Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 17, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

[1:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

A. Olsen: It’s a pleasure today to rise to speak, at second reading, to Bill 17. I would like to recognize the minister and the ministry for the substantial challenge that they face as we are now starting to get into a body of work that the minister has to deal with, with respect to cannabis policy, as the federal government is moving towards a different regime for controlling cannabis in our country. I do want to recognize, as I’m working through these bills, that the minister has got, in many cases, moving targets that they’re working with. That can’t be easy when you’re creating legislation.

I think this bill, when it comes to the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, is an example of that. So I just want to acknowledge the challenge that the minister and the ministry have and, as well, how incredibly important it is that we get this piece of legislation right.

Public safety is incredibly important. Getting it right is going to be a challenge, acknowledging the fact that there’s a reason why this country is moving towards legalization of cannabis and, perhaps, that there are quite a bit of people partaking in cannabis out on the streets. I think that it’s important that we get this piece right and acknowledge that even the ability to test drivers who might be under the influence of cannabis is a substantial challenge.

As I see this, this bill will be passed by a regulation. Therefore, I expect it will also be evolving over time as we and as technologies…. As we become more experienced on this issue, I expect that there will be changes that are made through regulation.

Of course, we’re going to be moving this forward to committee, but at this point in time, I just want to acknowledge early that I think that one of the key pieces to diminishing the amount of cannabis consumption and driving will be education. I note that the government has already begun a fairly substantive campaign. This would be one campaign that I certainly won’t complain about public resources being put into, in a substantial way, to ensure that youth right through to adults are educated and given the information to ensure that we decrease the instances of consuming cannabis and driving.

I note that I grew up in the late 1980s and 1990s. Even since that time period to now, we’ve had a substantial change in the public perception around drinking and driving. I would credit that, at least from my experience, as a great deal due to the public education that was undertaken by previous provincial governments going back a few decades — having it front and centre in our high schools and having the conversation and the road-check system and bringing it to the public’s awareness that it’s not safe to be consuming drugs or alcohol and driving.

Certainly my hope — and probably outside the purview of this bill — is that the government does take advantage of the substantial opportunity to educate British Columbians and continue to do it. As I note, to a great extent, it’s already happening.

Finally, before I take my seat, I would just like to also point out that we’re not the only jurisdiction that struggles with the ability to test drivers or the ability to overcome the challenge of THC remaining in the bloodstream, unlike alcohol. There are significant challenges that THC poses that alcohol does not. We’re not the only jurisdiction right now that’s challenged with that.

[1:40 p.m.]

Of course, every jurisdiction in Canada will be looking at that and dealing with it in their own way. In addition, I think jurisdictions in the United States of America are also looking at this. Some are getting it right; some maybe not.

I see that the minister for jobs, trade and innovation is here. This is a significant opportunity to drive innovation, to put a challenge out to the innovators in our society and say, “We’ve got a really wicked problem here, and that is that the federal government is moving towards legalization, creating a different system of controlling cannabis, and we need tools to be able to hand to our public safety officers, to keep the public safe,” and turn the amazing minds of Canadian colleges and universities on to this. I’m sure that they already are — but maybe some kind of challenge to really see if we can come up with a solution.

I’ll just leave it at that. It was some good luck that the minister was here today, and I had an opportunity to present that to him directly in the House today.

Having said that, I look forward to the committee stage of the discussion and the debate. We’ll be going through this clause by clause, and I look forward to that. I do have some questions and some clarification of the minister and the ministry, and I look forward to that opportunity. At this time, I’ll take my seat and thank the minister for the good work on this bill today.

J. Yap: I’m honoured to take my place in this debate on Bill 17, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018.

This bill is one which we have been expecting, with the federal government moving towards completion of the legislation to legalize non-medical cannabis for use by Canadians. Bill C-45 is now being debated in the Senate, and we await what everyone expects will be approval sometime in the summer. So of course, every province, ours included, will have to prepare for this new reality of a world with legal recreational cannabis for use by the general public.

This is an issue that has been of great interest to my constituents. Almost everywhere I travel around my constituency, throughout Richmond, I find that folks have an opinion on this issue. Many are quite concerned as we move towards a world with legal cannabis. It’s reflected in the views of many in the community in Richmond, and the local government of Richmond — quite concerned with how voters in Richmond feel, the people of Richmond feel — have resolved that Richmond will do everything that it can to not have cannabis freely available within the confines of our community in Richmond.

So this is a topic that is on the minds of many that I encounter in my riding. As I meet constituents in my office, around the community, door-knocking, talking to them, many are concerned with what this means for our families, for youth. In respect to what this means, this bill, Bill 17, will endeavour to ensure that, with regard to public safety on our roads, this is absolutely maintained.

Our previous government took steps to ensure that we had among the most rigorous restrictions against drinking and driving across the country, and I’m glad to see that this bill will continue with the practice of immediate suspension — or IRP, immediate roadside prohibition. This will be expanded under the act to include prescribed drugs.

Cannabis will also be captured by this, and I think that is something that we support. We want to ensure that, while some in my community may not like this, we will do everything we can to ensure that our roads are safe, our highways are safe, our community is safe.

[1:45 p.m.]

Certainly, as the general public moves into this new world of legal cannabis — that we can be assured, with proper laws and regulations, that we can maintain public safety.

I just want to address a couple of points here. While I am supportive of the general principle that we do need to regulate cannabis use in driving…. I’m sure that in the committee stage of debate, some of the specifics will be canvassed, and we will hear what the government’s thinking is on some of the specifics. We want to ensure that the rules, while firm, are also enforceable and that we will minimize or not have the opportunity for people to be wrongfully accused.

I see that there will be in the legislation an evaluation officer, who will be the expert, who will, at roadside checks, be able to ascertain, based on training and expertise, if a driver is under the influence of THC.

One can use one’s imagination to think that with more and more opportunities for people to be exposed to those using cannabis that secondhand smoke from a cannabis device or a toke would potentially…. Secondhand smoke would be consumed by someone not participating in using the cannabis.

How will we ensure that someone who has been in a room where there’s a lot of use of cannabis, a smoke-filled room, and then is the designated driver, for example, and drives friends home. And then is, you know, facing a roadside check. How does that work out? How would that work out? We want to ensure that people are treated fairly.

Of course, we want to ensure that the government puts in place the resources so that we do have properly trained evaluating officers who can help to help our law enforcement to ensure that our roads are safe.

I think that the general approach of this bill…. We will canvass some of the specifics in committee stage, but this is a bill which we support. We do, again, want to emphasize that — I’m speaking on behalf of many of my constituents, who are very concerned, as we move into this world with legal cannabis — we will do everything we can to ensure that the community is safe, that public safety is maintained, that our roads are safe and that we have the tools, the rules and the enforcement to make sure of that.

That is something that…. I find I have to reassure more and more of my constituents who are concerned as cannabis is about to become legal. This bill, we hope, will fulfil that requirement. We can assure not just folks in Richmond but across our province that we’ll ensure that public safety will be maintained.

I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts on Bill 17, which we support. I look forward to the opportunity to get into a little more detail as we go to committee stage of debate.

With that, I will take my seat.

D. Clovechok: It’s an honour to stand here in this House today, a representative of the safety of the people that I represent in Columbia River–Revelstoke, and also speak to Bill 17. Of course, it’s top of mind, as my colleague just mentioned, in my riding too, around public safety and how that’s all going to unfold and unravel.

Also, a big concern for me is around police safety. We’ve got to make sure and ensure that that’s there. We’ll talk a little bit about that.

[1:50 p.m.]

I also want to start off by saying I support the intention of this bill. It’s a good one. It’s a bill that will make sure our friends, our family, our colleagues, our neighbours and everyone else are safe on our streets and that people that are under the influence of marijuana aren’t getting behind the wheel and endangering themselves and others.

I want to say thanks to the minister for his time and, always, his willingness to have joint meetings. Yeah, you got that. This bill is just one….

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: Well, there you go. I mean, you guys are fun over there.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: Exactly. You’re on it. Good.

Bill 17 is part of a suite of legislation, I’m sure, that’s going to come around, in terms of this. But after reviewing this legislation, I do have some overarching questions, maybe even leading to some concerns.

To begin with, I’m relieved that the government is taking this as seriously as they are. I think even the most passionate of marijuana advocates would be open and understand that it’s dangerous to get behind the wheel impaired on any substance, including marijuana, and that certainly does impair drivers.

It wasn’t long ago that we were relatively ignorant around alcohol abuse and driving. It has taken us a long time as a society to get to where we are today, around the vision that people shouldn’t be drinking and driving. Groups like MADD, and so on and so forth, have done an amazing job. We have to make sure that the same applies to marijuana, that we have that same kind of exposure and that same kind of support.

Cannabis and driving is going to change the environment associated with driving impairment. There’s no question about this. To this, the concern that I have is that we are rushing ahead, I think, without giving police the adequate resources and tools and training that they need. Certainly, I recognize that this is not necessarily the provincial government’s bailiwick. It’s a federal government issue, and I’m sure that some of the things that the feds are doing are making you want to lose your mind. Nonetheless, I know you’re going to get through that.

In my humble opinion, the federal government is rushing forward on this process without giving the provinces the tools and the money for those tools that we need to deal with the daily ramifications of this legalization of marijuana, specifically around the police.

This bill is a good example of that. So let’s envision a police check somewhere in B.C. and the sequence of events that will happen to you if you happen to go through one. Currently drivers, if you’re going through a stop check, will roll up and speak to a member, and that member will have a brief, hopefully, interaction with you and a polite interaction with you and determine that you’re not driving under the influence. You’re in there for a short delay, and it’s for a good cause, so most people don’t mind doing that. Most of the members that I know are very, very professional and polite about that.

If a member suspects that the driver is under the influence, they’re going to be required to take a standardized field sobriety test. That is an SFST, which consists of some preliminary questions, an eye exam and some motor tests, movement tests, just to see and determine, on that road, if that individual is impaired.

If the sobriety test indicates impairment by drugs, the driver will be arrested and taken to the detachment — I use a detachment because that’s where I live, in an RCMP area — to be evaluated by a drug recognition expert, a DRE. The DRE will either gather a saliva test or a buccal sample, which is a cheek swab, to determine. It’s technical, and this is part of the training that these people are going to need to have in order to make those conclusions.

At the conclusion of that DRE evaluation, if the DRE member has formed an opinion that the person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by a drug category, then a demand for a urine or blood sample will be made, and that will have to be provided. It all goes from there into the forensic labs and so on.

The concern I have is that I hope police departments and detachments across the province will be given all the testing equipment and training to use it as soon as possible. I think it’s incumbent on any government in this country, including, obviously, the one here in British Columbia, to make sure that every police member in this province is trained so they are clear about what they can do, and they’re clear about what they cannot do with the new scenarios that marijuana is going to present to them on a daily basis as they’re out in the field working.

[1:55 p.m.]

My experience with the RCMP, generally speaking, is that they’re a force that always is ahead of the curve, but they’re still going to need help. That doesn’t mean that the other police services throughout British Columbia aren’t going to need that same help.

Members are already demanding this training — I’ve heard that from my own detachment — to make sure that they’re not doing the wrong things as they uncover what will be a legal substance, which is now “illegal,” and are also able to conduct investigations in a very proper manner.

We can only assume that there will be one expert at most check stops, available at a stop. If he or she is engaged with a driver, then there’s going to be excessive waiting lines. If you’ve ever been through a check stop and have manned one of those check stops, you realize that the traffic does back up. If there’s only one trained officer on site, it’s going to take a long time to get people through, especially if they’re suspected of doing that.

Obviously, that member may be taken from the detachment. As the previous member earlier on today mentioned, there’s overtime issues and all that sort of thing associated, so there are some real financial consequences behind all of this as well.

It’s my understanding that the ministry is planning to increase the number of officers trained to administer field sobriety tests, as well as drug recognition experts. I support this. I completely support this, but I’ve got to ask, first of all, where’s the funding coming from, which is a fair question.

I would really like to know what the per-member training cost will be. How many members are planned on being trained, and what is the timeline for that training?

I also have some concerns about consistency. Obviously, our constitution protects the rights of people. Drug recognition experts are human, and mistakes can be made. I’m not sure they won’t have any problems identifying somebody who is on drugs or alcohol or they won’t have any problems identifying those who aren’t, who are sober.

Everywhere with marijuana is somewhere in the middle. It’s a bit of a grey area, and it’s subjective. It will become subjective, based upon that member.

This is why we have breathalyzer tests for alcohol. They’re scientifically proven, and they work. That’s why they’re administered for objective evidence, because when you take a charge to the Crown, you certainly want to make sure that that charge has every chance of succeeding.

This is too important to leave to subjective evidence, by definition, because it varies from person to person. Each person metabolizes alcohol differently. Each person will metabolize marijuana differently and ingest the THC.

If somebody loses their driver’s licence because they failed a breath analyzer, that’s one thing. When subjective judgment comes into play, to me, that feels like a recipe for lawsuits and a significant increase in Crown files and the jamming up of our court system. So there are some issues there.

There are aspects of this legislation I’m happy to see, including zero tolerance for any presence of marijuana for drivers in the graduated licensing program. Completely supportive of that. We all know that this makes sense with alcohol, so why wouldn’t it make sense with marijuana or any drug, for that matter?

I’m sure members will recall the story of Ross Rebagliati. After winning the gold medal in snowboarding, he tested positive for marijuana and swore that he was just sitting around while other people were smoking it. That can happen. That can happen.

I hope that nobody loses their licence because trace amounts were detected from being exposed to secondhand smoke. It’s not like, as the member before this morning said, when you’re sitting in the back seat of a car having a beer. That doesn’t affect the driver, whereas somebody smoking a joint in the back seat will.

How will drug experts recognize this? If a designated driver goes to a party and smells like marijuana smoke because their friends have to use it, what happens to them? Do they receive a criminal record? What will it do to their driving record? Will they be able to get into the United States? So these are some serious, serious questions that we have to ask.

I’m certainly not suggesting in any way, shape or form that we give anybody a free pass or a free ride around impairment. But we have to make sure that the punishment fits the crime, especially if the threshold is subjective.

[2:00 p.m.]

There are lots of questions. I look forward to the committee stage of this, because I know I’m going to be participating in it. But as I mentioned before, I am going to be supporting this bill and thank the minister for his efforts as we move forward with this.

R. Sultan: I’m glad to contribute my meagre knowledge on the subject of cannabis to this erudite debate. I will confess up front that my knowledge of cannabis and motor vehicles relates to a Cheech and Chong movie I saw about 30 years ago, as a van which seemed to be fabricated from marijuana plants was driving across the border between Mexico and California and somehow caught on fire, which, in turn, caused the entire border guard staff to become, shall we say, impacted.

Anyways, it was a great flick. But that was the extent of my sophisticated knowledge on the subject on which I’m asked now to pass laws which will perhaps result in criminal records, which will create great complications for our citizens. So I would caution that we should tread lightly before we put the fate of the records of so many citizens in the hands of somebody whose knowledge is limited to Cheech and Chong.

With that precaution, let me just point out some issues I see in section 3 of the bill. If I could interpret the remarks of my colleague who proceeded me, section 3(c)(2.1)(b) suggests, to quote the law, that the peace officer “has reasonable grounds to believe, as a result of the analysis, that the driver has a prescribed drug in his or her body….” I presume that is, in fact, what the preceding member referred to as a zero-tolerance rule.

At least, that’s how I would interpret it. Nada. Nothing. One molecule — that will do it. Perhaps that is necessary when our knowledge of the true impact of this substance in the human body is based more on Hollywood movies than upon science.

I also see, moving along to subsection 5(d)(a.1) of the bill, that the “analysis of the blood of a person” — so suspected, I presume, I’d interject — “within 2 hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle, a blood drug concentration equal to…,” etc.

In other words, we begin now to arbitrarily set measurement limits — but, I rather suspect, on the basis of somewhat sketchy science. Let me also concede to the Solicitor General, who has brought forward this bill, that he’s been given a very awkward assignment indeed. Knowing how conscientious and competent he is, I regret that he’s been thrown this curveball from way out there in Ottawa, saying: “Get ready. It’s coming. We need some sort of a law on the books.”

This is probably the best the most erudite legal scholar in the world could have come up with in the time in which he has had to operate. Indeed, perhaps this is about as good a law as the best and most thoughtful Legislative Assembly could come up with in the very limited time available. But that does not excuse these rather arbitrary time limits under which we are operating, on a subject of such deep importance. I refer to all the ways in which we can contrive to run over, run down and even kill one another on the highways.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m indebted to my colleague from the Green Party pointing out that we are talking about a substance called THC. Reference to my iPhone educates me to the full word: tetrahydrocannabinol. This is all about cannabis. We also seem to be quite capable, in this province, of running over one another through the mere use of that iPhone through distracted driving.

Alcohol. Again consulting the dictionary, we see that about 65 people a year are killed through inebriated driving in British Columbia, roughly one a week. We kill about one person a week through drunk driving, impaired driving through prescription drugs and a combination thereof. We have not yet to enjoy the experiments with driverless automobiles, but those vehicles have been able to knock off a few people as well, although we are assured that, in the long run, they will cut the accident rate by about 80 percent. Actually, I have faith that they will.

As I indicated at the outset, I think our Solicitor General has been forced to take on this complex assignment based upon some political promises made in another jurisdiction, the federal government in Ottawa, which seems bound and determined to make the distribution and consumption of cannabis legal, if my reading of the popular press is accurate, sometime in July — in other words, about ten weeks from now. Ten weeks from now we are expected to have a fully functioning legal apparatus for the control and safe conduct of traffic on our streets, surrounded by the uncertainties I’ve already alluded to.

One of our political leaders referred to all of this not so long ago as “unfortunate,” and I truly think it is — to be asked, as a junior government in this confederation, to come forward with a workable regime that our law enforcement officers, our municipalities and our own provincial government itself can cope with. It is my observation and my impression, at least, that the police are not ready and the municipalities are not ready. Certainly, we in this Legislature are taking some initial steps, but only initial steps, to get ready. The bill itself, I’m sure, could stand lots of scrutiny and fine-tuning and improvement.

Certainly, I would suggest, the U.S. border regime is not ready. Let me report my recent experience visiting my kids down in Vermont, driving down, as I usually do, late at night at Christmastime. At a border station, where usually you drive through with a very casual wave of the hand, eight Homeland Security guards in full uniform, with full sidearms, were dealing with one lonely Canadian. I was the only person, I think, showing up in about an hour.

This is the border regime we are now facing with our friends in the United States. If we show up and say, “Oh well, I had a few joints, but don’t worry about it….” Well, I hope they’re not showing up at midnight at that border station south of Montreal with eight Homeland Security officers there trying to figure out some way to use those sidearms. It is chilling, yet we will be exposing people who perhaps do not have the full benefit of education and advice to these risks as they attempt to go into the United States, where, as I understand it, federally, it’s still illegal.

I compliment the Solicitor General for doing his best. I’m sure few people could do as well in the time that he has had. I also lament being forced into this situation by a senior government that is asking us to do almost the impossible, which is to overnight invent a judicial and enforcement regime which hardly exists notionally, let alone in detail.

[2:10 p.m.]

Training not yet conducted. Police budgets not yet adjusted. Goodness knows where the budgeting for all of this is going to sort out. I will not make any wisecracks about municipal budgets. There’s a lot of unfinished business with this law. I will go along with my colleagues on whether we support this flawed piece of legislation reluctantly, as we really have few alternatives but to embrace it. I think it is very unfortunate that this Legislature has been forced into a situation with a ten-week deadline and so many unanswered questions.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to take this moment to thank members for participating in the debate and for raising some important questions, because there is still a considerable amount of uncertainty. My colleague from West Vancouver is absolutely correct. This legislation is required because of decisions being made in Ottawa. We have to have it in place even though we don’t know yet what the final bill that Ottawa is going to pass will actually look like. That’s a real problem not just for British Columbia but for provinces right across the country.

Previous members on both sides have talked about the issue with police and training. Those are of critical importance. Police chiefs have said: “We don’t have enough time.” We have made it clear as a province, in our discussions at the federal-provincial-territorial tables, that Ottawa is imposing this, and they need to put in place the funds the provinces need in order to do the training that needs to happen so that officers are trained and we can get as many trained ahead of time as is possible. That has started. I am pleased, at this point, where we are in British Columbia in terms of that training. In fact, I think we are ahead of many of the provinces, but there is a lot of work that still needs to be done.

The issue of funding, the issue of training, the issue of readiness is crucial. We still don’t know the date of when legalization is actually going to take place. We know that there is an agreement on Bill C-45 to be out of the Senate by June 7. There may still yet be amendments to that piece of legislation. We don’t know. But once that bill is out, the provinces are still going to need time to look at the bill as it is and the regulations that will flow from that bill and be able to prepare for legalization.

My expectation is it will be sometime later this summer. It will not be July 1. I’m hoping it’s later, into September or October. The later, the better, frankly — the more time we have. But that’s just one aspect, one part. Then C-46, which is the bill that is in essence what is giving life to us to deal with this piece of legislation…. We still don’t know exactly when that will be out of the Senate, and we still don’t know exactly what the technology is going to be.

There are existing rules in place — those will continue to be in place — around drug-impaired driving and alcohol-impaired driving. They’re still there, but the reality is that when the federal government indicates to us that there is new technology that’s coming…. The sooner we know what it is, the better and the more we’ll be able to make sure that when legalization does happen, we are as ready as is possible.

I also want to quickly touch on, before I finish my remarks…. We can get into the nuts and bolts of the legislation a lot more during committee stage. I think it is one of the great, little-known issues that we are going to be facing. In this whole discussion around cannabis, it’s amazing how many issues it has brought to the surface that need to be addressed.

