2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 2, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. M. Polak

Bill M208 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2015

A. Weaver

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Work of Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities

L. Reimer

Art accomplishments of Butch Dick

M. Karagianis

Small Business B.C. Award recipients

J. Sturdy

Mount Saint Joseph Hospital and Chinese community

J. Kwan

Volunteer activities by Jake Dewitt

G. Kyllo

Leonard Nimoy

M. Mungall

Oral Questions

Hunting allocation policy changes and rules for guide-outfitters

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Thomson

K. Conroy

H. Bains

Wait times for hip replacement surgeries

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Laundry services at Interior Health Authority facilities

J. Rice

Hon. T. Lake

M. Mungall

Petitions

K. Conroy

A. Weaver

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act

Hon. T. Stone

G. Heyman

C. Trevena

B. Ralston

H. Bains

A. Weaver

Hon. T. Stone

Bill 5 — Government Information Act

Hon. A. Virk

D. Routley

L. Throness

G. Heyman

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment

Hon. M. Polak

S. Chandra Herbert

[ Page 6211 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I’m delighted to be recognized first in introductions today, and I’m delighted to ask the House to help welcome one of my constituents, Dave Parenteau. Dave is the former president of the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association and the current president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Vancouver Island region. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

V. Huntington: Several students who are members of my Delta student and youth advisory council have joined us in the gallery today. They will be meeting with officers of the House today, including yourself, Madame Speaker.

These youth advisers are presently engaged in a study of how Delta South seniors are able to access TransLink services. Would members please join me in welcoming Maggie Munro, Hannah Grigg, Michelle Leung, Sam Bamford, Jessica Steinwand and Ashley Ives. Please welcome them.

A. Weaver: I’d like to welcome today three members from the British Columbia Wildlife Federation — Ed George, who is their vice-president; Cheryl Johnson, the director of operations; and Al Martin, director of strategic initiatives, who is also an Oak Bay–Gordon Head constituent. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to welcome some of the resident hunters who are joining us in the House today. From up-Island in the Comox Valley we have Kevin Steele and Andrew Leblanc. From Prince George we have Troy Halliday and Steve Hamilton.

From Powell River we have Verity Kenyon, along with her sister Tina Kenyon and her young son, Taylen Trottier. Taylen gave a very impassioned speech today out in front of the Legislature about what hunting means to him.

Could the House please join me in welcoming all of these resident hunters to the chamber.

[1335]

S. Hamilton: It came as a bit of a surprise to me, but I’d like to join the member from the Kootenays in introducing my nephew Stephen Hamilton, who is here with the resident hunters. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

G. Holman: I’d like to introduce two of my constituents here today, both members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation: Phil Cotterell from Central Saanich, who apparently, has been unsuccessful in the elk draw for 32 years; and Mr. Bill Tozer, president of United Bowhunters of British Columbia and owner of VantagePoint Outfitters in North Saanich. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome a good friend, Ted Brookman, who is here along with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Ted’s an avid hunter, a conservationist and the guy we always turn to for our annual game dinner, which hasn’t been held in a couple of years. He’s always a great source of material for our dinner — not just the meat but also entertainment.

L. Popham: I would like to welcome my fabulous legislative assistant Teresa Scambler to the House today. She’s brought her good friend Donna Tomkins, from North Delta. Apparently, Donna dated Teresa’s husband Ric but is now married to Ric’s friend Doug. Regardless, Teresa and Donna are still good pals. Please welcome them both to the chamber.

V. Huntington: I neglected to mention that my constituency assistant Bernadette Kudzin is accompanying my youth advisory council today. Please make Bernadette welcome.

S. Hammell: I’d like the House to make welcome Danuta Scrapinky. She’s here to enjoy the music of Jan Lisiecki, who is playing at the Royal Theatre tonight — a young 20-year-old who is a star in his right in our music world. He’s of Polish extraction, from Calgary and someone we should all support.

D. Donaldson: Joining us in the gallery today is Mark Werner, the past president of Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.; and Scott Ellis, the executive director of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: I wanted to introduce a couple of constituents of mine from Victoria–Swan Lake who are here in the gallery with us today, who attended the wildlife allocation rally and who are members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Steve Dube and Gloria Boyd are here, and I would ask the House to make them feel welcome.

[ Page 6212 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains amendments to two acts: the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act and the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014. This package of amendments continues the annual legislative work needed to maintain and improve the B.C. parks and protected areas system. Such work includes adding lands, updating and improving legal descriptions and completing administrative corrections.

The provisions of the bill will add more than 1,500 hectares of land and marine waters to six class A parks. The amendments will modify the boundaries of one class A park to enable the replacement of transportation infrastructure. There are also amendments to rename two parks to reflect an agreement with the Osoyoos Indian Band.

[1340]

On an administrative note, I want to point out to all the members that the Office of the Clerk will be provided with copies of the official plans’ mapped boundaries for their review. They depict the boundaries of the ecological reserve and most of the parks in this bill. In addition, the official plans will be posted on the B.C. Parks website as part of a commitment I made during the spring 2014 legislative session.

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

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M208 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act, 2015.

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2015, for first reading.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that, if enacted, would restrict the practices of non-resident trophy hunters who come to B.C. to kill large game, by making two specific amendments to the Wildlife Act.

The proposed amendments remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations and ensure that all edible portions of animals harvested in B.C. are taken directly to the hunter’s residence. As the legislation currently stands, the edible parts of big-game animals — except cougars, wolves, lynx, bobcats, wolverines and grizzly bears — must be removed from the animal and packed out to one’s home or, importantly for non-resident hunters, to a meat cutter or a cold storage plant.

These last two options provide trophy hunters with legal meat-laundering opportunities. By adding “directly” or “through” to the clause, hunters can still use meat cutters and cold storage plants to process their harvest, but it can’t end there. The meat must make it to their home address. If they want to donate that meat to charity after the fact, they are welcome to do so, but they have to take it home first.

Hunters are required to remove the edible portion from black bears. If enacted, this bill would bring meat harvesting standards for grizzly bears up to the same standard. British Columbians and, in particular, B.C. resident hunters support these changes.

A 2013 McAllister Research poll found that 88 percent of British Columbians oppose trophy hunting. In addition to that, 95 percent of hunters said they believe you should not be hunting if you are not prepared to eat what you kill.

For local sustenance hunters, the vast majority of which are B.C. resident hunters, this bill merely echoes what they are already doing: harvesting wild game to bring the meat home to feed their families. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to kill an animal only for its hide, skull or antlers, this poses a logistical challenge of exporting large quantities of meat.

I look forward to the second reading of this bill, and I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M208, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 6213 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WORK OF SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL

OF THE TRI-CITIES

L. Reimer: Today I am pleased to talk about an organization that is very near to my heart, Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities. Soroptimist means “best for women,” and that is what the organization tries to achieve.

Having attended the fifth annual Give her Wings Gala on Saturday evening, I’m deeply touched by all the stories I heard about the incredible women who have been helped by this organization — incredible women who have experienced adversity and have managed to change both their and their children’s lives around for the best.

An example of one story that very much mirrors all the stories I’ve heard from years of attending these galas and that dates back to 2012, is the story of Dawn Johnson. Most of Dawn’s childhood was defined by hardship. At age 11 she entered foster care after years of abuse at home. At 12 she became addicted to drugs. At 13 she dropped out of school and attempted suicide for the first time. At 16 she became a mother.

After years of struggle, Dawn chose to turn her life around. She sought help for her addictions and went back to school, settling in Coquitlam and enrolling in the University of Victoria’s distance education program. In 2012 Dawn was the winner of the Soroptimist International Live Your Dream Award. She received $10,000 to further her dream of going to law school.

The Live Your Dream Award is just one example of the many awards Soroptimist makes available to improve the lives of women living in the Tri-Cities. Soroptimist also recently launched a very important initiative called Bea’s Kloset, where recipients will be able to shop for free for the household items they need, allowing women and girls in our community to have the opportunity to select items that will transform their new living spaces into functional and comfortable homes — or, as Alison Berg said on Saturday evening, make a house a home.

In addition to this project, Soroptimist also runs A Warm Place for Women, CABE lunch and learn, hands-on projects and social events at the YWCA Como Lake Gardens and a monthly mentorship for women called Glory House evenings.

There are almost a dozen Soroptimist branches throughout B.C.

[1345]

ART ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF BUTCH DICK

M. Karagianis: It’s my great pleasure to share news of a great honour for one of my community’s respected elders. This past week Songhees master carver, artist and educator Butch Dick was honoured with a Lifetime Achievement Award from Leadership Victoria.

If you’ve spent any time in Victoria, you’ve likely seen a piece of his art work. Butch is one of the most prolific First Nations artists in the region, and his murals and carvings are inspiring and beautiful. He was part of the team that carved the house poles at the Songhees Wellness Centre. He created the Signs of Lekwungen , seven unique site markers that are bronze castings of original cedar carvings. His works can be found along the Inner Harbour, in Centennial Square and on the new Craigflower bridge.

Butch was born in Victoria, one of six children raised by his mother after his father died. He attended residential school and Indian day school before studying design at the Vancouver School of Art in the 1960s and at Camosun College. He then learned from artist and hereditary chief Tony Hunt.

Butch developed a passion for education after he was asked to teach a First Nations art and culture class at Shoreline Middle School 30 years ago. He mixed art with storytelling and lessons in First Nations language. For the last few years he has worked as a Songhees education liaison, giving back to youth, passing on the many skills he has learned and mastered. I know he’s very popular with all of those students.

He and his wife, Irene, have eight children, 31 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Their sons, Clarence and Bradley, are also renowned artists.

I hope the members of the House will join me in congratulating Butch Dick for this Lifetime Achievement Award from Leadership Victoria. He is truly a tremendous leader and a great inspiration in our community.

SMALL BUSINESS B.C.

AWARD RECIPIENTS

J. Sturdy: You might ask what float tanks, sustainable caviar fruit bouquets and baby blankets have in common. Well, they’re all connected by the entrepreneurial spirit and a commitment to excellence. At the 12th annual Small Business B.C. Awards held last Thursday, excellence spanned the entire province.

This year’s awards were a tremendous success, with record-breaking participation. Competitors had to prove their excellence amongst 460 nominated businesses from 70 communities in ten different award categories. Winners were selected after an intense process that involved applications, on-line voting and a Dragons’ Den –style pitch to a judging panel. These awards can serve as a launching point. They offer recognition, great opportunities for exposure and offer all winners a cash award of $1,500.

While the province was well represented, I’d like to highlight the achievements of entrepreneurs in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Four different businesses were se-

[ Page 6214 ]

lected as the top five finalists. Two of these were selected as final winners. I’d like to congratulate Nonna Pia’s Gourmet Sauces, who won best company. In the past six months Norm and Natasha have grown their sauce business from retailing in 358 stores, mostly in British Columbia, to more than 1,600 stores Canada-wide. You might have seen them, actually, on Dragons’ Den .

