2017 Legislative Session: Sixth 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, March 6, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 42, Number 11

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

MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2017

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

MEMORIAL EVENT FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Hon. S. Bond: Today many members of the Legislature joined families of fallen firefighters to celebrate the lives of heroes that have passed away in the line of their work.

I wanted to thank Madame Speaker for her hospitality and for making sure that the ceremony took place today.

Certainly, on behalf of Madame Speaker, we want to recognize those families, some who are in the gallery today, and offer our profound thanks for the men and women who serve our province as firefighters, particularly today. We think about those who have lost their lives, and we appreciate very much everyone who paid tribute to them during the lunch hour today.

S. Simpson: I’d like to join with the minister in her comments. I think that we all understand very keenly the role that firefighters and all first responders play for us in British Columbia, how important that role is and how they put themselves in the way of danger every day, and they do that on behalf of British Columbians.

Many of them, as we heard of the 14 firefighters that were recognized today, paid the ultimate sacrifice, and their families also paid that sacrifice, losing loved ones. I’m sure that all members of the Legislature want to offer our profound thanks to the firefighters for everything they do and our condolences and wishes for the families of those who were lost and who were recognized today.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Morris: I have the pleasure today of four of my constituents visiting us here from Prince George. The first one is Bernard McKay. He’s a retired guide-outfitter, fellow trapper, outdoor enthusiast, author and campfire singer. He’s accompanied by his lovely wife, Joeane, of many summers.

They’re accompanied here, as well, by Dr. Winifred Kessler. She’s had a 40-year career in wildlife sciences through B.C., the Yukon, Alaska and throughout Canada and 18 years on the HCTF board and on the national board for Ducks Unlimited. She’s got a PhD in range science, taught at several universities throughout B.C. and the United States, retired in 2010 and is enjoying the fine life here in beautiful British Columbia. She’s accompanied by her partner, Warren Eastland, who’s also a retired biologist, philosopher, author and outdoor enthusiast.

May the House please make them welcome.

D. Donaldson: Joining us in the gallery today are two Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs: Sm’ooygit Malii, Glen Williams, from Lax Gibuu, the wolf clan, and Sm’ooygit Luuxhon, Don Russell, from Lax Ganeda, the frog clan. They were meeting with the B.C. NDP leader and also with our official opposition spokesperson on aboriginal relations and reconciliation to talk about the Gitanyow Lax’yip land use plan and how the galüünx, the treasure box, and sustainability are embodied in that plan. We had a great discussion.

Would the members of the chamber here please welcome these two Hereditary Chiefs to the Legislature.

[1340]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I had the pleasure earlier today to meet with a parliamentary committee from Denmark. They are here in British Columbia, visiting us to see our rural jobs strategy and education strategy. They were very interested in our B.C. jobs plan, and I would like the House to make them feel very welcome.

K. Conroy: I also wanted to say welcome — goddag og velkommen — to the Danish delegation. Having Danish parents and Danish heritage, it was really a pleasure to meet with them today.

I also have one other introduction. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a class today. On Friday, I spoke to Ms. Deschene’s grade 5 and 6 class at Kinnaird Elementary. They’re learning about the different levels of government, and I was just so very impressed with their level of understanding of governments and the services they offer, and with the really great questions they asked me.

I explained to them how our Legislature works and how everything we say is recorded on Hansard. They all said how very much they’d like to tour the buildings. Instead, I promised that I’d introduce them in the House. Please join me in welcoming Ms. Deschene’s class to Hansard — and especially one favourite student, my grandson Ryen Batchelor.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As we know in the House, none of our offices could really function properly without super staff that anchor the foundation of our offices. So today I’d please like the House to make my staff feel welcome. Valerie McKnight is my administrative coordinator, and Christine White is my administrative assistant.

J. Darcy: I would like to join the members who’ve already spoken in welcoming the Danish delegation.
[ Page 14080 ]
Goddag. Hvordan har du det? I was born in Denmark myself. I go back regularly for family reunions and take the opportunity to study what’s happening with health care, in particular, in Denmark, especially seniors care. My colleagues have heard me speak about it endlessly. I’m also proud to say that our Select Standing Committee on Health, which issued its report last week, has definitely learned from the Danish experience. We certainly welcome you to British Columbia today.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to make two introductions today, the first being the Trial Lawyers Association — president Keri Grenier, John Rice and Ronald Nairne. One of the most important pieces in having good access to justice is having good counsel to help and to assist in the courts and to represent people in the courts. Their representative organization is the Trial Lawyers Association, and they do a terrific job for their clients in British Columbia every day.

Then the second introduction, if I might introduce my friend Wendy Turner, who’s here visiting us today. I have the pleasure, as you know, of representing the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, which of course has the north arm of the Fraser River running along one border of my riding. A longtime advocate of the Fraser River and someone who keeps in touch with me is someone whom I met when I was first on the Vancouver park board. She was a great advocate for the river and all things around the river. She’s now living here in Victoria. Her name is Wendy Turner.

Would the House please make welcome the Trial Lawyers Association and Wendy Turner.

V. Huntington: I have two introductions to make today — firstly, the members of the Delta Youth Legislative Advisory Council, who are here visiting today — Maggie Munro, Telisa Taoukil and Christian Thomsen, who are here with my legislative assistant Bernadette Kudzin. Will the House make them very welcome.

Secondly, I’d just like to quickly introduce Ross Rettie, a very old — not very old — but dear friend of mine from my constituency, a longtime supporter. Ross is here with the Engineers and Geoscientists council of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Virk: In the Legislative Assembly today, we had representatives of Life Sciences B.C. The life sciences sector in B.C. is one of the largest in Canada with the second-highest number of companies in the country that are engaged in drugs, pharmaceutical development, research, testing, medical devices.

[1345]

It’s a sector that employs over 8,500 people and is approaching revenue of almost $1 billion. Today with us in the legislative precinct was their chair, James Hatton, to introduce the newly minted president of Life Sciences B.C., Dr. Lesley Esford. Along with them was Susan Ogilvie as well.

Would the House please make the Life Sciences representatives feel very welcome.

Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

S. Chandra Herbert: I wanted to first just say thank you to all members of the House, Madame Speaker, British Columbians and, indeed, people from all across the world who have contacted my husband and I to say congratulations on the birth of our new son, Dev Juno Chandra Herbert. He’s an incredible little boy. I can’t wait to introduce him to all of you. He’s calm and reflective, like his dads at some times. He also really knows how to get what he wants.

So thank you from the bottom of our hearts. I thought being an MLA was a tough challenge, and it is. But being a dad is truly one of the most rewarding and toughest challenges we’ve ever taken on. Thank you to everybody for making us feel so welcome.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure to introduce the fleet of engineers and geoscientists with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, the people who actually did build this country.

With us today is Peter Mitchell, Laurel Buss, Janet Sinclair, John Turner, Efrem Schwartz, Ann English, Susan Hayes, Melinda Lau, Colin Smith, Bob Stewart, Warren Mirko, Deesh Olychick and, of course, the second introduction for Mr. Ross Rettie.

C. Trevena: I know that we’ve been honouring the firefighters today. In the precinct — and who we’ll be meeting with later — is Stuart Dumont from the Campbell River firefighters.

I last saw him on Saturday evening, when he was one of the handsome hosts of the firefighters’ Fashion Inferno, the 15th annual fashion parade of firefighters in Campbell River, put on for the fireman’s burn fund, one of the most successful events in the province for the burn fund.

I hope the House will make Mr. Dumont and the other Campbell River firefighters — and all the other firefighters — very welcome.

S. Hamilton: I’d like to echo the earlier introductions. It’s my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and, of course, to our House the visiting delegation from the National Parliament of Denmark, the Committee for Rural Districts and Islands. The committee is visiting British Columbia to learn about the promotion of growth, employment and business development in our
[ Page 14081 ]
province and how the traditional industries of agriculture, fisheries and forestry have adapted to the changing business environment.

I have the enviable task of actually identifying them all by name for the record. I’m going to preface that by saying that my wife is Danish, so if I screw this up, I’m in big trouble when I get home.

We have the acting chair Mette Hjermind Dencker, committee members Magnus Huenicke, Kaare Dybvad, Troels Ravn, Lea Wermelin and committee member Susanne Eilersen. And we have the district counsellor, Deputy Head of Mission, Royal Danish Embassy, Maja Sverdrup; Honorary Consul, Royal Danish Consulate, Ann-Britt Everett; committee secretary Jørgen Nielsen; and committee secretary Tommy Jørgensen.

The delegation spent the morning speaking with various ministers and my committee as well. We impressed upon them, through Finance and Government Services, that the work we do in that particular committee is steeped in mutual civility, decorum and respect that exist throughout our deliberations. And now they’re here to hear question period.

Would the House please make them all welcome.

Statements

MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE

C. Trevena: It’s with some sadness that I’d like to ask the House for sympathies to go to the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation. On Friday, four members of the First Nation were killed in a road accident on Highway 28. They were Jamie Jack, Jennifer Andrew, Greg Mark and Josephine Campbell. The community is clearly in mourning. The village of Gold River has been kind in offering its support. Eight children were left as a result of the accident. I would ask the House if they could…. Madame Speaker, if you could pass on sympathies to the First Nation.

[1350]

Madame Speaker: It will be done.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2017.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to introduce the Finance Statutes Amendment Act. This bill is largely technical in nature and amends several finance statutes. The Income Tax Act is amended to ensure that that provincial act remains consistent with the Income Tax Act of Canada. The Insurance Premium Tax Act and the Logging Tax Act are amended to modernize and clarify the enforcement and administrative provisions in those acts.

The bill also amends the Tobacco Tax Act. That amendment clarifies the amount of a collection bond the director appointed under the Tobacco Tax Act may require from a person as a condition of holding a permit to sell tobacco.

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

Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M234 — WILDLIFE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that, if enacted, would make a number of changes to the Wildlife Act.

This bill restricts the practices of non-resident trophy hunters who come to B.C. to kill large game by making three specific amendments to the Wildlife Act. The proposed changes remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations, ensures all edible portions of animals killed in B.C. are taken directly to a hunter’s residence and requires the meat to be taken out first, before the hide or head.

This bill also stops government from letting non-resident hunters buy preferential access to limited-entry hunting permits and bans people convicted of fisheries or wildlife offences from becoming fishing or hunting guides in the province of British Columbia.

For local sustenance hunters, the vast majority of hunters in B.C. that is, this bill merely echoes what they are already doing — harvesting wild game to bring the meat home to feed their families. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to hunt an animal only for
[ Page 14082 ]
its hide, skull or antler, this bill puts in place a significant logistical challenge.

At this time, I move, pursuant to standing order 78A, that this bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for immediate review.

Madame Speaker: I will point out that’s a departure in practice.

All those in favour? Nay is heard. Division has been called.

[1355]

Motion negatived on the following division:

A. Weaver: May I have this referred to second reading — a motion to do so?

Bill M234, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2017, 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)

CHILDREN OF THE STREET SOCIETY

L. Reimer: Despite all of the different views and opinions that members in this House have, I know that all the members in this House can agree that, wherever possible, we should protect our children.

Part of protecting them includes educating them on the dangers that they may face as they grow, including the perils of human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Human trafficking is an abhorrent practice, and we should support those who are working to eradicate it. It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about an organization based out of Coquitlam that is doing just that, the Children of the Street Society. The society’s mission is to take an active stance on the human trafficking and sexual exploitation of youth and children through spreading public awareness, teaching intervention strategies and providing support for people affected by trafficking.

The Children of the Street Society hosts over 500 workshops annually in over 30 communities across B.C., playing a key role in education and prevention of sexual exploitation.

I’m proud to report that the society has recently received a grant of $86,000 from the community gaming grant program to support their important work. They also receive other funding from our Ministry of Justice.

This year’s Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week runs from March 6 to March 12. To mark this week, the society has chosen the symbol of the fuschia daisy. The daisy represents childhood innocence and the mixing of the colours red, to represent the red-light district, and purple, which is B.C.’s provincial colour, for violence prevention.

The society’s noble work should be commended, and I hope that we can all move forward to a future where human trafficking and sexual exploitation is a thing of the past.

[1400]

COQUITLAM FARMERS MARKET

S. Robinson: The Coquitlam Farmers Market started as a community economic development project by Simon Fraser students back in 1996 with the goals of reconnecting local producers with suburban consumers and citizens with each other.

Coquitlam is so proud to have one of Metro Vancouver’s longest-running suburban farmers markets, and it’s in my community. During the fair-weather months of May to October, the Coquitlam Farmers Market operates at the Poirier Community Centre in the heart of Coquitlam-Maillardville. During the colder months, the Coquitlam Farmers Market operates a
[ Page 14083 ]
winter market at the Port Moody Recreation Complex. I love that every Sunday I can check out local vendors that make, bake and grow locally.

This past weekend the B.C. Farmers Markets Association named the Coquitlam Farmers Market the 2016 Market of the Year. They also named a constituent of mine, Julia Zado, Market Manager of the Year. Congratulations to the market manager, Julia Zado; the market executive director, Tabitha McLoughlin; the market founder and past chair, Terri Evans; and directors Kate Hoffard, Andreas Miller, Jesse Brothwick, Lindsey Forstbauer, Siobhan Ashe and Denise Nembhard.

I have to say…. As a proud mama, I want to wish a heartfelt and heart-bursting-with-pride kind of congratulations to the board chair, who also happens to be my son, Aaron Robinson. As parents, we work hard to ensure that our children understand what it means to be a good citizen — one who not only takes care of themselves and their family but takes care of the community as well. I’m pleased to say that it feels like my job is almost done.

Congratulations to everyone at the Coquitlam Farmers Market for the well-deserved recognition.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND
TREATMENT FOR BALANCE DISORDER

M. Hunt: We’re living in uncertain times. With a weak global economy and a new risk-filled path being contemplated by our largest trading partner, we should take a moment to celebrate the small, local businesses that are driving our strong economy. Surrey’s innovation boulevard is a great example of what can be achieved when government, advanced education and local businesses come together to create advantages for local businesses, students and the economy.

One such local business is Health Tech Connex, which is led by the cofounder of innovation boulevard, Dr. Ryan D’Arcy, and which finds itself well positioned within the medical technology cluster. With concussions receiving ever more attention as a serious health issue, it’s wonderful to know that local innovation is leading the way to address them. In partnership with the company Helius Medical Technologies, Health Tech Connex is testing a prototype treatment for those with balance disorder from the mild to moderate trauma brain injuries which are often the result of concussions.

With non-invasive portable neuromodulation stimulators, delivered through the tongue and combined with physical therapy, they hope to alleviate the sometimes terrible symptoms of balance disorder. This advancement could be especially valuable for those serving in the Armed Forces, both here in Canada and the United States, who frequently suffer from trauma brain injuries.

The Health Tech Connex and Helius Medical Technologies partnership is a great example of cross-border cooperation and cutting-edge medical science and serves to connect local medical skills with international innovation for the betterment of both economies.

I’d like to ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing the value of local innovation and local companies to British Columbia and all their partners worldwide.

SIMONS FOUNDATION ADVOCACY
FOR PEACE AND DISARMAMENT

D. Eby: It’s too easy for us to forget about why we need to advocate for peace, disarmament and international law. After all, we live in a peaceful country with the longest undefended border in the world and relative harmony with our neighbours.

Today, though, when those in power south of us appear to have lost our shared understanding of the existential threat of nuclear weapons, the undermining of peace and prosperity that comes with expanding war and weaponry and the danger of seeing international humanitarian laws a technicality easily overcome, we are reminded of why we must always advocate for peace and disarmament internationally and closer to home.

A shining example of this advocacy is the work of Dr. Jennifer Simons, a constituent of mine. Following her founding of the Simons Foundation as a graduate student at SFU, Dr. Simons has been described in media profiles as “one of the world’s most effective advocates for disarmament.” A mother of four, she has since completed her PhD and donated more than $15 million to fund initiatives around the globe dedicated to peace.

[1405]

Her foundation’s support has advanced critically important international high-level discussions on a wide range of issues, including the weaponization of space, cyber warfare, nuclear weapons and international humanitarian law. As just one example, the Simons Foundation founded the research for Senator Roméo Dallaire when he was adviser on the prevention of genocide to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

This March guests of the Simons Foundation–funded conference titled “The Responsibility to Protect” will come to Vancouver from Russia, China, the United Kingdom, India, Ghana, the U.S. and, of course, Canada to discuss and support the global political commitment made by all UN member states to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The culmination of this conference will see the foundation award Australian Foreign Minister, the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC, their highest honour for his groundbreaking international work on disarmament.

Thank you, Dr. Simons, and everyone involved in the Simons Foundation for your work in support of a more peaceful world.
[ Page 14084 ]

HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICE
FOR LYTTON AREA

J. Tegart: Reliable Internet service and connectivity is imperative to our rural communities. Our modern world requires an Internet connection, whether it’s for work, for school or for staying in touch with family and friends. Internet services and connections are vital necessities and an essential service.

In 2006, a group of tech-savvy citizens formed Lyttonnet, formerly the Lytton Area Wireless Society. In typical rural entrepreneurship fashion, they decided to create a wireless network on their own. With their initial network, most of the region was able to benefit from the wireless service, giving nearly 300 homes the option to move to broadband from dial-up, which was previously the only other option available.

Lyttonnet was recently awarded over $240,000 through the connecting British Columbia program to replace outdated infrastructure with a fibre optic solution. With their upgraded system, Lyttonnet has expanded their reach to homes in the village of Lytton, the Lytton First Nation, rural Lytton and St. Georges Road. The residents in these communities were originally unable to receive the old wireless signal due to the line-of-sight blockages, and they’re now able to receive fast, reliable home Internet.

Through the hard work of local volunteers, Lyttonnet has been providing high-speed connectivity to community members for the past decade. I’m very proud of the work and dedication that Lyttonnet has put into making the Internet more accessible for the families of Lytton and area.

Please join me in saying thank you to this dedicated group of volunteers.

BLUSSON SPINAL CORD CENTRE

G. Heyman: The Blusson Spinal Cord Centre in Fairview’s health sciences district is home to the International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, or ICORD, the Rick Hansen Institute and the integrated spine clinic. The centre conducts integrated research, care and training toward effective strategies for prevention, functional recovery and improved quality of life after a spinal cord injury. The centre models and supports an active exchange of ideas between ICORD researchers and the community living with SCI. Additional research looks at fatigue, pain and quality of life of people living with multiple sclerosis.

The Physical Activity Research Centre seeks best strategies to provide people with complete or partial paralysis opportunities to participate in exercise and physical activity. The ICORD Community Resource Centre makes research accessible for the community at large in addition to providing important resources to people visiting the centre. A blog and social media presence run by undergraduate volunteers enhance engagement and knowledge transfer to the spinal cord injury community.

On my visit in January, staff, researchers and volunteers showed infectious enthusiasm for the life-improving possibilities of their work. After discussing their applied research, they connected me via video to speak with a person with SCI as they conducted a computer-based home monitoring trial, which saves hours of time and effort involved in coming to the centre for testing. We looked at work in progress on a lighter functional exoskeleton, an external brace-like system that facilitates mobility.

[1410]

I want to thank everyone I met on my visit to the Blusson Centre, the Rick Hansen Institute and ICORD staff, medical researchers and the students working with them on applied projects. Their work and the enthusiasm of everyone involved in the centre and the institute are improving quality of life for those with SCI today and holds great promise for the future.

Oral Questions

J. Horgan: Last spring media reports exposed the B.C. Liberal practice of fundraising at exclusive dinners in people’s homes and in private locations, with large sums to get access to government decision-makers. Most recently we heard from the New York Times that the practices of fundraising here in British Columbia were considered the Wild West by North American standards — quite something when you look at the super PACs that exist in the United States.

Most recently, even though we could have been sitting in this Legislature, in fact, we were not here for over 200 days. We could have been putting forward legislation to ban big money, to make sure that we’re amending our practices so that big money doesn’t distort our politics. But instead of doing that, the fall session was cancelled and the B.C. Liberals were sent off to raise money — so much so that the Minister of Agriculture cancelled a scheduled debate on agriculture issues sponsored by the B.C. Agriculture Council so he could be in his constituency raising money.

This weekend we learned that Elections B.C. is now investigating the practices of the B.C. Liberals. My question to the minister responsible, the Attorney General: if all of this doesn’t provide enough evidence to the government that they should amend their practices, what will?

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I will make a comment. Questions addressed to ministers must relate to matters for which those ministers are currently and officially responsible. This is the only basis upon which ministers can be expected to answer questions. Accordingly, the question is out of order.