What the member described as his experience at the border in Vermont is, I fear, going to have a significant impact, particularly here in British Columbia. Cannabis will be legal in B.C., and it will be legal in Washington state and Oregon and California. People are going to naturally assume, on either side of the border, that they can cross back and forth because it’s legal in each jurisdiction.

[2:15 p.m.]

The reality is it will not be legal at that federal border crossing, the U.S.-Canada border crossing. It is U.S. federal jurisdiction on their side, and it will not be legal. They have already indicated to us — we’ve raised this with the U.S. consular general; it has been raised at the highest levels in Washington — that they have absolutely zero interest in dealing with the problems that are going to arise. They’ve told us that in no uncertain terms.

So you are going to have the potential of ordinary citizens, who are doing something legal in this country and in this province, crossing the border and having to answer a question, and if they reply truthfully, they can be denied access. They potentially could have their vehicle seized, fines, you name it. And likewise, people coming up from the United States.

What is it going to mean, for example, if you have a business that does a lot of work in the U.S., and you have an employee that’s going down there and, on their own time, they’re doing something, again, that is perfectly legal in Canada, perfectly legal in Washington state, but at the border, it’s not?

There are some very important, unanswered questions, in terms of you as a private individual or you as a business, whether it’s a small business or a large business. There are some significant issues that we still are going to have to deal with, and we’re going to have to deal with them with our largest neighbour next door to us — our largest trading partner, who has already told us: “We don’t care. It’s not a priority for us.”

I just want to flag that, because there is going to have to be a lot of education done around that. I think it’s a little-known consequence of what is, in fact, taking place with legalization.

I’ll just leave that there. I wanted to get that on the record, because I think it’s important. We’re going to have to have some important discussion on that issue, as a province and as a country.

I want to thank members from all parties for participating in the debate. Many of the key questions that they have asked, we will be addressing in committee stage of the bill.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for the next sitting after today.

Bill 17, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018, 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. Farnworth: I call second reading and debate on Bill 29, the Voluntary Blood Donations Act.

BILL 29 — VOLUNTARY BLOOD
DONATIONS ACT

Hon. A. Dix: I move second reading of Bill 29, the Voluntary Blood Donations Act. I think it’s fair to say that this legislation, while it has a number of provisions, is based on a simple proposition. It prohibits — subject to certain exemptions, which will be understandable and which we’ll, no doubt, discuss at committee stage — payment for blood donations.

I think that Canadians and British Columbians, surely, are proud of our public health care system. For decades, it has provided care for people. It’s a treasured national resource. We all know that. I think there’s a consensus of that in Canada. We understand its value to us.

Occasionally, when we forget its value, I think it’s useful to talk to people who are now seniors, who lived in Canada prior to the advent of our public health care system — and the economic threat to the health and well-being of ordinary people that came from a system that was not universal — who did not have the access to services we have.

A very important part of that, at a practical level, is a publicly owned and operated blood supply system. Canadian Blood Services is Canada’s supplier of blood and blood products, including plasma, which is one of the subjects of our discussion today. It’s a non-profit corporation. It’s made up of a board appointed by provincial and territorial Health ministers. The majority of the funding for its operations comes from provincial governments. Our government, for example, invests $180 million per year on a system that we all rely on and benefit from.

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s in our collective interests, it seems to me, to prevent the blood supply from being threatened or reduced by competition from a private, for-profit market.

People make donations to help others live. It’s a selfless act that ordinary people make every day in virtually every community in our province and in our country — people from Golden, Revelstoke, Kelowna, Richmond, Abbotsford, Saanich and Surrey every day committing that selfless act that helps others live. It’s one of the most important things that binds people together.

I personally, as people may know, have type 1 diabetes. I gave blood until I was diagnosed with that, and because of that condition, I can’t give blood. I regret that, although I gave many times before I was diagnosed in my 20s. But I think it’s that act that brings Canadians together. They’re coming together in common cause to help one another in an ordinary way and an extraordinary way.

You can go to a Canadian Blood Services clinic, roll up your sleeves and provide something invaluable — the gift of life. We all have that opportunity. Since I can’t, I encourage all of you to take up that opportunity. It’s why, I think, this legislation is so important. It was developed to protect our investment — both our personal investment, in many cases, and our collective investment in Canada’s publicly owned and operated blood system.

You will know that paid plasma clinics have opened in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, and there were attempted openings in Ontario prior to the introduction and passage of legislation parallel to what we’re doing today. These clinics have been established by a private, for-profit company based in Ontario, and the company has expressed interest in opening a paid plasma clinic in B.C.

There is currently no legislation in B.C. to prevent these clinics from operating here. Unless B.C. moves ahead with legislation to ban payment for plasma, private clinics such as those in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick could be established here in the near future. That will have consequences for our public health care system and for our publicly supported and operated blood supply system.

The prospect of paid plasma clinics opening in B.C. is a significant concern to Canadian Blood Services. Canadian Blood Services is responsible, as I said, for managing the national blood supply, and it’s funded by all the provinces and territories in Canada except in the province of Quebec, which has its own system. Canadian Blood Services points out that private paid plasma collection competes with CBS for donors and will negatively impact volunteer donor recruitment. That has certainly been the case and had an impact on the quality of donor recruitment in the province of Saskatchewan.

Private paid plasma collection does not contribute to Canada’s plasma self-sufficiency, since private companies sell plasma on the open global market to the highest bidder. It’s important to understand that plasma used for transfusion is something we are self-sufficient in, in Canada. Some plasma is used for the creation of course, importantly, of what are essentially pharmaceutical products which we need and import to Canada.

For these reasons, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have already enacted legislation banning payment for the collection of blood and plasma. The Voluntary Blood Donations Act I am speaking to today in this House would do the same. The Canadian Blood Services, as operator of the national blood system, will continue to be the only collector of blood and plasma in B.C. and, along with the provincial government, is exempt from the legislation. Those utilizing blood and plasma for health research are also exempt.

The legislation will protect the voluntary donor base from erosion due to competition — this is important — and will ensure that plasma collected in B.C. remains in the Canadian system for use by Canadian patients and not sold to the highest bidder. The legislation will not, on the other hand — the obligation is on those that might provide or pay for services — penalize individuals for receiving payment for blood or plasma.

Based on information from other jurisdictions, we know…. It’s immortalized, of course, in song. We know it is often vulnerable, low-income individuals who are targeted by companies paying for blood or plasma. These individuals, of course, should not be penalized for their actions, should that occur contrary to the law.

[2:25 p.m.]

I want to acknowledge the significant role my colleague the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the member for New Westminster, who introduced in the past private member’s legislation on this subject, has played in its development.

It’s for all of these reasons why groups such as the Doctors of B.C., the B.C. Health Coalition, the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, Bloodwatch, our own health authorities all support this legislation. It’s because it makes sense, because it protects our public blood supply. It ensures its safety, but it also ensures its long-term future, something that’s essential, it seems to me, to our public health care system. It’s also why, internationally, the banning of paid blood donations is opposed by the World Health Organization; organizations like the EU, in terms of policy; the International Red Cross; and the international Red Crescent Society.

Well all know, because many of us have a memory of these moments in our history, that the moments that led to the creation of the Krever inquiry and the Krever commission were some of the most difficult moments for governments in Canada and for our public health care system.

Mr. Justice Krever went through a multi-year process, assessed all of the evidence and made recommendations on which our current system is based — recommendations that were both farsighted, it seems to me, and profound. He concluded that blood is a public resource. He concluded that donors should not be paid. He concluded that sufficient blood should be collected so that importation from other countries is unnecessary. He concluded that access to blood and blood products should be free and universal and that the safety of the blood supply system is paramount.

This piece of legislation, Bill 29, is consistent with what Mr. Justice Krever said in the 1990s. It’s consistent with our understanding of how the blood supply system works. It’s consistent with the recommendations of Canadian Blood Services. It’s good legislation. It ensures that we do not run into this problem in British Columbia — that we ensure a publicly supported blood supply system — and that a public blood supply system continues into the future.

Thank you very much. I ask all members to support the legislation.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the Minister of Health for his words. Let me at the outset say that the opposition will be supporting the bill. However, through the process of committee stage, we have a number of questions, concerns, issues, clarifications, maybe even amendments that we might be proposing to ensure that the act is in the best interest of all British Columbians, as I’m sure the minister would like to achieve.

We, on the opposition side of the House, support the publicly funded health care system. Let there be no question on that. We also support making sure that what we do in this House is something that the average British Columbian can understand and see the reasons why we came to our conclusions.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

With that, what I’d like to do for the minister and for those who are watching — because I’m sure this is of interest to a few people out there, especially those in the industry — is to articulate some of the background to this piece of legislation that we believe is important and also some concerns that I’ll articulate in the second-round debate and then probably bring forward at the appropriate time during the committee stage.

We support voluntary donations of both whole blood and plasma. Government works very closely with Canadian Blood Services and in 2017 funded Canadian Blood Services to the tune of about $180 million. In Canada, blood use for transfusion is collected solely by the Canadian Blood Services or by Héma-Québec and only from volunteer donors.

The safety of Canada’s blood supply is a federal responsibility. It falls to Health Canada. Health Canada currently has an expert panel reviewing the entire issue of paid plasma, and the panel’s report is expected by the end of May.

[2:30 p.m.]

The decision as to whether plasma donors can be compensated rests solely with the provincial government. For those who don’t know — and I didn’t know this prior to studying up for this bill — plasma is the pale yellow liquid component of blood that normally holds the blood cells in suspension. It makes up about 55 percent of the total volume of the individual’s blood.

Plasma donation is the process of collecting a donor’s blood, separating the plasma portion of the blood from the blood cells and then returning the blood cells to the donor. This process takes about two to three hours.

Commonly used plasma products include albumin, which is used to treat fluid loss in burn or trauma patients; immunoglobulins, which are used to treat or prevent infections or immune disorders; and clotting factors, which are used for the treatment of hemophilia as well as other bleeding disorders.

The body can replace plasma in about 24 hours. In Canada, donors are permitted to donate weekly. This is different from your average blood donation that I imagine many of us contribute — those that are able — where we are asked not to donate for about two months between donations.

The plasma that CBS collects, our provincial and national agency, only meets about 17 percent of the need for intravenous immunoglobulins in Canada — only 17 percent. About 70 percent to 80 percent of the life-saving plasma proteins that are used by Canadians come from foreign sources, which, in the majority of cases, are from paid United States donors.

Canadian Blood Services says: “The plasma industry’s experience over the last three decades shows that drugs made from plasma donated by paid donors are as safe as those made from plasma donated by volunteer donors.”

Health Canada says: “Paying people to donate plasma in Canada is not new. It does not represent a change in policy or practice in Canada. A company in Winnipeg has been operating safely and paying donors for plasma for 30 years.”

Any establishment that collects plasma for use in making plasma products must be licensed by Health Canada. The licence application must show that its donor screening and testing processes meet the strict requirements under the law.

For example, before donors are accepted into a plasma donation program, they must be determined to be eligible to donate. In addition to a comprehensive questionnaire and interview, donors must be physically examined for health and disease risk factors.

At the time of every donation, donors are re-interviewed, and their blood is tested for infectious diseases, including HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Before a licence is granted, Health Canada inspects the establishment to ensure that it is meeting the safety standards set out under the Food and Drugs Act. The establishment is then inspected annually to assess that it is following the law.

Health Canada will take compliance and enforcement actions for establishments that are not meeting these requirements, which could result in the loss of their licence. Furthermore, all plasma products are subjected to an additional regulatory review before they are authorized for distribution in Canada. This regulatory review includes careful examination of the plasma collection and product manufacturing processes.

Health Canada’s stringent regulatory oversight serves to complement the global standards that plasma collectors must adhere to, as set out by the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association, or PPTA. As part of the PPTA’s international quality plasma program certification criteria, plasma collection facilities must verify that prospective donors can provide proof of a fixed residential address within a set proximity to the collection centre and which is checked against a list of transient temporary residences to exclude donors who may be part of some higher risk populations.

Potential donors must also give two donations with negative disease test results before they are considered qualified, and for donors who do not return for their second donation, the plasma from the first donation is destroyed.

Health Canada says that there is no evidence that paying plasma donors compromises the safety or weakens the country’s volunteer blood donor system. Paying people to donate plasma in Canada has not weakened Canada’s blood system or the volunteer donor base, and there’s no evidence that it will. This system is completely voluntary and remains so.

Evidence has shown that the U.S. and other countries with paid plasma donation sites have some of the highest voluntary blood donations in the world. For example, the blood donation rate of 57 to 58 volunteers per 1,000 people in Germany, Austria and the United States, which have paid donation, is nearly twice Canada’s rate, at 36.6 per 1,000.

In their report to the Saskatchewan Minister of Health, Canadian Blood Services offers this summary of their experience in Saskatoon and Saskatchewan since the opening of a private plasma clinic operated by Canadian Plasma Resources, or CPR.

[2:35 p.m.]

I bring up Saskatoon and Saskatchewan for the minister. I also made attempts to contact New Brunswick and Manitoba, who also permit private paid plasma, but I have not heard any information back from them. I did get information back regarding Saskatoon. The information from the Canadian Blood Services in Saskatoon is that donation frequency has levelled off and remains fairly constant year over year.

“The donor base has increased at this site,” the site in Saskatoon where the private clinic is, “in the past few months, bringing it to above the March 2016 donor base numbers. This is due to increased new donor acquisition year over year. The lapsing results are only visible after 12 months. Since March is the first month we are able to compare lapsed donor information, it is still too early to form any definitive conclusions. We will need to continue to monitor this program.”

The last bit they say in the introduction is:

“The 17- to 24-year-old segment is experiencing a double-digit decline at the Saskatoon site. This could be attributed to CPR,” or private facility, “and the demographic they are targeting for recruitment. This trend is not reflective of national and regional trends for the same age cohort.”

The report goes on to say that, specifically, CBS reports a 35.8 percent increase in new donors April to March 2017 over 2016 for Saskatoon, where the new CPR site is located, and a 15.7 percent increase for the rest of Saskatchewan.

The report concludes that “further analysis on the first…year of CPR operations does not seem to show any clear indications of CPR impacting Saskatoon’s collections performance. New donor numbers continue to increase month over month, and collections are remaining steady, with a slight increase year over year. Evidence does point to a drop in involvement of the critical 17 to 24-year-old…segment.”

“Taken together, the brand confusion between Canadian Blood Services and Canadian Plasma Resources and the early indicators of performance degradation within the 17-to-24 age bracket suggests the need for heightened vigilance on this matter. Further analysis will continue to be conducted on a quarterly basis.”

From the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Jonathan Charlton published an article in 2017, in April, that says:

“It’s essential there is enough plasma product for Canadians. A disruption at the U.S. border would be tragic for people who rely on plasma products. The Krever inquiry indicated support for paid plasma donation in certain circumstances. Justice Horace Krever, head of the commission of inquiry, recommended ‘significant efforts be made to ensure that blood components and blood products used in Canada are made from the blood and plasma collected from unpaid donors.’ He also said a strong effort should be made to achieve self-sufficiency in plasma within a limited period.

“Krever expected self-sufficiency for the Canadian system to be easier than in the past since most people with hemophilia no longer use plasma-derived products. However, that hasn’t happened. Manufacturers of some special blood products rely on a small number of donors, so ‘it may be necessary to offer compensation to these persons for their time and effort in order to attract a sufficient number of donors,’ Krever wrote.”

CBC news in February of 2016 reported that the CEO of Canadian Plasma Resources says: “Plasma donations take three times longer than regular blood donations, making a small donation important. In our case, all cells are returned to the donor,” he said. “Only plasma, which is water, and proteins are kept. We do a saline infusion at the last cycle of the process so the donor doesn’t feel dehydrated.”

Health Canada says: “If Canadians didn’t have access to products that are currently made from plasma from paid donors, the health and lives of thousands of Canadians who rely on their life-saving properties could be at risk.”

The International Federation of Red Cross Societies, whose global framework for action states very clearly: “Paid donors are vulnerable to exploitation and commercialization of the human body as they…become paid blood donors due to economic difficulties.” “The need to protect their income they receive…compromises issues of honesty in the donor interview, and they are unlikely to reveal reasons why they are unsuitable to donate blood.”

[2:40 p.m.]

In their policy statement on paid plasma donations, the Canadian Hemophilia Society says:

“Canada, U.S. and other developed countries are identical in being self-sufficient in fresh blood components from non-paid donors and almost totally reliant for the supply of plasma-derived products on U.S. paid donors.

“There are currently no serious strategies in place around the world to reverse this situation. The demand for life-saving plasma-derived products is increasing faster than the growth in the whole blood collection — and, therefore, recovered plasma. Not-for-profit blood establishments do not consider it economical to recruit non-paid donors for a self-sufficient supply of plasma for plasma-derived products. They choose to rely on the highly efficient for-profit global plasma collection and fractionation industries. Therefore, the reliance on source plasma from paid donors will only increase.

“In the absence of any realistic strategy to significantly increase the Canadian contribution to the world supply from non-paid donations, and when Canada relies almost entirely on paid donors from the U.S. for life-saving plasma-derived products, it is not defensible to reject paid donor practices on ethical grounds.”

We will support the legislation because we believe it’s the right thing to do, given all these different opinions on both sides of the issue. But we do have serious questions about the government’s plan to make sure that we have a sustainable, viable, publicly funded collection system for plasma in Canada, particularly in British Columbia. I think it’s unconscionable that we should continue to rely on the United States to supply our plasma for use in this country.

We will be posing some very difficult questions to the minister at the time of committee stage to see what the minister’s plan is — that the government currently funds, as he said, the majority of the needs for Canadian Blood Services and what their plans are to make sure that we have a path forward to ensure we have a strong, publicly funded health care system with a strong, publicly funded plasma collection system in this province.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 29, Voluntary Blood Donations Act.

This Voluntary Blood Donations Act makes it an offence to offer payment for donating blood or any of its components. Currently the Canadian Blood Services, or CBS, is responsible for blood-related services in most of Canada as a non-profit. It has not historically offered remuneration for donations.

It is important to note that CBS has been identified in this bill as exempt from the prohibition of compensating donors. This legislation creates a pre-emptive move that guarantees that CBS will remain the primary blood provider in British Columbia.

I agree with the minister that CBS is the proper agency for collecting and managing our blood supply. What I think must be highlighted, however, is that we have a long way to go for CBS to have a truly resilient blood and plasma supply that will be able to fully meet the needs of our citizens. And this means that our investment into CBS has to increase so that the infrastructure and capacity of this agency can be brought to a place where it does produce a resilient blood and plasma supply for all of our citizens.

Right now Canada is only self-sufficient in approximately 17 percent of its plasma production. The majority of plasma products are imported from the United States, where most of the donors for plasma are paid.

Safety is not a concern here. Access is. Many patients depend on these products not just for their quality of life but for their very survival.

CBS has stated that it is committed to increasing our plasma self-sufficiency. However, I am concerned that this legislation addresses one aspect of our blood and plasma collection system without turning attention to the greater need of how B.C. will be building a sustainable, self-reliant blood and plasma collection and distribution system.

Health Canada intends to publish an expert report on public and private blood providers in the coming weeks. It will be essential that we consider the data and recommendations provided by this report in moving forward.

Ultimately, we need to agree on the overarching goal, and it’s essential that we move to a far more resilient blood service and supply in B.C. and Canada and that we protect the needs of our citizens who depend on blood and plasma for their survival.

[2:45 p.m.]

Relying on importing blood products makes us vulnerable in the face of a crisis, in which other countries may limit the sale of their blood and plasma products in order to fulfil their own citizens’ needs.

Similarly, we need to facilitate the development of CBS’s infrastructure by working together with other provinces to provide additional funding. The plan must be long term and focused on providing accessible products to the patients that have the greatest needs. In the long run, this endeavour would be cost-efficient, as we would no longer have to rely on buying plasma products on the international market.

I eagerly anticipate the steps that this government will take to build and strengthen CBS so that we can ensure that patients across British Columbia have the reliable access to blood, plasma and plasma products that they need to survive.

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

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, thank you very much to both the Health critic for the Third Party and the opposition Health critic for their contributions and their support of the legislation.

I think this is an important step, but as they rightly note, it’s not the only step. We have continuing work to do to improve the services provided by Canadian Blood Services, of which the B.C. government and all other provincial governments are partners. And we fully intend to make that work happen in the coming days, weeks, months and years.

What this legislation does is it essentially, fundamentally, protects the public blood supply system in Canada and the public health care system in Canada. I think it’s necessary legislation — not sufficient to answer all of the questions but necessary legislation — supported broadly by British Columbians, from the Doctors of B.C. to Bloodwatch to the B.C. Health Coalition.

I ask the members to support this legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is second reading of Bill 29, the Voluntary Blood Donations Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for committee stage at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29, Voluntary Blood Donations Act, 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. C. James: I’ll call second reading of Bill 25, the Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act.

BILL 25 — REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Our government made a commitment, when we were putting together our first full budget, to put people at the centre of every decision we make. That’s the reason that when you take a look at the priorities in Budget 2018, two of those key priorities are related to specific issues — affordability issues and economic issues — that have been raised by British Columbians for years in this province. The focus was child care and housing. This bill speaks to one of those housing measures as part of our 30-point comprehensive housing plan.

There is no question that the housing issue in British Columbia is a crisis. There is no question when you talk to individuals and families and seniors. I’m sure every member in this Legislature has heard the heartbreaking stories of people who can’t find affordable places to live, who can’t find safe places to live. Every member went through the election, almost a year ago now, and had the opportunity to be out in their communities, door-knocking and talking to individuals. And I have to say those were some of the toughest stories that I certainly heard when I went door-knocking, where individuals….