The second West Vancouver–Sea to Sky winner was entrepreneur Pepe Barajas of Infinity Enterprises Group, who won best immigrant entrepreneur. Pepe owns three successful Whistler businesses: the Mexican Corner Restaurant, La Cantina Urban Taco Bar and Clean Perfect Services Inc.

Across British Columbia and the Sea to Sky corridor small business is the engine that drives our economy. I’d like to thank small business owners for all that you do for B.C. To the nominees and winners of the Small Business B.C. Awards, a hardy congratulations.

MOUNT SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL

AND CHINESE COMMUNITY

J. Kwan: Mount St. Joseph Hospital is a very special hospital with deep roots in serving the multicultural community. In the first half of the 20th century, due to racist policies and practices, members of the Chinese community were not allowed to visit a hospital to seek medical treatment. The only way to get care was at a little house on Keefer Street through the charity of the Sisters of Immaculate Conception, who arrived from Montreal in 1921.

In 1936 the sisters arranged for Sister Teresa Fung, a trained health professional with Chinese language capacity, to come from China to help with the delivery of health care services and translation. Her arrival was exceptional, not only because she filled a much-needed gap; it was also extraordinary because Sister Teresa came at a time when Canada’s 1923 Chinese Immigration Act specifically prevented women from immigrating from China. Sister Teresa was a powerful force in the community.

[1350]

In 1941 the sisters bought a piece of land at Main and Kingsway, with one-third of the funds raised by members of the Chinese community. These contributions came from the Chinese associations, the wages of the Chinese workers in the mines and logging camps across B.C. Even Chinese community associations in American cities on the west coast pitched in to the effort.

The glorious moment came in 1946 when Mount St. Joe opened its doors, becoming the first hospital in B.C. to serve the Asian community. In 1949, B.C. Hospital Services took over the operation of Mount St. Joseph Hospital. However, Mount St. Joe still has a special place in the hearts and minds of the Asian communities. Throughout its growth, the Chinese community has continued to play a significant role in support of the hospital.

On February 7, I had the honour of attending the Tapestry Foundation’s Feast of Fortune fundraising gala, which raised a record-setting $728,000 for a new CAT scan at Mount St. Joe. Thanks to the members of the 2015 fundraising for their incredible efforts and honorary chairs Sing Yeo and Grant Lin for their special support for Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES

BY JAKE DEWITT

G. Kyllo: It is no secret that community volunteers are the heart that keeps communities beating. In fact, so many great organizations both large and small couldn’t exist without the generosity of their selfless volunteers.

In my hometown of Sicamous one such volunteer is Jake Dewitt. Jake’s family has deep roots in Sicamous with his parents starting the family business, D Dutchmen Dairy, in 1978, famous for their milk and dairy products, including their world-famous D Dutchmen ice cream.

One of the family’s commitments from day one has been to give back to the local community. Jake, who now runs the production side of the family dairy business, has certainly taken that family tradition to heart. When Jake and Bev’s children were younger, Jake became involved with their local softball teams. Each year it seemed Jake was becoming more and more involved — coaching, maintaining the ball diamonds and hosting softball tournaments.

Jake’s selfless commitment to attracting and growing tournaments has had an enormous impact on the local community. If the local hotel and motels are displaying “no vacancy” signs and the restaurants are bursting at the seams, there’s a good chance that there’s a softball tournament underway.

Jake’s involvement in softball became so great that it has spread beyond Sicamous. Today Jake is president of the B.C. Amateur Softball Association, SoftBall B.C., which is a volunteer position, needless to say.

As a local business owner in a small town, I can also attest to the fact that Jake is often asked for donations to various non-profit community groups. Whether it’s a donated gift certificate as a door prize, an item for a silent auction or a request to volunteer his time for another local group, if Jake can accommodate you, he will. Jake just doesn’t say no if there’s a knock on his door.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing the tireless contributions of Jake Dewitt that continue to make Sicamous a better community.

Thank you, Jake.

LEONARD NIMOY

M. Mungall: “He affected the lives of many,” said Adam Nimoy after the death of his father, Leonard, last week. Back in 1966 who knew that a Boston boy of

[ Page 6215 ]

Ukrainian-Jewish ancestry would have such an impact on the world, spanning generations? Who knew that Star Trek would break ground and capture the hearts and minds of millions — that both would boldly go where no man has gone before?

The original pilot — which also starred Peter Duryea, who later founded the Kootenay Lake Tipi Camp — was rejected. Yet here we are, 50 years later, reflecting on an artist who intertwined his life with the character and made us love him and Spock the world over. How fascinating.

As Mr. Spock, he gave us philosophies and moral codes: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” As Leonard Nimoy, he advocated for pay equity for Nichelle Nichols when she played Lieutenant Uhura. He also wrote, directed and produced Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home , proving what he once said in his 1975 autobiography, I Am Not Spock — that he is more than just one character. He had numerous roles and was a photographer, poet, musician and writer.

But it was Mr. Spock that won him three Emmy nominations. It was Spock who was named one of TV Guide ’s greatest 50 characters. It was Spock who appeared in countless cameos. And it was Spock for whom Trekkies would line up for autographs and pictures by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[1355]

So by 1995 Nimoy wrote his life story again with a new title, I Am Spock . Leonard Nimoy didn’t just spend a lifetime crafting and perfecting a character. Through art, he encouraged us all to be caring, to be human and to live long and prosper.

Oral Questions

HUNTING ALLOCATION POLICY CHANGES

AND RULES FOR GUIDE-OUTFITTERS

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today and out on the lawns were hundreds of representatives of the hundreds of thousands of people who hunt — resident hunters who hunt here in British Columbia concerned about the false consultation conducted by the B.C. Liberals in changing and amending the allocation formula that we’re faced with today. Hunters came from every corner of this province — from the north, from the coast, from the Interior and from right here in Victoria.

We’re having difficulty understanding Mr. Spock’s adage that the needs of the resident hunters should outweigh the needs of the non-resident hunters, but I’m hopeful that the minister, when I ask him this question, will be able to rectify that.

The people of British Columbia see these wildlife resources as a common resource that belongs to all of us. It should be apportioned in a way that is fair and equitable, as we do with other resources in British Columbia.

Through you, hon. Speaker, to the minister: will you take the opportunity today, hon. Minister, to stand in your place and tell the resident hunters of British Columbia that they will get a better crack than they’ve been given to this point in time?

Hon. S. Thomson: As we know, sustainable hunting in British Columbia is a very, very important economic resource for British Columbia — between guide-outfitters and resident hunters, $230 million in economic activity from the resident hunters and $120 million in economic activity from the guide-outfitting industry.

The allocation formula was designed based on a number of principles: first of all, conservation; secondly, First Nations considerations; thirdly, resident hunter priority.

We’ve been through an extensive process: over ten years of discussion on this issue, over 18 months of intensive facilitation between the parties — between the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the guide-outfitters and others in that process — to come to a decision on the allocation. That process did not yield an agreement.

Both parties knew that a decision needed to be made. We needed to make that decision to provide certainty for the future for both parties, and we needed to move from a long process of discussion on that issue on to broad wildlife management concerns, which are of interest to both parties.

The member opposite is wrong when he talks about false consultation. This has been an open consultation process, an extensive consultation process, in determining that balanced decision.

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

J. Horgan: When the minister talks about two parties, I think he’s missing the point. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of British Columbians — and a handful of British Columbians that are focused on giving access to non–British Columbians to this resource that belongs to all of us.

It’s not just an economic question. It’s a social, cultural and, in many instances, a family undertaking. I met today with people on the Legislature stairs that have been generational hunters on both sides, men and women. This is not just an economic question.

I agree with the minister, as would resident hunters, that conservation and First Nation allocation have to be paramount. You will get no argument from resident hunters on that.

Where the argument arises is the two parties that the minister refers to. Let’s talk about British Columbians, resident hunters, as a top priority. Then, when we’ve settled with that, we can look at other economic opportunities for non-residents.

[ Page 6216 ]

My question to the minister is this. If resident hunters deviate from the quota they’re given, there are harsh, swift, severe penalties, yet — through you, hon. Speaker — your government has put in place flexible quotas for non-resident hunters. Again, profoundly unfair. Will the minister, if he’s not going to address the faulty consultation, at a minimum ensure that the rules of British Columbia are adhered to by residents and non-residents alike?

[1400]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Again, as I commented, the policy, the principles that the decision was made on are conservation, First Nations, maintaining resident hunter priority. This decision maintains that priority. We are talking in the allocation decision about 60 animals across the allocation split. That compares to 47,500 animals that are harvested annually. It compares to about 3,500 animals that are harvested under the allocation formula. So we’re talking less than 3 percent of the total number of animals on allocation, less than half of 1 percent of the total animals harvested in British Columbia as part of this allocation formula.

It clearly maintains resident hunter priority in the allocation decision. It was based on an extensive process of consultation with all parties to reach agreement. Unfortunately, as I said, they weren’t able to come to that agreement — the parties — and a decision needed to be made. An allocation formula needed to be set. Both parties were asking for the allocation splits to be set in policy and in regulation so that they could provide certainty for both parties, and then we could move on to the broader wildlife management issues, in which they both have a very, very keen interest.

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

J. Horgan: To the minister: I think you’re missing, again, the point. This policy reduces opportunities for resident hunters and increases opportunities for non-resident hunters. That’s an allocation arrangement that’s not acceptable to the people of British Columbia, whether they hunt or they don’t.

What we’re trying to do today in this Legislature — the people’s House, where the people came and congregated right out front — is to send a clear message to the government that reducing opportunities for British Columbians and increasing opportunities for non–British Columbians is a non-starter.

The question. If you’re reducing access for British Columbians, if you’re changing the quota requirements in terms of how far you can break the rules…. If a resident hunter deviates from the quota, there are harsh and swift consequences. Guide-outfitters have flexibility, apparently.

I learned today that not only do they have flexibility in the quotas; access to our outfitting territories to non-residents is increasing as well. So we have non-residents purchasing guide-outfitting operations, further exacerbating the problem.

Resident hunters want the government to get back to the table and put British Columbians first. Will the minister do that today? Let’s start with B.C. first.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, a balanced decision based on those priorities, based on maintaining resident hunter priority…. Sixty animals out of a total of 47,500 animals are harvested in British Columbia, animals that are, for the greatest percentage, on general open season. In British Columbia we have one of the most abundant wildlife resources in Canada. That’s why we have such a great percentage of our hunts on general open season. That’s why we have so many opportunities for resident hunters — 30,000 deer out of 47,500 harvested not affected at all by this allocation decision.