New question.
[ Page 14085 ]

ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING
LEGISLATION

J. Horgan: A new question. Well, it almost appears like that was anticipated. I wonder why that would be. I guess someone’s paying attention.

My question to the Attorney General is…. There is a bill on the order paper that would ban big money. It would amend the legislation so that we could run our elections with people at the focus rather than corporations and unions and other large donors. To the Attorney General, will she call the bill for debate so that we can have, finally in British Columbia, election finance laws that are fair for people and fair for our democracy?

Hon. S. Anton: What’s important for citizens of British Columbia is transparency — openness and transparency. This government is very committed to that. In fact, at least one of the political parties has committed to transparency so much so that the donations, the contributions to the party, are up on the website as they’re given, in real time. Both parties are not doing that.

It is important. The whole purpose of the Election Act and the provisions of the Election Act is that citizens are entitled to know who is making contributions when they’re made. And that is happening.

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

J. Horgan: It might just be me, but I heard “transparency” three times in one sentence and about six times during that answer. My guess is that rather than address the root cause of the notion that British Columbians have that our system has been corrupted by big money, the B.C. Liberals are going to just say: “Look what we’re getting. We’ll tell you every couple of weeks.” That’s not the issue. The issue is the influence of that money.

Why would a minister cancel an event to go fundraising? Why would that happen? Being transparent about that does not relieve the minister of his responsibility to address his files instead of raising money for his political party.

Again, would the minister take the time to look at the order paper and look at the bill that’s been tabled not once, not twice, but six times by the official opposition and ban big money. Get the money out of politics so that the citizens of British Columbia can have confidence that their executive council, their cabinet, is not being distorted by the people that are writing the cheques. Do it today.

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: If the member has an allegation to make, he should make it, rather than by insinuation. He should make that allegation in a formal way, rather than in an insinuation way, which is undemeaning to him. We have rules. We have rules in the Election Act. I expect, as the minister responsible for the Election Act, and we expect, as government, that people follow those rules. That is the expectation.

It’s the ability of the public to see where contributions come from and to know that rules are followed, which is what’s important. Certainly, on this side of the House, that is the expectation, and that is the practice.

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT HOSPITALS

J. Darcy: Last week the Premier was asked questions about patients stuck in hallways, sometimes for days, waiting in care. She dismissed it with a glib answer, saying: “It’s tough to build a church big enough for Easter.”

At Peace Arch Hospital in Surrey, Fran Nesbitt, who is 86 years old, spent three full days in the emergency room, in Surrey–White Rock, in a hallway, with a fractured pelvis. Does the Minister of Health think it’s too tough to build a health care system so that Fran doesn’t have to wait three days with a broken pelvis?

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve canvassed this many times. I certainly can empathize and sympathize with people waiting for care in a very busy hospital, and we know that this year has been especially busy. The members opposite may dismiss the facts that we’ve had a very difficult influenza season that’s affected seniors more than in other years. We’ve had an unusual winter where more people have slipped and injured themselves and have to be seen at emergency. We’re in the middle of an opioid epidemic, the biggest public health crisis we have seen. All of this has put pressure on emergency departments. On that, we all agree.

But we are working hard. Every health authority is working hard to address these issues in each and every hospital across this province, and we will continue to address these issues.

But as far as building a health care system, I have a list of $11 billion worth of investment in health care. So if the opposition members want to talk about a record on building a health care system, I’m happy to have that discussion.

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

J. Darcy: We have been asking these questions day after day, week after week, because there’s an emergency room crisis happening throughout Fraser Health that this minister continues to ignore. It hasn’t just been happening for a few months; it’s been happening for several years.

Fran Nesbitt is not alone. At Peace Arch, according to the latest Fraser Health report, only one in three emergency patients is seen within Fraser Health’s own ten-hour benchmark.
[ Page 14086 ]

The Liberals like to talk about a busy flu season, and the Premier loves to give glib answers about building churches for Easter, but that is cold comfort for Fran Nesbitt, left to lie in a busy hallway for three long days.

The emergency room crisis at Peace Arch and throughout Fraser Health is a direct result of this government’s failures. When is this government going to fix it so that people like Fran get the health care that they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: Firstly, I’ll say this. Our Premier is anything but glib. She was the one, when her mom was ill, who went in every day to look after her mom and help the hospital staff. She knows more than anybody how hard people in hospitals work to care for their patients. So I think to call her glib does a disservice to everyone who has a member of their family in the hospital and goes and looks after them.

[1420]

I’ve had two discussions with the CEO of Fraser Health over the weekend. We are, together, putting an action plan in place. Over the weekend, additional community care and diagnostic staff were brought in to ease the pressure. Fifteen flex-beds were opened at Abbotsford. Five opened at Mission. This plan will be overseen by my associate deputy minister.

There are many different strategies being employed to ease the congestion issue. Everyone is working hard — no more exemplified than by the front-line workers: the physicians, the nurses, the health care staff at all of our hospitals.

S. Robinson: On Wednesday, we asked the minister why Jean Donaldson was forced to lie on a gurney in the lobby of Eagle Ridge Hospital, outside the gift shop, for 36 hours. In response, the minister said, “Wintertime is busy,” and then said that it would really be folly to leave a hospital half-empty. Well, it turns out that after leaving Jean in the lobby for 36 hours, they moved her to an empty block of rooms in Eagle Ridge Hospital.

My question is for the minister. Can he explain why he’s leaving a block of Eagle Ridge Hospital half-empty when, in fact, in his own words, it’s just the busy season?

Hon. T. Lake: We have a strategy in the Ministry of Health to shift resources into the home and community. Fraser Health has done that by opening up 400 residential care beds in the community. That is to take pressure off the acute care system. Now, there are times when there are overcapacity issues, and that’s why we are taking this action plan in Fraser Health. In fact, Abbotsford, Eagle Ridge and Peace Arch all have business cases sitting with the Ministry of Health for consideration of the expansion of emergency departments.

Again, an $11 billion investment in health care facilities across this province. There are times when we’re busy. There’s no question. I experienced this personally, a couple of weeks ago, at Royal Inland Hospital. Despite being busy, every one of those nurses and every one of those physicians gives proper, professional care to those patients. Of course, there are times when they are housed in an area of the hospital where…. We would prefer that they be in a ward, and we are working hard to do that. But there is no way in the world….

I can’t stand here today and say that we’ll never have congested times in our hospitals. The members opposite know that. They know that. It’s a situation that has occurred across the country. But we are working hard in B.C. to address those situations, and I’m quite confident that we’ll be able to do that.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: Well, I’ve been in that hospital in October. Then I had the misfortune of being there in November and then, of course, again in January. Every single time I was there those rooms were empty and people were waiting in hallways. Nothing has changed.

After holding Jean in the lobby for 36 hours and then moving her to an empty block in the hospital, she was finally able to get access to some nursing and some housekeeping resources, which were really stretched to the limit because there are not enough nurses and staff in the hospital to make sure that patients are getting the care they need in that hospital. To add insult to injury, included on her meal tray was a letter soliciting donations for the hospital foundation. The hospital foundation already has a really tough job to do, raising money for the hospital.

Does the minister really think that keeping people in hallways, people like Jean, is really helpful for the hospitals and for the patients of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: The member asked what has changed. I’ll let the member know what has changed.

Last year we successfully hired 1,700 nurses across the province. Since 2001, we’ve invested over $11 billion in the Lower Mainland. So $475 million for Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre, $237 million for the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre in Surrey, $500 million for the emergency department and critical care tower in Surrey, $543 million for the Teck Acute Care Centre at B.C. Children’s Hospital. In the Interior, $417 million towards the new patient care tower in Kamloops and $381 million for the Interior Heart and Surgical Centre in Kelowna.

[1425]

The list includes every part of this province. That is what has changed.

J. Wickens: Like at Peace Arch and Eagle Ridge, there is serious overcrowding at Abbotsford Regional Hospital. This B.C. Liberal government claims that it’s just about
[ Page 14087 ]
the weather. The Premier and this minister shrug their shoulders and say that nothing can be done.

According to at least two doctors, the situation is one of dangerous overcrowding, where patients have to compete for services. But wait. On Thursday, the B.C. Nurses Union released a statement about conditions at that hospital. They said that the problem is not seasonal. It didn’t happen overnight, like this minister would suggest. They said that the problem has been two years in the making and that this government has done absolutely nothing to address it.

Should British Columbians listen to the front-line workers or to this minister, who would like us to believe it’s all about the weather?

Hon. T. Lake: I know it’s difficult for the members opposite to deviate from the script written by their staffers, but I actually did say….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: I actually did say what we were doing.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. T. Lake: So 1,700 new nurses over the last year. We have been working with the B.C. Nurses Union on a plan to hire more nurses — obviously, as evidenced by the numbers. In fact, of the $845 million increase to the Ministry of Health, much of that is going to pay for existing nurses in terms of wage increases and new nurses — $845 million.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Wickens: The nurses, actually, didn’t pull any punches when they described the situation at Abbotsford. They said it was like a scene out of MASH. Imagine that — the ’90s, MASH. They said there has been an average of 30 nursing vacancies in the emergency room for the past two years. At one point, they were….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

J. Wickens: They said that there has been an average of 30 nursing vacancies in the emergency room for the past two years. At one point, they were so overcrowded that they had three patients behind one curtain. The ambulance bay was filled with patients.

Is this what the minister considers quality patient care, or is this, again, just the fault of the weather?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite like to, of course, keep it simple. “Oh yeah, he’s blaming the weather.” They want to ignore data. They want to ignore the fact that there’s a flu season that has impacted seniors more than any other year in the last number of years. They want to ignore the fact — and I can testify to this — that more people are injured because of slips and falls because of this unusual winter.

They want to ignore the fact that we are in the middle of an opioid crisis, that emergency departments and paramedics are dealing with overdose situations at every centre across this province. Meanwhile, the members have the audacity to talk about Abbotsford Regional Hospital, a hospital they promised to build for ten years and never did. We said we would, and we did.

H. Bains: This minister can blame it on weather. He can blame it on flu season. But the nurses and the doctors in hospitals know the truth. The truth is incompetence and neglect by this government.

At Surrey Memorial Hospital, a doctor said “people will die” because of the failure of this government. He went on to say this: “It is happening now, and it will continue to get worse.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1430]

H. Bains: “It is happening now, and it will continue to get worse.”

My question to the minister is, again, this. How bad must it get before this minister will take action to protect the patients lying in the hallway at Surrey Memorial Hospital?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: Again, the consummate professionals that work in our hospitals understand there are going to be busy times of the year. It is up to us to work with them, to make sure we put into action plans that alleviate that congestion. That is why I spoke with the CEO of Fraser Health over the weekend a couple of times, to make sure that we had plans in place.

They have moved resources to those areas that are suffering from unusual congestion. We’re making sure that we move patients out of the hospital as quickly as possible, to free up space. We’re making sure that other hospitals can take patients from a busy hospital to one that is less busy. And we’re moving additional personnel into those hospitals as well.

But $11 billion of investment, and I have a lot more
[ Page 14088 ]
on the list if the opposition members would like me to go through it. I know that while they didn’t build a single hospital in the 1990s, they did close one. We have not done that.

Madame Speaker: Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: The minister can live in the past, but the problem is now. Nurses say that the problem across Fraser Health is getting worse. Doctors say that people are going to die because of it. And the Liberals claim it’s a flu season.

The minister said here the other day that the average wait is 2½ hours, but let me tell the minister the real numbers here. The Fraser Health report card from September says Surrey Memorial shows that nearly 75 percent of emergency patients wait more than ten hours to be admitted — ten hours, not 2½ hours. So it is getting worse. It’s getting worse than two years ago.

Let me ask the minister a question again. When will the minister stop blaming the weather, stop blaming the flu season and fix the problem with the hallway medicine at Surrey Memorial Hospital?

Hon. T. Lake: The people of British Columbia are thankful that we don’t live in the past, because in the past, nothing got done. If the members opposite, when they formed government, had actually increased the number of spaces for medical graduates, we’d have 1,000 more doctors today. We’ve increased first-year medical students from 128 to 288. We’ve added 4,800 new nursing education spaces, increased the number of residency positions 800 percent and increased the number of nurses practising in B.C. to 55,000.

FUEL SPILL AT FISH FARM IN ECHO BAY

C. Trevena: Early yesterday morning hundreds of litres of diesel poured into the ocean near Echo Bay. It came because a fish farm had left a pump on. The company now says “Sorry,” and it’ll learn lessons from the incident. But that spill is now covering about three kilometres of the ocean.

To the Minister of Environment, her government claims it has world-class cleanup, but how could this sloppy management be allowed in the first place?

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you for the question. I know all members of this House have been concerned to hear the news, and I will begin by just providing the most up-to-date information that we have.

The updated spill volume is now reported as being between 500 and 600 litres of biodiesel. That’s the equivalent of about three 45-gallon drums of fuel. Now, not insignificant, but certainly, we’re all thankful that the amount wasn’t as much as originally reported.

Our Ministry of Environment and the Coast Guard have now joined in unified command. They are working to fully incorporate not only the responsible party but also the First Nation and the local governments in incident command.

[1435]

In addition to that, we also know that while the spread of the material is, as the member states, around about three kilometres in radius, Coast Guard, after conducting a flyover with incident commanders from both the Ministry of Environment and the Canadian Coast Guard, are, at this time, advising that that discontinuous silver and rainbow sheen is likely unrecoverable. Although it spreads quite broadly, it can be a very, very thin layer on the top of the water, sometimes within a couple of microns. They are forming up an incident command post in Port McNeill to manage the ongoing response activities, and I’m sure we will have more updates as time goes on.

Certainly, we see everyone who should be responding to this event responding to it. With the addition of the investment that is coming from our federal partners in the ocean protection plan, we are hopeful that we will have even better response and capabilities in terms of these kinds of incidents going into the future.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: The minister talks about having a thin layer still out there, but she says it’s absolutely not insignificant. Absolutely, it is not insignificant.

First Nations in the region are “beyond outraged.” This is their traditional territory, and they have not given social licence for these farms to operate. The First Nations are also running their own response teams, and they’re seriously worried about the impact that this not-insignificant sheen is going to have on their clam beds and the fish on which they rely.

Will the minister acknowledge that the First Nations in whose territories these farms operate have a crucial role in any future response and any future planning?

Hon. M. Polak: As I outlined in my first answer, the unified command is now working to fully incorporate the First Nation and the local governments in the incident command. In addition to that, they have also held coordination calls today — actually, sorry, I think that was yesterday — to coordinate response efforts and communications that will happen between the incident command and First Nations.

Looking forward, one of the pieces of the ocean protection plan announced by the federal government is that the Coast Guard will be forming a new indigenous community response group of teams in British Columbia. It will also offer formal training for search and rescue, environmental response and incident command in order to
[ Page 14089 ]
better coordinate, from the front and beginning of these episodes, with First Nations.

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Last week the Environment Minister denied that her ministry failed to directly contact the Splatsin First Nation when a liquid manure lagoon spilled over their drinking water supply. Yet this past Friday the minister was forced to apologize to area residents and the Splatsin Nation for not providing timely information. Her ministry then announced $950,000 for alternative drinking water sources and well treatment just hours before the member for Shuswap was expected to be roasted by residents for the long-standing water pollution crisis.

To the Minister of Environment: after years of raising concerns on this issue, why did it take the upcoming election before Hullcar valley residents got the first concrete action by this government to provide clean, safe water?

Hon. M. Polak: I would commend the member to review Hansard with respect to the initial part of his question. The facts of the matter are, in terms of my statements in this House, that when it came to the lagoon spill, I indeed apologized immediately upon rising in this House to not only the Splatsin but also the community members, who weren’t given timely information. That allowed a lot of concern and anxiety in the community to grow.

He conflates that, knowingly, with an apparent, as he says, denial that we hadn’t contacted the Splatsin. In fact, that second point was with respect to ten days later, as the member had outlined in his question previously, saying that even to that date we hadn’t contacted them. That, at that time, was incorrect.

[1440]

In fact, I have found out subsequently that at that time, the member for Shuswap had actually already spoken personally with the Chief and that our staff had spoken with the Splatsin. So let’s just get that straight and on the record.

Insofar as actions that have been taken to protect the health of the people who are living and depending on that aquifer, our staff have been working in an interministry working group for quite some time. Work on this aquifer has been taking place for two years.

It was upon receipt of the reports and the data and the information as a result of that multi-year work that we, indeed, have provided funding to not only support alternative drinking water sources for Steele Springs, for well users, for the Splatsin but also to provide assistance for those in the agricultural community to be able to achieve appropriate best practices in nutrient management.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. James: I rise to present a petition.

I’d like to recognize Rachel White, an extraordinary young woman in my community who single-handedly researched, did the work and put together a petition that requests that any person with a mental health issue can, with the consent of a doctor, have an emotional support animal in non-pet housing.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 11, the Supply Act (No. 1).

Madame Speaker: Members leaving the chamber, please do so, so the debate can commence.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2017

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 11, the Supply Act (No. 1), be read a second time now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I won’t have a great deal to say beyond what I indicated when the bill was introduced. As I think all members know, the existing voted appropriations expire at the end of March, March 31, later this month. Bill 11 will provide interim supply until the completion of the 2017 election and the formation of a post-election government.

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is based on the voted expenses as presented in the 2017-18 estimates. The interim supply period has been set at six months. It is not normally six months, but in an election year, it is historically six months. This will ensure the continuation of government services until after the election and gives the government the full range of time contemplated in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act for preparation and tabling of a post-election budget.

Bill 11 provides two-thirds of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2017-18 Estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements. These disbursements, I can advise the House, are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments made under these schedules.

Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of the 2017-18 requirements for schedule E financing transactions is being sought in this supply bill. Schedule E of the 2017-18 Estimates outlines the revenue collected for and transferred to other entities. These distributions are statutory, and there is
[ Page 14090 ]
no impact on the operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of this revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2017-18 estimates. The final supply bill for 2017-18 will incorporate these amounts, when it is finally presented, to ensure it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in that fiscal year.

Those are my comments.

C. James: I rise to speak to second reading on Bill 11, the Supply Act. As the minister has said, this is not the budget that we’re voting on. We voted on that last week.

[1445]

The Supply Act provides support for all those individuals who, although we may be out on the campaign trail, are continuing to work — continuing to do the work in individual ministries, continuing to keep government operating and our province operating. I express my appreciation to them.

I also support, as the minister has outlined, the fact that this supply bill extends for six months, which is usual in an election year. I think it’s important that the six months be provided to allow a new government, whoever that may be, to be able to have time to put together their budget and bring it forward to the public. With that, I take my place.

Deputy Speaker: Minister to close the second reading.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 11 be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 11, Supply Act (No. 1), 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 5.

BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

Hon. M. Morris: I stand to speak in support of Bill 5. There are a couple components of this bill, one dealing with some amendments dealing with the Wildfire Act and the other dealing with amendments under the Wildlife Act as it pertains to the electronic issuance of licences and whatnot.

I’ll start with Wildfire Act first. As this House is aware, a couple years ago I was tasked with the job of reviewing the penalties under the Wildfire Act and looking at things that we can do to help to reduce the number of human-caused fires out there. As we know, up to 50 percent of the fires that are caused every season are human-caused. Those are 100 percent preventable. There’s a lot that can be done there to try and mitigate that and reduce those numbers over time. We’re going to do that.

Part of the complications behind this is the amount of time that was given to fire investigators and people working under the confines of the Wildfire Act. The time limits were a little bit short, so they’re increasing the time limits in this regard to three years. I speak from an investigative perspective. As you know, I spent many, many years as an investigator. The complexities associated with investigations nowadays are significantly more than they were ten, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. This legislation identifies that.

When we look at the technical requirements that our investigators have to look at when they go in to determine what the source of the fire was and the cause of the ignition for that particular fire…. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of time for those particular investigators to become accredited within their field of expertise.

It’s not just one fire they work on — or two fires or ten fires. It’s 100 or 200 fires throughout the entire province for them to get to the level of expertise necessary to conduct those investigations, not only to investigate them efficiently and effectively to determine what the causes were and who might be responsible for that but to do it in such a fashion that it prepares the document and the charge for scrutiny of the courts.

The rule of evidence and the rule of law that takes place when those types of things are prosecuted rely on technically elegant investigations. If we spend hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars on that investigation and, at the end of the day, it’s determined that the investigation was not done properly, we lose all that money. The individual that was responsible for it goes without any sanctions or repercussions as a result of that, and we end up losing money out of the budget because we didn’t spend it properly and wisely enough.

