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)

Monday, April 4, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 2

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

MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

UBC THUNDERBIRDS FOOTBALL TEAM
AND VANIER CUP WIN

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, we have some very special guests who are in the precinct today. At this time, I would like to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to open the doors of the chamber and allow our guests to be presented at the Bar of the House.

I would like to introduce the Vanier Cup champions, the UBC Thunderbirds football team. I’m pleased to welcome Boyd Richardson and Vikaram Varpaul and the Vanier Cup to our Legislature. This past November, our UBC Thunderbirds football team stormed to victory over the defending Montreal champions in a thrilling final game.

I would now like to recognize the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to add to our welcome.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As everyone in this House knows, the Vanier Cup in 2015 was won by the UBC Thunderbirds. Joining us in the House today are seven players from that team — Boyd Richardson, Yianni Cabylis, Vikaram Varpaul, Levi Hua, Malcolm Lee, Charles Nwoye and Marshall Cook. Joining them, as well, is Blake Nill, the head coach. Blake was the coach at the University of Calgary and St. Mary’s. He has been the winning coach of three national championships.

[1335]

Joining them, as well, is David Sidoo, who is a member of the UBC board of governors, and his wife, Manjy. David is a resident of the great city of Surrey. He earned scholarships to play at UBC in 1978, where he played with the Thunderbirds until 1982. He was the most valuable player, a defensive back who led the team to an undefeated season in 1982. The reason he deserves the recognition is that he is such a tremendous supporter of athletics at UBC. He and his wife give tremendous support to their community, to the province, through their activities.

The UBC Thunderbirds beat the Montreal team 26-23. It is a very heavy trophy, but these are big guys. They can handle it. That field goal that won it was done in the last few seconds of the game. It’s a great way to have a national championship, and they did a tremendous job. This is the fourth Vanier Cup in UBC’s history. The last one was in 1997.

The University of British Columbia has had a banner year in 2015. The Thunderbirds captured national championships in men’s and women’s swimming, women’s field hockey and women’s soccer.

I’d like to ask every member of the House to congratulate the team that’s here and all of the people who contributed — the coaches, the volunteers and the parents who support their sons who play on the team.

Madame Speaker: It’s now my pleasure to welcome the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

S. Robinson: On behalf of the official opposition, I am thrilled to welcome the Vanier Cup and the victorious UBC Thunderbirds to the House today.

As a sports fan and a wannabe athlete, I will confess to the House that I have played one game of powder-puff football. The biggest challenge in the game was finding shoulder pads small enough to fit me. It is an exciting game.

I think it’s important to just give a little bit of a play-by-play of this particular winning game, because it was thrilling. UBC led through the first half. But it was the second half that became a true contest, where there was a fumble, an interception and then a miraculous field goal with seconds — literally one second, I think — left on the clock, which really sort of spoke to the tenacity of this team and the commitment and the drive to win this championship game.

I want to just extend a thank-you for loving this game — for all of the team members and for all of the coaches — and for giving us an exciting, nail-biting experience and for bringing this Vanier Cup to British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The minister and the member are going to officially welcome them.

If I can invite all of the members to look this way, because the photographer is above and will be capturing a gorgeous photograph of all of you.

Thank you, all. Thank you for joining us today.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: Coincidentally, it also gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a number of students who are members of the Alliance of B.C. Students.

Here today in the precinct are Gloria Liu of the UBC Graduate Student Society, Kelly Taverner of the UBC Students Union Okanagan, Solenn Madevon of the UVic Students Society, Kathleen Yang of the SFU Student Society, Melissa McGregor of the SFU Graduate Student Society, Alex McGowan of the Kwantlen Student Association, Ben Glassen of the Capilano senate and Raj Jaswal of the Langara student society.

They were here to talk about their concerns about financial aid to students — grants, scholarships — and housing and student safety.
[ Page 11696 ]

I hope that you will make all of them very, very welcome.

[1340]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To reiterate the wise remarks from my colleague across the aisle, it’s a pleasure to have students here from a large number of our post-secondary institutions on behalf of the Alliance of B.C. Students. We have a very positive and productive working relationship with the Alliance of B.C. Students, and it’s always a pleasure to have them visiting us here in Victoria so that they can get to know the place a bit better and make their important role in society known to my colleagues and to the members opposite.

Just to recap, we have representatives here from the Capilano Students Union, Kwantlen Student Association, Simon Fraser Student Society, UVic Students Society, Langara Students Union, UBC Students Union Okanagan and the Graduate Student Society from both SFU and UBC. Please make them welcome.

S. Robinson: In the House today, we have 32 grade 11 students from Archbishop Carney. I know that they are joined by their teachers. I bumped into them outside in the parking lot. I have never seen a more eager bunch of students. I encourage you all to say hello to them. They’re very, very excited to be here, which is, I think, a wonderful thing. Let’s keep it all under control today, shall we?

Hon. A. Virk: We have in the House today, in the audience, four budding leaders and potential university students that are work experience students. We have Kalif Ananyakada. We have Diane Yu. We have Charles Balsida and Rosetta Pike. They are all work experience students that are learning about democracy and government and will become future leaders in this province. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

They are accompanied by my constituency assistant Sam Schaap, who is also in the precinct as well. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Statements

SELKIRK SAINTS HOCKEY TEAM
CHAMPIONSHIP WIN

K. Conroy: To keep on with the sports theme, and for those of you who would like a little hockey good news, I’m very pleased to announce that Selkirk College, for the fourth year in a row, is the B.C. Intercollegiate Hockey League champion. They successfully defended their title against rather large institutions like SFU and UVic and beat Trinity Western University from Langley in the finals on March 19 before a packed house in Castlegar.

As well, a number of the Selkirk players were honoured. Top goaltender of the entire league is James Prigione. The college rookie of the year is forward Dallas Calvin. Both were named to the first all-star team. Also, on the second all-star team are forward Ryan Edwards, who scored the winning goal in the final game against TWU, and defenceman Tanner Lenting, who is also the Saints captain.

Please join me in congratulating the players, coaches, managers, fans and everyone involved with helping the Saints attain this amazing achievement as the only team in the league to have ever won four championships in a row. Congratulations.

HOCKEY EVENTS IN
KAMLOOPS AND KELOWNA

Hon. T. Lake: Often we get up to introduce people from our home cities or constituencies that are visiting. But I can tell you there’s no one, except the Minister of Transportation and me, from Kamloops in the House today. They are either in Kamloops cheering on Canada in the gold medal women’s world hockey championship this evening or in Kelowna cheering on the Blazers as they defeat the Kelowna Rockets in game 7 of their series.

On behalf of the House, I wanted to thank all of the organizers of the women’s world hockey federation championship. The world championship is being held in Canada’s tournament capital, thanks to Norm Daley and his team. It has been a great week for Kamloops and for the Canadian hockey team. We just want to cheer on our wonderful team tonight and tell them to play like a girl because they’re going to beat the United States tonight.

Introductions by Members

L. Reimer: It’s a great pleasure today for me to welcome my constituent Mr. Graham Walker. Graham is a police officer with the transit police. He’s very, very interested in history.

I just want to take this opportunity to also thank the Royal B.C. Museum and our legislative security folks who have provided Graham a tour of the museum and the legislative precinct here.

Would the House please make Graham very welcome.

A. Weaver: I am pleased to introduce three guests visiting the Legislature today. Samuel Meyer zu Erpen, a grade 7 student from Central Middle School here in Victoria, is visiting, along with his uncle Walter Meyer zu Erpen and grandmother Phyllis Meyer. Would the House make them feel very welcome.

[1345]

I also have an additional group. It’s a large group of students visiting from Lambrick Park School. I’m very pleased to welcome to the House students and teachers from Mother Teresa High School in Ottawa, who are on a visit to Victoria this week and are being hosted by Lambrick Park high school in my riding. They’re accom-
[ Page 11697 ]
panied here by Tom Turnbull, a teacher from Lambrick Park, with students from Lambrick Park, together with Kim Mathieu and Mike Rowley from Mother Teresa School in Ottawa and their students here as well. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

ROBIN HOOD

D. Barnett: On March 17, 2016, the family, friends, community of Likely and British Columbia lost a true maverick: Robin Hood. Robin moved to Likely in ’82, and he operated a woodlot from 1996 to 2009, where he obtained a second one. He was the president of the B.C. Woodlot Associations for many years.

In the late 1990s, Robin headed a small group in Likely that responded to the proposals for a community forest pilot project — his vision, a homegrown model of a community forest between Likely and Xatśūll First Nation.

In 2004, Robin was elected to the British Columbia Community Forest Association and served for ten years. He started as president. There were seven community forests — now 53. He was president of the Likely Chamber of Commerce and self-declared mayor. His life was lived to the fullest, and he leaves us a legacy. I would ask the House to send its sympathies to Likely and his family.

Introductions by Members

J. Rice: I understand that today in the precinct I have a high school visiting from Masset. We have students and their teacher Ms. Young from George M. Dawson Secondary School in Masset, along with two other chaperones. Could the House please make them feel welcome.

Tributes

WALTER STURDY

N. Simons: I recently attended a memorial service, or a memorial party, on the Sunshine Coast to pay tribute to a well-known figure, a Sunshine Coast resident. Walter Sturdy was born in Vancouver in 1942, where he grew up and began a long career working in the energy sector. Also known as Walter Wonderful or Double Standard Sturdy, he moved to the Sunshine Coast where he worked for Howe Sound Pulp and Paper but in 1999 ended up purchasing and presiding over the Roberts Creek general store and its environs.

As noted in his obituary, Walter may or may not be missed as the longtime unforgiving and unofficial mayor of Roberts Creek. He was not known to shy away from a debate, and you could often find him at the store or at the legion arguing the merits of various political issues.

He enjoyed beer, food and women — apparently in that order — and lived well, mentioning before he died that he had a great life, had few regrets, was not afraid and it was time. While he’ll be remembered for his outspoken manner and an intolerance of hippie potheads — I can assure you I’m not one of those — he was also a generous and considerate man.

I got to know Walter. In the mornings, I’d drop off Slim, my partner, who worked there, and we’d often have really interesting discussions. They were always civil. They were always entertaining. I knew a few things about Walter. He had these conditions of purchase if you wanted to buy things in his store. He had a whole list of people who were banned, many of my friends included. If you arrived at ten o’clock when the store closed and you needed diapers or you needed something on an urgent basis, he would open the door. But if you needed booze or smokes, you had to wait till tomorrow.

He had a big heart as well. He was known as a generous man who always threw some money towards the legion if it needed repainting, and he did a lot of things for the community. It was the centre place for discussions around the OCP. That’s where all the minutes were dropped off, stacks of information. He was very much encouraging the community.

[1350]

He was proud of his children and in later years felt fortunate and privileged to have such a dedicated and committed staff at his store. He is survived by his children — Jordan, Caleb, Jessica, William, Katherine and Anne — along with his five grandchildren. Born January 17, 1942, he died peacefully in Sechelt just short of his 74th birthday surrounded by his family.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M211 — ELECTION FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

V. Huntington presented a bill intituled Election Finance Amendment Act, 2016.

V. Huntington: I move that the bill entitled Election Finance Amendment Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

V. Huntington: The Election Finance Amendment Act, 2016, would prohibit organizations from making political donations at both the provincial and local government levels and would limit contributions to $1,500 a year from residents of B.C. only.

The Victoria Times Colonist once said: “In this province, there are no rules to break…. The Wild West approach
[ Page 11698 ]
to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interest groups with lots of money to buy political influence.” That is the truth, and our voters know it.

British Columbia has the distinction of being the largest Canadian province with no restriction on who finances our political campaigns. Unlimited corporate, union and even out-of-province donations remain the norm.

In 2015 Alberta joined Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Nunavut and the federal government in banning corporate and union donations. Ontario has announced it will move in the same direction this spring. Yet B.C.’s campaign finance rules remain the weakest in the country. Parties and candidates can solicit any amount of money from any organization or any person anywhere in the world.

In B.C., there is a public conviction that money talks, that democracy is bankrolled by special interests. It is a conviction that undermines not only the legitimacy of our democracy but also our trust in the institutions of a democracy.

This bill reasserts the principles of our democratic values by limiting the amount that can be donated and the right to donate to the very people of British Columbia that we report to — the individual voter. The Election Finance Amendment Act is a practical change that will show all British Columbians that we honour their vote and that we will be accountable to them and only to them.

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

Bill M211, Election Finance Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PALLIATIVE CARE

Moira Stilwell: Here in B.C. we take pride in our standard of living, in our active, healthy lifestyles and in the excellence of our health care system, which has given us some of the best health outcomes in the country.

An important part of our health care system is palliative care. Palliative care is not just end-of-life care. It is care for people facing life-threatening or prolonged serious illnesses and helps patients achieve the best possible quality of life right up to their death, focusing on comfort, pain management and psychological support.

Palliative care is provided in different settings, including hospitals, hospices and a patient’s home. Because of our aging population, the availability of palliative care is becoming increasingly important. As part of our government’s provincial end-of-life-care action plan, our goal is to double the number of hospice spaces in B.C. by 2020.

We are also collaborating with the B.C. Centre for Palliative Care, the B.C. Hospice Palliative Care Association and others to increase access and improve end-of-life care throughout the province.

Palliative care is a priority for our government, and we’re committed to improving access and enhancing services so that we aren’t just helping people die in peace but are ensuring that they spend their final days in a safe, comfortable setting, surrounded by family.

CANCER AWARENESS AND DAFFODIL MONTH

S. Robinson: I asked my caucus colleagues if I could be the one to speak to Daffodil Month here in Canada. It is the symbol we have all come to identify as the Canadian Cancer Society symbol in the month of April.

[1355]

I asked to speak to Daffodil Month because this month it will be ten years since I heard the words: “You have cancer.” I know I’m not alone in this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the members for Peace River North and Vernon-Monashee and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill have all heard these words.

These are not words I wish for anyone to hear. For me, it’s been ten years of regular blood tests, CT scans and daily chemotherapy. For ten years, I’ve been living with this disease, because there has been incredible research that makes it possible for me, with a daily oral chemotherapy, to have a full and productive life.

That is why I urge all members and their constituents to support the Canadian Cancer Society daffodil campaign. Hearing the words “You have cancer” is no longer the death sentence that it once was. With continued support from the Canadian Cancer Society and a focus on early screening, more and more Canadians will be celebrating milestones, and a focus on prevention will have fewer Canadians hearing those words: “You have cancer.”

In the meantime, know that when you buy your daffodil pin and wear it in April, you show your support for Canadians living with cancer, you show us that you understand how life-altering a cancer diagnosis can be, and you show us that you want to help and create a future where there is life after a cancer diagnosis.

AUTISM AWARENESS

L. Reimer: April 2, 2016, marked the eighth annual World Autism Awareness Day worldwide. All across the globe, the Light It Up Blue campaign drew attention to families who are affected by autism spectrum disorder.

Autism is characterized by a profound withdrawal from contact with people, repetitive behaviour and fear of change in the environment. The emotional disorder also affects the brain’s ability to receive and process information. Presently, we don’t have a medical test that can
[ Page 11699 ]
diagnose autism. Instead, specially trained physicians and psychologists administer autism-specific behavioural evaluations. Often parents are the first to notice that their child is showing unusual behaviours, such as failing to make eye contact, not responding to his or her name or playing with toys in unusual and repetitive ways.

In British Columbia, the Ministry of Children and Family Development works in collaboration with the Ministries of Health, Education and Social Development to provide an integrated, accessible continuum of quality services, including assessment, diagnosis, intervention, and education and support services to meet the needs of children. B.C. is also the only province in Canada that has a no-wait-list policy for families to access autism funding once their child or youth has received a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

Families are able to choose the type of autism interventions, based on best practice, that best meets the needs of their children. In total, B.C. provides funding to over 11,200 children and youth diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and their families. Families of children with ASD are also eligible for a variety of other services and supports, including early intervention therapies, school-age therapies, infant development, supported child development and family support services, including respite.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important subject.

B.C. WILDLIFE FEDERATION

K. Conroy: The B.C. Wildlife Federation is celebrating 60 years of conservation leadership at their 60th AGM and convention, to be held in Nanaimo later this month, hosted by the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association. The federation is a provincewide voluntary conservation organization representing all British Columbians, whose aims are to protect, enhance and promote the wise use of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.

It is also B.C.’s largest and oldest conservation organization. Their origins can be traced back to the 1890s, when some of its current clubs were formed, calling themselves either fish and game clubs or fish and game protective associations. In those days, B.C.’s fish and wildlife was managed by a provincial employee, the chief game warden. It was a cooperative affair between the existing clubs and the warden.

Today the B.C. Wildlife Federation has two strategic objectives:

“(1) To ensure the sound, long-term management of B.C.’s fish, wildlife, park and outdoor recreational resources in the best interests of all British Columbians and to coordinate all the voluntary agencies, societies, clubs and individuals interested in that objective, and

“(2) To develop and support a comprehensive educational program to make all British Columbians aware of the value of B.C.’s fish, wildlife, park and outdoor recreational resources and to arouse in the public conscience a recognition of, and a respect for, the place of fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation in the wise, integrated use of the nation’s natural resources.”

[1400]

The federation’s membership is made up of over 100 separate and distinct clubs throughout British Columbia, ten regional associations and direct members, for a collective voice of about 50,000. They also are the voice for almost half a million resident hunters and anglers in B.C.

I believe most members in the House have had the pleasure of enjoying our local clubs’ annual banquets, and I’m sure all members join me in thanking all those involved in the local organizations and the federation for the incredible work they do to ensure the responsible and sustainable management of wildlife in B.C.

TREXIANA OPERATIONS
AND FLEX MSE SYSTEM

M. Hunt: The reason British Columbia has the strongest economic outlook in Canada is because of our diversified economy. We have highly talented, homegrown entrepreneurs right here in British Columbia. They’re thinking outside the box and taking the world by storm.

Mike Callewaert is one of them. He’s developed a product that is designed to disappear right before your eyes. Now, if that sounds strange to you, hon. Speaker, well, we need to take a closer look at Mike’s company, Trexiana, of Surrey. They recognized that demand is growing around the world for an environmentally friendly building material. Their flex MSE system is simply a system of geomodular construction. It consists of geotech bags filled with sand, soil and rock fastened together with an innovative plate to create retaining walls, deal with erosion control, provide slope stability and shoreline protection.

The flex MSE replaces concrete-and-wire-basket wall systems with a rock-solid organic system that does all the work of concrete at a fraction of the cost and labour. Flex MSE doesn’t attract graffiti. It can be vegetated as well, which is why it can also be a disappearing act. It withstands cold, wet environments and heavy traffic. It’s an environmental win with 50 percent recycled content, expending 3 percent of the greenhouse gases produced by concrete and steel. This product has been used on the Sea to Sky Highway and the interchanges around here in Victoria.

Trexiana is now being used in major infrastructure projects in the United States, Europe and throughout the southern hemisphere. Trexiana is about to announce a major expansion into the eastern United States, but manufacturing will stay here in British Columbia to ensure quality control. Trexiana currently employs 75 people in jobs ranging from manufacturing through to marketing and has plans to further expand in the States as well as international markets.

I would hope that all members of the House would join me in recognizing B.C.’s homegrown entrepreneurs, who are changing the way we view the world as we speak.
[ Page 11700 ]

UBC eSPORTS ASSOCIATION

D. Eby: In Vancouver–Point Grey, we’re all, of course, very proud of our famous Vanier Cup Tbirds, but we’re also very proud of another UBC team that may or may not be as well known to the members here, despite their international reputation.

Founded in July of 2012 by UBC students Carman Lamb, Michael Medley, James Choi and Sean Oh, the UBC eSports Association has built an internationally renowned video game club that boasts over 2,000 members.

Interjection.

D. Eby: I hear some giggling. This is big business.

In May of 2015, after thousands of hours of practice and preparation, they accomplished their biggest feat to date. They won the North American Collegiate Championship Tournament for League of Legends. This is the most prestigious college video game competition in North America. It included months of multiple rounds of competition, and it culminated in last year’s final championship tournament in L.A.

Because of their win, they were recognized as North America’s best collegiate League of Legends team. Each of the six team members got a $30,000 scholarship, and 80,000 people watched the live stream on YouTube. Those viewer numbers aren’t surprising; 36 million people watched the most recent season of the League of Legends World Championship.

E-sports are a big deal around the world. That’s why the UBC club’s remarkable accomplishment has resulted in multiple scholarships and sponsorships. UBC eSports Association hosts video game viewing parties, tournaments and icebreaker events for the membership. They organize fan meets, mentorships and train hard for these competitions.

They continue to build on their momentum. On March 19, they again advanced to the semifinals of the North American championships, this year in Austin. We’re all hoping they bring home the championships again this year.

Congratulations to the UBC eSports Association in creating a supportive and successful gaming community, and good luck in this year’s tournament representing our province’s school of champions.

[1405]

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE WORKER LAYOFFS AT
SENIORS CARE FACILITY IN NANAIMO

J. Darcy: For the second time in two years, frail seniors at a care facility in Nanaimo, many of whom suffer from dementia, are facing a major disruption in their care. This time all 155 staff at Wexford Creek care home are being fired. The care facility is being sold because this government isn’t providing enough funding for it.

Can the Minister of Health explain to these frail seniors and their families why the government is subjecting them to this latest round of disruption in their lives?

Hon. T. Lake: Quality of care and safety for residents is an absolute priority for the ministry and for health authorities. Whenever a service agreement is transferred to a new operator, the health authority works very closely with the operator and with the families of residents to ensure a smooth transition.

I am always concerned when residents of care facilities are impacted by these changes. This was a result of an organization that put in an RFP, that won an RFP, a fair and open contest, and now has decided that they can no longer operate under the conditions under which they bid.

We will work closely with Island Health. We will work closely with the operator to ensure that the impact on residents and their families is mitigated as much as possible.

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

J. Darcy: Every time we raise one of these stories in this House, the minister says the same thing. He’s concerned, he shows some empathy, but nothing changes. It keeps happening over and over and over again, and it’s not acceptable.

It was exactly two years ago in this same facility that layoff notices were issued to all of the staff — the care aides, the nurses, the housekeeping staff, the food services staff. And while they were rehired, most of them at lower wages and with very few benefits, it was not before incredible anxiety was created for the 150 frail seniors in that facility.

We know that continuity of care is vital for seniors and that they form intensely close bonds with the staff who care for their most intimate care needs every single day. It is this government’s actions which have resulted in these repeated rounds of layoffs which are harming frail and vulnerable seniors. It is part of the shameful legacy of the B.C. Liberal government’s Bill 29, and it’s time it stopped.

Can the minister explain why his government is so heartless that it is letting this happen once again and disrupting the lives of these frail elderly in care?

Hon. T. Lake: This government was the first in Canada to appoint an independent seniors advocate. A seniors advocate….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite may mock.

The seniors advocate has done amazing work looking at the needs of seniors around the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 11701 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Lake: The reality is that we have added almost 7,400 publicly subsidized residential care, assisted-living and group home beds since 2001 to almost 32,000 beds, a much better record than members opposite had when they had the opportunity.

We will work with Island Health. We will work with the operator to ensure that there is no impact on the residents and their families in this particular situation.

D. Routley: Since it took numerous private members’ bills from the NDP opposition to get the government to appoint a seniors advocate, it will probably take numerous situations like this to get the government to do anything.

[1410]

The operators of Wexford Creek raised the alarm over what they called chronic underfunding two years ago. They said then, two years ago, that the funding model from the government wasn’t working. This government refused to listen, and it’s frail seniors, my constituents, who are paying the price.

How can the minister justify forcing Nanaimo seniors to face losing their care providers for the second time in two years?

Hon. T. Lake: The operator knew what the costs were and what the payments were when they bid in an open and fair and transparent process. It’s a situation that we face now. We will ensure that there is a smooth transition to any new operator, that the residents are looked after and that their families are looked after. We will ensure that they continue to get the high-quality care that they deserve in this care home.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: “Work with the operators.” “Smooth transition.” This is not a smooth transition. In 2012, Ombudsperson Kim Carter said that continuity of care was a crucial issue for seniors. She said that the ministry had not taken sufficient care to make sure that seniors were protected from the impacts of large-scale layoffs. That was four years ago.

In the last two years, seniors at Wexford Creek have faced the turmoil of losing their care aides and nurses and others not once, but twice. It is this government’s shameful legacy, a legacy of Bill 29, a legacy of putting ideology ahead of the interests of vulnerable seniors.

Will the minister finally step in? Will he make sure that these seniors aren’t going to face more disruption at Wexford Creek?

Hon. T. Lake: Forty-two percent of the expenditures of the provincial government goes to health care in the province of British Columbia — 42 percent. The members opposite talk about spending more here, spending more there, this opportunity, that opportunity. It only takes more money, more money, more money. Yet the members opposite do everything they can to prevent…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: …our ability to grow the economy, to ensure that we have the ability to increase spending on health care across the province of British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON MONEY LAUNDERING

D. Eby: The B.C. Lottery Corporation used to provide $1 million a year to the RCMP to police organized crime like money laundering and loansharking in B.C.’s casinos. In 2009, the minister now responsible for natural gas pulled that funding. Now, keep in mind, the savings here — $1 saved in policing for every $30 the B.C. Lottery Corporation spends on advertising.

Now we learn that the civil forfeiture office, a branch of the Solicitor General’s ministry, says — no surprise — we have a big problem with money laundering in B.C.’s casinos. Will the Solicitor General stand up and announce that this government will re-fund the RCMP casino policing team?

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, as long as there is a criminal element in our society, we’re likely going to be confronted by circumstances in which they are endeavouring to legitimize the proceeds of that criminal activity. That’s something we take….

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is something we take very seriously. Under the anti-money-laundering strategy that’s been in place, some progress has been made, but we think and believe that there is more work.

I can take advantage of the member’s question to advise that back in October of last year, I wrote to the head of the corporation. Amongst other things…. I’ll provide the member with copies of the correspondence or table them — to indicate that we did want to develop a coordinated enforcement approach with the RCMP. Then the following week, the Attorney and I wrote to the head of E division and subsequently met.

[1415]

I’m happy to tell the member in the House that we are now in the process of finalizing a coordinated approach to this question that will address questions of money laundering in ways, quite frankly, that the previous organization that the member has referred to never did. That was not part of their mandate and not something that they focused on. This step that we are taking in a coordinated way between the B.C. Lottery Corporation, GPEB and the RCMP will do just that.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister knows very well that it was part of the mandate of the integrated policing team. Fred Pinnock was all over the media saying that if you get rid of this team, money laundering will go up, and guess what. Now we have a money-laundering problem.

According to the government’s own court filings, a gentleman named Michael Mancini was caught in a traffic stop with $70,000 the Solicitor General’s ministry says was laundered through B.C. casinos. Now, these same court filings say he claims to have won an astonishing $2.2 million from B.C. casino slot machines over 18 months but that his money really came from “unlawful activity, including trafficking of controlled substances.” He wasn’t on the list of the 108 people involved in organized crime banned from B.C. casinos. He was only caught through a fluke, through a traffic stop.

Perhaps the minister can enlighten us. Exactly how much of the $1 million that his government cut from funding for police in casinos is his government going to restore with this new initiative?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may wish to be a little bit cautious in a variety of ways. First of all, whilst it is true, happily, that the Lottery Corporation does from time to time expel and preclude citizens from participating in lawful gaming activities within casinos, I think I just heard the member state that in all cases, those are people involved in organized crime. I’m wondering if, in his former capacity as head of the Civil Liberties Association, he would have been comfortable making that statement.

As I’ve just indicated to the….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: The question of money laundering and the steps that are being taken to address money laundering are serious, and we take them seriously, which is why we have embarked upon a partnership — a specific partnership with the RCMP and the gaming policy enforcement branch — in a coordinated way that heretofore has not existed. We track suspicious cash transactions. I’m happy to provide the member and members of the House with that tracking.

I can tell you this. We take very seriously the obligation that we have to British Columbians to ensure that the activities that take place within regulated and lawful gaming establishments are being conducted with proceeds that are not — I repeat, not — the result of criminal activity.

J. Wickens: The issue of money laundering, actually, in B.C. goes far beyond our casinos. Canada’s financial intelligence unit, FINTRAC, did an audit of Metro Vancouver’s realtors, and the results show this problem has spread to B.C.’s housing market. Realtors are breaking Canada’s anti-money-laundering laws by failing to disclose who their clients are and where the money they’re using in the real estate market is coming from. FINTRAC says: “Vancouver’s housing market is highly vulnerable to money laundering.”

To the Solicitor General: what is your plan to stop money laundering in B.C.’s housing market?

Hon. M. de Jong: I agree with this part of the member’s submission and this part of her question — that there are strict requirements in place under federal legislation that require reporting by, amongst others, people involved in the real estate sector.

[1420]

They are obliged, and we expect that they will abide by those requirements. When they don’t, they are in violation of their obligations.

The member will know that the Real Estate Council is, in concert with the superintendent, in the process of conducting a review. They are in the process of preparing a report that will examine this, amongst other things, and provide regulations.

But I can assure the member of this. The government and, I’m certain, all members expect that everyone involved in the real estate sector understand and abide by the statutory requirements that govern their conduct.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Wickens: The recent audit from FINTRAC gives more proof to a problem that everyone but the government seems to be aware of. Auditors went to 80 realty offices in Vancouver, and in 55 cases — 55 — they found serious compliance problems.

Money is coming into our housing market, and we don’t know where it’s coming from. In many cases, large, suspicious transactions aren’t being properly reported.