The decision has been to maintain that balance, to recognize the economic contribution of both parties to the province — an important economic contribution. I recognize and understand that there’s a lot of emotion attached to this. I understand that people value the hunting history in British Columbia. That’s a long history on both parts — a long history on the part of resident hunters, a long, long history on the part of guide-outfitters in British Columbia. The decision was in place to set that balance of resident priority, provide the opportunities for both parties and to do it in a way that provided that certainty for the future.

[1405]

K. Conroy: If that in fact was the case, we wouldn’t have resident hunters in this province who have been waiting 40 years to get a limited entry, a hunting entry, and they never have gotten it. We’ve got foreign hunters who can come in, never have to apply, and they can get whatever they want. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense.

Also, the guide-hunting industry was supposed to provide for jobs in B.C., but under this government the opposite is happening. The B.C. Liberals are making it easier for foreign residents to own guide-outfitting territories, which means that hunting dollars are actually leaving B.C. For example, Anzac Wilderness Outfitters offers moose hunts on its guiding territory north of Prince George. According to the Guide Outfitters of B.C. and a story in the Rapid City Journal , Wilderness Outfitters is owned by Lee Weaver of Spearfish, South Dakota.

My question is to the minister. How does B.C. benefit from providing more hunting opportunities to American hunters like Mr. Weaver at the expense of resident hunters?

Hon. S. Thomson: I find the questioning from the members opposite very interesting. I know the members opposite have latched onto the misinformation, to the al-

[ Page 6217 ]

legations and everything that is out there in this debate around this issue. It’s very, very interesting. This shotgun marriage between the members opposite and the resident hunter community is very, very interesting. We’re now finally finding and starting to draw out a policy position from the members opposite.

Eight of the allocation decisions involved are with respect to the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia. I guess what we’re seeing now, and I hope what the members opposite will confirm, is that all the members opposite on that side of the House are now in support of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, because you have aligned and you are fighting for a greater allocation of that resource in the representation that you’ve been making.

Madame Speaker: The member for Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Well, over 100,000 resident hunters in this province don’t agree with the minister. They don’t agree with the allocations from this government, and they’re certainly looking at people that are going to speak out on their issues in this House.

Anzac Wilderness Outfitters is not the only outfitter owned by Americans. Under this government private interests are benefiting at the expense of resident hunters. This was never the point of the guide-outfitter industry. Anzac Wilderness Outfitters is not creating benefits for B.C. They are sending hunting dollars south of the border.

Again to the minister, why is he expanding foreign businesses at the expense of B.C. resident hunters?

Hon. S. Thomson: I know the members opposite are against investment in British Columbia. We see it every day when they oppose projects, oppose investment in British Columbia.

Again, I know we’ve raised the issue, and I haven’t heard the response there in terms of the members’ support now for the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia.

Let’s just look at what their position apparently was. Maybe it has changed. This is in an interview with the member for Victoria–Swan Lake on January 18, 2009, when asked: “Are you personally against the grizzly bear hunt? What is the NDP position on this?” The answer was: “We have opposed in the past. We point to the actions that the government has taken in actually implementing B.C.’s first moratorium.” It was the members opposite that put a moratorium on the grizzly bear hunt. The question was: “And is that is your policy now?” The answer was: “Yes, I believe so.”

That should call into question whether the members opposite really do support hunting in British Columbia.

[1410]

H. Bains: At a recent rally two days ago in 100 Mile House hundreds of resident hunters gathered in front of the office of the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin to voice their anger about the B.C. Liberals’ allocation policy. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin told the rally that she had heard their message loud and clear, that she would take their message to Victoria today.

Now, the minister had an opportunity to listen, through his own member, loud and clear, the message from resident hunters from 100 Mile House. Why isn’t he listening to the hunters from 100 Mile House? What message do you have for the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin to take back to those hunters?

Hon. S. Thomson: Ten years of debate and negotiation on this between the parties, 18 months of facilitated discussion to reach an agreement on the allocation formula, an allocation formula that was based on those principles, as I said, to put a balanced decision in place that reflected the economic contribution of all of the parties. An initial decision.

To say that I haven’t listened…. I have listened. We have made strategic adjustments to the initial decision, an adjustment that changed the number of animals from 120 down to 60 animals that are involved in the allocation formula. We have made those strategic adjustments for critically important hunts in specific regions.

That is recognizing the resident hunter priority, it’s recognizing those principles, and it’s recognizing a decision that creates a balanced approach to ensuring that we do recognize the important economic contribution that both parties make.

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

H. Bains: The minister knows that it’s not about numbers. It’s not about a few animals. The resident hunters are deeply concerned about the principle that underlies this decision. They do not think that a government should put more wildlife into private and foreign hands. The minister ignored his own department’s recommendation on allocation.

My question to the minister again: doesn’t the minister agree that it’s time to go back to square one and protect the interests of resident hunters first and foremost?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, a balanced decision — 60 animals out of a total of 47,500 animals that are harvested in British Columbia, the greatest percentage of animals in British Columbia in general open season, providing those opportunities for resident hunters in British Columbia, ensuring that there is an allocation within the allocated species. That’s a total of 3,500 animals in that allocation — again, a small percentage of the total.

Making sure that we do recognize the important contribution that guide-outfitters make in British Columbia. They employ people. It’s jobs. It’s economic activity.

[ Page 6218 ]

There’s a very, very important economic contribution from resident hunters in British Columbia, as well, one that has a long history and importance. But the allocation decision maintains resident hunter priority in British Columbia.

The important thing, what’s important now, is for the parties and the stakeholders in this industry to come together and to work now on building wildlife populations in British Columbia, growing the resource in the future. That’s the critical issue that all parties are interested in. That’s what we need to do.

WAIT TIMES FOR

HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERIES

J. Darcy: Imagine waiting two years in severe pain for a hip replacement. That’s what Anne Morris from Salmon Arm is going through today. She’s one of 3,000 people in British Columbia on a wait-list to get a new hip.

Anne first saw her surgeon in October of 2013, and she was told that her surgery would be a year to 18 months down the road. Now she’s told it will be at least two years. That’s because her surgeon can’t get enough operating time in the Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

Does the minister think it’s acceptable for Anne to wait two years in sometimes excruciating pain to get a hip replacement?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for that top-five question. It is something on the minds of many British Columbians. When you are in pain, when you’re waiting for surgery, it is a long time sometimes because there’s a challenge in some areas of British Columbia particularly.

On average, British Columbians, in terms of wait-lists, are about middle of the pack across Canada. That’s not good enough. We’ve identified that a year ago in our priorities documents for the health care system. We’ve put a team together, led by Dr. Andy Hamilton — the provincial surgical executive committee. They’re looking at ways of optimizing the system to further reduce wait times.

We’ll continue to do the work to make sure British Columbians get access to the surgery they need when they need it.

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

J. Darcy: People like Anne Morris and others like her are not looking for excuses. They need action on unacceptably long wait times in British Columbia.

Anne Morris and 3,000 other people like her are waiting in pain and discomfort — some of them on morphine, some in such severe pain that they are now confined to wheelchairs — as a result of callous decisions by this government. Not only that, they’re paying more for health care while they’re getting less. It’s not acceptable.

Anne is 78. She’s a full-time caregiver for her husband, who suffers from COPD. She’s worried that her own pain management and her increasing lack of mobility will mean that she’ll no longer be able to care for her husband, who will then probably have to be admitted to care.

Why are Anne and other people like her having to pay more for health care while getting less, languishing on wait-lists because of callous decisions by this B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve made some great strides, actually, when you look back over the last 12 years of this B.C. Liberal government. We have increased the number of hip surgeries by 90 percent. We have increased the number of knee replacements by 138 percent, the number of cataracts by 50 percent, the number of angioplasties by 34 percent. We’ve taken the wait times for hip joint replacements from 19.6 weeks down to 14.6 and 25.3 weeks for a knee joint replacement to 18.4 weeks.

Talk about decisions. This is the group across the aisle here that didn’t train one extra doctor in the ’90s. We’d have 1,000 more doctors in British Columbia today had they done what we have done. That would have gone a great way to reducing wait times in the province of British Columbia.

LAUNDRY SERVICES AT INTERIOR

HEALTH AUTHORITY FACILITIES

J. Rice: Interior Health is transferring laundry services out of its hospitals. The director of support services says the decision “isn’t about the efficiency of our operations.” What he does say about it is that it’s about not wanting to spend money on replacing old washing machines.

Public or private, British Columbians will be paying for those washing machines. The issue is: these jobs could end up leaving British Columbia. There is not a good reason to send these jobs to Alberta. Why is the Health Minister allowing this to happen?

Hon. T. Lake: In a very concise way, I’ll say they’d rather spend those on hip replacements than on washing machines.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: So 175 jobs could be lost in Kelowna, Kamloops, Nelson, Vernon, Penticton and in the Cariboo. Again, there’s no guarantee that these good-paying, family-supporting jobs are going to stay within British Columbia.

[1420]

The health authority is following the mandate of the provincial government, whose preference is to priva-

[ Page 6219 ]

tize more and more aspects of the health care system. Considering that the health authority is clearly satisfied with the efficiency of the laundry services, why is the Liberal government insisting that they eliminate these good, family-supporting jobs?

Hon. T. Lake: The health authorities and the ministry are very consistent. We want to get the very best deal for the taxpayer. That is very consistent. And quite frankly, doing laundry and washing bed sheets is not health care. We want to make sure we get best value for the dollar.

I know the way the members opposite ran health care. They might have thought that was health care. We think health care is looking after patients to make sure they get their hip replacements in a more timely manner. We’re going to get the best deal for the taxpayer. Laundry is not health care. We want to put those dollars in front-line health care for British Columbians.

M. Mungall: Only a Liberal would think that cleaning and taking care of our hospitals isn’t health care.

This plan would see 17 family-supporting jobs….

Interjections.

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

M. Mungall: This plan would see 17 family-supporting jobs lost in Nelson — jobs that are integral to Kootenay Lake Hospital and it running efficiently. And it’s not just Nelson. Penticton, the minister’s own riding, Kamloops, 100 Mile House, Williams Lake are all about to see family-supporting jobs shipped out of their communities.

Minister, taxpayers are going to foot the bill for these services regardless of who’s doing them. So let’s do them in our communities, and let’s save on the shipping costs. My question is to the minister. Will he commit to that today?

Hon. T. Lake: I get the point, and I certainly don’t want to leave the impression that the work being done by people that are doing laundry service isn’t….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: It’s obviously an important service, but it is not front-line health care. Those jobs are going to be staying in British Columbia.