This gives us the breathing room available or necessary to conduct these kinds of investigations at that technically elegant level that’s required in order that we can deal with it either administratively — at the end of the day, through some of the other sanctions or provisions that this bill addresses — or criminally, if it goes in that direction, as perhaps some of these should be looked at in the future.

[1450]

These types of human-caused fires cause millions of dollars, not only in damage…. They take workable forests out of commission for several years. It destroys a lot of the annual harvest that we rely upon with the economy that we have in British Columbia. It destroys recreation facilities and destroys wildlife habitat. It does a number
[ Page 14091 ]
of things that are detrimental to the society that we live in, in British Columbia here, and we need to do everything that we can.

In addition to that, human-caused fires cost millions of dollars to put out. We saw a couple years ago that we were well in excess of $100 million, $200 million in battling these blazes. The hundreds of millions of dollars we’ve spent fighting wildfires over the last decade…. That’s the kind of money that could have gone into other programs — into social programs, into education, into health, into a number of other programs that we rely on so heavily in British Columbia.

These amendments here are going to go a long way to providing a little bit of extra time, a little bit more leverage for us to really make a difference in this province — to turn down the temperature, so to speak, in the number of human-caused wildfires that we see.

It’s going to enable the B.C. Wildfire Service, which does such a professional job for us…. When I toured the province doing the penalty review under the Wildfire Act, I visited many fire scenes. I was blown away at the professionalism exhibited by not only those people that were looking after the administration and the operations of the particular firefight but the people that were on the ground, the young men and women that would put a pack on their backs and grab a chainsaw or a pickaxe or some other tool to go out there and do whatever they had to do to try and put that fire out — and putting their lives on the line, as we tragically saw here a couple of years ago with the firefighter that was killed in the line of duty.

These provisions are necessary for us to gather all of the tools that we need in order to address these very serious concerns and to make sure we’ve got the tools available to us to prosecute through the courts or through an administrative process and be successful, at the end of the day, to hold those accountable for the types of fires that they cause, for the damage they cause, for the loss of life they may cause and a number of factors there. It’s a progressive step forward to ensure that B.C. has some of the best tools available to it legislatively, in addition to all the other tools we have to fight fires.

Fire control costs are an issue there, and they’re calculated in accordance with the Wildfire Regulation. Those things are going to be outlined in this legislation as well. It gives them the provisions to go after some of these individuals to recoup some of the costs that we have, as a province — the wages of responding employees; food and transportation; accommodation expenses; fuel and flight costs for air tankers and helicopters, which are going up every year; the cost of fire retardants and other suppressants and the replacement of gear; training costs; and all those things that are attributable to fighting these types of fires.

The second part of this bill is a part that I’ve got a passion for — the outdoors, hunting, fishing, trapping. All of those are covered by regulations and by statutes. What this bill does is it provides an opportunity now for the province to keep up with technology and to keep up with modern times by making the licensing available on line to people. Just about everybody carries a smartphone with them these days, and they’ve got some access to the Internet. They’ve got a home computer. This is going to provide them the opportunity to apply for their licence on line and to get their licence on line, and any of the other authorizations they have.

I was talking with a couple of friends of mine today. Both of them are self-described relics, as they call themselves. They don’t rely on smartphones or cell phones. They say: “What are we going to do? What is a guy like me going to do, that doesn’t have access, that can’t use a computer?” I say: “Well, FrontCounter B.C. is more than willing to give you a hand on that. Pop by my place. I’m more than happy to give you a hand and tie into the computer system, to help you apply and print off whatever documents you get from that.”

[1455]

When we go off into the wilderness on a hunting trip, everybody is proud of the trip they make and the scenery they see and their friends. There are a lot of campfire memories to make there. They all carry these smartphones now that have the camera on. They take dozens or perhaps hundreds of pictures with these smartphones, but they also have their licence on that phone. If they’re stopped by a conservation officer or a constable when they’re out on their trip, they can bring that up, and they can show that to the conservation officer or the constable, and say: “Yeah, I’m duly licenced, and here’s the information.”

We’re getting increased cellular coverage right across the province, and a lot of the places that these folk go and hunt have cell coverage. The conservation officer will have immediate access to all his data and confirm that the information is correct and that everything is on the straight and narrow. Because that is a permanent record on the cell phone, it suffices as a record that they can show the constable.

The other part of it is if I’m applying for a limited-entry hunting authorization, I can apply for that authorization on line, and I’ll receive that authorization on line. A little bit of work to do with respect to that because the rules say that immediately upon getting my animal, I have to mark my authorization and cancel it to make sure that I don’t keep reusing it. A lot of people will resort to all kinds of deviant means.

I think technology…. As we progress through this and we develop our regulations and as we see how this folds out, I foresee an opportunity to again utilize technology to help us cancel those authorizations whenever we get an animal.

Our cell phones have a camera on them where you take a picture and it automatically establishes the date and the time that the picture was taken. If that can be at-
[ Page 14092 ]
tached to the authorization and the conservation officer comes and says, “Okay, you shot this animal. When did you shoot it,” you can show them the picture with the date and the time on it, and it can correlate to the actual events.

I see this as a progression forward. It’s going to make it fundamentally easier for those of us who enjoy the outdoor activities in the hunting world or the trapping world or the fishing world to obtain the necessary permits and authorizations that this province needs to keep track of in order to make the whole system work properly.

The other aspect of the electronic version of hunting licences and authorizations is the fact that government and biologists will have quicker access, real-time access to the amount of activity that is going on in the province, to the amount of animals that are being harvested, the number of days that the hunters are spending on that. It will be a lot easier to maintain wildlife inventory numbers, to establish special zones if there is any particular issue that surfaces as a result of overharvesting or a number of other factions out there.

It will make it easier for the conservation officers and the constables that are patrolling the areas that are hunted on a frequent basis to ensure that there’s compliance out there. I’ve done it myself. I’ve gone out on my annual hunt. I might be a hundred miles away from my home by the time I get to my camp. You get there, and you realize you’ve left your licence at home. You have to turn around and go all the way back home to pick your licence up to go back out and join your friends out in the hunt camp.

By having it electronically, it’s also my camera. Even though there might not be any cell coverage out there, I’ve got a camera with me, and I take pictures of a number of things out there. I’ve got some beautiful wilderness shots, some sunsets, some shots of family members out there gathered, hunting together. I know I always have that camera with me, and now I will know that I always have that licence with me. It will never be gone.

All we have to do is to look around and see the problems that we have with distracted driving, with a number of the other issues out there to show how attached our public has become to the cell phone, to that little device that everybody packs with them. They’re always reading their emails, they’re reading their text messages, and it’s always in their hands. So I think we stand a better chance of people having their licence on them and having their authorizations on them by going into this new electronic world of ours.

It will be real-time. It will be accurate information. Everybody will be able to see exactly what that authorization stands for. There won’t be any blurring. You don’t have to worry about it getting wet and destroyed. You don’t have to worry about dropping it in the fire or dropping it in the mud. It’s always going to be on your cell phone.

[1500]

Again, if we are in close proximity to cell coverage — it’s getting better and better every year, thanks to the work that this government has done, with Telus and a number of other organizations, to create that — everybody is going to have access to it.

Yes, according to my good friends that I was speaking to, there are still going to be a few of the older people around that don’t carry those devices. But they’ll have to resort back to the papers. So there’s still that opportunity. They can go to a FrontCounter B.C. They can apply for their licence and authorizations and print those copies off and put them in their pocket or their wallet and carry them the way they normally have — for the past 40, 50, 60, 70 years that some of them have been hunting — to ensure that they stay legal.

I think this is a great step forward. It’s provided all kinds of opportunities for us to be a lot more effective in how we approach hunting and fishing and trapping right across the province here. It’s going to provide biologists and researchers and other people with real-time information in order to enhance how we look after our biodiversity and our wildlife and this great province that we live in.

I wholeheartedly support this bill and the direction that it’s taking us. It’s going to have enhancements for our wildlife and whatnot, but it’s also going to really enable us to attack some of the technical issues around wildfire investigations and give us a better foothold when it comes to the disposition of these types of offences, either through the courts or through an administrative process.

K. Conroy: I’m also pleased to stand up and speak to Bill 5, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017.

This bill makes changes to the Wildlife Act and the Wildfire Act, and its stated intent is to make it easier for hunters to complete licensing, permitting and reporting activities on line. It also will give wildfire investigators more time to complete their work and streamline the cost recovery process associated with human-caused wildfires.

Now, I know my colleagues before me have spoken to the Wildfire Act issues as it pertains to the forest industries and also to the communities that are at risk due to wildfires. I also know that many communities in rural B.C. have expressed concern that they know they need to deal with preventing wildfires, but the lack of funds to carry out the sometimes extensive work required is a concern. The response from government to date has been inadequate, and we all pay when wildfires hit.

We all saw what happened when the fires hit the community of Fort McMurray. I can say, as someone with a family member who was significantly affected, that the ongoing aftermath of the fire is significant. Our son lost his home, and it is finally just starting to be in the process of being rebuilt — almost a year later. I wouldn’t want to see that happen to anyone in B.C. — to have to go through what the people in Fort McMurray are going through now, many who are still fighting to get their
[ Page 14093 ]
houses rebuilt. It’s been a horrible process, and you just don’t want to see that happen here.

These are experiences that could be somewhat prevented or minimized if appropriate precautions are in place. So let’s hope that this bill addresses those issues for the many residents and communities in B.C. who could be affected if in a similar situation to what happened up in Fort McMurray and other communities across the country.

I really want to talk more about the wildlife portion of the act. Since our leader asked me to take on spokesperson for wildlife issues, I have to say that it’s been one of the most interesting parts of my job in a lot of ways — to meet so many interesting people across the province. I’ve been so impressed by people’s dedication to the conservation of wildlife and their habitat, and especially their commitment to not only talking about the issues but actually doing something about them as well.

You only need to look at the different groups who are involved and see the number of projects that they take on — often with minimal funding, lots of volunteer hours and lots of fundraising. I have talked to many hunters since this bill was introduced about what it means. I also have been talking to different clubs that are members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation about what a great example they are of the work they do in the province, whether it’s stream restoration, habitat enhancement, wetland cleanups and many more things.

One club, for instance, is the Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association. For decades, up in that area, unmanaged public access to Crown land resulted in the spread of makeshift campgrounds all over — on the shores of a number of lakes surrounding Kamloops. These sites lacked the proper sanitary facilities, boat launches, fire pits and meant that campers were having a detrimental impact on the surrounding ecosystem — the habitat of wildlife.

[1505]

To counteract this, this club, the Kamloops association, partnered with the ministry to create formal campsites, complete with firepits, picnic tables, sanitary facilities and a proper boat launch.

While the ministry provided permits and some materials and equipment, this association actually provided hundreds of hours of volunteer time to build and construct the sites, all of the labour coordinated by the project committee chair, Bob Goldie. The campsites are now receiving heavy use from recreationalists while helping limit their impact on the environment, on the ecosystem, on the habitat of wildlife in this province. I think that’s kudos to that organization for what they do.

I talked to so many different groups about different issues. When you get to the bill and you talk to hunters and people that fish about what it means to go out in the back country and hunt — there are a lot of people in this province that do hunt, over 100,000 hunters in the province — they all talked about their commitment to the wildlife. So I asked them about the streamlining of licensing on line.

As the former member said, there are some concerns from people that have been hunting for years and years, who don’t access smartphones, who don’t access computers. They are worried about what it’s going to mean for them. They said yes, they can go to the offices where they can get support. But it still is a bit disconcerting for them.

I talked to hunters who said: “Yeah, we can take pictures of our licence. We’re often hunting for sometimes up to two weeks.” They don’t have access to plug in their phone so that the battery stays charged. Now with new solar technology and things like that, there’s more access to getting your phone charged in the back country. But if you have your licence on your phone and you run out of battery somewhere out in the wilderness, how are you going to prove that you have your licence? They said: “Well, we’ll still be carrying our licence with us just in case.”

There are those issues, and I’m sure that we’re going to drill down more on them more at committee stage. But there are issues that people are worried about. The on-line process — everybody agrees that we need to come into the 21st century with this whole process. But they also remember…. People liked the fact that there was a huge kickoff when the limited-entry licences got put on line, and people were really happy with that, except that I think the system crashed because so many people applied.

We want to make sure — and we’re going to be asking the minister, I hope — that their system’s in place. I mean, this government doesn’t have a great record with systems on line, so I hope that there are things in place to ensure that this system doesn’t crash when it’s accessed — that it will be there for people when they want to use it.

Some of the other things I’ve talked about with people is what’s going to happen with the rural outlets, people who’ve been selling a hunting licence for years. People come in, and they buy their hunting licence. The people write it out. There it goes. Off you go. It takes a few minutes. Now these same people, not only do…. I’ve talked to some of them. They’ve had to go to buy new computer equipment so that they can deal with the system.

They also have to take freedom-of-information training that they never had to take before because now they’re suddenly dealing with things on line. They said it takes a while, where they have to go and do this training. They said there’s no compensation for it.

At one outlet, they were saying they were quite concerned. The hunting licence is a thing they do, and it’s a rural part of B.C., and they do it as a service. They don’t get much for it. So they want to make sure that they can provide services to the people that are coming in to utilize the store for the other things that they are coming to buy, whether it’s feed for their animals, equipment for their farms. They can’t be sitting there helping someone to access their hunting licence, when they might
[ Page 14094 ]
not be used to accessing things on the computer, when they need to go and help their actual customers who are buying things from their store, without any compensation for it.

I’m going to be asking the minister a little bit about that. What are they doing to help rural outlets who always used to sell licences and now have to go through this whole process?

I talked to a number of places where they’ve said they’re just not going to do it anymore. So places where people always used to go get their hunting licence — and have for years and years — suddenly won’t be doing that anymore. One hunter said he doesn’t access computers. He doesn’t have any family members that are…. He said: “I guess I’m too old. I don’t have kids that are young and hip that are doing that.” He said that he feels that he’ll be left out in this.

[1510]

I’m hoping that there are processes and systems in place that will actually help people to ensure that they can get on the system and that they will be able to get their licence regardless of if they have computer savvy or if they’re out hunting. What’s going to happen to the ones that have their actual system crash on them if they’re out in the bush somewhere? What’s going to happen there?

The other concern that’s been raised about the whole process is the actual…. It says it’s going to “enhance compliance and enforcement by allowing conservation officers to request photo ID from all hunters, anglers and trappers.” Well, I hope that somewhere we also are going to ensure we have enough boots on the ground to ensure this happens. Right now we don’t in this province. People will go out hunting for quite a while and not ever run into a CO because there are not enough of them. That’s an issue. People are saying: “Well, who’s going to be out there to check?”

That’s something that we need to ensure, that the ability is there to make sure that the…. I don’t know if the funding…. It doesn’t look like there’s funding in this bill to ensure that there will be more staff out there. I’m hoping that there will be.

It also says that it’s going to enable permits and licences to be issued on the same day that applications are submitted. Well, I can see this happening. As long as the process works, as long as the computer systems are up to snuff, then I can see that, yes, this, in fact, will be something that people will be happy with.

There are, as I said, concerns with the system, concerns with the computer system, going on line, and concerns about the reporting because, again, everybody…. Yes, people have their smartphones or cameras that they take with them, but there are a lot of places in this province where people hunt where there is not accessibility. It’s out in the bush. I mean, nobody lives there. How it’s inhabited is by wildlife. They’re not particularly concerned about computer access.

I’m just wondering how we’re going to access these processes of reporting in a timely manner if you don’t have access to the Internet. For people that…. They say they go out hunting for a couple of weeks. They could easily not have their systems up and running for that whole time. So I hope that there’s a process in place that is going to make sure that it’s going to take care of these things. Everybody is enamoured with technology, but we also have to ensure that we respect the people that aren’t quite as enamoured with the technology as a lot of other people are.

I know that hunters are really concerned. I go to a lot of different meetings. Just on the weekend, I was at the West Kootenay Big Game Trophy Association’s 60th annual awards banquet — there with the Trail Wildlife Association, who also host in conjunction with this organization. They’ve been in existence for 60 years.

There was a fellow there that was honoured, Lou Kratky. He was one of the first people in the province of B.C. to be able to actually go out and measure racks for their points to see what kind of an award system they were going to be given. Lou lives in Kelowna now. He’s originally from Trail. He was honoured at the banquet for the work that he’s done and for being one of the first people in the province to actually have the ability to do that. He passed that ability on to another member of the association, who passed it on to a young member, who is now doing it. It was quite inspiring to see.

One of the neat things about that whole…. When I was talking to them about the aspects of the bill and what’s happening with hunting in the province, one fellow who won the award for the…. I think it was the sheep he won the award for, and he won another award for the elk. He said that he loves hunting. He was really proud to be able to win the awards he did, with the biggest rack, but he also said….

He’s a sustenance hunter. He believes in hunting and eating and utilizing the entire animal, not only getting a rack from the animal but utilizing the meat, making sure that it fills his family’s freezer. He was very clear about that. In fact, I didn’t meet anybody there who didn’t respect the animals and want to ensure that…. After the fact, yes, they might get a trophy out of that animal, but they respected that animal. They used that animal, all of the animal. They hunted it for sustenance.

[1515]

It was a great evening, and it was so nice to see somebody…. Lou is 89, still very spry. He had to leave Trail so he could be closer to his daughter in Kelowna but misses Trail. But he said that…. It was just really nice to see him honoured. He’s one of the ones that…. People in the room were saying: “Are we going to see someone like Lou get on line to get his licence?”

It’s interesting when you talk to hunters about their concerns. All of them said: “Is there funding in this bill?” All of them asked me. Anybody I talked to said: “Where
[ Page 14095 ]
is the funding in this bill to ensure that there will be,” as I said, “conservation officers to help the outlets with the service they’re going to provide?” They said: “Where’s the funding just for wildlife conservation as it stands? Where is the funding for that?”

I haven’t talked to any hunter…. When I talk to hunters, I talk to them about the bill I tabled in the House last year, the Sustainable Wildlife Management Act. In that bill, I said that I think we need to have designated funding for hunting, for wildlife conservation and for habitat.

I talk to hunters about what happens down in the States, where they actually have a dedicated funding stream. I said: “Is this something that you could see happening in this province? Every time you bought a licence”— and now you go and buy your licence on line, as this bill will help you to do — “that fee will go into a dedicated fund just for habitat conservation.”

I haven’t run into any hunter who said: “No, don’t do that.” In fact, they expand on it. They talk about what’s happened in the States, where there’s actually a small surcharge on anything to do with the back country. Those funds are put into a dedicated source of funding for conservation of habitat. Everybody is in agreement with it.

I talk about so many different projects that are done by different people. I talked about Kamloops and the different people that do different projects. I want to just acknowledge Barry Brandow from Grand Forks, he and his family: Barry and his wife, Midge, and his son Bear and his wife. They have single-handedly kept the issue of the Gilpin Grasslands on the forefront for probably 30 years, I think.

I was talking to him about this bill and asked him what he thought about it. Of course, we got talking about the Gilpin. Barry single-handedly, with his family and some dedicated friends of his, has built a wildlife fence along Highway 3 between Grand Forks and Christina Lake. His fence has protected so much wildlife, especially the sheep — it’s big enough to prevent the sheep from getting out in the road — for so many years. He’s done that with fundraising on his own, with little or no support from government.

Huge kudos to people like Barry, who are out there day after day constantly talking about the issues of hunting and wildlife conservation and the fact that we do need more boots on the ground. He said: “Is there money in this bill?” I said: “No, there’s no funding in this bill.” That’s a concern. He says: “How is it going to happen? How is it going to be implemented if there’s no funding to back it up?” I said: “Well, we’ll ask the minister that when I drill down in committee stage.”

He has been at the forefront of talking about the lack of the actual inventory of animals. I said to him: “My bill I tabled last year talks about making sure we have a proper inventory done.” He gets that, and he just says: “It’s what needs to happen.” He said: “There have to be people that actually care about wildlife in this province that are starting to ensure that the funding is there, that the care is taken.”

What he has done with his family and their friends is pretty incredible. You don’t find too many people that have that much passion about wildlife to actually go and construct a fence to save the wildlife.

One of the other groups that I met with and talked to was…. I was up in Quesnel, and I was hearing about some of the projects that they have been involved in. Wilf Pfleiderer has been interested in conservation since his late teens, when he helped install duck nests and Canada goose boxes with the Maple Ridge Rod and Gun Club.