My question for the Solicitor General is a serious one and one that British Columbians want to know. Evidence that money is being laundered through the housing market is growing. Hasn’t the time come to do something about that?
[ Page 11703 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: There’s no question that the real estate market in British Columbia, not just Vancouver but many parts of British Columbia, continues to be very robust. That is the result of a province that is leading the country in economic growth — that people are coming to British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: Now, I have heard a variety of theories from members of the opposition. It just seems like a few weeks ago that we were told it was, in the case of Vancouver, the product of exceptionally high vacancy rates, except that the report that was produced by the city of Vancouver said that wasn’t the case.

There’s a part to this narrative that I think just galls the opposition. I think they are viscerally offended by the notion that British Columbia is leading Canada.

When the Conference Board of Canada says that of all the jurisdictions in this country, British Columbia will lead in investment, lead in employment growth, lead in attracting people to come to this country — that that will be British Columbia — I think that whilst every other British Columbian looks in the mirror and says, “Right on,” the opposition says: “My god, that’s a terrible thing to befall British Columbia.”

On this side of the House, we are celebrating the fact that people are coming to B.C. They’re coming back to British Columbia. They’re investing. They’re purchasing homes, and they’re raising families in the leading economy in the country.

B. Ralston: I have another question about money laundering in another area of provincial jurisdiction. Last May a B.C. liquor store manager voiced his concerns after seeing several cash transactions worth more than $10,000. The store manager wanted to report these transactions to FINTRAC but was instructed to report them to senior management only.

My question is to the Solicitor General, not to the Minister of Finance. B.C. liquor staff are raising red flags about large cash transactions. He’s the minister responsible. Why isn’t he listening?

Hon. M. Morris: There’s nothing wrong if the manager of any retail outlet in British Columbia…. If he has suspicious activities that he thinks are unusual, he can go straight to the police force of the jurisdiction, report it and have it investigated.

Madame Speaker: Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

[1425]

B. Ralston: Well, fine words from the Solicitor General. But in fact, what B.C. Liquor Stores said when confronted by this question is that they aren’t legally required to report large cash transactions over $10,000 to FINTRAC.

Can the minister clarify this? Is he directing liquor stores in British Columbia to report suspicious transactions to FINTRAC and not merely to senior management, as took place last May?

Hon. M. Morris: Just to remind the member opposite that it is federal legislation. There’s no requirement under FINTRAC for retail outlets to report large cash transactions like that.

But again, any retail manager, if they encounter any kinds of transactions that are suspicious, I encourage them to report them to their local police with jurisdiction.

S. Simpson: We’ve got some pretty remarkable answers coming from the Finance Minister and the Solicitor General. We’ve got long-standing money-laundering issues in the casino sector. We know that.

The government abandons the $1million that it provides for integrated RCMP support. We know that we’re having, now, challenges. FINTRAC is identifying challenges around money laundering in the real estate sector. “Highly vulnerable to money laundering.” That’s what FINTRAC says. And now, $10,000-plus cash transactions in the liquor stores, and the Solicitor General thinks it’s fine.

How can the minister justify having nothing to say and paying so little attention to the priority of ending money laundering and getting organized crime under control in this province? Maybe the Solicitor General could answer that.

Hon. M. Morris: FINTRAC is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, so how they lay things out is entirely up to them. But I will say that the RCMP and all police organizations in British Columbia take gang activity, money laundering — any kinds of criminal activity — very seriously, and they’re investigating it all the time.

The member opposite earlier talked about a traffic stop and how they were able to uncover this money-laundering episode through that. Our traffic police right across this province are our front-line resources that uncover all kinds of criminal activity, and we need them out there to continue doing that.

GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY

H. Bains: Last year, Surrey experienced 60 shootings. This year, we are on track to more than double that number. On Sunday, Surrey experienced its 30th shooting this year. In 12 weeks, 30 shootings. Thirty times in three months my neighbourhood and neighbourhoods all across Surrey have been terrorized by gun violence
[ Page 11704 ]
on our streets, and the worst part is they see no end in sight. These could easily have been 60 deaths last year, 30 deaths this year.

My question to the minister responsible is this: how many shootings, how many deaths will it take for this government to take this issue seriously and take some action that is effective?

Hon. M. Morris: The shootings that have taken place in Surrey last year and this year are of great concern to the police and to the communities, to the city of Surrey and to this government.

The city of Surrey spends $120 million a year on policing. We put in an additional $60 million a year into our anti-gang unit that has been working extensively in Surrey, tracking these individuals and trying to gather enough evidence in order to put these folks in jail.

[1430]

Last year, in 2015, the RCMP made over 800 arrests on individuals that were involved in street-level gang activity. They seized over 170 weapons and over 150 vehicles that were involved in these activities. Just recently the RCMP seized $4½ million worth of drugs as well as a substantial amount of cash and other paraphernalia.

They are working. They’re dedicated. Believe me, from my own experience, there’s nothing that gets the ire of a policeman more so than the continuation of these offences in a community, and every resource is put on it to ensure that they stop.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: Obviously, this minister — and this government — doesn’t get it. They don’t get it. This minister, the minister before this minister and the minister before him read from the same script and rattled off the same numbers, and nothing has changed. That’s the reality.

These words of the minister ring hollow to the people of Surrey, really. It’s because they’ve heard these promises before. They’ve heard these numbers before. People saw an average of one shooting a week last year. This year we are on track to have double that — two a week so far, already. The gun violence isn’t going down; it’s escalating. Whatever strategies this minister and the minister before have rattled off here aren’t working.

So my question to the minister is this. What effective additional actions are you proposing and willing to take today to protect people of Surrey who are terrorized by this kind of gun violence on a daily basis?

Hon. M. Morris: On a regular basis, I’m getting updates from the RCMP as to the extent of the investigations that they are doing every day on these issues. The manpower they’ve got dedicated to these resources here…. The anti-gang unit that we have in British Columbia has been focused very much on the individuals that are responsible for these things.

The member opposite asked what additional things we can do. The families of the individuals that are involved in these kinds of activities have been a little bit reticent to come forward and say anything to the police. What I’m encouraging the….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Morris: What I am encouraging the families to do is to come forward to the police and provide them with the information that’s necessary to move these investigations forward to conclusion so that we can successfully put them behind bars.

S. Hammell: On Saturday night, there was another shooting in my neighbourhood. It was eight o’clock in the evening. It was still light near Kirkbride Elementary School. Kids were playing outside nearby. Those children were terrified by the gunshots. Imagine the fear their parents felt when they found out what happened. And this is not the first time that shots have been fired near a Surrey school in the last 12 months.

To the minister: what are you going to do about this today to keep kids in my city’s neighbourhoods safe from this out-of-control gun violence?

Hon. M. Morris: We’re going to continue to put the resources into the situation in Surrey until we put these individuals behind bars. But we’re also imploring the members of the family, the people that have information in Surrey on the activities of these individuals to come forward to help to speed up these investigations. The police are doing everything possible.

[1435]

I’ve been keeping pace with those investigations. They could do even more if the families of these individuals would come forward and provide information to the police.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

D. Eby: I rise to reserve my right to move a point of personal privilege in relation to comments of the Minister of Finance.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing esti-
[ Page 11705 ]
mates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development; and in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 15.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted this afternoon to make some comments related to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. I have a very personal connection to the work that’s being reflected here. One of the pieces of protected areas that is referenced in this bill is known as the Ancient Forest. It is an extraordinary part of British Columbia, and I’m very blessed that it’s actually a part of my riding in particular.

[1440]

I want to tell a little bit about the story of the Ancient Forest. It is an incredible place. It is very unique when you look at what it represents in terms of being the only inland temperate rainforest that we know exists. When one thinks of rainforests, they don’t normally think about Highway 16 in northern British Columbia. It’s an extraordinary place, and people are deeply connected to it.

I want to tell the story a little bit through the eyes of the volunteers, the people who have really poured their hearts, their souls, their physical labour into making the Ancient Forest the incredible place that it is today.

In the words of Nowell Senior, who is an amazing person…. He has spent much of his recent past trying to teach us about the importance of the Ancient Forest. I want to read a little bit about the Ancient Forest in Nowell’s own words.

Nowell began, he says, building a trail in the Ancient Forest in 2005 on a part-time basis as a volunteer with the Caledonia Ramblers Hiking Club. The trail opened to the public in 2006 and became popular very quickly, but it wasn’t accessible to visitors with mobility challenges. So in 2010, they began to work on a solution, a 456-metre-long boardwalk that would enable everyone to experience the Ancient Forest. “And when I retired,” in Nowell’s words, from his regular job in 2011, “the Ancient Forest became my full-time job.”

“My background was working with children and adults with disabilities, not building boardwalks. However, with a donation of lumber to build the first 50 metres of boardwalk, a chainsaw, $30 cash in hand, some hammers, a small box of nails, a huge box of optimism and a crew of Caledonia Ramblers retirees, we began to build a universal boardwalk.

“The boardwalk took four years and 6,500 hours of labour by 200 volunteers to complete. There were 72 sponsors who have funded all the projects at the Ancient Forest, with 42 of these funding the universal boardwalk. On opening day of the boardwalk, over 500 people came to celebrate the completion of the universal boardwalk, with local businesses donating enough food and other refreshments for all of these visitors. And 15,000 visitors came before we turned the Ancient Forest into a class A park” — or we will, with the passing of this bill.

“We continue to be astonished at the scope of the work done that’s done by volunteers. To date, visitors have signed in from across Canada, 38 states and 43 countries.

“In the past ten years, I have made over 500 trips to the Ancient Forest and driven 115,000 kilometres. Together with the other volunteers, we have contributed over 14,000 hours during these ten years.”

The Ancient Forest evokes that kind of passion, that kind of love.

I want to tell you a little bit about David King, who is another one of the volunteers, who first came to my office and sat down with me and talked about how imperative it was for our government to consider a level of protection for the Ancient Forest that would allow them not only to ensure that this incredible jewel in our part of British Columbia would be preserved and protected for future generations but would also allow us to now move on to seek World Heritage Site status.

Dave King is another one of those incredible volunteers. Here’s what he has to say about the Ancient Forest:

“Over the years, I’ve explored many new areas for possibilities of new trails, and I’ve located and built several. One of those areas was the Driscoll Ridge area in the vicinity of the present-day Ancient Forest Trail. In 2005, the club applied for a trail up Driscoll Ridge and simultaneously, from Dome Creek and Crescent Spur, put in an application for an interpretive trail. Both proposals began from the same spot on Highway 16, now the parking lot for the Ancient Forest.

“The Caledonia Ramblers were given the go-ahead for both trails. I began cutting out the rough Ancient Forest interpretive trail with help from Nowell Senior and others. We had several work bees, and by 2007, it was improved and being used by the public. We slowly made improvements.

[1445]

“In 2009, Nowell and I laid out a location for the universal boardwalk. We realized that the main part of the Ancient Forest was not usable by people with physical or some health disabilities. The concept was approved, and we began construction in 2010. It took four years to complete, and I built about 90 percent of the foundation.

“Visitor use continued to increase, and the main trail was taking a beating, so in 2014, we began laying a plank walk around the entire main trail of two-plus kilometres. That should be completed in 2016, and it will provide protection for soils and vegetation and make it easier for visitors.

“With regard to the park proposal, Nowell and I made a presentation to the regional district in 2009 to have the Ancient Forest included as a regional district park, but it did not meet the requirements.

“In about 2011, Dr. Darwyn Coxson, from the University of Northern British Columbia, had come to realize the old-growth cedar forest in the Ancient Forest area really should have a World Heritage Site designation. Darwyn and his students have been carrying out research in the area since the late 1990s. But for a World Heritage Site designation to happen, the area must first be protected in a provincial park.”

That’s when they came to visit me, and I can tell you we have spent the last number of years working together to ensure that this exceptional part of British Columbia is protected now and into the future.
[ Page 11706 ]

I want to recognize Darwyn Coxson. He is a professor in ecosystem science and management at the University of Northern British Columbia. He was one of the founding faculty, actually, at our very important university. His research on wet-temperate rainforests in British Columbia and internationally has been a very important factor in recognizing the significance of the Ancient Forest Trail area within British Columbia’s Robson Valley.

It is an incredibly important day for me today as we proceed with second reading. It was such an honour to bring volunteers here to the Legislature when the bill was introduced, when they realized their heart’s dream of protecting this unbelievable cedar-hemlock forest — as I said, the only known inland temperate rainforest in the world, which provides habitat to a very diverse range of species. It is only appropriate that it be protected in this way.

It’s also important to know that from our perspective, it’s incredibly important as an economic diversification tool as well. When you think of some of the challenges that the Robson Valley has faced with the downturn in the forest industry and other issues, this is a way that we can encourage people to come and to visit this incredible part of British Columbia, perhaps spend some time in McBride or Valemount and travel down Highway 5, Highway 16.

All of those things are important factors, but the most important factor is that we’re stewards of the land, and we have a responsibility to protect for future generations the magnificent and pristine Ancient Forest that we have. That is exactly what this bill is intended to do.

I should give you just a bit of detail. The area that we call the Ancient Forest is home to some of the largest old-growth cedar trees in the province. Several of these are more than 1,000 years old. The park will ensure that this very unique habitat will be excluded from some activities, but other activities will be allowed to continue. Once the legislation is passed and the Ancient Forest is a provincial park, we then have the opportunity to work together with the federal government to consider this area for a UNESCO World Heritage Site nomination.

I’m very pleased that very recently, in the last week, I was able to meet with the Minister of Small Business and Tourism for the federal government, Minister Bardish Chagger. It was ironic that she brought up the issue of the Ancient Forest to me. I thought it was very interesting and very important that already that issue is on their radar screen. I’m very grateful for that.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention the important role that our First Nation had to play in moving forward in the partnership. The Lheidli T’enneh have been partners in pursuing the protection of the park since the very beginning. Chief Dominic Frederick would often join the group that came to my office advocating for us to move this protection forward. I want to say a very heartfelt thank-you to Chief Dominic Frederick and the members of the Lheidli T’enneh, who worked so very constructively with us as we sought to have the forest protected.

[1450]

In recognition of the Ancient Forest, in fact, the forest will carry…. It will always be known, obviously, as the Ancient Forest, but it will also carry a First Nations name. I will apologize in advance if it’s not pronounced correctly, but the name of the forest will be Chun T’oh Whudujut. That’s the name that will be attached to the Ancient Forest, recognizing the important partnership that we have with First Nations in this particular region of the province.

With those remarks, I do want to once again recognize the incredible passion and hard work that has brought this particular part of this bill to the floor. It simply wouldn’t have been possible without people who worked tirelessly. In fact, I saw someone on the weekend. They’re already out there working this season to look at how they can finish the plank laying that has been undertaken.

It is a place that, once you have been there, you feel a very deep connection to the special place that it represents in British Columbia. So I want to thank the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and, in particular, the Minister of Environment, who met with us on numerous occasions, who worked through all of the things that are necessary to ensure that we can pass this incredible gift on to our children and our grandchildren. I look forward to sharing it with mine. They have the opportunity to come and to visit and to be in the Ancient Forest, so I am very grateful for that.

I want to conclude my remarks with my heartfelt support for the creation of the province’s newest class A park, the Ancient Forest. Thank you for this opportunity.

D. Donaldson: I’m happy to take my spot in the second reading debate on Bill 15, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016. Of course, second reading is a time for general comments, and I’ll have some comments specifically to the proposed amendments under the act around parks and also around our provincial park system in general.

I know that most members in this Legislature would agree with me to say that our provincial park system is a legacy. It’s something that highlights the beauty of our province. It also preserves the fundamental ecological systems that they represent for future generations. An important part, as the previous member spoke about, too, is that they add to the economic diversity of many of the rural communities that are situated close to those parks.

I have a few specific questions for the minister that either she might take the opportunity to respond to in the closing of this second reading debate or in committee stage.

One of the areas that stuck out for me is Tazdli Wyiez Bin/Burnie-Shea Park, which is situated on the border of the constituency I represent and the constituency that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
[ Page 11707 ]
represents. That park is a wilderness park. There’s no road access to get to the park. It’s in the Howson Range, a spectacular setting south of Smithers and Telkwa — just a beautiful, beautiful area of the province.

In the proposed bill that we are discussing today…. It covers many parks. Some are additions, and some are boundary readjustments. We have a class A park designation proposed that I’ll be speaking to. In the instance of Tazdli Wyiez Bin/Burnie-Shea Park, the amendment is to repeal the Wet’suwet’en part of the name — Tazdli Wyiez Bin — and just let Burnie-Shea Park stand as the name of the park.

[1455]

This park sits on the traditional territories of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, and so I have been curious about the name change. The minister, in her opening comments in second reading, said: “Fourthly, the amendments change the name of four parks and correct the spelling of one park. Tazdli Wyiez Bin/Burnie-Shea Park is being renamed Burnie-Shea Park at the request of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, who do not feel that the First Nation name they originally provided for the park correctly reflects its meaning.”

The reason that caught my attention is that the Wet’suwet’en First Nation is an elected band council. It’s the Broman Lake band, and the same mistake was made by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in budget estimates when I was asking him about the difference.

The difference is that the Wet’suwet’en Nation is the name for the hereditary chiefs whose territory the Burnie-Shea Park covers. The Tazdli Wyiez Bin is actually on Tsayu clan territory, and that’s traditional territory.

I’ll give the minister the opportunity to correct the record that it’s actually the Wet’suwet’en Nation who would have jurisdiction over that area, because it’s not within the boundaries of the reserve that’s represented by the Wet’suwet’en First Nation or the Broman Lake band, and that’s an important distinction when it comes to aboriginal title and decision-making over traditional territories in the northwest and especially in relation to what we’re discussing in Bill 15 — the Burnie-Shea Park.

The translation of Tazdli Wyiez Bin refers to the Burnie Lakes and “the little mist on the water” or “mist is falling” — the geography there demonstrating that there’s a lot of elevation gain and fall, and the waters are tumbling down. That’s the translation of the Wet’suwet’en language that this amendment is suggesting to repeal.

Again, it would be great to hear some clarification from the minister, as she is wrapping up second reading debate, around this dropping of the Wet’suwet’en name and also the fact that it’s the hereditary chiefs who are the authority in this territory, and it’s not on reserve lands.

I’d also like to discuss a little bit more about Burnie-Shea Park. Although I’ve visited a number of the provincial parks that are mentioned in Bill 15 and many other provincial parks in the province, I have not had the opportunity to set foot in Burnie-Shea. I’ve been close to it in another area that borders Burnie-Shea that is also only accessible by foot or helicopter.

I would look forward to setting foot in Burnie-Shea Park because there’s a commercial operator there who I know very well. Bear Mountaineering built the Burnie Glacier Chalet in 2001 in Burnie-Shea Park. The chalet is rustic but very, very comfortable, and it’s where Christoph Dietzfelbinger, who is the owner of Bear Mountaineering….

He’s a certified Canadian mountain guide and certified international mountain guide. He guides back-country ski mountaineering trips out of that Burnie Glacier Chalet, and it’s also very beautiful in the summertime as well. A question for the minister would be, as well: as the commercial leaseholder and the only commercial leaseholder in Tazdli Wyiez Bin/Burnie-Shea Park, was he consulted on the fact that this bill proposes to repeal the Wet’suwet’en part of the name?

[1500]

I note in his advertising materials that he still includes the Wet’suwet’en name for the park, as well as Burnie-Shea Park, and he’s very proud of the fact that he negotiated and consulted and did a lot of work as a member of the community with his Wet’suwet’en neighbours and friends to ensure that their interests were reflected in his commercial back-country development and in the naming of the park.

It would be good to know whether the minister can advise, through her summing up of the second reading debate or in committee stage, whether the only commercial leaseholder in Burnie-Shea Park was actually consulted about the change of the name.

Of course, this man, Christoph Dietzfelbinger, is marketing not only to B.C. but to the rest of Canada and to an international crowd, and we know that there is great interest internationally in First Nations issues and culture. When the renaming or the repealing of the Wet’suwet’en part of the name of the park is suggested by this bill and by this government, one would think that commercial implications to the only leaseholder in the park would also be considered. I would be interested in knowing the consultation that occurred there.

Again, the Burnie Glacier Chalet is an amazing place to visit. It’s on my list to get to. It might have to be after I’m no longer the MLA for Stikine, when I have more time to get in better physical condition to enjoy Burnie-Shea Park, as discussed in Bill 15, and get into that chalet for some great back-country activities — skiing or hiking, perhaps even under my own power. You can. I know Christoph has led people in, including his own daughter, on alpine touring skis, so you don’t have to necessarily use a helicopter to get in. That would be a challenge that I would look forward to.

You can also access the chalet through non-guided means too. You can rent the chalet.
[ Page 11708 ]

It also brought up an interesting point for me — Bill 15 — in that Mr. Dietzfelbinger pays a lease fee, which he’s comfortable with or realizes is part of the obligations he has in using that area. He has made improvements in Burnie-Shea Park, trail improvements, so that everyone can have greater access to the spectacular scenery and views and alpine terrain. From subalpine to alpine, he has built these trails — and then lower down to the Burnie lakes, as well, in case people come in by floatplane.

These trails are part of the requirement under the lease. Obviously, Mr. Dietzfelbinger would wholly endorse this, as the trails are public. Anybody can use these trails, even though Mr. Dietzfelbinger has undertaken to build them at his own cost.

He was asking of me — and I asked this several years ago, as well, to the Minister of Environment at the time — if there could be any possible recognition of that kind of investment when it came to the lease fee. In other words, accommodating the fact that a commercial back-country leaseholder has put in capital investment into infrastructure that is open to everybody in the public…. Could that not be considered an accommodation being made on those costs under the lease fee that he pays to the province for operating his business within the provincial park?

That conversation and that suggestion has gone nowhere with the provincial government. But I hasten to add that although we’re talking about Burnie-Shea Park under Bill 15, there is precedent. We know that forest companies…. When they build roads into their forest licence areas, those kinds of costs are accommodated when it comes to paying the cost of stumpage to the province. Those kinds of input costs by forest companies are considered.

[1505]

Here we have a commercial recreation leaseholder who provides back-country recreation opportunities and also has input costs into infrastructure that the public can use, and he is not, under the current legislation or the current policy by this government, allowed to be accommodated for those costs in his lease fees.

That’s something else under Bill 15, under the Burnie-Shea amendment regarding the name of the park that struck me. I would like to see some consideration by the government on this. Perhaps the minister will address that in her comments to wrap up second reading.

There are a number of other parks mentioned in Bill 15. A few of them I have visited. Prudhomme Lake Park is close to Prince Rupert, and we see that there’s going to be an adjustment to the boundaries of that park. It’s got an interesting atmosphere, that park. It’s very close to the coast, obviously, so there’s a huge coastal influence. But it’s a freshwater lake, and you don’t get a lot of those where you can actually camp at very close to the tidewater.

It’s also a spot where it’s hard, difficult often, to get a spot because it’s the only provincial park in close proximity to Prince Rupert along Highway 16. Many people use it as a stopping-off place so they can go in and access the amenities of Prince Rupert. That shows, again, as the previous speaker from Prince George mentioned, how provincial parks also have an important economic aspect for local communities.

I was able this summer to stay in a couple of provincial parks. I stayed at Tyhee Provincial Park, which is in Stikine on Tyhee Lake, very close to Telkwa. I had a staycation there. I managed to…. Even though it’s only about an hour from where I live, I took a week’s holiday and set up for five days in the Tyhee Park. It was beautiful — sunsets, paddling, hiking, running, and not too far from Telkwa, where there’s an amazing bakery. You could actually run into Telkwa, if you felt like it, and have some amazing pastries.

Purden Lake I also stayed at. This is connected to Bill 15 in that Purden Lake is just east of Prince George. It’s a very beautiful park up on the plateau to the east of Prince George. The reason I mention it in connection to Bill 15 is that this summer my wife’s relatives from Scotland visited, and we camped at Purden Lake. We also visited what is being now proposed in Bill 15 for a class A park, the Ancient Forest — the Chun T’oh Whudujut Park, in the Lheidli T’enneh First Nations language. That is being proposed as I’ve said, in Bill 15 for a class A status.

When we camped at Purden Lake…. I don’t know if people from other parts of the province knew, but we had an amazing spring and first half of the summer in northern B.C. Around July 20, when my wife’s relatives from Scotland were coming over, we said, “We’re going to camp at Purden, and we’re going to go to the Ancient Forest,” as referenced in Bill 15. “Don’t worry. Just bring your shorts. It’s been an amazing summer.” The day they landed it started raining, and it never stopped in northern B.C. for the rest of the summer and into the fall.

At Purden, we sat around the campfire and smoked our hotdogs and smokies and tried to give them the Canadian experience. They were impressed, but it was pretty wet. They brought that from Scotland, I think.

The next day we stopped at the Ancient Forest, the area that’s being proposed for the class A park. We were on our way east to Jasper and the Rockies and stopped in. Many times I’ve driven that route from Prince George to Jasper and then down further south along the Icefields Parkway, and I hadn’t stopped. I saw this sign, “Ancient Forest,” and I saw a big parking lot. But I was in too much of a rush.

[1510]

Often that happens to us. We’re more intent on getting from A to B rather than enjoying the journey along the way. I guess that’s what’s nice about holiday time and having visitors from other places. We actually stop and take in, sometimes, the sights that are almost in our own backyard that we don’t appreciate.

That day we stopped at the Ancient Forest that is now being proposed to become a class A park — 11,190 hectares and a great effort by the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation
[ Page 11709 ]
and the Caledonia Ramblers hiking society. I was super impressed. In a previous career, I was head of back-country maintenance for a national park in the Rockies. I was a former trail builder on a trail crew for a decade. So when I see a new trail and I see the effort that was put into it, I really appreciate the thought and the engineering that has gone into the work.

What struck me first was the 500 metres of boardwalk. It’s not often that you stop, really, in the middle of nowhere, halfway between Prince George and McBride, about 120 kilometres east of Prince George, in this big gravel parking lot, and you get out of your car and there is this amazing 500 metres of boardwalk.

It’s great because that kind of accessibility is needed more and more in our parks. It gives people who have mobility issues a chance to experience the wonders that that area holds — the interior temperate rainforest, just an amazing, amazing forest. The boardwalk was constructed pretty well, I think, with volunteer labour by the Caledonia Ramblers hiking society, and it’s a real testament to their volunteerism and the value that they put in this area.

After the 500-metre boardwalk, the trail continues, and there’s a loop with a trail jutting off it. The loop is about three kilometres in length. It was great. I took the opportunity to put on my running shoes, and while my relatives were walking, I took a run around the trail loop just to stretch the legs between the drive from Prince George to Jasper and then down — we were heading to Field, B.C., at that time — so it was a great stop for that.

I was taken aback, actually, when I got back from my run. The number of vehicles in and out of the parking lot at the Ancient Forest was phenomenal. It was busy. I was surprised. I have learned since then that in 2015, 20,000-plus visitors stopped at that park.

There’s the boardwalk, there’s the interpretive signage, and there’s the three-kilometre loop. It all shows that if you build it, people will come. And if you build it in areas that are as special as the Ancient Forest, the Chun T’Oh Whudujut Park, people will come and enjoy it. I think it was being talked up a lot in the visitor centres in Prince George. Again, it’s another reason for people to stay a little longer in the area and to spend a little more time and, oftentimes, a little more money in the area.

We have the addition of this park, proposed under this Bill 15 — 11,190 hectares — and we have had a proposal, even, that it might become, or it’s going to be promoted to become, a UNESCO World Heritage Site because of that inland temperate rainforest. You know, when I went through it, I appreciated it, but where I live, in Hazelton, we have a lot of that style of forest — cedar, hemlock. But to see it so far to the east, almost to the Rockies, is what makes it so special and unique.

[1515]

We have an addition to the park system, and we have this, perhaps, going to be presented as a UNESCO World Heritage Site candidate. Yet there’s the concern that in the budget, basically, the budget line item under the Ministry of Environment for parks is flatlined. It’s 0.2 percent of an increase. That increase doesn’t even match inflation, so actually the parks line item under the Ministry of Environment budget is losing ground in this budget year.

That’s a concern because we see addition to parks, like a good proposed addition here, a class A park, but without the necessary resources to accompany it. That can be a problem.

That can be a problem for maintenance of these parks. That can become a problem for the quality of the visitor experience — how well maintained, for instance, that parking lot and the washroom facilities are. That applies across all parks, whether it was in the parks discussed in Bill 15, the more front-country parks, like Prudhomme; the ones I visited this summer, like Tyhee or Purden; or the more back-country parks, like the Tazdli Wyiez Bin/Burnie-Shea Park in Bill 15. This becomes an issue when you don’t add any resources to the existing base to support these parks.

As a previous speaker said, from Prince George, these parks are not only important from the aspect of preserving unique ecosystems for now, for enjoyment now and for future generations, but they have a role to play in driving diversity in local economies. If you do not invest in that kind of asset, then you risk compromising the local economies and compromising that diversity that allows rural communities, especially, to weather the ups and downs of the natural resource cycles by having diversity in areas such as tourism.

That’s a concern — that new parks and existing parks do not have the resources necessary to be all they can be when we see the park line item in this year’s budget, under the Ministry of Environment, actually losing ground.

There’s also a concern that Bill 15 makes me think about, and that’s that in 2014, Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, was presented and passed by this minister. It permitted exploration research for industrial development for parks and protected areas. Not only did it do that, but it was at ministerial discretion — in other words, an order-in-council. There would not necessarily have to be any public debate.

We know people really have a strong feeling for their national parks. If there’s going to be any kind of industrial development — even if it is for research purposes, like drilling or geotechnical work — then that should be out in the open. It shouldn’t be a decision made behind closed doors at the discretion of the minister and the cabinet under an order-in-council.

That was a bill that this government tabled and passed in the Legislature in 2014. Again, when you look at Bill 15 today and we celebrate and the minister, rightly so, celebrates the provincial parks we have in this province…. Yet the same minister who really should be defending
[ Page 11710 ]
provincial parks introduced an amendment two years ago so that this kind of ministerial discretion could be used to permit industrial development in parks without the kind of public debate that should occur.

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: The minister seems to object to that, but Bill 4 was a bill that she introduced two years ago and that was passed. That was passed, and now when we talk about Bill 15 and the possible UNESCO protection, I think this government will have to answer to that.

You’re applying for a provincial park or you may be promoting a class A provincial park for UNESCO status. It was in the provincial government’s, this government’s, press release that they were looking forward to that potential. Yet they’re going to have to answer at that time to an organization like UNESCO about permitting research for industrial development in parks at the same time.

[1520]

Of course, “research” means geotechnical drilling, setting up drilling pads and drilling sites in provincial parks. That’s the kind of thing that this government is going to have to answer for — rightly so — if they want to promote to UNESCO world heritage organization that this kind of class A park that’s considered in Bill 15 could become a candidate for that.

All in all, I’m happy to talk to Bill 15 at this second reading, because it gives the opportunity to say how much we all enjoy and appreciate the provincial parks in this province. I look forward to the second reading comments or, perhaps at committee stage, for the minister to correct the record on the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs aboriginal title over the Burnie-Shea area versus what she, I think, perhaps misspoke, referring to it as a reserve area under the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, the Broman Lake band — and also to hear about the consultation that occurred on the change in the name of the park with the commercial back-country operator in that park.

With that, I conclude my second reading debate comments.

J. Thornthwaite: I am happy to add my voice to those supporting Bill 15, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016. I’d like to start off with a quote. “It was a time when the critters were closer to the folks, and the folks were closer to the critters, and you might even say things were better all around.” Where did I get that? In Critter Country, in Disneyland, last week when I was on a holiday with my family. And of course, Winnie-the-Pooh and Christopher Robin spent a lot of time in the Ancient Forest.

The proposed legislation will establish one new class A park, add land to four parks and one conservatory, add marine foreshore to one park, adjust the boundary of one park and will make administrative changes to clarify park descriptions. Five parks and one conservancy will see land or foreshore additions, making up 530 hectares of the increase.

Halkett Bay Marine Park has added 136 hectares of marine foreshore, and there’s a name change from the Halkett Bay Park to Halkett Bay Marine Park to reflect the increased significance of the marine component, 136 hectares of marine foreshore being added to the park.

The Okanagan Mountain Park has 263 hectares added. Prudhomme Lake Park — 2.2 hectares of land and 1.9 hectares of lake foreshore. Tweedsmuir Provincial Park, 98 hectares. I’m going to probably get this pronunciation wrong for this park: sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ Park, 0.4 hectares; and Sheemahant conservancy, 28.5 hectares.

This legislation will add more than 11,700 hectares to B.C.’s protected area system, including the establishment of a new provincial park, an ancient forest: Chun T’oh Whudujut Park. The legislation was created with extensive consultations about the Ancient Forest Park proposal, including local government, First Nations and the public. The Ancient Forest is 120 kilometres east of Prince George, along Highway 16, adjacent to Slim Creek Provincial Park.

The creation of a new class A park brings the total number in the protected area system to 628. Our Class A parks are dedicated to the preservation of the natural environment for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. Development in a class A park is limited to that which is necessary for the preservation and maintenance of recreational activities. Activities such as grazing, hay-cutting and other uses — except commercial logging, mining or hydroelectric development — that existed at the time the park was established may be allowed to continue.

Three of the name changes reflect the aboriginal significance to the area, including reflecting communities of the Osoyoos Indian Band.

[1525]

The Ancient Forest is part of an interior cedar-hemlock forest, the only known inland temperate rainforest on earth. The area is home to a diverse ecosystem which includes some of the oldest western cedar trees in British Columbia.

In July 2015, B.C. signed an agreement with the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation and the Caledonia Ramblers hiking society, a community-based conservation organization, to explore the possibility of protecting this special area. Extensive consultations ensued, including a series of community meetings in McBride, Dome Creek, Shelley and Prince George. A consultation paper was posted on line for public feedback, drawing more than 100 submissions.

Local governments, including the regional district of Fraser–Fort George, the city of Prince George and the village of McBride, were invited to attend all these open houses. The Lheidli T’enneh First Nation, which is the
[ Page 11711 ]
only First Nation whose traditional territory includes the proposed park, has been working in close partnership with the government and has provided part of the name for the park, which means “the oldest trees.”

I add my voice to those that are supporting Bill 15, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of Bill 15, the Protected Areas of B.C. Amendment Act. It gives me great pleasure because I love nature. I love parks. I love our wilderness areas. I love what they do for us as a society, as a community. I love what they do for our economy, for our environment, for our understanding of our place in the world.

It doesn’t take long from entering a park…. For me, my joke — it’s probably reality — is: my church is nature. That’s where I go to find spirituality. It doesn’t take too long before you enter most any one of our natural areas in B.C. till you’re reminded about how connected we are to the greatness of nature, of this place that we all live on; how small we are; how we should perhaps be a bit humbler, which I think is something that our constituents would appreciate from every one of us elected politicians. Humility is a good thing, and nature can certainly provide that.

You know, one thing that I think I’d recommend everyone in this House and at home do if they’re interested in the history of parks, if they’re interested in how B.C. created the number of parks or announced or named them — the parks were there before we called them a park; that’s an important thing that I’ll touch on soon — is to pick up a book that I read the other day, which I don’t think got the same attention that it should have.

It’s from 2011. It’s called British Columbia’s Magnificent Parks: The First 100 Years, by James D. Anderson. He’s a former B.C. Parks employee, a staff member who worked for many years in the trenches helping to build our parks and our Ministry of Environment, as we know it today. He goes through the history of each and every park, from Strathcona on upwards: how they came to be, the difference between classifications of parks, how we used to manage parks.

What was interesting, I think, in the book was how many times the creation of the parks didn’t come from politicians. It wasn’t political leaders who wanted to pat themselves on the back and stand in front of a press conference. No, it came about because of community action and the staff in the ministry themselves. Staff members went out and scoured the province — on horseback in the early days, in many cases — to find what we had, what was here, what needed to be protected, what particularly spectacular places needed to be saved.

Now, of course, I think it’s important to acknowledge that First Nations people, who were here long before most of us, were here protecting those areas, working with those areas and living with those areas. Of course, in this bill today, there’s actually a recognition of that, to an extent. I do want to acknowledge and thank the government for doing that.

One very simple way to understand it would be to look at sẁiẁs Park, what was formally known as Haynes Point Park — which, of course, before that had an Osoyoos Nation name. To change the name to just the First Nations name, in the Osoyoos language, I think is really important, because it frames how we should understand that park.

[1530]

It wasn’t a park all of a sudden on which now we go: “Oh, now the First Nations people are wanting there.” In fact, no, it was one of the major crossing points for the nation. I understand, in talking to the Osoyoos Nation as well as archaeologists up there, it’s an incredibly important park for the history and understanding of civilization, of settlement, of living in the Okanagan Valley for thousands upon thousands of years.

It’s very important that we acknowledge that and that it be understood, because too often our parks have been created, and only now are we acknowledging that, no, they were village sites, their homes. They were foraging and hunting sites, important religious and cultural sites for First Nations, straight through to today.

The naming of a park, or the creation of a park, didn’t change that. Sometimes, unfortunately, in a number of cases, the B.C. government of the day acted in such a way as to try to dispossess the people who were on the land to begin with, who were there, and to keep them away from territory that they knew better than the B.C. Parks staff or the ministry or the politicians who were stepping in and saying: “No, this is a park. Don’t you know how important this is?” Well, obviously, the nations did, as they were protecting and taking care of the areas for many generations prior to us. I think that is very important.

I do want to acknowledge that the Ancient Forest Park, which is being created in this legislation, was created in partnership with the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation. Chun T’oh Whudujut, I believe, is how I heard others say it, and I’m going to meet a Lheidli T’enneh First Nation person to learn it one of these days when I actually get up there and do a fuller walk around the park.

I must admit that I only did complete half of it. I was late, but I’d always heard that it was a place to visit. Prior to its becoming a provincial park, I did get in for a visit and a hike along that volunteer-created trail part of the way. I realized that I was going to be late for a meeting, so I had to pull myself out of my temple, out of the forest, and get out there on the road to get to another meeting in the community.

It’s an incredible place. I do want to thank the volunteers. Again, going back to my earlier point: it’s volunteers, community members who are out on the land, who get to see these places, who know these places, who then raise them, often, with politicians or ministry staff who
[ Page 11712 ]
then bring forward these recommendations for action. It’s an exciting day to be able to see that part of a new park, the actual creation of a new park here. Community; First Nations; volunteers; the government, in this case; forestry and others are coming together to say: “We need to protect these parks. These places are important.”

Our parks need our help. I know we’re shifting some boundaries, adding a few bits and bobs here and there in a couple of other areas — important changes, absolutely — but we’re not, at least in my view, doing enough to acknowledge that parks are incredibly important places in a time of climate change.

The connections between parks are vital. It doesn’t do us all that much good if we protect an endangered species in one park, but all of a sudden they can’t get anywhere else. That makes them prone, of course, to disease and various other things, because they cannot interbreed with other creatures of the same ilk. They can’t do their business, so to speak, and they can die very quickly.

That’s happening across Canada now, as we’re seeing a die-off globally of endangered species, unlike any we’ve seen for many, many years — since the ice age, they say — from anthropogenic changes, human-caused changes, which are impacting species in ways we could never predict.

While we’ve managed to protect many areas that are important for ecosystems and ecological health, unfortunately the linkages between them are not that great. So you can get an island effect, where you have islands of protection which aren’t integrated to create an entirety of protection which a species may need to survive. We need to look at that.

Does that mean new parks? Yes. Does that mean changes to certain other areas — that maybe it’s not a park, but it’s a conservation area, or it’s an area with limited uses? Yes, we need to look at that kind of thing. It’s looking at how we can do things where there are already settlements in areas that are blocking species diversity and seeing how we can integrate species into our communities rather than keeping them out.

Sometimes something as simple as ensuring that there’s an access way under a road for amphibians could be all the difference in terms of: do they survive or not? That has to be integrated into all of our thinking.

I, of course, as well, would urge that we should look to actually get a B.C. species-at-risk act so that B.C. by law is much stronger in terms of how we address species at risk, so that we actually have an obligation to ensure that we’re not saying goodbye to certain species for the last time, never to be seen again in this province, by us or anybody. To the next generation, surely, we have an responsibility to do that.

[1535]

There are other challenges with our parks. Of course, climate change is a massive one, in terms of changes to the parks themselves.

Maintenance issues. We people coming into parks can do all sorts of things. We can do great things; we can do damaging things. In some cases, maintenance and enforcement and conservation really aren’t keeping pace with the demands the public is putting on places. You’re finding very sensitive environmental areas trampled. You’re finding, in some cases….

Boardwalks are important to keep people off of very sensitive ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems. etc. You find boardwalks broken or nonexistent. Then, of course, people are trampling through the bogs, trampling through the brush, creating a real mess, in some cases, in environments that take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to bounce back to the strength that they had before. With climate change and that stress, that’s even more difficult.

When I read through mountaineer websites, when I read hiking websites, Facebook, etc. — I’m a bit of hiker, bit of an outdoor enthusiast — what I hear loud and clear from most parts of the province is this. This incredible trail, which I last took in the 1990s…. It was clean. It was clear. It had just been rebuilt. Now you can’t find it anymore. You find that in park after park after park. Trails that were built through student grants, in some cases….

The government of the day had programs designed to get youth working — youth unemployment programs to help youth get employed, and not just youth — and environmental leadership programs, where you could go out and build trails. Maybe it was a small grant to a community organization in B.C. parks. Those don’t really exist anymore, and we’re seeing the damage in park after park after park.

You hear about it — unfortunately, sometimes — from visitors, who come here. They say: “I love the place. You’ve got incredible natural areas. But, you know, you really don’t take care of them very well. Why?” They compare us to Washington state, Oregon, Alberta. They compare us, in those cases, unfavourably. They say we’ve got incredible assets, which are better than any of those provinces, but that we’re not taking care of them as we should.

Certainly, as we add more parks in B.C., I would argue that you have to add more parks protection and support — support to keep those parks healthy, support to keep those ecosystems healthy and to deal with the conservation challenges. Sometimes people go into parks and do some pretty bad things. They cut trees down — massive cedars. I was at one park on Vancouver Island — Carmanah Valley. What happened there? Well, somebody came and chopped down an old-growth cedar, put it in the back of their pickup truck and drove away. Now, it’s far away. It’s hard to get there. So I understand it can be challenging at times to get enforcement actions.

But really, when you talk to anybody who works in parks these days or who volunteers or who just uses them a lot, for the most part they can’t tell you the last time they saw somebody actually employed by the parks de-
[ Page 11713 ]
partment, by the Ministry of Environment, actually out in the field. The park rangers, the conservation officers, will tell you the same thing. They say it used to be any time, anywhere. Now they say it’s call me, maybe. “You call me. Maybe I’ll respond. Maybe I won’t. Maybe I’ll have gas money to be able to get to the issue. Maybe I can’t. Maybe I’m the only conservation officer in an area the size of France.”

That’s actually true. That happens in a number of parts of B.C., where it’s good luck getting an officer out. They want to come, but there are too few of them, and the geography is vast. Environmental laws go unpunished. People break them. They don’t have to deal with any repercussion. We see that all across the province. I know that the Wildlife Federation has raised this issue time and time again. They want action. Ecotourism businesses want action. But unfortunately, we’re not getting there.

While we create new laws, while we pass more protected areas, while we create more conservancies, I think we also have a duty and obligation to ensure that they’re more than just a word on a paper, that they actually have that standard of protection and support. A class A park should be a class A park. It should be an area that we put our utmost attention to protecting and ensuring it’s there in just as healthy, if not healthier, a situation in the future. Many of our parks, to be honest, need some help. They really do.

We, as humans, have impacted them in ways that we may not have thought of as being an issue at all. I think of a local park. There had been people living there prior to it becoming a park. What happened? Well, they wanted it to be like home back in jolly old England. What did they bring? They brought their English ivy. They put it out all over their gardens. They thought the ivy was the most beautiful thing in the world.

[1540]

They’ve long since left that area, and the ivy hasn’t. It has taken over tree after tree after tree and killed a whole bunch of pretty useful habitat for species. It’s just an English ivy morass, very difficult to eradicate. You can, and I have, in a number of parks now. A favourite thing to get aggression out on the weekend after being in the Legislature is pulling English ivy. But that’s the kind of thing we’re dealing with in parks today: the disturbances that we have left of habitats or species we may have introduced, thinking that it would help. Well, it hasn’t.

Of course, forestry. In that tradition, we have a lot of work to do to help re-establish some of the ecosystems that may have been impacted during days when we didn’t have very good protections to ensure that forestry was done to the level of protections that we should have — challenges which, I might add, we continue to face in some parts of this province.

I’m excited to be able to visit a number of these parks in the future when they are actually officially parks, in the case of the Ancient Forest. I’m excited that we’re seeing interest, at least, in the naming of parks. I’m certainly hopeful we can then follow that up with investments in parks.

Finally, I think there are a few things we still have left to do. In British Columbia’s Magnificent Parks: The First 100 Years, something James D. Anderson had to say a lot about was the importance of acquiring parks and the importance of people thinking forward, thinking long term about how to create places to visit, places that people want to go to. He identified a few parks in B.C. which wouldn’t have come about if it hadn’t been for the staff and community members and others working together, some of them Rathtrevor Park, Ruckle Park on Saltspring, Porteau Cove, Okanagan Lake.

For many people in B.C., when they hear those names, they think of camping. They think: “Oh well, I’ve been to that park. I’ve stayed in that park.” They’re incredible parks. They are some of the parks with the highest occupancy rates in B.C. Why is that? They’re close to population centres. That helps. But they’re incredibly useful places that you can get to quickly — bring your family, hang out, visit, have an up-close-and-personal visit with nature. And they were purchased through a fund in the budget to purchase parks.

I think we need to have that fund in a bigger way again, where community members can raise money. They can put money together. Others maybe want to donate a property or sell part of their property, what have you — ways that we can expand the system through community support, ways that we can work with the tourism industry as well. So when there is a site that would draw a lot of interest — tourism interest, public interest as well — we can step in and protect it and make sure that it’s there forever.

Park architects of the past, park staff, community members and a few brave — well, I wouldn’t say brave, actually; that would be the wrong term — a few hopeful politicians — and actually, once they did it, then all the politicians wanted to get in on it — have helped expand the park system in B.C. to a level that we’ve never seen before. There are still a few ecosystems which aren’t included — one that I think we need included in the national park in Okanagan-Similkameen — but that’s still to come, I hope. I knock on wood.

We’ve still got a way to go for sure, but this is a good day to declare a new park, and I’m proud to support the bill.

D. Plecas: I’m pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South and speak to, and in favour of, Bill 15. That is the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016.

British Columbia, as we all know, is known around the world for its pristine natural beauty. We as British Columbians are lucky to have such an immense natural playground, which offers endless opportunities for outdoor adventure and exploration. Our incredible system of parks not only protects significant ecological and cul-
[ Page 11714 ]
tural values, but it also provides visitors and residents alike with unforgettable experiences.

Bill 15 demonstrates government’s commitment to preserving our province’s spectacular natural beauty for generations in the future and for all British Columbians. If this legislation is passed, B.C.’s parks and protected area systems will increase by more than 11,000 hectares.

[1545]

The proposed legislation will establish one new class A park, add land to four parks and one conservancy, add marine foreshore to one park, adjust the boundary of one park and will make administrative changes to clarify park descriptions. These administrative changes include changing the names of four parks and clarifying several park descriptions.

The proposed class A provincial park named the Ancient Forest or Chun T’oh Whudujut Park is an ecological marvel in our province. Located 120 kilometres east of Prince George along Highway 16, the Ancient Forest is part of the interior cedar-hemlock forest, which is the only known inland temperate rainforest on earth. The area is home to a diverse and healthy ecosystem, including some of the oldest western cedar trees in the province.

Class A parks are lands dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. Development in a class A park is limited to that which is necessary for the preservation and maintenance of its recreational values and ensuring that the Ancient Forest remains a pristine natural wonder for future generations to explore.

There were many groups that were extensively involved in preserving this space, and I would like to take this opportunity to mention some of them today. In July ’15, the province signed an agreement with the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation and the Caledonia Ramblers Hiking Society, a community-based conservation organization, to explore the possibilities of protecting this special area.

Since that time, extensive consultation about the Ancient Forest Park proposal has been undertaken with local government, First Nations and the public in order to create this legislation. A series of community meetings were held in surrounding communities, including McBride, Dome Creek, Shelley and Prince George. A consultation paper was posted on line for public feedback, and it drew more than 100 submissions.

Local governments — including the regional district of Fraser–Fort George, the city of Prince George and the village of McBride — were invited to attend open houses. In addition, the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation, which is the only First Nation whose traditional territory includes a proposed park, has been working closely in partnership with the government throughout this process. They have even provided part of the name for the park, Chun T’oh Whudujut, which means “oldest trees.”

I would also like to mention Darwyn Coxson, a biology professor from the University of Northern British Columbia, who was very helpful and knowledgable as resource throughout the consultation process.

The Ancient Forest Provincial Park will be managed within the current budget of B.C. Parks, which will continue the existing arrangement with the Caledonia Ramblers Hiking Society for the maintenance of the popular hiking trail and boardwalk in the park. After establishing this area as a provincial park, work can begin on getting the area named as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Bill 15 will also provide land or foreshore additions to five parks and one conservatory, making up 530 hectares of the total increase to B.C. parks and protected areas. Halkett Bay Marine Park will be increased by 136 hectares of marine foreshore, which protects a recently discovered rare glass sponge reef southeast of Gambier Island.

Okanagan Mountain Park will be increased by 263 hectares, resulting from Crown lands being added to the park. Prudhomme Lake Park will see additions of 2.2 hectares of land and 1.96 hectares of lake foreshore as a result of a private land acquisition. Tweedsmuir Park and sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ Park will see increases of 98 hectares and 0.4 hectares respectively, due to a private land acquisition.

[1550]

Finally, the Sheemahant conservancy will be increased by 28.5 hectares, resulting from the inclusion of a former forestry road and cutting area.

I would also like to note that Bill 15 will make slight changes to the boundaries of the Nahatlach Park, with the removal of 1.2 hectares to offer those lands to the Boston Bar First Nations as part of a negotiated settlement.

Bill 15 also proposes name changes to four class A parks. Halkett Bay Park is being changed to Halkett Bay Marine Park to reflect the increased significance of marine foreshore in the park’s area. Tazdli Wyiez Bin/Burnie-Shea Park is being renamed to just Burnie-Shea Park. This change is being made at the request of the Wet’suwet’en First Nations, who did not feel the name they originally identified for the park reflected the correct meaning.

The legislation also removes the words Haynes Point and Okanagan Falls from sẁiẁs and sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ parks, following their official renaming on May 15 to their traditional First Nations names. These two park names are being changed, again, to reflect commitments made by the province in a more recent discussion with the Osoyoos Indian Band.

To summarize, the changes proposed by Bill 15 reflect government’s commitment to work with First Nations and other groups to ensure that B.C.’s natural beauty can continue to awe and inspire generations to come. For these reasons, with my constituents in Abbotsford South in mind, I am proud to speak in support of this act today.
[ Page 11715 ]

J. Rice: I’m happy to rise today to speak to Bill 15, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016. As mentioned earlier, the proposed bill creates a new class A provincial park near Prince George, preserving an ancient forest. It adds land and aquatic foreshore to five parks and one conservancy, and it adjusts the boundary of another park and makes some administrative changes to clarify park descriptions.

I will rise today and support this bill, but I’ll take the opportunity to make comments on two of the impacted parks which fall within my constituency — one being Prudhomme Lake Park, which is just outside of Prince Rupert — a very popular area used by local residents and visitors. Another park, a much larger park, which is Tweedsmuir Park, encompasses so many constituencies of so many MLAs. But the proposed changes in this amendment act impact the area of the park close to my constituency — Bella Coola.

I think I’ll talk a little bit about just the fact that in the central coast…. To access Tweedsmuir Park in the Bella Coola area, that part of the park, one of the ways of getting there is by ferry. This is the central coast ferry route that was cut, subsequently, in the last two years. We’ve lost the key tool to accessing this part of Tweedsmuir Park. It’s a gorgeous park. I visit it every time I visit my constituents in the central coast.

I’ve also had the pleasure of staying in a cabin within Tweedsmuir Park near the Atnarko River watershed area, which is an area that is being expanded in this particular bill — lots of grizzly bears, lots of wildlife in general. Last summer was probably one of the few trips where I had more pictures of animals than I did of people — of foxes and bears and other wildlife, lots of waterfowl.

[1555]

A really beautiful area, a stunning area. The awesome photographers that we have in the central coast, in the Bella Coola Valley, are residents that take phenomenal photographs that are hugely popular on the Internet and draw a lot of people to wanting to visit the area.

However, as I’ve mentioned in other opportunities speaking in the House, the key way of getting to this part of Tweedsmuir Park is by ferry, and we’ve lost the Queen of Chilliwack ferry, which used to take over 100 cars. It’s been replaced by the winter ferry, which is the Nimpkish, which has a maximum carload of 16 vehicles. There has been quite a bit of research done in the area on how this is providing a big choke in tourism.

The central coast has had to reinvent itself on more than one occasion: being in the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest, participating in the new management regime of ecosystem-based management, which, generally speaking, most people are supportive of because it makes sense. It makes ecological sense. It benefits the people. It benefits First Nations. It benefits the wildlife. It preserves sensitive areas. It allows for a robust and sustainable forest industry.

Considering that people had to really make big changes in their lives and their livelihoods in the Bella Coola Valley near Tweedsmuir Park, tourism — which was the idea of the provincial government, this B.C. Liberal government for…. That was the idea that this government had for Bella Coola Valley residents to reinvent themselves with, and so they did.

There were some resources put into the valley many years ago for the residents of the Bella Coola Valley to reinvent themselves as an ecotourism centre. We have gorgeous lodges. We have accommodations, from motels all the way up to really remote cabins, to camping — beautiful places within Tweedsmuir and outside of Tweedsmuir.

We have rafting guides. We have photography tours. It’s a very phenomenal place to witness grizzly bears. In the fall, the amount of grizzly bears that we see in and outside of the park, even in the communities and people’s backyards, is pretty spectacular. This is something that is really attractive to tourists.

My concern is that in expanding Tweedsmuir Park and creating a beautiful gem for British Columbians and tourists alike to visit and to participate in, we have also got to support the mechanisms for people to get there, which is providing that area, the Bella Coola Valley area, a robust ferry system.

We have another option of getting into that southern part or eastern part of Tweedsmuir Park, which is by road, Highway 20 from Williams Lake. It’s an infamous highway. There’s the infamous hill. Not all vehicles can do that trip in the wintertime. It’s a long drive. It’s a beautiful drive. I’ve done it. However, many tourists are reticent to take a long drive into the Bella Coola Valley to see this part of Tweedsmuir Park and then do the return trip up the hill back out.

What tourists really want to do is the circle tour. It used to be called the Discovery coast circle tour. You drive in one way and ferry out the other, going down to the northern part of Vancouver Island, possibly through Vancouver and up through the Interior. Or they do that trip in reverse. They come up from the Vancouver area or even the United States, travel through Vancouver Island, get on the ferry in Port Hardy, get off in Bella Coola and drive out the highway — drive out and camp and participate, go fishing, hiking, take photography trips — through Tweedsmuir Park and back out through Williams Lake and down again. Some of them travel up even north.

[1600]

It’s really hard to do this trip now. I tried to book the circle tour last spring for this past summer. I was quite proud of myself for being organized and pre-emptive in planning my trip in March to take in July or August. However, by the end of March, the ferry had been already booked up until September. So I wasn’t pre-emptive enough, and I wasn’t organized enough, because the 16-vehicle ferry had already been booked up.

Great opportunities for aboriginal tourism in this area. Just outside of Tweedsmuir Park are some beauti-
[ Page 11716 ]
ful petroglyphs. I’ve actually seen rock art or petroglyphs and petrographs all over our province, but I’ve never seen so many in such a small area, I guess you could say, or so close together. You can take a tour with a Nuxalk guide who will show you all these beautiful petroglyphs with interesting creation stories, interesting history.

Yet, in order to do that, we have again removed the one key tool for people to participate. While I support expanding Tweedsmuir Park, protecting an area that is a crucial area…. The particular expansion area is crucial for salmon, a salmon habitat area, a salmon feeding area. It’s also an important area for waterfowl and other wildlife. It’s an important area to protect.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It’s also an important area to share with British Columbians, to share with tourists. Therefore, while I support the expansion of the park, I also support the implementation of a robust ferry system so that people can actually witness this area and participate and we can provide economic stability for the residents of the Bella Coola Valley. I feel that they have unfairly been the bearers of a huge burden of constant government cutbacks and changes, with limited consultation, to the area.

They’re very resourceful people. However, it’s a real struggle for them to continuously face ferry cuts — not even ferry changes, but ferry cuts — and the huge impact of removing the Queen of Chilliwack. A ferry of a decent size could actually allow them to have a tourism economy, which they were encouraged to do with changes to the way forestry practices were conducted in that valley. I feel that they are at least deserving of some basic, minimum-service levels, as well as opportunities for a robust tourism industry.

The other park that is impacted by this amendment act is Prudhomme Lake Park, which is just outside of Prince Rupert. It’s maybe 16 kilometres, I believe. It’s a short drive. That’s all I recall. I’ve been to the area numerous times, although I’m sad to say I haven’t visited the area in recent times due to my schedule. However, I’ve been inspired to go back and perhaps do some kayaking on the lake, which is something I enjoyed a few years back before being an MLA. I look forward to bringing that back into my life.

It’s an interesting park in that it is on a lake and it’s so close to the ocean at Prince Rupert. There are some cottages that are only accessible by boat or by kayak or canoe. It’s a heavily utilized area. Quite a few people have cabins on the other side of the lake. You can see the cars that belong to the cabin owners just lined up along Highway 16.

[1605]

It’s an area of high congestion that really needs some attention. Not only that, there is the campsite, which is heavily utilized by Prince Rupert residents because it is so close to Prince Rupert. It’s one of the closest places to camp if you’re a Prince Rupert resident and therefore very popular. Expanding that area to allow for camping, I think, would be a good idea.

I’m not sure. I’ve looked at the map, but I can’t tell from the map how it would impact the cabin owners, so I’m reticent to speak to that. But if it makes for easier access for the cabin owners and the campers, then of course I would be supportive of that, especially just in regards to the safety of accessing and enjoying the park.

I know it’s a bit concerning to have so many vehicles parked along the side of the highway. The boat ramp, or the water access area, is heavily utilized by boaters as well as canoeists and kayakers. It’s been brought to my attention that any way we could support the recreational users of Prudhomme Lake would be appreciated and beneficial. Again, considering it’s a highly utilized area, anything to make sure that safety is of utmost concern — and fairness in allowing people to access and enjoy the area.

It’s a great place that is located so close to Prince Rupert, a great escape for folks. I do know that it’s also visited by tourists from afar. People that are going on to Haida Gwaii or up to Alaska will often stop and stay in Prudhomme or near by. So anything we can do to accommodate that and, again, bring in tourism dollars to Prince Rupert I would greatly support.

One thing I’d like to talk about…. While we’re expanding parks, which I think most people would think is a good thing, and allowing better access, which I think is a good thing for residents, I think I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss the fact that we face quite significant cuts to park employees and the resources that are needed to maintain, access and fully enjoy our parks.

In 2009, I wrote a little editorial. This was shortly after the economic crises. At that time, I was a little concerned that we were again facing more cuts to park rangers. I wouldn’t mind sharing my editorial from 2009. It’s called “Say Good-bye to Smokey the Bear.” It goes like this:

“In the words of environmental lawyer and author David Boyd: ‘Parks are a soothing balm for environmental guilt, for at least we have managed to preserve these priceless places and extraordinary biological diversity as a lasting legacy for future generations.’ Have we really?

“Quietly, two weeks ago, close to 60 people got a pink slip from the Premier himself. Bob Fuhrer, who has been a B.C. park ranger for 15 years, is not going back to work this summer after more cuts to British Columbia’s park ranger jobs. This is in addition to park staffing cuts, which were slashed by 34 percent when the current government came into power in 2001.

“The B.C. Government and Service Employees Union tells us the most recent cuts will reduce current park ranger positions by an additional 40 percent. That leaves less than 50 full-time-equivalent rangers to patrol 13.5 million hectares of protected areas where approximately 20 million people visit yearly. Once the summer visitations have dropped off, we’ll go from 22 to ten permanent park rangers for the entire province.

“According to the Sierra Club of B.C.’s website, they cite a 2001 government report that shows that for every dollar the government spends on protected areas in B.C., more than $10 is returned to local economies through visitor expenditures.

[1610]

“Despite the revenues that parks generate — not to mention the protection of important areas and satisfaction they bring British Columbians and tourists alike — all across the province, taxpayer-funded campgrounds and recreation areas will now fade away into the wilderness. Our invested dollar is down with the composting toilets. Picnic tables and park benches will be left to become one with nature, and hiking trails overgrown and impassable.

“Regardless of the fact that parks pay for themselves, the rationale for abandoning the best place on earth by our government is that we have no money. Consider this. Despite not having any money, the taxpayers of this province will be providing the oil and gas industry, one of the richest industries in the world, with $1½ billion in subsidies over the next three years.

“The entire Ministry of Environment — which manages eight divisions, including B.C. Parks, fisheries, water management, environmental protection and environmental assessments — ran on a $476 million budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal. In comparison, the cost for a new roof at B.C. Place is $365 million, $808 million for the Golden Ears Bridge and $600 million for the Sea to Sky Highway improvement project. Perhaps our current government’s priorities are simply focused on urban British Columbia.”

I must just interject that I’m talking about an editorial that I wrote in 2009. Of course, things have changed.

Interjection.

J. Rice: Pardon me. It wasn’t $600 million. It was $514 million.

“On the B.C. Parks website, there is a link to something called the B.C. Parks Program Plan, 2007-2012. It’s described: ‘The B.C. Parks program plan translates the broad direction provided by government…into a plan that will guide the actions of the agency over the next three to five years.’

“It’s no surprise that the web link to this plan is a dead link and that government’s future plans are not available to us. Speculation is that when funding is cut for the protection of parks, the government is preparing to privatize them by turning over their care to private management companies. Considering the trend of how other B.C. resources are managed, I think this is a safe conjecture.

“It is predicted that with the current state of the economy, people will stay closer to home for summer holidays to save money this year. With the increasing knowledge of global warming and the desire to lessen one’s carbon footprint, park visits should increase as people make a concerted effort to avoid carbon-heavy air travel. Regardless, oil and gas and Vancouver city infrastructure projects take priority. So much for our lasting legacy to our children and grandchildren.

“If you’re visiting one of B.C.’s magnificent parks this summer and you encounter a bear while recreating, hit a moose with your car, need interpretation of an ecological reserve, vandals have graffitied the washrooms and trashed your campsite or, worse, you witness a forest fire, rest assured that Smokey the Bear will be in Vancouver, working at B.C. Place, should you need assistance.”

I reiterate that I wrote this in 2009, when we were facing, again, more cuts to more B.C. park rangers. Of course, the numbers have changed, if not marginally. We’ve seen, actually, larger increases. In 2013, 60 percent was the percentage funding cut to park ranger staff since 2001. Those are some of the numbers that we have. The number of B.C. parks having operating seasons shortened since 2009 was 45.

The amount that government was spending per hectare in the B.C. parks system was $2.29, whereas the amount that the Alberta government was spending per hectare was $25.29. Again, we’ve just seen a significant decreasing of supports for B.C. parks. With the loss of park staff, the amount of area that is expected for a park ranger to cover is quite large and, in many cases, just unfeasible to manage in a realistic manner.

[1615]

Knowing that we receive quite a return…. Not just from recreation or cultural purposes but from a financial perspective, we receive back so much for every dollar we invest in B.C. parks. I would love to take this opportunity to encourage more support for B.C. parks.

I will sum up my remarks by saying that I do support Bill 15, the parks amendment act, and will be voting in favour of this. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to talk about two important parks in my area, which are Tweedsmuir and Prudhomme Lake.

Thank you for your time.

J. Sturdy: It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016.

This is a great day for B.C. parks. I think it’s worth noting that our park system here in British Columbia is the third-largest park system in North America, after Canada and the United States national systems. So as a subregional area with the third-biggest system in North America, I think that’s certainly a testament to what we’ve done here in British Columbia.

B.C. parks and protected areas. There are some 1,029 of them, totalling — actually, this comes, I must admit, out of Wikipedia and will need to be updated after the successful passage of this bill — 14.4 percent of the land base of British Columbia, which is 14,063,250 hectares, with some additions, including some significant additions over the course of the next couple of weeks, one would hope.

I think it’s worth, also, maybe just touching on the various classifications of parks here in British Columbia. We’ve got our class A parks. One of the big ones, of the 11,000-hectare addition, is for a class A park, which is dedicated lands to preserve their natural environments, which is the principal objective of it, with development generally restricted to recreational facilities only.

A class B park allows for additional activities, provided they are not detrimental to the recreational values and environmental values.

A class C park is generally smaller and consists of local recreational amenities.

Conservancies are lands protected and maintained for biological diversity, natural environments and recreational values and also explicitly recognized for social, ceremonial and cultural uses of First Nations.

Protected areas are natural areas that generally have existing or proposed activities that are normally restricted from a provincial park, such as industrial roads or transmission lines.
[ Page 11718 ]

Ecological reserves are areas reserved for ecological importance and for providing suitable scientific research and educational purposes; representative examples of natural ecosystems or ecological recovery; habitat for rare and endangered native plants and animals; and rare examples of botanical, zoological and geological phenomena.

It’s quite a range of opportunities and objectives in our parks and protected area strategy. These designations do provide important distinctions to lands across the province, reflecting the landscape, the flora, the fauna, the communities and the diversity of British Columbia. They do, also, demonstrate what we talk about when we talk about integrated sustainable land use here in British Columbia.

We have an opportunity and, I would dare say, an obligation to work with our people and our natural environment in a cooperative and integrated way. Really, if we can’t be successful here in British Columbia, in a province that’s as large and diverse and, fundamentally, with such a low population density….

[1620]

If we can’t be successful in incorporating suitable landscapes, ecosystems and economies overall, in many ways, I guess I’d have to say I’m afraid for our species globally. We have as good an opportunity to do a great job as anywhere — in fact, a better opportunity. Here in British Columbia, our parks and protected areas legislation is an important framework from which we can work.

Bill 15 proposes some significant amendments to the parks and protected areas inventory. Okanagan Mountain Park is a 100-hectare addition. There’s Prudhomme Lake; Tweedsmuir, mentioned a little bit earlier; Sheemahant conservancy; and sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ. And of course, Chun T’oh Whudujut Ancient Forest is an 11,700-hectare addition in the Valemount area that the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, the MLA for Prince George–Valemount, spoke so eloquently about earlier, certainly acknowledging the people supporting and advocating for this magnificent piece of British Columbia.

In this case, I did spend, as a younger man, many years tree planting in the area. Interestingly, I had heard of this place. It had a reputation even way back then. But I never had the opportunity to understand exactly what its location was or where it was specifically. You know, as a tree planter, you’re not necessarily spending a lot of extra time out in the bush. Your objective, once the shift is done, is to get back to P.G. and not necessarily for good reason.

Certainly, it was interesting to note that I have planted and worked extensively in the Slim Creek area but never actually had the opportunity to visit. It is now on my renewed bucket list, because trees of this stature are so incredible, so magnificent and, in this case, so accessible that it’s absolutely worth stopping and taking the time to visit this interior cedar hemlock stand — the only inland temperate rainforest on earth, I understand. It is a pleasure to be involved in supporting the inclusion of this new class A park.

As well, there’ve been some changes to reflect the traditional First Nations names in a number of parks: Haynes Point and OK Falls. I’ll try not to mangle them here. Sẁiẁs — I take it that the community is a reflection of that original First Nation name; and sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ. I think it’s important that we do reflect our First Nations histories and First Nations names. I think this is a good place to…. Certainly, I support these recommendations.

What I really wanted to focus on today — which should be no surprise, I don’t think, to the House; I have spoken on it before — is the addition of a 136-hectare extension to Halkett Bay Park in Howe Sound. It is actually going to have a name change as well. It will now be the Halkett Bay Marine Park, because of the extension of the park to include the foreshore and some ocean floor.

The impetus of this particular inclusion is the discovery of glass sponge reefs in the area. Howe Sound is a habitat for a species that was recently thought to have become extinct over 60 million years ago, and that is, of course, glass sponge bioherms, which I’m sure you’re all very familiar with. They are really previously only heard of or only known of from their fossil record. They once formed enormous reefs, some of which are recognized as being more than 3,000 kilometres long, historically.

[1625]

Some would refer to these structures — or these animals, as a matter of fact — as a Jurassic Park submerged. But fundamentally, they are not museums. They’re not dead at all. They are, in fact, very much alive. Currently, as live plants, essentially, or live animals, they are also habitats for many other species, including rockfish and other creatures which are struggling to recover in places on the coast.

The sponges, in fact, attach themselves to rocks and other structures, and then, as they die, they grow on themselves, much as the way coral would, I suppose. They build on one another. They look like plants, but they’re actually animals — in fact, the oldest multicell organism on earth. They pump water through their bodies to breathe and feed and remove waste.

Today in Howe Sound, there remains pockets of these glass sponge reefs. While the glass reference refers to their fragility, there is evidence that these sponges have been in Howe Sound an enduring 9,000 years. So that doesn’t sound particularly fragile, but they are under threat, especially from mechanical types of damage.

Typically, these reefs are found only in very, very deep waters. However, one site in Howe Sound is quite different. That is the site off Halkett Bay, just off of Gambier Island. These sponge reefs are found in a shallow 30 metres of water, which allows for access to these reefs using scuba gear. In most parts of British Columbia where there are other sponge reefs, this is just not possible. This does give opportunity for people, for scientists, for the public to actually have access to them and view them.
[ Page 11719 ]

Many people were involved in the discovery of these incredible and unique animals — ancient animals, ancient life forms. I would like to mention and acknowledge some of those groups and individuals who did bring these to government’s attention. That is the Marine Life sanctuary, specifically Glen Dennison, who I had an opportunity to tour the area with; Lena Clayton, from the Underwater Council of British Columbia; Adam Taylor, who has been a tireless and persistent and welcome advocate for this initiative; good work through the Vancouver Aquarium — Jeff Marliave, Donna Gibbs and Jessica Schultz; the Canadian Marine Environment Protection Society, Roy Mulder; the Future of Howe Sound Society.

Then, of course, there is the inimitable Mel Turner, from the Elders Council of B.C. Parks; and Stephen Foster, who is also a strong advocate for Howe Sound, as well as work done by the students of the University of British Columbia.

I would like to acknowledge all of these people and thank them for their work, their passion, their advocacy, their understanding and their tremendous commitment to the region of Howe Sound and to the province of British Columbia.

This is an important initiative not just with regard to the glass sponge reefs but to the work done all around the province on behalf of parks and protected areas and all the people that go about supporting these initiatives.

[1630]

Again, I’m pleased to be able to stand and support Bill 15, and it’s my pleasure to speak on it.

S. Fraser: It’s good to be here speaking today. It’s second reading on Bill 15, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016. It’s interesting listening to the debate back-and-forth, either here or on the monitor in the office, and it’s good to see decisions being made here that are agreed to by most or all in the House. I’m pleased to take part in that discussion. Of course, it in no way means we can’t have some criticisms about how to make things better. That’s part of our job here in the opposition.

Bill 15, in essence, creates a new class A park, which is a big deal, and it’s been in the works for a long time. I’d like to begin…. I would like to acknowledge the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation and the work that they’ve done towards this park. They’ve been instrumental in making this happen along with local groups — the Caledonia Ramblers hiking society. It’s wonderful to see local communities and First Nations working together with the provincial government to create something special, something that’s so important.

Our park systems are complex. They include, of course, class A parks and other classes of parks and protected areas. Also, I’d just like to take a moment, as the critic for Aboriginal Relations, to cite that there are other designations that are being brought forward in the province that are exciting in their own way, and these are First Nations tribal parks. I think this is just part of the mosaic that we need to see in the province, of us working together with First Nations to create — between the provincial park system and the tribal park systems that are being developed.

I would note in particular this amazing tribal park being developed and highlighted now by the Tsilhqot’in First Nations and their work, since this has been going on long before the court decision was arrived at. This has been in the works for a long time, an incredible tribal park area — again, something that we should be supporting, I think formally, in one way or another, in this House too.

In my own constituency, the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations have embarked on a tribal park system. I went to a wonderful symposium in Tofino at the Tin Wis resort just a few weeks ago. It brought in First Nations from all over the province, including the Tsilhqot’in. Marilyn Baptiste from the Xeni Gwet’in was there, and everyone was talking about their park initiatives.

This Bill 15 is timely in the sense that it’s bringing in a large class A park. This is over 11,000 hectares. This is a major park. I would also like to take a stab at the pronunciation of that park, the Chun T’oh Whudujut Park. This is just 120 kilometres east of Prince George. This is a park area that I have not yet…. I’ve certainly driven through the area, but I have not stopped and been able to get a look at what it is on the ground.

Like many British Columbians, I think it’s important that we pay attention to this stuff, because these parks should be an attractant in their own right. When parks come about in this province, I think it’s important that we promote them as much as possible. Parks and the protected area strategies and such — they’re not just about conserving something. Certainly, that’s hugely important.

Critical ecosystems. In many cases, the park system is the only option we have for true protection of the ecosystems that could be in danger of extinction. In British Columbia, we have many ecosystems that are endangered. I think the park system…. It’s not the only tool in the tool bag, but certainly it’s an important one, and we should be mindful of that.

[1635]

But it’s not just the raw conservation effort of creating a park like this. Of course, in the case of Chun T’oh Whudujut, this is a unique old-growth forest system in the interior of the province. When we say it’s just in the province, we need to recognize that that’s likely anywhere in the world. This is important, and we have ecosystems here in B.C. that are of that nature. We have the only remaining examples of these ecosystems left, in some cases, in the world.

Again, supporting this bill and seeing the…. I’m just speaking, first, to the ancient forest protection of the Chun T’oh Whudujut. It’s certainly the most significant piece of this but not to diminish the other parts of this
[ Page 11720 ]
bill. It also adds lands to marine foreshore, to five parks and one conservancy. It adjusts the boundary of one park and makes some administrative changes to clarify park descriptions, that sort of thing, relatively minor parts to the bill — again, I would submit, supportable by all in this House.

The forested area in Chun T’oh Whudujut Park that’s being established here is known…. The actual pronunciation of the word I may have butchered a bit, but the meaning is clear. It’s a Lheidli T’enneh term, and it refers to the size and age of these trees. They are impressive. I’ve seen photographs of these, too, and it will be part of my summer tour. I’m going to go and check out this park for sure. I do like big trees, and this one sounds very impressive. A big park.

It does follow a legacy. I know governments like to take credit for these things, as they should. This follows a pattern of increasing the park system in this province that goes back, spanning other governments, spanning NDP governments and such. It’s nice to see that legacy continued and the recognition that, yes, we need to conserve critical ecosystems and unique ecosystems in the province but that we also need to provide for recreational activity for the residents of this province. This magnificent province that we have is home to so many unique ecosystems that should allow British Columbians to take part in experiencing and celebrating these incredible natural history wonders in our province.

It gives us the ability in British Columbia, in the creation of parks, to recreate in ways that would not otherwise be there. I will touch on this in a bit as I just speak on, but I must say the creation of such parks and the magnitude of the creation of these parks should not end there. The creation of a park of this size, for instance — 11,000 hectares — requires resources. Otherwise, a park is not a park.

The facilities that are necessary for people to recreate, to draw in people from all over the world to celebrate this incredible province that we have…. This is a huge economic generator. Unfortunately, what we have seen concurrent with the creation of parks such as this, the Chun T’oh Whudujut Park…. We’re not seeing the resources necessary. As a matter of fact, we’ve seen huge cuts by this government to the B.C. park system.

As we increase the size of that system, it puts much more strain on the existing resources, which were already woefully inadequate to provide for a world-class park experience for people coming into this province, that we want to come into this province and be part of our economy but also for the people living in the province now. Residents are the true owners of these resources. We are all part of that.

We have all heard stories, complaints, in our municipal offices — sorry, I come from municipal government, and I received them when I was in municipal government too — about the state of our parks in the province. They are getting worse. Stretching the few resources that we’re seeing coming forward with these parks is going to make things much more challenging, I would suggest.

I did not see in the budget…. I know the minister is here now, but I do not believe that there are any significant resources, or any at all, being budgeted for the increase in the park system in British Columbia.

[1640]

I think that would be a big strategic mistake by any government. This is where the positive criticism can come into play. While I support Bill 15, I support Bill 15 with a rider on it. If we are going to create a park system in British Columbia that is second to none, it requires resources.

I’ve been doing this job for 11 years — 2005 when I first got elected. I know when this government got in originally, in 2001, there was a huge cut in the budget to the park system. Boots on the ground disappeared. A third of the boots on the ground disappeared in the system. We saw facilities diminish and start to rot in many cases — as simple as picnic tables and such became derelict.

I remember a time, just a couple of years ago, raising in question period…. I believe it was in Carmanah park, on the Island here. There had been…. I’ll call them poachers, who went into the park, right in the park parking lot, and they were taking down 1,000-year-old trees and carving them up there. Of course, the amount of timber, the amount of wood, you get out of a tree of that size is huge, so there’s a huge value to that. This was happening with impunity.

They were basically running a forestry operation. Do you know how long it takes, if you’re not like old MacMillan Bloedel or any of these big companies that come in? Just a couple of people coming in, taking down a tree of this size and then having the time to take it apart in the parking lot and then sell it and market it from there. I don’t believe anyone ever got caught for that. There weren’t enough people in the park system to even inspect that parking lot on a timely enough basis to make sure that people weren’t taking the very attractants that brought people to the park.

I would urge the government, and the minister, to ensure that when we’re creating parks, we’re not just doing it in name, that we’re actually providing a world-class experience that will draw people in. This can’t be done in a vacuum. This can’t be done with no resources that go with it. This can’t be done with parks on Vancouver Island, where Alberni–Pacific Rim is. You can’t do that unless you allow for an affordable and efficient ferry system, which my colleague from North Coast spoke so eloquently on just a few minutes ago. You are defeating some of the purposes of the park if you’re not allowing access to the park.

With that, I would touch on a freedom-of-information request that we obtained just last year from the ministry. There are so many pieces to this, but one caught my atten-
[ Page 11721 ]
tion as being germane, specifically relevant, to this discussion on Bill 15.

In the FOI, it revealed that financial pressures at B.C. Parks over the last number of years…. This is coming internally, just for those watching. This is not me saying this. This is coming from within the ministry itself. They’re saying that over the last number of years, lack of investment in B.C. Parks by the B.C. government — this is a quote from the FOI — has “forced B.C. Parks to shorten operating seasons, eliminate park ranger positions, reduce preventative maintenance and implement other program cuts. The organization cannot continue to operate at current funding levels without seriously encroaching on other budgets within the ministry or further reducing services.”

Fast-forward less than a year from when we received this FOI, and we’ve seen a very large increase in the park system, through Bill 15, with no budget to go with it. You know, I’m certainly not an economist or an accountant, and you don’t have to be to know that those things are not compatible. You can’t expand a world-class park system and keep it world-class, especially when it’s already been highlighted that it’s no longer world-class because of government cuts.

[1645]

I would urge…. While government members may be celebrating this bill and while we may be supporting it, this does not come without significant criticism. I’m levying this in the spirit of constructive criticism.

I must say that this is…. Part of the challenges which are highlighted in the FOI that I just cited are to be dealt with by increasing the fees to the very parks that we’re trying to attract people to.

The FOI goes on to suggest that these fee increases will indeed have impacts on the number of people visiting our parks. Again, if they do not get a world-class experience as they come to these parks, they may not come back. They may not tell their friends to come back.

I was in the tourism industry for many years. In Tofino, my wife and I ran a bed-and-breakfast. You know, you can get an awful lot of happy people that have a happy experience in your business. In this case, it was a bed-and-breakfast. But if you’ve got one that’s not happy for some reason — I learned this in a little course I took on dealing with the public — that can ruin the hundred other great experiences that existed for the other people.

When we have a system where the government’s own ministry, as highlighted through freedom of information, is saying things like we’ll have to shorten the operating season, eliminate park ranger positions, reduce preventative maintenance and implement other program cuts — and, of course, increasing fees and making it difficult for people to get somewhere because they can’t get there by a ferry because it’s too expensive — well then, the park system expansion will be for naught.

We will not be getting the true potential out of the increase to the system that we should be. Indeed, by stretching the finite dollar, as it’s been cut by this government in the park system…. By stretching that to expand to incorporate new portions to the park system, we may be, well, killing the golden goose. I hate to use these clichés, but it’s a fact.

You give people a bad experience. They come to a park from all over the world, from wherever they’re coming, to this province to see wonders that don’t exist anywhere else. If that experience turns out to be a shabby one, to have nobody on the ground to help with interpretation, to have facilities — outhouses, park benches, whatever — falling apart and crumbling, which is already happening in the park system, and to have exorbitant fees to get to the park and stay in the park, then we’re not going to see the results of a robust park system in the province.

We can name the parks, and we can increase the parks, yes. But the quality of the experience can also diminish. This is not in anyone’s best interest — not at all. As a matter of fact, I’ve got park operators that have come to my office and have been complaining for years — rightly so.

These are people that are licensed tourism operators. They’re bringing in tourists from all over the world. They’re first-class companies. They do their best to make the experience shine for those coming into our province. And they end up….

I’ll give one example. It’s a company called Batstar, an excellent tour company. They do kayaking tours and treks and back-country stuff. They’ve done just an incredible job of bringing people in from all over the world.

They get a contingent of people from Europe who are spending thousands and thousands of dollars, specifically coming to, in this case, Port Alberni and going into the back country, into some of the provincial park systems on Vancouver Island. We’ve got waterfalls that are just spectacular, second to none — require multiple days of hiking to get there. Before they arrive, they are to find that the trail system has been rendered impassable, that a windstorm that happened three weeks before has taken down trees, has made the entire trek unsafe to continue and to complete.

[1650]

The reason that the people came here and were sold the wonders of B.C., rightly so, by the tour operator, who is doing a great job…. Suddenly, the rug gets pulled out, and all of their expense that they’ve had — the thousands of dollars of travelling — has been pulled away from them, and they can’t finish the trip of a lifetime that they have come to British Columbia to experience in B.C. parks.

This is somebody that pays a substantial licence fee, multiple licence fees, for multiple tours on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, and there was nobody in the ministry to even give them a call and tell them that this system was closed. Nobody in the ministry knew that there was a problem because there wasn’t a boot on the ground from the ministry.
[ Page 11722 ]

This is a big, big problem. Those tourists that came here, that we want to come here, that we want to come to visit Chun T’oh Whudujut Park…. This is the new opportunity that’s opening up. If that failure to provide the resources continues, these parks may become substandard. These parks may have operations come in that start taking down trees, because they know there is nobody on the ground. There is nobody from the ministry overseeing our park system. I would submit that that is something that we need to address, and I would suggest that that has to happen concurrent with this bill.

Bill 15 is something that we are all supporting. I’m not in the position at this moment in time to put in an amendment. Of course, an amendment would be found out of order if it involves money, but the budget for bringing about this Bill 15 is not there. There has already been a failure in the park system, as I’ve said. So I would suggest that that’s a problem.

Having tourism operators that are in good faith, paying their licensing fees to the ministry…. They’re supposed to get some kind of quid pro quo. Some kind of relationship needs to occur.

When a licensed tourism operator pays, in good faith, their fees to be able to operate in this province in B.C. parks, then they need to have B.C. Parks provide something in return: safe parks; clean parks; parks that can provide some level of interpretation; parks that have some facilities that are necessary — washrooms, picnic tables, any number of facilities; and viewpoints that are maintained. If they’re not, then those tourism operators are being given a disservice, and their fees are being paid unfairly. They should get a refund on their fees.

Another tourism operator in my constituency does tours in MacMillan Provincial Park near Cameron Lake, between Qualicum Beach and Port Alberni. Now, this is a beautiful stand of old growth, largely Douglas Fir. There’s a mixture, though. It’s unique Douglas Fir, because it’s a wetland. It’s right along the Cameron River.

The tour operators that I know and that run in my constituency have to pay a fairly hefty bill. Their stop in Cathedral Grove, which is part of this big attraction of big trees…. They do interpretive work there. They have to pay for a licence for that, and rightly so. That’s fair enough. They had no problem paying that.

There are tour buses coming in there, doing exactly the same from outside, and they’re not paying anything. When they’ve complained to the ministry, there is nobody to oversee that. That’s the explanation they’ve gotten.

Not only do we have a park system that’s severely under-resourced and underfunded and now is going to be stretched even further; we have tourism operators that we want to encourage to attract business, quality business, to get people to these parks for all of the right reasons. They’re being sold a bill of goods when they pay for their licence fees. They’re not being treated fairly.

With Bill 15, while I support the creation of not just Chun T’oh Whudujut Park — I’m looking forward to the day that I can say that without looking down at my notes — I would note that there are other smaller expansions to parks.

[1655]

I know it was already mentioned. That Halkett Bay Marine Park addition is 136 hectares. The foreshore addition to this park will protect the significant marine life. Well, the park is located on the southeast shore of Gambier Island in Howe Sound. I think it was five or six years ago. I remember, here in the Legislature, having a meeting with a group that was trying to educate us as legislators about the incredible phenomena that were there, which are those crystal reefs that have been spoken of in this House. They are incredibly rare.

From what I learned in that discussion, unlike Halkett Bay Marine Park, which is part of this bill, anywhere else in the world where these crystal reefs exist, they’re in very, very deep water, inaccessible to, certainly, any recreational scuba divers. It’s just too deep. The addition of the 136 hectares will bring the Halkett Marine Park up to 448 hectares, a pretty big marine park. But to incorporate the bulk of these crystal reefs…. Much of this will be within reach of not just recreational scuba divers but for those snorkellers, breath-hold divers, without even the benefit of scuba gear.

This opens up, I would suggest, a very good market for the world to come and see. There are a lot of people that will travel all over the world to dive in unique areas and special areas of the world. I think we need to promote this for what it is. It’s an important marine park, and I certainly support the inclusion of the 136 hectares into this park.

Along with that, again a gentle, positive criticism that this government needs to manage our ferry systems in a better way. People should not be scared to go to these parks because of the cost of getting there. That defeats the purpose of the economic development that we need to have all over the province. The province is not just about LNG.

These park systems, if they’re managed right, if they’re managed appropriately — like highlighting these crystal reefs and targeting the groups that travel around the world that are willing to pay money to come to British Columbia to see such a thing, to be able to dive on such reefs…. It’s a wonderful opportunity here.

We can’t squander that opportunity and the potential of that for the province and the economy of this province by not funding, again, the park system itself, and in this case Halkett Park. Also, to make sure that the other pieces that are still integral to the success of a park system and of people coming to the park system, our transportation systems need to be put into place, need to be managed properly, need to be affordable. They are a part of this puzzle.

I wish that the government would look at these things a little more holistically, potentially look at the way that First Nations addressed some of these park issues look-
[ Page 11723 ]
ing at the long term, the tribal park initiatives. Don’t just look in a silo and name a park and then walk away from it. Provide the resources so that that park can shine and that B.C.’s park systems can be held to the highest standard in the world.

Let that be an economic windfall for our future generations. If we wreck them now and we lose our reputation, that will follow the next generation and the next, and they’ll have to fix those problems and regain our reputation for this province of having some of these unique and incredible ecosystems that we hold dear and are trying to protect for future generations in our park system.

With that, I will take my seat, noting that Bill 15, despite my criticism — I’ve been trying to be measured on that — is something that I support and will vote in favour of.

[1700]

Hon. M. Morris: I’m standing in support of Bill 15. You know, the park system that we have in British Columbia is a fantastic attribute for our province. It covers a wide spectrum of the geography that we have in this great province of ours.

We’re very fortunate in British Columbia to have some of the greatest biodiversity in Canada and, in fact, North America. When I look at North America…. I look at the southeastern part, with Florida, with the immense biodiversity and the different mammals that they have down there, in comparison to what we have in the northwest part of North America, with the number of mammals that we have. We have more mammals in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada — more mammal species in British Columbia.

The more parks that we add to protect a lot of these species and to protect the biodiversity that we have in British Columbia, from my perspective, is great — although fully understanding that we have to make sure that we also maintain this great province of ours with sustainable resource development right across the spectrum.

I want to concentrate a little bit, though, on the Ancient Forest that we have in our area, up in Prince George there — and I apologize to Edith Frederick, with the Lheidli T’enneh people; she hasn’t spent enough time with me yet to try and teach me how to say the words — Chun T’oh Whudujut Park and the oldest trees in the country.

I remember this part of the province as a young constable stationed in McBride in the early ’70s. Travelling between Prince George and McBride, I’d often see this place. I was drawn to the wilderness right from a young age. I spent a lot of time hiking through the various regions of B.C. I would spend two or three weeks by myself, hiking into the furthest reaches of the province sometimes, just enjoying what I saw.

This particular area here…. I hiked up into this area back in the early ’70s before it was even considered a park, and I was amazed at the biodiversity, the size of the trees, the moss — just everything that was in there. In areas like this, like the Ancient Forest and like other old-growth areas in the province, the biodiversity that we have in there is phenomenal.

I go back to my roots as a trapper. I’ve been a trapper and a hunter and a fisher-person all my life. Trapping was the first industry in Canada, the first industry in British Columbia, that took advantage of the natural resources that we have here.

The Ancient Forest is home to all of the fur-bearing species, or most them, that we have here in B.C., other than the raccoon and the bobcats, which are too far south for our area up there. The mustelid family — your fisher and your martin and your wolverine and those particular species — flourish in old growth that we have in the Ancient Forest there. I’m glad to see the negotiations will allow trapping to continue on in that particular area.

The area is just so unique. The Ancient Forest and some of the other areas that we have in B.C. that have been set aside for parks where you allow trapping show you that trapping doesn’t have any impact on biodiversity. Trapping is a very sustainable natural resource in British Columbia, and most trappers manage their traplines to ensure that the populations are stable and continual and will be sustainable for decades and centuries to come. The Ancient Forest will really demonstrate that.

The Caledonia hiking club in Prince George has done a great job in building a boardwalk into the park. I believe they’ve built one that’s about 600 metres into the park, which allows access to folks who probably can’t walk as well as they could — people like myself, maybe with a little bit of osteoarthritis. The boardwalk makes it a lot easier to hike through portions of the park where they, too, can get to see some of the magnificent trees and biodiversity that we have in that particular park.

[1705]

Right through this entire province of ours, the areas that have been set aside demonstrate the uniqueness of British Columbia in our biodiversity. From the Okanagan through to the coastal areas through to the northwest part of the province, the Interior with the Ancient Forest and some of the other areas in northern B.C. — all have very unique biodiversity, very unique geography that demonstrates to people from around the world just what a great province we have here.

People who come to British Columbia, whether they’re coming in by plane or boat, start in Vancouver, and they work their way through the province visiting our park system. They will be introduced to something very spectacular that will be remembered by them for their entire lifetime.

Bill 15 is something that I fully support. Some of the slight changes that are included in the bill and the significant changes that we have in establishing the Ancient Forest all go towards maintaining British Columbia’s reputation of having just spectacular parks for people to come and visit us.
[ Page 11724 ]

The member opposite for Alberni–Pacific Rim was talking about: what do these tour operators get? They pay these fees, and what do they get from the province in return for paying these fees? I say: what they get in return is spectacular biodiversity, spectacular areas that are going to be maintained for lifetimes ahead of us that all of the people can see. That’s what we all get in return for what we’re doing here with Bill 15 and all the other parks that we’ve created in this province.

I fully support Bill 15, and I look forward to what these parks will offer British Columbia and the world.

N. Simons: Thank you to 1½ colleagues who appreciate me standing up to speak on Bill 15. I do appreciate their support, and I am pleased to have this opportunity. If they’re waiting in anticipation, they should probably lower their expectations a little bit.

I am pleased to speak on this bill because, in particular, there’s one section relating to a provincial park on the Sunshine Coast, actually on Gambier Island. I was pleased to see that the park boundaries were expanded. Nobody told me, and I don’t even mind. Sometimes one would think that, maybe, if it’s in your riding, somebody would speak to you about it. Hey, this government has its own way of doing things.

I’m saying yes; it’s a good idea. You’ll hear us say things in support of government when there are some good ideas coming from that side.

We do have some cautions around this bill. I’m sure we’re all going to support it wholeheartedly when we stand. But while we say, “Good job on expanding the areas and increasing the areas of parks, creating parks,” we have to remember that with that, with those announcements, comes the substance of supporting those parks, providing for those parks.

As we all know, it’s not enough to say, “This area is now a provincial park,” and then neglect it. We need to say, “This area is a provincial park. This area deserves some promotion. This area deserves some added protection,” and provide for the park the way British Columbians expect their protected areas to be provided for.

Just in my area alone, Powell River–Sunshine Coast has — I counted — 28 parks, 28 provincial parks, marine parks. There are three on Lasqueti Island, which isn’t in my riding yet, but I plan to annex Lasqueti Island, and I’ll have three more parks. When that happens, the Sunshine Coast will have the most number of provincial parks of any constituency in British Columbia.

[1710]

Now, just to speak to the Halkett Bay Provincial Park, soon to be Halkett Bay Marine Provincial Park, I remember the time that my friend from Alberni–Pacific Rim was speaking about, when folks came to this House to tell us about the importance of protecting the glass sponge reefs, knowing that there were some in the Strait of Georgia at risk to trawling activity and mechanical damage. We soon became aware there were similar sponge reefs in Howe Sound at a much shallower depth, so even more susceptible to potential damage. I think that is a good reason that we provide for protection of that area.

I have to concur with my friend from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky country. I concur with his words of appreciation to the many organizations and individuals who were involved in ensuring that the province did what was necessary to protect our collective assets, values, things that we collectively, as a province, consider important.

I think, in a way, our provincial parks are how other people in other provinces even sometimes see us. When they think of British Columbia, they think of the natural beauty and they think about the historic care we have taken to protect our parks, to ensure that they were well maintained, that they were accessible to all families and individuals in the province or to visitors. What I worry about is that that reputation of provincial parks, British Columbia parks, could be at risk if we weren’t careful and deliberate in ensuring that our parks are adequately resourced.

Now, I have a fundamental problem with charging people to go into our collectively owned areas, where we are supposed to collectively share in the appreciation of nature while acknowledging the values that those parks have towards the ecology and the environment. If we are to solely think of our parks as economic generators, we know that that will limit access to those parks for people who are unable to afford what are increasingly expensive places to camp.

I remember my first experiences in this province camping in provincial parks, and I remember them to be of a high standard. There was firewood. I was on my bicycle, and I spent about a week or so in this province on a larger ride. I got an opportunity to compare provincial parks in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

I have to say that when I was here those first few times, the parks were always seen as something that we cherished. They were the crown jewel of the province, those places that were emblematic of the different geographical areas, each one having unique qualities. I would like to think that this bill is, in part, an effort to strengthen that image that people have of our parks.

I don’t think it can happen alone with legislation. For our parks to be truly appreciated and for government to show appreciation, real concern and respect for our park system, we need to see a reinvestment in resources to ensure that those parks are viable and sustainable — to use common language. I’m not saying throw money at it. What I’m saying is that the province should value our access to parks enough to make it a higher priority in terms of resource expenditure.

Now, I’ve seen parks where there are park interpreters, where there are nature walks, where there are activities
[ Page 11725 ]
and such that draw people who otherwise wouldn’t have an experience in the natural wilderness. Those are important as well. I think it’s more than campgrounds; it’s more than areas that are mapped out and protected. It’s a statement about our fundamental belief in the importance of preserving land for public enjoyment and for environmental protection.

[1715]

The glass sponge reefs off Gambier Island. I think that particular amendment to that park boundary, adding a couple of hundred hectares, will serve Gambier Island marine provincial park well. They will put into legislation the protections that are necessary. I hope that that, in and of itself, can be seen as a reflection of our collective belief in the importance of protecting these areas.

In the government press releases, it concerns me in a way that some of the language indicates this is about the government creating parks. I’d like to just say that it’s the people of this province who own those parks. It’s the people of the province that care about these parks. It’s because of the people of the province that these parks have been created in the first place.

Now, we can take credit at various times and in various ways about why they were all created. I’m sure there were a number of provincial parks created under a number of different administrations before now. So while we can be self-congratulatory, perhaps, and while we should remember this as an occasion where we’ve all agreed on something — we’re getting to yes or something like that — we do agree that this is an important step, and I’m pleased to support it along with my colleagues.

I think it’s a wonderful thing to see a provincial park named with a First Nations name. That, I would suggest, is long overdue. I would point out that there are some provincial parks in our province that have been named…. Spipiyus Provincial Park. There are names that reflect the cultural heritage of the areas they represent, but this is the first time an English name has been changed to one reflecting the First Nations traditional territory, unceded territory, and I congratulate all those involved in ensuring that that happened.

I think and I understand that if you go to the park website, you can actually find how to pronounce the names of those parks, which is good, because I don’t always know — because all the languages are written slightly differently — what each of those letters represents. I remember working for the Shishalh Nation, and the agency I worked for had a name that I had to practise to pronounce — [a First Nations language was spoken].

Anyway, I think it was a wise idea to ensure that the public has an opportunity to know what these park names are and to make an effort to pronounce the names of the parks the way that they might have been pronounced by the folks who were in that area at the time. Specifically, I’m talking about the parks in the Okanagan. I have not had a chance to fully learn the pronunciations.

The additions to parks…. I should also point out, in the notes that I was given by government on this, that some of the park areas grew because of individual private donations of land. I think there might be an opportunity — I hope there’s an opportunity — for a government member to raise up those people who donated land to add to parks, to acknowledge that contribution and to thank them for reflecting on parks the way we believe parks should be seen. That is, a common enjoyment of nature, a common enjoyment of the land that is in our province.

I thank those individuals and families who had the foresight to either will or give land that has perhaps been in their families for a long time, to allow the parks to embrace those pieces of land.

[1720]

I thank those involved in the expansion of the Gambier park. I know that there are other issues on Gambier Island in terms of the need for protected areas. There are some beautiful park-like areas that would certainly benefit from some protection, considering the nature of the area. I hope that the government, and every government in the future, always considers the creation and the protection and the strengthening of our park system as a work in constant progress.

We should not be satisfied yet with the amount of land that is set aside. We are happy that we continue to increase it, but while we’re increasing the amount of protected area, we should be ensuring that we have the human power to ensure that the rules and regulations within those boundaries are adhered to. We should ensure that people from all walks of life have access to those parks to share in the common wealth of our province.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to supporting this bill.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m pleased to take my place to support Bill 15 and to provide some comments on the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016. The reason I want to rise is I do want to talk about a couple of specific parts of the additions to the parks area in British Columbia — particularly one that I’ve got a close personal connection to that’s partly in my riding and in the Okanagan.

First, just a general comment. B.C. is recognized as having one of the largest protected area systems in North America. Some 37 percent of B.C.’s land base is under some form of conservation designation, whether that’s wildlife habitat areas or old-growth management areas, parks, conservancies, protected areas. There are currently over 1,029 provincial parks, recreation areas, conservancies, ecological reserves and protected areas that cover more than 14 million hectares — approximately 14 percent of the provincial land base.

The additions that are being provided in this legislation, the additions to the protected areas of B.C., follow very closely on the announcement and the agreement around
[ Page 11726 ]
the protection of the Great Bear Rainforest — 6.4 million hectares, 85 percent protected. The certainty that’s provided on the land base under ecosystem-based management, and the support of First Nations, environmental organizations and industry in achieving that very, very significant agreement.

Here in this legislation, we have some other great additions to the protected areas of British Columbia. So without at all discounting or diminishing the importance of all of the additions that are in this legislation…. It’s a very, very important piece, as everybody has pointed out. It’s a very significant…. Parts of the legislation in terms of the naming opportunities or the naming and the recognition of First Nations heritage in the naming of the parks — all very, very important.

But the one I want to talk about a little more specifically is the addition to Okanagan Mountain Park, in the Okanagan. As I said, part of it is in my riding. Okanagan Mountain Park is an area that is a very important area, one that is enjoyed and utilized by many constituents in my riding, many of the constituents in the riding of the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and the member for Westside-Kelowna.

[1725]

It’s a great spot in the Okanagan, and being able to add 263 hectares on the east side of Okanagan Lake to that park, bringing the total to over 11,000 hectares is a great addition, but what’s more important about this is what it actually achieves.

It’s not just an addition to the park. This provides a very vital linkage between the Okanagan Mountain Park and two regional parks in the Okanagan: the Cedar Mountain Regional Park and the Johns Family Nature Conservancy Park. This addition to the park links the Okanagan Mountain Park to those two regional parks, creates that vital corridor for wildlife, provides a vital corridor for access between those regional parks and Okanagan Mountain Park. There are plans to bring a trail through from the regional parks to the Okanagan Mountain Park.

The reason it’s really great to see this is that the Johns Family Nature Conservancy Park was an area that was donated, 324 hectares, by Alf and Nancy Johns. Alf and Nancy were longtime pioneers in the Okanagan. They are a brother and sister. They were neighbouring farmers of our family farm in Okanagan Mission and we shared the fence line with them for many, many years.

I can remember, as young kid growing up, working for the Johns. When I wasn’t working for my dad hauling hay on our farm, I would hop over the fence and work for the Johns. Alf and Nancy were probably two of the hardest-working people you’ve ever seen in your life, in terms of the workday that they could put in.

I would go over there as a 14- or 15-year-old kid and spend the day working with them and get worked into the ground by this lady. Nancy Johns, who was probably — I won’t say her age or anything — a lot older than I was at that time, could work anybody into the ground. You would start early in the morning. I’d have to be over the fence at 4:30 or 5 in the morning, and you would work right through the day, helping them get their hay crop off.

They were great neighbours. They were the kind of neighbours that just…. Everything operated on a handshake with them. There was never any paperwork deals or anything — like about how we shared irrigation ditches, how we shared fence maintenance or anything. They were just great people.

That did create a few problems later, when they sold their property and moved up to their range property, which is now the Johns Family Regional Park. All of these agreements that my dad had with the Johns family, because they weren’t on paper, suddenly became problematic. The new person who had bought the farm wasn’t quite in that same kind of attitude or mindset around some of the sharing and that sort of thing, so it got a little bit more problematic.

We lost great neighbours, but they were still in the community. They moved up to their range property, where they ranged cattle during the summer and all of those sorts of things. It was a great place, this area. We went up there regularly with the family — hiked the area.

A tradition every Boxing Day after Christmas was a family hike up to the Johns’ cabin, who lived up on this range property. They had two separate cabins up there, the brother and the sister. Alf, who was the older brother, lived in the little trapper’s cabin, because they had a kind of trapper’s cabin. They’re very rustic. He lived there. His sister lived in the little more modern house on the property.

They ran cattle up there and finished out their lives up there. But one of the things they did was to donate the whole property to the regional park system in Kelowna on their passing. Nancy passed first, and then Alf passed a few years later. He was a great, crusty old character. He was just salt of the earth, but he wanted to leave this legacy of all of that park.

[1730]

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast talked about people who do these kinds of things. This was a family, a brother and a sister, who had that vision for that property.

To be able to see that property and their vision of a regional park linked to another regional park…. It was on the boundary of another regional park, Cedar Mountain Park. Now to be able to provide that vital linkage between Okanagan Mountain Park and their legacy in that regional park creates a great, continuous corridor that protects all those values. It’s a significant wildlife corridor — has lots of species, lots of biodiversity in that area — and they saw that vision.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
[ Page 11727 ]

I know of this because at the time when the regional park was being created and the Johns family was working to donate the park and work through with the regional parks system and get it into the conservancy and everything like that, we helped them do that. We worked with Robert Hobson, who was a city councillor in Kelowna, who had a great vision for building regional parks. He helped facilitate getting the regional park in place, and he always had this vision that the adjoining property would somehow be protected and create that linkage.

At the time we did the regional park, our ministry — I was the minister at the time — put a Land Act reserve in place over top of that area so that it would be available for the future in order to try to work through to get the addition to Okanagan Mountain Park, and now with this legislation, we see that being achieved. It kept that property available for that purpose during that period of time while this longer-term vision was worked on.

I’m very pleased to stand in the House and support the legislation for all the good things in it, all the pieces that are part of this, but also because it does complete a vision and a legacy that this family wanted to leave. To have that addition to the park, I think, is something that if they were looking down at us, they would say: “Thank you very much for getting that done.”

They were such a great family and great neighbours over all those years. Along with my dad, Nancy Johns was probably one of the greatest contributors to growing up with a work ethic that I’ve tried to keep going. If you ever had to work with her, you’d know what I mean. It was a chore every day just to stay with her and to work as hard as she did and not let her run you into the ground and say that she’d actually worked harder than I had for that day.

It was a great learning experience in a very neat area that now brings two regional parks together in conjunction with Okanagan Mountain Park and provides that vital broader protection through the whole area with the provincial park and two very significant regional parks.

I also wanted to comment briefly about the Ancient Forest addition that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has talked about and the member for Prince George–Valemount has talked eloquently about — another very significant addition. I had the opportunity to meet with the proponents for the park up in Prince George — the Caledonia Ramblers; the university; the local volunteers; the Lheidli T’enneh, the First Nation that were supporting it.

[1735]

I could see, when I first had the opportunity to see the proposal in more detail — and along with the Minister of Environment, had the opportunity to look closely at the proposal — and recognize that this was something that we wanted to try to achieve and that so many people in the community supported it. So many people had put so much time and effort into bringing the proposal forward. So I was, again, very, very pleased to see this addition to our park system as a class A park.

This went through an extensive process of consultation, including community meetings in McBride, Dome Creek, Prince George, Shelley. We had local government consultations with the regional district in Fraser–Fort George, with Prince George, the village of McBride and open houses in the process, lots of engagement with the Lheidli T’enneh, whose traditional territory includes the park — working in partnership and all working to achieve that objective.

I think we owe, as a province, a big thank-you to the First Nation, to Chief Dominic Frederick, who was a key supporter, a staunch supporter, of the initiatives; the volunteer groups that did so much work and helped support it. As the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has mentioned, the Caledonia Ramblers have built and maintained kilometres of walking trails and a 500-metre, wheelchair-accessible boardwalk. There are longer-term plans to have it considered towards a UNESCO World Heritage Site, based on the outstanding value of the ancient cedar stands.

We want to preserve our heritage, we want to preserve our environment, but we also want to introduce people from around the world to the beauties of British Columbia. This is an addition to our parks system that I know is going to attract lots of visitors from around the province, from across the country and internationally. People are looking to come to visit those kinds of places.

The creation of the Ancient Forest, the Chun T’oh Whudujut Park, will bring the total number of class A provincial parks to 628 and B.C.’s protected area systems to 1,030. Again, two very important pieces that are part of this legislation, along with the other additions that are part of the legislation — important additions, as everybody has pointed out. The marine park, Prudhomme Lake Park, the Tweedsmuir Park addition, the inclusion in the Sheemahant conservancy — all of those.

As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast pointed out, a number of those are as a result of private land contributions. We need to acknowledge and recognize the opportunities that those private land processes provide to add to the values that our parks and protected area systems provide for British Columbia and for all of the citizens of British Columbia.

With those comments — most specifically around the addition to Okanagan Mountain Park but, again, not diminishing at all the importance of all of the additions that are included in the legislation in Bill 15, the Protected Areas of B.C. Amendment Act of 2016 — I’m pleased to stand in the House and support the legislation, support the additions and look forward to these pieces in this legislation continuing to contribute to the great parks and protected areas system and protection of values that we have here in British Columbia.

[1740]

C. Trevena: I rise to speak about Bill 15, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. Like my colleagues, I would be happy to be supporting this, with a few riders.

I’d like to acknowledge the comments from the Minister of Forests, who put a real personal touch onto the importance of this. We all talk about how important parks are to us, but to see the legacy from people he’s known and how they’d be able to contribute to parks….

I look around in my own community at some chunks of private land that are still there that are surrounded by park and would love it if whoever owns those pieces of land felt that sense of community that they felt that they wanted to ensure that the land was forever protected in a park. It is rare individuals who really have that foresight, that are willing to do that as a legacy, so I do thank the minister. It’s very interesting to hear how it can happen.

In my own community in the north Island, on Quadra Island, we recently had a park extension. That was done after many years of land swap, of negotiations, of money exchanging hands. It’s hard work when people aren’t willing to just say: “This should be protected. It is part of the B.C. park system, and we want to ensure that it is there for future generations.”

We have, oftentimes, this sort of almost comparison about who has the nicest constituency, who has the most beautiful constituency. I think we could fall into that trap with who has the most parks. One of the reasons I’m speaking today about Bill 15 is not just because of the importance of parks generally throughout the province and the importance of parks in my constituency. But, dare I say it, one of the parks in this bill is in my constituency, albeit a very small portion of it, which is Tweedsmuir Park up in the northeast of the constituency.

My constituency, although it’s called North Island, does go up into the mainland. When you’re looking at the electoral boundaries map, you can look at that very top piece in the northeast corner, and part of Tweedsmuir Park is part of the North Island constituency.

I’m not being flippant. It is very important to recognize the parks within one’s area that you represent, because you are not just representing the individuals who live and work in communities, but you are trying to ensure the protection of the values. I think that B.C. parks really reflect our values, the values of us as B.C.’ers.

My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast was talking about when he was camping in B.C. many, many years ago and staying in provincial parks. I remember that one of my first trips to B.C. many years ago, about 20 years ago, was a camping trip. Like many other people, I was out camping. We still tent. I was in awe of B.C. parks. We were rating the parks across the country. B.C. parks came up close to Ontario. We had to weigh up, depending on which park we were in. But they were fantastic parks, and we grew to love them, in those accessible parks.

In the intervening years, and still being a very regular user of B.C. parks like many of my constituents, like many people across the province, I’ve seen a deterioration. While I think that this is really a bill that is extraordinarily important…. There is a recognition that we are growing the park system, a park system that, back in the ’90s, the NDP grew from 6 percent of the land base to 12 percent of the land base. To add to that is always valuable. It reflects our values.

But I’ve got to say that the government has got to put its money where its mouth is. You can create protected areas as much as you like, but unless there is a willingness to ensure their protection, to ensure that…. As my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim cited, there was logging of old growth in what is a provincial park because there was no oversight there.

If we are going to be serious about expanding parks, creating new parks, really ensuring that we protect our wilderness for future generations of people, for future generations of flora and fauna — that the wildlife can continue to thrive there, that the trees continue to grow, that we have these massive trees that I think all of us in this House are really excited to, at some stage, try and get to see in this new park and in other parks, that we make sure that they are truly protected — that means investing money. It means investing money in the park service. It means investing money in the land base. It means investing money throughout the system.

[1745]

The Minister of Forests, as well as giving the lovely story about his former neighbours, his family’s farm neighbours who donated the land, was also talking about the protected areas of B.C. I think we have to be very careful when we are discussing this and discussing Bill 15. There is a difference between protected areas and parks. There’s a difference between conservation areas and parks. Parks are, really, the top level of protection.

The minister was talking about the Great Bear Rainforest. The bill is still on the floor of the House, still for debate. I look forward to participating in that debate and discussing that and working through it at committee stage. But that isn’t a park. That is eco-based management. It’s a working forest. It is protected. It will develop in a certain way. It isn’t a park. What we have here in Bill 15 are very clearly parks — very important to protect. But we have to be very precise about what it is we’re talking about.

Parks are not just for the easy user — the drive-ins, the car campers, the hiking campers or those in their kayaks or in their canoes. They are for protecting species, as I say. They are to ensure that, in the long term, there is a legacy. It’s our responsibility to ensure that legacy. One of our jobs as legislators is to protect the values that we as a province, I think, reflect.

In saying that, I have to reflect on the fact that it was only two years ago that I was standing on the floor of this Legislature questioning the government on what
[ Page 11729 ]
was then termed Bill 4. We always go by bill numbers, although we’ve had, obviously, a new Bill 4 in the last session and this session — but Bill 4 at that time in which the government was allowing some development in our provincial parks. There was a huge uproar about this, a huge concern about this.

There’s always got to be a caution when we are talking about provincial parks, that we are not just naming them and expanding the land base but that we are really treating them with the seriousness they deserve and ensuring that, as I say, we put the money where the mouth is and not through development and not through….

As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, we had done a freedom-of-information request just last year about the fee increases in B.C. parks. One of the things that the freedom-of-information request showed is not just that there were going to be fee increases, making it more expensive for people to access what is public land and public camping and public space but that a “deeper transformation” included plans for corporate sponsorship of the parks.

Well, corporate sponsorship…. If you’re going to have a corporation giving money and donating money, fair enough. But how far along do we take corporate sponsorship? Are we going to see a visitor information centre with the name of a corporation on the side of it? Are we going to see various facilities in a park that are sponsored by corporations, or are they just putting money in to assist the government, which, I would suggest, should be done through the corporate taxes? The government takes the money and then decides how they’re going to allocate it. Any sensible government that cared about parks would allocate it to the park service as well as everything else.

We have mechanisms, and to be looking outside for private sponsorship for parks…. I get a bit concerned about this. I really do think that we have that mechanism, and that is our taxation, our revenue, our royalties system in this province. Then the government has, in its priorities, the ability to look at how to spend it. So there are ways of doing it.

We are in the middle of the budget process at the moment. I don’t see that there is…. I haven’t gone through in detail on the Ministry of Environment and how much is allocated to parks, but I would hazard a guess that in this era of strictly balanced budgets from the B.C. Liberals that effectively become cuts across the board, there isn’t a huge amount of money going into B.C. parks.

[1750]

It’s not just the new parks. We’ve got existing parks in my constituency. Yes, they’ve got Tweedsmuir up at the top. Tweedsmuir is expanding, and that is all well and good, if people can access it. I know that my colleague from the North Coast was talking about the difficulties of accessing it. One way in is Highway 20. The other way in is the ferry, and the B.C. Liberals got rid of the ferry. There really is a huge problem of accessing Tweedsmuir for many, many people. No matter the goodwill in the expansion of it, it does create great difficulties.

As I say, there are, in my constituency, many parks. It is interesting, also, to see the growth of parks. In looking at maps of the late ’80s, to looking at maps that have evolved over…. Particularly in the 1990s, you saw a massive expansion of parks, many of them in my constituency.

We also have the oldest provincial park, Strathcona Provincial Park, which is gorgeous — absolutely stunning — and has lots of different ways that people can access it. For people who just want the day experience to go out there, walk around Paradise Meadows, just look at the easy boardwalks. For people who can go for multi-day hikes, can go mountaineering, there’s huge opportunity there. But it needs investment. I think anybody who uses Strathcona Park and the valley….

The Friends of Strathcona Park are out there fighting for the protection of the park — the lack of development to the park in the commercial sense but for development of ensuring that the trails are kept up, that there are the interpretive programs where they’re needed, that we have protection from misuse of the park, however that is interpreted. These people fought long battles to protect this park a number of years ago. I think everybody has the memory of the battles that were taken upon these volunteers. People were so concerned about the park that people really will take action to protect their parks. We have Strathcona Park.

Going up the Island, we have parks all the way up to Cape Scott at the north end of the Island, and there are other ones throughout the Island. We’ve got Brooks Peninsula on the west coast. We’ve got Cape Scott.

As I say, to ensure that these parks are valued and are serving their purpose of protection of the land mass as well as potential access for people, there needs to be money put into them. For instance, driving up Highway 19, just before you get to Woss, you’ll see a turnoff to Schoen Lake Provincial Park, a beautiful lake. It’s absolutely gorgeous. You go up an old logging road, and you get to a lake. You get to alpine meadows. Absolutely stunning. I would suggest that anybody who likes canoeing go up, anybody who really loves the wilderness.

It’s comparatively easy access — you’re just off Highway 19 — except that the road access up to Schoen Lake, year after year, deteriorates because there isn’t the money. The park operators don’t have the money to improve the road access. So you’ve got the park just a turnoff away from the main highway and a few dozen kilometres up the mountain. It’s absolutely beautiful. You can do it in a regular four-by-four, an SUV. You could do it, but the road has been deteriorating.

Likewise, if you’re going out to the west coast, for those who don’t want to go to the busyness of Tofino and Ucluelet but who want the west coast experience, San Jo Bay, Raft Cove, Grant Bay are absolutely beautiful west coast parks. They are right there. They’re part of the provincial park system. But again, the roads have
[ Page 11730 ]
been allowed to deteriorate. Unless you, as I said earlier on, put your money where your mouth is, you can name all these parks and put the designation on the map, but it means very little.

Likewise, the protection of the rest of the land base. We live, particularly on the Island but throughout B.C., in, obviously, communities that are dependent on the forest industry. I will not hesitate to say that we in the north Island have, for many years, developed and evolved because of logging. It’s something that people have invested in and have been very proud to do, and it continues to create jobs for people and wealth for some communities. Not through mills anymore — we don’t have any working mills, apart from one or two few small shake mills or sawmills. We don’t have any big, large-scale mills anymore, but there are people still working there.

However, there is also, with the large forest companies, a clear decision to go for some of the old-growth trees. They’re very valuable to these companies. These companies have, through agreement with this government, the right to log. They have the right to access those TFLs, and they have the right to log those old-growth trees. But if you’re doing that right on the edge of a park….

[1755]

I’m thinking about towards the east coast of the Island where we have, just north and south of the Brooks Peninsula, really serious full-grade logging which is out of sight of many people. We’re seeing a lot of large, old-growth trees being pulled out of there. That is going to have an impact on the neighbouring park. That’s going to have an impact north, up towards Cape Scott, and it’s going to have an impact south, down towards Brooks Peninsula.

You can’t look at the ecosystem in pieces and just say: “Oh, this park’s fine. Everything’s protected. You can log here, and then you can have a park here.” You’ve got to look at it as a whole. I think that that is one of the things that is really missing when we are talking about land management, forestry management and our parks plans. We don’t look at it in the whole.

Yes, we have the Minister of Forests talking about the protected areas, but the protected areas don’t mean, as I said earlier, parks. I’m not saying that every area needs to be protected, but we do need to be looking at our land mass in a very coherent way because, to be honest, once you log the old growth, you haven’t got anything left. It’s gone. We don’t get a second opportunity at a tree that’s 1,000 years old. That’s it.

It’s not just the trees. It’s all the species around it, whether it’s flora or fauna. We need to be looking very constructively. We have to be doing it in a way that also respects the fact that we have many people still working in the forestry industry who expect a life of work in the forestry industry. I think we can do it. I do hold out great hope for the Great Bear Rainforest, but let’s not kid ourselves. We have to look at the way that our land mass interconnects and the way that our forest base interconnects.

I think that this is going to be a great boon for our province. We talk about the fact that the image of B.C., the image of our parks, pulls tourists. That is going to be…. The fact that we’ve got more parks I think will help that industry.

Again, tourists are like the people of B.C. Like the people for whom the parks are being created, on whose behalf the parks are being created, if I might say, they’re expected to be kept to a standard, not to be downgraded, not to be cheapened, not to be corporatized, to have the money there to make sure that we have what we all hope and think our park system is going to look like. Whether you’re sitting in Burnaby, whether you are in Victoria, whether you’re in Port Hardy, whether you are in Prince George, whether you are in Burns Lake, we all have our images of what our parks should be like.

We’ve got to make sure that we can live up to those standards and those images — that they are valuable, that it is a resource worth investing in. It’s a resource worth investing in, as are many other resources, and it is the responsibility of a government that is doing good government to continue to invest in the land base, not just put a designation on it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll take my seat, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak about Bill 15.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’m pleased to stand in the House today and speak on Bill 15, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016.

The proposed legislation will establish one new class A park, add land to four parks and one conservancy, add marine foreshore to one park, adjust the boundary of one park and will make administrative changes to clarify park descriptions.

We all acknowledge that we live in one of the most beautiful places in the world. The natural beauty of our parks provides an opportunity to explore and discover the different areas of our province.

In my own riding, I am lucky to have the Golden Ears Provincial Park. This park is one of the busiest parks in the entire park system. This park contains the largest campground area in the province, with a total of 409 vehicle-accessible campsites and with a season average of 620,000 campers annually.

Our provincial park system not only protects significant ecological and cultural values but also provides visitors and residents with unforgettable experiences.

This legislation will add more than 11,700 hectares to B.C.’s protected areas system, including the establishment of a new provincial park — Ancient Forest/Chun T’oh Whudujut Park.

Extensive consultations about the Ancient Forest Park proposal with local government, First Nations and the public took place in the creation of this legislation.

[1800]

The Ancient Forest is 120 kilometres east of Prince George, along Highway 16, adjacent to Slim Creek Provincial Park. The Ancient Forest is part of the interior cedar-hemlock forest, the only known inland temperate rainforest on earth. This area is home to a diverse ecosystem, which includes some of the oldest western cedar trees in B.C.

Class A parks are lands dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. Development in a class A park is limited to that which is necessary for the preservation and maintenance of its recreational values.

There were many groups that were extensively involved in preserving this space. I’d like to take the opportunity to mention some of them today. In July 2015, the province signed an agreement with the Lheidli-T’enneh First Nation and the Caledonia Ramblers Hiking Society, a community-based conservation organization, to explore the possibility of protecting this special area.

Since that time, extensive consultation about the Ancient Forest Park proposal has been undertaken with local government, First Nations and the public in order to create this legislation. A series of community meetings were held in surrounding communities including McBride, Dome Creek, Shelley and Prince George. A consultation paper was posted on line for public feedback. It drew more than 100 submissions. Local governments, including the regional district of Fraser–Fort George, the city of Prince George and the village of McBride, were invited to attend open houses.

In addition, the Lheidli-T’enneh First Nation, which is the only First Nation whose traditional territory includes the proposed park, has been working in close partnership with the government throughout this process.

I would also like to mention Darwyn Coxson, a biology professor at the University of Northern B.C., who was a very helpful and knowledgable resource throughout the consultation process.

After establishing this area as a provincial park, work can begin on getting the area named as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Bill 15 will also provide land or foreshore additions to five parks and one conservancy, making up 530 hectares of the total increase to B.C.’s parks and protected area.

Halkett Bay Marine Park will be increased by 136 hectares of marine foreshore, which protects a recently discovered, rare glass sponge reef southeast of Gambier Island. Okanagan Mountain Park will be increased by 263 hectares, resulting from Crown lands being added to the park. Prudhomme Lake Park will see additions of 2.2 hectares of land and 1.9 hectares of lake foreshore as a result of a private land acquisition. Tweedsmuir Park and sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ Park will see increases of 98 hectares and 0.4 hectares respectively, due to the private land acquisition. Finally, the Sheemahant conservancy will be increased by 28.5 hectares, resulting from an inclusion of former forestry roads in a cutting area.

Three of the name changes reflect the aboriginal significance to the area, including reflecting commitments made to the Osoyoos Indian Band. I am pleased we are creating another provincial park for British Columbians to enjoy, and I’m pleased to add my support to Bill 15.

B. Routley: I think it goes without saying that all of us will be supporting this legislation, Bill 15, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. But I also want to use this opportunity to review some of the current concerns that I have with regard to our B.C. park system. One of those concerns is about the fact that this government has been steadily increasing provincial park fees. One of the concerns is based on the fact that this is now just another user fee.

We have user fees for a whole range of areas. But we’ve commercialized British Columbia so that now even the disabled, people living in poverty…. To make matters worse, not only can they not afford their rental system, they can’t even take their little tent and go out and find a place of peace and quiet to get away in the summertime because this government has embarked on a system where it’s user-pay.

[1805]

The folks that can afford it and get on the line get the best spots. You know, there’s something wrong with that system. I’ve been to other countries. I was in Sweden. I’m happy to report that in Scandinavia, even though they had more than 400 years of history where, in a lot of cases, the land had already been handed down from generation to generation so a handful of elites had all of the castles and all of the moats and all of the beautiful pristine lakes, small lakes or even rivers….

Do you know what they did, hon. Speaker, that’s just the reverse of what we see here in British Columbia? The government introduced…. Wait for it. I’m not sure the Liberals will be ready for this. They’ll probably just be shocked that we would even talk about such things in this House.

They have a public access to private land act. Now, why would they have that? I must admit I was surprised, myself. Really. “We’re going to have the public access to private land act.” Why did such innovation…? Why would it even be necessary? Well, it was necessary so that people could have access to some of these pristine areas, beautiful little lakes that were on some huge 500-hectare estate, 1,000-hectare estate. There was some beautiful river and an old castle that was dilapidated and almost down to the rubble, but still it had significant value to people for tourism.

What the country did — that was very wise, I might add — was to come up with the concept of a public access to private land act, which allowed a person to go and camp. They had to check in with the owner or somebody that they had hired to assign you to an area, and you had to follow their rules.
[ Page 11732 ]

We got to consult with one of these private land owners and said: “How do you feel about this?” We would call it an imposition here in our country — the idea that if you had private land that somebody would have public access to those rights. However, in that country, the owners pointed out that if we didn’t have this, there would be most assuredly a problem of vandalism. This was done for the public good, and even those estate owners understood that they were part of a country and that they were part of providing a public service that was valuable to the whole country, to the whole nation, if you like.

Sadly, we have become commercialized to a point where, now, for those people in British Columbia that can least afford it, the door is slammed on a park experience. It’s just not right. I remember being a young man in British Columbia and, when I first was able to drive, getting in the old Volkswagen van and heading out, staying in Rathtrevor Park, Qualicum Beach, all for free. Back in the day, you used to be able to sleep right on the beach.

Now, I know that there have to be changes. We’ve got to deal with the huge volumes of people that we have, so there has to be some kind of a system. But it’s just not right that people that have lived in this land for all these years are now taxed in another form, and that is if you want to go to the park, well, you better pay.

Sure, a lot of us can pay. I can certainly pay to go to the park, and it’s not that big a deal, although I’ve got to say that that stupid parking in Long Beach area really bugs me. You park. You go out of your car. You’re there for a few hours, and you’ve got to pay for like a whole day to park there. It’s just a money grab.

[1810]

It’s just another way for these B.C. Liberals to find their way to tax middle class. Certainly, it’s a really regretful tax, in my view, on those people who can least afford it, and it’s not right and not fair that we would live in such a country that does those kinds of things.

Now, I want to talk about where we’ve come, in parks in British Columbia, from back in 1995. I looked, actually, on the B.C. Parks website, and they rightly point out that the amount of parkland in parks dramatically increased in 1995.

Who was in power in 1995? Well, that would be the NDP. We hear about: “Oh, things were so bad in the 1990s.” Yet at the end of the day, things weren’t so bad, because the government of British Columbia did something amazing. Their website even says that we went from 2.5 million hectares saved in parks in British Columbia to 7.5 — a five-million-hectare increase, more than doubling the size of the parkland in British Columbia in 1995. By the year 2000, it had all improved from 7.5 million to ten million hectares — ten million hectares by the year 2000.

I’ll give credit where credit is due. Have the Liberals done a few things? Yes. Well, it’s not 7.5 million, and it sure isn’t up to ten from 2.5 million. But, yeah, from the NDP era, they have improved to 13.5 million hectares. Now 14.26 percent of B.C.’s land base is in a park or protected area, that kind of thing. Is that a good thing? Absolutely. It’s true, I think, that for future generations, we’re going to see improvements. I’m happy to see that some of this is in land that has even been donated.

I will acknowledge that the largest parkland by far, in Bill 15, is the addition of a total of 11,000 hectares near Prince George in the Ancient Forest that has got that wonderful First Nations name. Only the Minister of Forests can say the name, but I’m sure we’ll all learn it. I look forward to having more lessons on that name.

The total amount of parkland that’s being improved under this bill is 11,700 hectares. There’s a whole long list of parks. The list goes on and on, several pages. I think it’s a total of 89 areas that are included in the total list. Again, that’s a good thing.

All of them have a much smaller land base than we’re talking about with the larger area, but there are unique features being protected. The Halkett Bay Marine Park, with the 136-hectare marine offshore area, has got these rare glass sponge reefs that are southeast of Gambier Island. Again, that’s a unique feature, and it will no doubt bring world-class attention, whether it’s from divers or people that are scientists interested in this kind of area which, at one time, was thought to no longer exist. It indeed is a good thing that we have that here in British Columbia.

Other issues that I wanted to talk about. Not only have we got these continuing fee increases and user fees; it’s noted that…. We did some freedom-of-information work and discovered that the parks with the highest attendance in British Columbia were the ones that were hit the hardest with fee increases.

[1815]

If you’re an ordinary British Columbian and you want to go to your favourite park year after year…. I’ve talked to people that have gone to the same park year after year for as many seasons as they can remember, some of them 20 or 30 years. I know a fellow that has gone for 30 years in Strathcona Park to the same pristine lake because that’s his favourite place in the whole wide world. Having seen it once, I kind of understand why it’s very important. It’s a place so unique and so special. I think we find that all over British Columbia. Just about every one of these parks you find to be so amazing, so unique. I think a lot of people would call them very special.

It is, again, wrong that where ordinary or average British Columbians find their joy, in one of these areas, and it then becomes the highest attendance area, they are whacked with this theme park strategy.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

They’re like theme parks. It’s like going to Disney World or something, how this government…. Somehow we should pay. We should just pay. The folks should just
[ Page 11733 ]
get used to assuming the position. Open your wallet, and be prepared to pay for your park experience. It’ll be good for you. That’s the plan. That’s what we hear from the folks over there. It’ll be good for you to pay. Somehow that’s a great idea.

Let’s imagine the real worst-case scenario to me. That’s this idea of the deeper transformation that is being undergone right now. Can you imagine if corporations get to do what they’ve done to arenas and community centres all over British Columbia? I wrote a few down. I’m sure you’ll appreciate this creativity.

We’ve got the Coquihalla River Park, sponsored by Canadian Tire. There you go. It’d be perfect, eh? Canadian Tire would be all over the Coquihalla River Park.

Then there’s the Dall River Old Growth Park, brought to you by Home Depot. There’s the idea. Or Castle Rock Hoodoos Park, by Big Joe’s Mini Golf. Blue Earth Lake Park — that could be White Spot. These kind of things….

How about Artlish Caves Park, brought to you by Matrix tile and stone? That’s a good one. You’ve got to admit that’s not bad. What about Rainbow Alley Park, brought to you by Tim Hortons? Or Read Island Park — that sounds like a place where you could go and read, but we could have it presented by Best Buy. Have a little plaque.

We would complete the job of the commercializing of our green space. It’s just like…. It wouldn’t be Long Beach anymore. You could go up to Long Beach, and there it is: Long Beach, presented to you by Walmart. Somehow it just misses some of the specialness of that kind of selling our assets off to the highest bidder. It’s just wrong.

I’m not going to have near enough time. I had full intentions to go through chapter and verse of the Cowichan River Park. I got so excited when I saw this. Wow, there is quite a description of Cowichan River Park. All the parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all the foreshore and the land covered by water situated in the Cowichan Lake district and the Sahtlam district and contained within the following described boundary.

Now, to wrap things up. There are seven areas. The good news is, for saving the fullness of time, I won’t get to read all seven of these areas. I’ll skip right to the end and read…. Although, it would have been good, hon. Speaker. You would have been transfixed about all these wonderful areas that we were going to have. We’ll get right to the seventh: lots A and B, section 7, range 1, Sahtlam district, plan 24-9-21, containing 1.11 hectares. For a total, the whole park will contain 753 hectares.

[1820]

On behalf of the people of the Cowichan Valley, we are in joy today, knowing that there’s a new park added under this bill, so we celebrate the bill and the additions. That is a good thing, and I do acknowledge a good thing when I see it.

I do see that the government has some work to do, making our beautiful parks experience doable for all British Columbians. That should be the goal. When you go home, think about those folks that can no longer afford the park experience. Can all of us? Oh yes, we can still go to a park. But what about those families just trying to make their dollars stretch? They’re trying to pay their rent and their hydro increase — 28 percent hydro increase.

All of the increases, whether it’s school fees, ferry fares, transportation on the bus…. All of those things bite away at their pocket to the point where it’s just too hard. That’s wrong. I’m sure that we should try to do something about that.

I don’t know whether it’s going to be a new vision. I hope I’m giving the minister responsible for people living on disabilities…. There’s a place to start. What about that? Why wouldn’t you…? You know, if we can’t get you to fix the bus pass problem, maybe you can look at: what about creating an opportunity to at least go out and enjoy one of B.C.’s beautiful parks? Particularly, when we have spent all kinds of money — whether it’s disabled parking, all these other things — and then at the end of the day, you find out they’re not getting used. Why? Because it’s unreachable for people that don’t have the funds to do that.

With that, hon. Speaker…. Or do you want me to go for a little bit longer? I can talk about Horne Lake Caves. How about we do that? I’ll talk about Horne Lake Caves and all those parcels and tracts of land.

But I see the minister wants to wrap things up. I’m happy to do that. The whole park area is about 123 acres. I love Horne Lake Caves. I’ve been there a number of times, taken my young children there.

With that, thank you very much.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Polak: I want to thank everyone for their contribution to the second reading discussion. It’s clear there’s a lot of support for our British Columbia parks, and I think that’s well deserved. They really are spectacular.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of so many people that has managed to bring about the additions to our parklands that are represented in this legislation. There are a number of technical adjustments, but in the areas such as what’s happening in the Okanagan, the Ancient Forest and then the glass sponge reefs…. All these things have taken, in some cases, years of time — community members devoting their time to get us to the place where we are today and, of course, the First Nations involvement as well.

I’m pleased to hear that it sounds like we have support on all sides of the House. With that, I would move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.
[ Page 11734 ]

Hon. M. Polak: 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 15, Protected Areas of British Columbia 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.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. McRae in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $245,937,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today is April 4, 2016, and we gather in the Douglas Fir Committee Room for the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and the Minister Responsible for TransLink.

[1445]

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister helping juggle all the different pieces and the different staff that were needed for different times, because there are so many different pieces to this file.

I thought we would start by asking some questions about B.C. Assessment, then the Auditor General for Local Government and finish up with sport.

I have a couple of questions that we may not get to, because I have another colleague who is going to come in and ask about TransLink. By four o’clock, we’ll probably make that transition. We’re trying to juggle many pieces, so if the minister could be quick with some of his responses, I can get through all of my questions. I would be most grateful.

Interjection.

S. Robinson: No, no. Not suggesting anything.

I do have just a couple of questions, and I have a colleague who has a question for B.C. Assessment. What strategies are being undertaken by the ministry to address concerns related to the valuation of port properties? I know that that’s been a concern I’ve been hearing a bit about.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the question comes as a result of some of the discussion. There is a lot of work going on with the port properties, with the local municipalities and the impact of any changes that might take place. They are looking at all of the options, including on-port facilities and their valuation — such things as the gantries and a number of other things like that. There is a lot of work going on with the port authorities, of course, to look at models from other jurisdictions. It’s a wholesome review of that.

Again, before any changes would be contemplated, we will be working both with the port authorities and consulting, through UBCM, with the affected communities.

S. Robinson: Does the minister have a timeline for when this would, at least, go to consultation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Some of the elements like the light standards and the RTGs, which are the rubber tire gantries, and those kind of elements…. We’re working now. We should have that first tranche of that consultation work done shortly. The remainder, in looking at some of the other elements that have been discussed, will probably be 2017.

[1450]

S. Robinson: I appreciate having at least some sort of timeline. I think it would be helpful if local governments also knew that that was happening and coming and that by 2017, they would have some sort of review done so that they would be able to answer the questions that they need in terms of their own planning.

I’m going to have a seat and let my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim have an opportunity to ask questions.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister and his staff for being here and making themselves available. I’m going to go right to a specific issue, but it’s actually a broader issue as we get into it. I’ll try to be as quick as possible. I’ve spoken to your ministry already, and I’ve got answers.
[ Page 11735 ]
I’m not criticizing the ministry or any staff for this, but it’s an issue that we still have not got an answer on.

I’ve not been able to answer the questions for my constituent. His name is Bill Scott. He owns a glass shop in Port Alberni — glass replacement, that sort of thing. He’s long established, been there for 16 years. He’s paying commercial taxes, of course, on his commercial space, and it’s thousands of dollars a year. He’s seeing more and more incidences of companies opening up in the alley behind him, out of a house, out of a garage, competing directly with him.

B.C. Assessment is assessing these properties as residential, so these individuals get, of course, a much lower tax rate. They’re not being charged the commercial rate that Mr. Scott is, and they’re also, presumably, getting their homeowner grant too. I’m not going after at-home businesses here, but Bill’s issue is that there’s an unfair, unlevel playing field.

He’s been going to the city. I suggested he go to the city of Port Alberni, mayor and council, so he has had discussions, too, there. They have, in some instances, moved him over to your ministry. Your ministry has acknowledged some of this, but also back to the city.

Is there any mechanism in place — I guess that’s the quickest question, the most direct question — for B.C. Assessment to ensure that there is fair taxation in the case of Mr. Scott and business owners that are going by the book, playing by the rules and providing money to the economy through the commercial taxation? He argues, and he has a point, that it’s higher because people who are doing exactly the same business are not being assessed in a similar way that he is.

[1455]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I was remiss earlier not to introduce the staff that’s here from B.C. Assessment. We have Andy Hoggarth, who’s the vice-president, executive financial officer, for B.C. Assessment; David Highfield, who’s the president and CEO; and Rob Fraser, who’s the executive director of the assessment services. I wanted to thank them for their input.

I appreciate the question from the member. There are a lot of challenges with this kind of issue. There have been court cases that have been lost where there was a challenge to the usage of a particular piece of property. One that was brought to my attention was someone who had an art galley on the main floor of their home, and when they got wind that they were going to be looked at, they brought a chesterfield in, and then it was deemed to be part of their residence.

There are people who take advantage of — I wouldn’t call them loopholes — the reality of split assessments and so on. But I do appreciate the member’s question. We are working within B.C. Assessment and the ministry to look at what options might be there. There are issues as it relates to zoning within the municipal responsibilities that come into play as well. But I do appreciate it, and we’re going to continue to look at it to see if there are solutions to deal with this.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. I’ll just relay some of the impacts, which Mr. Scott sees as coming onto the taxpayer, with this too. I’m glad the minister and his staff are looking at it, because, as he rightly points out, there are a number of vacant commercial spaces in Port Alberni. The city is going through a reinvention of itself. These vacant spaces are, of course, not a good thing. You want to encourage businesses to fill up these spaces, and as long as people are seeing a significant tax advantage, they’re not doing so.

I know that Mr. Scott has also gone through…. He’s talked to the mayor and council. This is not, certainly, unique to Port Alberni. But business licences are issued even though there is no…. In a private residence — let’s use Mr. Scott’s analogy of a glass shop — a $150 business licence is issued. The address is not a commercial space; it’s a residential space.

[1500]

Is there any thought of looking at B.C. Assessment being able to have access — I don’t know if this is appropriate or not — to business licence issuance that might raise a flag that there’s a business, a commercial business operation happening that might warrant a look and a reassessment for taxation purposes? I’m not sure if any of that’s being considered.

Full around, because we’re going to run out of time here…. In response to Mr. Scott, I’m at a loss for an answer for him. I don’t have an answer for how he is to achieve fairness in his operation of his business while he is being taxed…. I mean, he has thousands of dollars of burden that his competition does not have.

This is one sector. I think we can translate that all over the province to a whole bunch of different…. Whether it’s roofing companies, gas companies — you name it — there are any number of companies that could be in the same situation, where those that are doing it by the book, paying their commercial taxes, are actually being punished for it by the system, while those that are not are seen to be able to have an unfair business advantage.

For me, that’s the thing that I really find difficult to not give him an answer on. How do we have a system that treats him unfairly as a business owner?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wish I could say there is a simplistic, very easy fix. There are a number of issues. What we are prepared…. I think you can say to your constituent that if they would be interested in getting in touch with B.C. Assessment to give the context from their perspective, they would be happy…. I know he’s talked to ministry staff about this before. However, there are issues relative to zoning in communities. There are issues relative to business licences that are required under bylaws by communities.
[ Page 11736 ]

There are people who may run a hairdressing business in their kitchen that do compete unfairly, perhaps, in the eyes of an owner who has a hair salon a couple of blocks away, but the zoning, whether it’s single-family residential or commercial….

[1505]

We are aware — B.C. Assessment, our ministry — and are working through UBCM and with the communities to see if we can tighten up some of those criteria. I wish there was a simple answer, but I would ask your constituent to indeed be in touch with the ministry, and then they’ll put them in touch with the appropriate people at B.C. Assessment.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I will certainly relay that on. I believe Mr. Scott may be watching these proceedings. If not, he’ll be picking them up tonight on the late show.

Maybe I’ll end this, because I know we’ve run out of time. But if I could leave a question on notice that the minister could get back to me on at a later date or when he has the answer.

I realized that one of the issues that Mr. Scott had raised is that he has learned that ICBC is utilizing companies that are not running in a commercial space. They are his competition that are not paying commercial taxes, according to Mr. Scott. That surprised me. I haven’t followed up on it.

I’m wondering if the minister could maybe check that out with the minister responsible for ICBC and find out if that is indeed happening and if there are some rules on that. Mr. Scott initially had been told when he opened his shop that that would never happen, and he made investment plans based on that. If the minister could get back to me at some point on that, I would very much appreciate it.

I’ll take my seat.

S. Robinson: Just following on the questions by my colleague here from Alberni–Pacific Rim, it reminded me of a wonderful tour that I had of B.C. Assessment. I appreciated seeing how the process happens. It almost appears like magic. You just get this letter in the mail that tells you what the assessment is. But there’s a whole lot of work that goes behind that, so it was really great to get a behind-the-scenes view.

In this situation, I’m wondering about the shift from boots-on-the-ground assessments to satellite assessments. That’s the shift that I certainly learned about. Is that creating some of these gaps? From the air, from the satellite, you don’t get a sense that there’s a glass shop happening in the basement of a home or in a garage. You just see the building and if they are zoned residential. We don’t get this contradiction.

I was wondering if that is sort of one of the gaps that we’re going to continue to see as we have fewer and fewer boots on the ground and more satellite imagery.

[1510]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question of the member. I had the same tour and saw the same thing. What I realized is that the quality of review of assessments is significantly better today than it has been for many years because of the aerial views and the street views. It is both. They do street reviews, as you may know, with vehicles that go around and take pictures so that when you go on their site, you can look at the property. The aerial view gives you the total dimensions of any additions.

B.C. Assessment also uses building permits as a vehicle to cross-check. They also use business licences, because they’re provided that. But if there isn’t a business licence and there is no building permit change, the only thing that the aerial view doesn’t do…. It doesn’t have a radar camera to see what is going on in the house, and that’s probably a good thing. I do want to say that they’re looking at all of these things. The quality of overview of assessments has gone up dramatically.

The issues I talked about with the other member in terms of the collaboration with the local governments on zoning and complaints that they might receive…. I think the member alluded to the fact that that individual should be talking to the city as well, because they have bylaw enforcement capabilities. If someone does not have a business licence and is operating a business that would be deemed as a business, that gets into the gray area I talked about where the courts have ruled in a couple of cases that they’re not businesses. They happen to be something that somebody does in their living room.

We are and they are looking at all of those things, trying to find a way to ensure that people that should be classified in a certain area are — that is, both the local governments and then B.C. Assessment in terms of any changes that fall under their purview. We’re going to continue to look at that.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response from the minister. Those are all of the questions I had for B.C. Assessment, unless somebody else wants to…. I don’t think so.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and being available. It’s a fascinating tour, I have to say. It has stayed with me. Thank you very much for offering that up and helping me understand how the B.C. Assessment process happens. It’s helped me with my constituents.

Next I have questions for the Auditor General for Local Government.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m joined by Gordon Ruth, who is the Auditor General for Local Government. Although I did before and I don’t want to take up more time, of course I have my deputy minister here, Jacquie Dawes; David Curtis, who is the previous EFO for the ministry; Gary Paget, who is the strategic adviser to the ministry; Tara Faganello, the assistant deputy minister for local
[ Page 11737 ]
government; and Melanie Stewart, who’s the ADM for all of the other things that we do.

S. Robinson: I appreciate another reintroduction, and I am glad that you’re all here to help answer some of the questions. I would like to welcome Mr. Ruth to the room and am grateful that he’s here and able to join us.

I’ll do two questions in one, if I might. What’s the current budget for this office, and how much is designated for contracted services?

[1515]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Total budget, 2.595, and the contracting budget is $670,000.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that. Compared to previous years, how has that contracted budget changed?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The budget in the previous year was $670,000 as well.

S. Robinson: My understanding, however, was that there was a lot more contracting happening in previous years and that that was supposed to be changing. Does that mean that it’s not changing? I’m just trying to wrap my head around how things have changed under the leadership of this new Auditor General for Local Government. My understanding was that there would be less contracting, so I’m just trying to make sense of that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, in 2014-15, the office spent $922,304 on contracting. It’s anticipated that in 2015-16, the office is forecasted to spend $345,487, even though the budget has not changed. That is because more of the work is being done internally through Auditor General for Local Government staff.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to hear that, because that was certainly a substantial problem with this office. I look forward to hearing how things play out with more of these reviews happening with staff.

Switching over from sort of the financial side to the product delivery side, or the service delivery side. When this office was first initiated, it was going to be 18 reports a year. Then last year — I was just reviewing estimates — the minister at the time said it was going to be five. I’m just trying to get a sense of what the expectations are in terms of service delivery — what we can expect annually from this office.

[1520]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The office now is very much looking at what is possible so that any commitments made to reports or audits is in keeping with the capacity of the office to do it.

But I did want to let the member know that since the office started, now there have been 20 reports completed. Of them, 16 are performance audits, and four are what would be referred to as best practices audits. We’ve seen that the quality of those reports, engagements with local governments, have been significantly improved, and the response from local governments has been positive in terms of many of those reports.

The new Auditor General for Local Government, since he’s taken over, and prior to that, the interim that came in after the change took place…. We’ve seen that the quality and the commitment to ensuring that those move ahead has been fairly robust.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the report-out on the follow-through on the work commitment that was made a number of years ago. But going forward, what is the expectation on an annual basis?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The office is intended to look at five reports, four of which could be performance audits. One could be a best practice, or it could be a different combination of those. But because of the size of the office and the capacity, that is a realistic target, and that is a minimum target. If they can produce more, of course, they will. That will depend on the intensity and the speed by which each of them is done.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that that’s the expectation. I, too, have heard better experiences with the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government, and so that’s really good to hear, because if the minister can recall, there were certainly some local governments that were really tearing their hair out with frustration. Making the change was really critical.

I’d like to ask the minister if all of the recommendations of the Trumpy report have been implemented. And if they haven’t all yet been implemented, what’s left to do in order to implement them?

Hon. P. Fassbender: There were five major recommendations in the Trumpy report. Three have been fully implemented, and two are in the process now of being completed and contextualized within the operations of the office. The understanding we have is that they will be implemented as soon as a report-out comes in terms of how that can be done.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that it does take time to implement these sorts of recommendations — getting someone in place to bring a staffing complement together. I’m wondering, just from an accountability perspective, if the public can expect some sort of reporting-out once the recommendations are done or a report-out to UBCM or some body that says: “We have in fact implemented all of the recommendations, and this is what it looks like.” Will there be such a report coming forward?

[1525]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member opposite is well aware that…. There are a couple of functions. One is the audit council, which really is the oversight body for the office on a day-to-day basis. There is a report that is done by the Auditor General for Local Government to that group. As the member is aware, we have appointed a couple of previously elected local government officials who are bringing that lens to it, which was a fulfilment of a request by UBCM for more local government sensitivity.

The Auditor General for Local Government has committed to report out. One is their annual service plan report that comes out but also the possibility of putting more information on the website. That’s part of the reporting function of the office that’s being reviewed, as we speak, to make the office more transparent in a public way, both to local governments….

Then the other thing that I think is the key factor — which I have been impressed with, with the new Auditor General for Local Government and the staff in the office — is their recognition that communication with local governments — both through UBCM and directly as they go out and visit local governments or regional meetings for local governments…. They will continue to build that communication so there’s a real understanding of what’s going on, on a day-to-day basis.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure it’s clear in my mind. Once the last of the recommendations is implemented…. I understand that the audit council is who the Auditor General for Local Government will be accountable to, but at the end of the day, it’s being funded by the taxpayers of British Columbia. So will there be something on the website that says: “We have implemented all of these things, and this is how we’re going to achieve the goals that we set out, that we would achieve”?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m assured that there will be communication going out in a number of forms to ensure that everyone knows that.

S. Robinson: Well, I’m really pleased to hear that from the minister. Those are all the questions I have for the Auditor General for Local Government, because I’m keenly aware of the time, and I’d like to talk about sports. But I want to thank the Auditor General for Local Government for coming and for sharing information about the office.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Just for the member opposite, we’re now joined by Margo Ross, who is the executive director of the sport branch in our ministry, and also Kelly Mann, who is the B.C. Games Society president and CEO.

S. Robinson: Thank you for the introduction, and thank you both for coming. Glad to have you here. I have a number of questions in relation to the sport file, so I may just double or triple up where it’s a theme.

Can the minister tell me about the physical fitness and amateur sport fund? Where does this money come from, and what are the returns on that fund?

[1530]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member opposite may not be aware, but the perpetual fund was created in 1969 under the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act. In 1988, it changed to a special account under the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. The special accounts provide statutory authority — not a guarantee but authority — to spend funds that have been earmarked for special purposes. This one falls into that category.

The purpose of the fund is to promote the physical fitness of residents of the province and their participation in amateur sport. That is a great statement. The actual delivery of that takes many different forms throughout the province and through the organizations.

The purpose of the fund was to take the interest that’s earned each year on the account balance, and it is accredited to the account as revenue. Of course, the variance in revenue is based on interest rates, so when there is a tougher economic time, interest rates are affected, as we all know. That has had an effect on the account as well.

S. Robinson: Thank you. Well, I really value the history lesson. I really didn’t know where it came from. I appreciate that somebody has institutional memory from 1969.

Can the minister tell me how those funds get distributed? What are the criteria? Is this sort of like a grant, an application, or does that just go into sort of this general spending account?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The revenue that’s generated goes into general revenue, but it’s earmarked for sport, and so the funds are distributed as they are deemed to be appropriate for the various agencies. ViaSport is one of the agencies that we fund. Again, depending on what revenue is generated, decisions are made as to where that might go.

[1535]

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure I understand. Well, I do understand that it goes into general revenue. When making decisions about how much money to spend in sport, is it put into that account and then determined: “Well, we want to spend this much in sport, we want to keep it flat, so we’ll put less money in”? Or if it’s a really good year, if interest rates are really good, it’s just found money that gets put back into sport?
[ Page 11739 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The funds go into the sport account. Then what happens with that is…. Ministry operations is within sport, and then there are also the physical fitness and amateur sport special accounts. Then all of that money is distributed.

Perhaps by way of example, the aboriginal partners council is one of the organizations that is funded through that. B.C. Games and Seniors Games are funded through that. The Directorate of Agencies for School Health, or DASH, is funded through that, and the FPT payments, the relationship that we have with the federal government. Mid-sized events are funded through that and ViaSport, of course, as I mentioned already.

S. Robinson: If there is a banner year, then there will be more money going out to these organizations. Is that my understanding?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes.

S. Robinson: I really like that answer. I want to thank the minister for that. I’ll leave that fund for now.

I have some questions just about the service plan. Objective 4.1 in the ministry service plan speaks to…. Individuals should have more opportunities to participate in sport for a number of reasons, which I think is fabulous.

I’ve certainly been talking to many different PSOs over this last few months and finding and learning from them that one of the biggest challenges they have, in terms of growth, is lack of venues — just not enough venues, whether it’s a baseball diamond or a football field or, certainly, a hockey rink — and wanting to know how the minister advocates for that, supports that and addresses that. Given that if the goal is to get more individuals participating but one of the squeezes is lack of venue, how do we address that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: There are a number of dimensions to this. One is the sport infrastructure federal funding that is available. We work closely with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure that for provincial priorities, when it comes to facilities and other infrastructure that would meet those needs, we take advantage of that.

The other thing is that — coming from a local government background, I know the member knows this — we are working with and encouraging local governments to look at multi-use facilities, where a facility that might have been traditionally seen as purely a soccer field now can double up and do a number of other things.

[1540]

The other thing that there has been a lot of discussion about is the use of school district facilities for more public use. I know, in my particular case, as a local mayor prior to becoming a member of the provincial government, of encouraging local communities to talk to their school districts so that they can break down some of the walls.

There are issues, of course, in terms of maintenance and all of those things. But those kinds of discussions ensure that every tax dollar, whether it’s spent in a school district or a local government or federally and provincially, is used to its maximum benefit. We’re doing everything we can to encourage that ongoing discussion and making sure we take advantage of federal funding on a lot of the infrastructure as well.

S. Robinson: I agree with the minister wholeheartedly about making sure that facilities that are built for whatever purpose get used in as many different ways as they can, regardless of which level of government funded them, including schools.

I’m sure the minister can appreciate that, with certain challenges that the schools are having right now, there has actually been the opposite happening. There is less opening up of schools because of some angst around their financial capacity to do that, and that’s creating significant challenges on the PSOs and their members. We’re actually seeing a bit of a backlash. We’re not moving forward with shared facilities, and that’s certainly adding to the concern.

The other question I have, which comes out of this objective, talks about increasing coach and leadership development opportunities and supporting organizations and programs that promote safe experiences and skill development in sport. What struck me is concussion research. Certainly, there’s been lots of discussion around concussions in sport. There’s, certainly, with the movie that came out and concerns about concussions in football and other sports…. PSOs are starting to address that.

I want to know what leadership role the provincial government is taking in making sure that our children are safe and that there are some really good concussion prevention protocols and concussion rehab protocols.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is a very topical issue, as we all know. We are working with sport-governing bodies and encouraging them to provide education for their coaches and parents in terms of identifying issues that they may be aware of. We’re working with the federal government and Health here in the province of British Columbia to look at other protocols that have been established under research.

SportMedBC. We provide funding of $125,000 annually. They put out documents and tools for parents and coaches and people involved in amateur and organized sports at every level.

We are looking at other options that may be available, and there is discussion across the country as to whether there should be legislated protocols or whether they should be voluntary. We have also been working with ViaSport to get messages out and asking for best practices
[ Page 11740 ]
that may be out there, where sport organizations can work with each other and look at best practices in this area.

It is a subject that we are acutely and intimately involved with at a number of levels, and we’ll continue to do that.

S. Robinson: I’m grateful to hear that it’s on the minister’s agenda. The question of whether we should regulate it or have voluntary…. We don’t have voluntary seatbelt wearing or wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle, so I would certainly encourage the minister to think and act more strongly than just encouraging sport bodies to act.

[1545]

I think our children’s brains are far too important to leave to just the act of encouraging. I hope that the minister would even consider tying it to funding — that as a sport organization, if you don’t have protocols in place, you’re not eligible for funding. Something that would certainly move sport organizations to take this really seriously. I know some are better than others, but at the end of the day, we’re talking about children and their brains. They only get one.

I’d like to — unless the minister would like to answer, speak to that…. That would be helpful.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Just very quickly. We do require each funded provincial organization to ensure that they have up-to-date codes of conduct for athletes and coaches, as well as other safety initiatives. As we ramp up the encouragement, we’re also putting into the protocols, in terms of funding…. Directly tied if they get funding. We want to see it demonstrated that they’re doing work in that area. But I take the member’s comment and suggestion to heart.

S. Robinson: I want to encourage him to take it to his brain too, because he only has one. [Laughter.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: They’re both connected.

S. Robinson: So you’re the Scarecrow and the Tin Man all rolled up in one?

Hon. P. Fassbender: All into one.

S. Robinson: I want to move on now to ask some questions about the strategic direction and context that is listed in the earlier part of the plan that comments on: “B.C.’s changing demographics, including an aging and diversifying population, mean that our sports system must continue to evolve in order to meet the needs of British Columbians.”

I’m very interested to hear how the minister and his staff are actually doing that to meet the diversifying population, as well as an aging population, when it comes to sport.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is an issue that we are working on. A good example is the government supporting the Masters Games, which are coming for the first time to Vancouver. We see that as a real recognition that sport does not end if you stop playing organized sport, and as you age there’s still opportunity for seniors. That is an initiative that I think will be very positive.

We’re doing a lot of work with the B.C. Seniors Games. We provide annual funding to them of $175,000. The 55-Plus Games are looking at how they continue to build their organization. We’ve been in lots of discussions with them and the B.C. Games Society and are moving that forward.

Also, the diversity…. If you look across the province, no matter where you live, there are different cultural groups who have different sport activities that might not have been seen as traditional. We’re supporting those. We’re seeing a diversity of support for various sport activities that meet the needs of the citizens no matter who they are.

In terms of seniors, we clearly recognize…. I guess I’m getting close to fitting into that category.

S. Robinson: It’s the 55-Plus Games.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Oh, is it? Oh well, I guess I’m not quite there yet. Just kidding.

The issue here is, it is very much what we look at to ensure that every dollar we spend is targeted to the right groups. We’re not just focused on organized sport, necessarily, but other activities. For example, I’ve been out lawn bowling, which is a great activity for seniors, but they’re trying to get younger people to participate with them so we can broaden that future for that as well.

[1550]

S. Robinson: I have just a couple more questions. I want to come back to, I guess, around the diversity and about…. While there’s ethnic diversity, there’s also gender diversity. While “You wish you could play like a girl” is really getting lots of play, and we have lots of women in sport — we have lots of young girls, certainly, in soccer, and it’s growing in hockey — we don’t see a lot of leadership in the sport community — women leadership, women coaches. I would like to hear from the minister what the plan is around gender balance in sport.

Hon. P. Fassbender: There are clearly the target groups that we have. Young girls and women are a definite target that we have. One of the things we’ve noticed is how there seems to be a propensity that girls are less likely than boys to play sports, and we’re trying to encourage that at every level, working with the Ministry of Education in some of the education that goes on in the schools as well.

Also, we work in the promotion of Girls Only and Forever Active Bodies 55+, which I think I fit into, as you said. Then ViaSport, in terms of their professional
[ Page 11741 ]
development fund for advancing gender equity in sport, helps a variety of British Columbians but fits into that area where we know there is more attention that needs to be paid. There’s a hashtag out there, which you can check, called #levelthefield, which is, again, one of the initiatives.

We are investing in sport events that celebrate women in sport. We have an event coming up in Surrey. I know, for example, the women’s international softball championships are coming up. I have met with the organizers to see how we can broaden the support of that. One of the challenges that they have, that they’ve suggested, is that sponsorships for women’s activities are not as easy to find as they are in other areas. We’re trying to encourage that by speaking to the corporate community to step up and help that as well.

S. Robinson: I’m glad to hear that the minister is paying close attention to those specific diversity issues.

I have another question. The performance measure in sport — I’m just going to flip back to where it is on that goal. I just want to flag it because, on the one hand, the goal is: “The provincial sport sector is robust and supports increased participation and athletic achievement….” The goal is for all British Columbians to participate in sport and activity. I get that. It’s a laudable goal, it’s a good goal, and it’s one that we should all be working towards, but then in the performance measures, the only one that gets reported out on, the only one that’s identified, is percentage of B.C. athletes on national teams.

It’s a bit of a disconnect, when you read this public document, that all of our efforts…. Yes, we’re going to help our elite athletes, and I think we should, but really, most of the efforts, most of the activity that goes into sport is for folks like the minister and myself — not elite athletes, just basic folks wanting to have fun and be fit. Yet there’s no reporting out on those numbers.

I’m just wondering if the minister can share with us what numbers he does have that speak to: are these efforts working? Are we having more and more people participate, whether it is organized sport or recreational sport — whatever that might be?

[1555]

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is an issue in terms of the ability to access to quality information that will actually give us that sense of participation. As the member knows, we work closely with the B.C. recreation association to get information that they may have available. We look at what’s happening in communities. We have a report called the B.C. Activity Reporter. I don’t know whether the member is aware, but we can provide information.

Sport membership. Generally, in organized sport, there is a tracking mechanism. People sign up, or youth sign up or whatever it might be. We’re able to do that. That has shown us that B.C. has grown by about 43,000 from 2008 to 2014. That’s about a 7 percent increase. That’s only one measure in one tranche. But it is an indicator of other activities that happen.

We’re always looking for ways. I will be sitting down with the federal minister now responsible for sport to talk about the quality of data tracking for the dollars spent both by provinces and by the federal government as we move forward. I think we all want to see if we can get a better sense of that. We are working hard to find ways.

A lot of it is tough. If you are just talking about physical activity, nobody wears a chip that says: “I’m now out walking or playing tennis or whatever.” They just go out and do it.

What we do, through the recreation association and other agencies, is continue to encourage that at the community level and get people more involved in their communities. That’s why we have walking clubs and all of the things that happen in communities, day in and day out.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister’s answer. At the end of the day, that is what we want. We want people active and participating in sport and recreation. But I also think that’s what we ought to be reporting out on, even though it’s tough. I’m not saying it’s easy to get that data. But if we have some data, like in this case — that we have an increase of 7 percent — I think that’s a good news story. That’s a story I think that we should be tracking and reporting out on.

I have one last question. It actually has to do with the B.C. athletic commissioner. I’m just following up on if there have been any fights this year. How much has that office cost us?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Other than ours?

S. Robinson: We’re not fighting, Minister. We’re not fighting. We’re discussing, debating.

[1600]

Hon. P. Fassbender: For the member opposite, I have some information. There were approximately 22 events held in B.C. That’s an average for every year. In 2014, there were 24 sanctioned events. In 2015, there were 20 sanctioned events. So that average is about the same.

Again, I think one of the things that the commissioner is doing is ensuring that they have developed and implemented a standardized match assessment to ensure safety in all of those. The protocol is that no one under the age of 18 can participate. There’s a lot of work that’s still going on, and it is something that, again, we’re paying attention to as we move ahead.

S. Robinson: Just one last question. How much did the office cost us, the taxpayers?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The anticipated expenditures in the accounts are $310,000.
[ Page 11742 ]

S. Robinson: I’ve done my set of questions. I want to thank the minister and all of his staff for helping me to understand some of the pieces of the accounts for this ministry. It certainly shines a light. I think you all do great work in helping to make British Columbia better. I want to thank you, and I’m going to hand it over to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey.

D. Eby: All of my questions are going to deal with TransLink. I have no other areas that I’ll be canvassing. I don’t know if the minister has any staff that he wants to release or call up, but now would be a good time to do that. It’s my understanding, actually, that we’ll be closing the ministerial section at the end of the day today. If that’s helpful to the staff, then maybe we just want to take a couple of minutes while they sort themselves out.

The Chair: We’ll take a few minutes’ recess while we change staff over.

The committee recessed from 4:04 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the member is aware of the staff that has consistently been here, but I wanted to mention the fact that Kevin Volk, community and corporate programs, is joining us, as well as Jessica Brooks. Jessica is the executive director of transportation planning and governance for that portion of our ministry.

D. Eby: I thank the minister, and I thank the staff for being here to support the minister today.

We’ll start with the U-Pass. Can the minister tell me how much money the provincial government has allocated for the U-Pass program for the year?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s $12 million.

D. Eby: Can the minister give me an idea of the trend line here compared to last year and the year after the coming fiscal? Is there a plan for increasing or decreasing? How does that compare year over year, from recent history to immediate future?

Hon. P. Fassbender: That funding has remained relatively stable over the last number of years and is projected to remain stable.

D. Eby: What ministry and what line item is that funding contained in?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It falls under the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and more detailed questions in terms of the line items should be directed there.

D. Eby: We understand that the province has asked TransLink to make the U-Pass more sustainable. Can the minister explain what the ministry has in mind by more sustainable?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member knows, with the introduction of the Compass card, the ability of TransLink to track data and to do a much deeper analysis of what the program…. How it’s used and the usage factors, as I just said, will be able to be done.

[1615]

Out of that will come a plan and recommendations on how to ensure that it moves ahead in a way that we can track that kind of information.

D. Eby: How much revenue does TransLink take in from the U-Pass program?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member may or not be aware that every student contributes $38 a month plus the provincial contribution. Those are the two funding sources that TransLink receives.

D. Eby: How much revenue from those two sources does TransLink take in each year?

Hon. P. Fassbender: That’s a question that I think the member can pose to TransLink management. They’ll be able to do that. I’m sure it’s part of their public accounts. I don’t have that information available here.

D. Eby: I understand the U-Pass B.C. program contract expires in April of 2018. What is the government’s plan for the U-Pass program for May of 2019?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The value of the data that’s now going to be collected is going to help us to continue to work with the student unions and TransLink to determine what our plan is moving forward. I suspect we think this is a very valuable program that ensures that students have access to transit. We have had lots of discussions with the various student unions. We will continue that. As I say, once we have better data as a result of the Compass card, we’ll be able to work with all of the parties to determine where it should go in the future.

D. Eby: The minister mentions the Compass card. It was a fare gate closure day, I understand. It was a premature closure, but I think they got that under control relatively quickly. The question related to the Compass card contractor. This has been a long-running contract. It’s much later than was expected. There’s a provision in the contract that relates to dispute resolution between the Compass card contractor and the government of British Columbia.

My question is: how many disputes were raised under this provision of the contract? What were the outcomes
[ Page 11743 ]
of those disputes? And what costs were associated with those disputes?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member knows that the province does not have a direct relationship with the contractor, so there have been no disputes with the province on the contract. Any questions about the contract and disputes, I think, are properly directed towards TransLink.

[1620]

D. Eby: I’m worried that I’m starting to see a bit of a pattern here, Mr. Chair, but we’ll press on and see where things go.

This question relates to the board of TransLink. The TransLink board has 11 members and meets quarterly. The province makes appointments to this board. What is the total amount of compensation that will be paid to the TransLink board in 2015-16 and ’16-17?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member is aware that the ministry and the government only appoint two people to the board. The remainder are appointed by the Mayors Council through a process with a screening panel.

Again, I don’t have the facts on the compensation that was paid in the previous fiscal. That is in TransLink’s reporting responsibilities. Also, what the board members are paid is, again, something that the member can ask the TransLink board — for that information.

D. Eby: I assume, then, the minister does not know what the annual compensation budget is for Jim Chu or Murray Dinwoodie — whether it includes bonuses or vehicle allowances or living allowances or other compensation outside of base pay for provincial appointees to the TransLink board? If he doesn’t have the global number, does he at least know what the provincial appointees are getting?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Mr. Dinwoodie and Mr. Chu are treated exactly the same as the other board members. There are no living allowances, car allowances or any other things other than the normal stipend that all the board members get. Again, that can be sourced through the TransLink board.

D. Eby: I’m a bit puzzled here. Who do the provincial representatives report to? Are there any performance evaluation measures that the minister has for his appointees to the board?

Hon. P. Fassbender: They, when they are appointed to the board, have the same responsibilities, sign the same agreements as other board members do, and they report to the board. I have a direct working relationship with them to ensure that they’re well aware of government direction on transportation on the broader scale. But as appointees by the government to the board, they have the same fiduciary responsibilities as other board members.

D. Eby: I guess…. It seems strange to do this, but I’m going to take the minister to his mandate letter. I’m a bit confused about what’s exactly happening here today.

In the minister’s mandate letter, the Premier told the minister that she has “decided to place responsibility for TransLink with the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, as the issues surrounding TransLink following the outcome of the plebiscite are now inextricably linked with taxation issues facing local governments in Metro Vancouver.”

[1625]

What is the minister’s understanding of the Premier’s words “I have decided to place responsibility for TransLink with the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development,” given his inability to answer some basic questions about TransLink here today?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do not have an inability. I’m not going to answer questions that really fall to another agency. What, clearly, the Premier has asked me to do, because of my experience in the past as a previously elected official who sat on the Mayors Council and who has somewhat of an intimate knowledge of Metro Vancouver, is to see if we can find a path, working together with the region, to deal with the issues that TransLink faces.

D. Eby: What information is the minister using to base his analysis on, then?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, the reality is that in my role, I have the legislative framework that TransLink is operated under. I have the responsibility to consult with the local mayors, to work with the TransLink board and the activities they do — and through them, of course, information comes up through TransLink management — plus working on other initiatives with the federal government to ensure that we secure the kind of funding from the federal government that will help us achieve the goals in the mayors’ vision. So my role is to work with all of those parties to find the solutions that will ensure a robust transportation system in Metro Vancouver.

D. Eby: Then whose job is it to watchdog salaries for executives, to ensure that TransLink is appropriately engaging subcontractors in the various array of corporations that it operates under its umbrella? Whose job is to oversee the conduct of board members? If it’s not the minister’s job, then whose job is it to be accountable for TransLink?

[1630]

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member is aware, I’m sure, in 2014 we made changes to the legislation that provided more oversight and authority to the Mayors Council in
[ Page 11744 ]
terms of approving the executive compensation and to also work with the board of TransLink.

In terms of the oversight of the board activities, the board has policies and guidelines — which, again, I’m sure the member can avail himself of — on how they do their self-evaluation and the process they go through in terms of relationships amongst board members.

Just from an anecdotal point of view, I have ongoing scheduled discussions with the board chair, who ultimately holds the board accountable to their responsibilities. I also have ongoing conversations with the two government appointees.

D. Eby: So if I understand the minister’s answer, TransLink’s board is accountable to itself and does self-evaluations, and the minister has conversations with the board chair and with board members to fulfil his responsibility as the Minister Responsible for TransLink. I don’t want to misstate what the minister is telling me here, because I find it quite surprising that as the Minister Responsible for TransLink, the minister doesn’t feel that he is the person responsible for TransLink.

I just want to, really, get this super clear. Self-evaluation of the board, minister conversation with the board chair and minister conversation on an ad hoc basis with various board members — is that the accountability the minister is engaging in?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The board and its relationship with the Mayors Council who appoint them…. There is a direct line of responsibility for the board to report back to the Mayors Council as they look at reappointments or appointing new individuals in the future. So there is a direct relationship, and there should be a stronger relationship, albeit, between the board and the Mayors Council as well.

D. Eby: These questions relate to handyDART. What were the annual operating costs for handyDART in 2015, and what are they budgeted for 2016?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, that is a question that I think is properly directed towards TransLink management.

D. Eby: What are the number of service hours that people with disabilities will see from the handyDART contractor under the 2015…? What did they see under the 2015 contract, and what will they see under the 2016 contract?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I would answer the question exactly the same way. I think if the member wants detailed information, that is available through TransLink, and that’s where it should be directed.

D. Eby: I wonder if there is any point in asking the minister any questions related to the Evergreen line.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think when I get a question, I’ll either answer it or not. Pretty straightforward.

D. Eby: I can guess which of those two it will be, Mr. Chair.

For the Evergreen line then, what are the plans for policing on the Evergreen line?

[J. Yap in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: They will be policed exactly the same way as the rest of the system.

D. Eby: What additional budget is set aside, then, for Transit Police to police the Evergreen line?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Same answer. That is properly directed towards TransLink.

[1635]

D. Eby: Can the minister answer questions today about bus service levels in 2014, ’15 and ’16 — whether they’re going up or down, and the amount of money allocated to bus service?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No.

D. Eby: Can the minister answer any questions about audits, reviews or customer satisfaction surveys of TransLink — whether any have been done and whether they’ll be released, either last year or…? Are there any planned for the coming year?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I just struggle a little bit with the line of questioning when the member clearly knows the governance structure that exists for TransLink. We have a system that, in my opinion, from an operational point of view, has some of the best on-time records for systems of its kind. When the Evergreen line opens, it’ll be the longest automated system in North America. Its on-time record, I believe, is in the 90s and growing. So there are many good things going on.

The additional responsibilities given to the Mayors Council for oversight in the legislation in 2015 have absolutely strengthened the Mayors Council’s ability to impact compensation and a number of other things that affect the future planning of TransLink.

I also want the member to know that the government is committed to continuing to support the expansion but not to run TransLink. TransLink is run by the Mayors Council, by the board that they appoint and by the management. Clearly, any questions….

I believe there are some very good questions that the member should get more detailed answers for. I think that by going and sitting down with the new CEO — or to sit down with the board chair, or a combination of that
[ Page 11745 ]
— and have a list of those questions…. I am sure, because TransLink does report publicly, that they will be more than happy to provide the detailed information from their public records and from the plan that they work on with the Mayors Council.

[1640]

As minister, my job is not to tell TransLink how to manage the operation but to ensure that it meets the overall goals of the province as well. That is where working with them is really important.

The accountability that they have is to the people and the taxpayers of Metro Vancouver. One of the challenges in the past, I think they’ve had, is perhaps some questions about the efficiency and so on, so I think TransLink has a responsibility. In a meeting I had as late as Friday with the new CEO, I clearly indicated that from my perspective. But it is a board, Mayors Council and management decision as to how they are going to communicate clearly to the public what they are delivering — why it is seen as one of the most efficient services in the world, actually. I think that has been part of the problem: the communication going out about some of the details of what they’re doing.

I’m not going to tell TransLink management or the board how to do their job. I am going to challenge them when I think that there are more things that they could do to build public confidence. I think that is the role of the minister and the government of British Columbia, and to ensure we’re there to support those projects, as is outlined in their vision — the three major projects where we have said the provincial funding is there — and how that fits into the overall provincial transportation plan.

D. Eby: How much money does the provincial government send to TransLink?

[1645]

Hon. P. Fassbender: In addition to what I indicated earlier for U-Pass, the province provides $120 million as the provincial share of fuel tax and $19.2 million as our contribution to the Canada Line operating.

D. Eby: The province sends $141.2 million on an annual basis to TransLink, and the Minister Responsible for TransLink doesn’t know if there are any audits upcoming or whether any have been done. He doesn’t know what compensation is for the board. He doesn’t know what bus service levels are. He doesn’t know what the amount of money that’s going to the handyDART is. He doesn’t know how we’re paying for policing on the Evergreen line.

Does the minister just cut this cheque to TransLink and hope for the best, based on ad hoc conversations with board members, or is he using any metrics at all to determine whether we’re getting value for money here?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I suspect I know where the member is trying to go, and I’m not going to go there. We absolutely are engaged. I think the member is well aware that when I was appointed minister responsible, I took the step for the first time of putting two government representatives on the board.

The very reason for having two people who sit at the board table who go through all of the discussions, all of the work that the board and management does, is so that I have a pulse from them, as our government representatives back to me, about how they feel the board is functioning, issues that they think may become a concern or a question or something they can celebrate as a board and as an organization.

To suggest that I don’t know what’s going on is not true. I’m not involved in the day to day, nor do I ever intend to be, nor should the government. We have an operating system and we have a governance structure that is there to ensure that the right people are at the right table at the right time. However, that does not suggest that I or the government is not interested in TransLink and how they’re operating.

We know there are issues. Those are being represented by a board that’s appointed by the Mayors Council, with the two members from the government and with the vice-chair and the chair of the Mayors Council, who now also sit at the table, which was an initiative by the government to ensure a direct link back to the Mayors Council, both from a point of view of input and feedback to the Mayors Council.

I think it is a system that has the ability to work very well in terms of accountability. But to suggest that I should know every detail of what goes on from an operational point of view is a stretch that I think takes it far, far too far.

D. Eby: I don’t want the minister to give me the salary for Bob the bus driver. What I’m looking for is…. I’ll give you an example, because I know the answer to one of the questions anyway. The cost of the handyDART, including taxis, last year was $46.9 million. Now, does that sound to the minister like a trivial detail that he could not possibly know about?

Also, I did ask the minister about accountability of board members and how provincial appointees report back to him, and he said they weren’t responsible to him. He said they were responsible to the TransLink board. This is not an unusual process. It’s called estimates. It happens. The minister responsible comes and provides information about the budget, the $141 million budget, how it’s spent and how he’s ensuring accountability. Is he doing audits at the very least?

[1650]

I note that, clearly, there’s nobody from TransLink here to help the minister answer questions. If there were, he’d be answering the questions. I am sure of it. I cannot believe that his ministry does not have core information about tens of millions of dollars in public funding that
[ Page 11746 ]
goes to TransLink or, at the very least, about accountability mechanisms — audits. Basic stuff: $141 million. You send in your people to have a look at the books and make sure everything is okay.

This is a Crown corporation that is a public corporation. It is set up by the government under provincial legislation. This is the minister who’s responsible for it. I hear the minister dispute the technical definition of a Crown corporation, but he is the Minister Responsible for TransLink.

I’m going to try one more time, and then I’m going to move on. Does he have a single audit that he can tell me about that he’s doing to make sure that $141 million is being well spent on behalf of the people of B.C.?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think that clearly, the one component…. The largest amount of money that is given to TransLink, as such, not counting the Canada Line…. Our contribution was part of the overall agreement, and it is one of the sections of the system in Metro Vancouver that is outperforming its targets. The performance that it is doing is beyond expectations and is doing a great job, in my opinion.

The other part of it is that the government’s responsibility and the minister’s responsibility is governance, not management — I’ve said that already — but I do know that audits are done of TransLink. They’re part of their public reporting process that they do through the board.

[1655]

The governance structure and the changes and the additional responsibilities given to the Mayors Council for oversight of the fiscal planning and the rolling capital expenditures and all of those things provide that regional review by the Mayors Council of those things that should be reviewed through the process. I am very satisfied that we have an organization that has due diligence on all of those things.

The gas tax is very clearly being collected in the region and is returned to the region for transportation. How that’s used — that is the responsibility of board governance and management to use those funds as part of that overall fiscal planning.

Quite honestly, the genesis of the governance structure is that we’ve got 22 individuals, representing every community, who have the ability to dive into the fiscal plan, to ask all of those questions as part of their responsibility. I have the confidence in the Mayors Council that they’re doing that job as well.

D. Eby: I’m glad that somebody has confidence in what’s happening over at TransLink, if it’s only the minister, and based, apparently, on TransLink’s self-evaluations.

On November 23, 2015, Insights West and Business in Vancouver did their annual opinion poll on the performance of the provincial government. Now, the poll found that the government’s management of TransLink was the lowest-ranked of any category presented; 33 percent said government’s management of TransLink was bad, and 44 percent said it was very bad. Only 10 percent said the government is doing a very good or a good job.

When the minister hears numbers like that and he says he has a great deal of confidence in how things are going over at TransLink, despite not having any information to present here today to back up that assertion, can he explain to me whether he has any initiatives planned over the coming year to address that public confidence gap between his opinion and what seems like the vast majority of Lower Mainland residents?

Hon. P. Fassbender: When a question is asked — I happen to come from a marketing background — how you ask the question begs the answer. The reality is that when they say “government,” I think government as a whole, whether it’s local governments and the province, have had questions by the public about the efficiency. That’s being rectified with the new CEO. It’s being rectified by the changes to the legislation that give the mayors more power to have direct input on the fiscal planning and so on.

There are a number of other initiatives that I know that the TransLink board and management, in conjunction with the Mayors Council, will be implementing. I think the new CEO is going to have…. His first job is to look at what that kind of survey says and how they turn that around. A lot of it may be misconception. Some of it may be bathed in reality, I appreciate.

But I have every confidence that the province of British Columbia is doing its job in providing the support that we should and not meddling in the day-to-day operations.

D. Eby: I think the minister knows darn well that if the question was “How awesome is TransLink?” the answer would still be very similar: “Not very awesome,” in the opinion of most people in the Lower Mainland. Again, I have trouble understanding how the minister responsible for this agency takes such comfort from that result.

There was a direct poll — I hope the minister can answer questions about this — that the provincial government actually put to people in the Lower Mainland about TransLink. It was the transit plebiscite. It cost $5.3 million for Elections B.C. to do that — $3.44 per registered voter.

Now, the minister and the Premier have talked repeatedly about another transit vote in Metro Vancouver. I wonder where the funding for this vote is going to come from and whether the minister could tell me whether his ministry is going to pay for this vote or whether they’ve allocated additional money to Elections B.C. to conduct this future plebiscite.

[1700]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, for the member…. I’m sure that he knows this, but I’ll help fill in blanks if he
[ Page 11747 ]
has some. The province made a clear commitment when it was elected that if a new funding source was required or asked for by the Mayors Council, it was the expectation that there would be a plebiscite that would be taken to the people. The plebiscite was owned by the mayors. It was their plebiscite, not the government’s. We required it, but it was their plebiscite, and whatever they or other organizations expended in support is really something that they are accountable for. There is no other plebiscite planned.

D. Eby: I don’t see how the minister doesn’t feel he’s accountable for the $5.3 million that Elections B.C. spent on the plebiscite, an initiative of his government, but there you go.

How much did TransLink spend on the plebiscite? Media has reported TransLink, Metro cities and other third parties spent almost $6 million. There’s a 2015 line item in their budget for the plebiscite but no exact spending figure. So how much did it cost to TransLink?

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s the same answer. If the member wants the detail, he can definitely ask TransLink. I’m sure they’ll be happy to answer.

D. Eby: Does the minister know what impact the three-month delay on the Surrey light rail transit and the Broadway corridor has on the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development budget? Will this three-month delay on the studies for these projects cause cost overruns?

Hon. P. Fassbender: There has been no delay. As a matter of fact, when I was appointed minister, I met with the board. I met with the Mayors Council. I challenged them to ensure that the preliminary work that needed to be done, in anticipation of a federal budget and whatever that might hold, continue.

[1705]

That is part of TransLink’s budgeting, so there was no cost associated with that to the province. The province requires the business case. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and I both met with Minister Sohi from the federal government to talk about where they were heading, even before the budget. We’ve now met and are going to continue to meet to talk about the next steps.

But the work was never stopped; the pens were not put down. Part of it was my encouragement to TransLink and the board to continue that work in anticipation of the federal budget so the work could continue at a speed that would ensure we can move ahead.

D. Eby: I have a couple of segments of an article headlined “Rapid Transit Plan Stalled,” from the Province, March 31, 2016. Kelly Sinoski writes:

“‘Studies on the two projects’” — that’s the Broadway corridor and Surrey light rail — “‘were expected to be completed and have been extended for three months, to June 30, to get a better idea of what they will cost,’ TransLink Chief Financial Officer Cathy McLay told the transit board on Wednesday.”

That was at the open board meeting of TransLink.

“McLay says TransLink is still refining costs. ‘We haven’t finalized the numbers. When we first did the studies, the dollar was at parity, and we have to acquire land, which is nothing close to what it was back then. We have to make sure we have accurate numbers going forward.’”

Just to advise the minister, there has been a delay. Maybe he wasn’t aware of which delay I was talking about, but now that he does know, I wonder if he wants to revisit his answer.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m not going to revisit my answer. I’m going to say that clearly there were issues, as the work that I mentioned, which I encouraged to continue, identified areas that required further explanation and further analysis by engineers, and a number of other issues had to be addressed. So what the chief financial officer and the acting CEO at the time said was that there was a lot more work that had to be done. Some of the work led up to that, and there’s more work yet that has to be completed.

Now, with the federal budget, we clearly understand that the federal government is prepared to commit to what wasn’t previously funded by the federal government, and that is some of the more detailed planning work. That is going to continue now that we understand the federal government is also prepared to contribute to that.

D. Eby: I imagine that the project costs what it costs whether or not the feds are at the table. That’s what the studies were about. It was about how much the projects cost. Unfortunately, they were delayed by the referendum. The dollar has gone down; land prices have gone up. So there’s a significant cost in that delay that will be paid for by the public. I’m sorry that the minister doesn’t understand that.

I’d like to ask a question about that federal funding, since the minister has addressed it. Is a provincial contribution to the mayors’ proposed Metro Vancouver transit plan included in this budget? If so, under what ministry and line item?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Sorry, I missed that.

D. Eby: I don’t mind repeating it. Is a provincial contribution to the mayors’ proposed Metro Vancouver transit plan included in this budget? If so, under what ministry and line item?

Hon. P. Fassbender: To answer the question, the infrastructure funding that the province has committed to… The three major projects that are part of the vision are a part of the B.C. on the Move plan, which was done by the
[ Page 11748 ]
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. It will be part of that budgeting process as the business plans are completed.

[1710]

Then, as the member probably knows, it will be taken forward through Treasury Board for approvals as the actual business cases and the actual dollars are identified, because the dollars that were discussed a number of years ago definitely have changed and will perhaps even change more as more detailed engineering work and business case development are done. That’s where it will reside.

Within the ten-year capital plan, there is notional money that has been put aside for those three major projects. Again, that will be taken forward through a government process once we know what the actual costs are going to be.

D. Eby: How much money in the ten-year capital plan, notionally, has been set aside for these projects?

Hon. P. Fassbender: That is a question that can be canvassed to the Minister of Transportation in his estimates, because it’s all part of the B.C. on the Move plan. I would direct the members to ask that question there.

D. Eby: I thought I heard the minister say he was responsible for the infrastructure money. Maybe the minister could clear it up, because I don’t want to misrepresent what he said.

Hon. P. Fassbender: What I said clearly, and I’ll speak slowly for the member, is that the funding for infrastructure falls under the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and the funding that will be allocated as part of the ten-year capital plan under that ministry and under the B.C. on the Move program.

D. Eby: I appreciate that. That definitely was slower, although not particularly more helpful. I’m trying to figure out what the minister is responsible for, and I could’ve sworn earlier in his answers he told me he was responsible for this, but I stand corrected.

Metro Vancouver mayors are saying they can’t afford the 17 percent that the minister is looking for in terms of their contribution under the new transit plan. They’ve asked the province to step up with 40 percent of the funding, instead of the traditional 33 percent. This 7 percent increase is estimated to cost an additional $370 million. Is the minister considering this request from the mayors?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The government’s contribution and its commitment to one-third funding for the three major projects in the mayors’ vision has been on the table, is on the table. I continue to talk with the mayors in light of the federal budget and what the federal government may be doing.

I don’t have a conclusion to those discussions, but I am committed, on behalf of the government, to continue to talk to them. I clearly understand what their ask is. I don’t know the answer, ultimately, but I will continue to work with them as we move forward.

D. Eby: Does the minister expect Metro Vancouver to make a contribution to these projects, and if so, how does he anticipate they will make that contribution?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I expect them to make the contribution the same way they have, in a funding formula that now has shifted somewhat as a result of the federal budget. That is why I will continue my discussions with them.

D. Eby: The minister might have to slow it down again for me, I think, on that answer. Metro Vancouver has to raise money somehow to bring their contribution to the table. How does the minister anticipate that they’re going to raise that money to bring to the table to fund their share of these transit projects?

[1715]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think everybody was waiting to determine what the federal budget would hold.

What’s very clear in the federal budget statement is that they are prepared to commit up to 50 percent. There are a couple of key words there: up to 50 percent. It’s not a guaranteed 50 percent across the board.

I know that the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and I will be meeting with Mr. Sohi, the federal Minister of Infrastructure, this week to talk about the criteria that they will establish and that is still going through their Treasury Board process. Once we know exactly what the federal share is on specific items and under their criteria, then the Mayors Council and the region will be responsible to come up with whatever the gap is that they need to fund, both in terms of capital projects and also ongoing operating once those projects are up and running.

As I said clearly, I am committed to working with the Mayors Council. They have current funding sources, and that is a number of things outside of the property tax they collect — things like fares and other revenue sources that they have. Then whatever the gap is, after they look at their fiscal plan…. That includes things that I know the board and the Mayors Council are talking about in terms of accumulated surpluses and other vehicles that they may have to fund things in the short term and then to the mid-term.

They will be looking at that, and we will collectively sit down. Once the business cases are done on the major projects, then we’ll know what the gap is, and the mayors will have a decision that they need to make in terms of how they raise that revenue.
[ Page 11749 ]

D. Eby: The Ministry of Transportation service plan for ’16-17 to ’18-19 forecasts a combined B.C. Transit and TransLink transit ridership. They’re projecting 286.1 million people riding on transit. That’s 12 million below the target that was set for 2015-16. Can the minister tell me what percentage of this ridership decline comes from TransLink?

[1720]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The very reason that the region and the province are looking at major investments in rapid transit projects is that the future of gains in transportation is going to come with increases in rapid transit options: the Evergreen line, when it comes on board; when we look at the Surrey expansion, the entire 27 kilometres in Surrey eventually; the Broadway corridor and what rapid transit will contribute there — all of those projections on ridership, which include all of the TransLink numbers.

Again, if the member wants a more detailed breakdown of what components are in there, I would suggest that under the Ministry of Transportation’s estimates, the B.C. on the Move plan, those questions can be directed there. I am very much aware that, as we build out these major rapid transit projects in the Metro area, ridership is going to be affected in a very positive way as a result.

S. Simpson: Just in listening to the conversation that’s been going on, I have a question or two related to the negotiation with the federal government around cost-sharing of these projects, particularly the major transit projects in Surrey and Vancouver. Now, the government has been pretty clear that if…. They’ve been clear, certainly, about the share between local government and the province, and 33-17 is the share. I believe that the province has said that’s their expectation, with the federal government putting 50 percent of the dollars on the table.

The minister has also been pretty clear in terms of how the government has not changed its position around the requirement for a plebiscite if there are to be new revenue sources that are taxpayer-generated revenue sources — that that will require another plebiscite referendum similar to the last one.

Could the minister tell us: has the minister been clear with his federal counterparts that that will be a requirement before the province will participate in funding these programs, if local government says: “We need an additional tax; we need something in addition to property taxes and current revenue streams that are available to the municipal local government”? Is the minister…? Has he been clear with the federal government that the province will not be proceeding unless there’s a plebiscite if there are other revenue streams required?

[1725]

Hon. P. Fassbender: We have been very clear on the provincial position with all the parties, whether it’s the mayors in the region or the federal government. That said, we have also said that we are prepared to work with the region as they look at what that gap is — based on, again, the criteria that we don’t have yet on the federal funding, because it is still deemed as up to 50 percent. I asked the minister that the last time I met with him.

That said, there is no plebiscite that is on the books. There’s no plebiscite that’s been asked for by the mayors because they are asking for a new funding source. I have said earlier I’m committed to continue to work with them once we move ahead and we know what the final costs of projects are.

They need to determine whether or not they feel that a new funding source in the short term, mid-term or long term is going to be required. If they ask for that, we will sit down with them, we will work through the issues, and then we’ll make those decisions at that point.

At this stage, other than…. Current government policy is that any new funding source has to demonstrate public support.

S. Simpson: I would anticipate that the local governments are not about to ask for another plebiscite. They were obliged to do the plebiscite because of provincial policy. It certainly wasn’t an initiative that came out of local government. My expectation is that local government would prefer not to have a plebiscite in future regardless of what the funding formula looks like.

To get back to the question, maybe just for a little bit of clarity. The minister says that this discussion has been had with the federal government. The federal government and the local government have both been informed of current provincial government policy around the requirement for a referendum, plebiscite — however you name it — should there be additional funding sources required that are taxpayer-supported funding sources.

The question I have, again, is: has the province informed or had discussion with the federal government in terms of the provincial view…? Policy can always change; we know that. But in terms of the provincial view, if there is a requirement for additional funding sources over and above what is available today, would the plebiscite be a deal-breaker? And if a plebiscite was required in order to do this, then would the plebiscite need to be successful in order for these projects to proceed and the federal dollars to be requested? So you would have to have a successful plebiscite in order to make the final ask for federal dollars to be put on the table?

I guess I ask this because I’m sure that the federal government wants to know if there are uncertain measures here that are going to affect what kind of infrastructure dollars they put into British Columbia. If there’s another factor out there that’s a bit of a wild card which is the result of a plebiscite, I’m sure they want to know that before they make their commitment.

Is that the clarity that the province has provided to the federal government: a successful plebiscite will be
[ Page 11750 ]
required if there are other taxpayer-supported revenue streams over and above what there are today?

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The federal share is on the table but not necessarily totally clear in terms of the criteria, as I mentioned earlier. One of the reasons we’re going to be meeting with Minister Sohi is to determine what those criteria are so that it’s clear for the province and for all the local governments. The provincial share is clear. It’s 331/3 percent. It’s one-third of the funding for the major projects in the mayors’ vision.

[1730]

I am not going to presume what the mayors want to bring forward. The bottom line is that whatever the gap ends up being at the end of the day to move ahead on the projects and the other parts of the vision is for the Mayors Council to work through with the TransLink board and management. Should they come forward and ask for a new funding source, our position has been clear, but I’ve also said we’re going to continue to work with them.

They have the capacity to raise the money that they need for the projects, as they’re defined at the moment, through existing funding sources. They may choose not to want to do that. Then the province will discuss that with them, and whatever they ask for will trigger other decisions and discussions that we’ll have.

D. Eby: The B.C. SCRAP-IT program was an incentive program to…. People could turn in their old cars and replace the polluting vehicles with cleaner forms of transportation. TransLink used to offer an incentive, which was an eight-month bus pass, but apparently it’s no longer offered. It’s still offered by Victoria — a nine-month bus pass for a similar kind of thing.

Is the minister familiar with this program? Is it a provincial program? Why has TransLink stopped supporting it?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The SCRAP-IT program. I am well aware of it. It was an initiative with TransLink and the Ministry of Environment. TransLink determined that they were going to end that program. I think if there are further details, again, I would ask the member to speak to TransLink as to why they decided not to continue the program or to direct those questions to the Ministry of Environment.

D. Eby: For the Evergreen line, there are new cars arriving. There is a question about who will do the warranty work on these cars on the Evergreen line. On the Canada Line, when the warranty work had to be done, there were workers who were flown up from Mexico to do the warranty work in the shops here in B.C. — for Bombardier before the Olympics.

Will there be a similar arrangement on the Evergreen line car warranty work?

Hon. P. Fassbender: That’s a question that we’re happy to contact the Evergreen project office to provide that information to the member. I don’t have the answer to that here today.

D. Eby: There was a policy decision that was made around policing on the transit system, to have it as a private police force accountable to TransLink rather than a public police force accountable to a police board.

Has the minister explored this issue? And will he be addressing that gap between public policing and private policing for the transit system?

[1735]

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member is well aware, the transit system is unique in terms of its cross-jurisdictional nature, and with policing, because it is jurisdictional by municipality, there are implications — initially, when TransLink was formed and the look at how to police a system like that.

I am well aware, now that fare gates are in operation, that there may be reviews that TransLink board and management may want to do and the relationship with local policing agencies. At this stage, I think it’s premature to say what the future is, other than it was put in place for a very clear reason. It is doing its job. They have a good relationship with the local policing agencies to ensure the cross-jurisdictional dimension of that. I think we’ll see what the management and the board determine they want to do in the future.

D. Eby: There’s an issue that I know the minister must be familiar with, which is that people with serious disabilities are denied handyDART service far too often in this province. There was a protest at the board meeting. Some people spoke quite passionately at the quarterly board meeting about this issue.

The service hours have been frozen since 2009. There were 16,869 denials, 6,750 refusals and 14,185 unaccommodated standby trips for the handyDART, all of which are tens of thousands of people refused rides who needed them. What is the minister’s strategy to deal with this issue?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the new CEO had a baptism in his first public board meeting in terms of an issue by the delegations that came forward. Government clearly recognizes that the ability of the system to provide the services that people with disabilities need is a significant issue. In my meeting with the new CEO the day after his board meeting, it is one of the things that he is going to be looking at, in terms of how we can rationalize and improve the service, whatever form that takes.

[1740]

It is clear that the FareSaver program and some of those have not met the capacity issues, working with the taxi industry in terms of providing the opportunity for vehicles that can supplement what handyDART does. There are a number of factors to it. We’re well aware of it, and we’re encouraging, again, the TransLink management and the board to look at that and to see what other options might be available.

D. Eby: I can advise the minister that in January 2009 to December 2009, the total, for all three regions, of hours of handyDART service under the contract with the Texas firm that provides the service was 613,000 hours. Then in 2010…. We’ll skip that year because that was an Olympic year. There was clearly a bump for the Olympics. From January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, 598,000 service hours was the contract target. Those 598,000 hours have remained the standard straight through from 2011 to 2015.

Yet when advocates did an FOI for the actual number of service hours delivered, it appears as though the company responsible for providing this service hasn’t hit 598,000 hours of handyDART service since 2011, which may have actually been the Olympic year. If you don’t count that year and you think it’s the Olympic year, they haven’t hit 598,000 hours ever — not since 2009 and certainly not before that.

Does the minister have any explanation for why the contractor for handyDART is not delivering the number of service hours that the contract says that they should be delivering? Is there some sort of explanation for that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member opposite, I don’t have the detail in terms of a breakdown. Again, I would direct the member to TransLink if he would like a more detailed explanation.

I will say this. It is clearly an issue. The real issue is not necessarily the number of hours but the number of trips that are provided to people who need those trips. I am well aware that TransLink management and the board see the priority to deal with this issue. To do the deep-dive analysis and then look at the provision of those services and how that’s done is a key priority for them.

D. Eby: I encourage the minister, as the Minister Responsible for TransLink, to get his hands on these numbers and try to grapple with, as I have, how it could be that the contractor is not providing those service hours, coupled with the number of denials that are taking place.

The handyDART system is currently run by a company called MVT Canadian Bus. Despite the name, it’s a Texas-based company. The contract comes up for renewal in 2017. TransLink has said it will look at all options, including bringing the service in-house, which seems to make a great deal of sense, because on their calculations, there is somewhere between $7 million and $11 million in overhead on the current contract — or profit, I guess, is what it would be for MVT.

Is the minister in agreement with…? Well, I won’t put him in a box on this. Let’s just say: is the minister open to supporting the possibility of bringing this service in-house at TransLink and ending the contract with the handyDART service, given the abysmal record?

[1745]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m in support of management making decisions that ensure the best level of service possible in the system. Again, that is a management and a board decision. But I support them looking at every option that will ensure that the best service at the best price can be delivered.

D. Eby: I think it’s very clear that the handyDART service has grossly failed in delivering the best possible service. If the minister talks to people with disabilities who use this service, if he talks to people who are elderly who use this service, it is grossly inadequate. I think his confidence in the existing system is misplaced, and I encourage him to look into this.

Not only are people being denied rides, not only is the contractor apparently not delivering the number of hours they’re contracted to, but when seniors or people with disabilities actually get a handyDART ride, they actually have to have two different bus passes. They need to buy a Compass card, because many folks use regular bus service, and a separate handyDART pass, because when the Compass card was rolled out, TransLink didn’t put the handyDART buses with little swipe pads so that people could use the Compass card.

Can the minister confirm that that’s in fact the case? It’s what we’re hearing from people with disabilities. Can he explain…? Is he going to fix this?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Without question, the interoperability between one system to another system is important. I know that TransLink management, as part of its overall review of the users of handyDART and their needs…. It is being evaluated, and the model that they will want to move towards may look a lot different than today.

The bottom line is that we want to be sure that TransLink provides the easiest access to transportation to people no matter where they come from and that there isn’t a double-charging or an additional charge that no one else has to pay. I am encouraging TransLink management and the board to make sure that, as they look at other options, that basic principle of access — unfettered access — to people, no matter who they are, is provided.

D. Eby: In 2007, former Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon said that he wanted these gates in the SkyTrain station. He expected them to be up and running some-
[ Page 11752 ]
time in 2008. He estimated the cost to be $80 million to $100 million.

The first budget came in, in 2009, at $171 million. The second budget came out at $194 million. Can the minister confirm — is that the end of the budget increases? Was the project actually delivered for $194 million?

[1750]

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the gates are now up and running as of today, my understanding is that the contract for the implementation and the operational side of the fare gates is going to be close to completion. I expect a full accounting from TransLink. I don’t know where the final budget stands at this stage, because that is a TransLink management issue with the board. As soon as they are in a position to release the final budget, I know that they will do that.

D. Eby: Does the minister have any understanding of how the budget went from $80 million to $100 million to $171 million to $194 million?

[1755]

Hon. P. Fassbender: What I do know, clearly, is that the preliminary estimates that were used in the very early days were exactly that: preliminary estimates. They were updated as the project scope and the complexity was defined and further refined by TransLink with the provider through the procurement process. There were numbers that were brought to the table that hadn’t been identified in the preliminary stage.

I am confident, in the discussions that I’ve had with the board chair and with a number of other people, that the estimate they now have is going to prove to be sufficient for the project. But again, the detailed reporting on that, when the project is finally completed and the terms of the contract have been fulfilled, will be revealed by TransLink management and the board of directors.

D. Eby: In 2007, the projection was that the gates would be up and running in 2008. In 2009, the projection was that they’d be operational by 2013. In 2014, the projection was that they’d be up and running by the end of 2015. And here we are in April of 2016. Does the minister know why there were so many delays in implementing the fare gate system?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think stretch targets or projections are exactly that. They are projections. One of the things that I am very aware of, having sat around the Mayors Council table and hearing reports coming back from TransLink management, was that they didn’t want to rush an implementation. They weren’t confident they had as many of the issues identified and resolved in terms of the operations of the Compass card, because it’s a very complex system on a number of dimensions.

That said, I think what’s important is that they are up and running. I saw a lot of the news coverage today about consumers being able to use it, feeling that it’s simple, that it’s easy. They said it works. They were happy with it. I think that’s ultimately the goal.

I think the other major key point to this is that the issue of fare evasion, which was one big complaint that I kept hearing from consumers in the region, is going to be significantly impacted by the gates being there. The reduction of evasion is going to be a big issue. The security of the system with fare gates, again speaking back to the policing issue, is going to contribute to that sense of security and actual security.

Again, I think all of us, myself included, would have loved to have seen this up and operational a lot sooner, but I also think that it was important to make sure that as the steps in each of phases of the implementation were done, they were done in a way that assured the least amount of challenges. There still will be. There are. But I think the majority of them have been dealt with. What I saw today was a system that’s working, that people find easy to use and that ultimately has the capacity to expand.

[1800]

D. Eby: As the Minister Responsible for TransLink, will the minister be asking for a written report from TransLink about what went wrong in terms of the extended deadlines, in terms of going over budget? Will there be some sort of an evaluation that will be provided to the minister? Will there be anything written down, or are these just informal conversations with the minister where he’ll gather his information about how things went?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve said repeatedly that the issue of the contract management is a management and a board issue. I know there have been lots of discussions at that table. When talking with the new CEO, I know they will be doing a full evaluation of the contract process — what worked, what didn’t work, why it didn’t. I think they will be reporting that out.

I have no expectation to demand anything of them other than I think that they have a responsibility, as part of their function, to report to the public for the dollars that TransLink has spent and how they were spent in the management of the contract — which is a management and board responsibility, not mine.

D. Eby: I wish I shared the minister’s conviction that TransLink would be reporting out on these kinds of accountability mechanisms. My staff tell me — and I am prepared to stand corrected by the minister — that TransLink hasn’t released an audit to the public or an evaluation since 2012. I can’t imagine that that’s right. I’m sure the minister will correct me if I’m wrong on that.

Why does he believe that they would release some sort of a project report on this to the public? Have they said
[ Page 11753 ]
that they’re going to do that, or is that just his personal belief that they would do that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I have in my discussions with the new CEO, with the board chair, with the two government representatives, spoken clearly about the importance to regain public confidence. One of ways they do that is the communication that they will do.

Their responsibility is to look and to report. They are having public meetings, a lot of meetings in the open public where reports come from management to the board, on a number of operational issues. I suspect that this is one where they clearly recognize they have a responsibility, and my expectations are that they will do that.

D. Eby: In the public reports that TransLink issues…. I’m going to give the minister an example of why public accountability is not being met, and I’m going to explain to him — I think — why, in part, 62 percent of the public…. In a July 2015 exit poll by Insights West at the transit plebiscite, 62 percent of voters in the plebiscite cited “reforming the way TransLink operates” as their main priority for the future after the vote. That was the top priority for both yes voters and no voters in the plebiscite.

If you want to find out, for example, how much TransLink executives are currently being paid — which was a question that I asked the minister — it’s not broken down in the report by union staff versus union-excluded staff, like management and executives. The cost of the CEO turnover is not included in the annual report. A 2014 provincial review of public sector salaries found that TransLink had a 14 percent increase in the number of employees making over $100,000 in 2012. That’s 2012. We don’t have any numbers since then.

[1805]

A state of the enterprise report that was obtained by FOI states that during the six-month interim stint as CEO, Mr. Allen hired three consultants to “understand the organization and manage the challenges of the CEO’s office” and that the cost of hiring the consultants is unknown.

Is the minister reviewing TransLink’s public reporting? Is he looking at the numbers that they’re reporting out, to give the public some confidence that the money is being spent properly? He’s very confident this is a very efficient organization. Money is being spent properly. I’ve heard it repeatedly in his answers. But is he looking at what is actually available to the public from TransLink to ensure that these kinds of numbers are available to people?

Hon. P. Fassbender: There is no question in anyone’s mind who lives in the region, who understands the region and understands the complexity of TransLink in the past that there have been challenges. Public confidence is absolutely challenged. I have never said in this room that there isn’t a challenge in public perception.

But I clearly know, and I have said to the two board members that I’ve appointed, that my expectation is, as to members of the board…. The government’s expectation is for more robust, continuous, open communication to the people who contribute to the funding for TransLink in understanding what they’re getting in value for the contributions they’re making.

In my discussions with the new CEO, I was very clear that his job, working with the board and management, is to ensure that there is ongoing information that the public is aware of, plans that the organization has. The fact that they have taken their meetings public is a sign that the board recognizes they need to be more transparent.

I even asked the board — and I couldn’t order the board, because it’s not in legislation, because I do not manage the organization — to suspend their CEO search when they were moving ahead after the plebiscite and after I was appointed so that they could take a really hard look at the qualities they were looking for in a new CEO. One of the things I suggested to them was that a clear understanding of communication and responsibilities was one of the key criteria.

I believe they are committed — the board, management and the new CEO — to fulfilling that requirement and recognizing what messages did come out of the public’s response to the plebiscite and all of the other communication that has come through the media and various other agencies. But I am confident that when they do that, the public will see the work that is going on.

For me, it’s about how we move forward. Everything that didn’t happen in the past is a lens through which to guide and direct the new CEO and the board in terms of the job they have to do, working with the mayors in the region to build public confidence in an organization that is critical to the future of the region.

[1810]

D. Eby: This may be my last question. I’m going take the minister back to the mandate letter from the Premier to the minister — it’s dated July 30, 2015 — that says: “I have decided to place responsibility for TransLink with the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.”

That’s the minister’s ministry. It says $141.2 million in public money going to TransLink, and the Premier has decided to place responsibility for TransLink with this minister’s ministry. Does the minister feel, based on his answers that he’s given to me today — a total absence of any metrics on bus service, handyDART, salaries, budgets, audits — that he’s fulfilling the responsibility the Premier has placed with him for TransLink?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Absolutely. The Premier asked me to take on a responsibility that I take very seriously. I
[ Page 11754 ]
have lived and contributed to the region in many forms, including the Mayors Council, and I believe we now have a structure in place and people at the right tables doing the right job.

The commitment of the government and myself as minister is to work with the region, to work with the board and to work with management to serve the people of Metro Vancouver in a system that is critical to our future economic growth and the health and vitality of the region, and I am absolutely confident that is going to happen.

D. Eby: Before we close, I just wanted, as usual, to thank the staff who were here today — who spent their time in the room supporting the minister — and the minister for the answers that he provided today.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $245,937,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 51: Auditor General for Local Government, $2,595,000 — approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I now move that the committee rise and report completion and resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:13 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