We’re looking for efficiencies. The members opposite talk about making sure that we are doing more with our dollars to make sure we get best value for the taxpayers. In health care the only way we have managed to reduce the cost increases and make the health care system sustainable is to do things more….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: The only way we can make the system sustainable is to increase efficiencies so that we can do more hip surgeries and we can do more knee replacements.

The Interior Health Authority had discussions with their unionized employees about ways of reaching those efficiencies. Unfortunately, they could not come to an agreement, so they are going out to an RFP — a request for solutions, actually — to see what the mix will be. At the end of the day, the desire is to get the most for taxpayers, so that money can be in front-line health care.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, if the minister bothered to read any of the quotes, any of the newspapers that are about this very issue — and if he would listen to the questions — he would know that this is not a matter of efficiency.

[1425]

The chief of operating services was clear that this is not a matter of efficiency. Rather, it’s because they don’t want to replace washing machines. Those washing machines, those jobs, those efficient jobs — every single one of them, all 17 of them — are wanted in Nelson, at Kootenay Lake Hospital, because cleaning the hospitals and taking care of the hospitals is important to the health care system. The same is said in Kelowna, Kamloops, Vernon, Penticton, 100 Mile House, Williams Lake, Lillooet and Ashcroft.

The question to the minister, on 175 jobs: will you commit today that those family-supporting jobs will stay put?

Hon. T. Lake: We have a record capital budget for health care. We’ve spent over $12 billion, including the capital cycle that we have in front of us. Yet every single day members opposite stand up and say: “Spend more here. Spend more there. Build this. Renew that.”

Interjection.

Hon. T. Lake: Interior Health is doing that: making choices. Interior Health is saying: “We would rather buy endoscopes. We would rather buy operating room lights. We would rather put our money into health care capital rather than buying washing machines.” Only the NDP would choose washing machines over endoscopes.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 6220 ]

K. Conroy: I seek leave to present some petitions.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

K. Conroy: The first one is a petition from the city of Kamloops — over 300 hunters asking the government to repeal their hunting allocations.

The second one is from the city of Kelowna — over 1,000 signatures asking the government to repeal their hunting allocation decisions.

The third one is a petition from hunters all over the province asking the government to repeal their hunting allocations, with over 3,000 signatures.

A. Weaver: I would like to introduce a petition of 16,139 signatures, of which about 400 come from the town of Quesnel. These signatures are from resident B.C. hunters seeking for the government to repeal its changes to the wildlife allocation policy. In particular, it’s to limit non-resident hunters and guide-outfitters — to a maximum of 10 percent of the wildlife harvest allocation for moose and elk and 25 percent for sheep, bears and goats — so that British Columbians could have adequate access to this valuable wildlife resource.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the little House I call the estimates for the Ministry of Environment. Here, in the main chamber of the assembly, I call second reading of Bill 2, intituled BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act.

[1430]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BC TRANSPORTATION

FINANCING AUTHORITY TRANSIT ASSETS

AND LIABILITIES ACT

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

As I’ve said, the legislation being tabled today is administrative in nature, but it does involve strategic provincial assets. The province currently owns rapid transit assets in Metro Vancouver through a variety of entities. The Expo Line and the West Coast Express assets are held by B.C. Transit. The Millennium Line is held by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd., or RTP 2000 for short. The Evergreen line is held by the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, the BCTFA.

Now, the consolidation of these billions of dollars of assets within the BCTFA supports greater control over their management and operation, enables cost savings through efficiencies, as well as administrative, financial and legal requirements that will now be simplified.

This bill fulfils a commitment made during spring 2010 estimates to “review the current management structure of the rapid transit rail assets and consider consolidating rapid transit rail assets to ensure the most effective use and management of the assets was achieved.”

Now, the rapid transit assets are operated by TransLink under various agreements and leases, and these agreements will continue. Consolidation of the assets will allow these agreements to now be between TransLink and the BCTFA only. The transfer will be done entirely through this legislation. The legislation allows the BCTFA to take over and continue to manage the transferred assets and liabilities seamlessly. It provides the BCTFA with powers that B.C. Transit and RTP 2000 currently have with respect to these assets, to allow for a smooth transition in owning and operating them.

Transferring the Expo Line and the West Coast Express from B.C. Transit to the BCTFA also allows B.C. Transit to focus solely on its mandate, the delivery of public transportation throughout British Columbia outside of the greater Vancouver region. Transferring the Millennium Line from RTP 2000 Ltd. allows government to proceed with the orderly windup of that company, as it has now served its purpose.

G. Heyman: On the face of it, this bill would appear to be administrative in nature. Certainly, the short duration of the minister’s speech would indicate that he thinks so. We, on this side of the House, certainly are interested in exploring this.

It is with some regret that I have to state that it would be a lot easier for us to determine exactly what our position is on this bill and what the possible implications of it might be if the minister’s staff at any time in the previous two weeks had responded to our repeated request for a briefing on the bill, only to

schedule one last Friday for tomorrow, after the bill is scheduled for second reading today. We await that briefing.

The result of the briefing we receive tomorrow will help us to understand the implications, both short term and long term, of this bill in some greater detail. There’s certainly not enough information in the minister’s comments today for us to determine that.

The minister, as I said, and the government have described this bill as simply administrative. But it potentially could have some significant effects, and it certainly deals with key assets such as the Expo and Millennium lines.

I note that the Transportation Financing Authority is run entirely by the ministry. In fact, it’s almost solely under control of the minister and the minister’s deputy.

[1435]

[ Page 6221 ]

That doesn’t, in fact, lend itself to dealing with the significant issues that members of the public have raised in this time of TransLink referendum, a referendum on funding of TransLink, where much focus has been on the accountability, or the lack of accountability, of TransLink — certainly, the lack of transparency and accountability of the TransLink board. This will do nothing to that.

The sole director of the Transportation Financing Authority is the minister. The DM, the deputy minister, is the chief executive officer. Certainly, in terms of the government reporting entity, there will be no change through these transfers, so we see no significant implications there.

The minister states that he made a commitment to this transfer for a number of reasons, including efficiencies and control over management and operations, in estimates. I must admit that I thought perhaps the minister may have reacted with some shock when he heard the Premier state that TransLink was completely under control of the mayors and thought that perhaps by bringing in legislation like this he could put a stop to that.

It’s clear that notwithstanding the fact that the minister wishes to have greater control over management and operations of TransLink, he has no compunction whatsoever about continuing to fail to work with the mayors of the region over appropriate funding for TransLink improvements. So I wonder what exactly the end result of this will be.

For instance, we’re currently undergoing a referendum in the Lower Mainland over….

Interjection.

G. Heyman: I understand that the Minister of Education is correcting my language. I’m simply referring to his government’s election promise to hold a referendum. I will use them somewhat interchangeably, although I do understand that the significant difference is that a plebiscite is non-binding and a referendum is binding.

That does lead me to question whether the Minister of Education, the Minister of Transportation and the rest of cabinet believe that by changing to a plebiscite, they’re actually keeping the election promise that they claim is underlying the whole purpose of the referendum/plebiscite.

Or if, in fact, the government intends to abide by the result of the plebiscite or go a step further and indicate to the people of Metro Vancouver that if they decide to pay a bit more for transit investments through an addition to the sales tax — or congestion relief tax or whatever the minister has chosen today to call it or might choose to call it tomorrow — the government, in fact, will put up funds that they indicated to the mayors by letter that they would intend to supply to enhance transit investment.

But let me return to the bill, hon. Speaker, because I can tell that you would like me to do that.

Greater control over management and operations. That is something that I would like to explore in committee stage — exactly what potential for control over management and operations the minister thinks that he, the government and the ministry should have, as opposed to control over management and operations that the board theoretically has in directing the senior executive of TransLink or the management and operations control that the Premier seems to believe rests solely with the mayors, although the mayors would likely take issue with her on that.

They have claimed for quite some time — since 2007, in fact…. They were unceremoniously booted off the board for exercising management and control in a way that the government of the day didn’t like and replaced with a board that meets in secret, without transparency or accountability, giving rise, I would claim, to much of the mistrust of TransLink that currently exists among residents of Metro Vancouver.

[1440]

We are consolidating ownership of finances under the Transportation Financing Authority, a provincial entity. If we go back in history — and I intend to pursue this during committee stage with some questions — at the time this model was put into place through a number of entities which are currently being consolidated, the provincial government actually put up 100 percent of the financing for TransLink — for the various lines, the Expo Line — and a number of other things. So it made some sense that the government, through the Transportation Financing Authority and other entities, actually had control and ownership over all of the finances.

But as we’ve seen, and as we continue to see today in the referendum/plebiscite — to humour the Education Minister — the government no longer puts up 100 percent of the funding or even, necessarily, a third of the funding, unless the minister is willing to answer in estimates that that is, in fact, the government’s intent, although we can find no evidence of it in the budget or the capital expenditure plan.

What is the rationale, I would ask — and I will ask, during committee stage — for government to have 100 percent control over assets that they, in fact, have not financed at 100 percent? I think the residents of Metro Vancouver may, as well, be very interested in this.

I’ll also be exploring during committee stage…. I certainly would have explored it during a briefing by the ministry, had one been put on offer. But unfortunately, I will be taking up time in this House, perhaps unnecessarily — with a number of senior staff who probably could be better spent doing other things, who will be standing next to the minister in committee stage — exploring a number of questions that I will not have had the chance to explore in a briefing prior to rising today to speak to this bill.

[ Page 6222 ]

Could there, in fact, as a result of this consolidation and the consolidation of ownership, control and management over the operations of TransLink and its various routes and responsibilities through this legislation…? Is this a precursor of possible other changes in TransLink’s structure following the plebiscite, no matter what the result is? On the face of it, there’s nothing to indicate that, but certainly it would appear that within the changes being made and put forward, that is a possibility.

Even on an administrative change to the bill there are a number of questions that we’re interested in on this side of the House that some stakeholders have raised as we’ve gone about trying to see and explore what the possible implications of this bill might be to which we and others would want answers. One of the questions would be: why now? There were numerous other opportunities to do this in the past. There have been changes to the legislation. In 2007 the TransLink governance was changed. There was an opportunity to do it then, but it wasn’t important then, although nothing is particularly different now.

In 2012 the then Minister of Transportation, Blair Lekstrom, introduced a number of other changes, but this wasn’t on the radar at that time. The Minister of Transportation himself in 2014 made a number of changes to legislation governing transit in the Lower Mainland, in addition to the referendum bill — which I would point out to the Minister of Transportation was, in fact, being referred to by government at that time as a referendum, not a plebiscite — as well as to the governance bill. No changes then.

This is, in effect, a shuffling of provincial assets. One of the things I would like to explore in committee stage, and would have explored in a ministry briefing, is whether, in fact, something has changed that has made this a priority today.

Is there some connection between the impending vote that is to take place in Metro Vancouver? Is there something in connection with the governance changes that have taken place? Is the minister considering, possibly, some future governance changes which I might, in fact, be very interested in supporting, particularly if they make the operations of the TransLink board more open and transparent, more inclusive of elected, accountable representation in Metro Vancouver and, of course, very importantly, addressing a number of the issues that some opponents of investment in transit have raised with respect to TransLink?

[1445]

Whether they’re correct or not, there’s certainly public perception, and public perception is usually best dealt with, especially if the public perception is one that is rooted in mistrust. That public perception is best dealt with through accountability mechanisms and transparency mechanisms. Mechanisms, I would point out, aren’t particularly present in this bill, when assets are being consolidated under complete control of the minister and the minister’s deputy.

What is the issue today that has given rise to this legislation? If it’s important and if it’s a matter of efficiency — if it’s a matter of better management, if it’s a matter of enhancing the ability of government to oversee the operations, management and efficiencies of TransLink in operation of its assets — why now? This is a government that claims that it has been after efficiencies since day one, the first day it was elected. It’s a government that claims and takes a lot of pride in being able to run the store and run it efficiently, so why now?

Has something changed? That’s a question I would like to ask. I will ask it tomorrow. If the answer is not satisfactory when I meet with ministry staff, I will ask it in committee stage.

Again, one of the things that I would ask the minister and will ask the minister in committee stage is…. There’s a lot of noise around TransLink and the referendum. This is a touchy time in the future of congestion relief and transit expansion and service in Metro Vancouver. We all know that investments have to be made in transit, with one million more people coming to the region over the next two decades. There is significant agitation in the public around TransLink and its operations generally.

Why would the minister choose the middle of this referendum, as opposed to last year or 2007 or 2012 or next year, to bring in changes and potentially further muddy and cloud the waters around a referendum for which his government is solely responsible, that the mayors did not request and that could have potential disastrous results, at least in the short term and very likely in the medium term, both economically for all of British Columbia and particularly the region, as well as for livability in the region?

Did the mayors ask for this change? It’s an important question. I would have liked to hear the minister stand up for more than two or three minutes and give a bit more background so we could understand this more fully.

Frankly, I would have liked the minister to be respectful enough of the role of every member of this Legislative Assembly to ensure that staff at an appropriate level in the ministry could respond to a simple request for a briefing on legislation that was introduced in this House over two weeks ago, instead of waiting until after the day the bill was scheduled for second reading to answer legitimate questions by members elected to this chamber, who have a responsibility, even on a bill that seemingly, on the face of it, is inoffensive and administrative in nature. Even on that kind of bill we have a job to do.

I would think it would be in the minister’s interest, and certainly the interest of British Columbians, that ministry staff have enough respect for members of this assembly to take the time to give a briefing to the official opposition and, in fact, to independent members of this Legislature if they so request it.

[ Page 6223 ]

Did the mayors ask for this? Do they support this? I don’t know. I don’t know if they know because I don’t know if they’ve had a briefing either. I don’t know if they’ve had a chance to question the minister on the implications. I don’t know whether the minister and ministry staff even think it’s important that the elected representatives of people in Metro Vancouver are given the respect that they should be given to have a detailed explanation, be able to ask questions and understand the implications of this legislation.

Another question for committee stage: did TransLink ask for this? Does TransLink support it? Does TransLink think this will make things more efficient?

[1450]

Does TransLink think that this is the right way to proceed? Does TransLink think it’s appropriate for the province to own assets for which it no longer puts up 100 percent of the financing and, in fact, has not even committed to put up 33 percent of the financing?

Did B.C. Transit ask for this? Does B.C. Transit support this? Does it make sense? It may well make sense. But the minister stood up in this House for something like a minute and a half when the bill was introduced and perhaps, charitably, five minutes to open second reading of the bill.

I’m sure ministry staff have many important things to do. But if this is a bill that is going to increase efficiency, be more responsive to effective and efficient use of government — i.e., taxpayers’ money…. If it’s going to make the operations of TransLink be better, if it’s going to better connect the government with the operation of all of the different forms of assets, whether it’s SeaBus or West Coast Express or built and yet-to-be-built rapid transit in Vancouver and south of the Fraser, or of the bus fleet, of the roads, of the Pattullo Bridge, of the bicycling infrastructure….

If all of this is important, surely ministry staff could have taken the time to go into some detail with myself, with other members of the opposition, with other members of this Legislature so that we don’t have to stand in this chamber, where there are many other things to do, during second reading of a bill about which we’ve received very little information from either staff, deputies or the minister himself and take up time pointing out for the public and the public record the important questions that could have been answered that haven’t been answered, so the people of British Columbia can know that this government has reached a point where, when they think a change is necessary, they just make it with minimal explanation, even if, as may well be the case with this bill, it makes perfect sense.

If it makes perfect sense, why were we not afforded an opportunity to get answers to simple questions? If, in fact, this is more efficient, why has Rapid Transit 2000 been kept alive for so long? Why wasn’t this done in 2007 when the board was changed, or 2012 when the minister made changes, or 2014 when the current Transportation Minister made changes?

I would ask the minister during committee stage whether there was any consideration given to transferring these assets to TransLink itself, which might make more sense. And if so, was there an analysis done — whether that would be beneficial or whether it would be more beneficial to do what he proposes to do and transfer them to the Transportation Financing Authority?

TransLink operates this infrastructure and these assets under long-term lease. TransLink is responsible in many ways for ensuring that these assets operate efficiently, that they’re maintained. TransLink has to struggle with balancing the various needs of transportation in the region under a funding formula that clearly hasn’t kept up. It hasn’t kept up with the needed investments, hasn’t kept up with the growth in population, hasn’t kept up with congestion, hasn’t kept up with what the public desires in Metro Vancouver and hasn’t kept up with the regional planning processes that take place.

I’ve sat in meetings at TransLink where mayors in the region have said: “We built developments based on the premise that there would be transit and people would choose to take transit. Now we have developments that weren’t set up for cars where people are now making commitments to buy cars because they can’t get to where they have to go any other way. It is bad for the region. It’s bad for our communities, and once they make those investments in personal vehicles, they will not go back.”

The minister and his government are responsible for that state of affairs by not having the courage, the foresight or the policy responsibility to work with the mayors in the region and make investments.

TransLink is asked to continually make improvements to assets that it does not own. Why has the government made a decision to continue the model where the ownership does not rest with TransLink but rests with government entities and, in fact, is consolidating it into a government entity?

[1455]

It may well make perfect sense, notwithstanding the change in funding models that has taken place over time and the continually reduced financial interest of this government in the assets under discussion, notwithstanding the continued failure of this government to act responsibly and help TransLink and the mayors in the region make the investments needed to ensure that we reduce congestion.

Notwithstanding all of those facts, it may make sense, but we simply do not know today. We might know tomorrow when we get a briefing. We could have known yesterday if we’d had a briefing, although it was Sunday. We could have known last week if we’d had a briefing. We could have known the week before when we first requested a briefing. But we don’t know because we haven’t had answers to the questions.

[ Page 6224 ]

In the interest, perhaps, of a little bit more efficiency than the minister and his staff seem to think is appropriate or respectful for members of this Legislature, we will be asking for a list of all of the assets in question, the ownership history, the lease history, the value of all of the assets in question, any changes over time and any debts in question. We might be able to get that at a briefing. I honestly can’t say, because the ministry hasn’t seen fit to give us one. So I’ll put it on the record here in hopes that we will get the info tomorrow or, if not tomorrow, at committee stage.

With that, having spoken far longer than I thought I would be able to or than I thought would be appropriate on a bill that is strictly administrative in nature, perhaps the minister will take from this a message back to his staff, one that he probably shouldn’t have to deliver directly but may well have — that if a bill is administrative in nature and we’re trying to increase efficiencies, perhaps we should start with a little respect for the role of members of this Legislature and give them a briefing when they ask for one. With that, I’ll take my seat.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on a transportation bill. We don’t have many of them in front of us, so I did want to have the opportunity.

While I do understand my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview’s concern about the briefing, I have to say that I did personally have a chat with the minister, who did describe the administrative nature of it. I think a lot of the issues that there are concerns about, which might come from a briefing and can be discussed when we do have the briefing tomorrow, we still will want to get on the record in the committee stage, so I think there is that opportunity there.

As has been said, and as the minister said in conversation and has said twice, now, on the record — both in the first reading introducing the bill and then the start of second reading — this is essentially the administrative piece of legislation. I think that one of the questions though is: why now? What is the thinking of this particular timing for it? If you’re going to be streamlining it, you’re going to be streamlining it. But there have been other opportunities.

When there was a change to the governance structure of TransLink back in 2007, that might perhaps have been a time to bring that streamlining together. I think that with the highly politicized nature of the debate that is going on at the moment around TransLink, there is inevitably a raft of questions about the timing and just what it is going to mean.

I mean, by looking at it and by conversation, it does sound to be simple. It does sound to be administrative. But there is always that, dare I say, suspicion, whether it is administrative or whether it is simple, that there is something more behind it, particularly since, as my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview mentioned — and he takes the lead on TransLink issues and is very well versed on them — the Transportation Financing Authority is run by the ministry, and the directors are the minister and the deputy minister. So it’s within the government reporting entity.

There is possibly an issue of transparency. We know that this is becoming a very…. It’s not non-transparent, but it’s an oral government. We don’t get much in writing. We’re going to be discussing this in a subsequent bill this afternoon, I understand, about the oral nature of government.

[1500]

With the Transportation Financing Authority having that directorship, just literally the minister and the deputy minister…. While, obviously, the minister is an honourable minister and the deputy minister is a public servant who we respect, there is a question of what sort of transparency there will be, how much recorded information there will be about what happens.

It’s very interesting that by bringing this all into the Transportation Financing Authority, it means that any of the debts aren’t actually on the government books. It’s something that we’ve seen with B.C. Ferries when the government took B.C. Ferries outside the Crown corporation model that it had been running under for a good many years. That was partly to move the B.C. Ferries debt off the government books.

We have a government that is dealing with a massively escalating debt and trying to find ways of showing that they aren’t actually holding this debt. It’s very interesting to see. In this, we’re seeing that this move won’t have any implications for the provincial debt, which I think is hitting almost $70 billion now. I think that’s what we’re aiming towards with the rapid rise under the present Premier, that ratcheting up of provincial debt. But this won’t be seen on it.

It’s very interesting, a little playing around with the books. Again, whether or not there is the briefing note, these are questions that we will want to get on the record, the answer to these questions, when we get to the committee stage.

There are a couple of other just small points. One is that while it is a thin bill…. I mean, there are 11 sections and then, obviously, the consequential amendments to the Transit Act and the Transportation Act, the South Coast Transportation Authority, the Financial Information Act and so on. Again, we see this time and again in government legislation. We’ll be questioning when we do get to committee stage, whenever that is — again, it’s something that we can discuss in a briefing. But it would be very good to get it on the record:

section 10, the power to make regulations.

We see this time and again when we have a piece of legislation. Here it seems to be, as we’ve discussed, the administrative moving, bringing everything together under

[ Page 6225 ]

one body. If that’s all it is, if there’s a very rational explanation for why now and why this model, it might just be fine.

But there is this issue under

section 10. Basically, cabinet can make regulations on this which can remedy any difficulty encountered in the transfer and respecting any other matter or thing that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council “considers necessary or advisable to carry out the intent of this Act.” That, I would suggest is quite….

It might be nothing, but it also could be interpreted as quite a broad brushstroke of what we’re going to do. And then what we don’t actually have down in legislation, what they may have forgotten…. “It’s okay. We’ll deal with it all in regulation.”

This is a method that we’ve seen in a number of pieces of legislation, whether a major piece of legislation like we were talking about last fall, the LNG legislation, or smaller pieces. We are expected just to sign over somehow carte blanche to the government. “It’s okay. We trust cabinet to make the right decision, and they will sign off on it.”

So when I do see a

section that does have this power to make regulation, I do get a little concerned. That being said, we have had twice on the record from the minister that this is administrative. It appears to be administrative.

I think that it will be very interesting to get more clarity when we get to committee stage and be able to, through committee stage, get on the record just some of the questions that my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview has had and some of the other questions that are coming up in this — the questions of why now, why this model, how it’s all going to work. It just does seem to be…. If nothing else, the timing alone seems a little strange.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I do look forward to having more clarity when it comes to committee stage.

B. Ralston: I rise again to address this bill very briefly. My colleague from Vancouver-Fairview has posed, I think, most of the questions that should be posed and as of yet are not answered.

[1505]

Coming from Surrey-Whalley, where the Surrey city centre is so important to the future of the city and to the region and rapid transit — certainly the SkyTrain line and TransLink and the desire of the city to expand public transit service to the urban core and, indeed, to the city of Surrey itself — is so important to the future of Surrey, that I feel compelled, at least, to signal my interest in this bill and to follow it regardless of whether the minister has said it’s administrative or not.

What we are advised is that the present collection of entities all fall within the government reporting entity, and the new combined entity will equally be within the government reporting entity. I suppose one wonders, given that the title of the organization is the Transportation Financing Authority, what implications there are for future financing using transit assets as collateral.

Was this something that was requested by prospective lenders? Was this something that was advised in policy? Are there any implications for the future function of the Transportation Financing Authority as a financing authority, using those assets to finance future construction? As we know, the Evergreen line is underway, a project of some $800 million or $900 million in costs. So these are important questions of public policy and of finance, potentially.

Again, I’m sure the minister can easily explain these, but they remain questions that are merely posed at this point and not answered.

I don’t really understand — as the member for Vancouver-Fairview has said — the reason why this moment was chosen. Certainly, in 2007, when the legislation created TransLink, as it’s presently constituted, with its funding sources, there was a very lengthy debate — although it was ended by closure here in the Legislature, as is sometimes the wont of this government on important public policy matters. They’re not prepared to entertain lengthy debates.

One wonders, given the interest of the minister at that time in creating a new corporate structure, why it wasn’t dealt with at that time. Is that an oversight? Not considered important? Hence, what is the timing now?

I really want to just, as I said, signal my interest and that of my constituents and of the city of Surrey in the future of public transit in the region — which is, of course, being considered very widely in the discussion that we’re having in the Lower Mainland. I look forward, like others, to either the minister answering some of these questions when he closes on second reading or perhaps, when his officials are here, if he doesn’t know the answers, in the committee stage.

H. Bains: It is also a pleasure to stand and speak on this very, very important topic, to say the least, when we talk about public transportation in the Lower Mainland — especially the region that I represent, the south of the Fraser.

Bill 2 talks about, as the minister put it, the administrative changes, but as the speakers before me have mentioned, there are a number of unanswered questions. Well, one of the questions was: why now, especially when you’re looking at the priorities and the needs of public transportation in the Lower Mainland?

The mayors have been asking to change the governance. That should be the key priority for this minister and for this government, and they have done nothing. Well, they go, kicking and screaming, very, very slowly in that movement. I guess they don’t want to accept that they were wrong when the changes were made in 2007 by the then Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, who fired the duly elected members of the board — the mayors and the councillors — and replaced them with handpicked, non-elected members of the board who meet behind closed doors — no accountability, no transparency. That’s where the priority should have been.

[1510]

[ Page 6226 ]

If this is administrative, then I think we need to ask a lot of questions, many questions, as has been raised by the member for Vancouver-Fairview and others. They need to be answered during the committee stage.

At the end of the day, we’re really, really concerned about the extension into the south of the Fraser and the extension of the Expo Line, or the LRT, as they call it, for that part — more buses. Those are the real priorities — the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. I think those are some of the key priorities, but the minister chose to do just the administrative changes rather than real, substantive changes that are needed in order to serve the region that I represent and many of the members south of the Fraser represent.

According to Metro Vancouver, there will be an additional million residents moving into the Lower Mainland by 2040. Most of them will be calling south of the Fraser their home, or the northeast sector, and yes, many others will be going to other communities.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? We don’t have the transportation facilities and the services to serve the population that we have today. Can you imagine what it would be like having another million residents moving into the Lower Mainland? If we don’t move fast enough, then we will be running behind. That would be a disaster as far as the economy of this province is concerned. That would be a disaster as far as climate change is concerned, and extended traffic jams.

I’m really worried, because so far this government has not shown very much leadership on this issue. Every time they had an opportunity, they used delay tactics. The most recent one is the referendum. They threw it at the population of the Lower Mainland: “If you want any more improvement south of the Fraser, then you tell us how you’re going to pay for it.”

They never asked those questions when Port Mann was announced. They never asked for a referendum when the Massey Tunnel was announced. None of that, none of those issues were raised at that time — none of that concern about a referendum at that time. The time for Surrey came, and then, all of a sudden, the Premier announced a referendum, and I think that is a real concern. It was our time. It was our turn. And we have to stand in the lineup now, hoping that the referendum will pass and we will see some improvement.

We’re working hard to make sure that the public understand, despite the fact that this government has let them down when it comes to improving public transportation for the region. Mr. Speaker, you probably know. You were there in Coquitlam when the then Premier, Mr. Campbell, came, along with all of the ministers — the Minister of Transportation there. We went to this golf course clubhouse, and with great fanfare an MOU was signed, committing this government to work with the local mayors to find a long-term sustainable funding formula. The Minister of Education was there.

What did they do? Ignored that MOU. They did nothing all those years, despite constant effort by the mayors, trying to find a formula. But the government, all the ministers, including this Minister of Education, just disappeared after signing that agreement. Again, it was just a political piece of paper they signed. They had no intention of complying with it.

Again, they had an opportunity to sit down with the mayors and come up with a long-term sustained funding formula to work on expanded public transportation south of the Fraser. What did they do? They just said: “Well, it’ll be a referendum on that.” Bill 2 doesn’t address that either. So what happened? Delay, more delay. Now we are told: “If you want more public transportation, then you have to tell us how you want to fund that.”

[1515]

Bill 2, which we are talking about, does not address all those concerns. Again, it’s just administrative, as the minister said. But there are a lot of questions that will be raised during the committee stage. Rather than just being interested in administrative changes, the substantive changes are needed, and they are nowhere to be seen. Rather than being in the leadership position, being at the forefront to promote the yes side of the referendum, they were just hemming and hawing.

One day the Premier said: “I will not support it. It’s not my referendum. It’s the mayors issue.” And the Minister of Transportation said: “Oh well, I think I will be on the yes side.” They can’t even make up their own minds. As a result, the public is left confused because of a lack of leadership from that side. Bill 2 does not address any of those concerns.

When I was a Transportation critic, I was actually very much surprised to see how many different entities existed at TransLink. Expo Line is owned by one entity. Millennium Line is owned by another entity. Now we have West Coast Express. We have buses. It just did not make any sense. I understand that if they can be brought under one entity — administratively and, I think, also logistically — it may work better in the future.

At the end of the day, again, you have to see: how is this going to save taxpayers? Where are the efficiencies going to come from? Are there going to be any efficiencies found by going through this change? I think there are many, many of those concerns. Those concerns and those questions will be raised during the committee stage.

I think I was trying to find if West Coast Express was also part of this transfer. Right now it’s listed under, if I’m not mistaken, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, I believe. If it is, that entity is being merged into the Transportation Financing Authority as well.

I mean, those are a number of questions that we need to ask. What is the end result? I think, as they say, the devil is in the details, and I think that’s what we’ll find out at the committee stage. But my main concern is on

[ Page 6227 ]

behalf of residents of Surrey. How is this bill going to help them get better public transportation? I mean, that’s the bottom line.

No answer is coming, so far, from the minister or any of the other Liberal representatives from the Surrey area. They’ve been missing in action. They have never been anywhere to answer any questions about public transportation. Are you on the side of a yes vote, or are you on the side of a no vote? They are nowhere to be seen — kicking and dragging.

Finally, the Premier may have said: “Yeah, I think, you know….” First she said: “It’s the mayors issue. It’s not my issue.” The Minister of Transportation corrected her, and she said: “Well, I think I’m going to campaign on the yes side.” Then she said: “I will vote yes.” Although she lives in Kelowna, she may have voted in Vancouver. I don’t know. We’ll have to figure that out. They were all over the map and, again, left confusion with the residents of the Lower Mainland because they couldn’t make up their mind. How are we going to improve the public transportation, number one?

They used the delaying tactic, abrogating their responsibility of making decisions — what they were elected for: to make decisions on behalf of the public that they represent. The abrogation of their responsibility as elected members is beyond comprehension. Bill 2 — there’s nothing in here to address any of those issues. I think there are many, many of those issues and concerns.

[1520]

Hopefully, the government will look positively at improving public transportation and investing in public transportation. We can use 500 buses in Surrey alone today, south of Fraser — 500 buses today. Can you imagine the effect of having 500 buses in south of Fraser — all of those cars left behind, parked in their driveway rather than on the road? Can you imagine that and the effect it will have on the owners’ carbon footprints?

Walking the talk is what I’m asking of the government, and they’re nowhere. All talk, but there’s no walking the talk. That’s the issue here.

Bill 2, if we examine it in detail…. We have to figure out how it is that it’s going to address many of those concerns.

I have said — and I must say again; I must repeat this — that we have three ministers from Surrey. That should give good comfort to the people of Surrey. Bill 2, when you look at it…. How much input do they have? What are they doing to improve public transportation? What kind of clout do they have at the cabinet table? People expect them to have some clout, bring some resources to the south of Fraser, bring some money — capital funding in schools and public transportation. All that stuff is missing.

I think we need to figure out…. The people are wondering what these ministers are there…. How are they representing their interests? Rather than taking the Premier’s message to Surrey, how are they bringing the message from Surrey to the Premier? I mean, that part…. It only seems to be a one-way communication from these ministers.

I think we need to really, in detail, look at what Bill 2 talks about. If it’s only administrative, well, I think they’re looking for…. It’s like a make-work project — right? — for the minister. Is it going to improve public transportation? I will see, through committee stage, with all those questions.

With all those questions in mind, no answers coming so far from the minister. You would think the minister would stand up and speak more than two or three minutes on this bill, explaining their position of why we are bringing these changes rather than advocating for more funding, advocating for better public transportation, advocating for more investment in public transportation, working with stakeholders.

Administrative changes — that’s the best they can do? I think maybe that’s the only expectation we have, I guess, and that’s the only ability they have to deliver. If that’s the case…. Well, we’ll see what’s in the bill, and during committee stage we will be asking many of those questions.

At this time I’ll take my seat, and hopefully the minister will answer some of those questions at that time so that our three ministers from the Surrey area will take some of that information back to Surrey and so that the people of Surrey will see what they are getting for their dollars, the taxes that they pay.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and recognize the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A. Weaver: The most beautiful riding in the province of British Columbia.

I rise to speak just briefly at second reading of this bill to outline an issue that I think may have been overlooked in this bill. As the bill notes, there are currently…. These rapid transit assets owned by the province are split amongst three Crown corporations in the area: Expo Line and the West Coast Express held by B.C. Transit, the Millennium Line held by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. and the Evergreen line held by B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Bill 2 would consolidate these into one entity while maintaining the level of service.

Now, it’s hard to argue that consolidation of assets spread around three is not actually a good thing. It would streamline administration, provide cost savings and, presumably, better management of the whole system at all. These assets, of course, would be transferred into and operated by TransLink.

Cutting down the bureaucratic clutter in the region of Metro Vancouver, I would argue, is a good thing. Nobody quite knows who is on second base at times, or first base at times, with the plethora of these Crown corporations with their different jurisdictions.

[ Page 6228 ]

Here is the problem. TransLink has lost the support of the public. Nowhere is this more true than seeing the discussions happening with respect to the upcoming plebiscite in Vancouver.

[1525]

This no longer becoming a question of: should Vancouver have transport or not? This is not a question of: is the PST increase a means and ways of funding the transit improvements in Vancouver? What’s happening in Vancouver is that this plebiscite is becoming a plebiscite on TransLink, and that is most unfortunate.

That’s most unfortunate because here in this bill we have a bringing together of assets into a Crown corporation that has lost the public trust. In doing so, the public will question the rationale behind this. The public will question whether or not bringing in TransLink is the right thing to do. The public will question whether or not this is actually going to improve service.

Accountability is the keystone — and was the keystone — of the original vision of TransLink. It was envisioned as a regional authority to be run by a local and elected board. But now, of course, it’s no longer the case. We have an appointed board. We have an appointed board which is not accountable to the voters. The council of mayors, which makes recommendations and has to live with the consequences of decisions being made, is elected. But they don’t actually have the control over the process and decision-making.

This bill is bringing more assets into an organization, TransLink, a Crown corporation that will have more control and more voice over what the mayors must implement, at the same time as it’s losing the confidence of the general public. In order to deal with the root cause, the root problem, that exists — that is, the lack of public support for TransLink — we’ll need to explore, in committee stage, how the government plans to actually assure us that as it brings more and more assets into the Crown corporation for transit, it does so in means and ways that do not ignore the underlying fundamental issue, which is rebuilding public trust and public confidence in TransLink.

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

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly do appreciate the interventions from the members opposite on this particular bill, and I look forward to a spirited debate back and forth. I’m not certain how spirited it will be, though, because this really is a housekeeping bill.

To the member for Vancouver-Fairview, my understanding is that staff were more than willing to set up a meeting. We heard back from the member’s staff just this last Friday, and the earliest date that we could make happen was this Tuesday.

Furthermore, the member for North Island actually came over to this side of the chamber a few weeks back and asked me a number of questions about this bill: what the intentions were, if there was anything that she was missing, anything she should be really honing in on. I indicated very clearly: “No, this is an administrative piece of legislation. However, if you or any of your colleagues wish to have a briefing, I would be more than happy to ensure that that’s provided.”

Perhaps the members opposite don’t talk as often as they should, but I did make that offer, and the offer stands.

Finally, on that point, the member for Vancouver-Fairview…. It has never stopped him before — to stop me in the halls and ask me a couple of quick questions about a piece of legislation or a particular issue. He certainly didn’t come to me personally on this.

I encourage him and other members opposite to know that I very much appreciate the role that the opposition members have in terms of scrutinizing and asking the tough questions of legislation that this government puts forward. I’m certainly willing to facilitate, if nothing else, technical briefings to ensure that coming into these debates, they have a basic level of understanding about what the intent of the legislation is. So those offers are out there.

Why were my comments so brief at the beginning of second reading? Again, very clearly, because this is simply a case where there is not a lot to see here. There’s not a lot going on. This is very much an administrative piece of legislation.

The question was asked by members opposite a number of times: “Why now?” Very simply, this piece of legislation — the concept that underpins this piece of legislation, which is consolidating all of the rapid transit assets in the Lower Mainland — was an initiative that actually came out of the core review process.

[1530]

As you will recall, we made a commitment to the people of British Columbia, coming out of the last campaign, the last mandate that we were so honoured to receive from the public, that we would continue with our efforts to ensure that for every single dollar that we spend on behalf of the taxpayers, we do so wisely.

This file came across my desk, as files tend to do on a daily basis, and it was very clear to me that there seemed to be an opportunity here, through the simple consolidation of rapid transit assets, for efficiencies and some savings for the taxpayer — nothing more, nothing less.

I want to stress that this bill has no implications whatsoever for the plebiscite. While I fully expect, from a number of the comments made by members opposite, that there may be questions that are plebiscite-related that will come up in the committee stage of this bill, I want to say now, on the record, very clearly, that there are absolutely no implications whatsoever for the plebiscite.

I do want to say, though…. I’m not sure I can hold myself back on this, but in response to the member for Surrey-Newton, I can assure both the member and all members of the House that my colleagues in Surrey,

[ Page 6229 ]

which is, I believe, the strongest caucus that has ever represented Surrey, are out there advocating for the plebiscite vigorously.

Last time I checked, the Minister of Children and Family Development is on the record many, many times saying she supports (1) giving the people of the region a say, giving them the final say, over this, and (2) she supports a yes vote.

I know certainly that there are very few members in this chamber that come anywhere close to the experience — the upfront, close and personal experience — that the Minister of Education has when it comes to transit in the Lower Mainland. He has said many times on the record that he supports giving people in the region the say and, indeed, supports a yes vote.

The Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, also from Surrey, has said on many occasions that he supports this process, giving the people the final say, and he supports a yes vote. And indeed, our colleagues the MLAs for Surrey–White Rock and Surrey-Panorama are also on the record in supporting this referendum. They are certainly not strangers to the transit file as well.

I want to also say again, in response to the members opposite, that there are no implications within this bill for TransLink. This bill is not about TransLink. TransLink does not own any of these assets. TransLink will not own the Evergreen line. TransLink does not own the Millennium Line. TransLink does not own the Expo Line or the West Coast Express. There are contractual agreements between these different Crown entities and TransLink. This bill changes none of that. There are no implications whatsoever for TransLink.

Furthermore, there are no implications in this bill with respect to the actual provision of transit services — rapid transit services, in particular — for the people of Metro Vancouver. Now, I don’t want to stray, as a few members opposite did in their comments, too far from the actual subject that this bill deals with.

I’m all game to talk about the $2.2 billion that this government has invested in rapid transit and TransLink over the last 12 years. I’m all game to talk about investments that we’ve made in the Canada Line, which is recognized around the world as one of the best rapid transit lines in terms of connecting a downtown core with an international airport.

I’m all game to talk about the first rapid bus over the Port Mann Bridge in a long time, which is moving 50,000 passengers per month. Indeed, I would be all game to talk about the Evergreen line and just how incredible it’s going to be when that line is done, the extension of SkyTrain all the way out to Coquitlam and how wonderful that’s going to be.

In fact, that will position the rapid transit network in the Lower Mainland as the longest rapid transit network in all of the country. I would be only too game to also talk about the fact that we spend more per capita on transit here in British Columbia than any other province does.

[1535]

Again, I don’t want to stray too far from the subject of the bill. This bill does not contain any of the conspiracies or any of the hidden agendas or any of the juicy, interesting little tidbits that members opposite have suggested may be at play here. This is a very standard, very straightforward and, in many respects, boring piece of legislation. It is purely administrative in nature.

As I said in my opening comments to second reading, here’s what it does. It consolidates all rapid transit assets within the BCTFA. That’s the Expo Line and the West Coast Express assets, which are currently held by B.C. Transit. Those assets would be moved to the BCTFA. The Millennium Line, which is currently held by RTP 2000 — those assets would be moved to the BCTFA. And of course, the Evergreen line — the assets will be held by the BCTFA. So this is a consolidation of rapid transit assets into one entity, the BCTFA.

Secondly, it enables cost savings and efficiencies. I said, actually in first reading, that these cost savings are going to be modest. We’re not talking millions of dollars of savings. We’re saying that tens of thousands of dollars of annual savings is what we expect. But there will be administrative, financial and legal savings because the requirements for all of the above will be simplified.

Next, all the rights and responsibilities, including in relation to the assets and liabilities of these rapid transit assets, will all transfer seamlessly to the BCTFA — nothing more, nothing less. There is no change in status of any of those rights and responsibilities, those assets and liabilities.

Next, as I said a moment ago, it consolidates all of the agreements that TransLink has with each of these Crowns into one relationship. So instead of TransLink having an agreement with RTP 2000 and a separate agreement with B.C. Transit and a separate agreement again with the BCTFA, there will be one agreement that will manage the relationship between the Crown, through the BCTFA, and indeed, TransLink.

There are no debt implications with respect to the changes. I believe, as the member for Surrey-Whalley pointed out quite correctly, it’s all Crown-reported debt at the present time. It will all still be after this consolidation has taken place. So there’s no increase or decrease in the provincial debt position.

Last but not least, this move also addresses the reality that B.C. Transit no longer actually has a mandate in the Lower Mainland. So it seems to make sense to us that assets which are currently held by B.C. Transit — again, being the Expo Line and the West Coast Express — should be held by a different agency. BCTFA makes the most sense to us.