[1520]

Now he lives up in Quesnel. He’s a member of the B.C. Conservation Foundation and a member of the Quesnel Rod and Gun Club. He’s been a member since 1995 up there, and he’s still actively pursuing conservation initiatives with elk, mule deer and California big horn sheep.

One of the ones he told me about, which I heard about, was in 2007. A seal coat was applied to West Fraser Road to allow for higher traffic between Quesnel and Williams Lake. It was an increase in usage, especially by logging trucks. It led to collisions with California bighorn sheep. In a few months, nine sheep were killed. The herd was quite small, so they were pretty concerned about this.

In an effort to prevent additional deaths, Wilf devised a plan to install signage to warn drivers of the sheep population and urge them to slow down. He was unable to find an appropriate template that would address the issue, so he created his own design. After receiving permission from the Ministry of Transportation to erect the signage — he got some funding from the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund — they installed the signs at key locations along the corridor.

The project was a huge success. There hasn’t been a California bighorn sheep killed on that road since the signage was installed. That’s another example of the passion that people have for wildlife in this province, where they’ll go and they’ll do whatever it takes to ensure that we have the wildlife not only there to hunt, but to view and to see. It’s just so amazing, when you talk to different people, what they do.

In talking to the B.C. Wildlife Federation, an amazing organization over 60,000 hunters strong in this province, I’ve asked them about their BCWF Conservation App. It’s done on line. It’s similar process to what’s been proposed in this bill. They did it on their own. They made it so it’s easy for people to report environmental infractions. They’ve got an app and a website, and it’s allowing British Columbians to take ownership of their own natural resources.

This app and the website now have over 3,000 users across the province. There have been multiple reports and some fines issued due to the great support of the people that are using this app. It’s got a public website, which displays environmental abuses that are reported
[ Page 14096 ]
through the app. They’re hoping to develop an Android-based app and rolling out a marketing campaign this coming summer to increase social awareness and the number of users.

I think this is a great opportunity for the government to actually partner with B.C. Wildlife Federation to ensure that this can increase. People see something in the bush that they know that it’s inappropriate, they take a picture. When they get back to where they’re going, they can make sure that it gets onto the website. It all happens with modern technology.

That’s an example where modern technology is working, and it’s working well. I think we need to make sure that we give people kudos where kudos are due, when it is working.

This bill is interesting in what it proposes. It’s interesting in what it doesn’t propose. It doesn’t really set out any objectives for the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, which people have been asking for, for a number of years. That’s one of the other questions I got asked: does the bill have anything in it about objectives? It really doesn’t put fish and wildlife habitat, habitat conservation, at the forefront of decisions made in the province.

We’re a resource-based province. We are going to have resources in our province. It’s what makes our province rich in many, many ways. It’s the resources that we have. We need to ensure that when we’re planning in the back country or in the wildlife habitat…. When we’re planning for land and water use activities, we need to ensure that we remember that we’re not just accessing land and water. We’re accessing a habitat, the habitat of wildlife.

We need to ensure that we keep those priorities in place. This bill doesn’t talk about that. It talks about getting your licence on line. I wish the minister could have gone a little further with what he’s planned in the bill, but it just doesn’t seem that that’s an option.

The other thing that people have asked about is a round table. We have been saying for the last year that we really feel that a wildlife management round table should be front and centre in this province. We should give people an opportunity to come to the table to talk about the issues. Does the bill address that? No, it doesn’t.

[1525]

People want to come to the table. All of the different sectors that are so involved, whether you’re talking about resident hunters, guide-outfitters, trappers…. You’re talking about the ecotourism organizations. You’re talking about backpackers. You’re talking about the people that just want to be out in our back country, hiking and fishing. They want to have a voice at the table to ensure that our wildlife is there for years to come.

People are really concerned that the numbers are showing that it’s not. The numbers are showing a huge decrease in some of our populations, especially moose and the caribou. We know the difficulties that are happening with trying to sustain the caribou herd in this province. The same is happening with moose.

Driving home the other night…. Everybody knows that in this job, some of us in the rural parts of the world drive a lot. Driving home Thursday night, I’m almost home, an hour away from home, and all of a sudden there’s an animal in front of my car. I’m up a mountain pass, and it was a moose. It was a good two feet above the front hood of my car. Thank goodness, at the last second, it veered off the other way. I don’t know if I’d be speaking here in the House today — talk about getting the adrenaline going.

But what a magnificent creature. Then my son said to me: “What was its rack like?” I said I was so stunned, coming across this in the middle of the night, all I saw was its really big back end, which was big. I said: “I didn’t see the rack, hon, but I saw the back end. It was massive.” It would have destroyed my car, I’m sure. So another moose lived to see a day on the Blueberry-Paulson, thank goodness. What a magnificent creature it was.

When we drove over the Blueberry-Paulson, we always used to see moose. You rarely see moose now. It’s an issue with numbers that we need to talking about. Will this bill help that? I don’t think so.

People want to come to the table. They want to talk about the fact that things are happening in the province that are not accounting for the numbers of wildlife that are actually in our province.

Some of them asked about…. One of the reasons people like the wildlife management round table concept is what happened a few years ago in our region, when the ministry decided that they were going to allow open season on the six-point elk. Every person I talked to when I was talking about this bill at the wildlife banquet said: “We don’t see the big elk anymore.” Ever since the six-point open season was brought into the West Kootenays, you just don’t see those big magnificent creatures anymore. You rarely see them because all the big guys got shot and got hunted.

I tabled a petition in the Legislature. There were over 6,000 signatures of people saying: “Do not do this. Do not do this to the elk in this part of the province.” It went ahead anyway, and now we see where we don’t have those big magnificent animals how we used to have them. They used to be around all the time, but they’re just not there anymore.

People up in the north country are talking about that, too, especially North Peace, about the moose issues. They asked: “Is there anything in the bill that is going to help with us the numbers, when it comes to wildlife habitat and the conservation, and to make sure that these numbers are protected?”

I mean, people recognize how valuable our public resource is. Fish and wildlife — it’s a public resource to be enjoyed by all British Columbians. And for many British Columbians’, their livelihood and recreation rely on these natural resources. People feel that it’s been disregarded. It’s been taken for granted. They’d hoped
[ Page 14097 ]
that the bill would somehow address that, but unfortunately, it doesn’t.

It does address the issues around applying on line for licences. For the most part, people are: “Okay, let’s hope it happens, and it works well.” They brought up their concerns. They raised their issues about what happens when it doesn’t work for you, when your batteries fail. They said, “We will carry our licence anyway, because we just can’t believe that…. We’re not going to trust our technology” — and the fact that there just isn’t the accessibility across the entire province, especially in the real remote areas of our province, where people are actually hunting and would be utilizing this program.

I’m hoping that the minister, when we drill down…. We’ll get a few more answers on what some of these clauses in this bill mean.

[1530]

I’m hoping that somewhere there’s something around funding that will ensure that habitat conservation and wildlife in this province is a priority to this government, because it is a priority to the people of the province. I don’t see that in this bill. I see a housekeeping bill, for all intents and purposes, and bringing everybody into the 21st century.

I hope the issues are raised. We’ll be able to drill down and make sure that the ministry has taken due diligence in ensuring that these issues will be dealt with, especially for our senior hunters, people that don’t have access to computer systems or smartphones and don’t want to.

I know my husband isn’t going to get it on his flip phone, which he still operates. He says, “There’s no way I’m going to have my licence on this flip phone or be able to take any pictures or be able to do anything with it,” if he’s was to go out hunting this coming fall.

We need to have respect for people like that. Hopefully, there will be processes in place to ensure that that happens.

J. Sturdy: It is certainly a pleasure to stand and speak in support of Bill 5, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017. There are a number of parts to this bill, as I think everybody realizes. Certainly, modernizing the hunting licensing, permitting and reporting system is one of those primary pieces to this legislation and one that it sounds like the House generally supports. The other component would be the increase in the time horizon for accident investigations and also ensuring that government deals appropriately with the entities that do end up violating the legislation, specifically with regard to wildfires.

First of all, when we talk about modernization of the hunting licensing, permitting and reporting system, this is part of a commitment that government has made to streamlining processes and also providing more services on line. I think we all recognize that on-line services are something that we should be supporting and putting in place wherever possible, where it’s logical and reasonable. I think, in this case, that’s exactly the situation. It is more efficient and effective and accomplishes the objective of streamlining processes.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Certainly, there is support in my constituency and with the people I work with in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, where there is very robust and significant hunting and fishing and outfitting businesses and people who visit the area continuously to take part in these kinds of enterprises. There is certainly support for the on-line licensing system. People really have been asking for this service.

In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, there has actually been a loss in the number of businesses who have been providing opportunities to acquire licences at their establishments. This is making it a little more challenging for people to access them. I’m not entirely sure why people aren’t enthusiastic about selling licences, but clearly, I suppose, they recognize that these services should be provided on line and will be provided on line. After all, if you can bank on line, you can shop on line and you can trade securities on line, I’m sure that we can figure out how to provide licensing on line.

It will also allow for the submission of the required reports and reporting of harvests through an on-line system. It will just simplify the whole process. It will also potentially be more timely and more accurate. Ultimately, reporting on your smartphone, as was referenced by a number of other members — to take a photograph, date and time stamp, be able to report back to the wildlife branch with your smartphone — could update and be more timely in terms of that provincial data.

[1535]

It could — and would, I would imagine — provide better management, better opportunity to manage the wildlife that we have by having more timely and accurate information. In other words, records can be automatically updated in the provincial database.

Additionally, this will enable certain permits and licences to be issued on the same day that they’re applied for. You’ll be able to make application for that licence and have it virtually immediately. It will reduce the number of authorizations that hunters are required to carry while hunting.

I have less concern than some members have with regard to the battery in your smartphone. I think you’ll probably be able to compensate for that either with an electronic device, or I imagine there will be an opportunity to print out that particular licence as well, and carry it with you while you’re hunting.

I suppose, essentially, in many respects, as long as you have your smartphone with you, you should be able to have your licence with you, and you’ll be able to record a report and complete all your obligations easily and effectively. It will also enhance compliance and enforcement
[ Page 14098 ]
by allowing conservation officers to request photo ID of all hunters, trappers and anglers. I must admit it was a bit of a surprise to me that that wasn’t a requirement already. But I suppose, when you look at how these things have evolved over the years, it’s understandable that you might not have carried a licence with you if you’re out in the bush for months at a time, as some trappers would be. But we’re in a different world these days.

This bill will make it easier for hunters to do everything they need to do — complete licensing, permitting, reporting on-line activities, providing better information to government and collection of information by government to make good quality management decisions.

The second component of this is the wildfire investigations. This bill reinforces government’s commitment to public safety and dealing appropriately with people or companies that violate this legislation. This is just an expectation, one would imagine, of the public to provide good governance.

Specifically, the proposed amendments to the Wildfire Act would implement a standardized limitation period of three years to wildfire investigators and provide them with more time to complete their work and initiate any required enforcement proceedings. After all, these are complicated investigations, certainly. They can be complicated. They can be relatively simple too, depending on the circumstances. But when there are complicated investigations required, people need the time to do those investigations in an effective and efficient way.

It will give government more time to attempt to recover costs associated with wildfire control and to levy penalties or require violators to undertake remediation activities and will provide more time and flexibility for government to consider charges related to damage, reforestation and/or remediation related to these activities.

Wildfires can be a very traumatic and devastating experience. Certainly in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, we’ve seen some very, very significant fires over the years. Recently, in 2015, we had the Elaho and the Boulder fires. These were huge fires, and fires that were unprecedented in coastal fire behaviour, from what I understand. I’ve seen fires over the years, over the decades, in the Pemberton area burning on the mountainsides, started by lightning, started by people burning grass. There’s a whole variety of reasons, but they certainly are not always straightforward. They are incredibly disruptive. They can change peoples’ lives. In the case of the Boulder fire and the Elaho fire, we saw fire behaviour that had this fire moving down the valley at 20 kilometres an hour. It was just incredible in the way it vaporized soils.

[1540]

There were concerns about it coming over the mountain, coming back into some heavily populated areas, not the least of which was Whistler. In fact, at one point in 2010, when we had a fire on Camel Back and Copperdome…. I think there were 19 fires started in a single day, which just changes people’s lives. These fires burned for weeks and months.

In those cases, it was relatively simple to identify the source. But in other cases, it’s not so straightforward. Time and expertise are required to ensure that we get at the ignition sources and an understanding of how we can remediate or how we can avoid in the future.

Standardizing the timeline is appropriate. Three years seems to me a very reasonable approach and an appropriate time to give certainty to all parties concerned.

In terms of penalties, cost recovery, remediation, it’s important that various options are open to government to help communities and the environment recover adequately and appropriately. When negligence or wilful disregard is at play regarding forest fire ignition, an adequate amount of time, as I said, and flexibility for government to consider charges need to be provided. These are, as I said, complex investigations. They take time, and we need to take the time to ensure that justice and access to justice are prioritized.

Thirdly, the issue of dealing appropriately with entities that violate the legislation. Rules of procedural fairness require that the affected person be given sufficient time to prepare a response. This would typically take several weeks. However, in the instance of justice and depending on the complexity of the case, the affected person may need more time to prepare. This, as well, provides an opportunity for both parties to be prepared. An opportunity to be heard allows the decision-maker to gain a better understanding of the case from both staff and the affected person, including extenuating circumstances that need to be considered.

I have to admit, I have a certain sympathy there around extenuating circumstances. I’ve seen situations in cases where fires were started, specifically around agriculture and weather changes. Things happen, and it gets out of control. There has to be accountability for these kinds of actions and decisions that people make.

Ultimately, the affected person may often be represented by legal counsel, which is reasonable but does complicate it. It takes more time to resolve it. The decision-maker must complete a written determination, including the identification of any administrative penalties and recovery of fire costs to be paid before the expiration of the limitation period. So again, with that three years, it makes sense.

Other reasonable considerations. With regard to the window for consideration and decision, provide certainty for both the affected party and the statutory decision-maker, as these decisions can have a significant impact on all parties, be they penalties, cost recovery or remediation. Some of these cost recoveries can be very significant.

Wildfire costs are calculated in accordance with the Wildfire Regulation, which lists about 30 items for which costs can be recovered, such as wages; food; transportation; accommodation; fuel and flight costs for air tankers
[ Page 14099 ]
and helicopters; fuel retardants and other fire suppressants; damaged vehicles and equipment, etc.; and private goods and services that are contracted and hired, rented or purchased. So there are potentially significant cost recovery opportunities that need, again, reasonable consideration to assess.

There are also wildfire damages, which are calculated according to the Wildfire Regulation. Damaged or destroyed Crown timber is given a stumpage value, which would have applied to the timber if the rights had been granted under a forest licence, which was interesting.

[1545]

Understanding the impact of some of these fires on the forest land base…. Again, referring to the Elaho, which was 200 square kilometres it impacted….

There was an interesting story. When I attended the Squamish logger sport day, they had just replaced a couple of the spar poles they use for climbing — about a 100-foot pole. Two poles. Just beautiful pieces of wood, perfectly straight. Big calipers at the bottom — I don’t know what they were; probably two metres, anyway.

The comment was made at the logger sport day, when the announcer was talking about these new poles, how it’s a good thing they’d actually harvested them. They’d harvested them from the Elaho earlier on that summer, in the summer of that fire. I’m trying to imagine, actually, how they got probably 120-foot poles all the way down the 75 kilometres up the Elaho valley. But they mentioned that the area where they harvested those poles…. It’s a good thing they harvested them at that time. They wouldn’t be harvesting them now because they are all gone.

Again, the impacts to the forest land base can be catastrophic, and catastrophic to peoples’ lives as well. How do you value all that? In certain cases, forest resources are given a value per hectare. So $5,000 per hectare in protected areas, and $500 per hectare in grasslands. But it would seem to me that these poles were worth thousands — $5,000 or more each as it was, anyway.

It’s important that we monitor, react, understand and try and recover from these devastating fires and the potential that they have. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. I certainly support this bill wholeheartedly. Thank you for your time.

D. Donaldson: I’m pleased to take my spot today in the second reading of Bill 5, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act. This is an opportunity to talk in general terms about the provisions in the bill and the implications.

I’m going to talk about three areas. They’re all going to relate specifically to the Wildlife Act amendments under this bill. The areas I’m going to talk about are required reports, some of the implications of the on-line system and First Nations implications.

Firstly, on the required reports — provisions in the bill which allow for the submission of required reports electronically. The intent, from what I’ve read in the bill, is to make it easier for hunters to complete licensing, permitting and reporting activities on line. One aspect that I think needs to be pointed out in this bill is that it doesn’t address concerns that I’ve heard from guide-outfitters around the province and specifically in my area in the northwest.

The guide-outfitters have a number of reporting requirements as far as licensing goes. They have guide licences, assistant guide licences, licences of occupation, commercial recreation leases and Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species permits. Many of these permits have the same information. Virtually the same information on many of them. So they’ve said to me: “If you want to reduce red tape, make it a little simpler for us to complete the numerous requirements the government has in place on licensing when it comes to guide-outfitter activities.”

In Bill 5, that’s not addressed. They’re addressing resident hunters, but the guide-outfitters concerns, as related to me, aren’t addressed. I think that’s an area of red tape that this government has chosen not to address.

[1550]

This bill also reminds me, around resources…. I know previous speakers on this side of the House have spoken to that — the resources that are needed to implement the Wildlife Act amendments when it comes to on the ground.

The reason I bring that up in this first topic I’m addressing is that the government has also previously introduced changes to compulsory inspection rules around moose hunting. This, as it relates to Bill 5, is that I got calls last fall from guide-outfitters saying that there were no inspectors to come up and look at their hunters’ moose kills because the inspectors were in Smithers — and this was up in Tahltan territory, about eight-hours’ drive away — and the inspectors only came up once a month and then sometimes on weekends. It just didn’t jive with the guide-outfitters’ schedule of hunts — people flying in, flying out.

The compulsory inspection people didn’t disagree with…. But again, it was an example, as related to Bill 5, that the government introduced a rule and then never provided the resources for it to be properly implemented. That’s a concern based on the track record that we’ve seen with compulsory inspection rules. That’s a concern I have around the changes in this Bill 5.

As far as the bill having provisions for a new on-line licensing system for hunters and a submission of required reports electronically through a new on-line system…. There are licensed vendors who have been able to issue hunting licences in the past. There are a number of them in Stikine as well as in the riding beside me, in Nechako Lakes. For instance, Geraco Industrial Supplies in New Hazelton; Bulkley Valley Outdoor Essentials in Smithers; McBike, a bike shop in Smithers. There
[ Page 14100 ]
is Countrywide Sports in Houston, Reitsma’s Home Hardware in Houston — these are in the Minister of Aboriginal Relations’ constituency — and Wood N Water Sports and Recreation in Burns Lake.

These were places where people would go in and get their licences, and they’d find out about local knowledge and have a chat about new regulations or rules that have been implemented. They’d find out the local knowledge. By providing on-line licensing…. Although it might, in the government’s opinion, streamline things, it also cuts out those licensed vendors as far as amount of time or even people coming into their stores. This is a service they provide on behalf of government, and part of the return they get is people coming into their stores, and they might drop a few bucks on a retail item associated with hunting.

By introducing this on-line licensing system, I’m not sure if this government actually talked to the licensed vendors who had previously offered this service. I know they’re not going to be cut out of the deal now. But for certain, there’ll be the opportunity for people not to bother coming into their store. I think that can be counterproductive, not only for the local retailers and the small businesses — who we’re very concerned about, on this side of the House — but also the ability for the transfer of knowledge. In small and rural communities, the transfer of knowledge around the countertop in the small businesses really allows for, when the government does introduce new rules, those rules to be spread amongst people in the community.

That’s a concern, as well as the fact that we’re not sure about — and we’ll find out, I’m sure, from the minister during committee stage — what the requirements of the new on-line system are. But high-speed Internet — despite 16 years of the B.C. Liberals talking about it — is not that available in the remote, rural communities that I represent. So in order for people to access the new on-line system at, for instance, a licensed vendor’s store, it might require upgrading. Or, perhaps, it would not even have the ability to do the kind of licensing that is required if high-speed Internet access isn’t available.

[1555]

For me, in this amendment to the Wildlife Act around on-line licensing of hunting, what is really concerning — and I’m sure the minister will be concerned about this as well — is the aspect of First Nations engagement on it before this was brought forward as a bill. I say that because it’s incumbent upon us as MLAs, each of us, to not only reflect on the implications of a bill provincewide, especially depending on our critic area, but also the implications upon our constituents. And I want to talk a little bit, in relation to Bill 5 and the on-line licensing, about the Gitanyow.