In fact, I remember climbing up a flight of stairs, 3½ storeys, to the top of a house where two young women who were in nursing school were living. I knocked on the door, and we had a conversation about the issues in the election. Then they told me about how dangerous the staircase was, which was pretty obvious coming up; the deficiencies in the suite they had; and the challenges they were facing — basically, the difficult, almost unsafe conditions they were living in.

They weren’t going to say anything because they couldn’t find another place to live. They were terrified that if they lost this place, they were going to be in a situation where…. They were going to school to be able to train for careers that we need in British Columbia, and they weren’t able to even raise the concerns about their place because they were so worried about what was going to happen.

A year before I had two seniors in my office who had been sleeping in their cars. That’s the kind of situation and the kind of crisis that we’re facing when we look at the issues in housing here in British Columbia. We know that vacancy rates are at historic lows. Rental rates are unaffordable.

[2:50 p.m.]

The housing crisis has to be addressed. It continues to be one of the biggest issues that is raised by businesses across British Columbia. When we talk about growing this long-term sustainable economy, we can’t do that if businesses can’t recruit and retain employees because they can’t afford housing in British Columbia. And we hear that from businesses in every corner of our province. This is not simply a Lower Mainland issue. This is a provincial issue.

I have always said that we’re not going to address housing affordability overnight. There isn’t one simple tool that’s going to address the crisis that has been left for a number of years. It is going to take a suite of measures. That’s really what we’re bringing forward.

I recognize there’s certainly been a lot of discussion about housing in British Columbia over the last number of months, and I expect that’s going to continue. I understand that not everyone is happy with change, that there are some people who have benefited quite well from the status quo and who have done quite well from the status quo. But it is our responsibility as government, I believe — our responsibility to the people of British Columbia and our responsibility to a long-term, sustainable plan for our province — that we address the housing affordability crisis in British Columbia.

I’m incredibly proud of the actions that our government has taken, incredibly proud of the work we are doing. Not to simply sit back and say: “Well, we’ll wait and watch. We’ll see how this one tool works.” We actually put together a suite of measures, a 30-point plan, to address housing affordability in this province.

Government doesn’t control all of the tools when it comes to housing. We recognize that there are interest rates that impact housing markets. There are changes to mortgage rules that impact housing markets. But just because we don’t control all of the tools doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t, as a government, get started in addressing this issue. That is our responsibility.

In bringing forward Bill 25, we are continuing, as part of our 30-point plan, in addressing that crisis. This bill deals with speculative housing demand by closing loopholes in contract assignments in the condo presale market and cracking down on tax fraud. As many of you in this House know already, the Real Estate Development Marketing Act applies to developers who market new strata lots and other types of development units in our province, and that includes presale condos.

The act imposes consumer protection requirements on developers before they begin marketing. For example, there are some things that are required right now. Purchasers are entitled to receive disclosures about the strata lot they are purchasing. The amendments in this bill will require a developer to expand those requirements. It will require a developer to consent to the assignment of a strata lot contract. It will require the developer to collect comprehensive information about the assignment before providing that consent, and it will also require that that information collected gets transferred to the property transfer tax administrator.

I think many British Columbians would be surprised to know that that information isn’t already collected. I certainly was. I will say that I think many of us believed that there was information there that could be acted on. In fact, what we have learned is that that information has not been collected. So this is the first step in making sure, if further action is needed, that we take further action.

Developers will also be required to include terms in their contracts to inform purchasers of the new requirements, of the new reporting requirements. And as I said, right now comprehensive information on strata lot contract assignments isn’t available and isn’t collected. The assignment information that will be collected and reported to the administrator will be shared with the Canada Revenue Agency and the ministry’s revenue division to be able to support federal and provincial tax compliance and to make sure that people pay their fair share of taxes.

Right now there isn’t tracking to determine that people who buy…. Often it’s referred to as condo flipping. That’s what you’ll hear people talking about when we’re talking about presale condos. They’ll flip a condo. It’ll be flipped two or three times before anybody actually lives in it, and that value is going up each time it’s flipped. Well, the individual has a responsibility to pay tax on that increased value. Whether that’s happening or not right now, without the information, isn’t clear. This will provide us with that assignment information to be able to make sure that people do what people expect in British Columbia: pay their fair share of taxes.

[2:55 p.m.]

The superintendent of real estate will enforce the developers’ new collection and reporting requirements just in the same manner as they deal with other requirements that are imposed under the act. The superintendent also may investigate, may hold hearings and may order non-compliant developers to actually cease marketing to comply or to pay the costs or an administrative fine.

There are also some consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Property Transfer Tax Act that allow this information collected under these statutes to be shared with the superintendent for the purpose of administering and enforcing the Real Estate Development Marketing Act.

These amendments will also strengthen the superintendent’s enforcement tools and make some minor corrections. Investigations, in these amendments, are also streamlined by allowing the superintendent to appoint staff as investigators based on job titles and responsibility. Investigators’ authority to demand information will be expanded to include any person who is reasonably likely to have any relevant information.

As well, I think it’s important to look at deterrence for any bad behaviour. To prevent developers from simply treating fines as a cost of doing business, maximum fines for administrative penalties and offences will be increased in these amendments. Penalties and offences will be increased, which is consistent with the recent increases that have been made under the Real Estate Services Act.

Finally, minor corrections are made to make it an offence to fail to comply with the requirements for consolidated disclosure statements, and clarifies that those disclosure statement requirements are the responsibility of the developer.

Together, these amendments make the condo market fairer for British Columbians. They are the first step in making sure that people who flip presale condos are paying their fair share of taxes. They’re a first step to stop speculators in the presale condo market from driving up prices for British Columbians.

By tracking presales and ensuring appropriate enforcement, we’ll crack down on tax evasion. We’ll also have the information, then, if further action needs to be done, to be able to move ahead on further action to address this issue.

I look forward to the discussion on second reading, and I’ll take my place.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for her remarks, both here and at the introduction of the bill. I’m going to make some comments. Obviously, we’re going to work our way through this in committee stage, but I do want to thank the minister’s staff for making themselves available for a briefing. That’s always appreciated, and this minister is very helpful in terms of providing those kinds of opportunities for members of the opposition, and I’m sure for the Green Party as well. We appreciate that.

I think the minister has outlined an important issue that, as she reflects on, is important to every member of this House. Housing and affordability were critical issues during the election campaign and have been since that period of time. I think that, generally, people would be supportive of Bill 25 — when you think about the fact that this makes sure that when a gain is made on the assignment of a presale contract, the appropriate taxes are collected. I think most British Columbians would assume that’s happening, and they want to be sure that that happens.

I think this is about making sure that that practice is in place and it is being strengthened. As the minister pointed out, the bill will require real estate developers to collect and report information on presale condo purchases and sales — they’re called assignments, for those of you who may not know what that’s about — to make sure people are paying the proper taxes when that contract is transferred.

Currently, if a seller assigns a contract to another person at a personal gain, they are supposed to be paying capital gains taxes if they make a profit. But as this bill points out, without adequate reporting requirements, those taxes can be and probably often are avoided. I think that we will have…. I’ll be interested in hearing from my colleague the Leader of the Third Party, his perspective, but I’m assuming we would all agree that we need to actually close that opportunity and make sure that those taxes are being collected.

The amendments in Bill 25 will mandate developers to include terms in their contracts to inform buyers of the new collection and reporting requirement. So there will be, in essence, informed consent.

[3:00 p.m.]

People will actually need to…. They will be made aware, and they will actually make a decision about agreeing to that particular reporting requirement. The information will be reported to the provincial administrator — as the minister has pointed out, designated under the Property Transfer Tax Act — and information will be collected. Certainly, private information will not be publicly shared.

One of the issues that we certainly will have some discussion about is that Bill 25 also raises the cap on administrative penalties on developers, and they are significant increases. We see the caps moving from $50,000 to $500,000 for corporations and from $25,000 to $250,000 for individuals. The amount developers would have to pay if they are convicted of a violation of the act would also be raised. In fact, it is a very significant increase, again — obviously a deterrent is, I would assume, the minister’s intention — from $100,000 to $1.25 million for the first conviction.

As you can imagine, we certainly see that that is a 1,000 percent increase in administrative monetary penalties and fines. I think that there is some room for discussion about a $1 million fine for incorrectly filing paperwork. It may seem excessive to some. I think there’s some room for discussion about that. We’ll certainly be asking those kinds of questions during committee stage.

Once again, we see that the bill allows cabinet to make regulatory changes. They will be able to prescribe the information that must be collected from developers. The term at which it is responsible will require consent from the developer for an assignment to occur. As I have said and will continue to say every time a bill comes before the House, and was certainly the recipient of much criticism from the other side of the House every single time we brought a bill forward that said there would be reg-making powers and authorities….

I don’t think a bill has come through this House under the current government that allows cabinet to add some sort of regulation. This is a significant issue. When you look at what the bill says, it says that cabinet will decide the information that must be collected from developers. There’s a whole range of thinking that could possibly take place at the cabinet table with that kind of regulatory power. From our perspective, we’re certainly going to ask some questions about why that reg-making authority is necessary and what the minister would anticipate cabinet would be thinking about in terms of adding additional regulation and, certainly, information that’s corrected.

The purchaser of a presale condo must have confidence that they are paying fair market value for a property. We must ensure that artificial price escalation does not occur and enrich a very small minority at the expense of British Columbians who want to buy a home. Again, I think that’s something that all of us feel very strongly about. An open market only happens when there is a level playing field between those selling a property and those making a purchase. Confidence in the market is gained only when the rules apply to everyone. So from that perspective, we want to make sure that the rights and obligations of both the buyers and the sellers are properly respected in legislation.

With that being said, the proposed legislation is intended to ensure that appropriate taxes are paid when a gain is made through the assignment of a presale contract. We need to know if the measures contained in this bill will be effective and if they’re headed in the right direction. During the bill debate, we certainly will be asking the minister, during committee stage, if she has a complete picture of the number of assignments that this legislation may address. In other words, we need to have the whole picture in front of us to make sure we’re taking the right steps.

We also need to know if the obligations we impose on developers and purchasers are reasonable and sound. To that extent, does the government have an estimate of how much revenue will be generated through the proper application of capital gains tax? Was there a conversation with the industry? How do they feel about this? Is there a sense of what that gap is? How many people are avoiding paying those taxes? Those are all important follow-up questions. Again, there will be some conversation about the type of information that’s collected and what it will be utilized for.

[3:05 p.m.]

One of the things I wanted to just contemplate for a moment was the fact that when you read the description that was provided by the government when they released the news release about this bill, talking about bold steps to fix the housing crisis…. One of the lines in the release that actually was quite surprising to me…. I understand the minister has laid out that this is a series of things, and this is another step in the government’s agenda.

When we stop and think about what this bill does, and when the sentence in the press release says, “We are making it fairer for people who want to buy a condo by making sure those who flip presale condos are paying their fair share….” Wouldn’t one want to assume that what we really want to try to do is disincent people from actually flipping condos? It’s certainly been identified as a significant issue. One of the things that are not reflected in this legislation are the kinds of disincentives or prohibitions — actually looking at how we manage to try to disincent people who seek to profit by not just paying appropriate taxes but with even the concept of condo flipping.

From my perspective, when we think about this, we assume people…. At least, the press release assumes people are going to flip condos. So let’s make sure we get the taxes out of them. What we really need to be thinking about are steps that say: “That’s not the way we want this marketplace to work in British Columbia.” So are there things that could have been or should have been included in this bill that would have looked at how we could disincent people from flipping condos in the first place?

Generally, we agree. If they’re going to flip, we want their tax revenue. But the key point is: how can we disincent people? How do we look at far more rigorous controls in terms of how condo flipping is taking place in the province?

We will be asking the minister, during committee stage, about some of those features. Did she contemplate what else could have been added to this bill? When you look at the information that’s collected, are there ways to help disincent people from contemplating purchasing three or four or five units and then flipping them?

This is about tax collection. We agree that that is probably an important gap to close.

We also want to…. When we look at the proper obligations that are included in this bill…. The proposed changes to the Real Estate Development Marketing Act will require real estate developers to collect and report information and include those terms in their contracts. To enforce these requirements, the government is imposing stiff penalties to developers if these obligations are not met.

Let’s look at compliance. In order to be compliant, developers are being asked to collect information on the basis that assignors and assignees are providing true and accurate information. For those attempting to skirt the rules by providing false or inaccurate information, I see no provision in this bill that would prevent or penalize these types of offences.

In fairness to those required to collect the information, we certainly want to ask the minister during committee stage: what measures are being taken to prevent a situation where a developer attempts to collect information in good faith and could be held responsible for false or inaccurate information that is provided by the assignors and the assignees? In fact, they have done their due diligence, and they have done their work in good faith.

We’re going to ask the government whether they assume that developers are in a position to verify all of the information that is provided to them. Those are simply important checks and balances that we think should be considered when we’re looking at the kinds of fines that developers could potentially face. We want to be sure that should the minister be looking at this process, is there consideration for due diligence and good faith before the developer is fined at fairly significant fine levels?

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to make some initial comments. We do want to ensure that the purchaser of a presale condo, if they achieve a gain, in fact is paying taxes. We think that is very important. We also want to make sure that the playing field is level and that our developers engaged in having to collect that information are not unfairly penalized.

[3:10 p.m.]

Generally speaking, we think there is some merit. Our primary concern is that this bill is looking at making sure that we collect taxes from condo flippers. In fact, we need to be looking at significant initiatives that will actually disincent people from the practice of condo flipping in the first place. The minister has said this is one step and one tool in the toolbox. We certainly look forward to further discussions about how that might be accomplished in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in second reading on Bill 25, Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act. This bill amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act. It requires developers to collect and store information on presale condo assignments, which will enable the government to track presales and to tackle tax evasion.

To start, I wish to thank the minister for bringing in such legislation. It is timely, and it addresses a very important issue. Also, to the member for Prince George–Valemount, I appreciated her careful analysis of the bill and look forward to her questioning at committee stage, where I, too, share some of the concerns she raised. Overall, my colleagues and I in the Green caucus down here do support this bill and the intentions.

I’ve heard many a story from British Columbians frustrated with watching their condos or townhouses in their developments being sold multiple times without people actually moving in, questioning who is actually buying and who is actually selling and, in fact, raising the question as to whether taxes are being collected during the process. But more importantly, asking the question: how is this allowed in the province of British Columbia?

While this bill amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act and makes a number of changes, it doesn’t, as the member for Prince George–Valemount said, actually get to the fundamental essence of why people are flipping and how we put in place measures to disincentivize that flipping. One of the things we could talk about — I won’t now but perhaps in future bills brought forward — is the introduction of something like a flipping tax, a tax that actually targets people who are buying and selling on a rapid time frame with no intention of actually moving in.

We could talk about the potential problems that we see in British Columbia where certain developments are marketed offshore at prices that are below what you could buy them for onshore. In fact, I’ve got stories and articles on properties that are marketed offshore something to the tune of 20 percent below the price you could get for them here.

The purpose to do so, of course, is that you could get lots of mass presales done all at once and then these…. Who knows who ends up? They could very quickly and very rapidly be flipped multiple times for a short-term gain, and only if the person doing the flipping actually decides to declare, in Canadian income, that this is a capital gains would they actually pay tax.

The bill requires real estate developers to collect and report information on presale condo assignments. Developers now will have to include terms in their contracts to inform buyers of new collection and reporting requirements. The information will be reported to the provincial administrator designated under the property transfer tax, and information will be shared with the federal government to enable collection of capital gains. Increased administrative penalties and offences are also being incorporated in this bill.

This is actually one of several bills that the government has brought forward since the fall which is designed to get Revenue Canada, CRA, more information on which they could actually enforce existing legislation. So I do thank and commend the minister for bringing in yet another piece of legislation that ensures that information is present for CRA to actually get taxes when taxes are owed.

Most of the bill is contained in a major section, which is section 4. It creates a new component of the act with provisions for the requirements of developers. That will be the subject of the most extensive canvassing, I suspect, during the committee stage.

I’ve gone over a bunch of the media’s reporting on this to see what reaction we got from various stakeholders. It’s interesting that…. To say this is uncontentious would be a very fair statement. A diverse number of business leaders as well as developers have stepped in. For example, Anne McMullin, as we know, the CEO of the Urban Development Institute, an institute that represents a collective of developers, particularly in the Vancouver region — or she represents, at least.

[3:15 p.m.]

She said her real estate lobby group supports the measures that are brought forward by the minister, although in fact, she characterized this as a small problem — 3 percent. I would argue that we might not know what the percentage is if we’re not collecting the data, so I would suggest that that would be an estimate. That was reported in the new Vancouver Star, the Toronto Star version of the paper that’s emerging in Vancouver.

She says the following: “We had been talking about this before the budget. If you really want to address speculation, this is where you had to address it.” That’s a pretty strong statement — in fact, endorsement — for the legislation here.

Another in a Castanet article coming out of the Okanagan. Cameron Muir, who’s a chief economist of the B.C. Real Estate Association, also said that compiling data to track presale condominium sales is a long overdue move — again, some high praise for this bill from a relatively well-connected individual in this particular industry.

Again, there’s Steve Saretsky. He’s quoted in the Vancouver Sun. He’s a Vancouver real estate agent who suggests it would bring more transparency to that part of the market, which currently lacks it.

Another Vancouver realtor, a fellow called Rick Clarke, in the same Vancouver Sun article, argued that they should do this. “A lot of people are not reporting and not paying tax and making big capital gains.” He further went on to say that there’s “a select group of agents” that have tight relationships with developers who rely on them for being able to sell chunks of presale condo units, describing one “known for just having signed 51 contracts in a half-hour.”

This is a very fine piece of legislation designed to provide government and, in particular, taxation agencies information in which to ensure that existing taxation laws are enforced. It’s very timely, particularly in light of some of the more nefarious, almost, incidences that are coming to light from investigative reporting by such journalists as Kathy Tomlinson in the Globe and Mail, who highlights some of the oddities that are happening in certain segments in the Vancouver real estate market.

One thing I would caution, though, is that as we continue to take steps to address what could only be described as an out-of-control real estate sector or housing market in Metro Vancouver, we be careful not to hit this whole province with that same sledgehammer that’s hitting there in Vancouver.

For example, there’s no question that this is important information that needs to be shared across the province, so implementing this from north to south, east to west is not a big deal. But there are other issues where previous governments, for example, brought in measures targeted specifically on limiting dual agencies.

That was a direct response to problems that were out of control in Vancouver, but it had unforeseen consequences in rural parts of British Columbia, where you may have very small offices or you may have one broker in the whole town now facing strife and troubles, not knowing how to actually represent clients, both buyers and sellers, when there’s not the capacity.

As we move forward in dealing with these issues in the housing market, it’s important to recognize that not always does one size fit all. In this particular case, I think it’s clear that reporting is a good thing. I think that it’s critical that people pay taxes when they should pay taxes. As we move forward, let’s hope that we start to look even more closely at the concept of flipping and discouraging that through means possible.

Again, I thank the minister for introducing this bill. We are proud to support this bill. And I thank the member for Prince George–Valemount, who brought in very fine comments that we’ll look forward to seeing explored further in committee stage.

D. Barnett: I would like to begin my comments by providing a brief description of the legislation. Following that, I, too, would like to outline the objectives, as the official opposition, that will ensure a fair and open real estate market, particularly with respect to a fair and open marketplace. I will then conclude my remarks with my own concerns.

This bill will require real estate developers to collect and report information on presale condo purchases and sales, called assignments, to ensure that people are paying their proper taxes when the contract is transferred.

Currently, if the seller assigns a contract to another at a personal gain, they are supposed to pay capital gains taxes if they make a profit. Without adequate reporting requirements, however, these taxes are often avoided.

[3:20 p.m.]

The amendments of Bill 25 will mandate developers to include terms in their contracts to inform buyers of the new collection and reporting requirements. The information will be reported to the provincial administrator designated under the Property Transfer Tax Act. This information will not be publicly shared.

Bill 25 would also raise the cap on administrative penalties on developers, from $50,000 to $500,000 for corporations and from $25,000 to $250,000 for individuals.

The amount developers would have to pay upon a conviction for a violation of the act would also be raised, from $100,000 to $1.25 million for first conviction, and from $200,000 to $2.5 million for subsequent convictions.

The bill would allow cabinet to make regulatory changes prescribing that information that must be collected from developers, and the term at which it is responsible, will require consent from the developer for an assignment to occur. This also includes rules around filing said assignments information.

As mentioned earlier, we the official opposition are concerned that law-abiding British Columbians are treated fairly and that everyone is protected by a free and open marketplace. The purchaser of a presale condo must have confidence that they are paying fair market value for a property. We must ensure that artificial price escalation does not occur and enrich a small minority at the expense of British Columbians who want to buy a home.

An open market only comes about when there is an even playing field between those selling a property and those making a purchase. Confidence in the market is gained only when the rules apply to everyone. To this end, we must ensure the rights and obligations of both the buyers and the sellers are properly respected in legislation.

What appears to be missing in this legislation are prohibitions against those who seek to profit without paying appropriate taxes. Why is there no provision in this legislation that would put a tax on condo flipping? This practice inflates market pressure by speculators and makes it nearly impossible for young people to enter the real estate market with astronomical prices.

The question that begs to mind as to how much consultation was done with the industry in advance of this legislation…. This legislation stipulates penalties for developers but little to address assignment deals that jack up the costs of a presale unit before anyone actually lives in a condo.

I would also like to know if any consideration has been given to this type of market inflation with respect to the government’s recently announced review of real estate regulators.

According to an April 18 press release: “The review will examine the roles and responsibilities of the Real Estate Council of British Columbia and the office of the superintendent of real estate. Topics under review include the appropriate structure and composition of the regulators, how they should communicate, mechanisms for resolving disputes, and how to divide responsibility for matters such as licensee qualifications and rule-making.”

The news release goes on to say: “The purpose of this review is to ensure B.C.’s regulatory system is protecting consumers in the real estate market. The review will provide recommendations to the Minister of Finance for consideration by June 15, 2018.”

My question, then, is…. This legislation comes before this House before the review is complete next June. It would make more sense to me to address questions about consultation and the protection of consumers once we know the results of this review. We need to pay close attention, because the outcome of this process is going to affect how consumers purchase a home in this province.

I am deeply concerned, because it appears that the government could end up limiting the rights of consumers to choose. In my opinion, buyers in this province have every right to select a realtor of their choice. It doesn’t matter if you are selling or buying a business, a home, a ranch or a recreational property.

[3:25 p.m.]

Government does not have the right to dictate the way you handle the sale or purchase of your own property, but we are seeing this with the proposed rules respecting dual agency. This will require realtors, especially those in rural regions, from recusing themselves from sales under certain circumstances.

I recently received a letter from the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board on this issue. Here is an excerpt from that letter:

“The B.C. Northern Real Estate Board believes strongly that the proposed ban on limited dual agency will negatively impact the provision of real estate services to British Columbians living in rural or small communities. The practice of real estate in the north and north central area is unique, and imposing rules without considering the uniqueness will lead to unintended and negative consequences.”

In other words, there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution for the province as a whole. What measures are contained in this bill may be applicable to the Lower Mainland but not necessarily in northern and rural British Columbia.

The B.C. Northern Real Estate Board goes on to say:

“We welcome thoughtful and meaningful reforms that continue to ensure the public’s interests are protected and that also support ethical real estate professionals. In the case of dual agency, however, the process failed to consider the people who will be most affected by a ban — consumers, communities and licensees in areas outside the Lower Mainland.

“The board requests a review of the ban to provide decision-makers with a full assessment of the impacts of the proposed reforms.”

I do hope the government will take this matter into account, following the conclusion of the review — and how government intends to respond in kind.

In conclusion, we want to ensure that the purchaser of a presale condo must have confidence that they are paying fair market value for a property. We must ensure that artificial price escalation does not occur and that appropriate taxes are paid in the course of a transaction. To this end, as legislators, we must ensure that the rights and obligations of both the buyers and the sellers are properly respected in legislation.

T. Redies: I rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill 25, Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act, 2018.

As indicated by my learned colleague from Prince George–Valemount, this bill will put the onus on real estate developers to gather and to report information to government on presale condo purchase and the sales assignments.

The premise behind this bill is that it will enable government to collect the appropriate taxes on any transferred contract and support greater fairness in the real estate market in B.C. There is validity in this approach.

As legislators, we want to ensure that there is a robust process in place to ensure that people pay their fair share of taxes — in this case, capital gains taxes — if they profit from the sale or assignment of a strata they purchased. It also makes sense from the perspective of building trust in the effective and fair operation of the real estate market in British Columbia for all stakeholders, especially those who are living and working here and trying to buy a home at a fair price. The bill, as such, aims to increase confidence that when a gain is made on the assignment of a presale contract, the appropriate taxes are being collected.

For clarity, let’s just recall some aspects of the bill, as I understand it. The bill requires developers to include in their terms-of-sale contract with the buyer the requirement to gather and report prescribed information by government to government.

Bill 25 also requires that the contract with the initial buyer include terms requiring the purchaser to get prior consent of the developer before assigning any purchase agreement. Further, the developer cannot provide consent to the assignment without the appropriate information being obtained. Developers who consent to an assignment must obtain a copy of the written and signed assignment contract and must keep the contract in some manner and for some period of time that has not yet been clearly spelled out in this bill.

[3:30 p.m.]

Developers must also file all of this information with an administrator of the government and must file a statement even if the requirements don’t apply under a transaction, presumably in the situation where assignments of purchase agreements are prohibited.

In addition, there are substantial, almost eye-popping increases in penalties introduced in this bill. Under Bill 25, developers not conforming to the requirements could pay administrative penalties ten times the previous amount, to $500,000 for corporations and $250,000 for individuals.

Further, if a developer is convicted for a violation of the act, the penalties would be raised from $100,000 to $1.25 million for the first conviction and from $200,000 to $2.5 million for subsequent violations.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Finally, the bill allows cabinet substantial leeway to make regulatory changes pertaining to the act, including, among other capabilities, to modify the type and scope of the information required.

There’s no question that we want to see greater affordability in our housing market and clamp down on situations that are escalating prices so much that average British Columbians cannot afford to buy homes where they live and work. It also appears, if the news is correct, that there have been a number of people who have been benefiting from legal but arguably unfair trading practices, preventing homes from being available to the wider public.

I do believe we need to address the housing situation in this province so there is fairness and people can have confidence that the marketplace allows all buyers and sellers equal opportunity to participate. We also need to make sure that more homes are available to average British Columbians who work and live here, not just offshore buyers who are flipping homes purely for a profit.

Now, while I appreciate the spirit of the bill, like my colleagues, I do have a number of questions, which of course we will canvass more in the committee stage. In particular, there’s a fair amount of open-ended, unspecified aspects of this bill which give me some cause for concern.

As an example, the type of information that developers are required to gather is not clarified, unlike other bills we have seen earlier this year, which makes me wonder why the government hasn’t been more specific about the information they’re going to be requiring. Is it that they haven’t had time to think through this bill, as we have seen with other tax-related bills earlier this year, and announcements, or do they want to keep it open-ended so they can decide at any time to increase the amount and type of information being required? I’m not actually sure what the answer is here. If I were a developer, I would want a lot more clarity around the type and scope of information that the government will require them to collect.

Further, there’s little clarity around what constitutes an administrative penalty. Given that fines are now ten times higher than what they were before, I believe the government has to be fair to developers and provide them with additional detail as to when and how administrative penalties will be assessed.

The bill also places a peculiarly heavy onus on developers to gather and submit information without really outlining any responsibilities, penalties or ramifications with respect to the assigner and the assignee involved in the transaction. I think my colleague from Prince George also touched on this. Particularly if the desire of the purchaser is to avoid capital gains tax, one would have thought this bill would cover the two sides of the party most involved in the transaction and who benefit from the transaction.

Further, there are no requirements or penalties for assigners or assignees who provide false information to developers. This is concerning to me, because developers are not in the business of information-gathering and records-keeping. They are in the business of developing and selling properties.

This is another issue for me with Bill 25’s approach. I don’t believe that developers are in a position to verify the information provided by third parties, and it would be problematic to hold them liable for false information provided by one or two parties to a transaction. It seems to me that there would be other, more suitable avenues to ensure that the required information was properly acquired and vetted for accuracy, perhaps through the legal process of a transaction.

Also, if an assignment takes place and a developer is not notified, would the developer still be liable for a penalty? It is not clear to me with this legislation. A developer, of course, cannot be expected to keep tabs on all purchasers, so I wonder if this legislation will really catch the people the government is attempting to catch.

Further, what happens if an assigner and assignee agree in a written assignment with a developer that the assignment fee for a purchase agreement, for example, be $25,000, but they have a side agreement that says that the assignment fee will be more like $100,000? Would the developer still be held liable if they submit forms based on the written assignment with the assigner and assignee? It appears from the way the bill is written that the developer would still be in breach of section 20.4, an offence under section 39.1(a), thereby exposing the developer to penalties of up to $1.25 million.

[3:35 p.m.]

In other words, the bill has no due diligence or reasonable efforts defence, meaning that developers could still be subject to penalties, even if they use all reasonable commercial means to obtain and provide the required data. As such, from my perspective, the bill needs greater clarity in terms of ensuring that developers who are acting in good faith but who are really at the mercy of assigners and assignees providing correct and honest disclosures are not punished because an assigner and an assignee acted under false pretenses.

Further, this bill requires a developer to collect and remit to the administrator and keep information for an unspecified period of time. While we don’t have a lot of clarity in this bill with respect to the type or extent of information, I’m presuming this information would likely be of a private and confidential nature.

The developer is also expected to report to the administrator but keep a copy of the assignment agreement in the prescribed manner for a prescribed period. While there are confidentiality clauses with respect to the administrator, surprisingly, there doesn’t seem to be any corresponding requirement for the developer to ensure that the information is kept confidential, unless I missed something.

In addition, I have real questions on how this bill will be administered. Who or what department will be responsible for taking the information gathered by developers? How will it be used, and how will developers be held accountable? Will there be periodic audits or anything to ensure that the appropriate practices are taking place? What additional staff will be required to administer this bill to ensure that it is effective in what it sets out to do?

Now, while I have a number of other questions, in the interests of time, the final area I would like to note today that is not clear to me and causes me some concern in its open-ended nature is the sharing of data between governments. Again, while I think it is absolutely appropriate to ensure that people are paying their fair share of taxes and for governments to share information to ensure that that happens, I have some concern with respect to clause 20.5(c)(i), which, again, seems very open-ended.

It appears to confer the authority of this government to share any information with any government that the B.C. government has an agreement with. I’d be curious to understand what powers this is giving the current government and under what circumstances, other than sharing with the CRA, the government would look to share information with other governments. Unlike 20.5(d), which references the ability to share information for the purposes of compiling statistical information with the federal government specifically, clause 20.5(c) seems to be very broad.

In summary, I’m generally supportive of the direction of this bill, and I do believe it has merit, in terms of supporting a fair marketplace for both buyers and sellers, as well as ensuring fairness in the taxation regime. However, I do have questions, as outlined in the body of my speech today. I look forward to being able to discuss these further at committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to all the members who spoke on the bill. I appreciate the comments, I appreciate the discussion, and I appreciate the general support for the direction that is being taken with this piece of legislation.

I think it’s important, as we look at this legislation, to recognize that there are stages and steps. I think a lot of the questions that came, particularly at the start of the discussion on second reading, really focused on future steps. What steps can we take if you’re looking at ending condo flipping, if you’re looking at ending the practice? That came from a number of the members who spoke. That’s impossible to do unless you have the information. It’s impossible to take those next steps until the information is gathered.

What kind of challenge do we have here? I think a number of members talked about how much of a problem this is. How much of an issue is this out there? Well, again, unless we have the information, unless we gather the information, it’s impossible to know. That’s part of the real frustration, I admit, in taking a look at addressing a lot of the housing measures. There is a huge gap in information that just isn’t collected or wasn’t collected over the last number of years.

My hope is that this bill and a number of other measures — which as the members know, we’ve brought forward in this session as well — start sharing information with various parts of government to be able to gather the data that’s needed to make those kinds of next step decisions that may need to occur.

I certainly appreciate the suggestions from members around what other disincentives could be used to deal with condo flipping. I think, again, getting this information and knowing the basics will make a huge difference when we’re taking a look at that.

There was a lot of discussion, and I will get into it. I won’t give lots of answers now around the specifics because I know we’ll get there in committee stage, everything from the fines and why the fines have gone up so much. If developers do their due diligence, what issues are there?

I understood those questions. I think it’s good information for us to be able to bring forward and have a discussion on, as I said, when we get into committee stage.

[3:40 p.m.]

I appreciate the comments that have been made by the members. I know we’ll have a chance — I think later this week — to have a further discussion in committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 25, Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act, 2018, 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. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 28, the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

BILL 28 — PUBLIC INTEREST
DISCLOSURE ACT

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The proposed Public Interest Disclosure Act will encourage employees to report serious wrongdoing by protecting them from reprisals associated with such reporting.

Government agreed to introduce public interest disclosure, also known as whistle-blower legislation, as part of accepting the recommendation of the Ombudsperson’s 2017 report into the 2012 Ministry of Health employment terminations and related matters.

The proposed legislation will initially apply to the public service, including ministerial assistants and executive assistants in ministers’ offices and officers of the Legislature, and is intended to be applied to the broader public sector at a later date.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act is based on a review of the best practices from around the world, with most of the content derived from Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Australia. The Ministry of Attorney General has worked in partnership with staff from the Public Service Agency and have consulted extensively with the Office of the Ombudsperson when drafting this act.

I would now like to highlight some key aspects of this legislation. The act applies to certain types of wrongdoing, alleged offences, acts or omissions that pose a danger to life and safety, serious misuse of public funds or assets, and gross or systemic mismanagement.

The act requires government to designate internal officers to receive and initiate disclosures of wrongdoing and appoints the Ombudsperson as an external reporting and investigative entity.

The act places a positive obligation on government to advise employees of the protections provided under this act and the different ways in which employees can report serious wrongdoing. A person is not given immunity from employment consequences if they participated in wrongdoing that they subsequently disclose.

The act specifically authorizes disclosure to the Ombudsperson of information that would otherwise be protected by public interest immunity, which includes cabinet privilege.

The act also allows the discloser to share information that would otherwise be protected by a specific provision in another statute to a designated officer or to the Ombudsperson but not publicly.

The act allows for anonymous disclosures. Public disclosure is permitted in very limited circumstances, and the discloser must comply with the prescribed process.

The Ombudsperson is given the same investigative powers with respect to disclosures under this act as the Ombudsperson has under the Ombudsperson Act. The Ombudsperson may refer investigations to other officers of the Legislature if the investigation relates to areas of their expertise. For example, financial mismanagement may be referred to the Auditor General. While referred matters will be dealt with under the other officers’ legislation, the protection provisions of this legislation will still apply.

It is an offence under the act to commit a reprisal against a discloser, and the act gives the Ombudsperson the ability to make recommendations about how to remedy the reprisal. B.C. will lead the way and be the first jurisdiction to establish a low threshold for the Ombudsperson to initiate an investigation into an allegation of reprisal. This has been recommended in the OECD’s G20 Anti-Corruption Action Plan: Protection of Whistleblowers.

A discloser will only be required to provide prima facie evidence that a reprisal has occurred in order to initiate an investigation. Unless the Ombudsperson believes the complaint of reprisal is frivolous or vexatious, the Ombudsperson must investigate an allegation of a reprisal. While an investigation must be initiated on prima facie evidence, a civil standard must be satisfied to determine whether a reprisal has in fact occurred.

The act ensures accountability to the public by placing an obligation on all entities covered by the act to produce annual reports detailing the number of allegations of wrongdoing that were reported and investigated. The Ombudsperson is also obligated to produce annual reports of disclosures they receive, resulting investigations and whether the recommendations have been implemented.

In conclusion, the proposed legislation does not create a positive obligation on anyone to disclose serious wrongdoing. Rather, it provides protections to individuals who disclose serious wrongdoing to the Ombudsperson or designated officers within government in accordance with this act.

Moreover, the act specifically ensures that it does not take away any existing protection provided to people who disclose wrongdoing under other legislation. For example, current requirements to report wrongdoing under the public service standards of conduct will remain in effect.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to Bill 28. This bill, as the Attorney General has outlined, follows on the recommendations in the Misfire report, which followed the wrongful firing of researchers from the Ministry of Health and the tragedy that followed after one of them regrettably took his own life.

The bill provides a process and protection for individuals that report wrongdoing, ensuring that whistle-blowers who come forward will be shielded from retribution and ensuring that there is a fair process for them to come forward. The bill also provides internally designated officers to investigate these claims and also provides for the Ombudsperson to be involved if need be.

From the 1980s to the early 2000s, only four OECD countries had whistle-blower protection laws. Since 2006, whistle-blower protection laws have been passed in nine OECD countries. Beginning in 2000, several of these countries experienced preventable public scandals that inspired the onset of dedicated whistle-blower legislation.

Other jurisdictions that have brought in similar legislation often followed events such as publicly commissioned investigation inquiries. Initial whistle-blowing legislation in Australia was motivated by the Fitzgerald Inquiry, which occurred in the late 1980s. That inquiry, also referred to as the Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, was an additional inquiry that looked into the Queensland police corruption.

The commission resulted in the deposition of a Premier, two by-elections and the imprisonment of three former ministers and a police commissioner. That Fitzgerald inquiry recommended whistle-blower legislation, which was slowly adopted by states and territories and culminated in the adoption of the federal Public Interest Disclosure Act in 2013.

They certainly didn’t move as quickly as Canadian jurisdictions have following their own recommendations. For example, in Canada, the federal sponsorship scandal, which involved gross misuse of public funds intended for government advertising in Quebec, ran from 1993 to 2006. The investigation into that scandal was done through the 2005-2006 Gomery report. The report recommended implementing dedicated federal whistle-blower legislation.

In 2004, legislation entitled Policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace was introduced into the House. The legislation did not initially pass in 2004, but similar legislation in the form of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was passed in 2006.

More recently, in June 2017, the House of Commons Government Operations and Estimates Committee released a report recommending substantial changes to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The development of this report was motivated by several recent federal scandals, including the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster and the failure of the Phoenix pay system that left federal employees across the country without paycheques for several months. This report has not yet been accepted by the federal government.

Manitoba’s initial dedicated whistle-blower legislation came into effect in 2007, just after Ontario and the federal government’s legislation. A 2014 report by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission was commissioned based on complaints arising through public servants who had experienced the whistle-blower legislation. The report recommended that the legislation be updated, specifically giving more powers of investigation to the Ombudsperson.

In the process of reviewing this bill, including my briefing provided by the AG ministry staff, I understand that government has worked closely with the Ombudsperson and looked at these other provinces and countries and that the legislation is based heavily on the Manitoba, United Kingdom and Australian examples.

There will be a number of sections that will bear some discussion at committee, including the test that’s been included in the act regarding a serious act or omission being a threshold. The term “serious” is a term that I think was worth exploring, for example, going beyond where the Manitoba legislation is.

[3:50 p.m.]

There are other terms in the legislation that will bear some discussion, including terms that are utilized around systemic mismanagement and ensuring that where there is an Ombudsperson, designated officer or a chief executive officer, how that individual may report an alleged offence to a law enforcement agency. That process, I think, bears some reflection and discussion as well.

Also, in terms of the duties of the chief executive, the types of information that every chief executive must make available in terms of how disclosures are being made under the act, that should be discussed at the committee level as well, including the annual reporting requirements under the act, how these requirements will be met and utilized under the legislation and, as the AG just mentioned, in terms of the reprisals, those new provisions, which are quite innovative under this act but certainly bear some walking through at the committee stage.

With those issues in mind, I look forward to that discussion at the next stage of this bill.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand to speak at second reading in support of Bill 28, Public Interest Disclosure Act. This act is a direct response to the recommendations from the Ombudsperson’s report Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Related Matters, which was published in April of 2017.

While I sat in opposition over the last few years, similar pieces of legislation were proposed by the then opposition. It was termed whistle-blower legislation at the time, and this is the latest manifestation of that, clearly passed through legislative drafters in a quite substantive manner to give us the present form we see here.

The Ombudsperson’s report that formed the basis of driving this bill here investigated the dismissal of seven employees by the Ministry of Health after an initial complaint incorrectly suggested a wrongdoing. That complaint gained rather a lot of momentum and instigated a rushed and, some would argue, inequitable and inappropriate investigation. At the end, there were clearly far-reaching consequences for the individuals involved. In one particularly tragic case, an individual committed suicide as a consequence of the whole process.

The purpose of this act is to provide protection and to develop processes for current and former public service workers who wish to make a disclosure of serious wrongdoing. Public service workers who are protected under this act are those who are employees of a ministry, a government body or office, including a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under the Public Service Act. Again, it’s important that civil servants be given such protection in the case of the desire to actually protect the public’s interest and to be able to bring forward, to the public, significant matters of public interest when, say, a wrongdoing is noticed.

In the United States right now, it’s a bit of a free-for-all in terms of whistle-blowers disclosing left, right and centre. I suspect they should have such legislation if they do not. In British Columbia’s case, and as Canadians in general, we take these matters very seriously. We’re respectful, and typically Canadians, by our very nature, are sometimes…. We don’t like conflict. We don’t like to actually create conflict, but we like to be protected when we see an injustice being done that needs to be brought forward so that that injustice is dealt with.

In this particular case, we are seeing that protection will be given in the province of British Columbia to civil servants who might witness such injustice or inappropriate activities that are happening. Right now a person who discloses information must not experience reprisal, according to this act, and will also have the option of disclosing it anonymously to further protect their information. This, too, is important if an investigation is occurring and a whistle-blower to be protected under this act does not want to disclose him- or herself publicly. It’s important to have the protection.

[3:55 p.m.]

While the bill actually does authorize investigations to occur and it also provides protection for such a whistle-blower, such a person in the public service, the problem, of course, is not necessarily the direct response but also the whisper chat. So anonymity is important to avoid the cold-shoulder treatment, when nobody is talking to you, the kind of high school — or, should I say, middle school — bullying and harassing that sometimes happens. Anonymity being protected is important.

The act is based on other legislation. In particular, there are two pieces of legislation. One is the Manitoba law, which is the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, which was assented to in 2006 in the province of Manitoba. There’s some similarity between these two, as well as in the province of Alberta, where the public sector disclosure act…. There’s also a similar act in that province, too, I understand.

The Health firings. Again, some of the issues that perhaps need to be brought forward may not also have been highlighted or thought through in this bill — in particular, the pervasive issue of harassment, bullying and intimidation in the workplace. We’re hoping that protection for whistle-blowers from such behaviour is also included in this.

Of course, the bill does put a lot of faith in the Office of the Ombudsperson or the Auditor General. It seems to me that if we’re giving them so much responsibility as per the matters of this bill, we should ensure that there are safeguards in place that ensure equitable operations in all of these as well. Again, this is a bill that the B.C. Green caucus is proud to support. We thank the Attorney General’s office for bringing it in, and we look forward to further expansion in committee stage of some of the details contained in this report.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the members for their comments in relation to the bill. I look forward to committee stage with them.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 28, Public Interest Disclosure Act, 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. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 19, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

BILL 19 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time.

Amendments are proposed to two acts, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act and the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Firstly, this bill proposes amendments to rename three class A parks — Brooks Peninsula Park, Boya Lake Park and Roderick Haig-Brown Park — to reflect their cultural significance to Indigenous peoples.

The renaming of these parks allows our government to take an important step forward in our ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples across British Columbia, which includes honouring the commitments we made under the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The renaming of these parks to traditional Indigenous names also reflects the significant heritage values recognized by all British Columbians and beyond.

Brooks Peninsula Park, also known as M_u^qq_i^wn Park, on Vancouver Island will be renamed to M_u^qq_i^wn/Brooks Peninsula Park, which places the First Nations name before the English name, which was the original intent when the park was renamed in 2009. The renaming reflects the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’-Che:k:tles7et’h’ First Nations name and uses the Che:k:tles7et’h’ language. The park area is spiritually significant to the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’-Che:k:tles7et’h’ Nations and has long served as their traditional hunting and fishing grounds.

[4:00 p.m.]

Boya Lake Park, near the northwestern B.C. border, will be renamed Tā Ch’ilā Park, meaning “holes in a blanket,” at the request of the Kaska Dena natural resource council. When one looks down from the mountains onto the lakes, they appear as a collection of small lakes forming a chain resembling, according to the Kaska elders, a raggedy blanket.

Roderick Haig-Brown Park, in the Shuswap, will be renamed to the traditional name Tsútswecw Park, which translates to “many fish,” at the request of the Little Shuswap Indian Band. The park is internationally known for its sockeye salmon run, which flows through the park, drawing thousands of visitors every four years to observe the dominant sockeye run at the Salute to the Sockeye celebrations. The park is also a significant area for First Nations, with many cultural sites in and around the park.

Secondly, the bill continues what is normally done on an annual basis — namely, adding and removing lands from protected areas, improving protected area boundary descriptions and correcting administrative errors. Amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will add lands to ten parks and one conservancy. Four of these class A parks and one additional class A park are also having land removed. I will now detail those additions and deletions.

Now 1,220 hectares, known as the K’aas Gandlaay area, are being added to Duu Guusd conservancy. The K’aas Gandlaay area contributes to an almost contiguous band of protected areas along the west coast of Haida Gwaii and protects archeological sites, old-growth cedar stands and important Haida cultural and spiritual values. The Haida Gwaii Management Council is very supportive of us moving forward with this conservancy addition.

Three parks on Vancouver Island are having lands added to them as a result of private land acquisitions. At Cape Scott Park, approximately five hectares of land are being added as the result of two private properties being acquired by the province from the Anglican diocese of Canada and a third property formerly owned by the Cape Scott Social Club. This park is a magnificent area of rugged coastal wilderness that is located at the northwestern tip of Vancouver Island and features more than 115 kilometres of scenic ocean frontage.

At Cowichan River Park, approximately four hectares are being added as the result of the purchase of two private properties from the Nature Conservancy of Canada. These two properties protect streamside habitat with fisheries values and a maple forest grove with rare wild flowers. This park protects significant stretches of the Cowichan River, known for its wild salmon and steelhead fishery, and is designated as both a B.C. heritage river and a Canadian heritage river.

At Juan de Fuca Park, approximately five hectares are being added as the result of private land purchases by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation as part of treaty negotiations with the Pacheedaht First Nation. The addition of these lands to the park resolves some historic trespass issues along the popular Juan de Fuca Trail.

Now 268 hectares are being added to Monkman Park to protect Slate Falls, a significant waterfall and geographical feature; six hectares of foreshore are being added to Otter Lake Park to help protect lake and shoreline values; 3.43 hectares of a closed segment of the Broadwater Road, which includes the park gatehouse, day-use parking lots and some campsites, are being added to Syringa Park; 17 hectares are being added to Monashee Park, which includes the main parking area and trailhead, including the Spectrum Creek Trail, an important access route.

Now 85 hectares along the Dease River are being added to Boya Lake Park. As well, 15 hectares are being removed from the park as the result of the completion of a survey for Highway 37 North, which serves as the western boundary of the park.

At E.C. Manning Park, lands are being added at the Mule Deer campground, where recreation facility development has encroached on the Highway 3 right-of-way. Administrative changes are also being made to reflect highway realignment near the Westgate entrance that addresses safety concerns. In total, these boundary adjustments will result in 3.26 hectares being added to the park and 4.7 hectares being removed from the park.

At Kleanza Creek Park, the owner of a property adjacent to the park wishes to subdivide their property and is required to have a dedicated road access. The property owner applied through the provincial protected area boundary adjustment policy to have a segment of the Gold Creek Access Road removed from the park.

[4:05 p.m.]

This boundary modification will result in 0.17 hectares being removed from the park. Another 0.01 hectare is being removed from the park to accommodate the maintenance needs of the Ministry of Transportation, since a number of closed highway right-of-way segments, totalling 4.2 hectares, will be added to the park.

At Fintry Park, 0.318 hectares of land are being removed from the park for road safety improvement work being undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

The amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act also make a number of administrative corrections and improvements to legal descriptions. This continues our work of moving from metes and bounds descriptions to mapped boundaries, otherwise known as official plans. Official plans are more accurate, they’re more understandable, and they’re more practical for field surveying than the older metes and bounds descriptions.

The administrative amendments in this bill are as follows: 15 ecological reserves and three parks — Boya Lake Park, Okeover Arm Park and Chilliwack Lake Park — will have existing boundary descriptions replaced with official plans. New official plans will correct errors in the boundary descriptions for Sasquatch Park and Okeover Arm Park, and a revised boundary description for Downing Park will correct a spelling error in the name of a road.

As noted, this package also amends the Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. The bill repeals an amendment in the aforementioned act related to Graham-Laurier Park. It was never brought into force and is no longer needed.

These are the amendments in Bill 19. I am happy to listen to comments of other members with respect to this bill.

P. Milobar: It’s a great pleasure to rise and speak for the first time to a bill as a critic. Who doesn’t have the thrill of speaking to some administrative changes within that bill? So it’s a good day.

Bill 19, as we heard, has a great many amendments to various parks and ecological reserves within the province of British Columbia. Certainly, I think everyone can agree that preserving areas that have already been designated is, first and foremost, very important. Making sure that updated, accurate information is available for the public is very important as well.

When you look at the Chilliwack River Ecological Reserve and its approximate 85 hectares or the Doc English Bluff Ecological Reserve and its whole reserve containing approximately 35 hectares….

The Drizzle Lake Ecological Reserve is around 813 hectares.

The Duke of Edinburgh (Pine/Storm/Tree Islets) Ecological Reserve. That whole ecological reserve contains approximately 549 hectares, 100 hectares of upland and 449 hectares of foreshore area.

Of course, then we have the Honeymoon Bay Ecological Reserve. That whole ecological reserve contains approximately 7.5 hectares.

The Katherine Tye Ecological Reserve is a reserve containing approximately 3.1 hectares.

The Kingcome River/Atlatzi River Ecological Reserve. Again, that whole reserve contains approximately 384 hectares.

The Klaskish River Ecological Reserve. That is in the Prince Rupert area, and the whole ecological reserve contains approximately 149 hectares, of which there are 122 hectares of upland and 27 hectares of foreshore area.

The Lasqueti Island Ecological Reserve. The whole reserve contains approximately 217 hectares.

The Mount Tinsdale Ecological Reserve. That whole reserve contains approximately 438 hectares.

We have the Skagit River Cottonwoods Ecological Reserve. That whole ecological reserve contains approximately 59 hectares.

As well, there’s the Skagit River Forest Ecological Reserve in the Yale district. That whole ecological reserve contains approximately 79 hectares.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Torkelsen Lake Ecological Reserve — of course, that’s in range 5, Coast district — is “contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as plan 8 tube 2015,” for those who weren’t aware of that. That whole ecological reserve contains approximately 158 hectares.

One that I’m fairly familiar with is the Tranquille Ecological Reserve. This is just on the western edge of Kamloops and borders with Kamloops Lake. That is situated in the Kamloops division in the Yale district. Its whole ecological reserve is containing approximately 233 hectares.

That particular area is something to see. As the river is coming up, as we see right now, there are certainly some lowland areas that fill up and provide critical, marshy-type habitat as the waters rise. As they then again start to recede, it provides that habitat through large sections of very warm weather, as those depressions in the land contain the water and make sure that there’s a viable, protected area for a great many sources of wildlife in the Kamloops area.

Obviously, coming from Kamloops, it’s an area that’s very dry in the summertime. These types of areas are very important to our local ecological areas to make sure that we are maintaining and sustaining the diversity that makes British Columbia such a special place for all to enjoy.

Lastly, we have the Woodley Range Ecological Reserve. That whole ecological reserve is containing approximately 159 hectares in the Oyster district. It is contained within the lands described — boundaries as shown in the official plan, which is deposited in the Crown land registry as plan 12 tube 2015.

All in all, those ecological reserve amendments that we are seeing, I think, are supportable. They’re obviously, as the minister said, much to do about housekeeping amendments and making sure that language is cleaned up, spelling errors are corrected and some mapping errors as well.

It’s always good to see that the ministry is continually, and on an annual basis, making sure that as surveying gets to be more accurate, as mapping gets to be more accurate, as maps that maybe once were designated with a fat-tip Sharpie now get highlighted and dialed in with their boundaries…. And recognizing that there are some areas within each of these reserves that need a bit of restructuring to make sure that certain areas are recognized…. They maybe had previously, unbeknownst to others — based on older surveying or mapping techniques — fallen out of a boundary, even though, in practice, it had probably been in the boundary for quite some time.

When you look at the renaming of the three class A parks, again, that’s a move that we’ve seen happen around the province over the last short while. Certainly, in committee stage, we’ll have some more questions around that in terms of the overall process. It does sound like there had been some consultation — I know in the case of the Roderick Haig Park renaming. It’s certainly, again, an area very close to my home riding, as well as an area that I frequented very much and still do recreate in with my family, with a summer cottage in that general area.

More importantly, that was an area that…. When we were in school in Kamloops, we were very fortunate. You sometimes don’t realize how fortunate you are until you get a bit older in life and realize, as your own kids are going through school and you start talking to colleagues and friends from around the province, that their kids don’t have access to the same types of educational opportunities that you would have had growing up.

I know, every four years in particular, we would make sure that all the classes, pretty much, in the Kamloops school district would get bused out on day trips to the Roderick Haig Park to get some salmon education, to better understand what that world-class salmon run actually means.

The interesting thing about that salmon run is, when you’re in Kamloops — even though it comes by everybody’s door, right through the heart of downtown Kamloops, right through the heart of the Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc territory — you don’t really appreciate how many salmon are actually in the river, because the Thompson is wide enough that it’s not quite as noticeable, even when you’re going over the bridges.

[4:15 p.m.]

As you proceed east and get closer and into the Adams River area and that concentration of salmon really gets condensed down into that smaller surface area and the smaller stream of Adams River, it’s when it becomes very clear. As a young student, it was a very educational ability that we had provided by our school district, and recognizing that not every school district does.

When I heard that it was going to be renamed…. Then I heard that, in fact — my understanding was — the Haig-Brown family was comfortable as well with the renaming, as well as, obviously, the Little Shuswap band asking for the name change. That’s a good sign, and I think that bodes well for the future of that park, making sure that it continues to be such a great educational jewel for all in our province to enjoy — but also all of the tourists that do come as well.

There are a great many people from around the world that actually do seek out…. As they’re staying in Kamloops and looking for day trips in the fall, they actually start to seek out — and I would imagine, by extension, in the Salmon Arm area as well — the salmon run. They start to hear about it. It’s surprising how many people actually will extend their stay by an extra day or two to be able to partake and go to that park and enjoy it. It’ll be interesting to see, moving forward and as we go into committee stage, how exactly, working through with the name changes, that will happen.

There is, of course, some other repealing and name description. Boya Lake Park is getting changed and substituted. The interesting part about this is that it appears — and again, we will seek out clarification of this at committee stage — that the phrasing a.k.a, or also known as, to keep the Boya Lake Park name as a piece of naming that will still be recognizable, in addition to the First Nation’s naming, seems to be, for the first time, embedded into these changes as well. It would, I believe, be a first, but we will check with the minister as we canvass this through committee stage.

Of course, there’s Brooks Peninsula Park and Cape Scott Park as well as Chilliwack Lake Park all receiving some different changes to their names and descriptions. Then we also have the description of Fintry Park and the description of Juan de Fuca Park.

All in all, these can sometimes…. I maybe sounded a little flippant at the beginning, saying it’s a great pleasure to stand up and talk about administrative and technical changes to a bill and pieces of legislation. Really, it is an important part of government — to keep moving forward, continually updating and correcting past errors, either in naming or correcting past errors when it comes to mapping, and making sure that, as areas are getting heavy use or getting accessed by the public, people have a very good understanding of where exactly they are allowed to go and where they’re not allowed to go and where, in fact, areas are that could be available for other types of development to happen.

Be it a road being built to further access parts of our province or be it somebody trying to find a way to access a piece of Crown land for a recreational opportunity, it’s important that they understand where exactly those boundaries go. The fact that we have seen some parks where roads have been built essentially through a park but the park plan hadn’t been amended to demonstrate that is an understandable error at some times. But it’s one that I think needs to happen, especially in this day and age, when we’re dealing with the archaeological assessments that need to be undertaken.

As you see more and more work being done in relation to potential impact to previous contact for First Nations settlements in those areas, it’s important, all the more, to have that accurate mapping and accurate descriptions in place — descriptions and mapping that are actually cohesive and run similarly from a piece of legislation to a piece of legislation so that people going into a land titles office, be it in New Westminster or be it in Kamloops, and looking up maps are actually seeing the same type of mapping being provided, be it within a city boundary or be it within a provincial park area.

There’s also the descriptions of Kleanza Creek Park. That’s a park that’s containing approximately 220 hectares.

[4:20 p.m.]

There’s the Okeover Arm Park as well. This is in group 1, a New Westminster district park, within the official plan and the Crown land registry. That whole park is containing approximately three hectares.

Of course, the Otter Lake Park. That’s within tracts of Crown land. That’s foreshore as well as land covered by water, situated in the Osoyoos division, in the Yale district. Of course, that’s contained within the boundaries of the official plan deposited in the Crown land registry as plan 5 tube 2016. The whole park is containing approximately 55 hectares.

I did touch on already repealing the name of the Roderick Haig-Brown Park and substituting it. As well, in the description of the Sasquatch Park — striking out plan 2 tube 2003 and substituting plan 5 tube 2013. That doesn’t sound like much, but if you’re going to pull out the right plan, you better make sure you’re pulling the right tube. Obviously, you want plan 2 out of tube 2003 to not be the one that you’re pulling now, moving forward, because it’ll now be plan 5 in tube 2013.

Again, it seems to be an inconsequential change but important nonetheless if you’re trying to actually seek out plans, when you consider the large land mass that this province actually is.

We have the Cowichan River Park, as well, which is containing approximately 1,418 hectares, one of the larger parks we would have talked about today. Certainly, it’s good to see that’s getting an update and making sure that any of those amendments that need to be done are being amended within that schedule D by substituting the following.

The description of the E.C. Manning Park, striking out and changing that…. That park is containing approximately…. You know, I said the previous park at 1,418 hectares was our largest one, but obviously, the Manning Park area is much larger. It’s approximately 83,670 hectares, so a significantly big difference.

Of course, you’re striking out plan 5 tube 1892 and substituting plan 2 tube 2016 and striking out 22,722 hectares and substituting in 22,739 hectares. I’m assuming that would be, again, the updating of mapping. The more accurate mapping that you do have available to you nowadays, especially if, indeed, it was first mapped in 1892…. One would assume that mapping here in 2018 would be a little more accurate and concise in terms of the overall hectares available to the public to enjoy in the Manning Park area.

Then, of course, we have the Duu Guusd conservancy. That whole conservancy contains approximately — now, this is the big one of the bunch at this point — 229,107 hectares. That’s in the Queen Charlottes area. All these parcels…. I should read the whole description, because that’s a pretty large park, actually.

“All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in Queen Charlotte District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan…”

Sorry. My municipal background keeps coming out when I keep saying official community plan instead of just official plan.

[4:25 p.m.]

“…deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 6 Tube 2007; except (1) Commercial Lease V899472, District Lot 3090, covering foreshore, being the bed of Henslung Bay, containing approximately 2.33 hectares, on Land Act file 0104419 at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Queen Charlotte; (2) Commercial Recreation Lease 240935, District Lot 3073, containing approximately 0.39 hectares, on Land Act file 6405327 at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Queen Charlotte; (3) Commercial Lease V900086, District Lot 3070, containing approximately 0.4 hectares, on Land Act file 6402891 at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Queen Charlotte; and (4) Commercial Lease 240940, covering foreshore as shown on the Legal Description Schedule of the Lease, containing approx­imately 2 hectares, on Land Act file 6402150 at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Queen Charlotte.”

Again, the whole conservancy contains approximately 229,107 hectares — 144,934 hectares of upland and 84,173 hectares of foreshore, for that total of 229,107 hectares.

Of course, we would need to see the recession of the ecological reserves of those same original ecological reserves that were mentioned at the beginning on schedule A.

Those would be rescinding the establishment of the Chilliwack River Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 699/80, the establishment of the ecological reserve known as Doc English Bluff Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 725/81, the ecological reserve known as Drizzle Lake Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 2762/73, the establishment of the Duke of Edinburgh (Pine/Storm/Tree Islets) Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 1210/88, the establishment of the ecological reserve known as Honeymoon Bay Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 1554/84.

I never went there on my honeymoon. I wound up in Vancouver, but that sounds like a nice spot to go.

The establishment of the Katherine Tye Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 2171/86, the establishment of the ecological reserve known as Kingcome River–Atlatzi River Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 2866/72, the establishment of the Klaskish River Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 1032/90, the establishment of the ecological reserve known as Lasqueti Island Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 1566/71.

The re-establishment of Mount Tinsdale Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 962/94, the establishment of the ecological reserve known as the Skagit River Cottonwoods Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 1104/78, the establishment of the ecological reserve known as the Skagit River Forest Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 1583/71.

The establishment of the ecological reserve known as the Torkelsen Lake Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 3766/75, the establishment of the ecological reserve known as the Tranquille Ecological Reserve by Order-in-Council 3684/71, and the establishment of the ecological reserve known as Woodley Range Ecological Reserve by the Woodley Range schedule and Order-in-Council 592/96.

Again, we have the related amendments in this bill as well, and they have all the various sections — sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Obviously, as the minister would well be aware, I’m a fairly inquisitive fellow, so I’m sure we’ll have a fair amount of questions at committee stage for the minister.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

All in all, I think this is one of those bills where…. It’s certainly good to see there is a continuing effort, year after year, by the parks and the Minister of Environment to make sure the mapping and access points are accurate, well understood and consistent — that people have a clear direction and that we have proper naming and proper areas so that we can make sure all in our communities can get out and enjoy the wonderful nature that British Columbia has to offer and, as well, so that our tourists can continue to seek out British Columbia as a place to make sure that they make their party for their holidays. That’s why, when you look at renaming those three class A parks….

[4:30 p.m.]

I think it does send a message moving forward, in terms of making sure that people are being recognized within their regions for the significant impacts that some of these parks have created within First Nations areas, in terms of some of their traditional hunting and gathering areas, making sure it lends itself to even more interpretive ability in terms of educational opportunities for the public when they come to these park areas to get a better understanding of the full history of the area they’re in — not just to come and see the beautiful trees and foliage and water but to get a true sense of the powerful historical connection those areas do have with a great many generations within our province, generations from long before first contact; to make sure they have a good sense of that and leave British Columbia the wiser; to go back to wherever they’re from and be able to spread the word that, indeed, British Columbia does truly take seriously their protection of these areas. It’s not just a protection on paper and by name but in action as well.

With that, I look forward to the questions that will come forward in committee stage. I’m sure there’ll be a great many from colleagues on my side to move forward, to make sure that people can fully access, fully appreciate and fully understand where exactly these amendments are changing the boundary lines. They may seem like small boundary changes. If you’re talking about making sure that certain areas, like a waterfall, are fully protected and fully accessed, it may only be a few feet or a few hectares on a map. But it certainly makes a huge difference to the overall viability and long-term sustainability of that protected area if those types of environmental values are being protected with some of these housekeeping amendments that we see in Bill 19.

I thank you for the time, and I look forward to committee stage moving forward.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 19, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2018.

The Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act represents a symbolic move towards reconciliation with Indigenous people in British Columbia. The bill changes the name of Brooks Peninsula Park to M_u^qq_i^wn/Brooks Peninsula Park. “M_u^qq_i^wn” means “the queen” in the Nuu-chah-nulth language. Boya Lake Park is renamed Tā Ch’ilā Park, meaning “holes in a blanket,” at the request of the Kaska Dena First Nation. And Roderick Haig-Brown Park is renamed the traditional Secwepemc name Tsútswecw Park, which translates to “many fish,” which I hope proves to be true. Changing these names, according to the wishes of Indigenous nations of these lands, is an important step for us to be taking in B.C. as we move towards reconciliation.

The bill also increases the size of several existing parks and a conservancy, in addition to making several boundary administrative clarifications. Notable is the addition of 1,200 hectares to Duu Guusd conservancy in Haida Gwaii. The newly protected area contributes to a nearly uninterrupted band of protected areas along Haida Gwaii’s west coast, protecting not only environmental sites such as old-growth cedar forests but also important Haida cultural and spiritual values.

I’m also pleased to see an increase to the Cowichan River park. The Cowichan River is, of course, a river that is the heart of the Cowichan Valley and is of high value to everybody who lives in my riding. The access to that park is so important to people, for a wide range of reasons, and it is so important to the Cowichan Tribes people.

Honeymoon Bay conservation area is also being added here. As my colleague from North Cowichan helped me with, to find out, it’s to protect the pink fawn lilies and numerous other wildflower species. Again, that might seem not important, but biodiversity and protecting species that are frail and in danger of being extinguished is indeed very important. Biodiversity cannot be overlooked as playing the incredibly important role it does in our ecological well-being.

I commend this legislation for its expansion of protected ecosystems and its movements towards reconciliation, and I would like to also highlight the importance of substantive change. Renaming is important, but it is not enough when Indigenous people still face great socioeconomic disparities. Ecological reserves are important, but they do not guarantee the survival of B.C.’s various species.

[4:35 p.m.]

The significance of the changes made by this act must not overshadow the ongoing realities of the work of reconciliation and environmental and ecological conservation that must be done in this province. I am happy to support this bill, and I look forward to more efforts on behalf of our ecological well-being in B.C.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise and make a few comments around Bill 19, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, and to use this opportunity to talk just a little bit about the additions that have been made and the changes that are in this amendment act and the changes of names.

My colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson has done a very detailed commentary on the changes and the amount of changes that will be made, the important steps in renaming a number of our parks for reconciliation purposes. He’s commented around the fact that this is, in many respects, in some areas, housekeeping changes that fix boundaries and make those appropriate adjustments, and a few changes that help achieve other important objectives in the province around highway safety and those kinds of things.

I wanted to speak, and hopefully, we’ll have the latitude…. The bill deals with those changes that are proposed in the bill. There was also another significant announcement by the government and by the ministry around the new protected lands throughout British Columbia and a number of properties that have been acquired, through various processes, to be added to protected areas or added to provincial parks which, at this point in time, are not in the bill. I am expecting that at some point in the future, there will be further legislation that will complete the process around those areas that are parcels of land that are to be added to provincial parks.

One of them which is very important to me and to my constituents in Kelowna-Mission and, more broadly, around the Central Okanagan was the part of the announcement which was the addition of 16.4 hectares at Myra-Bellevue Provincial Park in the Okanagan. This is something that has been worked on for quite a while. It really has been advocated by a group of ardent advocates and supporters of recreation and outdoor activity and land preservation in the Okanagan — the Friends of the South Slopes and the Okanagan naturalist clubs.

The Friends of the South Slopes are a volunteer organization. Their main purpose is promotion of active outdoor recreation, but they do great work in terms of helping support that objective. They have a partnership agreement with B.C. Parks. They maintain trails in Myra-Bellevue Provincial Park. They have a partnership that also includes the Mountain Bikers of the Central Okanagan. They look after over 100 kilometres of trails as part of that partnership agreement. They have some great volunteers and advocates that, over the years, have developed that partnership and have really promoted preservation and protection of significant environmental values in the regions.

[4:40 p.m.]

This was a piece of property — as I said, 16.4 hectares — that was, in a sense, isolated in the park. It was privately owned but didn’t have access to it for the private land owner. In about 2008, the private land owner approached and contacted the province to want to start discussions around being able to provide access to the property, just as we see in one of the other adjustments in the bill that’s before us, around some park adjustments in order to provide road access to property.

In this case, the proposal that was being worked on, around providing that road access, included some adjustments to the park boundaries in order to remove a very small portion of the park in order to be able to provide that access to the private property owner and ensure that we had that continued opportunity there. Obviously, it created a great deal of concerns for the residents and the people in the area, the clubs, the advocates for Myra-Bellevue Park.

It became clear that alternate approaches were needed. This has very, very — these 16.4 hectares are known as the Meadow; they call it the Meadow or Thunder Meadow — significant environmental values, the wetlands and important species in there. It also was a critical point of access into Myra-Bellevue Park. In fact, many of the trails that come and link through the park go through the private property in order to get access up into the park.

I’ve had the opportunity, with the Friends of the South Slopes and the Okanagan Naturalists Club, to hike those trails. The property owner has always been, and was always, very, very cooperative in terms of allowing and providing that access through the property into the park. But it was private property and, ultimately, needed to have a solution here that worked.

I recall one summer evening going up to a meeting on a patio with the residents of the area who were very, very concerned about the proposal that there may be some land taken from the park in order to provide access or realignment along a hydro line and access. It became very, very clear to me that that that was not an option that should be proceeded with.

At the time, I was Minister of Forests and Lands, and our ministry would have been the one that would have been facilitating that process. We stepped back and looked at other options, and then the options focused on a land exchange option as a possibility. That was investigated but became difficult in terms of finding the land that might work for that purpose.

Ultimately — and very, very appreciative, in fact — the government and the minister facilitated this addition of the land to Myra-Bellevue Park through the purchase and acquisition of the property. I think it’s something that the residents and the clubs will celebrate, a completion of a long-standing desire by the community to have that property added.

It is very close to my heart, as well, in terms of that initiative. My mother, for years, was a director of the Friends of the South Slopes and a long-time member of the naturalists club. I can recall many discussions around the kitchen table of her wanting to see that objective achieved. Now it has been achieved, and I know all of the directors…. There are some great people there that have been advocating for this. They are looking very much forward to the full completion of the process, when that addition will be brought forward through the legislative process.

[4:45 p.m.]

When the bill was first introduced, when the minister introduced it, I thought: “Well, great. This is the process. This is the step. Now we’re just going to get this completed.” Then I looked into the details. It’s not there yet, along with a number of other pieces of property that were included in the announcement that the government made. But the commitment has been made. The table has been set in terms of completing that. I know that all of the residents are eagerly awaiting the next steps when that process will be completed legally.

I just wanted to use this opportunity to make those comments, even though it diverts a little bit from the exact elements of the bill that’s in front of us. But I hope, in my comments, a few times I’ve linked it back to the bill.

Just with respect to the bill, as my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson commented, I’m very supportive of the changes that have been made. I’ve had the opportunity, over many years, to visit many of those areas, the Haida Gwaii conservancies and many of the other parks. I notice a few on the list that I haven’t, and that creates, I think, a bucket list opportunity, where you would like to go and make sure you get to visit all of those.

Again, important steps in ensuring that ecological values are preserved and key provincial objectives are met in terms of, as I mentioned, some adjustments to cover off other objectives around traffic safety. The changes at Fintry Park are really around improving Westside Road — a very significant initiative in terms of improving that road and making those appropriate adjustments.

I’m going to be pleased to stand and support the bill. I know my colleague has noted that there will be a number of questions during committee stage on some of the specific details and processes around some of the decisions that are here — again, something we deal with in this House on a regular basis, bringing those kinds of adjustments forward. We’ll be pleased to support those when we get to the final stage of this bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure today to speak in support of the park expansions, the conservancy expansions, the proper metes and bounds for parks in B.C. — and to, even more importantly, speak in support of reconciliation and the name changes for three parks that are included in this legislation.

It’s important. Names are important. What we call things matters. Unfortunately, I know that over time, folks that look like me decided that First Nations names didn’t matter. They were going to take possession and ownership and erase the history of so many of these places and the effective occupation of many of these places that became known as parks, places which included villages, ceremonial and spiritual places, places of real importance to the First Nations in British Columbia.

I think it’s important to take these steps, to start bringing the names back as we make the steps on reconciliation, as we acknowledge that there was a history. There is a history. There was a people. There is a people who have been here long before colonialists arrived and started naming parks. It’s important.

In my own community in the West End of Vancouver, we know that work is going on in Stanley Park now. Lumberman’s Arch used to be known as Xwayxway or Whoi, depending on who you talked to. There was a village with people actually living there. Up until around the 1920s was when the last person lived there. You wouldn’t know it today if you visit the site, and that’s the same in many of the parks.

[4:50 p.m.]

You will start to get a sense of the importance to the people when we rename Brooks Peninsula Park to M_u^qq_i^wn Park, which is in the Nuu-chah-nulth language. It’s important that their presence and their continued use of that site be recognized. So that name is changing.

Boya Lake Park. I’ve never been to Brooks Peninsula Park, M_u^qq_i^wn Park. I’ll have to make a visit of it. I know that my son, Dev, and husband, Romi…. We love getting out into the outback, into the wilderness, so we will be visiting it. We made an effort when I was the Environment critic to try to get out and see as many parks in B.C. as possible, and man, we’ve got a lot of them.

I know that we’re making more of them. We do protect, and we believe in supporting the ecology of the province and the need to leave more in a better way than we found it. We’re far from that as a species, but we’re working on it, and this bill will help.

Boya Lake Park we did have the pleasure of visiting with our friend Amanda. We got up there and spent two nights at Boya Lake Park, now going to be known as Tā Ch’ilā Park, meaning “holes in a blanket.”

If anybody’s been in the northwest part of the province, almost all the way up to Yukon, where Boya Lake is — or Tā Ch’ilā Park, as it will be renamed — you’ll know it’s an incredible place. You get there at ten o’clock at night, and you can still feel like it’s eight o’clock or seven o’clock at night, because things just stay lighter there — brighter later, longer.

The colour of the water…. It felt like we were in some sort of dream sequence being in that place, walking the trails, getting to one part and going: “Okay, the beavers have decided that the lakes, the holes in the blanket, are going to be blocked off here, and they built their dam across.” We continued a little further down the trail and: “Oh, what’s that smell? Well, I’m a city boy, but I think that smells like bear.” You just know it. It sends a little shiver down your spine. You go: “Okay, I’m where the bear is today. Let’s make a beeline out of there.” And we did.

To know that that place will be reconnected with the Kaska Dena First Nation, whose territory it is, is very important.

Of course, another place I went to as a child — and, I think, will certainly go there again because it is so amazing — is what will become Tsútswecw Park. My apologies to the Secwepemc people for mispronouncing the name that that will become. We’ll need to educate me and many others about how to say the name. That’ll be an important thing, because again, it reconnects with the place, with the history, with the heritage. Roderick Haig-Brown Park in the Shuswap — an incredible place to learn about salmon and the incredible wealth and bounty they bring to our province.

I know that my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson was talking about how the salmon pass through the rivers just outside of Kamloops, and you can’t see it because it’s too muddy. Well, you certainly can when you get up to Tsútswecw Park, Roderick Haig-Brown Park, because they’re right there. The water is clear, and the bounty and what they bring to the forests around them, as well, is right there — in red and green and brown and all of the other colours that salmon get when they slowly are returning to earth.

So those three will get new names — the names restored, in some sense. I think that’s a really important step. Along with the names, you have to protect the languages. So I’ll just digress for a minute to talk about a commitment our government has made and is following through on, which I’m really proud of.

I’ll congratulate my colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, who I know worked very hard on this — along with a number of other MLAs over the years and, more importantly, folks at the First Peoples Cultural Council and nations all across B.C. — to ensure that we put money back into maintaining, preserving, restoring, revitalizing First Nations languages. That’s $50 million.

I thank the Minister of Finance, as well, for including that in the budget. You can’t understand, I think, until you speak to people about the importance of their language and how it’s disappearing and what that means for culture. It’s hard to understand until you really talk to them.

The Royal B.C. Museum has got a good exhibit on languages right now that explains some of that and connects to the heart and to how you can’t protect a culture, you can’t understand your history, you can’t understand where you’re going, unless you understand language and what that language is.

So again, it was the right investment, and I think it will pay off in a huge way — in all sorts of ways that we don’t even understand yet.

I’m going to go through a couple of the parks that I’m excited to see expanded. Tumbler Ridge, in that area, in Monkman Provincial Park — more waterfalls added. I’ve never been. I almost got there. It was too far, but it’s going to be on the road trip list — for years to come, because it’s a long way away. Dev is a pretty good traveller, but it’s a long way away. We will get up there again.

[4:55 p.m.]

Protecting waterfalls like what you’ve got there…. People had no idea that they were even there. They seem to be still discovering waterfalls — if you can believe that’s possible in that area in B.C. — and added them to the park. So that’s exciting.

Three additions to three parks: Cowichan River, Juan de Fuca and Cape Scott parks. With Cowichan River, my understanding is this about protecting areas that are really important to fish. You know the Cowichan River has had its struggles with maintaining fish stocks, growing them back again when they’ve had real issues with water and real issues with impacts on where the young fry and other fish go to live. This will help.

In terms of Juan de Fuca, I know this has got to do with an issue of trespass and people crossing over Indigenous people’s lands. There’s an addition of those through a treaty process, I believe, to ensure that that’s part of the park so that folks don’t have to deal with those issues any longer. That’s the right thing to do.

One which, if you’ll indulge me, is a bit of an interesting story, at least for me, is Cape Scott Provincial Park. Cape Scott, the northern tip of Vancouver Island. I’m sure that at some point we may decide to rename that park, as well, because there’s active interest and there has been Indigenous heritage up there for a long, long time. It’s a beautiful park, and if you ever get a chance, go to it. Hike in. An amazing place. I think my husband and I have been up there, I don’t know, six or seven times now, camped on the beach. It’s just a world apart.

For years, we’d go up there, and I’d see on a little trail map little black spots on the park map that showed private property. I’d say: “Oh, interesting. Private property in the middle of Cape Scott Park where you can’t get a road in.” There are no cabins that we can see in the areas designated as private. We could see no active interest in those areas of the park. So I wondered who owns this private property in the park and what the issue is there.

Previously, I think the Anglican archdiocese and others…. Some of that may have been added into the park under a previous amendment to this bill. I spoke to it then, but I asked further. I said: “Well, there’s another piece. Who owns that? That hasn’t been added to the park. Who owns this chunk of land?” So the library assisted me. They did a land title search, and they noticed that it was owned by the Cape Scott Social Club — 0.4 hectares in Cape Scott Park. “How interesting. Who is this Cape Scott Social Club? I want to become a member. I love Cape Scott. It’s a great place to be, and the chunk of land they own is not developed in any form.”

I asked further. I said: “Library, can you help me figure out who these people are? I want to contact them and get a sense of what they’re doing.” They said: “Sure. We’ll look into who the Cape Scott Social Club is.” If memory serves — this was two or three years ago now — the library said: “They don’t exist. The Cape Scott Social Club ceased operations in maybe 1912 or maybe as late as 1920, but they don’t exist. They haven’t existed. There are no reports. There’s nothing. We have no living kin that connect to it. We don’t know who they are.”

I suggested at the time: “Well, jeez. Shouldn’t that be part of the park if the Cape Scott Social Club no longer exists?” They said: “Well, I guess it does revert to Crown and so probably should.” But whatever happened, the ministry never added it in at the time. So 0.4 hectares of Cape Scott Provincial Park…. Thanks to the sleuthing of the library and my desire to always ask questions, we learned that that, too, could be added to the park.

Now functionally, it doesn’t change anything. It wasn’t developed before, and it won’t be developed since. But that little black spot that I saw on the map that I always found so annoying, wondering what the heck was going on there, will no longer be on that map, as it’ll be part of the park.

Thank you to my friends in the Legislative Library for helping me do that sleuthing work. And thank you to the ministry for listening to the suggestion and adding it in.

Cape Scott Park. Go visit it. Do the North Coast Trail. It’s well worth it, even though it’s a little scary and really difficult. But hey, don’t let that stop you. There are also easier parts of Cape Scott Park you can visit, like the San Josef Bay, which is an easier hike. You can even get a wheelchair or a stroller in there. So that might be our first trip, as opposed to the 17-kilometre hike over stumps and so on, which you take to get out into the other part. Although thanks to the park service for working to make it a safer trail, which I know they’ve been doing for years.

There’s an addition of 3.4 hectares to Syringa Park, in the Kootenays; 17 hectares to Monashee Park; the Duu Guusd Conservancy, up in Haida Gwaii — 1,220 hectares being added there; and a couple of other boundary adjustments and so on, through the bill, more on the administrative side.

[5:00 p.m.]

It’s a good bill. I’m happy to see when we’re embracing parks and our lands and trying to remember that our provincial slogan is “Splendor without diminishment.” Making sure that we leave more splendour, as opposed to diminishment, should be something we all work hard to do.

Thank you to the members and thank you to the Minister of Environment for bringing forward this legislation. I can’t wait to visit these parks with their new names and be able to talk about that history and that connection to the long history before this province even existed.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to take the opportunity to stand today and to speak to Bill 19. Before I start, though — I didn’t have an opportunity to do this yesterday — I just want to wish my lovely wife happy birthday. It’s always challenging being down here frequently when it’s her birthday.

To my lovely wife: I love you. Happy birthday. She asked me if I could do that this time, this year. She doesn’t normally ask me to do that, so I had to make sure that I got that in. Sorry, Madame Speaker.

Bill 19 and parks. One thing I really wanted to talk a little bit about with parks is the renaming of the parks to First Nation names. I think it’s very appropriate, and it’s actually quite interesting.

When you look at what happened in Prince George not too long ago, they decided to rename what was known as Fort George Park to the Lheidli T’enneh Memorial Park. This actually created quite a stir in the community around this because everybody knew this park by its name of Fort George Park. People were saying: “It’s always been this park. It’s always been called this. Why would we change it?”

Well, people forgot that even before it was a park, it was actually a golf course. But besides that, long before any of that happened, the Lheidli T’enneh had a community in that area. They even have, still, a graveyard in that park, and there’s a memorial there already for them.

The renaming of the park is a way to be able to connect people to the real history, to the full history, of that particular area. I think it’s an important lesson for the people in the community. There are still some people that are upset about it. It’s an important lesson because, particularly for Prince George, it taught people about part of a dark part of our history.

That community where the Lheidli T’enneh people were, those people were forced to leave that park. They were relocated further upriver to a place that we call Shelley to where they had one of their other reserves, and their homes were destroyed, and the land was expropriated. At the time, there were three communities in the area — Fort George, Central Fort George and South Fort George. They thought the area would go into community, and they didn’t want to have a reserve in the middle of those communities.

It’s an interesting part, but by the renaming, it allows people to learn about that history. It’s an important piece of reconciliation. So the renaming of these parks in various areas around the province…. I think it’s not a bad idea. Yes, it’ll face some controversy, and people will struggle over what the name is. “How do I pronounce that?” And all these kinds of things. But they’ll get over that over time. It’s an important piece of connecting that history that we have in this province.

As I mentioned, it’s part of reconciliation when you work with First Nations. It’s important, I think, to recognize. First Nations should be proud of their history, and Canadians should be proud of First Nations history. It’s part of who we are. It’s part of what we are as a country. So the renaming of these parks, I think, is an important piece.

There’s another piece that will be a challenge for both governments today and governments going into the future. That is that much of the land in these parks, of course, is First Nations traditional territory. What will happen if First Nations decide they don’t want that to be a park anymore? There are some cases on Vancouver Island where a First Nation…. One hundred percent of their territory is in a park. They want to be able to build a future. They want to be able to create an economy and prosperity for their people. How will we handle these situations?

That’s not, certainly, part of this bill, but it’s an interesting question as we look at adjusting park boundaries and renaming and connecting to First Nations and our history. It’s a step that we’re going to have to consider down the road.

I think about one of the nations that is just south of the area that I represent, and 55 percent to 60 percent of their territory is in Tweedsmuir Park. It’s a nation that depends on forestry and activities. They want to be able to create an economic future. What will happen?

I think it’s important, like I say, that we connect to values and we think about parks and we think about our history but also that we think about the First Peoples and what we need to be doing working with First Peoples.

[5:05 p.m.]

Reconciliation is an important part of it. Resolving land questions is also going to be a very important piece that we need to address going forward.

Beyond that, my history before I was in politics…. It seems like I’ve been in politics for several lifetimes now, especially these past 12 months. Regardless of that, I was involved in geographic information systems and mapping and doing analysis work and programming, these types of things. I had my own company doing that. An important piece of that, of course, was boundaries — making sure that you had accurate information.

These updates, an amendment like this on this bill, are an important piece of doing that to make sure that we have accurate information. So if there is a case…. I can give you a case, for example, in Tweedsmuir Park, where there is a mineral deposit. When you look at it on a map, it’s right on the boundary of the park. So the question is: is it in the park or is it not in the park? This is where having these accurate boundaries and updating these things is going to be very important.

It just so happens that particular mine is just outside the park, because that was where that particular boundary was drawn. However, if it ever does get developed, one of the challenges will be that the only real access point is to actually go through the park, which will create an interesting challenge for them at some point down the road.

Having these accuracies is good, and it’s an important piece of what we need to do in terms of housekeeping and updating these bills. It’s awfully dry material to go through when you look through dozens and dozens of changes and adjustments to these things, but it’s an important piece of what we do within the province to make sure our information is accurate.

I guess the last thing I just wanted to touch on is parks themselves. I mean, I was born and raised in British Columbia, in Prince George, and I’ve spent many a day out enjoying the outdoors. I have to tell you, I spent some time in forestry, working out in the field, and you go into areas where no one’s ever been before. No one that I know has ever been before. You never know with First Nations. Maybe there were there; maybe they weren’t. But you go into challenging places to get to, and it’s just absolutely beautiful, rugged scenery.

One place I remember walking through. We were coming out, and instead of scaling up these cliffs and hills to get onto the other side, we decided to follow this little stream out. As you were wandering through this little stream, you could reach out with your arms, both hands reach out, and reach walls that were going 100 feet straight up. And the stream is rushing underneath you. Then you come out into a little opening where the stream’s carved out within the rock. It was just a beautiful place that I will never forget going and visiting because I got a chance to work out in the woods.

Parks are like that. They give people who may not have the chance to go and work in the woods an opportunity to go and experience this raw nature that we have, this beautiful province that we have. It’s an important piece of what we do within this province, an important piece of the identity of what we are as British Columbians.

I would also say that one thing British Columbians should be proud of, but we also need to keep in mind, is that we have more protected area in this province than any other jurisdiction in North America — I actually think it’s pretty much of any other jurisdiction in the world — as a percentage of our land base. It’s remarkable what we have done over the years in terms of protecting and preserving bits of real, true gems of what British Columbia is.

You can look at all of British Columbia. It’s such a spectacular place. You could pretty much put a park anywhere. Today I think we have around 15 percent, or perhaps even a little higher than that, of our province that is in a park status. It’s an important piece. It’s a heritage that we have for our people. It’s a heritage that we have as a province. That’s an important component, as I say, of who we are.

In addition to that, we also have various protection measures on, probably, another 25 to 30 percent of British Columbia where industrial activity is limited and there are values that are protected around wildlife, whether it’s ungulate winter range or grizzly bear habitat or caribou habitat, all these types of things.

So much has gone on in this province to be able find that right balance between industrial activity and environmental activity, and I think British Columbia is an example of how we got it right. Is it perfect? No. There are things, certainly, that need to be worked on, but it’s an important piece, as I say, of what we are as a province and who we are as our identity as British Columbians.

With that, like I say, I’m happy to see the adjustments come forward, the renaming of the parks and the First Nation heritage being brought in as part of it. I think it’s important for all of us in British Columbia. It’s an important piece of reconciliation.

[5:10 p.m.]

It brings that history to life and allows people to learn a little bit more about our history and about our relationship with First Nations, and ultimately, I think, will lead to some more positive things down the road.

With that, I will take my place.

L. Krog: I am delighted to rise today to speak to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. I’m particularly delighted to follow my old friend, the member for Nechako Lakes.

Having spent 12 long years in opposition, I can speak with eloquence about being confined to the political wilderness as well as the member can speak with eloquence about being actually in the wilderness. So we both have an experience around wilderness that I think is educational, soul-lifting and positive. One has to suffer a little, I think — in the wilderness, so to speak — and understand how the wilderness operates before one has a true appreciation of what it is to both function as a member of this august assembly and to also enjoy the beauties of this vast, expansive province — which, I note, the member quite kindly pointed out has a significant portion of it in ecological preserves, protected areas and parkland.

Now, I want to commend to all the members of the Legislature a wonderful book I read a very long time ago, which a friend borrowed from me and never returned. I thought it was such a wonderful book that I actually bought a second copy. So if any of the members wish to, they’re welcome to borrow it. It’s called Wilderness and the American Mind, and it’s a history of the attitude in the United States to wilderness.

Now, I know the Minister of Labour is always interested when I bring up the Bible. He’s become quite a student of biblical stories, and we can talk about the concept of wilderness within the context of the Bible. The wilderness was where we were banished to. It wasn’t seen as a pleasant place. Those pilgrims who arrived in North America — to come back to the book Wilderness and the American Mind — were concerned about subduing the wilderness. The wilderness was where dark forces lived, where evil lived. It was to be tamed.

The occupants of the land were dangerous. The First Nations of North America were seen as the enemy of civilization and God, which was being brought to North America. After all, they didn’t know it existed, because as we all learned in the lovely racist training of our early years, Christopher Columbus discovered America. I have news for Christopher Columbus: the millions of First Nations and Indigenous peoples who lived there actually knew about North America long before Christopher Columbus arrived for the great discovery.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Saanich North and the Islands says: “Thankfully, he found us when we were lost.” Well, in light of the unserious nature of this legislation, I might respond to the member and suggest that I didn’t detect a note of sincerity in his gratitude for the discovery — not surprising, given the long, ugly history of colonialism. But we won’t go there this afternoon.

Names are important, the member for Vancouver–West End said, and they are important. It’s important to recognize that we have ascribed all sorts of names to protected areas — some of which are being changed by this bill — that were colonial names. They were the names of, frankly — I think I can use the term safely today — the oppressors, the people who took the land, not the original occupants of the land, not the original people who saw themselves as owners, in the legal sense, of the land. So it is important that this bill acknowledge that.

I point out to the members, with some interest, that the changing of the name from Roderick Haig-Brown Park and substituting the following name…. I’m not even going to pretend to insult the Indigenous peoples in whose language the new park will be named. That repeal is important, because my understanding is that the family, the descendants of Roderick Haig-Brown, approved of that change. Yet within the context of the history of British Columbia, there is probably no more iconic a figure — when it came to the colonial attitudes, if you will, towards wildlife and salmon, in particular — than Roderick Haig-Brown.

There was an incredibly respected individual who fought long and hard for a very long time throughout his right life, wrote eloquently about the importance of the salmon, which is the iconic species, I would argue, in British Columbia. So it’s an important step that this legislation takes, in giving back, if you will, or respecting, the traditional name of that area. At the same time, the agreement and indeed the support of the Haig-Brown family speaks volumes towards the importance of true reconciliation.

[5:15 p.m.]

I want to return to the body of the bill. I can’t resist the excitement I felt listening to the members for both Nechako Lakes and Vancouver–West End, talking about various areas of the province and the joy it gave them. I mean, after all, as the member for Nechako Lakes pointed out, he thinks roughly 15 percent of British Columbia is in parks and protected areas, wilderness areas that are preserved forever for the public. He points out that we may well be the leading jurisdiction in the world.

If that’s the case, then I just want to say to all the members — and I think I have the support of the other side of the House when I say this — that we as British Columbians are absolutely thrilled if that is in fact accurate. Not that I would ever question for a moment the veracity of any member of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition when they describe something in this House. But I’m going to go with his number, because it’s a big number and we like big numbers in British Columbia, especially when they’re talking about preserved and protected areas.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Ah, the member for one of those obscure Lower Mainland ridings that think they’re the centre of the universe is commenting, but I’m talking too much, so I can’t hear her dulcet tones to hear what she’s saying. I’m sure she’ll speak louder in a little while.

That is an important aspect of British Columbia. We are, in many respects, one of…. We have access to, readily, many of us, untouched Edens, if you will, to come back to the biblical reference. I know the Minister of Labour is always interested when I make reference to the Bible.

The concept and the value of the book I was talking about is in describing that attitude toward wilderness. Americans…. He was referencing America only, the United States — as we talk about this bill today, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. The attitude changed over time. On one level, seen as untouched and Eden; on the other hand, the wilderness. The concept of Eden plays a central role in Christianity: a pure state, a state before sin, a state before selfishness, a state before many of the things that we regard as evils today.

I think there is incredible, positive value, for society as a whole, knowing that wilderness exists, knowing that there are parts of the planet where mankind hasn’t changed it, where human occupation or air pollution or development, human contact…. The species that have existed there have existed there for thousands of years. The flora and the fauna have existed there in an untouched state. There is something, I suggest, quite magical about that.

It plays a role in keeping the souls of our cities and our city dwellers and our people as a whole, keeping them whole. It reminds them that there are things that are still pure and safe and wild — not wild the way the pilgrims saw the wilderness, in the sense that it was a place where evil dwelled, but wild in the sense that it’s untouched and pure.

I’m delighted today that the government…. Notwithstanding a big number that the member for Nechako Lakes referred to, the big number is in fact being expanded by several hundreds more hectares.

I can’t help but comment on how names reflect changing attitudes toward wilderness as well. I was raised in Coombs, as many of the members know. It’s now part of the landscape of the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I believe. I don’t believe that the member for Parksville-Qualicum includes what I grew up knowing as Hamilton swamp.

I can assure this House that many of my family members over many years contributed to the lead poisoning of Hamilton swamp, firing at hundreds of wild birds as best they could, along with many of the other denizens of the nearby forest — all hoping to bag something to bring home for, in those days, their poor, generally, wives to pluck and clean up and then cook. Thank God that things have changed in the world.

[5:20 p.m.]

Now of course, about 30, 35 years ago, there were subtle changes made. Hamilton swamp, as we called it — which doesn’t quite ring in one’s ear with the same beauty as, say, the Italian language in general — became Hamilton Marsh. Now, has the swamp changed? Has the marsh changed? No. As Shakespeare put it, a rose is still a rose by any other name. And Hamilton swamp is still Hamilton swamp, beautiful as it may be, as magnificent a spot as it might be. It’s hardly visited by anyone because many people don’t know it, and you have to wander through the forest glade to get to the beauties of Hamilton swamp. If you go at the right time of year, birds are landing and birds are leaving.

Of course, given the changing times, nobody actually shoots the ducks or the geese anymore, because after all, we’re quite removed from the concept of wilderness in that sense. Not a lot of hunters left in Qualicum Beach, which is now the oldest community in the country. I suggest, perhaps, many of them wouldn’t want to be holding a shotgun for fear it could knock them on their posterior and cause damage in there by increasing the cost to the health care system, which is the last thing we wish to see in British Columbia.

Now, when one gets into the guts of this bill, so to speak, and notwithstanding my concern about Hamilton swamp, one can’t help but be struck by the wonderful names recited in this piece of legislation. Now, this, the pedestrian description, the Chilliwack River Ecological Reserve…. That’s pretty straightforward. There’s nothing moving about that.

But oh my goodness, is not your curiosity piqued by where the name Doc English Bluff Ecological Reserve came from? What did old Doc English do that he deserved a bluff named after him? Was he a swindler? Was he a gambler? Was he a much-loved community physician? Was he a PhD in biology? Who knows? But dear old Doc English is preserved forever in the Doc English Bluff Ecological Reserve.

It warms the cockles of my heart to know that that whole reserve contains approximately 35 hectares. Goodness knows what Doc English may have done to warrant the naming of this land. But together with the foreshore and land — it’s all situated in the Lillooet district — Doc English is preserved forever. Now, was he a Doc Holliday of his time? Did he save Lillooet from criminal elements? We don’t know, but forever Doc English Bluff Ecological Reserve will survive.

Now, the next in order, of course — and I love this one — is the Drizzle Lake Ecological Reserve. Who cannot be fascinated by where the term “Drizzle Lake” emerged in the history of this great province, post first contact? I know that the member from Saanich is fascinated by the concept of what name may have been stolen and given the name Drizzle Lake.

I would have to think that Drizzle Lake is not exactly a concept that springs to the mind of the average person, nor does it fill one with anticipation. One has visions of — I don’t know — pouring the fat out of the frying pan as you hung around beautiful Drizzle Lake, having cooked some fish or bacon in the morning. Who knows? The mind runs wild with imagination at the concept of where Drizzle Lake may come from.

We do know that it’s not just a small bit of land. Drizzle Lake will contain approximately 813 hectares. Now, for those of us who grew up in a generation of acres, I believe it’s 2.2 acres to the hectare. So we’re talking about something approaching three square miles of land.

Now, if this was on the Prairies, that would make you a prosperous farmer. But here in British Columbia, all you get to be is the Drizzle Lake Ecological Reserve, which has no value, one hopes, in terms of its economic value to the province. But there are things on which one cannot put a price. Their price is beyond rubies and pearls. And that is Drizzle Lake — untouched, pure and pristine, a place where young people can go and frolic, where the elderly can draw rejuvenation out of the joys of visiting beautiful Drizzle Lake Ecological Reserve.

My heart sings at the concept that some day, as the member for Vancouver–West End said when he was recommending visits to the park at the north end of the Island, formally known as Cape Scott…. My heart sings with the prospect that some day I may enjoy the benefit of visiting the Drizzle Lake Ecological Reserve, and I’m delighted to see this land preserved forever.

[5:25 p.m.]

Now, I am a bit curious about the term “Duke of Edinburgh (Pine/Storm/Tree Islets) Ecological Reserve.” I assume those are three little islets, and they decided to name them after the Duke of Edinburgh. We all know that the Duke of Edinburgh is a person who is concerned about a great number of things ecology-wise around the world. I believe he was, at one time, the honorary patron or on the board of the World Wildlife Fund and other organizations, all concerned with preserving the planet.

It’s nice to see that that kind of work has been honoured. Pine Islet is nice. Storm Islet is nice. Tree Islet is nice. But when you call it the Duke of Edinburgh Ecological Reserve, I think, in the eyes of many, notwithstanding the escapades of his children, it elevates the royal family in the eyes of many people — that they can now visit the Duke of Edinburgh Ecological Reserve.

It’s a substantive piece of property too. It’s 549 hectares — 100 hectares of upland and 449 hectares of foreshore. Lots of foreshore on the Duke of Edinburgh Ecological Reserve. The mind wanders with the concept of that much foreshore. They must be funny-looking little islands if they’ve got that much foreshore.

The one that excites me the most, of course, is the Honeymoon Bay Ecological Reserve. Now, I have to say the Honeymoon Bay Ecological Reserve. This is in the Renfrew District. It consists of approximately 7.5 hectares.

The concept of Eden and wilderness, the vision of what may have happened at Honeymoon Bay that would have inspired this name…. My mind and my imagination run wild, absolutely wild with anticipation of what may have given Honeymoon Bay Ecological Reserve its designation. Was it a place to go for poor young couples who couldn’t afford a holiday at a hotel? Was it a place where young love blossomed on the shores? Because it does talk about foreshore, land covered by water.

Again, I cannot imagine what ever gave it that wonderful name, but I’m sure the minister, in closing debate, will want to raise that in this House, of course, and give us an idea of where the name Honeymoon Bay Ecological Reserve came from. I can’t imagine for a moment how exciting it must be. I couldn’t help, when I was listening again to the member for Vancouver–West End, when he talked about his fascination with the Cape Scott Social Club, what we would get if we crossed the Cape Scott Social Club with Honeymoon Bay.

My goodness, what a thought, the Cape Scott Social Club. Now, given the fact that many areas of this province were traversed after contact, initially by the First Nations…. But given the name, I’m going to assume the Cape Scott Social Club obviously comes after first contact. I wonder what they had operating at the Cape Scott Social Club. Now, was it — I don’t know — one of those hurdy-gurdy places in the wilderness? Was it a stopover for drinks for wayward fishers on their way between fishing trips?

Again, fascinating that British Columbia is again taking a step to preserve a so interestingly named location as Honeymoon Bay Ecological Reserve, and all this time we’ve got the Cape Scott Social Club wandering out there in the wilderness, in the middle of nowhere. Oh, hon. Speaker, it is too exciting.

Now, I note there are a few other interesting names, not nearly as exciting as those I’ve referred to. I do see that Lasqueti Island Ecological Reserve will be comprised of 217 hectares. Now, for those of you…. Like the member for Parksville-Qualicum — in whose constituency you will now find Lasqueti Island — I believe knows, Lasqueti Island has a long and fascinating history, named for a Spanish explorer, I believe, home to many of British Columbia’s entrepreneurial class, engaged in the growing of plants that you wouldn’t want to find in grandma’s garden but that now, because of the good work of the Prime Minister of Canada, will, in fact, be a legal product as of July 1, in beautiful British Columbia and across Canada.

[5:30 p.m.]

Lasqueti Island, I’m sure, is thrilled to have the addition of these 217 hectares — again, all the foreshore and land covered by water situated on Lasqueti Island, beautiful Lasqueti.

What can one say about a government that is moving ahead to preserve so much land? Only positive things. I haven’t heard any of the usual heckling from the members opposite, because this is a moment of unanimity.

It restores my faith in the politicians of British Columbia as we sit here today engaged in our love affair with the wilderness, as our minds turn to the beauties of Honeymoon Bay and all of the activities that may have given it its name, when we consider the excitement of where Drizzle Lake came from, as we contemplate the joys of Doc English Bluff. Not that anything I’ve said today would constitute a bluff, of course.

As we contemplate all these wonderful names and these additions, we remind ourselves of the centrality of the opportunity as British Columbians to frolic in the wilderness, to make our way into areas where the birds still sing, where bears still growl, where cougars still might chase us if we’re not wise, where the deer will look at us with their large, beautiful eyes, wondering if we’re friend or foe, where birds in flight will fill the skies with the sound of their beating wings.

We are a fortunate people in a fortunate time that we can exist here in British Columbia with government after government so devoted to ensuring the preservation of our ecology. It’s why I am so pleased today to be able to stand in this House and say a few words about all these interesting places that I know the members opposite are so excited about as well.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I note even the Woodley Range Ecological Reserve, the Woodley Range, 159 hectares…. Imagine, as you’ve left Honeymoon Bay, then taking a trip to frolic over the Woodley Range, ranging over the Woodley after your trip to Honeymoon Bay, maybe stopping to refresh yourself in Drizzle Lake. The mind, as I say, is so filled with excitement at the prospect of all of this.

I just want to say, on behalf, I’m sure, of many members on this side of the House, conscious as they are of the importance of wilderness, delighted by the concept of how our attitudes to wilderness have changed…. We now accept its importance in our lives in a world largely urbanized, where we live cheek by jowl, listening to our noisy neighbours constantly, where when someone now cuts down a tree inhabited by noisy peacocks, there you find the dividing line between urban and rural.

That’s where you really find the dividing line. When you take down a peacock tree in the province of British Columbia, you’d better expect to be shunned and avoided by your neighbours, even if those peacocks kept your poor neighbour up at night, night after night.

I’m not suggesting the people in that neighbourhood were at all selfish. I would never criticize the good people of Surrey, but surely we do recognize the right of the people of Surrey to a decent night’s sleep, just as we recognize the rights of the good people of the surrounding areas for all these lovely new ecological reserves to have access to the wilderness, just as the good people of Parksville-Qualicum have access to Hamilton Marsh.

These conflicts point out to all of us the difficulty of living in urban societies and getting along with our neighbours. Whether it’s flora or fauna, it’s all part of creation, and how we react to it is a testament to our values and our attitudes in society. When we preserve more land, as we are in this bill, we are speaking to the essential values of a society that recognizes the importance of wilderness.

That’s where Wilderness and the American Mind basically finishes. It finishes talking about the great battle for Yosemite, for Hetch Hetchy, a park that was never created and was lost, the things that Teddy Roosevelt tried to preserve in the United States — when you talk about Yellowstone — the importance of these wild areas that are now part of the crown jewels of the American park system. Because it is important.

[5:35 p.m.]

The member for Fraser-Nicola has pointed out you can put your face on it. That’s true. Teddy did get his face up there on Mount Rushmore. I acknowledge that. Teddy Roosevelt was a man notorious for his ego. I’ve read that his daughter Alice Roosevelt Longworth once said of her father: “If Daddy went to a funeral, he wanted to be the corpse. If he went to a wedding, he wanted to be the bride.” He couldn’t resist.

I’m sure he was thrilled. But I believe, actually, the face was carved after Teddy’s death. I could be wrong. But it only goes to show, like that wonderful poem…. Now, I have to think. “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings. Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair” in a shattered visage lying in the desert. It’s grade 12. It’ll come to me.

My point is this.

An. Hon. Member: You have one?

L. Krog: The member asked if I had a point, hon. Speaker. I reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege for this loathsome attack on my remarks today, which I know are so appreciated by the members as we fill this glorious chamber with our words, as we’ve all been directed to, because our House Leaders couldn’t get their act together. [Laughter.]

Far, far, far be it from me to ever suggest for a moment that this place doesn’t run like a well-timed Swiss clock — that everything we do here is not of incredible importance to the people of British Columbia. The opportunity to speak in this great place is a privilege not to be mocked, not to be criticized, but to be enjoyed, to be fulfilled, to be anticipated with full satisfaction — much as your trip to Honeymoon Bay, hon. Speaker, at Drizzle Lake.

One should come here and enjoy themselves as they speak to important legislation. There are thousands of British Columbians yet to be born — who knows; maybe they’ll start at Honeymoon Bay — who will want to come to Drizzle Lake and Doc English Bluff and see all these wonderful places.

I want to try and get to the end of my remarks. I know the members are….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Oh no, no, no. I have to.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I think you’re the designated speaker.

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, I had no idea. Another little blossom dropped on me from the House Leaders. I am so excited that I may continue a little more.

Back to Wilderness and the American Mind. As that attitude towards the wilderness changed over time, we adopted, I think — certainly in the United States and certainly in this country — a different attitude to the wilderness. As I said earlier, the thought, the concept, that somewhere in the world, and particularly close to home, one can go and see that which is untouched, unsullied, not destroyed by human activity, is something that is close to all of us.

As I conclude my remarks — and the light would indicate I’m not the designated speaker — I just want to say I am thrilled to have had an opportunity today to talk about the Cape Scott Social Club and the Drizzle Lake Ecological Reserve and the Honeymoon Bay Ecological Reserve and all those other wonderful places that this bill will protect forever for the joy and benefit of British Columbians who’ve been there already, those who are yet to come and those who may look back in their family history and realize it all began in Honeymoon Bay or Drizzle Lake.

D. Barnett: What a great, great act from my colleague from Nanaimo. He put on a show here this afternoon that embraced us all and brought this House to a point of happiness and compassion that I have not seen for nine years — and unity. So I thank him so much.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: I think you did.

[5:40 p.m.]

Anyway, it’s Bill 19 that we’re discussing here today. It is very important that we have ecological reserves. We have wetlands. We have all different classifications of parks and lands in British Columbia, and we are very fortunate. We must ensure that these lands are managed. Once they become lands that basically are set aside forever, they still must be managed.

For those of us that just lived through the 2017 fires, we realize that no land is sacred and can be untouched, anywhere, because of fire, because of flood. Those are natural things. Those are not things that we can control. What we can control is preserving nature and the beauty of these lands.

The name changes, to me, are important, but they’re not as important as what happens on that land base. I think we also have to be very cautious that when we put land into ecological reserves, we ensure that there is a land use plan for the whole region and that we are not destroying some part of somebody’s life to ensure something for somebody else.

I also know that in my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, we have wetlands. I have been told that we have the most wetlands, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, of any region in British Columbia. Those wetlands are so special — what they produce for us, what they do for us, what they preserve for us. I also have class A parks — Tweedsmuir Park, Schoolhouse Park, part of Wells Gray Park, many, many parks.

For those urbanites who don’t understand what a park is, what ecological reserves are, who worry about a tree being cut down and a peacock having no home any more…. They should come and take a look at the beauty out here in the rest of British Columbia and understand why we have these ecological reserves. They should listen to us.

Sometimes, from time to time, when we’re doing our land use planning in British Columbia, big, massive tracts of land…. We’re doing land use planning because we also need resource development. I wish those people who don’t understand land use planning would come and listen and not bring their own ideals with them when they come outside of the urban centres.

We are proud people in rural British Columbia. We are proud people that have the opportunity to have these parks, to have these wetlands, to have these ecological reserves. We believe we are special. We know we are gifted, and we know we are blessed.

To me, this bill truly is a lot of work. It has a lot of purpose. It has a lot of meaning. I support this bill, and I am proud of what our past government has done. If you look at the record over the past years of land that was put into parks, the dollars and cents that were put into the preservation of areas…. When you take a look at the Great Bear Rainforest, what a wonderful, wonderful reserve that is. I am very proud to have been a part of the government that made that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to move on, thank you for the opportunity to speak, thank my colleague from Nanaimo for the great lecture we’ve had this afternoon and turn this over to my colleague from the Green Party.

A. Olsen: It’s an honour to stand and respond to Bill 19, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, and to have the opportunity to actually share some things that have been going through my mind with respect to names of places and place names.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’ve stood in this House on a regular basis, and I’ve spoken the W̱SÁNEĆ language, SENĆOŦEN. As I’ve been learning the language in a very, very limited fashion, I’ve been applying many of the place names that have been traditionally attached to locations throughout the W̱SÁNEĆ territory, which is, in essence, the territory that I represent with this seat, with this table, Saanich North and the Islands. It’s essentially W̱SÁNEĆ territory. Lots of the southern Gulf Islands and many places around the Saanich Peninsula all had important names attached to them in the SENĆOŦEN language.

It’s interesting, in listening to the previous speakers talk and in going through the bill, to understand how we name things today. In many instances — in fact, in most instances — the names that we attach to places reference human beings. It’s Blanshard Street. Well, Blanshard was a person. It’s Tweedsmuir Park. That’s a person. It’s Roderick Haig-Brown Park. These are people in our history.

If you look at how the W̱SÁNEĆ people named the places within the territory, it was very much named after resource activities, economic development at that time, commercial opportunities. They were the names of the resources that could be harvested from those places and, in some cases, they were the names of the resources and of the time of year that you could be there. The names were warnings. “This is a place where the tide changes quickly” or “This is a place where there are strong rapids.” These are warnings to people to navigate through areas with care.

There is a clash not only in modern culture today as we look and as Indigenous people look out to their territories and see a whole pile of foreign names associated with locations throughout their territories that once had very important names to them. It’s nice to see the government taking action to move back to finding or renaming, reattaching old names to places, the names that Indigenous people had already placed there for perhaps countless generations in the past.

I often said, when I was on municipal council…. In fact, I’ve talked to municipal councillors in my current role as the MLA and suggested to them that is an important step, just as I stood in this place and talked about the Indigenous language revitalization investment that the government has made as an important part of reconciliation. Also, reattaching Indigenous names — the names of Indigenous places, the Indigenous names to those places — is a critical and important step in reconciliation. It’s reattaching us to the history that has existed here for much longer than British Columbia has existed.

We often talk in government about the challenges that overlapping territories create. Of course, in the colonial context, or in the context of this country as we see it now, conflict has marked our history. Of course, the conflict around overlapping territories is a big challenge with respect to the Indian Act as we go forward in time. It’s often been something that’s been used to confuse and, as well, to delay and deflect.

If you take a look at Indigenous cultures and the place names, you’ll see that there are very clear places where one territory starts to melt into another territory. Those are the places that carry two names — a name from one people and a name from another people. In almost all instances, you’ll start to see territories blend into each other, and one territory will eventually end.

There was lots of politics in those areas. Let’s just be real. There was lots of conflict in those areas, and there were also ways in which those people were able to sort that out.

[5:50 p.m.]

As we go through and take a look at our ridings and we embrace the future of reconciliation in our province and in our country, reattaching place names is going to have a tremendous impact in acknowledging where we’ve come from. It will help us pave a way as to where we intend to go as well.

It’s important, also, to acknowledge in this debate — as we are expanding park territory and acknowledging some parks with Indigenous names — the inherent conflict that there has been in conversations that I’ve had around the idea of a park. Many Indigenous cultures…. I don’t speak for any Indigenous culture outside of the one that I know, in my limited knowledge of my own culture. It is that a park doesn’t exist in the context or in the world view. There aren’t places that are set aside for protection so that the rest of existence can be decimated and destroyed. There is an entirely different world view.

I introduced that, and I’ve been introducing it as I’ve had these discussions. This is an important time…. It’s not to diminish the fact that we have a different way of doing things in modern times in protecting certain areas so that then other areas can be exploited in their entirety. It is important to point out that as we have a discussion around creating a resilient and sustainable economy and relationship with our natural environment, we do so by adopting some of the core principles and values of Indigenous cultures in this province — that we start to change the relationship that we have with, as the member from Nanaimo was talking about, the wilderness.

If I was to sit and have a conversation with my uncle STOLȻEȽ — and I haven’t done this — I can imagine that from his perspective, none of the wilderness is actually either wild or empty. I think we look at wilderness as being an empty place because we view this and every place on this planet in the context of where humans are and where humans are not.

From what I’m learning in the context of Indigenous cultures…. As we’re starting to put Indigenous place names on top of protected areas, I think that this is an important opportunity to point this out. We can actually take it a step further than the distance that we’re willing to go at this stage, and we can start to push the limits and maybe start to adopt some of the principles and values and the world views of the Indigenous cultures of our province. They will help us create not only sustainable relationships with our environment but also sustainable relationships with our economy, our resource extraction areas.

Many of the place names, as I mentioned earlier, in our territory locate very, very important resource extraction areas that fueled trade, that made certain families powerful — very powerful, in fact, dominating very large territories. So I think that it’s important to note that the current resource extraction of our province — exploitation of resources, resource development, adding value and all of that — has been going on in our province for a very long time. If we paused and took a few minutes to listen to the Indigenous place names of our province, we’d start to understand it with a different visual, a different layer, in different contexts.

As we acknowledge these protected areas with Indigenous names, it’s important to emphasize the fact that this is not the kind of perspective that I know that we have in WSÁNEĆ. The entire territory is personified. Each of the living beings, even the islands — which we wouldn’t in modern times consider to be living — we have put names around and called them our relatives.

[5:55 p.m.]

It’s been an honour to have the opportunity to share that perspective in here today. I think that it would do our province well and it certainly would not hold us back to start to engage the world around us in a different way.

If I may, I’d just like to put in a plug. As the government from my riding, Saanich North and the Islands, has been expanding parks, there’s a very lovely park on Pender Island through which they’ve had to put an emergency road because of past development practices that didn’t allow an egress route. So I would just like to put it to the government today that if they want to continue to expand parkland — and I would be very, very supportive of them doing that — I would say that Lively Peak Park on Pender Island would be a great example of a park which they could expand.

I’m certain that the people of Pender Island would also love to have a discussion about putting an Indigenous name on that park, as well. Maybe in round two of this exciting activity of expanding parks and acknowledging Indigenous territories, Lively Peak on Pender Island…. I know that some members of government even spend some time in the summer there, so they might even know exactly where that is.

I’ll take my seat today at this time. I’d just like to thank the government for the opportunity to have a conversation about place names and the importance of place names and reattaching Indigenous names to our important and protected areas. At this time, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Hon. R. Fleming: I appreciate the contributions to the debate this afternoon, particularly from the member for Nanaimo, who spoke as poetically as a volume of William Blake poetry, if I may. I would definitely, in my brief remarks, be bringing this back to legislative prose in speaking in favour of Bill 19.

The bill is both routine and significant in terms of what it sets out to accomplish. Routine in the sense that much of it deals with corrections, deletions and additions to protected areas that have existed in British Columbia as far back as the 1970s and even earlier that are no longer accurate from a surveying perspective. It is also significant, though, in terms of the overall addition, that it will contribute to the conserved areas of British Columbia some 1,600 additional hectares to a huge array of biodiverse and important parts of our province.

Of course, that is very important. It builds upon a very strong legacy in the province of British Columbia, a mantle of conservancy that we can be proud of, really, since British Columbia — I believe it was in 1999 — became the first jurisdiction to meet and exceed the United Nations biodiversity biosphere convention on setting aside protected lands for conservation and its importance to the planet.

British Columbia was a leader then. It has been a leader for many, many decades. That is something that has been important in terms of conservation values to governments of all stripes over many, many years. I think that Bill 19 is in keeping with the efforts of generations before us to set aside ecologically significant lands to be conserved for all time for successive generations. Bill 19 is worthy of support from all members of the House on that basis.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have a lot to be proud of in terms of recent conservation innovations. One of the members mentioned her pride at the Great Bear Rainforest being set aside and created in British Columbia, with a lot of unique features. Also, to stress a point that the member for Saanich North and the Islands mentioned, it was critically important to resolving land-based conflicts that had gone on for years and years.

We should be proud of the Great Bear Rainforest, in addition to the ecological biodiversity that it will support, because it was managed over a transition in government. It was one of the last memorandums and intentions of then Premier Dosanjh. It was taken up, with active interest, by Premier Campbell thereafter.

[6:00 p.m.]

It was the product of many, many years of negotiation and evolving management practices that are studied all over the world. And here we are, looking at ten conservation areas that are part of the existing inventory in British Columbia — updating them, yes, to be more accurate. Maybe I’ll get into some details, if I need to and have time to, about why that is good from a housekeeping perspective but also important as it takes into account the potential to reduce any boundary disputes between private and public land owners.

We’re also adding to a strategy that really embraces the values that British Columbians have around the importance of biodiversity and preventing more and more species at risk of extinction from going beyond endangered and into disappearing forever. Flora and fauna, of course.

These are things that have come recommended to this assembly over many years. Most recently, as I recall, one of the voices around protecting habitat — because you can’t have a strategy to protect species at risk of extinction without preserving habitat — came from the former head of the Forest Practices Board in British Columbia. It was one of the last reports that that individual did during his term of service to British Columbians.

It stressed that if British Columbia is going to have strategies around recovering caribou herds, for example, or mountain goat populations, as the previous government brought a strategy into place to protect, or indeed, the grizzly bear protection enhancements that this government has announced, you have to take a great care to set aside ecologically significant areas and protect them so that the habitat is intact and they can support that biodiversity.

If you look into Bill 19 in further detail, members have picked out areas, perhaps, in regions they represent to highlight pieces of the land base and waterways that are critically important to their communities. It’s about looking at the biodiversity of this great province in its entirety. I think Bill 19 has much of it in here that covers the significant and distinct regions in our province from the Interior forests to freshwater ecosystems and to some of the coastal shorelineareas that are backed up by significant parklands behind them.

This legislation does provide an enhancement on much of what we already enjoy in British Columbia. But it also strengthens protections that are currently in place, moving many of these parks from class B to class A. It contemplates and gives more transparent planning documentation behind these protected areas that the public can more readily access and make sense of. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, it adds to the inventory that we have in British Columbia.

While this, I think, adds, as I said, 1,600 additional hectares to British Columbia’s protected areas, this is in addition to the 14.3 million hectares of land that are currently dedicated to protected area status. That is a monumental achievement that all British Columbians should be extremely proud of.

I know that the member for Nechako Lakes noted a bit of caution around the balance between active land use and resource development versus protected areas. Of course, I think in British Columbia, we’ve found a way to do that. Sometimes it has taken disagreement and resolution to get to those points.

With these additions, British Columbia will come up to something like 14.4 percent of its province being conserved and protected, well in excess of the 12 percent benchmark that the United Nations set for provinces like British Columbia and countries like Canada. I think it gives us a lot of credibility, as we join other voices around the world in lending support to significant ecological areas being protected in other jurisdictions — that we have done the work in our own backyard.

[6:05 p.m.]

I think we can speak confidently where we have a voice or an opinion about how Alaska and the Arctic may be managed, for example, or how we may talk to our friends in the Amazon or in other parts of the world where they are wrestling with some of the issues around endangered species, as we have here in British Columbia.

I will look for the signal from my House Leader as he enters the chamber. But briefly, if I may, what’s important about this bill is that it does fit in with the spirit of reconciliation that we are intending to proceed with as a province. Indeed, every ministry and every member of the executive council of this government has been part of an effort, a vision laid out by the Premier and others, to take important steps forward. This legislation does exactly that.

The bill, of course, includes the renaming of a number of parks to have traditional Indigenous titles that are part of languages that we are attempting to rescue. Budget 2018, of course, had a $50 million fund in it to revitalize and have a renaissance of Indigenous languages in British Columbia, which are also at risk of extinction, unfortunately, in many parts of the province. This is the recognition of those original languages in our province and, also, the spiritual significance of the lands to which they are renamed.

It’s not a wholesale change in policy for B.C. Parks. I think it’s important in this debate to acknowledge that park renamings are done on a case-by-case basis.

It does show that the treaty-making process, for example, has had an impact in our land conservation strategies. Some of these names came out of treaty-making discussions that were concluded by the province of British Columbia. I think that speaks to a dynamism that we are trying to unleash here in British Columbia in terms of making significant changes around reconciliation with Indigenous people.

Now, I will not pick out too many individual locations for comment on. I do note that the member for Nanaimo went on so eloquently about Honeymoon Bay. I hate to prematurely disappoint him, but there are actually no new additions in terms of the protected hectares of that area. But I think he very eloquently described the importance of that particular protected area to British Columbians.

Very important to me as well, having worked in the Cowichan Valley at one time, were the additions that we’ve made in that area that will help protect fish species and recovery efforts that are underway there.

I think the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail, as well, when we talk about this bill helping to resolve some of the conflicts that we’ve unfortunately seen in British Columbia…. There are additions of land that settle out once and for all where the trailheads are and where the marine trail park begins and ends — what its proper boundaries are. That will be an important legacy for that very popular, world-renowned trail system that we have. It will also prevent people from inadvertently trespassing.

In the spirit of reducing any conflicts around the conservation efforts that are broadly supported in British Columbia, I think it’s important that public and private land owners have been able to come to agreements and that those are now proposed to be put in law here, in Bill 19.

The last point I will make is how important this is for our school system. I spoke of the next generations of British Columbians who will appreciate that Bill 19 is one of many pieces of law that were crafted by this chamber that have built up a significant legacy for everyone to enjoy in perpetuity. In the here and now, we are making great efforts to change the curriculum in the province of British Columbia. This is an effort that has been ongoing for several years and will continue for a number of years ahead, at least two or three more.

[6:10 p.m.]

The focus has been really around changing the curriculum and how it’s taught and what teaching and learning look like around areas of science and conservation, what responsible resource development looks like in British Columbia. Very important changes in subject matter like social studies, where we’re talking about the social diversity and historical importance of different parts of British Columbia.

That is very, very important to the success of the new curriculum — to engage learners in a way that maybe the old curriculum wasn’t as successful in doing. And I think it’s really important, in terms of adding to the conserved area of British Columbia, to look ahead at what will undoubtedly feature more and more in the education system as outdoor education. We’ve seen the importance of districts that are innovative in getting kids outdoors and learning about themselves and engaging in school. We’re actually seeing that have a positive effect on things like the graduation rate.

School districts are looking to do more and more of those types of activities. I think Bill 19 enhances our ability to do that all across British Columbia. I stand in support of the bill here today, and I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words.

Interjections.

M. Stilwell: I wasn’t quite sure if the member wanted to end or run into the end of the day and keep on going. It was so eloquent.

Noting the hour, I will make my comments brief, but I do take great pleasure in being able to rise and speak to Bill 19.

British Columbia is absolutely blessed with the most beautiful spaces in the world, in every corner of this province. For over 100 years, British Columbians have worked together to preserve those gifts and make sure that they are part of our natural legacy to our children.

I think this bill speaks to the continuation of the work that we’re doing to ensure that we are updating the information and that we’re doing our best to ensure that the mapping is accurate and very well understood and that there is proper naming of areas all around the province — especially for, as the member previously mentioned, offering those educational opportunities to students, who get to enjoy the parks, and for families and friends and those who enjoy our parks every single day all over our province.

Like I said, we’re so lucky to be blessed with amazing parks. From 2001 until 2017, more than 2.3 million hectares had been added to the provincial protected area through the establishment of 85 new parks, 156 conservancies, two ecological reserves and 15 protected areas, and expanded to more than 85 parks, six ecological reserves and three protected areas.

I’m going to keep my comments…. I know we’ve talked about Honeymoon Bay and some of the other amazing places around this province, but the Lasqueti Island Ecological Reserve is in my riding. It was established to protect vegetation and fauna characteristic to the subzone of the coastal Douglas fir. It was established back in 1971 with 201 hectares.

For those who don’t know, Lasqueti Island is just off the east coast of Vancouver Island in the Strait of Georgia, in the Powell River regional district of British Columbia. It’s home to about 450 people, who live there year-round. The only way to get there is by a passenger-only ferry. I’ve taken that ride. It’s a bumpy ride sometimes. Depending on the weather and the day, you may or may not get over there. But typically, it runs three or four times a day, five days a week, weather permitting.

The island is generally divided between drier and wetter areas, often characterized in those wetter areas are the red cedar and the former native cacti, the arbutus and other succulent plants, and there is still some old growth forest that exists on the island, which gives some unique flora and fauna coverage around the island. Then, of course, there is the only provincial park on the island and Lasqueti Bay, Squitty Bay. Then, of course, there’s the ecological reserve area that we are speaking about today.

[6:15 p.m.]

I think it’s pretty incredible that we have, over the years, come to this place where we reserve and establish these areas of protection to ensure that ecosystems are protected and ensure that there are opportunities for scientific research and those educational uses with the natural environment.

I know these amendments that we’re seeing here today are what an effective conservation program really looks like. As time passes, I think it’s important that we continue to update those areas and ensure that the identification and the description of those important ecosystems are there. I think it’s very important to ensure that those lands are legally and permanently set aside so that they are there to serve their long-term, intended function.

There are so many great things to say about our amazing parks. Noting the hour, the one thing I want to touch on…. I think we’ll get into it more in committee stage, because I see the members opposite looking very anxious for me to finalize my remarks. It’s not just about the naming. It’s not just about the land area. What is really important to acknowledge is that the B.C. Parks plan includes guaranteed access for the disabled and that users of our outdoor spaces, our outdoor recreation areas, have the opportunities. I know we’ve done great work in the past in our parks to break down barriers and provide inclusion opportunities, and we’re always continuing to make those moves forward.

I hope that in some of these areas, where we’re looking at expanding and when there are trails and opportunities…. I will be curious to know if part of the expansion is to allow for better access. Will there be more trails put in place, better opportunities for people with mobility challenges to be able to get out and explore the fauna and the trees and the birds and the wildlife and everything that comes from being active outdoors without barriers? That has to continually be our vision and our mission — to completely make things more available to those with mobility challenges, things that currently today perhaps prevent them from having that opportunity to spend time with family and friends.

I want to see that achieved for all people with mobility issues, no matter if they’re a B.C. resident or they’re one of the many, many tourists that come from around the world to enjoy our beautiful province. I look forward to having that discussion and hearing from the minister his plans on how those changes might take place.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate. Oh, sorry.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to close debate by first of all thanking all of the members who’ve spoken to this bill. It is, I think, an issue that brings people together — the issue of protecting ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, taking pride in our tremendous B.C. Parks system.

I want to address the issue raised by the member for Parksville-Qualicum very directly. I think it is, as I said in spending estimates, a priority for the ministry and parks branch in the review of all the park management plans to ensure that we are improving access everywhere we can so that living with a particular disability isn’t something that keeps any British Columbian from enjoying the spectacular beauty of British Columbia or experiencing the peace that comes from being in a park.

I think the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the Minister of Education both talked about the importance of exposing young people to nature, how it’s life-shaping. It’s an intrinsically valuable experience. It’s one that stays with people throughout their lives.

While this particular bill takes a number of smaller measures to protect ecosystems, to add areas that’ve been given, the member for Kelowna-Mission talked about other parks that we’ve been able to make better or more whole by adding land. This all takes place through a combination of government planning, government resources, conservation organizations, philanthropic individuals and corporations, in some cases. It all keeps adding to the diversity that we’re protecting in British Columbia through our protected areas and our park system. That’s important.

[6:20 p.m.]

The other thing I’d like to say in closing debate is how important it is in our ministry to ensure that we are changing the relationship with Indigenous people, partly by recognizing the culture, partly by incorporating Indigenous names, partly by finding ways to manage park areas together, as well as improving interpretive programs with a focus on Indigenous culture and history. This bill today is a small contribution toward that.

With those remarks, those are the amendments to Bill 19. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 19, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. That is tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.