Hopefully, I’ve gone to some extent there to address a few of the questions and the concerns that have been

[ Page 6230 ]

raised by members opposite. I certainly expect that there will be a further delving into all of the issues I’ve just mentioned, and I certainly look forward to that in the committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that Bill 2 be referred a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities 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. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 5, intituled Government Information Act.

BILL 5 — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACT

Hon. A. Virk: Bill 5, Government Information Act, brings modern information management legislation to the province of British Columbia. This year, 2015, the Document Disposal Act, our current information management legislation, would have turned some 79 years old.

Before I move to how the Government Information Act will modernize the management of information, let me, by way of background, highlight some of the challenges that we currently face.

First fact. Information is being created and duplicated at an ever-growing rate, which is stretching our ability to manage it in an efficient manner.

[1540]

Second fact. Storage and retrieval costs for this growing volume of information continues to rise.

Third. Access to information is delayed due to our inability to locate information quickly in our old paper-based system.

Another fact. We store currently a million boxes of paper in off-site storage facilities. Just for reference’s sake, if we put all those boxes in a row, that would stretch from Vancouver all the way to the interior, to Kamloops.

The fifth fact. Any decision relating to the retention and timely disposal of these records must currently be approved by multiple committees in the Legislative Assembly, which typically takes one to two years to obtain.

Fact six. As highlighted in a recent report by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, we have a backlog of paper records that have not been archived for over ten years due to the high costs associated with archiving paper records.

Now, one may ask how the Government Information Act addresses these challenges. The Government Information Act focuses on electronic information and modern information management needs.

It moves government to the electronic storage of information, which will increase efficiency and make better use of taxpayer dollars as well as making it easier to manage and retrieve information. This will result in increased productivity, timelier service, improved access to information for citizens and better overall information management. It also establishes digital archives, which will preserve government’s documentary heritage and enable convenient public on-line access to government’s archival records information.

The Government Information Act will also strengthen the government’s record retention regime by appointing a chief records officer with a mandate to oversee records management. It will also establish a cross-sector advisory committee to support the CRO’s oversight and provide expert advice on the appropriate retention and disposal of government information.

Finally, the Government Information Act clarifies what constitutes government information to include information that documents decisions. The act specifically requires the retention of any record that documents key decisions or a government body’s organization, policies, procedures, transactions or operations, in accordance with information schedules approved by the chief records officer. This will ensure that such information is kept for an appropriate period of time for operational and accountability purposes and is available to the public, subject of course to limited exceptions under freedom-of-information legislation.

We propose that this is done in a phased implementation period, as was done in other institutions. The requirement to digitize information will be phased in over a three-year period and will be subject to limited and reasonable expectations. My ministry will transition first and will pilot new tools and technologies for classifying and managing electronic information before deploying them more broadly.

A broad group of stakeholders, including government stakeholders, were unanimously in support and look forward to the improved information efficiencies, access and governance this act will bring.

We also consulted with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and worked closely with her office to clarify and strengthen the act. While the commissioner

[ Page 6231 ]

sees elements that could be further strengthened, her overall opinion is that it’s an important first step to a modern management framework.

I quote further from the Privacy Commissioner. “I am encouraged that the government is proposing legislation that will provide a framework for modern records management within government,” and “I am pleased that the bill provides for the establishment of an information management advisory committee which would assist the chief records officer with the approval of information schedules.”

In

summary, the Government Information Act is long overdue, and it’s a long-overdue solution to a number of growing problems.

[1545]

It is the collaborative result of consultation with a number of key stakeholders, including the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and, as such, contains practical and forward-looking provisions that will ease transitional challenges.

Once fully implemented, this modernized approach promises to improve government efficiency, improve findability and access to information and services for citizens, and make better use of taxpayer dollars. It will also establish British Columbia as a leading jurisdiction with digital-based information management and archiving services. This leading-edge approach will enhance efficiency and ensure timely access to information.

D. Routley: It’s an honour to rise in response to the Government Information Act. I intend to take a number of perspectives on this important piece of legislation.

It’s important that the government recognizes the need to advance its recordkeeping practices. It’s something that the opposition supports: that we bring the recordkeeping functions of government forward into the 21st century, with a view on the 22nd century; that the historical record of British Columbia be protected; and that people’s rights to access information be enhanced — not simply protected but enhanced.

Given that the government has a rather sketchy history in the whole sector — the whole field of document handling, document disposal, document of government actions — it’s important that we look at the history of what got us here.

First of all, I have tried to acknowledge the positive aspects of the bill up to this point, and I’ll acknowledge another positive aspect — that is, that the government wrote it down. That may seem flippant, and it may seem simplistic, but it’s true.

The government has a record of relying on an oral culture, increasingly relying on government and governance without documentation. This is a problem that’s been pointed out by successive Information and Privacy Commissioners of British Columbia going back a decade now — going back to the previous three commissioners back, David Loukidelis, who made the observation that he was concerned that “the public policy objectives of openness, accountability and good management — and frankly, the historical record — are not being well served at this time.”

Well, not much has changed. In fact, several of these concerns, one could argue, have worsened.

The recent scandals in the last term of the B.C. Liberal government around the ethnic outreach, quick-wins issue pointed to increasing reliance in the Premier’s office on an oral culture and a lack of documentation of government business at government meetings. We’ve heard recently of 80 meetings with stakeholders along the Highway of Tears concerning missing and murdered women — 80 meetings for which there is no documentation.

This would seem to most people to be an impossibility. Unfortunately, under this B.C. Liberal government, this has become regular. It has become increasingly the practice of government to do business simply by oral communication or by deleting e-mails on the grounds that they are transitory in nature — transitory information, transitory documentation — so they are destroyed.

We can go back through several different scandals to see this has been the practice of government. The B.C. Rail scandal led to the deletion of e-mails that could have been significant in finding fact in that scandal.

[1550]

Government, unfortunately, oversaw the destruction of documents, the disposal of e-mails that were deemed to be transitory but could well have been important to any defence that might have been undertaken by Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, who were accused and eventually pled guilty in that case on the eve of important testimony from the former Finance Minister Gary Collins.

These are significant issues of public record. We see the government willing to simply destroy or dispose of documents that are essential to recording history in British Columbia. We support the move to a modernized archiving system, a digitized archiving system, but we support that with considerable reservations about this act. It is a small but important step forward in archiving, but it has three significant holes.

The first and biggest hole in this legislation is that it does not include a duty by government to document. There is no duty to document decisions, meetings, calendars or any other government business. That is a significant shortcoming in this act that does not address the current and historical practices and shortcomings of the B.C. Liberal government when it comes to openness and freedom of information and access to information.

One of previous Premier Gordon Campbell’s great golden goals from a throne speech now long past but not forgotten was to have the most transparent, open and accountable government anywhere — I assume in the known universe but at least, you would think, in terms of related jurisdictions.

[ Page 6232 ]

If we compare B.C. to other jurisdictions, we’ll see that a couple of years ago the Canadian Journalists Association ranked B.C. at the bottom of the pack when it came to freedom-of-information access requests because of significant changes that were made to limit access. Changes were made to the Freedom of Information Act that might have been addressed in this act, changes that limited access to information.

One significant change was that the required length of time to respond to a request was changed from 30 calendar days to 30 working days, effectively increasing the allowable period of response by some 40 percent. This was a significant change. It was clearly intended to reduce access and allow government a longer time to respond to requests, which is not in the public interest.

All of these situations and circumstances, scandals and shortcomings of government have been issues that were not vexing or perplexing problems. They were problems that were clearly identified by successive Information and Privacy Commissioners. Steps to address these problems, solutions, were offered repeatedly and successively by the same officers of the B.C. Legislature and were in large

part ignored by the government.

This significant hole in this act, the lack of a duty to document government decisions, really effectively mutes the effect of this or any other measure that government might take to improve access. You cannot archive a deleted e-mail any easier than you can archive a shredded document.

If government is not creating documentation, if government is disposing of documents on the premise that they are transitory — when in fact they are simply transitory in government’s view, because they are in the form of an e-mail, but still may contain significantly important information — then we are imperilling the historical record of British Columbia, as has been pointed out by previous Commissioner David Loukidelis and by the current commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, in her recent report.

[1555]

In a report in 2013 to the then minister, Ben Stewart, the commissioner recommended again that government create a legislative duty within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to “document key decisions as a clear indication that it does not endorse ‘oral government’ and that it is committed to be accountable to citizens by creating an accurate record of its actions.”

The idea behind this recommendation was that government should entrench in legislation a requirement for public bodies to document decisions, actions, advice, recommendations and deliberations of their officials. The duty to document would include requirements for the securing and preservation of records in the custody of the public body.

This is a recommendation that has been repeated over and over again by successive commissioners and by special committees reviewing the act. This Government Information Act was an opportunity for government to act on that significant and important recommendation from successive commissioners, and the government has failed to do so. This is a significant failing of this act, and unfortunately, it is considerably weakened by the omission of a duty to document.

One of the acts that this Government Information Act repeals is the Document Disposal Act. This act was enacted, I believe, in 1936, and it was designed in a paper-based society. So recordkeeping today, in an environment where documents are developed and shared through mobile devices and instant messaging, is a huge challenge. These are the words of the Information and Privacy Commissioner: “Recordkeeping in an environment where documents are developed and shared through mobile devices and instant messaging is a huge challenge.”

Documents prepared and, in effect, e-mails transferred and shared through mobile devices or any other digital platform are deemed by government often to be transitory and, therefore, subject to immediate disposal without going through the required processes of the disposal act. This means that much of the current business of government would be deemed to be transitory in nature. This means that much of the current business of government would be deemed to be immediately disposable.

This is why there is a marked and significant increase in the response rate for FOI requests that come back claiming that no documents exist. When British Columbians, organizations, stakeholders, the official opposition and journalists make FOI requests of government, it is becoming more and more commonplace that those requests come back listing that no relevant documents exist.

This cries out for a duty to document. This cries out for a satisfaction of the recommendation from the commissioner and successive review committees of the Freedom of Information Act. This cries out to take the first opportunity…. Government should seize upon the first opportunity to introduce a duty to document. This legislation, the Government Information Act, represented a perfect opportunity for government to do just that. The government has failed, and we will continue to pay the consequence of not having that provision.

The fourth President of the United States, James Madison, aside from his unfortunate leading of the War of 1812 and his permanent connection to Canada through that misadventure, had a very significant thing to say about information and peoples’ right to information in a democracy.

[1600]

He said: “A popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”

[ Page 6233 ]

He was saying that a popular government, a democratic government, a government of the people without free access to information about governance was but a prologue to farce or tragedy. We have seen that so