The Gitanyow have had much activity on their traditional territories, on the lax’yip, and much activity that they’ve conducted around moose populations. They have presented to this government the numbers that they’ve been able to collect, using very good scientific methods, in the Nass wildlife area on Gitanyow lax’yip, or traditional territories. The numbers they presented: in 2001, there were about 1,600 moose; in 2011, ten years later, 517. That’s a decrease of close to 66 percent.

In fact, in 2014-15, Gitanyow members harvested three moose. That was a decline of 65 to 68 percent since the early 2000s. That moose and the moose meat is an important and integral part of the culture and also of sustenance for the Gitanyow.

We look at the Gitanyow and the management activities that they’ve been undertaking over the last decade and a half — and even longer — on moose populations. I consulted a Gitanyow Hereditary Chief, who works for the Hereditary Chiefs office, and asked him about the changes that we’re considering today in Bill 5 regarding a new on-line licensing system for hunters — hunters being able to register on line for their licence.

I just would like to read a quote that he sent back to me in a message. He said, referring to the provisions of this bill: “I’ve never heard of it. It will be a complete mess like the on-line mine staking, especially when huge declines in wildlife populations, lack of commitment and no resources…. It’s not the old Wild West. It needs First Nations’ engagement.”

That’s the Gitanyow. I’m not sure what other First Nations were directly consulted in the province when it came to this on-line licensing. But that’s a problem. It’s a problem because the Gitanyow — and the Tahltan — have been pursuing partnerships and pursuing joint management with this government, and when you don’t consult around a pretty fundamental aspect of licensing when it comes to activities on the land base, when you don’t consult with the First Nations, then it flies in the face of many things — including reconciliation, including the Tsilhqot’in decision.

I just think of the missed education opportunities, for instance, that First Nations could have put forward if they had been asked about this bill: education opportunities for when a hunter goes on line to register, about where the area is that you’re looking at, the education opportunities they could then avail themselves of around whose traditional territory that is in the province and what the protocols are.

If we’re talking reconciliation and we’re talking Tsilhqot’in and we’re talking partnerships and joint management, then why wouldn’t you undertake that kind of consultation? Why wouldn’t you undertake those kinds of opportunities?

Or the opportunities around First Nations guardians, when it comes to hunting and implementing the kinds of provisions that we see in this bill…. That brings me to another aspect of this bill, which is very troubling, because I don’t believe the research has been done by the government side on this.
[ Page 14101 ]

It’s 2017, and reconciliation rolls off the lips and the tongues of many of the government members. But there is a provision, it appears, in this bill, that First Nations must provide proof of status if asked, in the bush, by a government official — including photo ID, if asked — meaning they’re exempted from requiring a hunting licence if this bill goes through.

[1600]

In working with the Gitxsan over the last 30 years…. This is exactly the type of issue that they addressed with the federal government on fisheries activities 25, 30 years ago. I believe that with this kind of amendment the government is going to run into constitutional issues.

It’s not just if you have a status card as a First Nation that you might be exempt from requiring a hunting licence in B.C. First Nations — especially in the areas that I represent, whether it’s the Wet’suwet’en, the Gitxsan, the Gitanyow, the Tahltan, the Kaska or the Tlingit — have well-established governance systems where a person might belong to a house group but because of arcane federal government rules might not have a status card.

This is the argument that was undertaken by the Gitxsan 25 or 30 years ago, on the fisheries. So I think the government is running into very, very dangerous territory here, as far as the constitutionality of what they’re proposing.

Let’s think about this, as far as how reconciliation happens. We’ve got a person — let’s say a Gitanyow member — who is hunting on their territories. They’re a member of the frog clan or the wolf clan. Their family has been a member for generations, from, as they say, time immemorial, of that clan. However, for historical reasons, they might not have a status card.

They’re out on the territories hunting, and a government official stops them when they get back to their truck at the end of the day or when they’re heading out in the morning, saying: “Oh, this new bill, Bill 5, allows me to ask you to produce photo ID to prove that you’re First Nations.” You can understand why First Nations then have a lot of doubt, when this government talks about reconciliation with that kind of attitude.

I really am looking forward to hearing from the minister around what kind of consultation was done with First Nations regarding this new on-line licensing system for hunters. As I’ve pointed out already, the Gitanyow weren’t consulted, and they have some of the most pressing wildlife concerns, especially when it comes to moose populations.

With that, I’m going to wrap up my comments around Bill 5. I think, again, the provisions, when it comes to providing photo identification — provisions to prove that you’re a First Nations person, that you have status — are really skating on thin ice. I believe that those kinds of provisions have been proven unenforceable when it comes to the federal Fisheries Act. So we’re going 25, 30 years ago…. This government — it’s 2017, and they’re talking about their new-found attitude towards reconciliation, when this kind of issue has been solved, 25 or 30 years ago.

As well, it ignores the fact that many First Nations do not have that kind of photo ID that this amendment considers necessary for them to produce when they’re on their own traditional territories and hunting. That is something…. It’s a reason why we have many issues around First Nations being able to vote in provincial elections, when it’s difficult to have the ID that Elections B.C. has required.

Again, in the words of the Gitanyow Hereditary Chief who I talked to today, as far as consultation goes on this bill, they’ve never heard of it. They think it’s going to be a complete mess. It needs First Nations engagement.

With that, I’ll finish off my general comments on second reading of this bill and look forward to committee stage and also to hearing some of the responses from the minister.

G. Holman: I did want to speak just for a few moments on this because we’ve been meeting with the B.C. Wildlife Federation throughout the year. I just recently met with a representative in my office.

[1605]

While the bill’s intent — to make it easier for hunters to complete licensing, permitting, reporting activities on line and also to give wildfire investigators more time to complete their work — is commendable enough, subject to my colleague’s statements that he has just made around First Nations, the lack of consultation and the concerns they might have regarding producing photo ID in the bush, I wanted to state for the record and point out some of the key things that this bill really does miss.

It seems to be of a kind of housekeeping nature. But the fundamental issues and concerns around forests, lands and natural resource operations have to do with the hundreds of thousands of hectares in British Columbia that haven’t been adequately treated in terms of wildfire interface risks. Apparently only 10 percent of the 685,000 hectares deemed to be of the highest risk of interface wildfires have been treated by government.

This has been pointed out time and time again. A fundamental, substantive issue like this still not being addressed…. Here we are just before the election, and it’s still not being addressed by this legislation.

Just a couple of other things. I’m mentioning these because, again, I just met recently with a representative of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. They have a number of key asks of the provincial government running up to the election. None of them appear in this legislation. It seems to me we’re kind of fiddling while the wildfires are burning.

Two of the issues they mentioned to me that were particularly important were the need for assured, guaranteed funding to manage, steward, protect, conserve wildlife populations in British Columbia. Unlike with fisheries,
[ Page 14102 ]
where we reinvest fishing licences back into the sector for appropriate management and conservation, that does not happen in British Columbia. That is a key ask of the B.C. Wildlife Federation that’s completely omitted here: the assurance that fees paid by hunters are going to be actually reinvested in the resource to make sure that we do have abundant populations of animals that we can harvest for food purposes.

The second major issue that, again, is completely omitted by this bill is the need to establish population objectives for a variety of wildlife species, particularly those that are under threat, those that are deemed to be at risk. My colleague just mentioned moose populations in northwest B.C., in the Gitanyow territory. Again, a fundamental requirement to manage wildlife populations, it seems to me, is to establish population targets, to do the science to determine what the appropriate targets are and to provide the resources to make sure that we’re trying to meet them. So three fundamental issues this legislation completely ignores.

A good example of legislation that doesn’t ignore these issues was put forward by my colleague, sitting here right next to me, called the Sustainable Wildlife Management Act. It did deal with reinvesting hunting licences back into the resource and setting population objectives for species at risk.

I look forward to committee stage. I do commend the minister for putting forward some, I guess, housekeeping kinds of things — subject to concerns of First Nations. But it really does seem to me that there are fundamental wildlife management issues that aren’t being addressed by this legislation, and it’s a long time overdue.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers for second reading of Bill 5, the hon. Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations closes debate.

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the comments and the input of all who have spoken to the provisions of the bill, the two aspects of it, the Wildfire Act and the Wildlife Act. Certainly, there are some comments that we will address and be prepared to address in committee stage of the bill.

I found it quite interesting, not so much today, but particularly last week, in the first stages of it — lots of comments on many aspects that go far beyond what’s being proposed in the bills. I know that there was probably quite a bit of latitude given in those comments. But the important steps in these bills are really about making sure, first on the Wildfire Act, that we have the provision and the ability to ensure that we can investigate and follow up in those provisions and provide our investigators the time frames to do the job properly and in the time frames with the increasing complexity of fires on the land base.

In the Wildlife Act, there have been lots of comments, particularly today, about the importance of the work that hunters, guide-outfitters and others do in terms of supporting conservation and work on the land base, and we agree with that. That’s the provision, and that’s why these amendments and these steps are being taken: to provide the system and the tools that are modern, that are responsive, that provide base data for enhanced management, enhanced compliance improvements. This is something that the community and the people involved have been asking for and looking for — to bring these processes in place, into a modern, responsive process. We have been doing that on the fishing licences, for example — on-line, electronic processes for fishing licences — for a number of years, and successfully. These provisions here can be brought in successfully as well.

It is recognized that there is going to need to be some additional support for those that may not have access to the on-line processes. Those provisions will be applied, and we can talk about that in more detail in the committee stage. But it’s important to note that these provisions have been developed and led with participation of the user groups in this process. The Guide Outfitters Association, the wildlife association, the bowhunters, the Wildlife Stewardship Council — all of those groups have participated in helping design the system and the workings of the system that these legislative amendments provide for. So it’s something they have been asking for, something that they’ve been looking for.

There will be lots of work to do in terms of implementing and making sure that it works effectively. To bring the process and the system into a modern, responsive process is something that they have advocated for, that they have worked with us on in terms of the technical designs of the system, and something that we need these legislative amendments in place for in order to be able to do and achieve.

As I said, I appreciate the comments and the specific questions that have been asked. We’ll be prepared to address those as we go through the provisions of the bill in committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 5, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading of Bill 2.

[1615]

BILL 2 — ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m pleased to rise today, on the second reading of Bill 2, on behalf of the Minister of Children and Families, who has laryngitis today. For many of our members in the House, we are truly one and the same as we are often confused by many as the same person, so I think it’s fine that I’m here to help support her.

The proposed amendments to the Adoption Act will confirm long-standing practice, that the director of adoption, birth parents and others can find adoptive families in the best interests of the child, no matter where those adoptive families live. They ensure that when a child is voluntarily relinquished for the purposes of adoption, no other person can be awarded joint guardianship of the child with the director of adoption, the administrator of an adoption agency or the Public Guardian and Trustee.

This protects the director from having to share decisions with the joint guardian about, for example, a child’s health care or education or where they reside. It makes sure that such decisions cannot become a part or a source of contention between the guardians that could affect the best interests of the child. This is consistent with the approach to institutional guardianship in the Child, Family and Community Services Act.

The amendments require the director or the administrator to enter into agreements with prospective adoptive parents, inside or outside of British Columbia, when they place the child into their care. This formalizes what is already established practice.

As well, they will remove an unworkable restriction on use and disclosure of personal information — to allow, for example, information to be provided to aboriginal communities so they can plan continuing supports for aboriginal children post-adoption.

These amendments include two retroactive provisions. The first is to confirm the validity of all out-of-province adoptions that have been made under the Adoption Act before these amendments came into effect, so that past adoptions are not destabilized for the children and their adoptive parents. As well, the second is to validate any past uses and disclosures of information which may have contravened the restrictions that we are removing.

I look forward to the comments from the other members.

M. Mark: I’d like to thank the minister opposite for the opening remarks. It’s my pleasure to speak to Bill 2, second reading, with respect to Adoption Amendment Act, 2017.

As the minister recapped, there are a number of provisions that have been made to the law that are being tabled before us, some of which speak about permanency for children to be adopted outside of B.C.; what those standards and approval processes look like for a child to be adopted outside of B.C.; reducing barriers for information-sharing. There are also sections in this act that speak to liability matters. There’s some clarity around what adoptive prospective parents are and caregivers.

There’s a lot of material to digest here, but I guess where I’ll start is to point to the fact that we are talking about, for the most part, children that have been removed from their biological natural parents, that have come into the care of the Ministry of Children and Families. As the Child, Family and Community Services Act guides the ministry, children have a right to permanency. Any efforts that are made to have children have a permanent and stable home, I think are excellent measures that will give children that sense of family and that sense of belonging. There’s no question on this side of the House that we support that sense of permanency.

I guess the questions that came to mind…. There are many — many of which will probably be tabled for the committee stage. When I think about many of the revisions that were made to this act, I’m not sure who the validators were for these amendments, given that there are 1,000 children that are waiting for a permanent home in this province, many of which are indigenous children. There’s an overrepresentation of indigenous children in government care at this moment, just over 7,000 children.

[1620]

My questions are whether or not there was any validation from the First Nations leadership in this province, whether they endorsed the amendments to this act. There’s a question of: why now? What is the urgency to make these amendments to the Adoption Act to allow for children to be adopted outside of the province?

Many of the First Nations indigenous leaders that I know and many of the advocates in the child welfare field and those working in the front lines will agree that it’s important for children to have an opportunity to be close to their extended family. When children are being moved outside of British Columbia to other provinces, the question would be: how is there going to be a connection to their extended family and their next of kin?

Grand Chief Ed John recently released a report on behalf of the Premier. Most of his messaging and his narrative was around repatriation for indigenous children — children to be returning to their family, looking at reunification with their family. I’m curious why there’s such an effort right now, in this session, to be moving forward with adoption for children outside of the province.

I have questions around the standards for the other provinces. We’ve got adoption standards. We’ve got home visits and approval processes for kids to be going into adoptive family homes. We don’t know what the adoption standards are in Nunavut. We don’t know what the adoption standards are in New Brunswick. We don’t know what the adoption standards are in Ontario. We don’t know what the adoption standards are… So those are questions that I have with respect to the standardization and the approval process for kids when they leave this province and move on to another province to be adopted.
[ Page 14104 ]

Again, I did open my remarks to say that I think permanency is very, very important for children that have come into the face of child welfare and have been removed from their families. But I believe that we must exhaust all efforts for children to have an opportunity to be with their family or their extended family — as was raised in a report, for example, that came out of the representative’s office regarding Alex Gervais, where he had an opportunity to be with his family. That opportunity didn’t arise, and instead, he was in foster care.

It would be have been great to see some amendments that strengthened the importance of kids having an opportunity to be with their extended family before being adopted out.

I would be remiss to not mention that the Sixties Scoop had a significant impact on indigenous communities across this province. Again, when I raised the question of whether there were any validators from the First Nations leadership that endorsed the amendments to this act on having children leave British Columbia, the indigenous territories here, or Métis children leaving this province to go to other provinces….

It’s a vast country. I’ve driven across this country twice. It would be very difficult for families to visit their children that have gone into government care, that have been adopted out across the country. There are some flags in that respect.

I want to speak to the minister’s remarks around role clarity. I think it’s important that there is some sense of role clarity between the personal guardian and the property guardian with the public guardian and trustee. I think role clarity is great, and it will strengthen this act.

There are other sections that speak to information-sharing. Grand Chief Ed John had raised in his report, which was called Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification: From Root Causes to Root Solutions…. He had 85 recommendations, one of which was recommendation 12: “MCFD take the following specific actions, including legislative amendments to improve court proceedings relating to child welfare, thus improving access to justice for indigenous children and youth, families and communities.”

[1625]

Some of those changes were made or announced with our recent budget in 2017. But I want to point to the part that says: “The issue of ‘privacy’ has been used by MCFD officials as a reason to deny First Nations and Métis communities access to information, and as such, CFCSA should be amended to clarify, confirm and ensure appropriate First Nations and Métis community leadership have access to information on their children who are in care under CCO” or otherwise.

That is alluded to. I did read the amendments to the act. I did read the press statement that was made. But it’s implied that this information is going to be shared with First Nations and Métis leaders. It is not explicit in the legislation that has been tabled so far. That is a concern, because again we are going to have First Nations leaders in this province running on faith that information is going to be shared with them regarding their children in care.

What was missing…. And speaking of opportunities, there was an opportunity for this government to make some amendments that would strengthen that sense of permanency for indigenous children and for children to be with their families.

I want to pause for a moment. I do seem to be repeating the word “indigenous.” I emphasize that because there is an overrepresentation of First Nations and indigenous children in this province. That sense of stability is so important for their sense of belonging and their opportunity to thrive. We support adoptions, and we support that sense of permanency, but we must acknowledge those cultural variables that are distinct to some of the indigenous populations in this province.

With that being said, Grand Chief Ed John said in recommendation 48 that the province “commit to the creation of an indigenous custom adoption registry for indigenous children and youth, such as those models existing in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories” and that B.C. amend the Adoption Act to “provide a mechanism, such as a custom adoption registrar, to register indigenous custom adoptions.”

I’m always a curious person. I wonder why those amendments weren’t made to this law that is being tabled before us in Bill 2. I gather that we’ll get some of that information at the committee stage.

Another recommendation from Grand Chief Ed John’s report wasn’t upheld in this opportunity: that the province “commit to legislative amendments in order to provide support for customary care options to be developed” and ensure that funding support is available for that customary care. That’s in recommendation 50.

I think there is an opportunity here that may have been missed by the government to make a stronger case for that permanency for children in care as they transition to adoption. There wasn’t consultation, as far as I’m concerned, that I’m aware of, over the last few days, with the indigenous community — that they support these amendments. And I’m not quite certain that there was actually any endorsement from the Representative for Children and Youth Act.

There may have been consultation with the Representative for Children and Youth, but I’m not entirely clear whether or not the representative supports these amendments. I would gather, given the representative’s advocacy for the last ten years, looking to forever families, that the representative probably would have suggested that the government could have taken these amendments a step further.

I’m going to go back to the bill. There’s some role clarity in here, which is great. There’s some discussion around sharing information. I do want to go back to pointing
[ Page 14105 ]
out that I looked through every single text and I didn’t see the words “First Nations” or “indigenous” whatsoever.

I just wonder, again, thinking about the overrepresentation of indigenous children in foster care at this moment, why the government didn’t consider making it explicit to connect with the First Nations or the Métis National Council with respect to adoption of a child — not just in B.C. but most certainly if a child is leaving B.C. to go to another province. To me, that would have strengthened this act. Again, I think it’s a missed the opportunity here.

We can’t forget that we are talking about peoples’ lives. We’re talking about the government which takes children into its care. They assume the legal authority of children. They become the prudent parent. They are transferring, abdicating, their duty and passing it onto another individual, whether it’s an agency or another person of interest. I would hope that we have the utmost highest standards to know that children are leaving this province, into another province, in good hands. It’s not clear from this legislation how this government is going to do that.

[1630]

I know that there are workload issues before us, as it is, with social workers. I’m not sure if they’re going to go out to these other provinces and inspect the homes that these children are being adopted from in B.C. and going to throughout the rest of the country.

I have some questions around the logistics of carrying out this transfer of duty. Again, I will underscore that we were talking about children and young people and having trust or faith that the other authorities are going to do that due diligence, that they’re going to make sure that these kids…. Let’s say, for example, a child is here in B.C. We know what the home looks like in Ontario. We know that that child has access to a loving family. We know that all the background checks were done. We have all the confidence that due process was followed and that due diligence was followed. I hope we can get into some of this as we move into committee.

I notice, as well…. I look to the amendments that were made in this act. A lot of it refers to…. I’ll just use some of the wording here: “Authorization, non-contravention, immunity from legal action and validation — non-resident adoptive parent.”

Now, I guess the only thing I want to flag — again, we’ll speak to it when we get to committee — is that the bulk of the text in these amendments refers to liability. Yes, these are big decisions that we’re making when it comes down to children, but we shouldn’t be worried about being held accountable after the fact. When we are transferring guardianship of children from government care, we should be confident that…. There shouldn’t be any reason that there will be recourse after the fact because we’ve taken all the necessary steps to make sure that kids are safe.

I’m going to conclude shortly. I’ve got some colleagues that are going to stand up and speak to the bill. But, again, I would just ask: why are we making these changes? What’s driving the amendments to this act, as we speak, in 2017, just before an election, just after a huge report was released from the Grand Chief that talked about repatriation and reunification? I’m very curious to know what those on the front line feel and think about the amendments to this act and how this government could have taken it a step further.

