which a sworn statement is appropriate — circumstances relating to statements related, for example, to court proceedings, and others where it’s sufficient to have a signed statement — and that the members of the public understand the logic behind one and the other.

Frequently, what we have in the system…. You see these detailed in the Law Institute’s report at some length. In spite of calls from the Minister of Advanced Education, I’m not, in fact, the designated speaker on this question, but I refer him to the excellent report of the B.C. Law Institute and the report of the Law Reform Commission in 1976, which speaks to these things.

But it is an important point of law when individuals and citizens interact with legal instruments, the laws of the province, that why a law is in place and it be consistent and understandable…. What I think this statute does, and it’s something we’ll discuss at committee stage, is set forward certain standards that apply to signed statements and other standards that are applied to sworn statements.

Finally, I think the distinctions between the two changed the obligations, in a sense, not one wit. In other words, the legal obligation for both — the legal obligation of the declaration to be truthful, etc. — is exactly the same in both cases. We’re making it clear in this process that it is sufficient that people understand their legal obligation be truthful without any other need for a sworn statement — that that should be sufficient. In fact, that strengthens the idea that the sworn statement is relevant and important in the application of law in British Columbia.

Now, there are some issues which have bedeviled this process over time. One I think is a very practical matter which, I suppose, given that the report of the B.C. Law Institute well applied in the case of individual legislation, has not been applied this generally up to this point. It’s just the very need to find legislative time to enact it, and this hasn’t been a priority.

Even though this is in some ways, without weakening the strength of legislation, a simplification of the process for individuals in dealing with laws, the government has chosen over time to not act on this, either because it wasn’t a sufficient priority or because they hadn’t allocated sufficient time to legislative draft people.

I want to talk about a couple of the issues involved, though, which I think are important elements and ones that certainly are critically outstanding and that the redoubtable member for Nanaimo will raise at committee stage. In particular, I deal with an issue that I think was seen as being of significant importance in the modern context.

As you know, the issue of identity theft has become increasingly a preoccupation of people across North America and, indeed, across the world in recent times. The question would be the shift in statements from signed statements to sworn statements and whether that impact weakens some of our protections against identity theft. One can imagine by making it, in effect, easier to make declarations in one’s own name doesn’t make it easier to pursue provisions of identity theft.

[1400]

I think this was probably a consideration, both of the government and of the B.C. Law Institute, when they went forward with this legislation. It appears — at least to me, on the surface, reading these pieces of legislation — that these pieces of legislation are not ones that would ordinarily lead one to worrying about issues of identity theft. They’re practical pieces of government legislation, and it wouldn’t be worth, in some respects, the effort to engage in that kind of process.

I think, secondly and very importantly, that the sworn statement may or may not be a sufficient deterrent in any event. Then, thirdly, whether in fact such a sworn statement, if it was viewed as a safeguard, has been and would be, in the long run, a sufficient safeguard to help…. After all, we have this issue of identity theft. Looking through cases of identity theft, there isn’t, at least according to the
[ Page 10891 ]
Law Institute — and I think this is a fair conclusion — any clear indication that the failure to have sworn statements leads, in itself, to the problem of identity theft.

This is why, I think, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and as a member on the opposition side, we are supportive of this legislation. We are hopeful to have a fuller discussion of the legislation at committee stage.

As I said, I think it’s important, in concluding, to understand how changes get made and how, often, difficult it is for individuals without power, without legal advice, without services — how difficult it is, frequently, for them — to have access both to government and to the full expression of their democratic rights in a society. It is often very difficult.

All of us, through the years and our time involved in politics, have worked with individuals — for them to often have to fight to use their expression and their right to vote. We have made, in this Legislature, significant changes over time that make it easier, although in other legislatures in North America, we are in a pattern and in a process where people, for partisan reasons, are making it harder.

I think it’s vitally important, when we come forward with legislation, for us to be inspired by what inspired Alex Macdonald when he launched this process — unbelievably, 41 years ago. What Alex Macdonald believed was that people had the right to access law. He took steps, from legal aid to Hansard in this Legislature — bills that he brought in to give people access to university, access to the law, access to education — to create fairness and to establish human rights as a priority in life.

This legislation, this act, which seems much more prosaic than all of those things, is a reflection of that spirit and something we need to consider — that laws in our province, the ones that we pass, should be easily attainable, both by the powerful and by those with less power. That’s what Alex Macdonald believed. So when he set off and he presented a process to shift, in this case, from something that affects people in their individual lives — often more than many of the other bills we’re going to pass in this session of the Legislature and past sessions of the Legislature….

He understood that — that people should be able to express themselves and not have to swear in front of others when that is not what they have. That access is not what they have in their position. They shouldn’t have those impediments put in their way. That’s why while this legislation, as I say, is not controversial in that sense, it’s important and worth dwelling on.

The question that we will have at committee stage, as a result, is: are there, in fact, other provisions in the statutes of British Columbia for which this should be applied? It is our obligation to ensure that people are not denied access to their legal rights in our society because of a lack of means. There are lots of ways in which we’ve gone in the wrong direction over the last number of years on that question. The fact that people don’t have access to basic legal aid, for a whole series of issues, is an impediment to justice for those without income. That is a fact. It needs to be considered, not just in legislation but in budgetary decisions of government.

[1405]

When we see opportunities, as in this case, as has been the glacial progress on this issue — nonetheless, an opportunity to improve conditions for individuals in our society, to improve conditions and the rights of individuals in our society to access law in a simple, artful and truthful fashion — we should embrace those opportunities. That is why I, and other members of the opposition, will be supporting this bill before the Legislature now.

S. Robinson: The previous speaker, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I think really captured the issues that I would like to speak to. I echo some of his sentiments in supporting Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act.

When this first came across my desk, I thought: “Okay, gee, it’s another little piece of legislation amending previous legislation that will be about crossing some t’s and dotting some i’s and just fixing up and cleaning up some legislation.” When I took a closer look at what was really going on and what the details were, it captured my attention, partly because this was something that was started back in 1976.

This has been a piece of work that was actually initiated by the NDP government that brought forward a report from the Law Institute. That report sat on a shelf through subsequent governments. Then, in 2006, another report to update the 1976 report was brought forward. That, too, sat on a shelf.

I come from local government. It’s a place where I’ve spent a number of years, and it’s a place where you hear directly from constituents because they’re right in front of you when you’re making decisions. There’s nothing that citizens hate more than yet another report to sit on a shelf and gather dust, and both of these reports gathered lots of dust.

So I’m pleased to support some of the actions that this government has chosen to make in addressing the sworn statement issue. I thought I would take a look at this 2006 report, because I wanted to get a solid understanding of what the thinking was at the time. Where did these reports that are influencing these changes that we’re going to be asked to vote on come from?

What I thought was interesting was the 2006 report that came from the B.C. Law Institute wrote about this as a report on unnecessary requirements for sworn statements. This is part of their introductory note. I just want to read into the record a little bit about this report and what the introductory note says. I think it’s important to set the tone for what we’re being asked to debate in this House and what we’re going to see at committee stage.
[ Page 10892 ]

This 2006 report refers back to the 1976 Law Reform Commission of British Columbia that published its report on extrajudicial use of sworn statements. Clearly, the government of the day had a sense and had respect for citizens and said: “Why are we making it difficult for citizens? Why are we putting barriers when it comes to the legal requirements of providing their signature, providing their name and requiring them to swear, requiring them to spend money and to have witnesses, when we have to take people at their word?”

This initial report, brought forward by the NDP, was submitted in 1976. Of course, we know that the NDP didn’t win the election in ’75, so the Socreds had this in their hands and didn’t do anything with it. What’s also really interesting in this introductory note is they describe the use of the term “sworn statement.” Again, we need to understand why it is that we’re doing away with this sworn statement. What is it about it that’s problematic?

It’s meant to, according to this report, “embrace statements under oath or under affirmation, affidavits, solemn declarations and statutory declarations.” They recognize that all of these things are barriers. They’re barriers to people who are participating in the legal system.

They also note that there is a resemblance among all of these various documents — whether it’s a statutory declaration, a solemn declaration, an affidavit or some other oath — and that, really, it’s about assuring the truth of the statement. That’s the essence of all of these pieces.

[1410]

Now, when people come to engage in some sort of legal process, having it witnessed, having to pay for it to be witnessed, is a barrier to actually participating in the judicial process. So there’s really good value in addressing the barrier of having to issue an affidavit, having to do a sworn statement.

Now, the 1976 report provided a framework for analyzing those provisions requiring sworn statements and recommendations for modernizing and simplifying the law. At the end of the day, that was really what this was about. It’s about modernizing and simplifying.

The challenge, when I think about it, is this process started in 1976. I was in high school. Here we are. I’m an adult woman, and my children are even finished high school, and we’re dealing with stuff that was coming up in 1976. The dust on these reports is thick. I’m sort of disappointed that previous governments had not seen fit to actually address it.

Now, the Law Institute created the actual legislation. I thought that was really interesting. It’s kind of like: why did it take so long? I’m always sort of curious about the process, right? You start on something. The AG, in the 1970s, said: “We need to be looking at this.” It goes to a report; that’s good process. The report comes back. The government has changed. It’s no longer a priority for that government. It probably just sits and gathers dust, and people forget that it even existed. In 2006, someone discovers it and says: “Well, look at this. Let’s take a look and see what’s in here.” They blow off the dust, and they read it, and they say: “Gee, nothing has changed.”

It’s now, I’m guessing, 2004 or 2005. It’s the current government. They see fit to do something about it. That’s great — hats off to them. But 2006 is when they got an updated version.

Now, back in 1976, you know what? It’s disappointing that the Socreds didn’t act on it, but there was a change in government, a change in priorities. They decided that they were going to put their energies and their resources somewhere else. Governments get to do that, because all governments make choices. We know that. The people across the way know that.

What’s fascinating is that in 2006, somebody in this government saw fit to go and ask for an updated report. That’s a good thing. It’s a good process. Let’s take a look and see where we’re at with this, and let’s see if we can address some of these changes that were started. But ten years? Government hasn’t changed. It’s the same government. So for ten years they sat with this and really did nothing, until the dust got thick, I suppose, and decided that they needed to act on it. Perhaps they didn’t really have a whole lot of legislative agenda for this session and thought: “Well, this one’s been sitting on the back burner. Maybe we’ll bring that forward.”

They can’t use the excuse that it takes a long time to write legislation. I mean, it does take a long time. It absolutely takes a long time. It’s complicated legalese. You have to make sure that all of the pieces fit and that they don’t contradict each other. It’s a fair bit of work, and my hat’s off to those public servants who toil with putting together this legislation, some of which is incredibly thick. I have a pile here that I need to read as I prepare for some other bills.

What’s interesting about this is that the report was brought forward by the B.C. Law Institute. They actually wrote the legislation. They did the heavy lifting. They wrote all the pieces that we needed to look at. This was a cut-and-paste that government could have done.

Now, I believe that you have to take your turn and review it, make sure that it fits and that it doesn’t sort of contradict what government is looking to do. But the reality is that the heavy lifting was done by an outside party. We didn’t have to hire staff or find the people who’d write the legislation who would actually do the hard work here. It was actually done by a third party.

I find that quite interesting. I guess when we get to committee, there’ll certainly be some questions about that.

[1415]

The other thing that I noticed is the Law Institute did create draft legislation for 201 provisions. I’m trying to imagine what the request was back in the day. I would imagine it went something like this: “Can you identify in all these statutes, all these laws, that we have on the books where we require sworn statements, affidavits and the
[ Page 10893 ]
like? Flag those for us and identify where it would make sense to just have people sign, because we want people to have easier access to the law and to more fully participate.”

So the Law Institute went ahead and did that. They had 201 provisions which would reduce unnecessary delay and inconvenience. That’s something that I think we all want. I think it’s what British Columbians want. It’s a place where people can more fully participate and understand the legal process. However, this bill, Bill 5, only has 39 provisions. So like I’ve said before in this House, sometimes it’s not what government is doing that’s the question. It’s the empty space; it’s the stuff that they’re not doing.

I’m really very interested in how you picked these 39 if there are 201 that are recommended by the Law Institute. Now, these are people who really know their business. They’re lawyers. They read this day in and day out. God bless them, too, because it’s legalese and can be pretty dry. My hat’s off to the lawyers in the House and outside this House because this sometimes isn’t very exciting stuff, but it’s important stuff. Important stuff and exciting stuff often don’t mean the same thing. So I’m glad that there are people in British Columbia who get excited about this, because it’s important.

I am really interested in why 39. Why these 39? What about the remaining, the others? Are they just less important? Really, government can’t use the fact that we didn’t have enough time or we didn’t have the staff resources because, if you recall, the legislation is already written. The work has already been done. It’s a cut-and-paste. Somewhere, someone has decided that these 39 are the important ones, and so I’m interested in trying to understand what that is.

Now, I suspect some of them have changed since 2006, because we often see these miscellaneous statutes amendment acts come through, which are interesting. You’re sort of saying, “So it’s all thrown together in some sort of hodgepodge,” and you try to decipher if there’s anything in there that’s more important than other things that you want to speak to.

It makes it a little difficult for us in opposition to identify it. Regardless, I understand why you would take these one-offs and put them into one miscellaneous statutes act. But I’m pretty confident that the remaining 100-and-some-odd aren’t all fixed. So I’m very, very interested. Why these 39? And why hasn’t government said we’re going to do all of the remaining ones? That’s, I think, an interesting question.

Overall, I think it’s also important to note — I just want to make one more note to this conversation, this debate — the B.C. Law Institute has said: “And don’t do any more of this.” In other words, don’t keep asking for sworn statements when they’re not needed. I think that’s really important to note. I think that as legislators, we want things to be official. We somehow believe that that’s important and that “official” means having it witnessed or having a sworn statement.

I’m curious, given that this report was in the hands of government since 2006…. I haven’t had time to do the research, and I don’t know that I want to spend the time doing the research. But from 2006 to 2016, has government created more red tape around having sworn statements? I’m going to bet that in all likelihood, they did. I don’t know for sure. I just think it’s the nature of government. I really hope that going forward, as we continue to look at providing legislation for British Columbians, we pay very close attention to what this is really about.

[1420]

On the one hand, we have a bill that is going to look at the Local Government Act, the School Act, the Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, the Gaming Control Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the Water Sustainability Act and the Weed Control Act, etc. We’ve got a number of acts here that we’re going to be looking at.

We need to remember, going forward: are we going to create more of this red tape? Are we going to create more sworn statements when, in fact, it’s not necessary? What’s the criteria for deciding that?

I think the Law Institute has done a great job, but it really calls into question what happens. When a government gets a report back in 2006, does somebody actually read it? If somebody had actually read it back in 2006, then between 2006 and 2016, there should not be any unnecessary sworn affidavits, sworn declarations in any of the legislation.

If there are requirements for affidavits like that when it’s really not necessary, then what that says is that this government didn’t read the report. They didn’t act on the recommendations there. That concerns me, because as taxpayers paying for these reports, the expectation is that government will read them and will act on them in a timely way.

Having said my piece about this, my piece around, you know, this is a good start, I do have concerns about reports not being addressed in a timely way and not seeing legislation come forward based on the recommendations of those reports.

I certainly have questions about 201 provisions that were recommended in 2006. With all the legislation written and here in front of us, we only have 39 provisions. What’s stopping government from addressing the remainder?

With that, I’d like to take my seat.

N. Macdonald: Well, I guess that we’re speaking here on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I would have thought that there might be some Liberals who would have stood up to speak.

I mean, I’m going to be honest with you: this is not the most exciting act to me. This is not the type of legislation that I gave up a teaching career to come and participate in. Nevertheless, it is significant to the writers of the bill,
[ Page 10894 ]
and it certainly was significant to at least one group in the province, which is the Law Institute, which over the years has been pushing the government to complete a project that really started in 1976 when many of these changes were proposed.

These are not significant changes, it appears, in any way. Essentially, what the bill does is it takes existing legislation…. There are a number of pieces — the Land Title Act, the Water Sustainability Act, the Weed Control Act — a series of pieces of legislation that have existed, some for a relatively short period of time and some for a very, very long period of time indeed.

It basically changes in each of these pieces of legislation the requirement for a sworn statement and puts in, instead, a requirement for a signed statement. It’s fairly dry, as I say, but no doubt important, certainly to the Law Institute and to, no doubt, some of the organizations that work with the various pieces of legislation.

This is, as I say, not a new idea. Many of these things were first put forward in 1976. There was a report done, as previous members have talked about, in 2006, where government was again told that it would be useful to move on these provisions and change the piece of legislation.

Here we are in relatively early days in the legislative session with this bill in front of us. In fact, it’s not unusual to have miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. In this Legislature, there are two of them in front of the House right now. In the past, it has been fairly common for two or three miscellaneous statutes acts to come before the Legislature.

As people will perhaps know, basically what a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is it takes existing legislation and changes these things.

[1425]

Now, as opposition, whenever you get a bill like this, you often look at it, and it can be pretty dry. I have to be honest. I admire lawyers tremendously for the discipline that they have. I in particular….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, a lawyer and a doctor. These are both professions where attention to detail is absolutely essential.

There’s no doubt that changing a word or changing a requirement often has significance beyond how it looks in the legislation. These can be substantive changes. As someone who wasn’t trained in law, to come into the Legislature…. I mean, I work with lawyers, and I see the skill set they have. I try to emulate their attention to detail and their self-discipline. There’s no question that they can have significance.

One of the reasons that an opposition has to look at a miscellaneous statutes act is that in my time here, there have been some really significant changes that have been snuck in, in these pieces of legislation. Now, as I look at Bill 5, there seems to be very little opportunity to have snuck anything in. They’re basically the same changes, essentially, with each of the pieces of legislation.

I think it might be interesting to members to perk up the afternoon with a few stories about past pieces that were put into a miscellaneous statutes act not dissimilar to what we have here.

Back in 2006 — I think it was 2006; it may have been 2007 — we had a miscellaneous statutes amendment act that made changes to the Local Government Act. It was quite an obscure and difficult-to-understand piece of language, but the essence of it was that it allowed government — a minister, in fact — to create a municipality. They could create that municipality without requiring the approval of the regional district.

It was quite an odd piece of legislation. You could easily have gone and read the provision, and since it wasn’t in context and the minister who presented the legislation…. These are pieces of legislation that are presented by the Attorney General rather than individual…. Even though the legislation will be under the care of particular ministers, it’s the Attorney General or Justice Minister that actually presents it.

I can remember in that particular piece of legislation that there really wasn’t an explanation of certain parts of the changes. Certainly, the provision that I came to be very interested in, which was changes to…. I’m just trying to think. It was actually 2006-2007. There were a couple of years there.

The first one, I think, was changes to create what came to be the municipality of Jumbo. It was put in the legislation. It was very difficult to find. Just like in Bill 5, where you have what seems to be a fairly innocuous piece of legislation, you could have within it changes that are actually significant. Just as in Bill 5, you’re dealing with a lot of legislation.

Back almost eight or nine years ago, we had changes that allowed the creation of Jumbo Glacier Resort and the municipality that has been since set up. Now, obviously at the time, when it was recognized, we spent a lot of time actually trying to fight those changes, and I remember, as with Bill 5….

Deputy Speaker: Member, on second reading of Bill 5.

N. Macdonald: Sure. So just as with Bill 5, the need to go through these things…. And I look forward to committee stage to go through. The significance is that there can be interesting pieces in here.

[1430]

As I said, many years ago we did find pieces that were not obvious to us initially but turned out to be. I think the member who is now the Speaker was here when Charlie Wyse was a member. I can remember Charlie Wyse speaking for two hours on a particular motion or a particular element of the miscellaneous statutes act. In any
[ Page 10895 ]
case, they can be significant. Often, if they’re hidden in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, they’re hidden for a reason, so you have to go through carefully and make sure that none of the changes are particularly significant.

As it stands, as I go through this and read about the various changes, I see that, really, since 1976, we have organizations that have asked for these changes. The language seems as straightforward as one could imagine, but you still have to look with the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I can remember, as well, that it was this device that was used to make changes to allow IPPs to come in without local governments having a say as to whether it was appropriate or not. The IPP legislation and that whole initiative, of course, will have cost the people of British Columbia $55 billion over the next 35 years, so that’s a pretty significant change and a pretty significant swing and miss.

I have to say that in both those instances, the opposition didn’t miss what the government was trying to do, regardless of the fact that it was really hidden in such a subtle way. I’m referring there to the Ashlu provisions that were in a previous Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Really, this is a bill that, while it is described by government as getting rid of red tape — well, that seems a bit of a stretch to get it into the message box government has — it is, nevertheless, a change that those that are interested have been asking for, for a long time.

As to why it has taken ten years or why it is here now, I guess that’s rather beside the point, because we are here with it. I see no reason why one wouldn’t support what is really a legislative piece of housekeeping, and it is the intention of the opposition to support that. I look forward to any comments that may come from the government side as to any justification they may have. With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague to continue the debate.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the chance to get up and speak this afternoon to this miscellaneous bill, which deals with the long-overdue transition allowing, under a number of acts, shifting from sworn statements to signed declarations. That will make administration both cheaper and faster and more than legally sufficient to denote things like consent and various legal standing and potentially to be used in the event of a dispute, where a signed document will be just as valid and interpretable as a sworn declaration.

I notice that under this bill, the School Act is touched upon. It’s interesting. We have had a number of amendments to the School Act just in the last year. Of course, in the case of this bill, we’re basically dealing with something that has been dormant for more than four decades.

In the case of the School Act, which is touched upon by Bill 5, we’re talking about legislation that has been changed quite considerably just in the last 12 to 15 months, most significantly under what was Bill 11 in the last spring sitting of the Legislature, in 2015, when there was quite a radical change to the School Act that, basically, gave new powers to the minister and upset the balance that had evolved over many, many decades in governing education or co-governing education between both the elected school districts and the provincial Ministry of Education.

[1435]

Now, we’re not dealing with anything quite as significant as that today. We opposed those changes to Bill 11 in 2015, because we felt both that there had been insufficient notice given to all the parties involved and stakeholders involved in governing education and because the scope of the changes were so radical and so unwarranted.

Today we’re dealing with something that is considerably different and seems to be confined primarily to the part of the School Act that deals with the Francophone Education Authority. I’ll touch upon those details and, in my remarks, perhaps frame some questions that may arise again at committee stage of this bill.

Let me just say what a pleasure it is to have waited — since the time I was a toddler in diapers, 42 years ago, having had to be elected and re-elected a couple of times — to be now before this House this very afternoon to be able to speak to a bill of such massive consequence as this piece of legislation. It’s indeed a thrill, and if I am taken 42 years back again and bawling by the end of this afternoon, I hope you’ll forgive me.

Other members have talked about the context of the bill before us this afternoon, which does indeed go back such a long, long way, to the 1970s. Undoubtedly, the warm afterglow of winning the ’72 hockey summit may have had some influence on the government of the day bringing this bill before the House. There was a spirit, in provinces like British Columbia and across the country, to modernize every facet of society, including its laws.

Then we had a very strong, progressive, reforming government — many of its accomplishments have stood the test of time — come along. By 1974, in the midst of having passed and created the agricultural land reserve, having created a new institution and Crown corporation known as the Insurance Corporation of B.C., having passed literally hundreds of bills in a very short space of time, the limit of the ambitions of the Barrett government were so unbounded that they also, in 1974, struck a commission to look at the very issue that today, in 2016, the day after a leap year day, we are finally returning to look at — work where the ball began to roll all those years ago.

In 1974, the commission was struck. In 1975, the government used the Law Commission to circulate a working paper. Government changed, I believe, in that year. Nevertheless, momentum continued as the transition to
[ Page 10896 ]
a different government occurred in 1976, and a report was issued.

That is when — I don’t think we have a very full explanation for it — the work of that commission, the working paper and the report that was issued, lay dormant for 30 years. Premiers came and went — Bennett, Vander Zalm, Johnston, the Harcourt government, Clark, Miller, Dosanjh, Campbell — without having ever revisited the work that was set in motion in 1974 and continued from 1976.

Obviously, a lot happened in those intervening years, both in this place and on this continent and around the world. I’m not just talking about lapels getting wider and hemlines moving up and down. Fads came and went, all sorts of things.

[1440]

But the persistence and the need for this law reform apparently never went away. Lo and behold, when it was finally taken up again in 2006, and a report that largely reviewed the 1976 report was conducted by Ann McLean, the chair of the B.C. Law Institute, it was a straight-up revisitation of the recommendations that were made all those years before.

I think that will largely remain a mystery — how the importance of being able to move from sworn statements and modernize a number of statutes to allow for signed declarations to be sufficient…. That will remain a mystery.

For the purpose of debate this afternoon, we should also consider how this will change things in the future. We have had all those intervening decades. Originally, I thought this bill might have been primarily about privacy issues. It may have sought to modernize statutes, allowing electronic signatures and other varieties where technology has outpaced the statutes that govern the legal framework of various laws in B.C. But it’s not, primarily, about that, although it is in part.

The bill before us, as I understand it — it moves a number of acts, some very old pieces of legislation, to allow signed declarations — is necessary for a few reasons:

(1) It will be cheaper to administer.

(2) It will be significantly faster to be able to be able to accomplish.

(3) It will give the kind of consent that is required to make it clear that both parties that require an exchange of legal proof — that there is consent to conduct whatever action we may be discussing and that that, in fact, will be sufficient.

I think everybody can be in favour of government being more efficient and cheaper when it does not involve losing any necessary element of veracity or conclusiveness. When we say it’s cheaper, it’s primarily because these sworn statements will no longer require a lawyer or a notary public to be involved. In some cases, they technically do — even under the School Act, I suppose, if it were challenged on amended sections where you have the francophone school authority doing very basic functions like, literally, enrolling a parent’s child into a school that comes under the authority of that provincewide school district, which is a very unique institution that we have in our province. In fact, it’s such a unique institution right now that….

Members of this House may or may not be aware. The Supreme Court of Canada is actually interpreting constitutional and Charter obligations around French language services to children of francophones in B.C. as we speak, with this bill before the House. So it’s interesting that we are seeking to make things more administratively simple at the very same time that francophone parents in B.C. are seeking to have services provided that they are constitutionally owed to them. But I digress — and not for the first or the last time.

The sworn statement requirement, as I understand it now, in the various statutes covered by this miscellaneous bill, which is quite diverse…. We are talking about things ranging from the Gaming Control Act to the Insurance Premium Tax Act to the Weed Control Act, the Land Title Act, the Water Sustainability Act, the Hospital Act, the Hospital Insurance Act and so on and so forth, including the labour relations code and the Election Act. It’s a very elemental piece of legislation.

[1445]

My understanding is that sworn statements can take a variety of forms, and by legal definition, they all amount to the same thing. A sworn statement, as defined under our laws, can be in the form of a person who is sworn in, so to speak, under oath or who makes a statement under oath. A sworn statement can be made on affirmation, it can be made by a written affidavit, it can be made by a statutory declaration, or it can be made by a solemn declaration.

As my colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville asked earlier…. I don’t have an answer to this, but I will look forward to a stage in debate when members of this House are provided an answer to this.

There is one interesting question, I think, that does deserve an answer above all. That is: how did we go from quite a sweeping identification of literally hundreds of statutes, where sworn statements are the modus by which a person is able to fulfil that act…? Hundreds of those were identified for modernization, where a written signature would now be the new requirement, as it was suggested by the 1976 report and as it was validated in the 2006 report. How do we move to something where we went from recommendations covering hundreds of laws in B.C. to just mere dozens? I don’t know the answer to that.

I have read into the record a number of the acts that will be touched upon in Bill 5. I don’t know which ones were considered and then discarded for being modernized in this way, allowing for signed declarations. But under questioning at committee stage by our critic the member for Nanaimo, perhaps the Attorney General will be able to describe the internal process that winnowed
[ Page 10897 ]
down the hundreds that were identified to the dozens that were eventually included in this bill.

But it is apparent, I would think, that there are obviously some areas of law where you do not want to get rid of the use of sworn statements. The report of the law commission goes over a few instances where that would be undesirable. One of those would be in the courtroom setting in particular, where you want to have a sworn statement because it reinforces the need for veracity of any written or verbal communication that is made by anybody participating in the court process.

Part and parcel to that, I would think, would be a reminder that there are penalties for perjury and other such sanctions that could be used where a sworn statement made in the full knowledge of that individual was found to be untrue. I would understand where, in our different statutes, we would not want to change the use of sworn statements in those kinds of circumstances.

The other one was purely around almost ceremonial aspects of various laws. These could have been caught up originally in the suggestion that a mere signed declaration would be sufficient, but upon reconsideration, it was probably seen to be undesirable. That is around various ceremonies where legal duties and paperwork must be completed and sworn statements must be made, where, to quote the report, it is necessary or desirable “to introduce an element of solemnity or dignity on ceremonial occasions.”

I think we’ve all been to citizenship ceremonies, for example, where you simply would not want to take away from the occasion by reducing the act of becoming a Canadian to signing a mere piece of paper. It’s something to be celebrated in large groups, something to be presided over by a judge, by elected officials like ourselves, as we all do.

[1450]

Another great example of that would be the process where we use sworn statements that we used in this very place just a couple of weeks ago. Two new members of the Legislative Assembly, having been elected, having been certified by the Chief Electoral Officer, came before this very place, walked — as they are permitted to on that very occasion — down the aisle between the two sets of desks here and participated in a ceremony where they made sworn statements. We don’t want to change that, even if it is more of a function of the standing orders of this place than a law. I use it as an example, nonetheless.

The third example, maybe, where we wouldn’t want to be hasty in discarding sworn statements and introducing signed declarations is where you must involve a disinterested person in proceedings. I will quote the report, “where his or her offices will be of benefit to one or more of the parties involved.” Again, these are circumstances where government’s interest in having processes be made cheaper and faster are not well served. Where, literally, serving notice on a person requiring them to comply with an order to provide a sworn statement of some kind to, for example, a tribunal….

We have a tribunal system that is under legal judicial review right now. I’m thinking of the Environmental Appeal Board decision as it relates to Shawnigan Lake and the potential devastating contamination of the water supply of that community of some 7,000 residents. There have been statutory decision–makers who have forced things on the community that were completely unsatisfactory to parties involved.

There have been third-party attempts to bring to the attention of government and the proponent evidence of water sampling that demonstrates contamination and environmental and human health risk. The process has unfolded where it has involved the Environmental Appeal Board, which is one of the many tribunals we use in British Columbia. In that process — and I think this is a great example — disinterested persons, some who may or may not be governed by professional acts and legislation covering them….

In this instance I’m thinking of professional biologists, who are, in fact, covered by a self-enforced act. But there is a quasi-judicial importance to these tribunals, where you want to have evidence that is presented that has been served on the different parties involved in the process — sworn by neutral officials who have their own legal responsibilities in relation to the gathering of that evidence or the gathering of the statements that will be presented as evidence.

You want to have that precisely because of the next stage that happened. I’m still using the example of the Shawnigan Lake water contamination. We now have a judicial review of this tribunal system in our province. I think everybody is waiting, particularly the residents of Shawnigan Lake, as to how that will unfold, but we have the court system looking at how the lower quasi-judicial system has performed.

Part of the review, of course, is going to involve all of the forms of sworn statements that were provided to the tribunal originally and that had led to the decision which, I think, erroneously — we’ll wait for the court’s decision — upheld the decision to allow the proponent to keep depositing hazardous material in a watershed.

So those are the kinds of things where you would never want to move to mere signed declarations and a lower level of security, and a lower level, potentially, of integrity to those documents that will eventually be reviewed by a court.

That is not the case in sections of Bill 5 that is before us. I will speak, in my role for the official opposition as the critic for Education, around sections 2, 3 and 4 of this bill, which relate to the School Act. I do want to just outline, a little bit beyond the explanatory notes provided in Bill 5, what the changes will be.

[1455]

I did dig out the School Act to look at, in reference to the amendments to it in Bill 5. Section 2 will replace the use of an affirmation of the kind that we have been describing here in our contributions to this debate this afternoon. It will replace that affirmation “with the use of a signed statement as the method of applying to become a member of a francophone education authority.”

I think that’s important, because there is a requirement that if you wish to send your child to a francophone school, you have to demonstrate that either on the paternal side or the maternal side of the family, or both, you are part of the Francophonie. Right now, according to the School Act, that is considerably more difficult than it ought to be.

Obviously, you have to present all types of papers, including your own school records. If you are the parent of a child you wish to send to a school under the Francophone Education Authority, you will have to show that, indeed, either the mother or the father went to a French school themselves. So there is a considerable onus upon parents already. And I don’t know, in actual fact, what form of sworn statement is required, but to even require a sworn statement seems to be a little over the top for parents who simply want to take the first step to enrol, to express interest and enrol their kids in the Francophone Education Authority.

Similarly with section 3. Right now there is a requirement for a signed affirmation that deals with the application of enrolment of that child in the francophone educational program. So you literally have, within two steps of getting your child into a francophone school that’s governed by that provincewide school authority, the requirement for sworn statements.

Now, I have no idea — I’d be interested if the Minister of Education has an answer to this, or the Attorney General — how many principals and other administrators at individual francophone schools actually comply with the School Act, which is at least 40 years out of date in requiring the use of, I would think, a notary public or a lawyer to witness the application process of getting your kid into a francophone school and then the process for enrolling your child into that school.

I have no idea whether lawyers are making a good living off of enrolling kids into the Francophone Education Authority. I’ll let my colleagues answer that, who may have some experience with it and may have billed hours in that regard. But I suspect none of the schools do, in fact, use this.

Then you have a problem that we all try and avoid as lawmakers here. You try and avoid having laws that simply have not kept up with the times, that aren’t enforceable and that have literally no purpose. In those two processes, both making an application and then enrolling a child into the francophone school authority, it ought to be completely sufficient to use one’s signature, as we do on all kinds of application forms in our daily lives.

So it is not something I disagree with. In fact, I commend the government, after 42 years, on being able to gather up the strength and courage to include this in a bill that we have before us this afternoon, to make that modernization. There’s no argument from this side of the House with regards to those particular changes. I can’t speak with as much authority on other areas that we are dealing with.

[1500]

It seems to me that when you have legislation that deals with the financial services sector — for example, the Credit Union Incorporation Act; or cooperative enterprise, the Cooperative Association Act; or the gaming industry, because the Gaming Control Act is included in this bill before us; or the Insurance Act as well — one can understand why government might be more cautious. You’re into serious legal contract law that involves the exchange of financial services or the deposits and the movement of funds and money between individuals, between government and individuals and between government entities.

You can appreciate that in those cases, which are in and of themselves, in some cases, very slow-moving, transactional processes of government, it may be more appropriate to retain sworn statements as the method of legal proof, because there may be significant challenges that come later in the event of disputes. I don’t know. I will leave it to other critics who are patiently awaiting their turn to speak to Bill 5. I am interested in that.

In terms of the sections around the School Act, these are routine, obvious reforms. None of us know why they had to wait 42 years to happen. They went on so long that my parents couldn’t even enrol me in the school system at that time because I was not of age. And they are here before us this afternoon.

I’ll tell you what deserved much more debate than a routine consent form for francophone parents was the bill I referred to earlier in my remarks, and that was Bill 11 from the spring 2015 session. That was legislation with no proper motivation, with no consent, with no consultation — period. It was like a bolt from the blue, changing a historic relationship that we have enjoyed for more than 40 years, a balance of powers between the Minister of Education, the executive branch of government and elected school officials that was completely collapsed.

Now in British Columbia, a year after Bill 11 was rammed through this place, we have a government that can use new interpretations of the School Act to impose almost anything it wants on a school board — any financial decision, any “special advisor” report. I think that’s a real, live example that I use, not a hypothetical one, in the case of Vancouver.

Because of Bill 11, we may see the spectacle of the Minister of Education and this government literally using new powers it awarded itself, through amendments to the School Act, to shut 25, 30 schools down in neighbour-
[ Page 10899 ]
hoods all across Vancouver because there’s a political dispute between elected school officials in their administration of the budget, which is given to them by this government, and what the minister can now do.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill this afternoon.

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise today on this bill. After 42 years, it’s a good piece of legislation to see and definitely the right direction in terms of making our laws more understandable and encouraging public respect for the rule of law — that things make sense, things that they’re asked to do make sense. It’s a pretty straightforward suggestion.

As someone who has had the privilege of practising law in British Columbia, I’ve got a relationship with notarizing documents. I’ve had experience with it. It’s a very powerful symbol — as a lawyer, the stamp that you’re given when you’re called to the bar.

I remember as a kid in my dad’s office that he had a stamp. We used to use it to stamp envelopes and all kinds of stuff as a way to pass time while he had to watch us on a Saturday and maybe he had a little extra work to do in the office.

But it was when I was called to the bar, when I was articling with the federal Department of Justice…. My principal was a man — he’s still a federal prosecutor — named John Walker. When I swore the oath in front of him, as a new lawyer — to say that I would uphold the law, that I wouldn’t advance causes that didn’t have merit to them, that I wouldn’t take advantage of people, that I would conduct myself with integrity — part of that oath meant taking this stamp as well.

The stamp represented not just the ability to notarize documents. There are a number of members here who have taken various oaths, including the oath of this office, and they feel that significance.

[1505]

For a lawyer, in my experience, receiving that stamp from the federal Department of Justice was a symbol and a message from them to me that they expected that when I used this stamp, when I notarized documents — court forms or other forms — I would keep those principles in mind and conduct myself with integrity.

It’s interesting, because you get this symbol as a lawyer, a stamp that you’re supposed to use, and then it turns out that you very rarely have to actually use it. I don’t know how many of my friends in the House who have a stamp that’s sat in a drawer as they didn’t really need to use it very often.

Actually, I had opportunity to swear many, many documents as a lawyer — more like a notary than a lawyer — because I worked in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. When I was working there, I swore a number of affidavits, sworn statements and statutory declarations by people who live there about everything from their housing conditions to allegations they were making about how they had been treated by police officers or related to allegations of what their lives were like working in the sex trade.

It was a very powerful tool used by an organization called Pivot Legal Society in their affidavit campaigns to communicate, in the sworn statement, that this wasn’t just an interview with someone. This was someone, when they were putting down their statement, who was willing to take the risk of being charged with perjury, a criminal offence, if they made a false statement in this document. It gave it that extra emphasis. This was a significant document.

This is the context of Bill 5, which amends the requirement for this ceremony, this declaration, “This is who I am,” “I’m swearing this is true,” “I’m swearing that this is what is happening,” “I’m swearing that I have the appropriate documents” and so on. So it’s a big deal. It’s a serious thing.

To remove that requirement is not something that we should take on lightly as legislators. That’s why it’s very helpful to have this report from the B.C. Law Institute.

Now, hon. Speaker, you’ve heard some of my friends go through this history of the B.C. Law Institute report, in particular the fact that this is not a new report — 1974 the first report, 1976 finally released. It was requested in ’74 by the NDP government and revisited in 2006 by the B.C. Law Institute, so ten years ago. We’ve waited a decade since then for these amendments to come forward.

It’s important to recognize — because we’re being asked to take on this task of saying, “Okay, you no longer have to do this very serious thing; you no longer have to risk a perjury charge; you no longer have to risk a criminal charge if you make a false declaration”— that we have confidence in knowing who the Law Institute is, in fact. This is a non-profit organization that’s dedicated to promoting clarity and simplification in the law in British Columbia — an honourable and respectable goal and one that is desperately needed, I have say — and adapting the law to modern needs. What a great idea.

They promote the improvement of the administration of justice, they promote public respect for the rule of law through their reports, and they promote scholarly research on the law. That is how we end up with the Report on Unnecessary Requirements for Sworn Statements, 2006. This, I believe, is the basis for a number of the pieces which the Attorney General’s office has brought forward before us in Bill 5.

I say a number because there are a number of recommendations made in this report which are not followed by the Attorney General’s office for reasons known only to that office. I hope the Attorney General will speak to that in her closing remarks on Bill 5.

It’s helpful for people to know what a sworn statement is. What does this mean? It has a whole bunch of different appearances in our law. It could be a statement made
[ Page 10900 ]
under oath in a courtroom. It could be on affirmation under a statutory document, on an affidavit, or it can be a solemn declaration made in front of a decision-maker of some type. They’re used for all kinds of different reasons. I will be leaning heavily and with great appreciation on the B.C. Law Institute’s Report on Unnecessary Requirements for Sworn Statements. If people are interested in reading more about this, it’s where most of my remarks are coming from, as a matter of fact.

There are three main functions for these types of sworn statements that we’re removing in this legislation. One is “to reinforce the veracity of written or oral communications.” We want to know that what you’re saying is true. The second is “to introduce an element of solemnity or dignity on ceremonial occasions.” We were all here when the members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain were sworn in. It was a very dignified ceremony, and the oath of office was part of that ceremony.

[1510]

Finally, it’s “to interpose a disinterested person in proceedings” where that person’s offices “will be of benefit to one or more of the parties.” This is the notary or the lawyer who is sitting across the desk from you, who says: “When you sign this form, understand that if you’re lying, you could go to jail. That is a criminal offence.” It’s a disinterested person to communicate to you the threat of making a false statement, for example.

Now, the 2006 report noted that there is a requirement for all of these statements. This leads to some of why this legislation is in front of us. You can make one of these sworn statements only in front of a notary or a lawyer or another person who statutorily has the ability to take these sworn statements. So there are a few reasons for doing this again.

This is also what they go into. Why is it, we would ask, that a lawyer or notary be present for when you swear these kinds of things? First, again, it makes it more formal and more solemn. Second, this is a perspective…. At the time, in the law, when many of these things were passed, it was that it would bind the conscience of the person swearing. When they swore, they understood that they faced not just legal consequences but spiritual consequences, that they could have to explain to a higher power why it was that they swore something that wasn’t true in that higher power’s name. It’s a very serious consequence for people who hold those kinds of religious beliefs.

Finally, it raises the possibility of criminal liability. There’s a witness there. The witness says: “Listen, I told this guy that if he wasn’t telling the truth, if he didn’t have the documents, he could go to jail. He signed it anyway. He swore it. That’s my evidence, Your Honour.” And then the guy is off to jail for perjury.

There are a number of reasons for asking that this person be in front of them. The Law Institute added a fourth, which was confirmation of identity.

One of the things that is drilled into you as a baby lawyer — well, as a law student, before you’re a baby lawyer — by the Law Society is that you darn well better have the person’s ID in front of you whose sworn statement you’re taking. Without the ID, you yourself could be hauled in front of the Law Society or the notary society as failing to verify that person’s identity. That has become kind of a default bonus of this process — that a person’s identity is verified.

Despite all of those excellent reasons for requiring lawyers or notaries to be present and to swear statements of this kind, the B.C. Law Institute said that despite all of those things, there are lots of situations where you could address all of those issues — confirm identity, ensure honesty, reinforce solemnity — with a simple amendment to the Offence Act and a requirement that a person face criminal consequences if they lie.

They cut all of these many requirements down. They had eight different categories where you require a sworn statement in front of a notary. They said: “We’re not going to make you drive across town, see the notary, pay the notary, pay the lawyer and make an appointment. Just know that if you do this and you make a false declaration, you could face serious criminal consequences and that you could face a violation of the provincial Offence Act.”

There are a couple of questions that arise for me in light of the legislation that comes before us, given that recommendation from the B.C. Law Institute.

The first is that I don’t understand why there is not an amendment in the Offence Act that mirrors what they suggest would replace those very serious consequences that they were talking about. It doesn’t appear to me that it’s in there. Maybe the Attorney General…. Maybe I missed it. That’s a distinct possibility. I’m certainly prepared to be wrong on that. But I would ask that she address this.

Why is it — when on page 17 of the B.C. Law Institute report, they say, “Please amend the Offence Act if you’re going to do this” — she has not done that?

The second question I have relates to my role as Housing spokesperson. The B.C. Law Institute says pretty clearly: “Please exempt part 5 of the Land Title Act from our recommendation of removing these requirements.” Yet there is a section of this act that removes the sworn statement requirement from the Land Title Act. It is not part of part 5. It’s part 14, I believe.

I would appreciate it, again, if the Attorney General would address why it is that this requirement of a sworn statement around a floating charge on a land title has been removed, given the recommendations of the Law Institute that sworn statements and identity verification, in particular, were particularly important for the Land Title Act and why she feels that section 14 wasn’t captured by that recommendation.

[1515]

Those are my remarks on this act. I certainly am glad to see that some of the Law Institute’s recommendations
[ Page 10901 ]
are being implemented after a decade. I encourage the Attorney General to peruse the full B.C. Law Institute catalogue of recommendations around statutory reform — they do wonderful work for us — and try to find other opportunities to make our laws more progressive and easier for people to understand and to promote the rule of law in British Columbia.

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

Hon. S. Anton: There have been a number of points raised. I won’t address all of them right now. We can come back to them in committee stage.

One thing I definitely cannot speak to is the 30 years between the law commission report and the B.C. Law Institute report. I can’t say as I was paying close attention to this issue during those 30 years. But we are paying attention to it now, at this point, because these kinds of sworn statements do cause people a lot of extra time and energy.

There’s a certain amount of time and energy, of course, going through a detailed bill like this, a lot of different consultations with different ministries. But really, in the scope of things, in the scope of people’s lives, the time and energy that people spend going to get a sworn statement for what, in some instances, can be a fairly minor matter, does consume a lot of energy, time and money in some cases. So I’m glad that we have been able to return our attention to the matter and bring it before the House on this occasion.

This is, of course, part of our red-tape-reduction initiative, making life easier for British Columbians. Government not getting in the way. People can go about their businesses, their schools and, as has been mentioned, go about other things that people need to do without undue burden.

There was a question regarding the reduction of seriousness. This was the heart of the analysis in the Law Reform Commission report and the B.C. Law Institute report, and that was the analysis that my ministry, the Ministry of Justice, in conjunction with program areas and ministries responsible for the legislation in the bill, undertook. And as members will have noticed, not all provisions that used to have sworn statements have been switched to a signed statement. Only those that ministries and program areas, along with their advising solicitors, deemed appropriate are being suggested for change.

There was a question of whether or not notaries and lawyers would lose work from this. I am very fond of the lawyers and the notaries, but I don’t think that we necessarily need to conduct things and make rather minor nuisances to provide work to those two bodies. But I do speak of them with great respect, as I work closely with them and I like them both very much. They work very closely with government, and they did work with us on this matter — the changes. We did speak with them on this matter. The changes will not have a significant impact on their work, but they will have a significant impact on making things easier for the citizens of British Columbia.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 5, Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Thomson: I call committee stage of Bill 11, the Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act.

[1520]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d like to introduce the people with me today — Derek Sturko, deputy minister; Linda Bates, senior manager, legislation; and Jane Connell behind me, senior legislative assistant. I look forward to discussing this bill section by section, and I cede the floor to the hon. critic.

On section 1.

L. Popham: Actually, I’d like to start with a question around the explanatory note, if I can. This bill replaces the Agricultural Produce Grading Act, the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act and the Food Products Standards Act with a single act. Would the minister mind explaining to me the intent of those three acts prior to them coming together?

Hon. N. Letnick: The three acts — the APGA, the ACQA and the FPSA…. The first one had to do with grades, the second one, the ACQA, is certifications, and the FPSA is standards. There were several limitations of the current statutes. For example, only grade standards and certifications are enabled. No other forms of classi-
[ Page 10902 ]
fication that could be used to provide useful information to consumers were available through those three acts.

Existing prohibitions are not sufficient in those three acts to enable government to restrict the use of certain words in marketing — for instance, organics. Existing certification systems are limited to agricultural products, which does not include fish and seafood. There is a possible interest in the future, of course, in the certification of fish and seafood products as well. That’s why we’ve combined them into this new act.

[1525]

L. Popham: When the minister announced this legislation, he made it very clear — in fact, he made his announcement with the certified organic community — that this would allow consumers to be more confident in their purchases and allow the certified organic farming industry to increase their revenues.

Because the minister made this announcement with that community, it was in my great interest to go through the bill. I think they’ve been asking that for a long time. But as the minister knows, and as I know, there is no definition or words that say “organic” or “certified organic” in this bill at all. The minister has already explained to me that the intent is to add those in the regulations at a later date, but in fact, the minister has also said that this legislation would kick into place by 2018.

At this time, in section 1, I would like to propose an amendment to the bill that defines “organic” and “certified organic.”

[Section 1 is amended by adding the following definitions:

“certified organic” means meeting the prescribed production or quality standards required by this act;

“organic” means produced in a way that promotes and enhances biological diversity based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony;]

On the amendment.

L. Popham: I hope the minister is open to adding those definitions in.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for her comments and her thorough review of the act. I really appreciate that and also appreciate the fact that she took time to get a briefing from staff. That helps considerably.

Also, earlier today, I believe — if not today, it was recent — the hon. member did discuss the need to have extension officers for organics. In case the hon. member didn’t know, we do have an industry specialist. I’m sure she’s aware of Susan Smith, who I believe was at the conference as well. I asked what percentage of her time is devoted to organics. It turns out that 75 percent of her time is organics, and 25 percent is for vegetables. So while it might not achieve the one FTE that the member is looking for, 75 percent is very strong on organics.

Specifically to the proposed amendment, it’s outside the scope of the bill. The bill contemplates establishing programs through regulation. The bill is enabling and only speaks to categories of classification programs, while the detailed programs would be brought into force by regulation. So the definitions for “organic” and “certified organic” and anything else, for that matter, that we would want as a label would be properly established in regulation and not in the bill itself.

I would have to decline the amendment.

L. Popham: Thanks to the minister for pointing out how dedicated we are to the certified organic industry by committing 75 percent of a full-time employee to that industry. I obviously don’t think that’s enough, although I appreciate the work that that person does. I believe that one, at least, would be probably more appropriate.

I’m disappointed that the minister won’t commit to adding these definitions in. Because the minister took so much time with the certified organic community to make this announcement, I think they’re questioning the same thing. Can the minister tell me specifically why this would not be included in the legislation? Why are we leaving it to regulation?

[1530]

The Chair: Minister, you are very soft-spoken. Could you please speak up so we can hear you. Carry on.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m tempted to actually speak a lot louder now. Yes, I will speak louder so that everyone can hear me. Obviously, I didn’t speak loud enough for the hon. member across the way to hear my first answer, which answered her question. So I will repeat it for everyone to hear.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

This amendment is outside the scope of the bill. The bill contemplates establishing programs through regulation. The bill is enabling and only speaks to categories of classification programs, while the detailed programs would be brought into force by regulation. The definitions for “organic” and “certified organic” would be properly established in the regulation. To paraphrase: the bill is set up in such a way where if we wanted to set up a label like organic, we would do it through regulations accompanying or subsequent to the introduction of this legislation.

That could also be used for other considerations. As I said a few minutes ago, the current suite of bills that we have don’t contemplate anything to do with seafood. So if we wanted to do something like 100 percent B.C. seafood, that’s another opportunity — or 100 percent B.C. wine. Rather than having to list them all in legislation, we set up the framework, and then we could add them through regulation, as needed.
[ Page 10903 ]

Was that loud enough for you, hon. Chair? Yes, it was. Okay. Thank you.

L. Popham: I have the effect on the minister of making him want to raise his voice.

I understand the administration part of why regulations happen. I guess I want to know more specifically: why did we not make this…? Why was it not important enough to make it legislation? If the certified organic industry was important enough to make an announcement with, why are they not important enough to have specific legislation in the province of B.C.?

Hon. N. Letnick: The Certified Organic Associations of B.C. was instrumental in bringing this legislation forward. They were also very supportive of this legislation. So, contrary to what the hon. member is saying, they actually support this legislation coming forward.

The certified organic organizations of B.C. are extremely important in continuing to help agriculture grow and to achieve the goal of $15 billion by 2020. This legislation not only will help them grow their industry but also help other very important parts of agriculture and agrifoods in British Columbia. Like I’ve already mentioned, the wine industry, the seafood industry and a number of others will also be able to benefit from this legislation.

The legislation is here. I’m sure if the member opposite would canvass the members of COABC, she would find that they are supportive of the legislation going forward.

L. Popham: In fact, I did canvass the members, and I found out that they were surprised that the words “organic” and “certified organic” were not in the legislation. It took them by surprise.

Can the minister comment on that?

[1535]

Hon. N. Letnick: This act is enabling. It enables the provision for protected labels. One very important protected label will be the organic protected label. Another potential very important protected label might be 100 percent B.C. wine. It could be 100 percent B.C. seafood. It could be a number of things.

I would hope that the member opposite would agree that it makes much more sense to have those items come through in the form of regulations than to have to come back to the House and amend legislation every time that you wanted to include a new protected label in the province of British Columbia.

L. Popham: Well, how I do feel is that I think adding those words in definition makes this legislation stronger. I don’t know what we have to lose.

Do we want to be inconvenienced by coming back to change a bill if there were to be a change being made? In some ways, I think that makes it stronger, because then we don’t have the ability, by regulation, to make changes that both sides of the House do not understand. I don’t know what we have to lose, really, at this point by adding that in, except for making it stronger.

I’m going to move on at this point. I’m going to move to the interpretation section where we see the word “administrator.” I’d like to know: how many administrators are there in the province right now that administrate certification programs?

The Chair: The amendment is on the table.

Amendment negatived on division.

The Chair: Back to section 1.

Hon. N. Letnick: There are two administrators currently in the province. One is the Certified Organic Associations of B.C., or COABC for short. The other one is the B.C. Wine Authority.

L. Popham: Does the minister see other administrators being enabled by this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: With each voluntary certification program, you would need an administrator. For example, the fish and seafood example I gave before — if government went ahead and put that in the regulation, then we would need another administrator for that program.

L. Popham: So the certification administrator possibilities are endless? We could have many? There’s no restriction on how many administrators could happen within each field of administration or each sector of administration?

Hon. N. Letnick: You first have to have the voluntary certification program. Once you have that, then you have the administrator to make sure that it moves forward. They go hand in hand.

[1540]

V. Huntington: Under the interpretation section, I’m interested in the presumptive nature of the definition under “distribute.” I find “or offer to provide food or an agricultural product to a person, whether directly or indirectly” somewhat presumptive. I wonder if the minister could describe how he thinks the regulation would unfold with that presumptive nature of offering to provide?

Hon. N. Letnick: If the member would expand a little more on what she means by presumptive, in terms of this particular section?

V. Huntington: Well, it seems to me that your “includes to provide” is an action that a distributor or a
[ Page 10904 ]
person offering to distribute…. It’s the action taken. I’m assuming the regulation will then grow to…. It looks specifically at that action and how it unfolds, directly or indirectly. But how will the regulation cover an “offer to provide”? An offer to provide is something that has not happened, that is not of an action, so to speak. If the minister understands.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for the question. It was a good question. The whole act…. I think an example might make it easier.

If I’m going to provide the member with some eggs, and they’re not meeting the grade that I said they were going to…. If I provided them, I’m guilty of an offence. If I even offered to provide those eggs at a grade and I’m not able to provide them, then I’m also guilty of an offence. So it’s not only the provision of the eggs to the member but also if I just offer to provide the eggs and perhaps I don’t have those eggs. That’s when I would be guilty of an offence.

V. Huntington: I guess my confusion is that an offer to provide isn’t an offence in itself. If you don’t provide, then you haven’t committed an offence in normal understanding of what is to create or commit an offence. If I’m offering to give you an egg that hasn’t been graded properly but don’t end up giving you that, how can I have committed an offence? You’re creating, I think…. An offer is not a threat — unless you’re defining “offer” as a threat of some sort.

[1545]

Hon. N. Letnick: I always like examples. I think they bring life to the legislation. So here we have VQA wine. I can offer to sell you VQA wine, or I can provide you with a VQA wine. In either case, the intention is to provide you with VQA wine. If I provide you with the wine and it’s not VQA…. This is contrary to that; you understand that part.

If I offer to provide you VQA wine and I don’t have access to VQA wine, my intention is to deceive you, right? Here again, that would be offside.

We’re just checking right now to see whether this is common language we have in other statutes. But it’s all about the intention to provide you something or offer to provide you something that we don’t have in possession.

V. Huntington: But surely, that is an issue of contract and contract law. If you’ve provided me something and I have paid for something, or you’ve provided me with the understanding that I am going to get X and I actually get Y, then that’s an issue of contract, surely. I just don’t understand how an offer can be a crime or an offence when the action has not yet taken place.

Hon. N. Letnick: The current wording of the act is consistent with the acts that it’s replacing. It really comes down to the intent to provide someone with a product falsely. I’m not too sure if she wants us to use a third example, besides eggs and wine, to make the case.

V. Huntington: Well, I certainly won’t make a motion to amend a law or words in legislation that have already existed, but I do think that it is unnecessary. I think this relates more to contract law or the failure to do what one said one would do. But not just to offer to do something wrong — it just doesn’t seem the correct way to legislate, in my opinion.

L. Popham: I just wanted to go back to the beginning of the interpretation section and talk a little bit about “administrator” again. The minister has said that COABC is an administrator and VQA are administrators. Did I understand that correctly?

Hon. N. Letnick: COABC and the B.C. Wine Authority.

[1550]

L. Popham: In this interpretation, “administrator” means “a person authorized under section 4 [administration of certification programs] to administer a certification program.” As far as I can read, “administrator” means “person authorized,” and COABC and VQA, or Wine Authority, are not people. They’re organizations. So does this need amending?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is a standard interpretation of the word “person.” It can include an authority, and it is consistent with the other acts as well.

L. Popham: I’m going to move on to “agricultural product.” I guess my question is: why is agricultural product given such a counterintuitive definition? Bill 11 states, in the definition section, that agricultural products are defined as “not intended for human consumption.” I guess my first question is: is this a typo?

Hon. N. Letnick: If the hon. member looks further down, she’ll see that “food” is defined. Basically, agricultural product means anything that’s not food.

L. Popham: I think it contradicts common sense, to tell you the truth. A key principle of legislative drafting is that the words are to be given ordinary meanings, grammatical meanings. Page 3 of B.C.’s Principles of Legislative Drafting mentions this.

It’s also inconsistent with how we use the term regularly. For example, in the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the definition of agricultural product includes any food or drink wholly or partially derived from an animal or plant.

Another example is in the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. An agricultural product is de-
[ Page 10905 ]
fined as “any food in its raw or natural state, including all fruits that are washed, colored or otherwise treated in their unpeeled natural form prior to marketing.”

Why in our legislation, in B.C., is an agricultural product defined in such an inconsistent and illogical way?

Hon. N. Letnick: The term “agricultural product” is carried over from the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act, one of the three acts that this act is replacing.

I’ll just give a couple examples of what would fall under agricultural product — leather. It’s not really meant to be a food, in most cases, but good for shoes. Also, hemp cloth is an agricultural product, which is also not meant usually for human consumption. That would also be considered not a food, which is defined further down on the page.

L. Popham: Okay. I still think it’s inconsistent. I guess the intent of updating these three acts and putting them into one was to update what was old legislation and bring it into modern times. So does the minister have an appetite to change that?

Hon. N. Letnick: I do appreciate the member’s opinion. However, the legal advice is not to make the change.

[1555]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: In the first part, it describes the activity, and in the second part, it shows that the program exists. For the legislation to work, both parts need to be acted upon, both the activity and the program existing.

L. Popham: I guess my question is: do all farmers and food producers fall under this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: “For the purpose of distributing or marketing to other persons” — so anyone who is actively engaged in distributing or marketing to other persons. We also have to remember that it involves the grading, standards or certification. So you have to do both.

L. Popham: In section (a): “that a person (i) possesses, rears, grows, harvests, processes, transports or stores in British Columbia for the purpose of distributing or marketing to other persons.”

I guess my question is: could that actually be “and stores” or “or stores”? I’m worried, at this point, that we’d be importing something into B.C., not grown in B.C., certified outside of B.C. But if it’s stored in B.C. and then distributed or marketed, it would qualify in this act.

Hon. N. Letnick: I just want to canvass this a little further to see if I understand the concept. Is the member concerned about products that are coming from outside the province into B.C., then falling within the limits of this legislation?

If she is, that’s a federal matter, as far as what comes in and goes out of the province. So if I can get a little more clarity on what the concern is.

L. Popham: Well, I guess that I’m interested in that, because if we have goods that are being certified outside of B.C. and we’re certifying and that’s the check mark that we need to allow those products to be sold as certified organic in B.C. under our label, under this new legislation.

[1600]

I understand that it’s a federal guideline and legislation there. But I guess I’m wondering: are we putting in any…? I guess what I’m worried about is that we’re going to be having different standards of certification allowed in B.C. being sold under the certified organic B.C. or certified B.C. or whatever administrative program sets up, and then the intent of this legislation changes.

The intent is to give consumers absolute confidence that they’re buying something that right now is certified organic British Columbia if they’re buying certified organic. I’m not sure, if we have another administrator set up, that certified B.C., which I think the minister has mentioned at some point in time…. Is this going to dilute what we consider certified organic at the moment in B.C.?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, examples, I think, always speak loudly. If someone outside the province got certified federally for a product — let’s say, in this case, being organic — and then was coming into the province, in that case, that would be fine. If someone, however, said they were organic outside of the province and sent a product into the province, then we, when we set up the regulations, would have to set it up very carefully to make sure that everything that’s sold in B.C. that says “organic” is certified.

L. Popham: What about this example? A product was grown in B.C., but a certification agency or administrator from Quebec or Ontario was used to certify it. Would that qualify?

Hon. N. Letnick: Not unless we recognized that body specifically in our regulations.

L. Popham: Will there be room for other agencies to be approved by the province? How would that work?

[1605]

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, it could be in the regulations. We don’t know now. We are continuing to consult with the industry to see what’s appropriate. But in theory,
[ Page 10906 ]
there could be other bodies besides the COABC and the federal regulators as well.

L. Popham: I guess — and the minister may also have this concern — it’s just basically a red flag for me, the idea that another province with an administrator that’s using much lower standards than COABC is able to be considered as an administrator within B.C., or approved as an administrator that we would be able to use our “certified organic” check mark on.

How can we stop this from happening? What’s the process to make sure the standards are as good as or better than ours?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s about the process. It’s about making sure that we identify what our provincial needs are and whether or not these other bodies meet those needs — of course, in consultation with the industry. It’s impossible to say here, unequivocally, that nobody else will be able to do this.

I would suspect…. Fair play would lead us to a point where we would consult with industry. We would see whether or not these other bodies you’re referring to met the standard. If they did, then it would be up to government, through the regulations, to decide whether or not to include them in the list.

L. Popham: One of the concerns that I have, or the concerns that have been brought to me…. When we’re looking at the level of standards for certified organic, one of the things that is becoming more interesting is the idea that some products that we consume have genetically modified ingredients, and some don’t. The COABC organization does not allow any genetically modified products or ingredients, or even additives to their soil. This would include the dairy industry.

Can the minister see, at any point, where GMO feed would be allowed in and be certified B.C.? Has the minister considered that?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s a good question. In the case of the administrator…. Let’s say the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. is the administrator. They come up with the standards that to get certified through them, you have to have no GMO involvement. Then we are adopting their standards, or them as the administrator. So everyone that would want to use this protected label would have to comply with the standards as set up.

[1610]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Popham: So section 3. I’d like to propose an amendment.

[SECTION 3 is amended by adding the following subsection:

(e) in order to be labeled “organic” a food must be certified by meeting the prescribed quality or production standards, known as certified organic in British Columbia.

(f) the Lieutenant Governor in Council must establish a protected label for agricultural products produced and marketed as organic in the province of British Columbia.]

On the amendment.

L. Popham: I think that this is very important, although, obviously, in section 1 we weren’t able to add in the definitions of “organic” and “certified organic,” because they’re apparently coming in regulation. But I think this is the intent of this bill. I think that without this in legislation, I’m not sure that we can make the claims that this bill is currently, at this state, when it passes, protecting the certified organic industry. There’s no indication that it’s doing that at all, because we’re not using these words.

Is the minister open to this amendment?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m sorry to disappoint the member again. As far as (f) is concerned, we don’t have the ability to impose our will on the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so saying that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council “must establish” would do that and, therefore, is not acceptable.

On (e), the proposed amendment is outside the scope of the bill as well. The bill contemplates that there will be grade certification, protected labels and standards applied to foods. They will be prescribed in regulation following the current practice. We discussed this already.

Organics is not a form of classification. It could be prescribed in future as a protected label, which we’ve already signalled is our intent. What is proposed in the amendment is what is contemplated under the regulation-making authority in section 47(5).

L. Popham: I understand that the minister has good intentions, but what if this minister is not the Minister of Agriculture in the future? This bill does not have….

Interjection.

L. Popham: I could be, but then perhaps the intent would be there.

It’s a serious question, because if this minister is committed to the certified organic industry but the next minister is not, how do we have any…? Because this isn’t in legislation, how do we know that this is going to happen? We have to have trust, and I’m not sure that laws are built around trust. Laws are built around laws, because we want something to happen or we don’t want something to happen.

How can the minister guarantee that organic and certified organic is the intent of this bill?

Hon. N. Letnick: While I appreciate the influence that the hon. member provides to me, I would like to say that I’m here as the minister representing the ministry and government. It’s government’s and the ministry’s intention and my intention to move forward with what was committed when we announced this bill. She can put faith that the government will follow through on its commitment.

L. Popham: Well, can the minister agree that there’s no requirement whatsoever in this bill for organic claims to be certified at any point in the future?

Hon. N. Letnick: I will try to readdress what I’ve said before. The purpose of the bill is to provide a framework under which we capture three very old statutes, modernize them and provide for opportunities for protected labels of many kinds.

[1615]

The first kind that government has signalled they would like to move forward with is the organics protected label, and I’ve also provided other examples.

L. Popham: So what the minister is saying is that it’s a possibility, but it’s not a guarantee?

Hon. N. Letnick: I think I’ve already answered the question.

L. Popham: I don’t think the minister has answered the question. Does this bill guarantee that organic claims are to be certified at any point in the future? Is this in law, or is it just a great idea?

Hon. N. Letnick: This bill was, in large part, driven by the organic sector of British Columbia. We are working very closely with them. We’ve consulted with them. We continue to consult with them. They’ve asked for a period of time through which they can adapt some of the growers out there and producers that are using the term “organic” to give them time over the next three years to transition, to apply for certification.

It really is a testimony to many, many people in the organic sector, and it is every intention of the government to continue to achieve that goal, where in British Columbia, if you are going to say that you are organic, you have been certified organic.

L. Popham: Where does it say that in this bill?

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, the bill is a framework under which we can move forward with the protected labels, like “organic.”

L. Popham: And when does that take effect?

Hon. N. Letnick: The government announced that people would have until 2018, three years, to get their certification if they want to use the protected label “organic.” So between now and 2018, the government intends to bring in regulations to make that happen.

In the meantime, in the near future the government will be bringing in regulations from the three old bills to coincide with this particular piece of legislation, should it pass the House.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of this section?

[1620]

Hon. N. Letnick: The powers of the administrators before were actually in the regulations, and they were somewhat inconsistent. Based on legal advice to bring them to consistency, we put them, actually, in the act itself.

V. Huntington: This is a question related to subsection 4(2)(d)(i): maintaining a register and “making the register available for public inspection during normal business hours.” Just a simple question. Will that register be on line and available all the time, or is it going to be a hard copy that people have to go into the store to find?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, to the member opposite, for the question. It would be up to the administrator to decide how to do that. We just make it compulsory through the legislation.

L. Popham: Can the minister see any conflicts of interest arising from this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: We haven’t heard of any through our consultations at all. So no is the answer.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This particular section prescribes the responsibilities of an operator subject to certification, grading standards, the grading standards program. It’s a carryover from the other three acts. It’s been modified, of course, a little bit to update the language. We have a similar provision in the Animal Health Act as well.
[ Page 10908 ]

L. Popham: Will, by regulation, fees for inspections be drawn up from this section?

I probably wasn’t that clear. I’m seeing “request of an inspector” written into this legislation; 5(1)(b)(ii) allows inspectors to require product testing. I’m assuming there would be a fee or a charge for that. I’m thinking maybe it would be passed on to the farmer, or perhaps this is a government service. I don’t know. I would be curious to know.

[1625]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for identifying what the issue was. Inspectors would be provided by the government through normal taxpayer payments. If there is need for testing, that would be paid for by the operator.

L. Popham: I noticed that the recordkeeping — and this might be standard — needs to be kept on location for five years. These records, I would assume, would be certification records, if it was for certified organic farms. Currently, I believe, the certification records are held with COABC. Does the minister see that there’s any direction for records to be held at the farm, with COABC and a third copy to be registered with government?

Hon. N. Letnick: We do have a little bit of time in the next two or three years as we work towards our 2018 goal. We’re going to consult with the key stakeholders as to what would be making most sense. Would it make more sense to have it on your person? Would it make more sense for government to keep the registry? For COABC, the authority, to keep it? There’s no definite answer to that question just yet.

L. Popham: When reading through this section, a lot of it, I guess, is based on if somebody is not complying to what they’re supposed to be complying to. In part (2), it says: “On receiving a report under this section, the minister may order the person making the report to take one or more prescribed actions.” Can the minister tell me what those prescribed actions are?

[1630]

Hon. N. Letnick: So “one or more prescribed actions.” They would be prescribed in the regulations, which aren’t developed yet. It could vary from one protected label to another protected label.

L. Popham: I understand it would be in regulation. Could I have just one example of what a prescribed action could be?

Hon. N. Letnick: For example, if they don’t have proper certification, one of the prescribed actions would be they have to go get it within X number of days. That could be one of them.

L. Popham: In part 3, division 2…. Can the minister explain this part to me? I don’t quite understand it.

Hon. N. Letnick: Hope I’m not too fast.

Orders under division 2 are subject to review and reconsideration. That’s what three means.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain the intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is carried over and modified from the APGA. It prescribes the activities that are not permitted under a prescribed grading program unless conducted in accordance with the regulations.

L. Popham: Could the minister give an example?

Hon. N. Letnick: Absolutely. If a grading program is prescribed in regulation for a food, persons, for example, must not transport or distribute ungraded or improperly marked food, market food as having been graded if it’s not, market food as having a grade if it does not, possess ungraded food in a container with a grade mark attached. Those are four examples.

L. Popham: Can the minister see that this would have any implications for people producing products and selling them at farmers markets?

Hon. N. Letnick: Where they sell it isn’t the issue. It’s: are they meeting the grading requirements? So if you’re selling a Canada grade A egg and you’re not meeting the requirements, whether you’re selling it at a farmers market or at a retail store, it’s still the same contravention.

L. Popham: I’m just going to give the minister an example of something that I’ve learned. Perhaps it’s in regards to this section. I’m not quite sure.

If a certified organic poultry producer were to drop their live birds off at a slaughterhouse in one vehicle…. They’re currently not allowed to pick up in the same vehicle and deliver back to their own farm or a place where they’re going to sell them.

Is anything changing with that regulation or legislation? Does it apply in this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s interesting example, but it has nothing to do with grading. So this would not apply here.

V. Huntington: Section 6 has some very definitive language. A person must not transport or distribute food that has not been graded.

[1635]

Can the minister tell me whether regulations will cover those instances where food is being transported to a centre that does the grading — where it’s being transported to a distribution centre that will do the washing, grading, etc.? This is very explicit. How else will you be able to move product to a grading centre?

Hon. N. Letnick: If a food is on its way to the grading facility, then the grading hasn’t been applied yet, so it’s okay.

V. Huntington: The language also says: “if a grading program has been established or adopted.” It doesn’t talk about if the food is being transported to a place where the grading program will be administered. It talks about food — period — where grading is applicable. So is this in any way restrictive of an operator who takes his potatoes to the distribution grading and washing centre?

Hon. N. Letnick: I direct the member to section 6(a). In the first few words, it says: “except as permitted under the regulations.” The regulations would describe how that process would occur. In that particular case with the potato, the potato would be safe.

V. Huntington: And if the minister would recall, my first question was: “Would the regulations be covering this type of anomaly, given the specific nature of the wording in the section?” So I thank the minister.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This section prescribes activities that are not permitted under prescribed standards programs. It’s carried over and expanded to allow for standards to be adopted or created and not limited to the Food and Drugs Act.

L. Popham: This is just mostly out of curiosity. If a product claimed to be certified organic and it’s not, can it be transported at that point to another retail option where it just is sold as regular conventional?

Hon. N. Letnick: If I understand the question, it’s: if a food is not labelled or not certified organic, can it be sold as regular food? The answer is yes. But that’s not the question, so I’ll sit down and listen to what it is.

L. Popham: This is basically during a growing season and a selling season. If an inspector comes onto a farm and finds that the grower is contradicting the certified organic standards, at that point, can they move this food? It will not qualify. There’s been some contravention. Perhaps there’s a fine.

Can that food be moved in the meantime to another establishment that wouldn’t require a certified organic label? What happens to that food? Can it be moved to a food bank? Can it be moved to a different wholesaler or retailer?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes is the answer.

V. Huntington: In this respect, this section — or 7(a) and (b), at any rate — does not have the wording in section 6(a) “except as permitted under the regulations.” And yet the language is just as explicit. How, then, does somebody who has food — food that hasn’t met the grade or the quality required — transport if there are no regulations to enable them to do that?

[1640]

Hon. N. Letnick: The member always has very interesting questions. I appreciate that.

The government, in the past, has not used the standards provision frequently. Let me try to give an example here that would describe both the grading issue and the standard issue.

In the standard issue, we would come up with something that…. For example, yogurt needed to meet a certain standard, or cheese needed to meet a certain standard. Usually, we adopt the federal standards for these items. If it didn’t meet the standard, there’s no regulation that we could adopt to allow it to be transported. It has to meet the standard, and that’s it.

[1645]

With the grading program, we could, under the regulations, permit the transportation under certain conditions. That’s the difference between meeting a standard and not meeting a standard versus the grading program. That’s why there’s a difference in language, where in section 6(a), we’re saying “except as permitted under the regulations.” We don’t have that provision in seven.

V. Huntington: Well, thank you to the minister.

Firstly, I would say that answer kind of contradicts the answer that was given to the critic. The minister’s answer, then, means that if a food does not meet the standard prescribed under the regulations, it cannot be transported and it cannot be marketed. That means that we’re going to have a lot of wasted food out there.

Am I understanding the minister’s answer correctly? If a standard has not been met, that food cannot be transported, cannot be marketed, has to go to the dump or something? Well, then, how do you even transport it to the dump, for that matter? I’m just a little confused about what “standard” means versus “grading,” etc.
[ Page 10910 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: We have to remember that this particular piece of legislation is bringing in three previous acts, plus the protected labels piece. We have standards that are in this piece of legislation. We have grading. We have certification. Of course, now we have protected labels. The quality standards are different under standards than grading. Grading would encompass size and colour and protected labels. We’ve already talked about certification.

If a standard is adopted — again, for example, in cheese — the products that would be produced would be produced to that standard. A company would not produce a product not to that standard. There wouldn’t be a product to move because the only products that would be produced would meet that particular standard.

V. Huntington: Accidents do happen. I’ve been in the food processing business myself in the past, and accidents happen. You have a product that no longer meets the standard. You recognize it. It’s not necessarily unfit for human consumption. Or you have to take it to the dump — one or the other. How do you transport it, without a regulation that enables you to, under that circumstance?

[1650]

Hon. N. Letnick: The act applies for someone who has “the purpose of distributing or marketing to other persons.” So if the person is producing this product that’s not meeting the standard and they’re not going to market it to other persons, then the act does not apply. In other words, they can move it to the dump or whatever else the person wants to do.

V. Huntington: This is my last comment on this issue. One does not like to beat the dead horse. However, that isn’t my understanding of what the word “transport” means — distribute, perhaps, but not transport. If you can’t transport it as per this section, then how do you take it to the dump without a regulation that lets you?

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer is you can transport it as long as the purpose of the food isn’t to sell to a person for consumption.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: The rationale for this: it prescribes activities that are not permitted under a prescribed certification program. It is carried over and modified from the ACQA. If a certification program is prescribed in regulations, persons must not: (a) falsely represent themselves or their food or agricultural products as being certified, (b) market their food or agricultural products as being certified when the operator’s certification is not valid or when certification has not occurred in accordance with the regulations.

L. Popham: I’m not sure if I’m just misreading this or if there’s a typo or if it makes sense. Section 8(b): “market food or an agricultural product of that type as being certified….” Then it says: “…as meeting the quality or production standards of the certification program unless….” Is that “as” supposed to be an “or”? “Market food or an agricultural product of that type as being certified or meeting the quality or production standards of the certification program”?

Hon. N. Letnick: I appreciate the critic bringing attention to this, but you are being certified as something — in this case, being certified as meeting the quality or production. So “as” is correct.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This section is to ensure that no persons can use a prescribed protected label unless requirements are met. This is a new provision to place restrictions on a term such as “organic,” which we’ve been canvassing quite extensively today. A person must not attach a protected label to food or an agricultural product, except as permitted by the regulations, and a person cannot use a protected label to market food or agricultural products unless permitted by those regulations.

L. Popham: This is also just a point of curiosity. Does the minister know of a certified label, “certified kosher,” which is being used in B.C., and does it actually originate in B.C.?

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, the short answer is no. We have not heard of the word “kosher” being used in B.C. I must admit I do have quite a large appetite for Montreal smoked meat, so any time the member is in Montreal and wants to bring some, we’d be happy to share it with her. But we haven’t heard anything on the word “kosher.”

L. Popham: I’ve just recently started noticing fruit that’s for sale with a certified-kosher check mark that’s quite similar to COABC, but I have no idea where it originates from. Are we going to be keeping track of all certification programs that are selling through B.C. as well — not just ones that are administered in B.C. but that are products for sale with certified logos?

[1655]

I’m just bringing this up because it’s such a similar logo that there could be some confusion on the marketing side.

Hon. N. Letnick: If I understand the question, what we’re saying here is: what if someone came up with another label that was pretty close to the certified organic check-mark label? We believe that’d be covered under federal copyright laws, not in this act.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This section sets out the additional prohibitions, supplementary to those in section 6, related to misrepresentation of food. It is carried over and modified from all three previous acts.

A person must not do any of the following: misrepresent the origin of food or agricultural products, misrepresent the characteristics or production practices of food or an agricultural product, attach false or misleading statements or device to food or an agricultural product, attach false or misleading statements or device to a container or include false or misleading statements in records.

L. Popham: I’m wondering about “attach a false or misleading statement or device to food or an agricultural product.” We know that when you’re marketing agricultural products, or any products, you can get quite creative in how you describe them.

I guess I’m wondering: would the word “natural” come up as something that would be misleading since there would be no certification for a natural product, but it basically implies that it’s chemical-free or organic? Would that be something that would be caught by a complaint-driven process, or is that something we would just allow?

Hon. N. Letnick: It comes back to the protected label. That has to be prescribed. So in the example of organics again, if someone used the word “organic” and they weren’t certified, then they would be off base. But if they used the word “natural,” since it’s not prescribed as a protected label, then that would be up to the consumer.

L. Popham: Can the minister see, in the future, “grown in B.C.” being a certification that somebody could get?

[1700]

Hon. N. Letnick: It could be a protected label, just like “100 percent B.C. wine” or “organic.” Absolutely, it could be.

L. Popham: This might be an irrelevant question, but can the province of B.C. ever become an administrator of a protected label?

Hon. N. Letnick: The legislation is structured for third parties. It wasn’t intended for the government to do that. It really is for outside third parties.

L. Popham: It’s not intended for that, but is it possible under this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer is, in theory, yes. But in practice, how could the government appoint itself as the administrator? The intent of the act is to have an outside third party be the administrator.

L. Popham: So an example of some concern I might have. At a farmers market, where things are being marketed as grown in B.C., but somebody’s bringing stuff in from Mexico — dumping them in a box that says “grown in B.C.” and selling them like that — currently is there any legislation that would fine or find this person in contravention, of selling a product that’s being misrepresented?

The reason why I’m asking this is because…. As we market ourselves provincially — and, I guess, use We Heart Local, Buy B.C., all of these provincial marketing programs — is there any place where somebody could come in and set up as an administrator of just Buy B.C. or We Heart Local and start handing out certification for products like that?

[1705]

Hon. N. Letnick: I don’t blame the member for the confusion. It is confusing. You have all these different labels, protected labels and certifications.

If we have, for example, We Heart Local, that would be a marketing slogan. There wouldn’t be a protected label for that. If, however, we had “100 percent B.C. wine”, we could assign a protected label to it and, therefore, have that distinguished in the agricultural sector. So the marketing label versus the protected label, I think we need to separate.

L. Popham: Well, thanks for the clarification. But we really don’t have any boundaries on what could be set up as an administrator of a certified product, I don’t think. I think we went over that.

I think what I’m getting at is because the possibilities are endless…. Perhaps the examples I gave weren’t good ones, about Buy B.C. or We Heart Local. I guess the problem is that if the possibilities are really endless, do we have the capacity in government to monitor all these things that could be happening or being contravened?

Section 10 — there’s a lot going on in here about misrepresentation on many, many levels. How are we going to control that, especially as we see new administrators enter into the game?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 10 is about misrepresentation about the prescribed programs in the act. For ex-
[ Page 10912 ]
ample, in this case, you can’t take a grade C egg and sell it as a grade A egg. It is not about misrepresentation about the protected labels.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain this section? I’ll listen very carefully.

Hon. N. Letnick: Just a correction. In the last answer, I should have said anything we prescribe, including the grading and a protected label. It covers that as well.

[1710]

On 11, it sets out additional prohibition related to marks that an inspector or auditor may employ. This is carried over and modified from the APGA, ensuring that persons do not interfere with marks, records or labels an inspector or auditor creates as part of their examination conducted under the act.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of this happening — I mean, not specifically but in general?

Hon. N. Letnick: The inspector would come and do an inspection on a product, perhaps put a label on the product or a sheet or something, and then somebody else would come afterwards and adjust it, make false claims upon it.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain section 12?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 12 sets out the reasons for and circumstances in which inspections may be made. This is also carried from the other three acts. Inspectors are subject to limits as set out in section 14. An inspector may enter and inspect a vehicle or place if the inspector reasonably believes it is a facility or is a subject of an order made under the act and the inspection is conducted for the purposes of section 12(2)(b).

L. Popham: Would this pertain to a vehicle that’s on the highway? Can they pull somebody over?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is a common provision in these acts. Yes is the answer to the question. In theory, a car could be stopped, a vehicle could be stopped. That’s not usually what happens. It’s usually to stop a vehicle from going to the next location or at the location it’s at to do the inspection. It would be uncommon for the inspectors to stop a moving vehicle.

L. Popham: Can the minister remind me? Is the inspector working for the Ministry of Agriculture?

Hon. N. Letnick: First, our staff, our employees, people like our new B.C. beef cadre that the hon. member helped us create, other agencies like CFIA and others.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

L. Popham: Inspection powers. I’m really familiar with section, because I think we’ve covered this off before in other acts. I’m going to bring up an example of something that’s concerning. I think it’s probably rare, but it has happened, where an inspector has been delegated to inspect a facility and has contravened biosecurity regulations by passing through, and there didn’t seem to be any checkpoints for that. Are the inspectors required to follow all biosecurity? Where would I find that — in which act?

[1715]

Hon. N. Letnick: Another excellent question. I would refer the member to section 49(3)(d), which says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may impose duties on inspectors “for the purpose of an examination.” That would mean that we could tell them that they have to comply with all of the biosecurity measures.

L. Popham: I’m going to ask this in section 13, although it probably is more relevant in section 14. But it may pertain to both.

The example that I’m thinking about is an inspector — and I’ll give specifics around this example — needing to inspect a grading facility and poultry operation, getting a warrant, asking the RCMP for assistance, entering the barn with an RCMP officer, farmer not present, and using cell phones for collecting photos of the situation. Nobody practised any biosecurity protocol.

When I look at this section, I’m guessing that the inspectors will have undergone training, specifically for biosecurity. Then in the next section, when we get to it, a warrant or not a warrant, would the minister always be informed if this type of action were taking place?

[1720]

Hon. N. Letnick: In that particular scenario, the ministry probably would be informed, not necessarily the minister.

L. Popham: We have gone over this in another bill, but there is a…. In this section, the inspectors have an enormous amount of power over the agricultural producers. They’re able to take information. They’re able to, basically, do whatever they need at the time of the inspection.
[ Page 10913 ]
They don’t need to give notice of an inspection. It can happen at any point.

I’m always concerned when there doesn’t seem to be any way of stopping abuse of this power. So if the minister can comment on that. These are quite serious incidents, I assume, when an inspector would use this sort of protocol. Potentially, it could happen at any time to anyone without any just cause. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. N. Letnick: These provisions are coming forward from the previous acts, but there are limitations under which the inspectors’ inspections can be made. It has to be made for the purposes of (1) to perform an inspection, if required or requested under section 16(1); (2) to monitor compliance with the act or an order; (3) to take measures to prevent contravention of the act; (4) to determine whether an order should be varied or terminated; or (5) any other prescribed purpose that applies.

It’s not at the full discretion of an inspector. It has to be within the purposes that are laid out here in 12(b).

L. Popham: Is the minister confident that this isn’t an overreach of power by inspectors?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, I am confident that this is not an overreach. We have similar powers in other statutes. I’m sure if an inspector went beyond their bounds, the ministry would hear about it.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

L. Popham: The minister may have already answered this. An inspector may need a warrant and may inspect without a warrant, if needed. In what case is the…? So the minister may not be informed if a warrant is issued for an inspection. Is the ministry always informed?

Hon. N. Letnick: The purpose of the legislation is to outline what the responsibilities of the inspector are. As far as informing or not informing the ministry, that would be a policy matter, and I don’t have the policies here with me.

L. Popham: Well, maybe the minister and I can talk about that at another time. I think that’s quite important, actually.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

[1725]

L. Popham: I’d like to propose an amendment to this section, to amend as follows:

[Section 15 is amended by adding the following subsections:

(j) seek out education and information that would bring the person into compliance with the Act;

(k) an order to do any of the actions listed in section 15 must take into consideration the time of year and growing season so as to allow a reasonable effort to come into compliance to be successful.]

On the amendment.

L. Popham: This amendment will provide the mechanism to allow producers and vendors to comply with organic requirements over time, with appeal, in order to bring the industry on board and not to move them into bankruptcy in the meantime. I think there is a provision like this in another act, and I’m hoping the minister might consider it.

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I thank the hon. member for her work on this. Yes, we have considered it. No, we don’t support it. The amendment is unnecessary — specifically, section 15(j) that’s been proposed. The inspector can specify actions to be taken in an order under section 15(h). It could include education if that is relevant to compliance.

Also, in particular, section 15(k) — that also is unnecessary. The inspector, as a matter of procedural fairness, would take into account relevant circumstances that could affect compliance. If a person feels that there is relevant information — for example, seasonal constraints — that affects their ability to comply with an order, they could ask to have the order reconsidered or reviewed.

L. Popham: How can the minister be sure that the situation would be fair?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, welcome hon. Chair, to the exciting world of protected labels, etc.

In this particular case, the inspectors are subject to training on fairness — procedural and administrative fairness. If the producer, farmer or whoever has the product still believes that they are being treated unfairly, the order can be reviewed by someone who is appointed for that purpose, to review those orders.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me why this sort of amendment would be relevant in one bill but not this bill? I think that during a briefing, we were informed that this actually made a different bill more fair. Why could it not be added into this bill? And maybe the minister could remind me of what bill that was. It might have been in a fishery bill.

[1730]

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 15 came from the Fish and Seafood Act. Maybe that’s where the thought came from. There’s no provision for what is being proposed in your amendment from there.

Recess, please.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:31 p.m. to 5:36 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

L. Popham: I still would like to discuss section 15 a little bit. The reason why I think that it’s important and that this amendment is important is because we can’t always be guaranteed a training program, or good intentions, end up with fair results. When it comes to getting a person to go into compliance, I think that because of the seasonality of farming, it’s reasonable to allow time for some compliance.

The reason why I’m speaking about this is because, in some sections that are coming up — section 19 and section 20, to be specific — this bill deliberately limits what a farmer can do if an inspector brings down enforcement on them. If there has been an act of unfairness on the side of an inspector, it deliberately limits what a farmer can do. There’s not a requirement that an order be reassessed, I don’t think. I think that’s how I’m reading section 19. An individual can ask for a reconsideration in section 20, but the inspector can ignore it completely.

With those sections in place, I think it’s even more relevant and pertinent for this amendment, especially (k), to be considered by the minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair, for the recess. Much appreciated.

I do understand the member’s desire to make sure that the system is fair. I think everyone in this House wants to make sure that all British Columbians are treated fairly. The particular language that we have here is consistent with our Fish and Seafood Act, which we passed, and the Animal Health Act, which we also passed.

[1740]

It really sets out an opportunity for progressive correction action taking place, as opposed to the old three acts that we are replacing here. With the old three acts, there wasn’t an opportunity for that. It was: you’re either in, or you’re out — the guillotine. Really, it was very, very black and white. With this one, the inspector has some opportunity to help someone who is in contravention to get into compliance. I think it’s a great improvement.

Also, we can appoint anyone we want to be the person that someone would take their issue up to and have it reviewed. We can appoint a deputy minister, for that matter, or an ADM or another inspector. I think it’s fair to say that when the time comes for a government to look at who they appoint, they appoint someone who is not immediately related to the inspector, someone who can bring a fair judgment to what was occurring here.

I still don’t see the value in changing the legislation and putting it offside with all the other pieces of legislation that we already passed with this language.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain section 16?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 16 prescribes conditions and fees that may apply to inspections.

L. Popham: How long does the minister think it will take to come up with this part of the regulations?

Hon. N. Letnick: It will be done in 2016, along with all the other regulations that we plan and bring forward.

L. Popham: Is there a fee schedule that would generally be followed?

Hon. N. Letnick: As we develop the regulations, we will also develop a draft fee schedule, which we then take to Treasury Board for approval.

L. Popham: Does the minister have an example of what a possible applicable fee might be for an inspection?

[1745]

Hon. N. Letnick: I do not have any examples.

L. Popham: I’m assuming that this would be a fee that the producer would have to pay. What if the producer was unable to pay the amount given as a fee? Is this going to in any way deter farmers from being able to comply or deter farmers from being able to conduct their business?

Hon. N. Letnick: That’s one thing that we would have to consider when we actually put through the regulations and the fee schedule. It’s not something we’re prepared to answer unequivocally just now.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain section 17?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 17 ensures that orders are comprehensive and consistent and contain all informa-
[ Page 10915 ]
tion relevant to the order and its requirements, including the name of the person to whom it applies, the actions to be taken, the process for termination of an order, contact information for the person that issued the order and the process to request reconsideration. Also, two or more orders may be combined into a single written notice to avoid duplicative paperwork.

L. Popham: Is this information that could be collected and confidential?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d refer the member to section 32, which describes the privacy parts of the legislation.

L. Popham: Well, maybe the minister could just tell me who the orders can be shared with.

Hon. N. Letnick: The person that wrote the order, of course, would have it. The person that received the order would have it. Otherwise, unless it’s called for in court proceedings, there is no intention for anybody else to have it.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain section 18?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is just an enabling section to be able to set out the regulations. It requires an order to be served according to prescribed requirements. It is a new provision adopted and modified from the FSA and AHA.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain section 19?

Hon. N. Letnick: This provides that orders may be reassessed and, if necessary, varied or terminated. It is a new provision adopted and modified from FSA and AHA.

[1750]

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of how this would be enacted?

Hon. N. Letnick: Sometimes mistakes are made when issuing an order, or a change of circumstances may require that an order be amended. This allows for a person who made an order to vary it or terminate it. In other words, if they made a mistake, they can terminate the order.

L. Popham: Could the order be terminated due to influence from another person?

Hon. N. Letnick: If I can indulge the member to be a little more specific, I encourage the member.

L. Popham: How is the decision made to terminate an order? What would be the reason behind terminating an order?

Hon. N. Letnick: It is outlined in section 19(2). You would “(a) reassess the relevant circumstances” — it might cause you to terminate the order — “(b) assess the extent to which the order has been complied with” — if it’s complied with, you might terminate the order — “(c) determine whether the order continues to be necessary” for the purposes of the act. If not, you might terminate the order.

L. Popham: I like it when the minister gives examples — real-life examples. Could he give an example of an order that would be terminated and why?

Hon. N. Letnick: You get ordered to get your certification by a certain date. You then go get your certification in advance of the date. You have the certification in your hand, determine you would be subject to getting it terminated, the order being terminated.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me one more example?

Hon. N. Letnick: The point here is not to have the order active in perpetuity. For example, you could require that a mark or a label be attached to some food. Once it’s attached, the order could be terminated.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This section provides that orders may be reconsidered within 20 days of the date of the order if additional relevant information is made available. Orders may be confirmed, varied or rescinded. It’s a new provision adopted and modified from the FSA and AHA.

L. Popham: Just a point of discussion on this section. I think it’s lacking in administrative fairness. In 20(2), the “may” in this question means that there’s no obligation for a government to conduct a reconsideration. In other words, the government can just ignore a request for consideration if it chooses without giving any reasons at all.

My record of success on amendments is, like, zero, so I’m just going to suggest something to the minister — that maybe the first “may” in section 20(2) moves to
[ Page 10916 ]
“shall.” The government can still reject a reconsideration, but it does have to make an action. It can’t just be ignored.

[1755]

Hon. N. Letnick: The difference might be subtle, but it’s important. If we changed it to “shall,” there’s no leeway. You would have to do one of those three things, even if one of those three things didn’t apply. With “may,” you could do one of those three things or something else.

L. Popham: I understand what the minister is saying, but it does create an area where there’s absolutely no obligation at all. Administrative fairness requires there to be written reasons, as provided for in 21(6), but that’s not automatically triggered unless the “may” in 21(5) is changed to “shall.” So I still think that there’s more opportunity for fairness if you amend the “may” to “shall.”

The minister didn’t think that was a question, so I’ll ask him if he agrees with me.

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, maybe I’m reading this differently than the member. In 20(3), it says: “The person who made the order must give written reasons.” So it’s very clear that written reasons must be given. And then in (2), it says: “…may do one…of the following.” It gives the person that flexibility to do one of the following as opposed to not providing them any leeway. Again I would have to disagree respectfully with the hon. critic.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

L. Popham: I’d like to give the minister the opportunity to explain this section.

Hon. N. Letnick: Quite simply, this section provides that orders may be independently reviewed.

L. Popham: And who would be independently reviewing that?

Hon. N. Letnick: The reviewing officer would conduct it, who is not the same person as the person that issued the order.

L. Popham: Who chooses that person?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 27(2) says: “The minister may designate, by order, employees of a ministry of the government as reviewing officers.” Short answer: it’s the minister.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain section 23?

Hon. N. Letnick: This section prohibits a person from defacing or removing any order, notice, mark or label that is posted or applied by an inspector.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

L. Popham: I’d like the minister to explain section 24.

Hon. N. Letnick: This sets out procedures for obtaining a warrant. A warrant enables an inspector to enter and search a place, including a private dwelling, and take the necessary action as allowed under the act.

L. Popham: Maybe we covered this off in my last question, about who is notified when this happens. Is the minister notified or the ministry?

[1800]

Hon. N. Letnick: The member is correct. We did cover this already. The ministry is the group that could be notified.

L. Popham: Does the ministry get notified prior to this happening or after it happens?

Hon. N. Letnick: Obviously, a warrant is a very serious matter. It happens very infrequently. Based on our knowledge, the ministry would be involved from the outset.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

L. Popham: Would the minister like to explain section 25?

Hon. N. Letnick: I would love to explain section 25. This sets out procedures for seeking an injunction. An injunction is a type of order from a court of law that says something must be done or must not be done.

Section 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, I can explain this section. Designate inspectors and reviewing officers by ministerial order — it’s a carryover from the other three acts. Inspectors and reviewing officers have specific respon-
[ Page 10917 ]
sibilities under the act and must be formally empowered to perform those responsibilities.

L. Popham: Is there any danger of conflict of interest in this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: None that I’m aware of.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

L. Popham: I’d love to hear an explanation about this section.

Hon. N. Letnick: Inspectors must meet certain requirements, some of which may be established by ministerial order. The minister may, by order, establish training or other qualifications for inspectors as well as standards of practice. Inspectors are obliged to follow instructions and meet standards established by ministerial order unless they are employees of the federal government or of an agency having duties under federal enactment. In the latter case, the province would rely on whatever training or other requirements that exist in the federal legislation.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of what a ministerial order could empower?

Hon. N. Letnick: An example is that I could prescribe that the inspectors take a certain set of courses at the Justice Institute.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

L. Popham: Is the minister comfortable with this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, I am comfortable with this section.

L. Popham: Can you explain to me what the meaning of the section is?

[1805]

Hon. N. Letnick: That’s a different question. I see the hon. critic’s trying to mix up the questions, so that’s excellent.

The rationale for this particular section confers specific powers on administrators through regulation so they can effectively manage certification programs for food and agricultural products. It is also carried over from the ACQA.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

L. Popham: Section 30(2)(c) allows the minister to recover the cost of the audit from the administrator. But the administrator is defined as an employee or person authorized to run a certification body. Is it the body that should be liable for the fees and not a particular employee? I’m just wondering. Should there be an amendment, perhaps, to “administrators” in section 30(2)(c), to “certification programs?”

Hon. N. Letnick: Does the hon. member mean…? For example, referring to this: “(c) provide for the recovery, from administrators, of the costs of audits.” If we substitute, for example, COABC as the administrator, she has an objection to getting recovery from the COABC for the cost of audits?

L. Popham: No, I don’t have any objection to it. I just think it should be clear who that will be recovered from.

The administrator is defined as an employee or a person and not the body. So I’m just wondering how we designate that it’s actually the certifying…. COABC, for example, would be where the money would be recovered from.

Hon. N. Letnick: I know it’s been a while since we covered this. “Person” is a defined term, and the administrator can be a person. In this case, it would be COABC, not an individual.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: This section enables the minister to enter into agreements. Agreements may be necessary for the purposes of administering the act or programs enabled by the act. Agreements also may be made for purposes of exchanging information for purposes set out in section 32.

L. Popham: I’d like an example of how this would happen.

Hon. N. Letnick: An example would be an agreement between ourselves and the program administrator. If you look under 31(a), it says “to administer this Act, a grading program or a certification program.” So we can enter into an agreement to administer the act for a grading program. That would be one example.
[ Page 10918 ]

L. Popham: I didn’t quite catch the last part of what you said. The minister can enter into an agreement to administer the program?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, the government could enter into an agreement with the administrator of the program, of a grading program.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain this section?

Hon. N. Letnick: Certain ministerial powers under the act may be formally delegated to specific individuals, and once delegated, these powers may not be further delegated. This is, again, a carryover from the old act and modernized in line with current legislation.

[1810]

L. Popham: What’s an example of somebody who could be designated ministerial powers?

Hon. N. Letnick: For example, under section 5(d), it says: “produce the records required under…(c) to an inspector or the minister, on request and within the time requested.” That’s the example of where I could delegate that authority.

Section 33 approved.

On section 34.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me about section 34?

Hon. N. Letnick: Section 34 is general administrative powers. Forms and other documents used to administer the act may be set out in ministerial orders. It is also carried over from previous legislation. This section enables the creation of forms or documents that are proof of certification by ministerial order.

L. Popham: In what circumstances would this be used?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s a general administrative power. It could be used in any circumstance where we needed a form.

L. Popham: For example, COABC has its own forms. Would there be a requirement or any situation where the minister may not accept those forms and require different forms to be made?

Hon. N. Letnick: This gives us the power to make any form that we think necessary for the act. If we thought that the form provided by COABC was ineffective or didn’t meet the standards that we’re looking for, we could prescribe a different form. If we thought that it did, then we could just adopt that form.

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

L. Popham: This is a section that I’m quite curious about. In my view, when I look at section 35, it looks like the minister is able to empower himself to exempt anyone from this legislation. That’s how it reads. I’ve had it checked out by other people who have validated that. I’ve noticed that this has come into other acts. I believe it’s in the Animal Health Act, but I might be corrected. I have yet to figure out why this would be included in this act.

For what reason could the minister see that he would exempt somebody from this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, on first blush, I can understand why the member would think so. But this is common to legislation. It’s to help protect us from unintended consequences that the legislation might catch that we had no intention of catching.

[1815]

L. Popham: That might be true, but then I think there probably should be parameters written in about where and why this would be used. As it reads now, we’re creating a law. We’re creating the law of the land that can exclude certain people, given what the minister decides at the time.

I would like to have an example of how this would be used. And I would really like an opinion from the minister as to whether he thinks this…. It’s a blanket power of exemption. I think, if you read it the way it stands now, without any defined parameters, it creates the opportunity for abuse, and it reduces public confidence. Not to be disrespectful, but there is the ability or the potential for corruption with this type of legislation. I don’t think I’m being alarmist, but because of the minimalistic way that this is written, there are so many implications that come with it.

I don’t, in any way, imply that the minister has any ill intentions, but there is a possibility where this could be taken advantage of. I don’t think the Food Products Standards Act and the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act had this exemption power, but the Agricultural Produce Grading Act did. I believe the Animal Health Act and the Fish and Seafood Act also have this exemption written in.

I think it should be removed. We’re going to be voting against this section, for sure. It begs some more consultation by the minister. I don’t think it’s an appropriate section to have in here.
[ Page 10919 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: This particular exemption is available in most legislation. It’s not just here. It’s all over our legislative calendar. Really, at the end of the day, the minister is accountable to make sure that it’s used properly.

In our British parliamentary system, the ministers are accountable for their ministries, as I am accountable for this ministry. I believe that all ministers should be held to the highest standards. Of course, that would be very transparent if I, as minister, or anybody else who follows me, determined that something should be acted on here. I’m sure the media, if not the opposition, would quickly pounce on anything that was not done properly.

“The minister may exempt, by order, a person or facility from one or more provisions of this Act or the regulations and, for this purpose, may” under two conditions, “(a) make the exemption subject to limits or conditions” — so there are limits and conditions — “or (b) substitute a different requirement than one imposed under this Act.” I think that’s a critical piece of that.

Just to sum up, it is something that’s in most of our legislation. The minister is accountable, and it is a transparent process.

L. Popham: Actually, it’s not a transparent process. The minister mentions that there are parameters, but it’s a “may,” not a “shall.” I think that, at a minimum, there should be transparency on this.

There is no provision that I can find that shows that if the minister were to make an exemption, there is any public disclosure of that. I don’t think, at this point, the minister has to even give a reason for why that person was exempted. Perhaps this current minister would do that, because he believes in transparency and accountability. But potentially, this can lead to a minister in place that doesn’t. In that case, there could be exemptions all over the place, and we would never know about it.

There’s also the idea that perhaps it should have a time limit. Someone shouldn’t be exempt forever. I understand that it’s in other legislation. I don’t think it should be, without some definition included and without some parameters. I think the minister must understand what I’m saying. I don’t think it needs to be in this bill.

Hon. N. Letnick: I would have to disagree about the transparency. The reason why I would disagree — that this is transparent when the hon. member opposite is saying it isn’t — is that if you look at the first line of the section, it says: “The minister may exempt, by order….”

“By order” means it has to be transparent, by definition.

[1820]

L. Popham: The reasons don’t have to be transparent, though. There could be an exemption, but there’s no requirement to tell us why that happened. Is that not true?

Hon. N. Letnick: The minister would make the decision by order. If the member opposite believed that the order was improper or wished to ask for more detail, the member could always get up in that 30-minute episode of bliss that we have every day in this Legislature called question period and stick it to the minister — make sure that it is as transparent, and he or she is as accountable, as she would like.

L. Popham: Well, then, why don’t we have that in the legislation? Why don’t we just say that a reason has to be given? Why would I have to go through the joy of question period to get that answer?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I refer to the two words “by order,” which means that the item would be public. Anyone could get access to it, including the members opposite, and I’m sure their top-notch research team would find any order that was provided and provide the opposition with an opportunity to ask for reasons.

L. Popham: I’m going to give the minister a real-life example of why I might be concerned about this section. If a farm was certified organic, and a competitor wanted to come into the same market as that certified organic farm…. Perhaps the new farm had a lot of political influence on the minister of the day. Perhaps the new farm is not following certified organic standards but still wanted to be a certified organic farm. The minister could exempt that farm from some of the requirements to have that certification in place.

That’s the power that I see the minister would have. Say a large corporate farm wanted to home in on the market of a smaller certified organic farm. We would never know the reasons why that farm was certified. Perhaps it would never come into question, because an exemption would have been made that we wouldn’t know anything about. That’s my concern.

I’m not implying in any way that this minister would partake in that sort of activity. I’m just saying it leaves it open — and I’ll use the word again — to potential corruption. I think my job is to take a look at that seriously, because this is about the integrity of certified organic farms or other legislation. It’s about the integrity. I think this section specifically decreases the integrity of this legislation.

Hon. N. Letnick: I can’t imagine why government would do what the member is proposing. But if a minister of any ministry — this is available to, I believe, all the ministers in all of their different pieces of legislation, or most of them, anyway — decided to adopt an order that favoured a particular constituent over another, I’m sure that the public would become aware of that very quickly, and there would be consequences to be paid.

That’s the British parliamentary system. Ministry accountability is at the utmost. I am very confident that every minister on this side of the House that I have the privilege
[ Page 10920 ]
of working with would take this particular clause very seriously before deciding to do something that the member is proposing. I would hope that all ministers who follow in our footsteps have that same high calibre of ethics.

[1825]

Section 35 approved on division.

Section 36 approved.

On section 37.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain this section, please?

Hon. N. Letnick: Love to. An inspector may need to see certain things as evidence that an offence has been committed. In such cases, certain requirements apply. This is brought over, again, from previous legislation. In order to recommend charges to Crown prosecutors, evidence will be required to justify those charges.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

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 1:34 p.m.

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

G. Heyman: I want to return to some discussion we had about the lack of a stand-alone provincial endangered species act in British Columbia.

[1335]

The minister responded to me yesterday and said:

“Actually, the reason that we have not pursued stand-alone legislation is because in 2005, we took the decision instead to be the first province or territory to sign a bilateral agreement with the federal government with respect to the roles and responsibilities that the jurisdictions would enact with respect to the species-at-risk legislation federally. Effectively, SARA becomes in effect in British Columbia through the bilateral agreement.”

[D. McRae in the chair.]

I want to explore exactly how that works in practice in a couple of instances. I’m looking at some material that was released through freedom-of information requests. One of them is from April 29, 2014. It’s a Ministry of Environment meeting note for a meeting with Tolko Industries, and in that note, which was prepared for the minister, it talks about the federal recovery strategy for caribou in the Southern Mountains National Ecological Area as part of the boreal caribou implementation plan.

One of the notes says: “Current policy is for B.C. to accept a federal recovery strategy as science advice to inform implementation of measures to recover the species.” It doesn’t say that the federal recovery strategy will be what will be implemented in British Columbia but that it’s science advice.

Then it goes on to say: “Several recommendations in the strategy could require further work if the province elects to pursue them.” So it appears that there’s a certain amount of discretion left for the province in that instance.

There’s another meeting information note of July 14 prepared for the minister, regarding a meeting with representatives of the forest industry with respect to the forest industry’s concerns about the application of the federal Species at Risk Act. One paragraph in particular says:

“B.C. accepts recovery documents, including federal recovery strategies that identify critical habitat, as” — and this is bolded — “science advice. In our response to support posting of federal recovery strategies, when portions of critical habitat remain unprotected, we indicate that” — and the following words are underlined — “we do not support implementation of additional legal habitat protection measures on non-federal land without evaluation of socioeconomic implications and full consultation with directly affected parties.”

So whereas the federal Species at Risk Act considers the threat to endangered species without including socioeconomic considerations, that is not the policy of the B.C. government.
[ Page 10921 ]

I’m going to ask how, in practice — especially considering that environmental groups have regularly and consistently called for an independent, science-based, stand-alone B.C. endangered species act — the minister believes that this federal Species at Risk Act becomes the de facto endangered species legislation in British Columbia when, in fact, provincial government policy is to accept recovery strategies as science advice, not as the plan, and to explicitly consider socioeconomic implications which are not part of the Species at Risk Act federally.

[1340-1345]

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll walk through why we think the approach we have is complementary to what takes place with respect to SARA on its own.

There are limitations to SARA, one of which is that there are not considerations for other factors that need to be considered. Socioeconomic is one, but we also need to consider, sometimes, whether the cause of the extirpation or the endangerment of the species is actually related to habitat. For example, SARA was a very clumsy instrument when trying to deal with white-nose syndrome in bats. It had nothing to do with habitat. The way that SARA operates meant that the drop in the population triggered elements of SARA that made no sense with respect to habitat protection because it wasn’t caused by a habitat issue.

One drawback is that there aren’t considerations of other factors. We do believe that it benefits all British Columbians when we are, in the process of developing plans, consulting not only with First Nations and communities but also with industries that are involved on the land base. Sometimes that even results in being able to partner with industries to do some pretty innovative things with respect to land exchanges, with respect to voluntary ceasing of activities. There’s a great benefit there, if we are involving industry in those activities.

Another limitation would be — again, with the approach to habitat — that it limits our ability to achieve what the overall objective is, which is to ensure that we are protecting and recovering species. A really good example is what’s happening currently in Saskatchewan with the sage grouse. Because the sage grouse habitat is the main piece of attention from SARA with respect to the species of sage grouse, the protection of that habitat is posing a risk to another species in that same area that does not enjoy the same kind of habitat.

It’s very limiting, and it’s one of the reasons why we have moved to this bilateral arrangement where we can actually go beyond what SARA calls for in terms of habitat. In fact, one of the reasons we’ve been successful in working with our federal partners in this way is that we’ve gone beyond recovery and management plans to put forward implementation plans and deliver on them.

We’ve done that very successfully. That means you can augment from just looking after habitat to other things that you might add in. For example, with the caribou, we know that it’s not just habitat. We also are engaged in captive breeding. We know we have to look at predator management.

We really do believe that what we have done with our bilateral agreement and the work that we’ve done on species at risk here in British Columbia gives us a very strong regime. If you look at our implementation plan, our multispecies approach is one that takes into account the best science. With reference to SARA, part of our five-year plan is to review our legislation and ensure that where we identify any gaps, we fill them. We’ll continue to do that.

Ultimately, though, the goal here is one that we share with the federal government and that we share with, I think, all British Columbians. It’s not to meet the letter of the law of SARA. The goal here is to make sure species actually thrive and can be recovered.

G. Heyman: The minister’s last comments were that the goal here is to ensure that species recover and thrive. I think it is that goal precisely that has led a number of environmental organizations to call repeatedly for strong science-based species-at-risk legislation around which can be built — and accommodated — all the other interests that exist, on a socioeconomic or any other basis, but all predicated on an understanding that we need to keep ecosystems in balance.

[1350]

Let me use another example — from a May 20, 2014, briefing note for the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations with respect to declining caribou populations in northeast B.C. Among the points listed are that “the federal strategy is not consistent” with the boreal caribou implementation plan. “It proposes more habitat management actions, and therefore, strikes a different balance in weighting of risks than the province intended with its strategy.”

The final point says that given the inconsistency between the federal strategy and the boreal caribou implementation plan and the recent decline in the boreal population, it is timely and important for the province to reconsider its approach to managing boreal caribou in their habitat under the BCIP.

We know that caribou populations are significantly declining in areas where they exist. That is generally accepted to be due to lack of necessary habitat protection actions — leaving things to the point where many felt the only option, although still undesirable, was to begin to kill the predators of the caribou: the wolves.

My question for the minister is: how has the minister or how does the minister propose to address the approach to managing boreal caribou and the inconsistencies between the federal strategy and the boreal caribou implementation plan?

Hon. M. Polak: This is actually a really good example of how this process works between British Columbia and the
[ Page 10922 ]
federal government. We came out with our plan in 2011. The federal government came out with theirs in 2012.

[1355]

We are absolutely cognizant of the federal plan. In fact, as a result, we have engaged in new research in monitoring, staff have been working together with their federal counterparts, and we are currently working together with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to adapt that plan to be better in line with the federal recovery strategy. We will also be doing that in conjunction with industry, yes, but also First Nations and environmental organizations as well. That is how these evolve.

There are important pieces to the implementation plan we already have in place. Yes, protecting and restoring boreal caribou habitat but also managing boreal caribou habitat, including fire suppression; managing the size and mitigating the impacts of industry; managing caribou predators and alternative prey; and researching and monitoring the effectiveness of each one of these actions so that we can modify accordingly and ensure that the population and distribution goals are achieved.

Ultimately, it is about using the best tools we can, between federal and provincial government, to ensure that the goals that are set out are achieved.

G. Heyman: The minister and I could continue to hammer away from different perspectives. I think the perspective I’m bringing is one shared by a number of scientists, biologists and environmental groups. We have 1,500 species at risk in B.C. We have plans to protect or assist with the recovery for a relatively small number of them.

The plans to protect a boreal caribou habitat have been kind of a spectacular failure to date, which has led us to have to…. The minister talks about controlling predators. But we’re actually killing another species because the situation has arisen because of poor habitat management. The predators are finding it too easy to get to the prey. The preventive measures that could have been implemented early on, in a good strategy, simply have not taken place.

My question to the minister is: given that it’s been 11 years now since the agreement was struck with the federal government to use the Species at Risk Act, what do you say to environmental groups who say that this is not taking the actions we need to take in British Columbia to apply science-based protections for species at risk?

Hon. M. Polak: What I say is that our good people who work in Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, who work in the Ministry of Environment — what they use is the science. They, of course, consult and talk and discuss with those who are on the land. That includes industry. That includes First Nations. That includes communities. That includes environmental organizations. They then present balanced plans that engage a whole range of activities, not just habitat protection.

Let’s not forget that there are things about habitat protection over which one has little or no control. The mountain pine beetle would be one. That’s had a huge impact on the ability of predators to more easily approach some of these species. If this is what folks are advocating, then we’re doing the right thing. We know from the science that a multispecies approach is a far better approach. It’s what we’ve outlined in our plans. It’s what we will continue to work toward. We’ll continue to work with our federal counterparts to always be using the best available science.

G. Heyman: I think the response of groups and scientists that have been calling for an endangered species act in British Columbia would be that actions to date have not been working adequately, and there’s no sign that they will in the future. But having said that, I am going to move to some questions about parks. I don’t know if there’s any chair-shifting that’s required.

In 2015, the opposition made an FOI request. The result of the request showed that fee increases in B.C. parks were likely to become a regularity rather than a necessity-only contingency.

[1400]

The freedom-of-information request revealed that the Liberal government planned a “deeper transformation” for B.C. parks that included “regularized fee increases” and a plan to “build on the initial fee increases with additional fee changes, including an expansion of differential pricing for different park experiences.” Park fees are set to increase yet again in the coming fiscal year, ’16-17, which will make it harder for many British Columbians to enjoy either the birthright that they received as native British Columbians or the incredible features that are among the reasons they came to this province in the first place.

The FOI also shows that the parks with the highest attendance figures were hit with the highest fee increases. The FOI states: “B.C. Parks has identified a group of 26 campgrounds in 20 parks that are viewed as prime candidates for fee increases, as these campgrounds have relatively high attendance levels and are expected to have the most resilient response to fee increases.” In other words, it’s pretty much a market-based approach to setting fees for parks. If people really like it and it’s in demand, then jack up the price. Apparently, deeper transformation also includes plans for corporate sponsorship.

The FOI, on the other hand, also shows that financial pressures at B.C. parks over the last number of years, or the lack of investment in B.C. parks by this government, have forced B.C. parks to shorten operating seasons, eliminate park ranger positions, reduce preventive maintenance and implement other program cuts, and the organization cannot continue to operate at current funding levels without seriously encroaching on other budgets within the ministry or further reducing services.

My first set of questions for the minister is: is it the intent of the government that fee increases will continue
[ Page 10923 ]
to rise every budget year? And don’t these fee increases point to a basic failure to properly fund our provincial parks? And could the minister outline whether the ministry explored any alternative means to meet funding deficiencies and increase resources available to B.C. parks?

[1405]

Hon. M. Polak: It’s true that we take a look at usage rates. We take a look at what kind of amenities are provided. We also take a look at campsites surrounding the ones where we operate.

We look at those that are fairly similar in what they offer, and we make sure that we are staying at or below those prices. In the vast majority of cases, our camping experience in B.C. parks is less expensive than the private alternatives — for good reason, because we do believe that British Columbians should have the benefit of their heritage in the parks.

But I think with an average of a $1- or $2-a-night increase, it would be unfair to say that this is jacking up the prices. Let’s remember, first of all, that this is not for access to parks. This is for camping and, in some cases, for some other activities such as mooring buoys. But for the vast majority of cases, we’re talking about camping.

There are other jurisdictions that show a less expensive price for camping. But when you look into it, you find they also charge a fee to simply access the park, which adds to it. They also charge for parking, and we don’t charge for parking.

Let’s also remember that this latest increase affected only 50 percent of the parks that charge any fees. Of those 50 percent, only a third of those had seen an increase the previous year.

[1410]

All told, two-thirds of that group had not seen an increase in their rates since 2010. If you’re looking at a six-year period with no increase, a $1- or $2-a-night increase is not dramatic, by any means.

Having said that, it is important to us to make sure that camping remains an affordable activity for B.C. families. We have to look into other means of generating revenue, and we have been looking at many different things. We want to make sure that whatever we do is consistent with the vision that British Columbians have of their parks. We want to make sure that we are also maintaining the levels of service that they would expect.

We’ve looked at things like internal measures that we can take around how we bundle parks together, how we manage the accounting of them. Our pressures…. For example, one of the most significant ones is on amortization. We’re taking a look at all of our parks assets and how it is that those are accounted for to see if there are any better ways we can manage that pressure. But we are also looking actively at other revenue-generation opportunities.

I think most people understand that that could be a real benefit to the parks system, if it’s done carefully. Even people like Bob Peart, one of the park elders, is on record saying that if done right, things like corporate sponsorship can be a valuable part of our parks system.

We’re actively pursuing all manner of things that we could do to generate more revenues for parks and ensure that we’re able to maintain that quality experience for British Columbians, but we want to make sure that we do that in a way that is consistent with the B.C. parks values.

G. Heyman: In addition to sponsorships, could the minister outline any of the other forms of revenue generation that the ministry is considering?

Hon. M. Polak: I can give one example that we’ll be rolling out shortly — a simple thing, but we think it’s something that will have an impact — and that is a credit card portal for personal giving. Giving to parks is actually fairly popular, but it’s also very difficult for people to do. It certainly hasn’t been modernized in a long time.

That’s one. It gives you a sense of some of the ideas that staff are crafting, but none of them are at the stage where they’ve been brought to me or brought forward for serious consideration at this point. Staff are trying to develop some opportunities that they will bring forward in due course, and we’ll give them some consideration.

[1415]

We are looking at, as I say, any means that would be consistent with the values of the park that would allow us to generate greater revenues for parks and, in some cases, hopefully enhance the experience for people as well.

G. Heyman: Could the minister tell us whether any of the options being considered or mulled over for revenue generation are commercial as opposed to charitable, and if the answer is yes, approximately what the balance is between the two forms of revenue generation?

Hon. M. Polak: It depends what the member means by commercial. We already have commercial recreation activities in parks that take place all the time — zip lining, and things like that. Those are commercial operations.

The member can correct me if I’ve got it wrong, but I would assume the member’s thinking about commercial operations like a gas station going up in a park with a restaurant nearby or maybe a fixed-roof accommodation with a famous hotel name, or something like that. The answer is no to that. The Park Act, as it stands, prohibits that kind of activity. So we’re not looking at those kinds of commercial operations.

G. Heyman: Is the minister looking at any other commercial operations at all?

Hon. M. Polak: Do you mean by that perhaps expanding some of the commercial recreation opportunities?
[ Page 10924 ]

G. Heyman: The minister talked about gas stations, restaurants, hotels or lodges. That’s a distinct subset of commercial operations. She said no, the ministry is not considering those. But she also identified some existing current commercial operations — for instance, zip lines. I just asked if there are any other kinds of commercial activity under consideration.

Hon. M. Polak: No, only commercial recreation opportunities that would be allowed under the Parks Act.

G. Heyman: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

The ministry states that the fee increase is necessary to maintain “high service levels and provide new recreational opportunities at B.C. provincial parks for a growing number of visitors.”

I’m wondering if the minister could tell us how much of the fee increases will go to expand new recreational opportunities and how much will go to fund existing deficiencies in programs that either need expansion or used to be more robust, at a time of greater funding. And if there are new recreational opportunities being considered, perhaps the minister could outline what they are.

[1420]

Hon. M. Polak: Before I get to the meat of this question, just one item of revenue generation that occurred to us after the answer to the last question.

Another good example of looking at ways to generate more revenues would be the change in the model at the Robson Park visitor centre. B.C. Parks has now assumed operations there from Destination B.C., and that has the potential, we think, to generate up to $150,000 of funds, again, that will remain within the park system.

[1425]

It’s impossible to say at this stage how much of the approximately $400,000 would be in maintaining service levels versus expanding recreation opportunities because of the way that the system functions. The money will go to pay deficiencies to park facility operators. What happens in terms of the expansion into particular recreation areas is then the subject of negotiations between B.C. Parks and the individual facility operators, so it would remain to be seen.

Some of the examples that we would look to be having discussions with them about are, for example, expanding mooring opportunities, expanding RV opportunities. We’re hearing a lot of requests for that, especially from seniors who want to continue to be out in B.C. parks but don’t necessarily feel as comfortable in the tent experience. We’re looking at where those opportunities might be appropriate, or perhaps expanding into areas like canoe rental opportunities.

Those will be the subject of negotiations that we’ll have with the park facility operators. Suffice to say that what is outlined in the release is to capture the uses that that money would be put to. It would be between those two, but it’s impossible to say at this stage how much that would be, because it’s the subject of how the park facility operators decide to operate.

G. Heyman: The minister has raised the issue of fee increases to meet deficiencies of PFOs, or park facility operators.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Perhaps the minister could outline to what extent PFOs were involved with discussions about the fee increases and tell us if she believes that in the current circumstance, and with experience, the park facility operator model is the most economical model under which to operate B.C. parks or if consideration is being given to returning to a direct service model or any other service model.

[1430]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice to see Madam Chair in the chair.

When it comes to the fee increases and how we arrive at them, we actually have a fee committee. They meet regularly, and they conduct an annual review of our fees across the entire park system. That is a committee between the park facilities operators and the provincial government, B.C. Parks.

It’s important to note the way the process works. The bundles are put out for a competitive bid. The bundling has become an important feature to try and efficiently run a provincial park system that has a really wide variety of parks. We bundle together in an area where you have parks, some of which are very popular and tend to make money, so to speak, and others that are not as popular and are a draw on the resources.

That allows the park facility operator to move resources between them. We’ve seen, as a result, improvements in some of the parks that previously, on their own, weren’t making sufficient revenue to see improvements in their own areas. We think that’s a strength of the system.

However, we’re always looking for ways to improve it. We aren’t looking at moving to a different model, but we are looking at ways in which we can provide for greater involvement of First Nations and of broader communities as well. On the First Nations front, for example, what we’ve done recently with the Osoyoos Indian Band, in terms of the two parks that they have now taken over, is a good example of some of the work that we’re trying to do in areas where there is significant First Nations interest.

We do have a lot of interest from First Nations in looking at ways in which they can potentially either take over park facility operators contracts when they come up for bid or have other arrangements where they’re in-
[ Page 10925 ]
volved in our parks system. We’re interested in exploring what kinds of partnerships we could develop with First Nations and with communities as well.

G. Heyman: My last question on fees is: could the minister comment on the planned differential pricing for different experiences — what that might look like?

[1435]

Hon. M. Polak: What we’re trying to get at is where we see different amenities provided. In some cases, it might be just the difference between two different parks in their entirety. My best example would be that I pay a lot less to camp at Gray Bay on Haida Gwaii, where I’ve got to haul in my own water, than I do to camp at Otter Lake, where they have some flush toilets.

So there’s that in terms of the difference between parks in their entirety, but also, there could be potential differences within one individual park. There might be campsites that have additional amenities on that site itself. There may be a segment where there’s electrification in part of the camping area and there isn’t in another, and you would, therefore, pay more for the site that has the electrification than you would for the site that doesn’t have it.

G. Heyman: We’re going to do a quick switch of topics to accommodate debate that’s upcoming on the agriculture bill on MMBC.

L. Popham: The topic I’d like to cover today is MMBC. This is a topic that I’ve had great interest in since MMBC started and even before the time that it was brought into effect. I’ve always considered that MMBC has problems with transparency and accountability, and I’ve always regarded the Ministry of Environment as being more responsible for this program than the ministry feels it’s responsible for.

I’ll start my line of questioning around the amount of hours that ministry employees are working on MMBC issues. How much time is it taking the ministry?

[1440]

Hon. M. Polak: Probably it’s easiest to talk about this in terms of FTEs. In the group that provides the regulatory oversight for EPR programs, they figure about two and a half of those FTEs are focused on MMBC as they ramp up and get along with their implementation.

L. Popham: Is the ministry continuing to assist MMBC by demanding producers join a stewardship plan?

[1445]

Hon. M. Polak: We actually don’t demand that they join MMBC. What we demand, as we do with all other EPR programs, is that they meet the regulatory requirements with respect to maintaining the responsibility for the life cycle of their product. That is the same throughout all the EPR programs.

L. Popham: Well, today I’m just discussing MMBC. I’m wondering: how many producers in B.C. are not part of this stewardship plan, the MMBC stewardship plan?

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: It’s impossible for us to give a number of who’s not in, so I’ll hopefully be able to answer the questions with some numbers around who is in and who we’ve been approaching. Of course, when we send an advisory letter, it’s entirely possible for a business to come back and say: “Well, no, here are the facts about our business, and we’re not actually obligated.” So that work continues.

Of the approximately 385,000 businesses in B.C., there are less than 1 percent that would be above the low-volume thresholds. So about 3,900 or so, maybe a little less than that, are obligated. Of those, we now have seen 1,100 signed on with MMBC, and there have been 1,650 advisory letters to date. Compliance actions in the last year or so have resulted in more than 250 additional producers signing on. We’ll continue those efforts as implementation continues.

L. Popham: Has the newspaper sector signed on to MMBC?

Hon. M. Polak: No, they have not.

L. Popham: Do they have their own stewardship plan?

Hon. M. Polak: As I understand it, they have been attempting to develop one, but I don’t believe they have to date.

L. Popham: Is the MMBC program the only one of its kind in B.C. at this time?

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of programs, there are about 20 EPR programs in British Columbia. In terms of stewards, if that’s what the member was meaning….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Polak: Yeah, there’s only one steward currently approved in British Columbia, and that’s MMBC.

[1455]

L. Popham: I’ve always considered that MMBC is a monopoly in this province and that the Ministry of Environment, for some reason, doesn’t understand that view.

My question today is: is the Ministry of Environment protecting MMBC as a monopoly?
[ Page 10926 ]

Hon. M. Polak: The member is aware…. I know that producers are obligated to discharge their obligations. They can do so either individually or by joining together with a group of others. MMBC is the group that the producers formed, then submitted a plan and had it approved.

Others could, and have, applied to be approved as stewards. The most recent case — they were not successful for a variety of reasons. However, it’s entirely possible that a future application could be successful and could present an opportunity for producers to sign on with a different organization.

L. Popham: Well, I think that the minister is protecting MMBC as a monopoly. If that’s not true, then I’d like the minister to explain that the first reason given for denying the StewardChoice PPP stewardship plan was that it “didn’t provide sufficient information on the potential resulting service reductions to the existing program by drawing producer funding away.” That’s a letter that was sent to StewardChoice.

To me, that sounds like a monopoly, that this ministry is protecting MMBC. Is that not correct?

[1500]

Hon. M. Polak: This decision, of course, is made by a statutory decision–maker who looks independently at the regulation to examine the plan that’s been submitted.

Of course, one of the things that the statutory decision–maker is going to consider is the potential impact on those receiving the service — local governments all around the province who are currently being provided with either service or incentive to support their own service.

In the end, the statutory decision–maker found that the StewardChoice plan did not show that it could meet the requirements of the regulation. That is not to say that someone in future would not be able to provide a plan that could.

L. Popham: I was reading an article about this story, and it seems that this ruling came after two years of discussion and 18 months of plan revisions with the ministry officials. So that, to me, doesn’t seem very reasonable.

One of the reasons for not allowing this stewardship plan to go ahead was because there had to be some consideration to the effects on MMBC. That, to me, doesn’t sound like it’s a fair and even playing field with stewardship programs. It occurs to me that the ministry is putting more thought into protecting MMBC than it ever put into protecting the small businesses that are affected by MMBC.

Unfortunately, I have to go, but my colleague will be continuing this line of questioning in just a little while. I thank you for your time.

K. Conroy: I’m not the colleague that’s carrying on with this line of questioning. I’m going to another line of questioning, and it’s national parks. I’m talking about the proposed national park in the South Okanagan–Similkameen and just wanted to get an update from the minister on where that’s at.

[1505]

We understand that there have been a number of criteria that were told to people in the region. If the criteria were followed through on, this would definitely be…. The government would begin to engage with the federal government on this proposal.

One of them was clear public consultation. We understand that that’s been done. I also understand the minister hasn’t released the results yet on that, that there’s a report coming out. I want to know when the report is going to come out. Is it soon? It was my understanding that it should have been out or that it was imminent to be coming out.

Also, Parks Canada would allow the purchase of private ranchland on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis. It’s my understanding that that has happened, so that criterion has been taken care of. As well, the HNZ helicopter school would be allowed to continue operating within their existing boundaries. The national parks had agreed to that too.

So it seems that the criteria that were holding back on this national park process have all been completed. It seems that it’s now up to the provincial government to engage in the discussion with the federal government on ensuring that this park comes to fruition.

I know the minister is well aware of the incredible support for this park in the region. Every time a poll is done, the support increases. The support is there not only from the general residents of the region but from municipal government levels, from tourism organizations, from the chambers of commerce of Kelowna and of South Okanagan, the Chamber of Commerce of B.C.

People recognize the incredible economic value and driver that a national park can be in a region. It seems that everybody’s waiting now for the provincial government to carry on with the next steps to ensure that this national park is going to be created.

So my question…. There are a number of questions in there. I saw the minister writing, and I’m sure she got them all, so I await her response.

[1510]

Hon. M. Polak: I want to first off acknowledge this has been, for many years now, a very divisive issue in the community, and our hope is to very soon be able to get to a place where we’re moving positively toward resolution and the important protection of values on the land base that people have expressed to us.

I should make it clear, though, the original proposal for a national park is not on the table, has not been on
[ Page 10927 ]
the table in this discussion. I know many people think it is. It has not been. We made clear many years ago that we were not in support of the original proposal for a national park, and that remains the case.

However, in attempting to try to bridge the gulf between polarized views within the community, what we did do was begin a process of identifying what values people wanted to see in terms of protections on that land area. What are the areas that should be protected? How should they be protected? What are the best types of protections?

With that, we put out a new proposal that identifies three distinct areas. There is the possibility that any one of those areas, of the two, could be considered for national park protection, or they could be considered for a provincial designation of some type. The consultation and input phase is now complete. Staff have been putting that information together, and I would anticipate, within the month, that we would have the input and the report-out from that process.

K. Conroy: With all due respect to the minister, the province of B.C. expressed interest in a national park in their throne speech in 2003. Members of the government have been talking to the community, a community that has 70 percent…. It might be a divisive issue amongst some people within the region; 70 percent of the people in the region support the park, and every time a poll has been done, the support increases. So it is a very small group of people who don’t support the park.

And people have been worked with. People have been talked to, and they’ve been working together to try to resolve the issues. I think that the people of the region have done an excellent job of resolving the issues. They’ve worked with the ranchers. Even a rancher who was one of the people who said that they were not in support is now in support of not only seeing a national park but of actually selling his land and making sure it is part of the park. They’ve talked to hunters who had some issues with the hunting issues, but they have resolved the majority of those issues.

You know, every time that issues come up, the people of the region who support this — and it is extensive support throughout the region — have come back with answers that have worked for the region, that have worked for people who really see the value, the benefit, the economic value, the creation of jobs. Over 700 jobs. I mean, that’s a heck of a lot of jobs in a community that size in the region that size. The economic value that parks generate is substantial.

[1515]

So I question the minister’s…. I know the minister wasn’t a minister in cabinet back in 2003, but I know that the government did express support for a national park, as has the member for Penticton. Actually, the member for Boundary-Similkameen when she was mayor expressed support, right up until before she got elected.

So support has been expressed. There are over 230 scientists who have expressed support. I mean, this is one of the most diverse ecosystems in our province, if not the country. There is considerable support for this, so I question the minister’s numbers on that.

Also, as far as it being a divisive issue, when you think that 90 percent of the people in the area believe that we should be protecting the endangered species within that area…. It’s a real concern that the minister would now say that suddenly, the government is not in support. It doesn’t make sense to us.

I understand that the intentions paper is being analyzed and that it should be released soon. I would like to hope that the minister is going to look at what people are saying in the region and respect that the information coming from the people in the region is one of good intentions, one of knowing that this is probably the best thing that could happen to the area in a long time. It’s the best for the species. It’s the best for the economy.

I’m really concerned that the minister would say that they don’t…. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I heard the minister say that this government does not support a national park.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: She’s been saying it for years, she says, but according to the throne speech, they definitely expressed interest in 2003. Maybe it was a different Premier then, and things have changed, and you don’t support national parks anymore. But my question to the government is: are they going to enter into consultation and discussions with the federal government? Is this going to happen soon? If not, why not?

Hon. M. Polak: This isn’t a question of numbers. In fact, I didn’t mention any numbers in my response. This goes back to the days of Bill Barisoff, who represented the Okanagan-Boundary riding. In his time, he was quite strenuously opposed to the original national park proposal. Then, in 2011, government made a fairly clear statement that we were not going to be pursuing the original national park proposal.

Some of the concerns that the member believes have been resolved have not been resolved, in particular around HNZ helicopters. I have had discussions with Parks Canada. In fact, I met with the head of Parks Canada when I was in Ottawa recently to see if they would have any interest in pursuing some of what we have proposed in this most recent intentions paper, because there’s potential for smaller portions that would be governed under a national park regime.

But let’s be clear about this. Where the debate has gone wrong is in this idea that the only way you can protect species, protect the land base, is with a national park. A national park is one tool. It’s actually a fairly blunt instru-
[ Page 10928 ]
ment. It doesn’t allow for a lot of the flexibility that our own tools for protection can provide in British Columbia.

[1520]

That is indeed one of the things we found when we spoke with people in the community. I spent substantial time up in the community, meeting with people from all sides of the debate and bringing it into a discussion, not about should there be a national park or not a national park but what the values are on the land that we’re trying to protect, and if we look at the different types of tools we have available to us, how do we match the best tool with a particular area of land?

That’s what we’ve proposed. We will now have input and feedback on that, and we’ll proceed accordingly to design the best protections that the area can have.

K. Conroy: So the minister is saying they’ve proposed a new area. Has that been shared with the public, or is this just a proposal within the ministry? When will the community know what is being proposed?

The minister talked about three different parcels of land, so where is that information? Does the community now have the ability to consult on that? Are they going to be consulted on that? What’s going to happen? Are the people that have worked on this for years suddenly going to be told, “Well, no, we are proposing different pieces of land, different tracts,” which might not even be in areas people are really concerned about?

With all due respect to the minister, there are considerable numbers of endangered species in this area, and I’m not too comfortable with the ministry’s track record on species at risk. We just spent some time talking about that yesterday. There is real concern for people about that.

So when is the information going to get out there to people who have been waiting for this proposal, waiting for this for a long time, that in fact the minister is not supporting the national park, that they are looking at different tracts of land for whatever she’d like to explain to us that she’s saying they’re looking at? When are people going to have some input into this, in the region?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, in fact, here’s how things have rolled out.

First of all, I spent significant time meeting with people who were in favour of the national park and making it clear to them that the original proposal was off the table. They all are very aware of that. I’ve made that clear in every meeting. In every letter, I’ve made that clear.

That is why we began the subsequent consultation to hear what values they wanted us to place in different areas of land in the region and why we came up with the proposal that we did. That proposal and the associated maps have been out with the community since October. That’s why we’ve been receiving the significant input that we have, and that input will now guide the final decisions we make as to the designations on the land.

We’ve had extensive discussions with Okanagan Nation Alliance. We’ll continue to do that as well. But this is a proposal that has been out in the community, with the maps, since October.

K. Conroy: When is that information going to be made public?

Hon. M. Polak: In speaking with staff, we believe we’ll be able to do that within the month.

K. Conroy: Is the minister looking, then, at land that’s going to be protected within B.C. Parks?

Hon. M. Polak: The current proposal has three different parcels, two of which have been identified as potentially national park or which could be under a British Columbia designation. That would depend, of course, not only on the feedback we receive but also on whether or not the federal government would be willing to look at those parcels as part of their national park inventory.

If you picture it in terms of two parcels on the outer sides, then there’s a centre portion. In that centre portion, we’re looking at various opportunities with respect to provincial protections.

[1525]

G. Heyman: A quick one more question on parks. The Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C. is very concerned about current parks policies. They believe, for instance, that the B.C. Parks ski area policy favours operator sustainability over the importance of maintaining easy public access to the park and protecting the park’s ecological integrity.

They’ve also expressed concern, in this budget, that it was not the news they were hoping for in terms of funding. They said that the government’s chronic underfunding of B.C. Parks is largely to blame for a serious degradation of our provincial parks and park infrastructure.

My question for the minister is: what efforts has the ministry made to engage with stakeholders, such as the Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C., while conducting ministry business and designing ministry parks policy?

Hon. M. Polak: There was, with respect to the ski hill policy, a broad public consultation that included community meetings as well as an intentions paper process.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

With respect to the Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C., staff can’t say specifically that they were there and present at those community meetings. But certainly, they, along with everyone else, would have had an opportun-
[ Page 10929 ]
ity to provide their comments and their input during the lengthy process of consultation.

[1530]

It’s important to note, though, that while in this particular area of discussion there are those who would wish to see the ski hills stop operating in those areas, we recognize that those ski hills have been a part of those parks for many, many years. In fact, our park management plans call for B.C. Parks to maintain the balance between access to those parks and, at the same time, operations of the ski hills.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Just to be clear, we certainly weren’t advocating — nor do I believe that the Federation of Mountain Clubs was advocating — that we do anything other than assure a balance of interests.

I’m about to move on to some water questions. Earlier last month the media first began reporting about dangerously elevated nitrate levels in drinking water in the township of Spallumcheen and the Steele Springs waterworks district. Steele Springs is under a drinking water advisory.

Stakeholders in the area are now alleging that the government knew about the contamination and suspected that its source is a large dairy farm, but that the government continued to allow the application of liquid manure despite the drinking water advisories. The residents then took their case to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, alleging that they were unable to obtain from the Environment Ministry the documents used to approve spraying and before-and-after test results for potential contaminants.

In mid-February, freedom-of-information commissioner Elizabeth Denham confirmed that she will be investigating whether the Ministry of Environment met their legal obligations under section 25 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to disclose this information promptly and transparently — or, as the section says: “Whether or not a request for access is made, the head of a public body must, without delay, disclose to the public, to an affected group of people or to an applicant, information (a) about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or a group of people.”

Currently there are more than 625 safety advisories in force across the Interior Health region, making this issue far larger than Spallumcheen alone. Could the minister outline the timeline of the Steele Springs waterworks district water crisis from the perspective of her ministry? How long have there been concerns about contamination of which the ministry has been aware?

[1535]

Hon. M. Polak: First, let me be clear that all of the test results have been shared immediately with Interior Health. That is the protocol with respect to any risks to human health. It is Interior Health who determines whether or not there is a health risk and then advises the appropriate authorities with respect to that.

When it comes to the concern on the part of those who’ve made a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, we certainly will take very seriously anything that she recommends to us to improve our system. In this case, though, the request was made not just for test results but also for other documentation. That then engaged the formal FOI process, as staff are required to do, to ensure that no inappropriate information is released. If it was test results by themselves that would have been a different matter. But again, we’ll await the Privacy Commissioner’s ruling and certainly act accordingly.

With respect to timelines here, the water quality advisory from Health has been in place since July 2014. Our involvement began with respect to one individual farm that was out of compliance with the requirements of the regulations, and they were issued a compliance order under the Environmental Management Act in March 2014.

G. Heyman: I’m going to pursue a line of questioning now which follows on questions which I posed to the minister in question period. In that circumstance, the Minister of Health took the questions, although he didn’t actually answer the questions that were asked. I’m hoping we’re going to do a bit better here today.

According to the freedom-of-information complaint filed by Calvin Sandborn, the director of the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre, the Ministry of Environment, in Mr. Sandborn’s words, refused to release copies of its authorizations to discharge the suspected pollutant, demanded that researchers file a formal freedom-of-information request, warned the fee could be as high as $600, sent material late and missed statutory deadlines for disclosure and simply failed to disclose additional relevant material.

Now, the minister has said that information was released to Interior Health. The minister has also said that she respects the complaint process and will follow any recommendations made by the freedom-of-information commissioner. She’s also said that because there was some information that was requested that might have to be redacted, none of it was released, at this point, and it might be a different matter if there was simply a request for test results.

To which I say that the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has already addressed this issue once. She already made it clear with respect to the Testalinden Dam that, in her opinion, the ministry failed in its duty to provide information, under section 25 of the act, which was necessary to inform a group of people about risk of significant harm to the environment or their health and safety — in this case, Spallumcheen water, health and safety.
[ Page 10930 ]

So my question to the minister is…. Freedom-of-information requests aside — presumably, you could have dealt with the freedom-of-information request in pieces, but setting that aside — section 25 actually mandates that you release information, that the ministry releases information.

Why is it necessary to wait for a ruling from the freedom-of-information commissioner, instead of just proactively releasing information to the Steele Springs waterworks district which they believe is integral to their ability to protect the health and safety of water users in the area? Certainly, most reasonable British Columbians would expect the same.

[1540]

Hon. M. Polak: We are not waiting for the ruling. The information has been provided, so it did go through the process. As I said, staff, in their professional capacity, judged that the substance of the request was such that they were required, under the protection-of-privacy aspects of our freedom-of-information legislation…. They were obligated to go through that process to ensure the protection that was appropriately required for some of the information.

Again, we’ll respect what analysis is provided to us by the Privacy Commissioner, who is looking at that. But the information has now been released and was some short time ago. Actually, I think it’s got to be at least a couple of weeks ago. In any case….

With respect, though, to the withholding of information, no information has been withheld with respect to the health or potential health risks for the public. The information was provided from the Ministry of Environment to Interior Health because they are the ones who make determinations about health risk. They are the ones who make determinations as to whether or not an advisory is to be issued. That is their role.

Under circumstances where drinking water quality, with respect to human health, is concerned, that is the appropriate protocol. Those test results are provided immediately to Interior Health. It is Interior Health who then disseminates the information and provides their analysis with respect to the risk to human health.

At no time — at no time — was any information withheld from people that would have placed them in any health risk. That is assured by the protocol with Interior Health.

G. Heyman: I presume — and the minister will correct me if I’m wrong — that when the minister says that the information was released a couple weeks ago, she means it was released to Interior Health.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. M. Polak: Sorry for going across the aisle instead of through the Chair.

No, I meant to those who had requested it.

G. Heyman: All I can say is that’s not consistent with communications that I’ve read from the Steele Springs waterworks district, but we’re at a stalemate at this point. I will have to investigate further and unfortunately would have to pursue this outside of the estimates process, seeing as this is the last day.

Let me close this section by asking if the ministry has received any information requests relating to the other 652 water advisories in force across the Interior region, and what actions the minister believes her ministry should now be undertaking in respect to these water advisories and if there’s a plan to actually address a health risk to water in the Interior.

Hon. M. Polak: We don’t have at hand what’s in the current system with respect to any FOI requests, but we will follow up and provide that answer to the member.

[1545]

With respect to the other water advisories in the area, the Ministry of Environment takes its guidance from the Ministry of Health with respect to water advisories. They can be placed on water systems for all sorts of reasons, many of which are naturally occurring.

That is a question better pursued with the Ministry of Health. We become involved at their request and provide support of a technical nature when that’s required.

G. Heyman: At this point, the next line of questioning will be on other water issues from some of my colleagues. I am about to leave. The deputy opposition spokesperson for the environment, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, will also have questions, as well as a number of my other colleagues.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister and her staff for the answers that you have provided over the last almost two days. Thank you very much.

Hon. M. Polak: Mr. Chair, could we take a short recess?

The Chair: This committee is recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:46 p.m. to 3:51 p.m.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

G. Holman: This is kind of the part of the day…. It’s a bit of a grab bag, no offence to my colleagues. But we did want to continue with water, and then there are other issues that we are just going to try and pick up through the course of the day, and there’s not necessarily any
[ Page 10931 ]
rhyme or reason. It’s people wanting to address you with issues of concern to them.

So just on the water issue. Forgive me if the questions have been broached before. I didn’t sit in on all of the previous discussions. Around watershed governance, one of the good things about the new Water Act is that the legislation, as I understand it, enables community watershed governance, community watershed boards, and this is a good thing.

My question is around the funding for such entities, because without funding, it’s just volunteer effort, and without resources to do the technical work, to do the monitoring, maybe even ultimately enforcement, depending on the purview of what these boards might look like….

So my question to the minister is: do water rates…? Water rates will be increased. In our view, we don’t think they are being increased enough, because there’s so much to be done in terms of water management and monitoring and enforcement and all of that.

But just in terms of the concern about applying water revenues to fund various aspects of management, enforcement, monitoring, that kind of thing, would watershed boards — the kind of local governance that’s envisioned in the Water Act — be eligible for funding through water rates without triggering concerns about trade agreements, for example?

The minister has spoken before about…. There’s a line beyond which you don’t want to go. You want to be able to fund management and monitoring activities, but you don’t want to take it to the extent where it could be argued in the courts that it violates trade agreements, that you’ve commodified water, which exposes you to things that you don’t want to be exposed to.

So long story short: can water rates fund watershed boards in British Columbia?

[1555]

Hon. M. Polak: I’m going to turn this around a little bit in order to get at the answer. First, obviously I agree with the member. I think the watershed governance piece is a really important part of the Water Sustainability Act, and I think there’s room over time…. Looking at how long the last act lasted, I’m sure this one will last a significant amount of time. There’s room, I think, to see those evolve in potentially some pretty exciting ways over the years, and who’s to say what those will be? But I think it’s a very exciting opportunity.

On the question of: could you fund them from fees associated with water rentals and licences? Here’s where I’ll turn it the other way around to try and get at the answer. The issue with respect to trade, and whether or not you create a commodity and therefore, perhaps, have trade implications, goes to the question of: is what you are charging truly a cost recovery exercise, or are you trying to generate revenue?

Cost recovery is not something that we determine arbitrarily; it’s determined by all those wonderful, brainy accountants that we surround ourselves with. There are rules as to what you can include as cost recovery. So the question that the member asks really gets summed up like this.

The funds that are collected as fees don’t go into, say, a separate trust or anything like that. They go into the consolidated revenue fund. The determination as to whether or not the fees are cost recovery is based on a comparative estimate of expected revenues versus expected expenses. Then the question around whether or not….

It’s not so much whether or not they could be funded. They could be funded by all manner of government revenues. We provide funding and have provided funding to various watershed governance groups over the years. The question becomes: could their activities be considered administration of the act?

To answer that question, we’d have to know what it was they were doing, and that would have to be consistent with what would be considered regular administration of the act. So it’s not so much: could you fund them? It’s: could you calculate the costs associated with them as part of the regular costs associated with administering the act?

[1600]

G. Holman: Given that, in the minister’s view, could a watershed board — say, for example, for Shawnigan Lake or wherever — be funded through water rentals and fees?

Hon. M. Polak: They couldn’t directly be, now or in the future, because they’re not collected into a separate fund. They go into the consolidated revenue fund, right? So while a watershed governance group could receive funding from government, whether or not those costs could be considered as administration of the act would depend on what that governance group is engaged in.

If, for example, years and years down the road we got to a place where, rather than the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations determining an allocation of water, we had regional watershed governance boards making those decisions, well, that’s administration of the act. As an example, then, you could count that cost.

But we are a long, long way away from that. Whether or not you could count their costs as administration of the act would depend on what that watershed governance group did.

G. Holman: I do want to segue into Shawnigan. But just to make the general point. While the potential that the Water Act establishes around more local control over drinking watersheds…. That is a good thing. What would not be a good thing is if those costs were downloaded from the province onto communities.

In my view, the provincial government should still retain overall responsibility. If you want to engage local
[ Page 10932 ]
citizens, local governments and local groups, make sure they’re properly funded. Otherwise, you’ve just kind of handed them off a huge responsibility without the funding. But this is probably a conversation better held off line.

Just on Shawnigan in particular. The member from Cowichan wants to ask a number of questions about the dump facility there in the drinking watershed.

Does the Shawnigan Lake watershed have any particular designation that recognizes it as a drinking watershed? Is there any provincial designation that recognizes it’s of particular value for drinking water for 12,000 residents?

[1605]

Hon. M. Polak: There’s no question that the area is a watershed. Whether or not it has the official designation under FLNRO my staff are pursuing.

I can tell the member this. In the analysis, though, that goes into the granting of any permitted activities, our staff would treat a watercourse with the same care even if it wasn’t designated as a community watershed. They take their roles very seriously in terms of protecting not only human health but, of course, the environment as well.

Also, the statutory decision–maker — in the case of Shawnigan, for example — would have been aware of the drinking water takings in the area and would have been mindful of that and also the impact of any downstream effects, as the watercourses are connected.

G. Holman: If the minister could provide me any information about whether or not there is a special designation. Where I wanted to go with this…. And I do appreciate the comment about whether or not there’s a special designation, special care is taken. That is the context within which decision-makers make decisions. They know it’s a drinking water source.

This is what puzzles me. My colleague from Cowichan has a number of questions about the dump that’s now operating there within that watershed. What puzzles me is how such an operation, given that it is a drinking watershed, whether or not there’s a formal designation…. Why would anyone think it’s a good idea to establish such a facility within a drinking watershed?

You’re quite aware that the community, through the regional district and community groups that are fighting that proposal, have spent well over $1 million, essentially defending themselves against what they see as an inappropriate development within a drinking watershed.

[1610]

I guess I wonder: why would we want to even go there as a government, as a society, to even contemplate these kinds of facilities within a drinking watershed? Surely there should be better locations that don’t threaten drinking water.

I’ll let the minister answer, and then it’s over to the member from Cowichan.

Hon. M. Polak: I will just acknowledge at the outset that there is a question around the zoning that’s being heard, or will be heard, in a court of law. So I won’t go directly into that topic for obvious reasons.

We, as the ministry, are obligated to consider an application that we receive. The application is then reviewed by technical experts. It is their role to provide a fair evaluation and one that takes into account the concerns of the community and addresses those as best they can. In the end, they are guided by their scientific knowledge, and they base their permitting decision on that. In many cases, and this one would be included, they provide…. I would say in most cases they also provide conditions within the permit that are protective of human health and the environment, and the decisions are made on that basis.

B. Routley: I would like to start with a bit of a preamble to give a bit of the history. Back in 2012, South Island Aggregates came forward to the community, to the minister and to the government with a plan to turn, basically, a rock quarry into a contaminated soil dump.

The community was very clear from the outset in saying no. There was only, basically, the proponent and the Chief of the Malahat band who were in support of it. There were no other community groups that I’ve heard of that were in support of it. In fact, all of the political spectrum was opposed to it, including the Liberal candidate at the time. Certainly, the Green, myself and any other candidates were also very clear, not only provincially but within the community. All of the communities in the Cowichan Valley were opposed to this plan.

However, even after hundreds of letters were sent and, eventually, 15,000 people signing a petition…. In any case, the government provided a permit in August of 2013 — a permit, basically, to dump 100,000 tonnes of toxic soil on a mountain in Shawnigan which is just above the lake. That’s 100,000 tonnes every year for 50 years.

One of the questions that I get asked all the time is: how could the process fail the community so badly? I happen to believe, and I don’t know whether the minister shares that belief, that we’re here to work on behalf of the public interest.

[1615]

The public really want to know how the permitting process could fail them so badly, in that there was a public process. One of the questions I was asked that I want to pass on and ask the minister was: was the goal of the public process at all to, in any way, assess or determine public support? Does the process have, at all, any kind of benchmark? Normally, in a democratic process, it’s at least…. You know, 50 percent plus one is a decision. Actually, in our first-past-the-post electoral system, it’s less than that to get elected.

I would think two-thirds, 75 percent…. It’s closer to, I would say, 99 percent of the people in the Cowichan
[ Page 10933 ]
Valley that were opposed. So in terms of a benchmark, it should have been clear to the statutory decision–maker. I’m assuming that’s who it was ultimately up to, the statutory decision–maker.

Does the public process mean anything at all, or is it just another step in the process of having a meeting, inviting the public and not bothering to listen to or care about what they have to say?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s actually a very good question. It’s one I’ve been asked a number of times.

Firstly, the public input is extremely important with any permit decision, and you see it reflected in the permit conditions. In this case, as a result of the public concerns that were raised and some of the agency concerns that were raised, there were additional measures that were included in the permit.

I can give you some of them: treating discharged water to the most stringent provincial water quality standards for drinking water and/or aquatic life; additional water sampling; an advisory review committee; implementation of an environmental management system; additional site management confirmation systems to ensure integrity of soil receiving, treatment, landfilling and subsequent treatment of the site effluent, and monitoring; and public posting of monitoring data and reports. Those items were added to the permit as a direct result of the input that the statutory decision–maker received during the consultation process.

The statutory decision–maker operates under statute. In fact, the statutory decision–maker is not allowed to consider the relative popularity of a project. I don’t mean that in the vernacular. I mean that in the sense of: it is not a democratic process. There’s a really good reason for that.

[1620]

Here’s the best example I have found to describe it to people. Let me put to you a reverse question, and this illustrates the reason why a statutory decision–maker must base their decision only on the science and why a politician must not intervene in the decision.

It goes like this. Here we have a case where, I would say — well, at least I’ve been told by the CVRD and I don’t doubt it — that probably 95 percent of the community, maybe even higher than that, oppose this operation. They don’t want it in their community.

The reverse example is this, and we see these things occur. You have a community, a hypothetical community, where their local industry has died. Their sawmill has shut down. The town is in great and terrible troubles. And a new industry comes to town. Somebody comes to town with a plan, and they say: “Boy, I’ve a plan for you. We can have hundreds of jobs. It’s going to enliven the community. It’s going to be fantastic.”

The statutory decision–maker examines the science and determines that there is no way for this particular operation to proceed without significant adverse effects on the environment or human health and so declines to grant a permit. The community comes to me and says: “Hold on. Ninety five percent of our community wants this project. We all want this project. Why won’t you approve it, minister?” And that’s the answer.

These people make decisions based on their scientific expertise. They are not influenced by public opinion with respect to a project. They are influenced by the public input with respect to areas that they ought to address in terms of community concerns. And that’s what this statutory decision–maker has done in the permit decision.

B. Routley: I do find it interesting that you again use this idea that it’s somehow scientific.

I took the opportunity to read the letter from the Premier to the Minister of Environment. I found it interesting that in the first couple of pages, the word “environment” is not even to be found. There is a lot of talk in the first number of paragraphs about a strong economy, about keeping the government lean, reducing costs of administration. Their government is resolute in their “desire to grow the economy as a way to enable more British Columbians to participate in the economy in meaningful” employment.

Then you finally do hear the word “environment” in the last couple of bullets. In the context, though…. In (9), it says you’re going to: “Work with the Parliamentary Secretary and his Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to” — and I suggest this is very informative — “promote environmentally responsible economic development in British Columbia.”

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

That’s the goal. Really, it’s just another way of saying getting to yes. So it’s not about protecting, then, the environment.

The minister is essentially confirming for the public here today that there’s no interest or concern, and it’s her view that the Ministry of Environment’s role is certainly not to protect the environment in the Cowichan Valley or to act on behalf of the environment or the watershed in Shawnigan.

It’s actually the way of the ministry to simply hand the process over to the statutory decision–maker, say that, “Oh, it’s all very scientific” and that there’s going to be no political involvement at all. I would suggest that by sending those kind of steering messages to the statutory decision–maker, there is, in fact, a political message sent out.

Again, we’re told that it’s all very scientific, but could you try again to explain how the process to assess public reaction somehow has failed so badly that it has now cost the province of British Columbia, I’m sure, more than $1 million. It’s cost our….

[1625]

Between the CVRD and the Shawnigan Residents Association…. I know that the Minister of Environment has had representatives in court. I’ve seen them there myself. There are ministers of…. The Environmental Appeal Board had representatives. There are at least two, maybe three or more, lawyers involved in all of this. It’s got to have cost millions of dollars for both the government and the community.

I guess my question comes down to: does the government agree that this support for the project was so poorly understood that this would lead to the kinds of costs that are going on now? Do you still believe this is an acceptable way to do business in British Columbia — to end up costing both the Ministry of Environment and the communities of the Cowichan Valley millions of dollars? This is all okay because we just got a statutory decision–maker, and it’s somehow all very scientific?

I get asked the question from the community: when will enough be enough? We’ve had protests, thousands of letters, and 1,500 people signed petitions that we’ve delivered in the Legislature. The minister herself acknowledges it’s well over 95 percent in opposition to this project. And somehow the site is all okay because one person, a statutory decision–maker, rolls into town. Actually, he didn’t even do that. He admitted on the stand he didn’t come to the site — that at the end of the day, it was acceptable to do all this.

Could the minister explain to us how spending that kind of money for the province of British Columbia is somehow a good thing, and do you still stand behind your statutory decision–maker being somehow an acceptable process for the people of Shawnigan Lake and the Cowichan Valley?

Hon. M. Polak: The member mentioned my mandate letter, so I thought it was worth pointing out that the bulk of the letter, aside from the small portions he referred to, outlines a long list of responsibilities that I have within this mandate letter that all directly relate to the environment.

I leave it to the members to decide if they think that’s the case. Let’s look at No. 2. “Work with emergency management British Columbia and federal government agencies to review and make recommendations to cabinet on ways to improve oil spill safety and response following the Simushir power failure on the north coast and Marathassa bunker fuel spill in English Bay.” I think that’s an environmental issue.

“3. Work with the members of the climate leadership team, and develop options for cabinet on how to move forward with our new climate leadership plan, the B.C. government’s next generation of climate policy leadership.” Again, I would submit to you, that’s an environmental issue.

“4. With the Premier’s office, prepare for and position British Columbia to make a meaningful contribution prior to attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21, in Paris this winter.” Again, I would say, a pretty important environmental issue.

“5. Working with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, undertake an analysis of the impact of lower snowpacks and retreating glaciers on the forests of British Columbia, and make recommendations to cabinet on strategies to protect our forests from any impacts of climate change.” Again, I think that’s a pretty important environmental issue.

“6. Work with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to provide options to cabinet on a wildlife access corridor in southeast British Columbia.” Again an environmental issue.

“7. Complete the land-based heavy oil spill response studies and consultations and make recommendations to cabinet on how to ensure our spill response regime requirements are consistent with the Premier’s five conditions.” An important environmental issue.

“8. Monitor the progress and participate in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion environmental review conducted by the federal National Energy Board.” Another important environmental issue.

Here’s the one that the member mentioned. “Work with Parliamentary Secretary Jordan Sturdy and his Roundtable on the Environment and Economy to promote environmentally responsible economic development in British Columbia.” We want economic development — I don’t think the member is, for a minute, saying he doesn’t want economic development — and we want that to be environmentally responsible. We don’t believe the two have to be in conflict.

I think it’s clear that while the member wants to propose that somehow the Ministry of Environment’s mandate letter doesn’t deal with the environment, the vast majority of the content does, quite directly.

[1630]

With respect to the process, the statutory process is not a process to gauge public support. It is to inform the permitting decision. I have pointed out to the member how the input from the public directly impacted the decision of that statutory decision–maker. The alternative to — as the member, I think, rather insultingly to staff, puts it — handing it off to a statutory decision–maker is you would end up with environmental decisions being made by politicians who are seeking popularity, who are seeking to appease people who have a strong view. That’s what politicians do.

The value in the independent process that we have is that these decision-makers are not influenced by political realities. They are influenced by their knowledge. They are influenced by their expertise. They take their jobs very seriously. I won’t, for a minute, impugn their integrity. They make these decisions, and they are difficult ones. They make them knowing, very often, that their decisions aren’t going to be popular.
[ Page 10935 ]

There are many times when they decline to grant a permit or ask for more information that delays a permit. Those decisions aren’t necessarily popular either, but they don’t succumb to that pressure. If they believe that a permit needs to be withheld or if they believe that a permit needs to be delayed for the receipt of additional information, even if that puts a company at risk in terms of their operations, they do it. They do it even though a community might be very angry with them for slowing down a mill or slowing down another industry in their area.

That is what we call upon them to do each and every day. It is an extremely difficult job. It is made more difficult, I believe, when people wrongly impugn their integrity or accuse them of making a decision lightly. They never do that.

B. Routley: It was an interesting statement, especially having probably been there when they introduced the public, political decision of the Great Bear Rainforest. I think that was very much an environmentally impacted decision that was also very much political. To suggest that environmental decisions somehow have nothing to do with politics is really, quite frankly, outrageous.

The idea that this process has not failed the people of the Cowichan Valley, after us seeing millions of dollars spent in the defence of the community and their watershed and we get reiterated from the government and from this minister that it just doesn’t matter….

“We don’t care, quite frankly, what 95 percent of the people say.” The process is working wonderfully, from her point of view and from this government’s point of view, in that it just doesn’t matter how many people are opposed or think that it’s wrong in terms of the science.

Now let’s carry on and hear some…. Maybe we can get an update, now that the judicial review is over. I’m always asked what this is costing. Does the minister have any kind of an update on the overall cost to the government in carrying on this fight with the Cowichan Valley regional district and the good people of Shawnigan Lake and the Cowichan Valley?

What are the total costs for the ministry’s efforts to justify and defend Cobble Hill Holdings waste discharge permits? And why would the Ministry of Environment not hold a neutral position during the Environmental Appeal Board process in judicial review? By the way, that costs money to end up having lawyers there.

I guess there’s more than one question there. Let’s take one at a time and see if there is any answer to some kind of an interim report on the financial impact to the budget for, say, 2014-15, which we’ve just gone by, and do you have any idea of what it will be for 2016-17?

[1635]

Hon. M. Polak: It’s the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General who manages that. The question would have to be put to them.

B. Routley: Could the minister tell us why it’s okay for the ministry to not have a neutral position during the Environmental Appeal Board process? Why would the lawyers act in such a way as to actually oppose the community, with their concerns, in the Environmental Appeal Board process and the subsequent judicial review? It got asked again — the question. Why would they be facing their own government’s lawyers?

Hon. M. Polak: I don’t believe it’s appropriate for me to delve into what arguments have been made either at the EAB or in the judicial review.

B. Routley: The May 1, 2015, water treatment commissioning report states that “the water treatment system” — this is at the contaminated soil dump — “is unable to meet permit requirements. Subsequent quarterly reports also indicate that full compliance has not been achieved.”

The minister often utters the refrain that the permit conditions must be met and that it’s all very scientific. Yet the ministry fails to enforce these conditions. The community wants to know why the minister has adopted a kind of adaptive management approach which allows the permittee to continue operating without being in full compliance.

Hon. M. Polak: I can advise the member that there was an inspection on May 13, 2015, that assessed 45 permit clauses and found five non-compliances. A follow-up visit then, on June 10, found most non-compliance items were addressed, and significant site improvements had been made by the end of August 2015. All concerns noted on the permit inspection were either fully resolved or in the process of resolution.

B. Routley: Well, “in the process,” so they weren’t completed.

In response to engineering failures, the Ministry of Environment instructed the permittee to engage an independent site engineer consultant. Stantech Inc. has since been retained and produced reports that confirm the community’s fears about unreliable water management. In their January 15, 2016, water management assessment, they document their observations about potential issues, immediate concerns and other serious uncertainties.

Again, why is the ministry allowing this non-compliant, contaminated-waste landfill to continue to operate? Why does the minister not acknowledge that there are serious engineering concerns that must be addressed and that the site should be shut down in the meantime?

[1640]

Hon. M. Polak: While staff will continue to monitor the site closely, respond to complaints, address any non-compliances, the issue of whether or not the minister
[ Page 10936 ]
steps in to suspend operations is one that must be reasonable and must be based on the advice received from staff with the technical expertise. In the absence of that, there is no justification for the minister to step in and do such a thing. It would be an arbitrary decision, and that is not appropriate.

B. Routley: With due respect, that’s absolutely not correct. In fact, I’d like to point out to you that you have the authority, according to section 18(3)(e) of the B.C. environmental act. It states the minister has the power to cancel a permit if “a holder of a permit or an approval or the holder’s agent has made or makes a material misstatement or misrepresentation in the application for the permit or approval or in the information required under this Act with respect to the permit or approval.”

So this is the law in British Columbia. Clearly, the minister must know by now that there has been, at the very least, one misrepresentation. We’ve certainly heard from the court a whole litany of misrepresentations in the permit process. On that basis alone, do you now agree that you have the right to cancel the permit?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is well aware that that matter is before the courts, and I’m not going to comment with respect to that.

B. Routley: Does this minister have any circumstances under which this minister believes that it’s possible to cancel this permit? The community wants to know. Are there any circumstances at all?

Hon. M. Polak: It would not be appropriate at all for me to speculate with respect to conditions that might arise.

[1645]

I’ve already advised the member that a decision to suspend or to remove a permit would be based on the advice and recommendation of staff who have the technical expertise.

B. Routley: I have been asked why there was not an ecological risk assessment done on the site. As I understand it, part of the argument with the Cowichan Valley regional district and the proponent was whether or not the Cowichan Valley zoning applied.

It became a technical argument, as I understand it, that this was a mine reclamation, not a landfill — so therefore not a contaminated dump, not a landfill at all.

If it was a landfill, landfill site requirements, apparently — according to the minister’s own staff — are different, depending on the level of contamination of the soils intended to be deposited at the site. If the soil is contaminated up to the hazardous level, it falls under the hazardous waste regulation and can be deposited under the requirements of the regulation.

If the level of contamination is below hazardous contaminated soil, it can be deposited at a regular landfill site under conditions specified in a site-specific authorization. Ecological risk assessment is part of a landfill siting process.

Does the Minister of Environment try to use technical jiggery-pokery, if I might say, to avoid an ecological risk assessment by saying that you also agree that it is not a landfill or a dump? Do you take the position that this is a mine reclamation site? Is that your argument?

Hon. M. Polak: This permit was issued under the Environmental Management Act.We believe it is the appropriate vehicle to use to evaluate the project, and that it was appropriately applied.

[1650]

I would note that not only do we believe the permit was the appropriate one and the appropriate process, but also that that was then adjudicated by the Environmental Appeal Board, and they upheld the permit as well.

B. Routley: I’m sure that the minister, at this juncture, is well aware of the debate that came up during the Environmental Appeal Board process about the 75-metre layer of granite that was supposed to protect the community.

They had told the community that they were well protected. The proponent’s geologist and hydrologist even suggested that the nearest aquifer was four miles or four kilometers away. There was another view, put forward by the community’s hydrologist and geologist, that it was possibly fractured limestone and there could be an aquifer under the site.

Could the minister tell us which view they have adopted at this juncture? Do we have any…? I mean, it’s all very scientific. You must have an opinion at this juncture. What exactly is under the site? Is it solid granite? I understand that there were additional holes drilled. What does the minister now believe is the status of the site? The community wants to know.

Hon. M. Polak: I believe that the technical staff have made the appropriate determinations based on their expertise. I do not have a science degree. I don’t know if the member opposite does. Nevertheless, I respect very much the work that these people do. I know that they do their work with great care, and so I follow their advice and their recommendations.

B. Routley: I do see that as a non-answer. We were simply looking for clarity between one proposed scientific view and another. I do find it interesting and somewhat frustrating that the Minister of Environment can’t help us and help the community with a better understanding and clarity of the site.

I do know that one of the amendments that was made to the permit…. Again, I would bring you back to the
[ Page 10937 ]
fact that the permit can be cancelled if the information that was outlined in the original permit application was incorrect, particularly if there’s any belief that it could have potentially been misleading.

Now there’s been an adaptive change by using what some refer to as an engineered polyethylene membrane. There’s a definite conflict about the thickness of the membrane. The minister is now aware that I have sent a letter to the ministry about concerns.

I bumped into Dr. Bernhard Juurlink who is a cell biologist. He was a professor emeritus from the University of Saskatchewan. He now lives in, I think, Mill Bay. He’s certainly in the Cowichan Valley. He’s taken a keen interest in what has been told to the good people of the Cowichan Valley and the region about any kind of potential protection that is supposed to be granted as a result of this membrane — which is about the thickness of a toonie, I’m told.

He says, as a cell biologist, that there’s no question that these membranes have been scientifically studied. Point No. 1: they break down eventually. It’s a matter of maybe decades, but they will break down. There’s no question about that. They’re not guaranteed in perpetuity. They’re not an eternity kind of product; they’re a product that will last a number of decades. As a cell biologist, he tells us that there is scientific proof — which I have forwarded to the ministry — showing that these toxins can move right through the membranes.

[1655]

Again, it’s critical to the community, because there is a fear that this is impacting the water table, that there’s evidence of water on the site all the time, which is a whole other issue.

Could the minister tell us: have you reviewed the science, or at least had people from your office revealing the science? Will we eventually be getting a response regarding the concerns of the failure of these membranes?

Are you at all concerned that this could lead to shutting down the site in order to do your due diligence and protect the good people of the Cowichan Valley and Shawnigan Lake from the eventual damage that could occur? Maybe not today. Maybe things are fine when you’re doing some tests today, but what about in ten or 20 years? That’s something we have to be certain about, in my opinion, as well.

Hon. M. Polak: I’m advised that staff will certainly be reviewing the correspondence and will provide a response in due course.

B. Routley: Okay. Another example of the concern of scientific expertise is also the fact that there was no ecological risk assessment made of the upper Shawnigan Creek and associated wetlands. Note that this creek runs through lot 23, the site of the contaminated soil landfill and the contaminated soil remediation. There was only a superficial ecological assessment of the ephemeral creek, which during the rainy season empties into the upper Shawnigan, with the unsurprising finding that there were no fish in this stream.

After repeatedly inquiring to many different members of the Ministry of Environment whether an ecological risk assessment needs to be made for the contaminated soil and landfill site, there doesn’t seem to have been a clear answer that I’m aware of. Is the minister aware of any answer from your ministry in regards to this problem?

Hon. M. Polak: Due process has been followed. All of those things were considered in the appeal, and the appeal still upheld the permit.

B. Routley: I do want to close, at this juncture, by saying that for the people of the Cowichan Valley, it’s extremely frustrating that they have to do things like fundraising to try to protect their watershed.

It seems to be a conflict within the Ministry of Environment because on the one hand, the minister is working on the Water Act…. I’ve read, in your sections relating to water, about the concern for the protection of water and protection of the environment. On the one hand, you’ve got that.

Then the ministry seems to be turned into some kind of ministry of permits when it comes to projects like this. It seems to be a seamless flow from…. You know, somebody says, “I’ve got a great site for a contaminated soil dump,” and the next thing you know they’ve got permission, regardless of what the community thinks.

[1700]

I guess, in closing, I observe that this is a disaster for the community. It’s a disaster for this government in the sense that you’ve now spent well over $1 million, I’m sure. When the final assessment is known, I believe that your government is spending over $1 million fighting with the good people of the Cowichan Valley. I find that totally unacceptable.

I would like the minister to explain, to look into the camera and tell the good people of Cowichan Valley, how on earth this seems like a good expenditure of the money of the good people of British Columbia — fighting with the people of the Cowichan Valley.

Hon. M. Polak: In the course of canvassing this issue very many times, I have made clear to the member, and to others, facts that they continue to misrepresent in responses back to me — for example, comparing this decision to the Great Bear Rainforest and saying: “Well, that was Environment. That was a political decision.”

What bothers me most, I think, is that the member, I believe, is actually well aware of the difference between a statutory, regulatory process and an initiative like the Great Bear Rainforest. I think he actually understands that, and yet he stands here and pretends he doesn’t. I think that’s wrong.
[ Page 10938 ]

The fact of the matter is we have an independent process in British Columbia to make sure that statutory decision–makers are protected from political interference so that everyone around British Columbia knows that a permit is not going to be granted on the basis of whether or not it’s going to make the minister more or less popular. Those decisions should never be made by politicians. They should always be made by people who are independent.

I would note that there was significant angst on the part of the public, on the part of most people, when there was controversy at the federal level around the lack of independence afforded to scientists who work for government. I hope that in the member’s presentations here, he’s not reflecting the view that somehow we should reverse our stance and remove the independence of these scientists that work for government. It is a key protection for the public that these scientists remain independent and do not have politicians interfering with their decisions.

I know that this has been tough on the community. I also know, though, that it has been very tough on the professionals who work on it. They take their jobs very seriously. To have their integrity questioned — not only that, but to have accusations hurled at them of somehow being unduly influenced — is not only very hurtful, but it can be something that is professionally damaging for them. It’s a very challenging thing for them to do this job.

As I mentioned before, they routinely make permitting decisions that are unpopular. In this case, they’re unpopular when they granted a permit. In many cases, they are supremely unpopular when they don’t grant a permit. The only reason they’re able to withstand that kind of pressure and make a fair and independent decision is because they are protected from political influence.

G. Holman: I just want to briefly respond to that, and then my colleagues have some other questions.

On the issue of politicians interfering with statutory decision–makers. As far as that goes, we on this side completely agree with that. The point I was trying to make earlier — and I think, actually, the member from Cowichan was also trying to make — is: to locate a toxic waste dump in a drinking watershed…. There should be a political decision that that’s a no-go area.

Why put your statutory decision–makers, the community — everyone — through a process, independent or not, that threatens a drinking watershed? Particularly, as the member from Cowichan said…. This material is going to be there forever; that membrane won’t be. There’s a great deal of scientific uncertainty about what lies underneath the membrane.

But again, in terms of a reasonable precautionary principle, to site a facility like this in a drinking watershed doesn’t make sense. That’s where the politics should come in.

[1705]

I don’t know if the minister wants to respond. My colleagues have other questions to ask.

Hon. M. Polak: The place where the political guidance is provided is with respect to the Environmental Management Act and the requirements that must be abided by. That direction is there.

The statutory decision–makers are not put in a bad spot, as the member characterizes it. They have the tools to be able to make these decisions, based on what is appropriate, given the applications that they receive. They have done that in this case. I am confident that they have made that decision with the best of their technical expertise and with the greatest of integrity.

D. Routley: I have some questions for the minister related to issues in my constituency. But being a neighbour of the issue that has been discussed here, I feel I have to add that I think there’s a long stretch of grey area between the muzzling of scientists at the federal level — where they were not permitted to express an opinion and were consistently overruled — to this, which seems to be the political arm of government using, as a bulkhead, the statutory decision–makers and their decision-making right and duty and obligation in the province.

Clearly, the people of this region — not simply just some opposition MLAs that are a bit of a burr under the minister’s saddle here but tens of thousands of people who are citizens of British Columbia — are absolutely opposed to this. I consider that the role of government isn’t to override science and isn’t to follow purely the whim of what people want or don’t want but to balance those — to show leadership and balance these interests.

The people of this region feel that the government and the minister…. With respect, I’m not sure why she would resist understanding this. They are looking for the government to provide leadership not by making the decision but by stopping what’s happening in order for there to be a fulsome review of this. That’s all we’ve ever asked.

Pull the permit, wait, and let work that’s adequate and endorsed by the people of the region be completed. Perhaps then people would support, if they could be shown that this was a safe spot, an appropriate location. Then they could be persuaded. Right now they are not persuaded. Constituents in the member for Cowichan Valley’s constituency, and my own, are now being met with cease-and-desist orders from the company, telling them they cannot any longer protest this.

This is getting out of hand. There has been violence, when a truck driver assaulted a female protester at the site. This is getting out of hand. This is the moment when this minister and the government should step in and provide some distance from the heat of this and give the community a chance to have a voice. I’d like the minister to stand up and say that she’s hearing that, she’s sensitive to that, and that she’ll listen to the people who we represent.
[ Page 10939 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I’m going to walk briefly through the statutory process again, because it is extremely important. There isn’t a grey area between the muzzling of scientists and the constant overruling of their decisions and what I am being asked to do here. There is a provision within the act for the minister to step in.

[1710]

That provision within the act, though, is not one that allows the minister to step in just arbitrarily on her whim. In fact, one of the portions of the arguments I hear that puzzles me the most is the accusation that I receive that says: “Oh my goodness, there must be some political reason why she’s not doing this.” That defies logic.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Polak: Chair, please.

Imagine, as a politician…. You’re all politicians. What would be the political decision — in other words, good politics for me or good politics for my government? The political decision would have been to instantly pull the permit. I would have been praised. I would have been lauded. Maybe they wouldn’t have thrown a ticker-tape parade for me, but they certainly would have been very happy with me, I’m sure.

That is why these decisions are not left with politicians. Because these decisions, if left to politicians, will be made potentially for that politician’s individual popularity or for a government’s individual popularity. That is why maintaining the independence of those who work in the scientific fields within our ministries, mine and others, is so extremely important.

We live in a country and in a province where we respect the rule of law, and that means that these are not popularity contests. They are decisions to be made based on the science. I don’t know if the member was in the room when I gave the illustration I did to his colleague, but I will provide it again for the record.

If you had a situation where something was going to be potentially harmful but was supported by the vast majority of the community, that statutory decision-maker is still obligated to make a decision not to proceed in spite of the tremendous popularity. We have those situations all the time, where there is pressure coming from companies who want a permit right away. “If we don’t get the permit right away, we’re going to have to shut down. It’s jobs.”

These people withstand all of that because they’re independent. They don’t have to worry about somebody not voting for them because they didn’t get their permit soon enough. The statutory decision-maker process is not one that those people take lightly. They have obligations such that if they were to go outside of their particular knowledge — the act — these people could go to prison.

Those are the kinds of considerations that weigh on the minds of these folks when they have difficult decisions to make around a permit — because they are technical experts, because they have certifications, because they have professional requirements on them.

If you want to take the position that all of these decisions should be made by politicians, that’s fine, but be clear about it. Don’t play around the edges. Don’t play around the edges to be popular and say, “I’m defending these folks,” when in fact what you are advocating is to overstep the bounds of ministerial responsibility. That’s what you’re advocating. Don’t pretend it isn’t.

At the end of the day, these folks are independent. They do good work. They’re knowledgable. We have an exceptionally strong system in British Columbia because they are independent. We intend for them to remain that way.

In terms of any future actions I might take, they will be based on the technical advice from my staff, and they will not be based on my best politics.

D. Routley: I have some questions related to foreshore development in my constituency. It’s adjacent to the community of Cedar, and it’s known as Boat Harbour. In Boat Harbour, there’s a private water lease that was originally granted to Pacific coal mine in the early part of the last century for them to load coal from nearby mines.

The land has changed ownership, of course, several times since those days, and the current owner, in an effort to develop the property, is seeking to fill in Boat Harbour — to dredge the harbour and fill in the foreshore in order to create a parking lot for a marina.

[1715]

There are two existing small marinas. This would be a consolidation and expansion of those, with the infilling to provide the parking lot. The main issues here are, of course, the environmental implications of taking dredging from a bay that has a legacy of pollution issues around the coal deposits that are still under the surface of the ocean floor there.

The implications for the environment in the foreshore — it’s a very productive clam bed. It is a nursery for crabs. There’s a commercial crab fishery just outside the bay, and this bay provides a nursery for those crabs. It’s a spawning ground for herring.

The people of the area are upset about this development from that environmental point of view but also from the point of view of public access to the foreshore, which would be cut off by this development were it to go ahead as planned. So my questions will relate to that. That’s the background on this issue.

The regional district of Nanaimo was informed by their land surveyor that the senior deputy surveyor general is in agreement with the contention that right of access from any point on those lands bordering the high-water mark must be maintained. This includes a right from any lands that no longer border the high-water mark due to reclamation — artificial or otherwise.
[ Page 10940 ]

Is the minister aware of the issue? Has staff done any work related to this application? What can she tell me would be the position of her ministry?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m told this is actually work between the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

We will be brought in as appropriate by FLNRO if there are aspects related to our authorities.

But we’d be happy to follow up for the member and ascertain from FLNRO where they’re at in the process and what you can expect in terms of further processing.

D. Routley: The FLNRO are responsible for some aspects of this, but this is multi-jurisdictional, with the regional district having some permit control and DFO having some role in managing the impacts to the ocean fishery. The DFO has been notified to review the application. They indicate that they have delegated that authority to the provincial Ministry of Environment. So if the minister could check with staff to see if that delegation has occurred or not?

One aspect of a private water lease like this is that the lease can be revoked and the land or the foreshore returned to Crown ownership if the original purpose of the grant is no longer valid.

[1720]

Since the original grant was given to a coal-mining company to move coal from coal mines that no longer exist to coal-loading facilities that no longer exist, it’s pretty clear that the original grant issued to the Pacific Coal Mine is no longer valid, from that perspective.

This could be an opportunity for the government to decide to take that foreshore lease back. Even if the government is not prepared to take that step now, allowing the foreshore to be filled for this beautiful bay….

I’ll appeal to the minister’s love of the beauty of this province. It’s an absolutely lovely little bay that will be mostly filled in, in order to create a parking lot. If the government were to decide at some point in the future to pull back the lease, take Crown ownership, that foreshore infill, the infilling of the bay, would dramatically impair the value of that potential Crown property. Is the minister willing to consider that?

Hon. M. Polak: It really would be a better issue to pursue with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations as far as the DFO delegation. We’ll find out for you where things are at.

J. Rice: I’d like to start with a question in regards to an issue within my constituency, within North Coast. I’d like to start with the environmental concerns with the issues in regards to Banks Island, with the Banks Island Yellow Giant mine.

We know…. Thanks to my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, who provided the minister with information and photos this summer about ongoing spills of tailings that were happening on the island. I thank the minister for her prompt action in ceasing operations until the matter could be addressed.

I would like to get an update on some of the ongoing concerns. In particular, I’d like to know what mechanism is in place to clean up the site. It currently sits as a mess that is still spilling. When will it be cleaned up?

Hon. M. Polak: At this stage, the activity on the site has stopped because the company has entered into bankruptcy proceedings. There is a caretaker appointed by the local First Nations on the site. They are there to monitor the site condition and ensure security for some of the materials that are around there. There’s also an investigation that continues by the conservation officer service, along with Environment Canada.

[1725]

We will know more, through the bankruptcy proceedings, as to what will be available with respect to potential costs for remediation of the site. But at this stage, we don’t have that knowledge yet.

J. Rice: Costs for the remediation are unknown, but could the minister answer who would be responsible? Who will be cleaning up the site? Who’s going to pay for that?

Hon. M. Polak: We would pursue that with the company. As I say, as bankruptcy proceedings unfold, we will have a better understanding of how we might be proceeding. We have the option of pursuing this in the courts if necessary.

J. Rice: I’d like to ask the minister another question in regards to the site Namu on the central coast. I’ve really appreciated the minister meeting with the Heiltsuk — elected and hereditary members of the Heiltsuk Nation from Bella Bella. I understand that her staff has had a few meetings with the Heiltsuk Nation. But I would like to know…. I’d like to have an update on what the cleanup plan is for Namu. Where are things at with that? When can we expect the site to be cleaned up?

Hon. M. Polak: Work continues here. I think this has been a good-news story, finally, coming out of something that was so long a problem.

As recently as two weeks ago, staff were on another call in discussions as to how to proceed. The good news is that the site is no longer in a high-risk situation. They got rid of the vessel. They’ve moved the barrels into a safe location, so they’re no longer at risk.

[1730]

Now discussions are continuing not only with the leaseholder but also with Heiltsuk, with the Tula Foundation,
[ Page 10941 ]
with other ministries, as we look for what options there are to take advantage of some of the opportunities that I know the member is familiar with that the Heiltsuk laid out — ideas they have.

I think there’s a lot of positive that could come out of this. We have to find the right combination of people and resources to make something happen that the Heiltsuk can enjoy for their future. I think it’s looking good, and certainly, the people around the table all seem motivated to get to that place. I’m encouraged in particular, considering where we started from on this one, and thank the member for helping to bring the concerns to our table as well.

J. Rice: Thank you minister for that answer, and again, thank you for taking action on this important issue in the central coast.

My third question would be in regards to the 2014 Simushir incident off the coast of Haida Gwaii. This was the Russian cargo ship that lost steering, and thanks to southeast wind we were fortunate enough to not have an incident of it crashing ashore in Gwaii Haanas Park or on Haida Gwaii in general.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

I know the Council of the Haida Nation has had concerns with regards to feeling that we, as a province, are ill-prepared to deal with vessel incidents of this type. A U.S. tug was deployed from Prince Rupert. However, one of the Coast Guard ships — I believe it was the Gordon Reid — by luck, was able to pull the ship further ashore, even though it’s not equipped for that type of activity and ropes broke three times.

What I wanted to know was: how can I reassure the Haida people that we, as a province, have learned from this incident? I’d like to know what the Ministry of Environment has learned from this incident. What mechanisms are in place so that we can avoid this type of accident in the future?

[1735]

Hon. M. Polak: The member is quite right with respect to the stroke of luck or miracle, or whatever you want to call it. I spent three years living on Haida Gwaii, and the idea that the wind would change to that direction, especially that time of year…. It’s pretty unusual. We certainly benefited from that, but of course, we don’t want to rely on that nor on a tug that wasn’t even supposed to be at Prince Rupert but could have been in Seattle. As it stood, I think it took about 43 hours or something for the tug to finally reach the vessel. It was really touch and go that kept us from a significant disaster on our coast of Haida Gwaii.

Of course, from disaster often springs the journey forward to find something better. The federal government, through the Coast Guard, conducted an interagency review. We’re trying to find out if they’ve posted the results on line. It’s not our review, so we don’t have the decision as to whether or not to post it. But we participated in that.

We’ve also, though, been talking with the Haida Nation Council since then at a very high level with respect to what kind of assets need to be located in and around the area to improve current shipping safety and, also, response in the case of something going wrong. Those discussions are ongoing, and the Haida, I know, are keenly interested in what kinds of assets could be located nearer to them to make something like this not happen again, not put us in this position.

We have also, at this stage, been looking at the broader marine spill response capacity. When we introduced the land-based spill preparedness and response regime legislation yesterday, the amendments to EMA, at the same time, we also released the second Nuka Research report. The first Nuka Research report was out, I believe, a couple of years ago. This one focuses more on looking at what’s necessary to bring us up to the high standard that we need to be at. I would commend that to the member as well.

A significant amount of work is going on in this area. I will say that our federal partners have certainly displayed a willingness to work with us. We’ve seen the action that they took on the Kits Coast Guard base. That was something they did very quickly.

That cooperation and that collaborative attitude is continuing as we look at broader spills response capacity up and down the coast and, in particular, around Haida Gwaii. I’ve had direct conversations with the minister just with respect to the significant amount of ship traffic up and down that area of the coast, putting aside anybody contemplating any increase in that.

Right now it’s significant ship traffic. If anybody wants to go do good and interesting beachcombing, one of the reasons it’s the best place to do that is because ships routinely lose containers from ships, and you find the most interesting things washed up on the shore. We don’t ever want that to be oil, right? We don’t ever want that to be fuel or something else hazardous.

Work continues, and as I say, we’ve been very encouraged by the response we’re receiving from the federal government. I hope that leads to our ability to announce further action soon.

V. Huntington: I’d like to ask a few questions, basically surrounding development within the Fraser estuary and river. Specifically, the first one would be attached to the expansion of FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG facility.

[1740]

When Tilbury first announced that it wanted to expand from its 5,000 gigajoules to 39,000 gigajoules of LNG per day, I looked with them at the business plan, the briefings I had from them, and thought that their use of WesPac
[ Page 10942 ]
Midstream as an exporter was a very good idea, and I supported this particular expansion. The plant was in situ. It made sense. Increasing the storage capacity made sense.

Then I realized that through order-in-council, I believe, Fortis’s explanation plans were permitted on the next two phases. The second phase, phase 1B, adding another 140,000 gigajoules to the 39,000, and then a third phase would add 450,000 gigajoules, which means that the plant would be producing 90 times what it does today. We have no sense of what the size of that plant means, but I suspect it’s pretty large.

I wonder. Are the minister and her ministry…? Do they foresee any environmental assessments down the road as this plant expands 90-fold — if it gets to that point? Does she anticipate subjecting those expansions to a full environmental assessment, or does the OIC preclude that?

Hon. M. Polak: We’re not aware of anything that would preclude EAO from conducting an environmental assessment on expansions that triggered “based on their threshold” — so based on their size.

V. Huntington: If I could just clarify then. So the order-in-council permitting these three phases of expansion does not preclude the ministry from deciding that an application for the second phase, for instance, would undergo an environmental assessment?

Hon. M. Polak: Perhaps I could ask for clarification. Staff are not sure what OIC is being referenced.

V. Huntington: I can’t give the minister a number, but I can certainly forward her the information that I have. My understanding is that Fortis applied for or was given an order-in-council for these expansions, up to 450,000 gigajoules — or at least, that would be the third expansion. So I just wondered whether those expansions, while permitted by cabinet, would be subject to environmental assessment.

Hon. M. Polak: Is it perhaps the NEB export licences that the…?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Polak: No? A federal OIC? Well we will have to pursue that because we’re not aware of an OIC that would….

V. Huntington: I’ll certainly try and provide the information I have too. It could be wrong, but I don’t think so. Well, if you don’t know about it…. If those expansions went forward, would the province then require an evaluation of the upstream greenhouse gas emissions, as the federal government is now suggesting they will mandate?

[1745]

Hon. M. Polak: With WesPac, it is a substituted process, therefore we absolutely would be. With respect to Tilbury, if it entered our EA, if it met our threshold and came into the EA, we would also be looking at the upstream as well.

V. Huntington: WesPac Midstream’s application for their jetty is inextricably linked to the Fortis expansion, obviously, and WesPac becoming the exporter, although I think Fortis did the initial contract. But along with the WesPac jetty expansion, you have the Massey Tunnel replacement. You’ve got the Vancouver Airport jet fuel facility. You have Deltaport 2. You have, whether it goes ahead or not, the Fraser Surrey Docks bulk exporting facility.

Is the ministry looking at all at the cumulative impact of marine shipping on the Lower Fraser and in the estuary? These projects are really significant in terms of the amount of shipping that is going to be coming up. With the bridge being constructed, it’s going to open up the Fraser even further for industrial development. At what point will the ministry seriously consider the impact on marine shipping, or are they leaving that entirely to the federal government?

Hon. M. Polak: Just to preface it by saying, of course, we do work very closely with the federal government in terms of that jurisdiction that they have over navigable waters. Also, with respect to the environmental assessment, marine shipping is scoped into the EA.

Now, the conditions that are placed on an environmental assessment certificate are all about what we refer to as care and control, so we can’t place a condition on a certificate that would be outside the care and control of the individual proponent. But in considering the environmental assessment certificate, we consider the cumulative effects of marine shipping — past, present and foreseeable projects in the future. That is scoped into the EA, and we do consider what conditions we should place on a project in light of that or, indeed, the nature of the impacts of that project in adding to what will be taking place in the region.

V. Huntington: I think just one final question. I know time is of the essence here.

At the bottom of all these questions is the impact all of this expansion has on the Fraser estuary, both as a fishery component and as the sustenance for the migratory bird flyway.

[1750]

Is there any concern anywhere in this government about the cumulative impact of all of these projects and whether or not there comes a point at which you say: “No more”? Because as far as I can see, every single assessment is being done within its own silo. Clearly, everyone is being excluded from examining cumulative impacts. Who is in charge of looking at the whole? Is anybody in
[ Page 10943 ]
this government interested in what the whole is doing to the Fraser estuary?

Hon. M. Polak: We actually do take that very seriously, and I’ll provide two ways in which we do that. One, for government overall, is the work that we’ve been doing cross-ministry on the cumulative effects framework and how that will guide decisions that are made not only in EA but also by statutory decision–makers.

Within the EA, one of the things we do — for example, the projects that the member listed…. We keep the same team on each one of those projects. That way, they’re familiar with what’s going on in the entire area and all the multiplicity of developments, and they do indeed consider what pressures that creates for the estuary, for the entire region. They do take that into account in terms of what they analyze when they are proceeding through an environmental assessment.

V. Huntington: Can I just ask, Mr. Chair, if the minister would permit me to ask for a briefing on how the cumulative impacts framework will be applied — how they perceive it to be applied to her department?

Hon. M. Polak: I’d be happy to do that.

N. Macdonald: Just because of the time, I’m going to put three disconnected questions together. As you know, the questions are a mixture of questions and assertions, as I’m sure you’ve experienced more than once.

The first one is on zebra and quagga mussels. Since 2010, my colleagues and I have raised concerns about the spread of zebra and quagga mussels into B.C. waters. Now, we did this mainly in FLNRO estimates. We’ve met on this issue, and I know that you’re very familiar with it. I know that progress is being made. I’m pleased with the progress, but I feel strongly that more needs to be done.

The opposition put forward a private member’s bill that followed Alberta’s legislation. It’s needed, I think. I mean, I feel it’s needed. It doesn’t preclude the ministry from doing a number of things, but I think the legislation would be important.

I travel to Alberta on the Trans-Canada constantly — I guarantee more than any other MLA or, likely, more than any of your staff. I’m on that road constantly. With the spot checks that the ministry had in place…. Throughout that past year, I never saw a spot check on the Trans-Canada. Now, that’s not a scientific back-and-forth, but I never saw it. There is one sign that’s up, but it is a very vague sign. I compare that to the Alberta station that is outside of Calgary, which I see all the time.

It just seems to me that we are not doing what we need to do to keep the zebra and quagga mussels out of here. I see all sorts of boats. If you were there in the summer, you would see how much traffic is coming into British Columbia.

I know the minister is familiar with the issue. I know things are being done. But I feel that the only reasonable thing to do would be to have checkpoints, with a legislative framework, at each of the entries to B.C. There is an opportunity with B.C., unlike the other provinces, to actually effectively stop it.

I’ve been in Gimli last summer, in Manitoba. I was there last fall. Gimli is where it’s established. The minister would be amazed at how prolific these are and how quickly they establish. Manitoba, to be honest, could have delayed it for a few years. But they couldn’t really have kept it out, whereas we can.

[1755]

I guess the question, which is more of an assertion, is: if the minister can highlight what they’ve done. What I hope she will also do is the plans for the future, to have it as rigorous as possible. I think that’s the responsible thing to do. That’s the first question/assertion.

The second thing is to do with the Jumbo debris removal. Jumbo Glacier Resort laid down a slab of concrete in Jumbo Valley in the last few weeks before their ten-year environmental assessment certificate ran out. It was poorly laid, and it’s in the wrong place, which happened to be an avalanche area. It needs to be removed. The proponents don’t have an investor. I guess the question would be: is the minister confident that Jumbo Glacier Resort has the money to remove that debris, and when will Jumbo Glacier Resort be required to actually do that work? So that’s the second question.

Then the last one…. Again, first I want to thank the minister’s office. Over the weekend, I was phoned a number of times on this issue. I just want to go through and put on the record what our experience was and to highlight what I think is the overlying issue, which is the lack of resources. I don’t know if it’s provincewide, but I can tell you in our area…. I think it’s really unfair to the staff that are there and that are asked to do a job that is, in many ways, impossible for them to do with the resources that are available to them. So I just want to put it on the record, and then I’d be interested to hear the minister’s response.

We work closely with government, and we’ve always worked closely with this ministry. Most of that is not in the public realm. It’s just our offices working with the professionals in your office.

In March of last year, my office was informed that Radium Resort had dumped waste material from the demolition of an old hotel on the 16th fairway. The debris piles contained electrical wiring, insulation, drywall, nails, wood, concrete, rebar, carpet underlay and various plastics. The alarm was raised by residents living near the waste. Concerns were raised that there would be leaching of chemicals into the ground and that the piles were a fire risk.

At the time of this report, Radium Resort, according to the local conservation officer, had already been ordered
[ Page 10944 ]
by ministerial staff to sort all the debris and dispose of it properly in a landfill. More time passed, and by the end of April, there was virtually no progress being made on sorting and removing the debris.

In December 2015…. By this time, my staff were very frustrated with what was going on, and they contacted the minister’s office directly to demand that action be taken to protect the environment in that area. On December 17, ministry staff issued a registered letter of compliance to Radium Resort. On February 23, residents watched billows of toxic smoke fill their valley as the debris that should have been immediately sorted and removed for proper landfill burned by a supposedly accidental fire. I can tell you nobody there thinks it was accidental, but I know that’s subject to an investigation, right?

The air quality in the valley — I was in the region then — was degraded as the fire smouldered throughout the weekend. So some residents — I think there were eight or nine — left their homes and stayed in other places. One resident left and went to Alberta until the smouldering stopped. That was because, obviously, it was too unhealthy to stay there.

The story of the debris piles, the resort’s noncompliance with the ministry orders, the suspicion of the nature of the fire are well known and understood by residents who have been affected by the mess. There was a Facebook posting that showed pictures of the debris pile on fire, and that’s been shared more than 900 times.

My office at home received numerous phone calls and emails, and people were really upset. There are a couple of factors here. There’s a sense that, somehow, the resort feels they don’t have to follow the law. The owners of the resort…. It’s the Shaw family, right? It’s a powerful family, and that, of course, is the Shaw from Shaw cable. So in terms of how the community sees the law being applied, that’s part of what’s factored into what they see has happened there.

This isn’t the only case. There are a number of cases that we’re dealing with where the staff have not been able to force compliance and get a result, even though the ministry is aware of it. The minister’s office, in this case, is aware of it, and nothing seems to happen.

[1800]

As I say, the perception for locals is: why does anyone follow these laws? It sets up a scenario that is so unfair, because when this hotel was being torn down, legitimate businesses, who have a reputation for always doing the right thing, bid. Of course, they were undercut. The result is what nobody here wants. So I guess, as I say, this is something you’re familiar with. I appreciated your staff being in contact over the weekend, but we’re in a place where if the fire is out, it still sits with debris.

They continue to be non-compliant after about a year. You have a community that has very little faith in the work that’s being done or a tremendous amount of faith that anything is going to be done going forward.

Those are three questions. If you want to respond in writing or want to do it a different way, I know we have a limited amount of time. Or if you feel comfortable answering any of those at this point, that would be great.

Hon. M. Polak: Maybe what I’ll do is just give you sort of some quick-hitter answers, but I’ll ask staff to provide some more detailed response.

With respect to the zebra-quagga mussels issue, we have conducted the pilot monitoring program with mobile units. From that, we have learned a significant amount. We have a proposal for improving and increasing our ability to enforce and monitor, and we’ll be considering how we might be able to move this even further than we have in the pilot. So those decisions haven’t been made yet, but staff have provided us with significant information to consider.

As far as the Jumbo debris removal, the member will be aware that there are also some court proceedings at this stage, so I’m not going to comment much on that here. I’ll let staff sort out what technical information they can give you as to how they see things unfolding.

With respect to Radium Resort, it can be very frustrating when we’re trying to enforce compliance, in that in the absence of an imminent danger to health or to the environment, we need to proceed along the lines that provide the right to the permittee to get into compliance — so if they are considered minor non-compliances.

Staff follow the guidelines that are there in our compliance and enforcement policy. That sees escalating action, as the member described, leading up to…. They sent the letter that required this cleanup to occur within 30 days and outlined penalties that could be levied. Now we’ve been interrupted in the process by the fire. That might ultimately turn out to be a good thing, depending on what we find out in the investigation.

Nevertheless, I know that even in my own riding, we had an issue with a former drug lab in a neighbourhood. We have to go through a certain process in terms of enforcement, in terms of trying to get the owners to do the right thing, and then, ultimately, that can escalate into orders that the minister issues. But it can be very frustrating — the time it has to take to go through that due process when there isn’t an imminent risk to human health or the environment.

I can assure you, though, as we proceed through any of these, staff take very seriously the need to try and move those things along as quickly as possible.

In this case, of course, we’ll see what the conservation officer service investigation uncovers, and again, if there’s any additional information, we’ll provide that to you.

S. Fraser: I’m recognizing it’s getting late here, so I’m going to keep it down to one topic.

Hello to the minister and your staff. Thanks for being here for these. I know it’s always an interesting process every year.
[ Page 10945 ]

So we’ve been talking about Compliance. The company I’m talking about is Compliance. It’s a mining company. They have a proposal through the environmental assessment process. It’s the Raven coal mine near Union Bay on Vancouver Island, the east side of Vancouver Island.

[1805]

So just a recap here. On June 7 of last year, 2015, the three-year timeline for Compliance to submit an application to the environmental assessment process — the application which includes the required information — expired. This three-year timeline is outlined in the prescribed time limit regulations. I’m sure the minister and staff…. I see I’m getting a nod. That’s being agreed to.

Compliance, by my count, has failed twice now in an attempt to submit an application which actually meets the requirements. I know that on August 15, 2015, the environmental assessment office wrote to Compliance requesting information on their plans for the Raven coal project and the next steps on the Raven coal environmental assessment.

Then on August 25 of last year, Compliance responded to the Environmental Assessment Board that they are not interested in conversations on the next steps for the Raven coal environmental assessment and actually accused the EAO of some form of bias. I believe that’s how that was played out.

As the minister and your staff are probably aware, this has been a very controversial project. There are a lot of jobs at stake. It’s the heart — Baynes Sound — of the B.C. shellfish growers in this province. There are other places in the province, but this is the mainstay of that industry — so hundreds of jobs at stake.

A coal mine two kilometres above, really, the heart of this shellfish growing area… The risks with heavy metals leaching into that marine body are very extreme. The tolerance is…. The maximum is already very close on things like cadmium as far as a lot of our international trade goes, and if anything was to increase that — small parts per million though it may be — it could be enough to put that right over the top and prevent export to many of our markets.

There are a lot of jobs at stake here. It’s been very controversial. I’m sure the minister and your staff know that there have been resolutions from every local government: Courtenay, Comox, Cumberland, the islands — Hornby, Denman — the regional district, Qualicum Beach, Port Alberni. All are raising great concerns about this project and the location of the project, mostly.

We have passed eight months, maybe nine months now, since the three-year deadline has passed on the EAO as prescribed in the prescribed time limit regulation. When will this environmental assessment be brought to a close? As per requirements, as far as I read them in the time-limit regulations, when will the public have some sense that this project has been laid to rest?

Hon. M. Polak: The member outlined the timeline on this project. The environmental assessment office can, as a result of this time delay, decide to update the information requirements, or they can choose to terminate the environmental assessment. That’s allowable to them under the Environmental Assessment Act. They intend, I am advised, to make those decisions by the end of March — so the end of this month.

S. Fraser: That’ll be of some relief to the public, although that will be nail-biting time, I suppose, too. I would remind, and put on the record, that last week, the entire board of directors — in Korea, Japan, wherever they are — resigned. The executive director, I believe, resigned last year.

[1810]

Essentially, the company is insolvent. If there is a rationale for extending and giving consideration beyond the three-year period, whatever that rationale is, it’s surely diminished, let’s say, at this point.

Am I on the right track here? Will we continue to have an application in the flow after March of a company that really, well, is insolvent? It has no board of directors at this point in time. In the interest of the public that are waiting for an answer on this….

Hon. M. Polak: The two options that I read out are the options that are open to the environmental assessment office. I can assure you, based on my experience with the office, that they would take into account information such as what the member has outlined. I know they are aware of the situation, so that will form part of their consideration on the decision that they make.

Noting the hour, are we ready for the motions, or do you have one more?

G. Holman: I promise we won’t go past quarter after. There are just a few issues I want to take up with you off line: the funding of rural depots, the incentives being offered by MMBC. We discussed that before.

The incentive provided to rural depots is on a different basis than incentives for blue box programs. The CRD has stepped in and made up the shortfall from what MMBC was offering. That’s a temporary reprieve, though. I still intend and want to the minister to help me convene a meeting with MMBC, CRD and Ministry of Environment staff to discuss how that incentive was calculated by MMBC and why it was so low.

The other issue. I did ask you in the House about sewage treatment on Saltspring. I know that’s very close to the minister’s heart, as it is to mine. Sewage treatment — what’s not to like?

We’ll convene separate meetings around that. But, basically, you’ve already indicated that your staff will…. Really, fundamentally, the ratepayers need to know what’s going on, and they need to hear from your staff about
[ Page 10946 ]
that. I’d like to sit in on that meeting. You’ve already agreed to that.

So the final question I have for the minister, and we’ve got, like, one minute left…. Can you give me the Coles Notes version with respect to the Steelhead LNG proposal for the Saanich Inlet — what the environmental assessment process would be there?

I’m presuming because if it comes through the United States that FERC would be involved. I’m thinking the NEB would be involved and also the provincial environmental assessment. Could you quickly — and we can take that up off line as well — give me the Coles Notes version on that?

Hon. M. Polak: Even the Coles Notes version is fairly involved, given the multiple jurisdictions. But I would point out we also don’t have an application at this point too, so a lot of it is speculation. But we can provide you with that information as to how it would likely roll out.

G. Holman: I just want to thank the minister and thank all of the staff here present for spending this time with us. It’s much appreciated. On behalf of our spokesperson for the environment, all my colleagues, just thank you for the time you spent with us.

Vote 21: ministry operations, $117,182,000 — approved.

Vote 22: environmental assessment office, $11,828,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:14 p.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