I would add that as I reviewed some of the legislation, I saw mention of the “best interests” of children, without looking to the fact that children have a right to permanency, which is a part of this act. They also have a right to their culture. There was no mention of culture in the amendments to this act.

With that, I look forward to moving on to committee. I thank the minister opposite for the opportunity to speak to the issue of permanency for children in our care, and I look forward to our conversation later.

L. Reimer: All children deserve the comfort and the security of a forever home. I speak from the heart. I was adopted as a child, and I benefited from all the comforts and security that a forever home offers. My adoptive parents, Norma and Bill, brought me into their family at such an early age that I have no memories of being adopted, but I always knew that I was adopted into a loving, warm and stable home. So, too, was my younger brother Bob. But it should be noted that my adoptive parents had to undergo a rather long and frustrating process, at the time, for both my brother and me to be a part of their family. Hence the purpose of this bill.

The amendments to the B.C. Adoption Act will provide for new and permanent family ties for waiting children in care. Proposed amendments to the act under Bill 2 will confirm and clarify established adoption policy in British Columbia. Once enacted, the amendments will ensure that out-of-province adoptions can be considered, where it is in the best interests of the child, and can confirm the B.C. director of adoption’s role as the sole guardian of a child in care to streamline the adoption process and modify restrictions on the sharing of personal information obtained under the Adoption Act. This includes information-sharing with indigenous communities to support aboriginal children post-adoption.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This amendment is in line with recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John’s report on indigenous child welfare. With respect to aboriginal children, the provincial government consulted with all treaty First Nations on these amendments.

[1635]

By experience, we know that many aboriginal children are connected to family and communities that are outside of B.C. Current legislation, as it is now interpreted by the
[ Page 14106 ]
court, unfortunately, prevents aboriginal children from being placed with family or their aboriginal community outside of B.C., even if it is in the child’s best interest. The amendments contained in this legislation will help rectify this situation.

The amendments contained in Bill 2 may effect aboriginal children in two positive ways. First, they will provide the flexibility to place children in their best interest. This includes aboriginal children for adoption with family members inside or outside of British Columbia.

Secondly, the amendments will also allow information to be disclosed to an aboriginal community for post-adoption planning. This is an important consideration. It should be noted that section 29(3) of the Adoption Act still requires that to apply to a B.C. court for an adoption order, each applicant must be a resident of B.C. Currently all provinces and territories except for Quebec are signatories to the Provincial/Territorial Protocol on Children, Youth and Families Moving Between Provinces and Territories. This encourages cooperation between jurisdictions all across Canada.

The protocol also includes specific provisions relating to interprovincial and territorial adoptions and post-adoptive services. At the moment, approximately 25 children are affected, where the adoptive families are outside B.C. Once these amendments take effect, each of these placements can proceed.

In addition, the amendments also contain a retroactive validation clause that validates the more than 130 adoption placements made outside of British Columbia since 1997. This ensures the stability of these adoptions so they cannot be legally challenged.

It might also interest this House to know that the provincial government launched a new adoption website last fall. Since then, Adopt B.C. Kids has attracted dozens of adoptive families, just weeks after going live, all with the aim to provide more loving homes for B.C.’s waiting children. Launched on October 31, 2016, the new user-friendly system lets prospective adoptive parents manage their application on line. This has the effect of allowing adoption workers to help find the right family match faster for waiting children.

The Adopt B.C. Kids portal is the first of its kind in Canada. No other jurisdiction has an automatic computerized system that captures all children available for adoption and all families applying to adopt, all in one database. It allows parents to track where they are in the process and what documents have been received by the ministry so they can better understand next steps. This is a rather reassuring element. If you’ve ever been involved in the process of an adoption, it can be an emotionally exhausting experience. Having these tools and information at hand provides tremendous assurance to both prospective parents and adoptees.

It should also be noted that many of the children and youth still waiting for adoption are school-aged. They may also be siblings who need to stay together. Some may have special placement needs due to difficult early childhood experiences, prenatal exposure to alcohol or drugs — including learning delays or other developmental challenges. However, our on-line technology improves adoption information and support for future families. This moves us closer to our goal of finding homes for all of B.C.’s waiting children.

The facts speak for themselves. There are approximately 1,000 children in B.C. waiting for the stability and care of an adoptive family. This includes teenagers and those with special needs and sibling groups. I’m pleased to report that since the launch of B.C.’s new on-line adoption site, hundreds of prospective adoptive families have signed up for Adopt B.C. Kids.

We also know that adoptive parents in British Columbia come from very diverse backgrounds. But they also share one thing in common: a strong desire to provide a safe, warm and forever home for children who deserve a family. I look back at my own experience and have a great deal of admiration for my adoptive parents. I’m so grateful for the opportunities they provided me and my brother Bob. I would urge anyone considering adoption to look up our on-line resources or call 1-877-ADOPT-07.

For all of the reasons outlined above, I’m pleased to support Bill 2, the Adoption Amendment Act, 2017.

[1640]

J. Rice: I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill 2, the Adoption Amendment Act of 2017.

As the member previous to me just said, at any given time there are approximately 1,000 British Columbian children waiting to be adopted, which is a lot of children. I appreciate the government’s efforts to put some energy and resources into the adoptions file. I had the opportunity to canvass the Minister of Children and Families last year. She recounted that she felt that that was the most thorough canvass she’d ever had on adoptions, in fact. It just spoke to the fact that we have not spent much time focusing on adoptions in B.C., so I do applaud the government’s recent efforts.

The Adoption Amendment Act, 2017, Bill 2, proposes a variety of changes to the Adoption Act. I understand the intent is to ensure that when a child is relinquished for adoption into the care of the director of adoption, the director is the sole guardian of that child and no other guardians can be appointed, and that the director has the ability to place children for adoption in homes that will be in their best interest, whether inside or outside of the province.

I clearly support that we address the best interests of a child wherever that may be. But again, we’ll be raising some concerns and have questions at later stages of this bill debate — on the security of that and the privacy issues around adopting children outside of British
[ Page 14107 ]
Columbia and essentially relinquishing our responsibility as a province.

The bill also makes a number of changes to information-sharing procedures as well as more thoroughly laying out court procedure for court revoking consent of a child’s adoption. I understand the intent for information-sharing is to allow, for example, sharing with indigenous communities to support aboriginal children post-adoption in line with the recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John’s report, Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification: From Root Causes to Root Solutions, that was released last year.

I wanted to talk to the importance of permanency. I think on both sides of the House we agree to the importance of finding permanency for children in care. I represent a riding that has nearly half the population being First Nations or of aboriginal descent, and the amount of children that we see in British Columbia and, in particular, in my riding that are in care is way too high. Sixty percent of the children in care are First Nations, yet First Nations people only make up 5 to 6 percent of our entire population.

I was listening to a podcast on the plane on the way here last night, listening to indigenous youth who had…. I wanted to say suffer. That is harsh terminology, but in their minds, they had suffered through the child welfare system in British Columbia.

There’s so much that we could do in the prevention of children getting into care and, hence, needing adoption in the first place — if we invested in the supports that families need in order for family units to stay together versus children being surrendered or apprehended into the child welfare system and subsequently being placed for adoption.

I know, in my community, families that are being punished for being poor. I think that we could do these families so much justice. I know children that have been apprehended because their families can’t pay their hydro bill and, hence, are not providing a safe environment for their children to live in.

[1645]

If we’d helped a family with their hydro bill, the heat would stay on, the environment would be acceptable and these kids would stay with their families. Instead, because someone’s being punished for being poor, their children have been apprehended by the province and are spending years, if not their entire childhood, in the child foster system.

We know that the child foster system…. We’ve done a really bad job of the next steps to permanency in British Columbia. We know kids have spent their entire lives in foster care, and the option of adoption has never come to the table, part of the reason being that front-line social workers are so overworked, overburdened, and that the amount of energy and resources allocated towards adoptions is so minimal compared to other aspects of the Ministry of Children and Families.

We know of…. Well, I know of speaking with MCFD workers in the communities that I represent that have the responsibility for managing child welfare as well as adoptions. Those managers have been telling me that adoptions sits at the side of their desk. It’s the edge of their desk. They don’t get to it because they have crises to deal with, and the crises are the priorities. But we know, from at least 16 years of this B.C. Liberal government, that we’ve had 16 years of crisis — so 16 years of the adoptions files sitting on the edge of social workers’ and social worker managers’ desks.

It’s interesting, now, that some attention is being focused on adoptions. Again, I do applaud that. I do have some concerns about: why is this coming up now? It appears to me to be rushed, considering that in the day and age of truth and reconciliation, we know how important it is to consult aboriginal people in British Columbia. I understand that no one from the UBCIC or the First Nations Summit was consulted, and no one from the Assembly of First Nations.

Nor was the Representative for Children and Youth consulted on this bill, which I seriously question, considering we have had such a robust representative — or representative’s office. I know that we now have a new representative in that position. For over the last decade, we’ve had such a vigorous Representative for Children and Youth Office, which has produced two reports on adoptions — Finding Forever Families…. Or Finding Forever Homes. I apologize for not recalling the report correctly. Most importantly, the Representative for Children and Youth has had so much to say on this file that it would seem prudent that they would be consulted and included in any discussion before putting such a bill forward.

Hopefully, it’s not too late. Hopefully, the various First Nations organizations that this bill would impact will be consulted in the near future and part of the deliberations on making any amendments to the Adoption Act.

Again, I guess I would just like to reiterate that I appreciate the focus on adoptions, but I really do think we need to put energy and resources in the prevention. Adopting children should be the last resort. We know that there’s permanency in many, many forms that you could be examining and putting resources and energy towards before we get to the adoptions stage. Primarily — just speaking to the family that had their children apprehended because they couldn’t afford heat, couldn’t afford their hydro bills — I think putting energies towards those families. We could offer them a little bit of help yet make a world of difference in their lives. This is the kind of energy I would like to see this government make.

[1650]

I think I’ll leave it at that. I look forward to further deliberations on the bill and digging deep into the details. There are quite a few questions left unanswered that our opposition spokesperson for Children and Families had
[ Page 14108 ]
highlighted that I would like to echo as well and look forward to those details.

Hon. S. Anton: There is nothing more important for children than to have a permanent, loving home. It makes an extraordinary difference in their lives, in their day-to-day happiness, in their long-term happiness and in their long-term ability to be successful at school and to have healthy lives.

This Adoption Amendment Act deals with one of the key aspects of the different ways children may be adopted: the importance of giving the director the option of an out-of-province adoption. It’s not always the first choice, and it’s not necessarily a best choice, but sometimes it is a very good choice, and sometimes it is the right choice for that child. That’s why it’s so important that the director be given that ability.

Some of the different pieces of this have been addressed by my colleagues, but I’m going to discuss the issue of aboriginal children in care because this is such a significant issue in British Columbia. It’s a responsibility undertaken by the Ministry of Children and Family Development to change the dynamic of the number of aboriginal children in care, and it has significant involvement by my ministry, the Ministry of Justice.

The thing about this issue is that the stars are really aligned to make significant changes in the number of aboriginal children in care and their future. Right now there are about 7,200 children in care, and about 60 percent of them are aboriginal. Of course, we can all tell that that is a number vastly disproportionate to the number of aboriginal children in the overall population.

But what are the stars that are lined up? They are these.

About a year ago there was a children and family gathering where aboriginal groups, communities and families came together with different government agencies and put their heads together about how you could help kids in care.

We have the extremely important report by Grand Chief Ed John. What I particularly liked about Grand Chief Ed John’s report was that he dealt with the issues in a clear way and in not necessarily a very formal way, but he went straight to: what are good solutions? What are positive ways that we can put our heads together and deal with this issue? It’s for that reason, the number of recommendations that he made that are pragmatic recommendations, recommendations that can be dealt with, recommendations that we can all work on together for improving the dynamic of all those aboriginal children in care….

We have an initiative of the Legal Services Society, and that’s legal aid. Legal aid we asked to do many things. They deliver traditional legal aid, but we have asked them in the last few years to take on innovation. One of the innovative projects they have is called the Parents Legal Centre, right now situated in Robson Square, but we expect and hope that it will be expanding around British Columbia.

The Parents Legal Centre is where legal counsel represent the family of a child possibly coming into care, to find a good solution for that child. Can you help the parents? Can you find a family member? Can you find somewhere else for that child to go where they will get help? Can you get the parents to get themselves the kind of help that they need so that they can have the care of their child resumed? That is an extremely helpful and innovative project of the Legal Services Society — good legal representation for parents.

We have a commitment by the judiciary. The judiciary of British Columbia led by Chief Judge Tom Crabtree is extremely interested in justice and in justice for children. And how do you achieve that? Not necessarily by court processes, but by finding creative processes that put parties together and put people who can think about these things together and find better solutions. For example, very recently, with the Minister of Children and Families, I attended the aboriginal family court conference project in New Westminster.

[1655]

This is a project where First Nations elders help out with the thinking around the right solution for this particular child — again, creative solutions, helpful solutions and advice from a much broader community so that they can find the best solution for the child who is in question at that point.

We also have a family mediation project around British Columbia. The other day, in Kamloops, I was able to meet some of the mediators. These lawyers — in this case, mediators — help out, finding a solution for the individual child.

Everybody’s heart is in the right place on this. There is so much creative thinking going on in British Columbia around this issue that I do believe that the numbers will change. The fact that 60 percent of the children in care are aboriginal — that number will change. There are so many people, as I said, working hard to reduce that proportion.

Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding that the number of kids in care has very significantly reduced in the last few years, at the end of the day, there are children who are brought into care. Those children in permanent care do need permanency. About 1,000 children in British Columbia right now are needing that permanent care. Again, very significant work by the Ministry of Children and Family Development to find permanency for those children. Very significant outreach to find prospective adoptive parents, to find homes for those kids. Whether they be infants, whether they be five, whether they be ten, or whether they be older than that, every child deserves a permanent home.

I do really compliment both the staff and the Minister of Children and Family Development in working so hard to bring to the attention of British Columbia parents and
[ Page 14109 ]
British Columbia families the fact that they might themselves be adoptive parents. This year, for example, they are on goal to placing 6,000 children into permanent care. That is a number much bigger than any number in the past, and it’s a demonstration of the very significant efforts that are being made.

But there are cases where the best home for that child is out of province. It may be because it’s an extended family outside of British Columbia. It may be that there’s a sibling outside of British Columbia where the child should go to be with their sibling. There may be other circumstances. But the director does need to have the ability to place children outside of British Columbia.

A few of the members opposite have asked: “Why now?” There’s a pretty straightforward answer to that. The answer is that there was recently a court decision which questioned the act itself and, in fact, decided that the act did not permit, in its current form, the adoption of children outside of British Columbia. Clearly, it’s a practice that has been engaged in for some time now. I suppose one choice would be to appeal the court, or the other choice would be simply to clarify the act. The choice government has made is to clarify the act.

It does two things. It allows children to be placed outside of British Columbia, in the appropriate circumstances, into their permanent homes. It also confirms that for children who have been placed in out-of-province adoptions, those adoptions are validly made. In other words, given that the courts said that the act didn’t actually allow this, this retroactively goes back and fixes and makes sure that the adoptions which have been made out of province are confirmed to be proper adoptions.

This is an ambitious goal. Across government and across agencies in British Columbia, across First Nations in British Columbia, it’s to find permanent homes for kids who need permanent homes, who are not able to go back into their parents’ homes. The 600 children that they’re aiming to place this year is ambitious, and it is the right thing to do: find homes for children. We all know how important it is for children to have loving homes. Sometimes those loving homes will be outside of British Columbia. This act, this amendment act, allows that to happen, creates the authority for that to happen. When that is the best circumstance, that is the right thing to do.

Therefore, I am confirming my support for Bill 2 and the very important piece it puts on the possibility of adoption of children into loving homes, which might not be in the province of British Columbia.

[1700]

M. Karagianis: I’m speaking to this bill today because I do have a number of questions. I do know that the other members from this side of the House, especially the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, have put forward some of these concerns, but I did want to just echo my concerns.

Having sat on the Children and Youth Committee for quite a number of years, I know the importance of adoption legislation. Certainly, I have no opposition to the government’s attempts to move forward and try and improve the outcome for children who have been in care, but I do have a number of concerns and questions about this legislation. I am particularly interested in a couple of aspects here. I know that there will be a chance in committee stage to ask more detailed questions clause by clause.

I certainly feel that, in some ways, this is a bit of a reactionary piece of legislation to events that have taken place. I’m particularly interested in some of the consultation processes that were missed out of this, and I want to speak to that a little bit.

I also notice that these changes are being made retroactively, some of them for an incredible period of time. That is unusual in this place. Generally, we enact legislation that takes effect into the future. Occasionally we enact legislation that is immediately put into law. But it’s very odd to have retroactive legislation of this nature. That does lead me to questions that I have about why we have felt it necessary to reach so far backward in time. One would assume it’s because we are dealing with very specific cases that have been the impetus for some of the language in this. I’m not entirely sure why some of this legislation is retroactive.

I note that some changes are being made retroactive to January 16, 2006, which seems an extraordinary length of time to go back in time. So I’m very curious as to why, what the rationale is behind that.

It says here that these changes would be restricting court action against those who have contravened the current rules. That seems like one of those little back-to-the-future kinds of twists in logic. We’re going to put in effect retroactive legislation that reaches back ten years to restrict court action against legislation that we’re making happen currently. That really is a bit of an odd aspect of this legislation.

I don’t know what the rationale is for that, and I would certainly be looking to the government to explain why it is necessary to go back ten years. What exactly has occurred in that time frame that the government feels has to be captured in this legislation? That’s very curious to me. I’m not sure I have heard from the other side…. In the few moments that I heard some remarks from the other side, I haven’t heard any clarity around that.

Now, I know that the government has offered a briefing on this, but that doesn’t occur till tomorrow. Certainly, those members who sit in on that briefing, and our representative who is the spokesperson in opposition for those files, will have more to say and will have more understanding about some of this tomorrow. It makes it very difficult if you haven’t had a briefing already. I’m sure that there will be many other questions that arise from that.

I know that there are some concerns here around privacy issues, and I’d like some clarity on that as well be-
[ Page 14110 ]
fore I will take a position on this bill. Hopefully, that will come either from the briefing tomorrow or in the process of debate here or perhaps will be demonstrated in committee stage.

I am very concerned about the lack of consultation, both with the children’s representative and with First Nations groups.

[1705]

Now, the children’s representative has been a very ardent supporter of adoption and has been for a very long time. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has been very clear about her support for adoption. It would seem to me that lacking a consultation directly with the children’s representative is a very, very curious factor in this. We do have a new children’s representative as well. So it would be, I think, incumbent upon government to have the view of both the previous representative as well as the current representative. The lack of consultation there is, for me, a bit disturbing. I’m not sure why. I don’t understand what the explanation for that would be.

Certainly, lack of consultation from First Nations groups, which we have heard — that is a very grave concern. This House is very familiar with the fact that the First Nations community is disproportionately represented in children in care. And we have all kinds of history that has shown us the folly of embarking on paths for adoption that don’t have appropriate consultation and support of those communities.

There has been a huge nationwide consultation process going on here under the Truth and Reconciliation hearings. One of the pieces that has been discussed coming out of that is the number of children who were taken away from First Nations families, were adopted out to non–First Nations families and were, in fact, disconnected from their communities — from their roots, from their heritage, and all of that. That has been a great source of controversy and much discussion on what happened in the past — the great Sixties Scoop, as it was called.

It would seem to me that if anything, the government would want to go all the way or further in consulting with First Nations to ensure that we are not, at some time in the future here, going to be accused of moving ahead and making decisions and putting in effect legislation that had problems, that had later resulted in historic wrongs. The fact that the legislation feels empowered to reach back ten years around some aspects of this says to me that there is some sensitivity there, and I would certainly think that the lack of thorough and supported consultation with First Nations is a failing. I’m very concerned about that.

The Assembly of First Nations, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit — these are all important organizations to consult in the process of this. There is certainly some statement in this legislation that says there will be more information-sharing. If that is, at this point, without consultation in the front end, then I’m not sure exactly what this information-sharing is. That really sort of smacks to me of the same kind of situation that we have found this country guilty of in the past to First Nations.

Reading the Truth and Reconciliation report, which I undertook to do formally with the commission, is deeply disturbing and shows such a lack of humanity in the way those children and their families and their culture and their history were treated. The Sixties Scoop is very much part of that same conversation. So it would seem to me that this is not really about information-sharing with indigenous communities. After the fact or beside the fact, there needs to be deep and true and meaningful consultation. I’m concerned that I don’t see that in the forefront of this.

I think that’s fairly evident by the fact that we don’t see a lot of validators coming forward. I don’t see praise pouring out of First Nations communities to say: “Yes, this is absolutely what we want. This legislation speaks directly to the concerns we have had historically or that we have currently.” I don’t see that, so it makes me very curious about this bill. Not having a briefing for our opposition spokesperson makes it really difficult to try and guess and surmise why some of these things have been overlooked in the legislation. That concerns me gravely.

[1710]

When you don’t have a lot of validators coming forward, then you have to say to yourself: “Is there something missing? Is this an attempt to quickly put something before the public that has a lot of problems that will have to be dealt with later, so try and just get this legislation on the docket here two weeks before or three weeks before this House rises and we go into an election?” I don’t know. I don’t see this as an election kind of vote-getting question. But I certainly am very disappointed and concerned about the lack of true consultation.

I mean, in contrast to having no validators, I also haven’t heard a lot of opponents. That could be simply because it is a part of a necessary story here around finding forever homes for children who have been under ministry care. I think that’s all very laudable. It’s the kind of goal that we would all strive for as guardians of and protectors of the children that are in the care of this government. But no validators and no opponents makes me say….

Generally, legislation has a lot more meat to it and has a lot more obvious political end goal or legislative end goal or good public policy end goal. I’m not sure I see that. It seems to me there are a lot of components missing in this.

Further, the fact that Grand Chief Ed John has done some work and made a recommendation to amend the Adoption Act to provide a mechanism, such as custom adoption and registration, to register indigenous custom adoptions similar to models in Nunavut and Northwest Territories…. That was actually an excellent recommendation. When I heard this bill was coming through, I assumed that’s what was going to be in it. I thought: “That’s what they’re going to do. They’re going to follow the
[ Page 14111 ]
recommendation that came from Grand Chief Ed John.” But in fact, this legislation doesn’t do that at all.

Once again, you say: “Why have we floated forward a piece of legislation that doesn’t quite make the mark?” It doesn’t hit all the points that we assumed it would, coming out of Grand Chief Ed John’s report.

I’m not sure why it’s retroactive. I’m not sure why it’s retroactive ten years back. I’d like an explanation of that.

I don’t know why the children’s representative wasn’t properly consulted. I’d like an explanation for that. I don’t know why there hasn’t been more deep and meaningful consultation with First Nations. I’d like an explanation for that.

I don’t know why they missed the mark completely on the recommendation that came from Grand Chief Ed John around a registrar, a registration for indigenous custom adoptions. This is the very kind of thing that you’d expect to be in this legislation. I don’t see an explanation for that. If we’ve missed the very thing that First Nations feel is really important in part of this adoption process, then….

I don’t think I understand what the political thrust of this would be. Often, if you can’t understand the public policy aspect of this or just legislatively it seems weak, then you say to yourself: “Well, there must be a political end goal in this, especially just before an election.” I don’t even see that here.

It seems to me that without a briefing, without proper information, with so many gaping holes in this and with, literally, page after page of questions on each and every section, it is very difficult to support or not support this bill. I don’t know enough about it, one way or the other.

I would hope that there will be clarity at some point from the House, either from members of the other house…. I heard the Justice Minister seeming to have a lot of information about some aspects of this or information about something around adoptions. So many things you hear from the other side of the House seem to be all feel-good conversations and no real substance.

I’m concerned. I have stood in this House before and seen legislation that somehow was a day late and a penny short on what it should really deliver. I’m a bit worried about this being the same kind of thing. Until I hear more, until I’ve heard a bit more in the committee stage, I will not be supporting or opposing this.

I sure want to hear some answers. Hopefully, the other side can provide some clarity in the course of this discussion, this debate on this legislation. But certainly in committee stage, hopefully, we can tease out some answers, and if not some answers, then at least it will help guide us forward in how we vote on this.

[1715]

Hon. M. Morris: I stand to support this bill.

You know, I hear the member opposite speaking about the urgency behind this and why we didn’t include a number of the recommendations from the Grand Chief Ed John report. There were a lot of recommendations in that report that we fully endorse, but there’s a lot of comprehensive work that needs to be done in order to prepare some of the changes required to address those.

The legislation, this bill, that’s before the House right now simply clarifies the processes that we’ve already been undertaking for a number of years now — ten years prior and into the future. It was brought to our attention as a result of the court case that the Attorney had referenced when she was up speaking before this House, before the last speaker. It clarifies the process so that we can move ahead with this. The ultimate goal is to ensure that we do everything within our power to provide a real home for these children that so desperately require that.

I go back to a story — I’ve related it in this House before — one that still impacts my heart and that I’ll remember till the day I die. A young girl in a community I worked in had been brought there to live with relatives, relocated there for reasons. I first ran into her as a constable patrolling the community late at night, and I found her wandering the street at about two o’clock in the morning, a 14-year-old girl.

I stopped, picked her up — a very nice, pleasant young lady — and talked to her. I asked her where she lived. I hadn’t seen her in their community before, and I’d been policing that community for a couple years by this time. She told me where she lived, and I took her home and walked her to the door. A lady came and identified herself as the guardian and an aunt in the extended family for this young girl. I turned her over to the lady and went back to work and finished my shift.

I consulted with social services two or three days later, to find out if I could find any information on her. They assured me that she had been placed with this particular family for reasons that they didn’t disclose to me. It just so happened that I ended up picking this young lady up two or three more times over a course of three or four months. Same thing — just wandering aimlessly at night all by herself. She wasn’t intoxicated. She wasn’t addicted to alcohol or drugs.

I chit-chatted with her quite a bit. I always took her home and had a pleasant discussion. She never disclosed anything to me that raised my suspicion at all. I did check with her teacher. She was going to school, and I knew a couple of the teachers that she had. I checked with them, and they said that she was a very bright student. She was in class on a regular basis, and she contributed to the class, but she was withdrawn at the same time — so some concern. I was watching her from the corner of my eye, along with all the other work and whatnot that I had there.

One night I was sitting in my house — I lived perhaps two or three kilometres from the centre of this particular village — and I saw a shadow out in the bush, across from my kitchen window. My wife was concerned. So I quietly left the house downstairs, and I snuck up around and into the bush. This shadow was this young lady.
[ Page 14112 ]

When I came up to her, she just sat there and looked at me, and she started crying. I brought her down to the house, and she pleaded with my wife and me to adopt her. She said: “Please let me live in your house, and please adopt me.” I was taken aback, and my wife was taken aback. We’d been married for a couple of years by this time, and our boys hadn’t arrived yet.

I reassured her that everything would be okay, and I contacted the social worker, and they placed her back in this particular house that she had been living with. I got into a bit of a discussion with the social services at that time and found out that she had been moved because of issues in another community, and she went to live with an extended family.

It was shortly after that, perhaps a week or two after that particular situation, when I got called to a suicide. It was this young girl that had committed suicide. It was heartbreaking.

[1720]

During the course of the investigation, I found out that she had been sexually abused by her relatives in another community. They had moved her to live with an extended family, and she had been sexually abused by every male in her family, continually, for years. We had no idea that it had been taking place. The agency that was looking after her had no idea that that was taking place.

The society has changed. The laws have changed. Our oversight of these kinds of situations has changed significantly since this situation happened, and we’ve learned from that, but we need to do more. We need to do everything within our power to provide these young children the opportunity to go and live and stay with somebody that is going to protect them.

As males in society, we have an obligation to provide a safe environment for the women in our life, the vulnerable people in our life. This is going to take us in that step. The recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John are going to take us in that direction. But we need to — all of us — have the oar in the water to push us in that direction.

We don’t have a political agenda here with this. We’re simply clarifying a process that has already been in place for a number of years now to make the adoption legal. It was identified by a judge, and we’re just correcting that particular deficiency in that.

We need to do more. We always realize that. As we adjust things and move forward, we find other things that we need to adjust and fix. It puts us in a better position to correct some of the deficiencies that we have in the system.

Police officers are front-line workers. We see all kinds of tragedies. We see all kinds of issues that we need to step into. We establish a very close relationship with a lot of the vulnerable people that are out there. We know who they are. We. I still speak as if I’m a police officer, and I guess that will never leave.

But police officers have that personal establishment. They establish that personal relationship with a lot of the vulnerable people in those communities and do everything they can to try and help them out and place them into situations where they can do better. They work collectively with the social services. They work collectively with everybody, and everybody, together, is trying to make life easier for these people.

Police officers, social workers and everybody that’s working on this need the support of the legislation and the regulations that are there to help them out and to move them in this direction. That’s all that this bill is. It’s clarifying some of the processes to make it easier to move in that direction and provide a real home, a real permanent home, for the vulnerable people that we have out there, our children.

The ministry has gone a long way in the last couple of years to enhance it. We’ve been able to find permanent homes for a lot of the children out there, and hopefully, we’ll find more permanent homes for the children that are out there and make life a lot better for them.

I support this bill. I support all the work that both sides of the House can do to make life easier for children and to find permanent homes for them and get them out of the life that is so devastating to so many of them.

D. Donaldson: I rise to take my place in second reading debate of Bill 2, the Adoption Amendment Act. I have some general comments, which are appropriate for second reading of the bill. I’m going to focus my comments on two areas of the bill. One is the rules around adoptions outside of B.C. The second will deal with the recommendations of Grand Chief Ed John, who has been invoked by a number of the speakers on the government side.

I first want to say I’m sorry that the minister couldn’t introduce this second reading debate today. I understand that she has laryngitis, so I hope she recovers well. I’m sure she’ll be monitoring the comments at second reading.

The rules around and the provisions for allowing adoptions outside of B.C. are a part of the amendments. I believe, and the evidence shows, that these amendments around the rules around adopting outside of B.C. are directly in relation to a very troublesome case that arose last year in a case called S.S., a young Métis child, a female.

[1725]

The facts behind the case, again, are very troubling. I met with the birth mother myself, and then the deputy critic of Children and Family met with the adoptive mother and a leader from the Métis association and, at that time, the foster mother.

We met with them because at that point the government was in the process of pursuing an avenue where this child…. She had been with the foster parents since birth and was now…. Well, by the time the case was over, she was three years old. At that time, she was 26 months. It was going to remove the child from the foster parents and
[ Page 14113 ]
place S.S. with her Métis siblings in a family in Ontario, a non-Métis family.

It brought up all sorts of questions. The birth mother, who was Métis, wasn’t in favour and spoke out in the media saying that she wasn’t in favour of this move. The foster parents that were fighting this in the courts — although they were not Métis, they had been very active in trying to connect this young girl, S.S., with Métis culture. In fact, at one point they were being told that they were prohibited from doing that, according to the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

It brought up questions around the non-Métis parents in Ontario who had the siblings of this young girl and the placement of S.S. with the siblings. In fact, at one point, the Métis leadership who was involved in this expressed to me concern around how, originally, S.S.’s Métis siblings were placed with a non-Métis family in Ontario, so far from B.C.

This, perhaps, is why we see in this bill the provisions that changes around court decisions regarding adoptions outside of the province are going to be…. The new rules will be made retroactive to January 16, 2006. We’ll find out more about this at committee stage. But it seems to me that in this case…. Again, we don’t know the reasons that the ministry wanted to remove this child.

You can imagine a child, the bonding…. I mean, all studies show that within the first three years, there’s an incredible influence on the child’s mental development and attachment. The ministry’s decision must have been overwhelming reasons for taking this young Métis girl away from her foster parents, who did want to adopt, and placing her with her siblings, who she had never met, with a non-Métis couple in Ontario.

That, I believe, is why this retroactive part of the amendment is there and, also, the criteria for allowing adoptions out of B.C. in the bill. It’s unfortunate because…. We’ll find out through the committee stage why these provisions were put in place, but I’m hoping that we’ll also get to the bottom of the case. It ended up that the young Métis girl was taken away from the only parents she had ever known since birth.

Also in here, in this Bill 2, there are some provisions around information-sharing with indigenous communities to support aboriginal children post-adoption and in information-sharing generally. I hope that that will lead to a better understanding of why the ministry conducted themselves the way they did, under the authority….

[1730]

Of course, the buck stops at the top, under the authority of the minister. If the information-sharing provisions of this Bill 2 can actually lead to getting some answers, that would be good. I believe that we’ve heard too many times the minister hiding behind the act, saying that she legally can’t comment. If the information-sharing provisions in this act lead to a little less of that and a little bit more transparency, then that’s good.

You recall the case with the death of Nick Lang, when even the parents wanted to talk more publicly and talk about that case. They were threatened with legal action by the Ministry of Justice — that they might be contravening the justice act for youth.

I think that we have a number of examples here of the rationale behind some of the provisions in this bill. I just hope that we can talk about them more at committee stage, so we know that we can get more answers, not more curtains, especially in the case of S.S., the Métis child.

The second area I’d like to address is some of the recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John in his report, Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Reunification: From Root Causes to Root Solutions, because his name has been invoked by the minister who introduced Bill 2. Grand Chief Ed John provided this report, yet we don’t see evidence under this Bill 2 of any consultation being done with any of the major provincial First Nations organizations — including the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Summit — on the new provisions that are being proposed.

I would think that the government might have learned a little bit from their experience with the Plecas report, with Bob Plecas, in that consultation is important. I mean, they had to back off a number of the recommendations Mr. Plecas made that didn’t seem to have a grounding in reality. In fact, he would not release the research information he had conducted, apparently, to come up with these conclusions to the Representative for Children and Youth, so we’re unsure where some of them came from.

I thought the government would have learned from that, because Mr. Plecas also invoked Grand Chief Ed John’s name in his report and said he’ll take care of anything to do with the indigenous aspect of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which puts a lot on one person’s shoulders. I thought that the ministry would therefore want to consult a little bit more widely with First Nations organizations when it came to these fairly significant provisions in Bill 2.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I think what we’ve learned from the government is that…. For instance, in the case of Grand Chief John’s report, there are 85 recommendations. This government often treats reports from indigenous leaders or the Representative for Children and Youth as a buffet. They can pick and choose which ones they feel they want to implement and not really understand the full intent of the reports.

Often the wording used is: “We accept all the recommendations of Grand Chief Ed John. We accept all the recommendations of the latest report from the Representative for Children and Youth.” “Accept” and “implement” are two different things.
[ Page 14114 ]

Accept, fine. They just have to take the report, look at it and read it. But implement is something quite different. I think that’s misdirection — when the minister and the B.C. Liberal government say: “We accept all the recommendations.” Yes, but implementation is the key.

That’s where I come to Bill 2 and the recommendations that Grand Chief Ed John made on aboriginal custom adoption. That directly relates to Bill 2.

[1735]

As Grand Chief Ed John pointed out in his report, approximately 17 percent of indigenous children and youth in care find permanency, versus about 28 percent for non-indigenous youth. That’s an issue, because we know that the majority of youth in care in this province are of First Nations descent.

Grand Chief Ed John goes on to say in his report, “Relatedly, less than 60 percent of indigenous children and youth in care will find permanency within five years of entering into care” — five years — whereas for non-indigenous children and youth, approximately 75 percent will find permanency within five years.

He goes on to say, “In fact, close to 60 percent of indigenous children in care will age out without ever finding permanency” — age out. This is what happened with Paige, as well as with Alex Gervais. They aged out without ever finding permanency.

Although Grand Chief Ed John’s name is invoked by the minister in introducing second reading here, and by other members on the government side, his key recommendations around aboriginal custom adoption are not mentioned in this bill and, in fact, seem to be absent.

That’s unfortunate, because in recommendation 48, Grand Chief John recommended the creation of an indigenous custom adoption registry for indigenous children and youth. That’s not in this bill, in Bill 2, and that’s an oversight. I don’t understand why, when you’re bringing in a bill amending the Adoption Act, you wouldn’t listen to a pretty comprehensive report specifically on custom adoptions.

Custom adoptions are particularly important for First Nations and aboriginal members because they allow a little bit more latitude in how adoptions occur. Of course, we all know that in First Nations communities…. I know specifically in the Wet’suwet’en, the Gitxsan, the Gitanyow, the Tahltan, the Kaska and the Tlingit communities in Stikine, the constituency I represent, they have many ways of embracing and giving those warm, all-around services to children in an extended family kind of situation. That’s what custom adoptions is all about. But it’s not touched upon in this act that amends the Adoption Act. For me, I don’t understand why the government chose not to pursue that.

We know as well that in recommendation 49, Grand Chief Ed John wrote: “MCFD ensure all custom adoptions are eligible for post-adoption services and pay rates similar to the current post-adoption assistance to those caregivers who utilize custom adoption.” That specifically is talking about resources that are required. Often, as he’s hinting at there, they aren’t the same in custom adoption as they are in what one would call mainstream adoption.

If you want to actually get at the crux of the matter, the majority of kids in care in this province are of aboriginal descent, at least 60 percent, while only 5 percent of the total population is of indigenous background. That’s a real issue. That’s a disproportionate issue.

I’m going to cede the floor to a colleague of mine for a minute.

C. Trevena: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: Earlier on today I mentioned that one of the firefighters who is here for the discussions later on was in the precinct. I would like the House now to welcome Stewart Dumont, who I last saw at the firefighter Fashion Inferno in Campbell River, which is quite a spectacular event and has been going on for 15 years. Various people from the community, myself included, end up in a fashion parade, but we are escorted throughout by the wonderful firefighters of Campbell River and beyond.

[1740]

I hope the House will make Mr. Dumont very welcome and acknowledge that he’s not just a great escort, but he’s a fantastic firefighter and very important to our community.

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: As I was saying, in Grand Chief Ed John’s report around custom adoption, he also, in recommendation 49, talks about the resources that are required for that. This really hits home.

The Representative for Children and Youth, in both the Paige and the Alex Gervais cases, really pointed out that there were care options available with family members — whether adoption or whether in extended family or whether custom adoption or whether foster care — that were not made available and that dollars were the main reason that that didn’t happen — dollars. And in both those cases, those two young people died after aging out of care, when connecting with family members could have made a big difference in the final outcome of their lives. That is one aspect that is not addressed, the recommendations around custom adoption that Grand Chief Ed John made that isn’t in Bill 2.

Finally, on that note around resources, we know that this government, late in the day, has found resources to put back into the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We’re just back to zero again, compared to
[ Page 14115 ]
what resources were there under 16 years ago, under the B.C. Liberals when they made cuts to that ministry. Paige and Alex both spent their entire lives, pretty well, under the 16 years of the B.C. Liberal government. That is why it’s so important, in Bill 2, to try to get down to the crux of the matter in Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations.

Just to sum up, I’m looking forward to finding out in committee stage if these amendments under Bill 2 actually make a difference for us to understand why children like S.S. — the Métis child who was removed from her foster parents after three years, even though her Métis birth mother was voicing support for those foster parents, and put in Ontario with a non-Métis family and with siblings she’d never met….

If this bill gives some answers to why that situation arose; if this bill, with its information-sharing provisions, will end up lessening the likelihood of the minister hiding behind the act when we ask questions in question period; and if we can see aboriginal custom adoptions being fully resourced, as Grand Chief Ed John put in his report, then we’ll know that this bill is actually getting to the crux of the matter on adoptions in this province when it comes to First Nations people.

E. Foster: I rise today to speak to Bill 2, the Adoption Amendment Act, the revisions. I think it’s important to understand what the purpose of this bill is. The purpose of this bill is for clarification.

Over the last while, there have been court interpretations that were different than the interpretation or the intent of the folks in the ministry. This Bill 2 speaks to a lot of those things. I went through it, and I listened to members on both sides speak to this. What this is all about is making it possible and easier for children in care to find permanent homes.

[1745]

I can speak with some authority on this, as my son was adopted. We waited a long time. We went through all the home inspections and all of the things that have to be done, that are absolutely important, essential when placing a child in a home, whether it’s a foster home or a permanent home with adoption, and I fully support that. After more than a year and a half of waiting…. I can remember it like it was yesterday. It was 38 years ago next month that his mom and I picked our son up.

It was, I guess, like any other new parents. We were about three hours from home. We drove down the valley. This was in Nova Scotia. We picked him up. We started home, and he started to cry. I looked at his mom, and I said: “Well, why is he crying?” She said, “I don’t have any idea; I’ve never had a kid before” — no different than any other parent. Once we picked him up, he was our son.

I looked through some of the highlights of this bill. I notice a couple members from the other side having concerns about the finer parts of the bill, and that’s what committee stage is all about. I hope their questions are answered and clarified, because it’s important that we move forward on this.

This is not sort of an overnight thing. Somebody mentioned: “Oh, this is all of a sudden, and it’s just time-convenient.” I’ve sat on the Finance Committee for the last three years. We met every year with the Representative for Children and Youth, and we talked about adoption and the partnership between the ministry and the advocate over the last couple of years.

Just a couple of quick notes here. In 2015-16, the ministry completed 368 adoptions. That was the time when the discussions really ramped up between the ministry and the advocate, the representative. They partnered up; both the ministry and the representative’s crew partnered up. This year at the end of March — March 31, ’17 — we’re on target to find 600 permanent homes for children waiting for their forever home, so we’re making a lot of progress.

A bill like this is designed to make things clearer so that we won’t be in court, so that families that want to adopt children, that are all approved — they have good homes, and they’re of good character, which again I emphasize is the most important thing — have that opportunity, then, to adopt those children. Those children don’t sit for two and three years waiting to get through all the red tape that we have to go through once everything has been approved. To me, the big part of this is the clarification. Really, it’s a housekeeping bill, as much as anything, to make sure that we don’t put road blocks up that aren’t necessary so that these children have an opportunity to go to a forever home.

Like I say, I go back to my own experience and what a great day that was when we were able to go and pick up our son. This is a little anecdote on how things have changed. His mother was adopted as well, and that goes back…. I won’t tell you how many years ago because I’ll get shot, but it was a long time ago. Her parents had to wait for a baby to be born to a Protestant family, because Protestants had to adopt Protestants, and Catholics had to adopt Catholics, and Jewish people had to adopt Jewish kids. In some cases, children waited for months or prospective parents waited for two and three years because there just weren’t children that were born in the right religion.

A lot of those things have changed. We need to remember that the whole idea of this, the whole purpose of what we’re doing is to make sure that those kids get a chance to have a permanent home. Don’t all of us, and I’ll include everybody in this building…. Let’s not play games here and politic back and forth and have children sitting somewhere when they could be in a permanent home, because we’re doing a disservice to those children and a huge disservice to society.

I hope that the questions that the members have asked and brought up can be answered at committee stage so that we can move forward with this. That, in turn, will
[ Page 14116 ]
allow us to move forward with Chief Ed John’s recommendations, which were a lot more complicated than housekeeping and will take a tremendous amount of work on everybody’s part. Those recommendations have been accepted, and as the member said, they have to be put into practice. That will take a lot of work, and we need to move forward with it.

[1750]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. Again, I support Bill 2 because it’s an opportunity to clear things up and make sure that these children that are waiting for forever homes get the chance to have them.

D. McRae: It’s my pleasure to rise in the chamber to speak to Bill 2, which is intituled Adoption Amendment Act. As I have started my last three speeches in this chamber, I’ll preface it with: this may be my last speech. That being said…. I know it’s sad. Maybe you’ve been here for two or three of my last speeches, but maybe there will be one more last speech after this one.

After serving for eight years in this chamber and having the opportunity to serve in three cabinet portfolios, I did want to just start off by saying that the importance of social ministries in government, to government and to society are absolutely essential. They do some really important work in our society — challenging work, to be said, but nonetheless, one that is very important.

Whether it’s in MCFD and you’re working with child protection, or whether you’re in Social Development and Social Innovation working for persons with disabilities or working in a Crown Corporation, like Community Living British Columbia, providing housing supports, there’s one thing I think we can say without a doubt: social workers in our society do not have an easy job. They’ve never had an easy job. They are often dealing with some of the most challenging cases that one can imagine, and they do so with great professionalism.

I’m really pleased with the individuals who I have met in my eight years here. Both as an MLA but also just as a general citizen, I’ve been really impressed with them. I want to applaud and thank them for their hard work that they’ve done and the work they continue to do.

But there are also, sometimes, opportunities. In some social ministries, there are programs and such which really make a difference in a person’s life or in a community’s life. For example, in some ministries there are programs like CEPP, community and employer partnership program. It’s an opportunity to provide work program opportunities.

Two programs really come to my mind. In the community of Nelson, there is a train station. While, by all means, the community has worked incredibly hard to garner support and resources, CP has helped them raise some funds to provide employment opportunities for individuals and move that project along to completion. If anybody in this chamber has not seen the train station in Nelson, it is both historic and monstrous in comparison to many a small-town railroad infrastructure piece.

As well, if you go to places like the Cariboo, I know that CEPP is working on snowmobile trails for individuals.

Then there are other programs in housing — when we talk about the RAP program or SAFER program.

Of course, today we are talking about MCFD, and we’re talking about adoption, which is probably…. In my mind, if you’re a young person, it could be the most impactful day or process of your existence.

The purpose of B.C.’s Adoption Act is to provide new and permanent family ties. As has been said in this chamber, it is trying to find that individual the forever home.

In my house, we do not have adopted children. We’re very fortunate, and we thank everything we can every day that we have Gracie and Chloe. Yesterday, I thought about how we spent our day. I had the opportunity to visit my mom. We had an opportunity to visit my dad. We had an opportunity to have supper with my in-laws. There was an opportunity for our children, Gracie and Chloe, to actually spend time with family, near and dear. Even in a small town, they live so very close.

That being said, last night at eight o’clock, when Chloe was going to bed, I was saying goodbye. I was saying, “I’ll be back in three or four days, and I’ll miss you, Chloe,” and it was really hard and challenging. It was really sad for a little seven-year-old. But she has the comfort of knowing that Dad is coming home, and there is a dad. She’s lived in the same home for her entire life, and there is that sense of support and permanency, both within the immediate family and those around.

Oftentimes, I think, in our society, too many people don’t think about those who don’t have that sense of permanency or that support structure.

Today we’re speaking to this amendment. It will confirm and clarify established adoption policy in the province of British Columbia. For those who haven’t read it and those at home, the amendments will ensure that out-of-province adoption can be considered where it is in the best interest of the child. Also, it confirms the B.C. director of adoption role as a sole guardian of a child in care to help streamline the adoption process. It also modifies restrictions for the sharing of personal information obtained under the Adoption Act.

[1755]

Now, while my children are biological, we have friends who have gone down the other path. Also, professionally, I’ve seen both the good and the bad with adoption or lack thereof. We have friends who have been so fortunate to adopt children, and they have made their family complete. Not only do the children get to go to a home that is full of love and care and support; they’ll have opportunities that perhaps, if they’d not had that forever parent, they never would have.

As a teacher…. This always saddened me. One of the measures…. Though not always — you can’t just blanket
[ Page 14117 ]
this. I always said that if there’s a professional development day and you walk through the school and there are children in school who are spending their day not in a learning environment but actually hanging out in the school, you wonder how challenging their home life is — or lack thereof.

I know from my 15 years in the classroom that in every community, my community included, there are children who don’t have that forever home. They can’t stay home and watch cartoons or sleep in on a school day. They just want to go where they find supports, and it’s often in the school system, whether it’s a warm hallway or just a teacher who is walking by and knows and makes that connection.

There are challenges. In our society, we have those who are so fortunate to enjoy the benefits of adoption and those who, I think, struggle because they don’t have it.

I was looking through the stats that we saw for adoption in British Columbia. One of the things that was said is that in the last 20 years 4,000 children have been adopted. Now, I’m not a math teacher; I’m a social studies teacher. This works out to about 200 a year on average. I was really pleased to see that this year the ministry is on target to see 600 children find permanent homes. I think that is absolutely amazing. It’s a testament to the civil servants, the minister and this government that we really place an importance on this. In fact, right now, at any one time, there are 1,000 children in British Columbia waiting for their forever home.

Reaching out to these prospective parents is always a challenge, especially in the new age of communication. I know there is the new adoption website, which was created with, I think, legitimate fanfare. If individuals at home are interested: www.gov.bc.ca/adoptbckids website. It was, I believe, brought in last November and has seen great response. In fact, 200 families in the last 4½ months have signed up to be considered for adoption.

The ministry itself has some significant resources. Over $31 million in MCFD is used to support children, as they look for their forever home, and to try to make a connection between a prospective family and the child.

As I sat in this chamber, I know members across the way…. I’m sure they’ll be supportive of it, but they’ve raised some questions. I know there is some concern about consultation, especially with First Nations. I’m sure the members opposite have been told by others that…. It is my understanding that the government has consulted with all treaty First Nations on this amendment, and it has been well received, but I’m sure more communication can and will be done going forward.

The other thing I think about, too, is how we make sure those connections exist for families. You’d like to think that there is always someone in the community who is connected to the child and able to consider adoption, but sometimes that does not work. We live in a society where people often travel, in their life, great distances. Whether it is aboriginal or it is not, sometimes family support or prospective adoption connections or communities are a long way away, outside of this province.

I’m really pleased to see that the amendments within this act being proposed today are going to allow and make it easier for those connections to be made, to allow children to perhaps find family or go back to a community that is not in this province. While there are ways it can happen in the current situation, it is not easy.

I think there’s one thing we say: when you’re a child, time is of the essence. The less stress that we can put on a child, as we try to connect them with their forever home and a permanent family when it is in the best interests of the child, is something that we need to do. I know that oftentimes ministers are hoping to make these changes to assist and help their constituents within their ministries basically get a better quality of life.

Maybe this is not something at the front of mind for every citizen of British Columbia. There are 1,000 children in British Columbia right now looking for their forever home. There are children whose lives will be just a little bit easier as we transition them, perhaps, from foster care to permanent homes.

[1800]

I want to thank the minister and her staff for making sure that this comes forward, and I want to thank the members opposite for making sure that they’re comfortable with this bill.

In the end, we’re going to make sure that children in British Columbia are basically given the homes that they need to have, their forever homes. For that, I will support Bill 2. I look forward to it going forward and helping these young children find their great quality of life.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, I call upon the hon. Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation to close the debate.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, on behalf of the Minister of Children and Families, I thank all the speakers for their comments, for sharing their very personal stories, for really acknowledging the complexities that are involved in and around adoption and understanding that at the centre of adoption, always, is the child and ensuring that the children that are involved in adoption have that chance to find a safe and warm forever home.

You know, the proposed amendments to the act under Bill 2 will, as many people have mentioned, confirm and clarify the established adoption policy in B.C. to help connect more children and youth to forever homes. I know we heard that 600 young children have found those forever homes, and that is a testament to the work that the Ministry of Children and Families does on a daily basis.

There are, however, recent court decisions that have interpreted certain provisions of the act, particularly the
[ Page 14118 ]
ability to place children for adoption outside of the province, differently from the way that the ministry has interpreted that, up until now, since it was written and passed in the 1990s. The residency requirement was never meant to prevent children from being placed in adoption outside of British Columbia. So as was mentioned by many of the speakers today, the amendment today is largely a housekeeping bill. It is really clarifying the process in the adoptions.

We heard from many of the speakers: why are we doing this now? Why is it so important to have this on the papers? Really, it’s because children are waiting. Children need to find their forever home, and we want to do what we can, when we can, to help them find those forever homes. Approximately 25 children are affected, where the adoptive families are outside of B.C. Once these amendments take effect, those adoptions will be able to proceed. Twenty-five children will have their forever homes go forward.

The amendments contain a retroactive validation clause that validates the more than 130 adoption placements made outside of British Columbia since 1997, and that ensures the stability of those adoptions so that they cannot be legally challenged on the basis that B.C. children were placed for adoption outside of the province.

Just for the members’ interest and information, since November 1997, the Ministry of Children and Families is aware of 166 children who have been placed for adoption in B.C. from other provinces and countries, and those placements are always made in the best interests of the children. The children are at the centre of those decisions.

So with that, hon. Speaker, I’ll just close at this time and move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered for the next sitting after today.

Bill 2, Adoption Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 7, intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 7; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 6:05 p.m.

Hon. N. Letnick: Before we get started, I just want to introduce the people that are here with us. We have Deputy Sturko, Deputy Minister of Agriculture; Arlene Anderson, manager of legislative unit — Arlene is new to our team, so welcome, Arlene; and Lorie Hrycuik, who is not as new to the team, a veteran with the Ministry of Agriculture and executive director of governance, policy and legislation.

With that, over to you.

On section 1.

L. Popham: I’m glad that we got to this today. We’ve been waiting to debate this. Thank you to the staff of the ministry for being here today as well.

I would like to talk about section 1. This is a section that I’ll be proposing an amendment to, but maybe the minister could tell me about the definitions that have changed or been added for section 1.

Hon. N. Letnick: I look forward to spending 15 or 20 minutes with the hon. critic on this and then probably continuing tomorrow, I would expect, as time is running out soon.

On section 1, the definitions of designated agency, licensing inspector, licensing officer and reviewing officer define the body and persons who will establish, administer and enforce the licensing or registration scheme.

The definition of employee clarifies that a contractor or a paid or unpaid volunteer of an operator are also employees of the operator. The amendment provides clarity as to who is considered to be an employee in the context of determining the responsibilities of operators and their employees.

L. Popham: The definitions that have been listed in section 1 pertain to people who would be operating businesses that breed dogs and cats?

Hon. N. Letnick: The employee, licensing inspector, licensing officer and reviewing officer are all people who would be providing the service monitoring the registration or licensing system. These are not people who will be monitored.

L. Popham: I think I would like to maybe submit my amendment now for section 1. I’d like to move an amendment that adds a definition to section 1(1) of the act:

[SECTION 1 (1) by adding the following:

“Broker” means any individual or incorporated business who purchases or otherwise acquires animals for the purpose of sale or distribution to a third party or consumer.]

On the amendment.
[ Page 14119 ]

L. Popham: I think that it’s important to add this language into section 1, because I think this legislation would be stronger if we not just focused on breeders but also businesses that use animals as part of their business plan, such as pet stores.

I wonder if the minister could tell me how many businesses…. Just so I get an idea of why we’re introducing this legislation, the amount of breeders we might be talking about in B.C., the amount of people who’d be affected by this legislation.

[1810]

I’d like to know, at this point, before we continue: how many breeders do we have in British Columbia of dogs and cats? Does this legislation pertain to anything else other than dogs and cats? How many pet shops in British Columbia do we know of that would be accessing animals from breeders, inside of B.C. and outside of British Columbia? How many cases in British Columbia has the BCSPCA dealt with pertaining to breeders who may be breeding animals in a way that wouldn’t be acceptable? How many animals are being affected in the province due to the lack of oversight that we have currently?

The Chair: Hon. Members, the amendment is still on the order paper.

Hon. N. Letnick: On the amendment, I will answer the opposition critic’s questions. Estimated number of establishments — 1,800. Only dogs and cats — yes. Pet shops — how many do they get from breeders? Don’t know because we don’t have a registration system yet. Once we have one — if we have one, if the law passes — then we will have that information. BCSPCA cases of unacceptable animals — we don’t know. We could ask the SPCA if they have records. And your last question I didn’t quite understand. If you wouldn’t mind repeating it, I’d appreciate it.

L. Popham: Actually, I think the last question I asked was the same as the second-to-last question I asked. It was just asked in a different way. So that’s okay.

I’m going to ask the minister: why is this legislation focusing on dogs and cats instead of making it a wider range and including other animals that are definitely bred through breeders?

Hon. N. Letnick: The intent is to regulate or license only dogs and cats at this time. The legislation and the regulations that will follow with it will provide the government the ability to regulate other animals, if that’s needed, but the intent is only to do dogs and cats at this time.

The compelling reason, of course, is that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which was passed a few years ago, does put B.C. in the lead when it comes to penalties, both in terms of financial and time in jail, if someone is found guilty of causing harm to animals.

[1815]

Last year, in Langley, there was a case where over 50 animals were seized, and that really spurred the government on to come forward with this piece of legislation at this time.

L. Popham: It only pertains to dogs and cats, but are there any other animals that the government might be concerned about, such as rabbits? People breed rabbits. Any pet that goes through a pet shop, to me, would have the same concerns.

Why did the minister decide to just deal with dogs and cats, instead of just making it blanket? Why would we add those later in regulation if we probably know what they are now?

Hon. N. Letnick: The same answer as before. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was brought in after the sled dog issue. We have the toughest penalties in the country. We had at least one case — I think two — in the last year involving dogs, and I’m not too sure if cats were involved as well. I’m looking to staff to see which way their heads go. There were a few cats as well.

That’s why we are proposing at this time that dogs and cats be the ones that are subject to the new law and regulations that follow. However, if it turns out that there are other animals and a case can be made that they also need protection, then the government, of course, can look at those animals at that time.

L. Popham: I guess that doesn’t really make sense to me if we already know what type of pets there are in British Columbia — why we wouldn’t want to protect all animals from the same grief that dogs and cats might be facing if they were being bred improperly. But I’ll let that go.

I noticed that this is a skeleton piece of legislation, where all the information I’m interested in will be coming through by regulation. Back to my amendment that I’ve proposed, I know that this could be added by regulation later.

But for the issue of the pet shops being defined and then being required to follow certain regulations, I’m wondering why the minister has decided to put through legislation that doesn’t have that many details, doesn’t have a point where we’re going to start pursuing this. It’s going to be in the future. It doesn’t have funding attached to it or any place where we can discuss that.

Why would the minister propose something, some legislation that, in my view, is quite empty and also incomplete?

Hon. N. Letnick: I do respect the hon. member’s desire to see more specificity in the legislation. However, it is complete.

The modern way of doing legislation today is to set up the umbrella of where government wants legislation to go and then follow through with specific regulations
[ Page 14120 ]
after consultation. That way, if something changes, it’s much easier to change the regulations through order-in-council than it is to come back to the Legislature and change a minor issue like: should a rabbit be added to the list, or should the penalty be increased by X dollars? As you can imagine, we would have a lot of housekeeping amendments.

What we’re trying to do is to improve the workings of the House by bringing in legislation — not only this one, but other legislation as well — that encompasses the broad themes that need to be encompassed under legislation and have the regulations really as a companion piece to make sure that we grasp the items that are of key concern to the citizens.

While, again, I do appreciate the member’s motion to amend, the substance of the motion will actually be taken care of as part of the consultation on the regulations and then, subsequently, the regulations coming through order-in-council, and be made public at that time.

[1820]

L. Popham: I understand what the minister is saying, and I certainly know how business is conducted in this chamber after being here for eight years. But I still don’t agree with the fact that you wouldn’t go out and consult and make sure the legislation is correct and more specific before you introduce it as a law in British Columbia.

That might be the modern way of doing business and creating laws in British Columbia, but I don’t think it’s right. In fact, I said that this bill is incomplete because it only took me a week of calling around and consulting to understand that to make this legislation worth anything, you must add the amendment around the pet shops. If you’re not regulating pet shops, then you have an avenue for incorrect breeders, breeders that are taking advantage of a system and bringing harm and cruelty to animals, to continue doing business in the exact same way that they were doing it before this legislation came in.

That’s why I think if you went out and did more consultation…. I’m not saying that the minister didn’t do some consultation, because I believe that he did. But if it would have been complete enough to put forward legislation, there would have been an inclusion of the second part of the bill, which was to include resellers and pet shops.

That being said, I’ll sit down and see what the minister has to say regarding my amendment.

Hon. N. Letnick: The hon. member opposite did start by saying that — I’m paraphrasing, so I might get it wrong — we did not consult on the legislation. However, the consultation we did for the legislation included the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; the Canadian Kennel Club; the Canadian Cat Association; Union of B.C. Municipalities; Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada, which is pet stores; College of Veterinarians of British Columbia; and Dr. Ken Langelier, veterinarian and cat breeder.

We also consulted with MLA Thornthwaite, who introduced a private member’s bill prior to this. We also consulted with Catherine King, Splendent Poodles; Deborah Anderson, Dobermans and whippets; Dawne Deeley, Tsar Shadow, Karelian bear dogs and other very rare breeds; Heidi Gervais — I said that with a French accent — professional dog handler; Fred Haywood, Procyon Afghans and Irish Wolfhounds; Catherine Eiswerth, Supernova Doberman; sled dog groups, including the Sled Dog Adopters Group, Whistler Sled Dog Co. and the Professional Mushers Association of British Columbia; and the Victoria Humane Society.

We had 312 complete responses through an on-line questionnaire. We also contacted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canadian Border Services Agency, Nanaimo Kennel Club, the city of Richmond and Fraser Valley regional district.

These are the people that we consulted with for the legislation. I would imagine that if the legislation is passed and regulations are then begun to be crafted, the ministry will then consult one more time with these people and others before coming forward with regulations, which could include what the member opposite is trying to include in her amendment.

She did ask a specific question, which is my opinion on the amendment. I would say that I don’t support the amendment. Government would look at the proposal as part of the consultation on the regulations and then make a decision accordingly afterwards.

With that, I move we report progress and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada