British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 5, 2014

20140305pm-Hansard-v7n5

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 7, Number 5

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Second Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Pat Pimm Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..................................................................................................... Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) .......................... Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP) ............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) .............................................

Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal) ........................................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) ..................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) ...............................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ......................................................................... Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South ...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ............................................................... Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ................................................. Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ...................................................................... Hon. Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 1865 Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1866 Sonja Gaudet and Paralympic Games E.

Foster Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 1866 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 1867 Mineral tax revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations J. Tegart Chinese Canadian Historical Society recognition of Howard and Larry Grant J. Kwan Chilliwack Secondary School J. Martin Residents and health care workers at New Horizons care facility C.

Trevena Diversity Health Fair and traditional Chinese medicine R. Lee Festival du Bois S. Robinson Ministerial Statements ............................................................................................................................................................ 1869 Situation in Ukraine Hon. C. Clark A. Dix A. Weaver Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1870 Reporting of executive compensation at Kwantlen University D. Eby Hon. A. Virk A.

Dix Safety of staff at Hillside Adult Psychiatric Centre J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake Government action on safety at B.C. mills H. Bains Hon. S. Bond Permitting costs and process for small mining companies S. Fraser Hon. B. Bennett N. Macdonald Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1874 C.

Trevena Tabling Documents ................................................................................................................................................................. 1874 British Columbia Utilities Commission, 2012-2013 Annual Report

Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 1875 Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Reso urce Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 (continued) Hon. S. Th omson Bill 4 — Park Amendment Act, 2014 Hon. M. Polak S. Chandra Herbert On the amendment S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak G. Heyman A. Weaver G. Holman N. Simons C. Trevena M. Mungall K. Corrigan S. Robinson D. Routley V . Huntington M. Farnworth D. Donaldson On the main motion S. Chandra Herbert N.

Simons G. Holman D. Donaldson Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 1911 Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) D. Eby Hon. A. Virk J. Kwan L. Popham R. Fleming S. Fraser

WEDNESDAY , MARCH 5, 2014 Th e House met at 1:35 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members J. Th ornthwaite: In the gallery today we have a couple of members of Equal Voice B.C. At the noonhour there were groups of MLAs from both sides of the House that were there to celebrate the work that Equal Voice B.C. provides to encourage women in politics. Th at's why we're wearing our nice little boutonnieres. I ask that the House welcome Carolyn Jack, the chair, and Janet Wiegand to the House. Welcome. K. Corrigan: I also would like to welcome Carolyn.

Th e members of Equal Voice pointed out that the aim is for 50 percent women. We are at 36 percent women in this Legislature, and we lead the country in that regard. I would also note that we are 41 percent on this side of the House. Th ank you so much for hosting us, and welcome back to the Leg. It was lovely to be appreciated as a politician. We're not always. And thank you so much for the work that you do. We will all work together to reach 50 per- cent.

Finally, thank you so much for reminding us all that International Women's Day is coming up in a couple of days and for providing these lovely boutonnieres for that purpose. Make them welcome. Hon. T. Wat: I have the pleasure today to acknow- ledge in the gallery a very good friend of mine, a strong supporter of mine and a very well-known constituent in Richmond that many here will recognize. Please join me in welcoming Rob Howard, my predecessor as MLA in Richmond Centre, the former parliamentary secretary in the Transportation Ministry and the former provincial lead in air access. Welcome. J.

Horgan: Joining us in the precinct today is the may- or of my community of Langford, Stew Y oung. Stew has been, for almost 20 years now, the mayor of the fast- est and most dynamic community here on the south Island, providing innovative social housing programs, new green spaces, recreation facilities and growth that requires a great deal of assistance from the government. Mr. Y oung is here today with an associate, Mr.

Jim Hartshorne of the West Shore Developers Association, to talk to ministers of the Crown about the important work that's being done in Langford and how we can all work together to make it an even better place. More importantly, though, I want to acknowledge Mr. Hartshorne because he is also the president of the Western Lacrosse Association champions, the Victoria Shamrocks.

I know that a good friend of mine, Jordan Bateman was here eating some crow some weeks back, because the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove and the mem- ber for Langley, when the Th under went down, weren't able to pony up the bill for lunch. I know that they were heartbroken when that happened. Would the House please make Jim very, very welcome. Hon. P . Fassbender: I rise to introduce two very en- gaged and enlightened young people that I met with earlier today.

Nick Milum is a grade 11 student at Eric Hamber Secondary in Vancouver, and he's served as the student trustee for the Vancouver board of educa- tion since last October. He's going to continue to do so until June. He has also been a member of the Vancouver District Students Council for three years now. [1340] Joining him is Maya Treuheit. Maya is a grade 12 student at Chatelech Secondary in the Sunshine Coast, and she's served as a student trustee there since last November. Her term will end this June as well.

She's also been selected as a member of the newly formed provin- cial ERASE student advisory council that the Premier an- nounced. I know that she is going to do a great job as it relates to the ERASE strategy. If the members would join me in welcoming the two of them. M. Elmore: I have a couple of introductions. I'd like to welcome my friend, a friend to many, Ian Waddell. He's here with us. Ian is a former Member of Parliament, a former MLA. I'd like to congratulate him. He's a recently appointed Queen's Counsel, and I believe he'll be in for the ceremony tomorrow.

I'd like everyone to please wel- come Ian Waddell. Th en I also have a couple of high school classes visiting today. From Sir Charles Tupper Secondary high school. Th ey are here with us — two classes from grade 11, grade 12. Th ey are accompanied by their principal, Principal Kal Gill, as well as teachers Bonnie Burnell and Auton Lum, and accompanied by adults Dan Kramer, Th omas Howell, Joanne Power, Natalie Wai and Marcia Kube. I'd just like to share. I asked them how they would like me to introduce them. Th ey said they'd like to share their code of conduct and their chant, the Tupper Tigers Roars.

Roars stands for respect, ownership, attitude, responsibil- ity and safety. I ask you to please make them welcome. Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to welcome today to the House, from the Law Society of British Columbia, Ms. 1865

British Columbia Debates1866 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Jan Lindsay, QC, president and chair. She is joined by Tim McGee, QC, who is the CEO. I should add that Tim McGee is a new QC and in fact will be welcomed tomor- row along with Mr. Waddell at Government House. We thank the Lieutenant-Governor for opening her house to this ceremony for the new QCs.

Th e Law Society is engaged in an interesting piece of work at the moment, to consider one professional body for the various groups who deliver legal services, includ- ing lawyers, notaries and paralegals, thus increasing ac- cess to justice for everybody in British Columbia. I hope the House will join me in wishing them well in their work, congratulating them on their achievements and welcoming them here to the Legislature today. M. Karagianis: My friend Jeremy Berland contacted me and asked if I could help get some family friends of his to come and enjoy the question period introductions today.

So I would like to welcome from the Panorama area of Surrey Francesca Clarke and her two sons Joshua and Milo. I hope the House will make them very wel- come. Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted today to introduce a number of members of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses that are here. Th e coalition was created in 1992 to repre- sent the voices of small and medium-sized businesses in the development of British Columbia's labour and em- ployment policies. Th e coalition actually represents over 50,000 small and medium-sized business that are active in all sectors of our economy.

We're very pleased today to welcome the chair, Mark von Schellwitz from Restaurants Canada; Neil Moody of the Canadian Home Builders; Phil Hochstein, Independent Contractors; Chuck Byrne, the Insurance Brokers Association of B.C.; Blair Qualey, the New Car Dealers Association; Andrew Klukas, Western Convenience Stores; Arlene Keis of go2; James Chase of the B.C. Hotel Association; Paul LaBranche of Building Owners and Managers; Th omas Foreman, the Building Supply Industry Association of B.C.; and George Higgins, who is the coalition coordinator.

I think we all recognize the important role these lead- ers in small and medium-sized business play in British Columbia, so please join me in welcoming them to the House today. C. Trevena: In the gallery today are a number of guests that I hope the House will welcome. We have Tanya Poulin and Caroline Sloat. Both are care aides at New Horizons in Campbell River. Th ey are two of the 120 who are being laid off in a mass layoff at the facility.

Th ey are joined by Barb Biley, the regional vice-president of the Hospital Employees Union based in Courtenay; Bill McMullan, the regional VP of the HEU based in Victoria; Victor Elkins, the president of the Hospital Employees Union; and Mike Old, the communications director. Th ey are here to witness the tabling of a very signifi - cant petition opposing the mass layoff s at New Horizons. [1345] M. Dalton: In the gallery we have a number of spe- cial guests. Peter Froese is the executive director of FISA, the federation of independent schools. Th ere are 78,000 independent school students in British Columbia.

Th e majority are members of FISA. We also have Dr. Kathleen Forsythe. She is the princi- pal of SelfDesign, which are, really, leaders in personalized learning. It's the second largest DL school in British Col- umbia. She is with Michael Maser, who is a co-founder of SelfDesign. Also, we have Karen Gledhill, who is the prin- cipal of the Traditional Learning Academy, based out of Surrey, but their students are found throughout all of our constituencies across British Columbia. Would the House please make them feel welcome. Tributes SONJA GAUDET AND PARALYMPIC GAMES E.

Foster: I rise today to acknowledge a friend and constituent of mine, a two-time Olympic gold-medal wheelchair curler and I don't know how many times a world champion wheelchair curler. Sonja Gaudet is a good friend. As a matter of fact, the fi rst time I was on a stage aft er I was elected, I shared the stage with Sonja. Sonja yesterday was selected to carry the Canadian flag in the opening ceremonies of the Paralympic Games in Sochi the next few days. I just wish all our Paralympians from Canada the very best of luck, and a special thank-you to my friend Sonja.

She's well deserved as the fl ag bearer for Canada. Introductions by Members A. Weaver: I'd like to introduce two people who are obviously very close to me, my mother and father, who are sitting here in the gallery today. My mother is very active in the Ukrainian community in the city of Victoria. She'll be here watching proceedings as we move forward. I also would like to mention, if I may, quickly, hon. Speaker, to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake that in terms of gender parity, the independents in this House are 50 percent. I hope you all aspire to meet us there. Hon. A.

Wilkinson: I'd ask the House to welcome Athana and James Mentzelopoulos. James is visiting here from his employment with a Canadian mining company on a certain Caribbean island where they do not enjoy the freedoms that we do. Please welcome him back to our democratic Canada.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, March 5, 2014 1867 Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, joining us in the gallery today are Mr. Kevin Carmichael, visiting from Surrey, and Mr. Everett Baker, visiting from Grand Forks. Please make them welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25B) MINERAL TAX REVENUE-SHARING AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST NATIONS J. Tegart: An economy is successful only if all citizens benefi t. As a government, it is our goal to create a pros- perous economy in which all British Columbians can fully participate.

We want an economy in which young people entering the workforce have the option of stay- ing in their own communities to work and live if that's what they so choose. In my region of Fraser-Nicola forestry and agricul- ture are vital sectors of the economy, but we also rely on mining as a cornerstone in many of the communities I represent. B.C. is working to ensure that First Nations communities have the opportunity to benefi t from re- source development on their traditional territory.

British Columbia is taking a lead role amongst all prov- inces in Canada as the fi rst province to share mineral tax revenue with First Nations whose traditional territories are impacted with the new or expanded mines through negotiating economic and community development agreements. Last October the benefi ts of the fi rst-ever agreements with the Tk'emlúps, Secwepemc and Skeetchestn bands began to fl ow from new gold mine in Kamloops. I was pleased to join them as they received more than $730,000.

In November I had the opportunity to celebrate with eight Nlaka'pamux bands as they saw more than $7 mil- lion go into a legacy trust which tax revenue from the Highland Valley Copper mine owned by Teck contrib- uted to. Also in November the Upper Similkameen and Lower Similkameen Indian bands shared more than $400,000 thanks to an ECDA for the Copper Mountain mine lo- cated southwest of Princeton. [1350] I am proud of what we've accomplished together with these First Nations, which is helping benefi t not only their communities but our region as a whole.

CHINESE CANADIAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY RECOGNITION OF HOW ARD AND LARRY GRANT J. Kwan: "Time to tell a new story, not just about an apology but never letting it happen again." Th ose were the words of Howard Grant. On March 1 the member for Surrey-Whalley, the member for New Westminster and I attended the Chinese Canadian Historical Society's tenth anniversary celebration. Also in attendance were distin- guished historians: Dr. Henry Yu and professors and au- thors Jean Barman and Patricia Roy. It was a wonderful evening where elder Larry Grant and his brother Howard Grant were honoured.

The journey that these two brothers travelled told a story of aboriginal and Chinese relations. Th eir mother was Musqueam, and their father came from Zhongshan county in China. As history tells us, the First Nations people and the Chinese people both suff ered enormous hardships and discrimination. Elder Larry Grant recounted how aborig- inal people, as the First Peoples of this land, embraced the Chinese and worked side by side with them every day. He spoke about the determination and cooperation between these two communities and that without those relation- ships, many would not have survived.

Th is coming together in the face of discrimination is perhaps most aptly illustrated with the words from Howard Grant. "Canada was built on the backs of the Chinese, and the land that it was built on was aborig- inal land." In their commitment to their past and future genera- tions, the Grant family visited their father's ancestral land and connected with relatives in China that they had never met. Additionally, elder Larry Grant is the elder-in-residence at the UBC First Nations House of Learning and the ad- junct professor teaching the hən̓ q̓ əmin̓ əm language in UBC.

Howard Grant is a longtime Musqueam band council- lor and is executive director at the First Nations Summit. I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking elder Larry Grant and Howard Grant for sharing their journey and teachings and to also extend our apprecia- tion to the Chinese Canadian Historical Society of B.C. for their work in promoting the rich history of British Columbia. CHILLIW ACK SECONDARY SCHOOL J.

Martin: Last Friday, with considerable pomp and cir- cumstance, leaders in government, education and non- profi t organizations marched into the new Chilliwack Secondary School to the sound of the CSS band. Th e lights went down, and we were all a little thunderstruck as AC/DC began to play, signalling that the celebration of a new era for Chilliwack was just beginning. Th roughout the opening ceremonies, one thing was very clear. Th rough planning and collaboration and a lot of hard work, anything is possible.

Community partners in the new neighbourhood learning centre stood up to be recognized, as did those from Fraser Valley Distance Education. Mayor Sharon Gaetz, school board vice-chair Silvia Dyck and superintendent of schools Evelyn Novak

British Columbia Debates1868 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 all spoke of the dedication and the passion that were re- quired for this project. During my visit I was able to meet with students and staff and tour the unique features of this school, includ- ing a teaching kitchen for the culinary arts program, the grand hall, the aboriginal cultural centre and a spec- tacular new library. Other skills-and-trades-supporting features of the school include a metal workshop with 12 custom-designed welding booths and a robotics lab. A 22-station professionally equipped hairdressing salon is also on the way.

This government played an important role in sup- porting the school replacement project, and $56 million was contributed to developing an outstanding state-of- the-art facility for student learning in Chilliwack. For this we are incredibly grateful to former MLA John Les and the Ministry of Education for their support on this project. I also express my sincere congratulations to the prin- cipal of Chilliwack Secondary, Rick Jones, who has been leading the high school for many years.

It is because of Rick, John Les, Sylvia Dick and so many others I am proud to say that Chilliwack is now home to one of the very fi nest high schools in the province. RESIDENTS AND HEALTH CARE WORKERS AT NEW HORIZONS CARE FACILITY C. Trevena: I rise today to talk about care and respect, two fundamental elements when we look at elder care. When seniors go to long-term care, it is — and they will oft en acknowledge that themselves — their last home.

It is their home, where they've moved or been moved to because they do need support and care. [1355] Oft en they need personal intimate care, care from the moment they wake — using the bathroom, dressing, helping with eating, having their hair brushed or their nails clipped and also being engaged physically and men- tally. Th ose seniors, our elders, deserve respect and to be treated with dignity. The staff who work with seniors are committed to those in their care. It's oft en a very physical job. Th ey work long hours. Th ey're there on weekends and on holi- days.

For many of the seniors, these workers are as close as family. For many, they may be all the seniors have, the only person regularly there for them in their lives. Th ose workers, too, deserve respect and, like those they care for, to be treated with dignity. People in Campbell River understand that. Th ey turned up in force over the weekend to show their support for both the workers and the seniors at New Horizons care home. Th e owners of the facility plan to dismiss all 120 union staff .

Th at would leave the seniors who live there with a completely new group of people working with them, which is traumatic for the workers and for the seniors for whom they work and care. It's not that the owners are closing down the home. It would seem they think it's too expensive to have a union workforce. Th e unions come forward and try to off er solutions, but those overtures have been rejected. What's being missed in all of this is that seniors and staff both deserve respect.

We don't live in a caring society if heart- less acts such as those that are happening in Campbell River are allowed to continue unchallenged. DIVERSITY HEALTH FAIR AND TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE R. Lee: Last Saturday I had the opportunity to attend the opening ceremony of the tenth annual Vancouver Diversity Health Fair at the Croatian Cultural Centre, organized by AMSSA. It kicked off with a First Nations blessing and featured a full day of exhibitions from many health-related organizations, healthy cooking and free health screening for fair attendees. Th is health fair at- tracted thousands of participants.

Th e fair shows that in our multicultural society, the health of the body is on everybody's mind. Many people have increasingly complemented conventional medi- cine to care about themselves. We know the importance of exercise, healthy diet and a holistic lifestyle approach towards building up our internal strength and immune system to prevent ailments. As many members know, acupuncture, chiroprac- tic, massage therapy, naturopathy, physical therapy and non-surgical podiatry are recognized as supplementary benefi ts in our MSP system.

Recently I have taken the opportunity to learn more about traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. TCM has a long history, over 2,000 years. Th e theory of TCM can be traced back to books such as the Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon and the Treatise on Cold Damage. Similar systems to diagnose and cure illness have also been developed in Korea, Japan and Vietnam. TCM practitioners are regulated by the College of TCM Practitioners and Acupuncturists of B.C. Other provinces like Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador also have similar regulatory bodies.

Th ere are currently six private TCM schools in British Columbia. I'm very pleased to see that the Kwantlen Polytechnic University is planning to establish a school of tradition- al Chinese medicine next year. Th is will provide more choices for B.C. students and diversify the choices to the public towards a healthier British Columbia. FESTIV AL DU BOIS S. Robinson: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to tell the members about Festival du Bois, the largest francophone festival on Canada's west coast. Th is past weekend they celebrated their 25th anniversary.

Th e organizers and volunteers of this great festival com-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, March 5, 2014 1869 memorated the festival's fi rst quarter century with great music, amazing artists, outstanding performers, enter- taining activities and authentic food. Th e food — sucre à la crème . Cabane à Sucre supply- ing us with maple taff y on ice shavings reminded me of my childhood growing up in Montreal. If anybody in this House has never had that, I encourage you to come down to Maillardville next February and March when we do this festival. Th at taff y, that maple syrup that has been frozen on those ice shavings — there is nothing like it in the world.

And that tourtière. Of course, I would be remiss — are you all hungry now? — if I didn't talk about the poutine, the original poutine out of Quebec. [1400] Th ere is a long French Canadian pioneering heritage and logging-based history in Maillardville. Festival du Bois, Festival of Wood, is aptly named for the French Canadians who came to Maillardville 100 years ago to work at Fraser Mills along the Fraser River. Th e strength and resilience of those who came a century ago are re- fl ected in the culture and strength of the community to- day.

Th is year's programming at Festival du Bois refl ected it all, and the festival presented an eclectic gathering of the fi nest Québécois francophone folk, world and roots artists performing today, the same diversity we see in Maillardville present-day. Many thanks go out to the sponsors, coordinators and volunteers of this fabulous two-day event, hosted by Société francophone de Maillardville. Merci beaucoup, jusqu'à l'année prochaine. Until next year, please, I invite everyone in the House to join us for fabulous food and fabulous music. Ministerial Statements SITUATION IN UKRAINE Hon. C.

Clark: I rise today to speak about the situa- tion that is gripping Ukraine and the Crimea as we speak. It has grabbed the world's attention, including all of us here in British Columbia. What started off as protests against the Ukrainian presidency led to a dramatic shake-up of the country's political landscape. I know I speak for all members of this House when I say that we have been watching this with tremendous concern. Lives have been lost, and more vio- lence has been threatened. Th is is a serious crisis that threatens to plunge that part of the world into chaos.

And if history is any guide at all, chaos has a habit of spreading quickly. In British Columbia and in Canada we pride ourselves on welcoming all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, cul- ture or faith. For decades Canada and British Columbia have been a home for immigrants and their descendants from both Russia and Ukraine. We have been strength- ened by their contributions — the contributions that they've made to our society, to our economy and to our communities. And we sometimes take for granted the stability and prosperity that we are so blessed to enjoy here in B.C.

While the world watches, waits and prays, Canadians are united in the hope that a peaceful and lasting resolu- tion is found quickly. It is important for all of us to send a strong and united message that the people of Ukraine must be free — free from threat, free from intimidation and free from violence — when setting out to determine their own future. Th is is no longer a simple diplomatic dispute between neighbours. One country's territory has been breached, a direct violation of international law. Like all Canadians, British Columbians are unwavering in our collective voice.

Th e sovereignty of Ukraine and of all of its regions must be respected. I invite all members of this House to join me in soli- darity with the brave people of Ukraine and to stand be- hind the Prime Minister's strong support of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law. A. Dix: I wish to support the Premier's statement — our commitment here in this House of support for the Ukrainian people.

I think not just this year but over the past decade all of us who believe in democracy, all of us who believe in the rule of law, have been inspired by the courage of the Ukrainian people to speak out, even to put their lives at risk, even to give their lives to ensure that people all over Ukraine, from Lviv to Donetsk, have the rights that we have here in Canada.

It is an inspiring thing that de- serves our support and the help that Canada can provide in every way to ensure a peaceful resolution that protects the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial in- tegrity of Ukraine. [1405] I think this issue touches Canadians in a profound way not just because of the deep connections between Ukraine and Canada. It's the enormous numbers of Ukrainian Canadians who have contributed so much to our country, people like the family of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and others.

Other Canadians have become very involved, like my colleague from Nelson-Creston, in observing the most recent election and speaking out and supporting demo- cratic activity in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a jigsaw puzzle from which pieces can be removed. We completely condemn the incursions by the Russian Federation into Ukraine and speak, I think, with one voice in this parliament. I can say, I think, in the federal parliament Mr. Mulcair, Mr. Trudeau and Prime Minister Harper have spoken with one voice in support of democracy, the rule of law.

British Columbia Debates1870 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Th e people of Ukraine want what we want — a parlia- mentary democracy, the rule of law, a civil society, the right to oppose the government. Th at's what they want, and we should support them in their eff orts, together. A. Weaver: I seek leave to speak. Leave granted. A. Weaver: I just want to sincerely thank the Premier of our province and the Leader of the Offi cial Opposition, on behalf of all Ukrainians in British Columbia, for the statements made today. Th is is a deeply touching issue to me personally. Half of my family are in Ukraine.

I'd like to read you the contents of an e-mail that one of my cousins sent us just recently. Th e e-mail goes like this: "Guys, I'm alive and well. Cannot talk because I'm raising money and looking for bulletproof vests for doctors." Th is shows how serious this issue is for the people of Ukraine. Once again, I thank the Premier and Leader of the Opposition for such a passionate, strong statement on behalf of the people of Ukraine. Oral Questions REPORTING OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AT KW ANTLEN UNIVERSITY D.

Eby: Kwantlen University has a legal obligation to report the total compensation of their four best-paid administrators to the Public Sector Employers Council. Th is body regulates salaries at universities and colleges to ensure administrators aren't overpaid.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education explain why, over 2012 and '13, Kwantlen Polytechnic University hid at least $100,000 of payments to senior administrators by recording them in their fi nancial reports as payments to suppliers of goods and services, right alongside Future Shop and Coca-Cola, instead of including them, as the law requires, in their executive compensation reports fi led with government? Hon. A. Virk: As the member for Vancouver–Point Grey well knows and as do members of the opposition, executive salaries above $75,000 are indeed reportable and are available publicly for all to see.

If there are some salaries that aren't reported, we can certainly endeavour to get back to the member opposite and provide that in- formation to him. But across the public sector — not only the university sector — all salaries for staff and faculty are reported, over $75,000. Th ey're available for anybody to see on a public website. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental. D.

Eby: Th e minister has personal knowledge of the executive compensation reports of the four top earners of Kwantlen University fi led with the government be- cause he was vice-chair of the Kwantlen board of govern- ors when all of this took place, and those salaries were not reported. He was also chair of Kwantlen's board human re- sources committee. It was explicitly his job in the role of chair to make complete and accurate reports to govern- ment on pay and perks for top-paid administrators.

It was under the minister's watch that Kwantlen concealed over $100,000 in payments to the current president and a former vice-president. As a policy matter, does the Minister of Advanced Education agree with reporting practices like this? [1410] Hon. A. Virk: Th ere's no shortage of outlandish com- ments that I can attribute to the member for Vancouver– Point Grey, and this certainly is another one of those. Kwantlen Polytechnic University certainly reports all their earnings.

Like I said before, anything that's earned over $75,000 is reportable — reportable to the taxpayer of British Columbia, and it's available for all to see. Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a sup- plemental. D. Eby: Th ese are serious questions about a report that the minister was personally responsible for in his role as chair of the human resources committee that was fi led by his board with government and did not include these contracts. Kwantlen's statement of fi nancial information says that the school's current president received a $50,000 contract in addition to his reported compensation.

Th at was not included by the minister in his report to gov- ernment. Similarly, Kwantlen's former VP academic was awarded a $56,280 contract in addition to her reported compensation. Th at was not reported by the minister in his role as chair. Th e failure to report these payments violates the Public Sector Employers Act. Th ose who received those pay- ments could be ordered to repay tens of thousands of dol- lars. Is the minister confi dent that today payments to top executives are still not being hidden from the executive compensation reports at Kwantlen University? Hon. A.

Virk: We have an education system across British Columbia in post-secondary education with 25 post-secondary institutions that are the envy of the world. Parents across the world and my counterparts across the world choose to send their children to British Columbia because we have a system that they can trust, a system that they believe in, a system that delivers high-quality information to students.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, March 5, 2014 1871 This government is absolutely committed to trans- parency, and this government is absolutely committed to making sure that education stays the highest quality possible. A. Dix: Well, it's word, and it's deed. Th e minister just said he's absolutely committed to transparency, but in this case he wasn't. In this case the government wasn't. In this case they haven't done anything about it. Does the Premier believe that not disclosing $100,000 in vendor payments is appropriate?

Can she confi rm that the minister raised this issue with her before he was appointed minister responsible for colleges and univer- sities? Hon. A. Virk: Th e member for Vancouver-Kingsway perhaps is the last person that can lecture this House on transparency. Th is government is committed. As I said before, every earning over $75,000 in the entire public service is re- portable on a public service website available for all to see. A. Dix: Th is is a problem: one rule for senior execu- tives. Th at's what we've seen in the last two days.

Th ere's one rule for senior executives who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Th ey don't properly disclose an extra $100,000 in extra compensation, and all they've got is this kind of statement. If you're a health care worker, you have the Minister of Health of British Columbia saying — if you're working hard every day and your salary's going to be cut: "Oh, you can always reapply for your job." One rule for the rich; one rule for everybody else. Th e minister in his previous capacity…. Interjection. A. Dix: Oh, the Minister of Health can participate in the debate fully. I'm sure that he will. Hon.

Speaker, $100,000 in payments not properly dis- closed on his watch. Now he's in charge of all of the col- leges and universities. Does he agree with me that it was inappropriate for those payments not to be disclosed? Does he believe that — yes or no? [1415] Hon. A. Virk: Madame Speaker, I am very proud of my service and commitment not only to this province but to this country. I look at this country, and I look at the diff erent ways I've spilled blood to enrich the soil many a time.

My time on the university board of governors actually was equally as important, because I felt I contributed to the students of British Columbia to make their education that much more important. All across British Columbia there are men and women who are contributing to edu- cation and giving their own time and volunteering to be on boards all across the province. I give kudos and shout- outs to all those boards. SAFETY OF STAFF AT HILLSIDE ADULT PSYCHIATRIC CENTRE J.

Darcy: Last Thursday the member for Victoria– Beacon Hill and I raised serious questions in this House about the violent attacks on nurses at the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre in Burnaby. But Maples is just one of many facilities across B.C. where violence against health care workers is not just a weekly but almost a daily occurrence. Today the media are reporting that at the Hillside adult psychiatric facility in Kamloops there were 288 in- cidents of violence last year.

Now we learn that a nurse at Hillside is being suspended for suggesting that staff - ing levels should be increased to deal with this epidemic of violent attacks. My question to the Minister of Health is this. Why is this government punishing this nurse for speaking out instead of listening and taking action to improve safety and staffi ng levels at Hillside in his own community of Kamloops? Hon. T. Lake: I know all members of this House ap- preciate the hard-working men and women in our health care system. Day aft er day, patients around this province are looked aft er in an exceptional way.

Violence in the workplace should not be tolerated, which is why we have made great eff orts over the last few years to reduce vio- lence in the workplace. Th e provincial violence prevention program — 14,000 health care workers were trained in this program. Over the last three years we've seen a reduction in code whites. Th at is an apprehension or a concern about violence or a violent act — reduced 13 percent. We have to do more every single day to protect the men and women who work in our health care system, and we will do that, be- cause we appreciate what they do for each and every one of us every single day.

Madame Speaker: Th e member for New Westminster on a supplemental. J. Darcy: I'm afraid that the minister's facts just don't jibe with reality. Maples is a youth psychiatric facility. Hillside is an adult psychiatric facility. In both cases we're talking about serious issues of violence against nurses. Th e Minister of Children and Family Development has stated that no one will be disciplined for speaking out against violence at Maples. Why is there another set of rules in the Ministry of Health?

Will the Minister of Health commit that no health care workers will be disci- plined at Hillside or any other health care facility across

British Columbia Debates1872 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 the province for having the courage to speak out about safety and violence in health care across this province? Hon. T. Lake: All health authorities have a safe re- porting or whistle-blower policy in place that allows complaints to be made without concern of discipline. Let me read from the Interior Health Authority policy state- ment.

"Th e authority will not take, tolerate or allow any direct or indirect reprisal, harassment or even informal pressure against the person who, in good faith, reports a perceived wrongdoing." [1420] We always will protect those who speak out when they think there is something wrong happening in the work- place. We will do that in this case, and in all cases, to pro- tect health care workers across this province. GOVERNMENT ACTION ON SAFETY AT B.C. MILLS H. Bains: Two years ago the explosions at Burns Lake and Prince George killed four workers and injured 43.

Th is week we learned that about half of the sawmills in- spected still are in non-compliance. Th e minister's re- sponse? "I will have some meetings with some CEOs." She had two years to meet with those CEOs. She had two years to sit down with them to make them under- stand the importance of compliance. She had two years to get it right, and still we have half the sawmills failing the safety audit. It's time for the minister to act. Will she today ensure that for non-compliance, pen- alties are real and they are immediate?

And would she also instruct WorkSafe B.C. to use their full power and resources to make sure all those sawmills are safe and those workers' safety is the fi rst priority? Hon. S. Bond: Certainly , all of us want to be sure that workers in British Columbia, employees in British Columbia — whether they're in sawmills, whether they're in emergency wards or psychiatric nursing units — can go to work in the morning, be safe and go home at the end of the day. WorkSafe has a responsibility to ensure that those workplaces are safe.

Immediately following the Lakeland explosion — I know the member opposite is aware of this — there were orders issued to sawmill owners across British Columbia, with a series of expectations. In fact, dust mitigation, including new equipment, making sure that policies and procedures were changed — all of those orders began four days aft er the explosion at Lakeland. Th e latest report clearly indicates there is more to be done. And the member is correct. I have met with CEOs on more than one occasion.

But the moment that this re- port came to my attention, I contacted WorkSafe, I con- tacted the CEO task force and have also off ered to meet with union employees so that we can actually ensure that workplaces in British Columbia are safe, as we would ex- pect them to be. Madame Speaker: Th e Member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental. H. Bains: It's quite obvious that WorkSafe B.C. didn't get the message, those CEOs didn't get the message, and this minister is sleeping at the switch. Th ese explosions that killed four workers and injured 43 were tragic. What would be more tragic?

If this gov- ernment failed to ensure that this will never happen again, and more lives are lost. Workers' safety is a trust. It's a sacred trust of government and WorkSafe B.C. Th e workers of this province put their trust of their safety in those two organizations' hands. Y et still we see, after two years, half of the sawmills still in non- compliance. It's not acceptable to… Madame Speaker: Pose your question. H. Bains: …those workers and their families and should not be acceptable to this House, especially to this government. Madame Speaker: Pose your question. H.

Bains: Again to the minister, will she ensure that the safety regulations are enforced so that the next in- spection, the next report, will show compliance of all and every sawmill in this province and that the work- ers are safe? [1425] Hon. S. Bond: Th e member opposite has no need to remind me of the impact of an explosion that took place in my community. On the days following that explosion, the Premier and I visited with families, with health care workers, with fi rst responders whose lives have been un- alterably impacted.

I can assure the member opposite that I take the safe- ty of workers in British Columbia as an utmost priority. I have said inside this House and out that it is not ac- ceptable for sawmill owners to be non-compliant. I am meeting with WorkSafe to ensure that every single tool within their purview is used. We are meeting with CEOs who are part of a task force, who made a commitment to make a diff erence. I can assure you, Madame Speaker, that there are few people in this House who have the personal experience of having that situation happen in their community.

We are committed to ensuring workplaces are safe, and we will continue to work to do that.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, March 5, 2014 1873 PERMITTING COSTS AND PROCESS FOR SMALL MINING COMPANIES S. Fraser: Th e B.C. Liberals are slapping placer miners, prospectors and others in the mining industry in British Columbia with heft y new taxes — curiously, while the Premier is saying there are no new taxes in the budget.

Th e Chamber of Mines of Eastern British Columbia says the new mining permit tax is "fi nes for having the auda- city to think you should work in the province of British Columbia." Th ey note that small exploration projects are how most mines get started, saying: "If the fi rst step is never taken due to unreasonable fees, those mines may never be found." Can the minister explain how slamming placer min- ers, prospectors and small mining exploration companies with heft y new taxes will improve the global perception of the British Columbia mining industry? Hon. B.

Bennett: Certainly, with respect to the issue of fees being charged to the mining industry under the Mines Act — which is, I think, the basis of the member's question — the oil and gas industry pays fees for the per- mits that they receive from government. Th e forest in- dustry pays for fees that they receive from government. It seems like a reasonable proposition for government to at least think about whether the mining industry should also pay fees for the permits that they receive. We haven't made a fi nal decision.

But the galling part of the member's question is the fact that he would sug- gest that there is something wrong with our reputation, B.C.'s reputation, in the world of mining investment. I just returned from three days at the largest mining con- ference in the world. Th ere were 30,000 delegates there, trying to match up money with prospects, and guess who looks the strongest of any jurisdiction in Canada at that conference? British Columbia. S. Fraser: Th e minister needs to get a grip. Th e galling thing is that even the Fraser Institute….

Th eir annual mining report came out last week while he was back in T.O., and it said that B.C. is the worst province in Canada for attractiveness to mining investment, behind almost every other jurisdiction in the country. [1430] Regulatory uncertainty, a failure to address aborig- inal rights and title issues and an inconsistency in ad- dressing environmental concerns are all factors that place British Columbia at the bottom of the list. Y et the Mining Minister told his local paper, and it's a quote: "I'd say we're number one in Canada from what I've seen." Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. S.

Fraser: Applause for stating the opposite of the facts is maybe something to rethink. Can the minister explain the contradiction between his claims about the mining industry — which he's get- ting applause for here by his peers — and the reality for those working on the ground, the backbone of the indus- try of this province? Hon. B. Bennett: It really is a personal honour for me to work with the mining industry on behalf of the people of the province. I live in a riding that has fi ve large oper- ating mines, and I see every day the diff erence that that industry makes to real people.

I see the standard of liv- ing that my constituents are able to enjoy because of the mining industry. That's why I think I feel so passionately about the importance of the industry to the future of British Columbia. I believe that mines can play an important role in terms of our government meeting our jobs targets. So it is an irony, at the least, for the member of the op- position to stand up and pretend to support the mining industry when that particular political party is known around the world for having chased mining out of British Columbia.

Th ere are still members on the other side of the House who were there, who helped with that. N. Macdonald: Well, you've got Huckleberry mine, Mount Polley mine, Kemess South — all opened in the '90s, which the minister would know had he been in B.C. at the time. I'll tell you where he was. He was at the cabinet table — listen to this; you'll be interested — when Boss min- ing was shut down and the government was sued; when Morrison mine was shut down, and you're being sued; when the Flathead was shut down, and you're being sued.

And he is the minister responsible for championing a whole host of new taxes, so he should have a look in the mirror before he stands up and lectures anyone about mining. It's not just the opposition or the people in your own community that are on you about this. Let's go back to the Fraser Institute — your Fraser Institute, okay? It's yours, eh? Th ese are your buddies, right? Th is is what the Fraser Institute is saying. Th is is a min- ing industry insider in a report you can look up. Y ou'd be interested in hearing this. Here's a quote.

Here's a direct quote about the government's so-called stream- lining process. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Please proceed. N. Macdonald: Y ou'll be interested in hearing this. It's from your Fraser Institute, okay? So listen to the quote. It says: "Th e government's so-called streamlining pro-

British Columbia Debates1874 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 cess has been" — and I quote from the Fraser Institute directly to you — "a regulatory horror story." Th ose are your buddies. So again, can the minister explain why the B.C. Liberals are slapping this tax on small miners and driv- ing them out of British Columbia? [1435] Hon. B. Bennett: Well, in fact, when the NDP were in government in the 1990s, for every one mine that opened, two closed. It's a good thing that the B.C. Liberals rode in to the rescue. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a mining industry in British Columbia.

Th e members like to always quote — when I moved to British Columbia. It was not a bad decision. I should have moved here 20 or 30 years before. Th e truth of the matter is that I was moving out of Ontario to get away from Bob Rae. When the opposition had a chance to vote for some- thing that would help mining…. When they had a chance to actually vote here in this session on something that would help mining, the B.C. mining fl ow-through share tax credit, guess what. Th ey voted against it. N.

Macdonald: I guess the minister started off with "rode in to the rescue." If it started like the start of a fairy tale, the minister confi rmed it as he kept speaking. I t's a fairy tale. Th ere is reality, and it's always diff erent than what the B.C. Liberals say. So we'll go back to some quotes. Th ese are quotes from somebody in the minister's own con- stituency, himself involved in the mining industry.

He has to say: "Y ou are making it fi nancially impossible to operate with the new taxes." His letter echoes the letter we read previously from the Liberal MLA from West Vancouver, when it says: "Junior mining companies are leaving B.C. while you are enter- taining only the large-scale operations." Prospectors, placer miners, junior mining companies are all the backbone of a healthy mining industry, so can the minister explain why the B.C. Liberal government is driving them out of our province? Hon. B.

Bennett: Let me provide some facts to the House about the current status of the mining industry in British Columbia. First of all, we have 30,000 jobs in mining, and they won't want to hear this. We have 30,000 jobs in mining today and in mineral exploration. We had less than 15,000 jobs when we were fi rst elected in 2001. Th e average salary in mining today is $121,000. It's up from $81,000 in 2001. We have gone from a low in mineral exploration in- vestment…. When these folks were in government, it was less than $30 million. Th ere was zero confi dence by the mining industry in this province in the year 2000.

So $29 million is what was invested. In 2012 it was $680 million. We are opening up new mines. In fact, we announced today that there is a new mine opening up on Banks Island. It's a small mine, but it's going to provide 90 jobs. Most of those jobs will go to First Nations people. It's a great success story, and it really shows the diff erence be- tween this side of the House and that side of the House. [End of question period.] C. Trevena: I rise to table a petition. Madame Speaker: Please proceed. Petitions C.

Trevena: I have a petition here with 5,783 sig- natures calling on the Minister of Health to intervene and stop the proposed contracting out of approximate- ly 120 staff at New Horizons Community of Care and calling on the Minister of Health to implement the B.C.

Ombudsperson's recommendations 169, 170 and 171, which address large-scale staff replacement and other substantial changes to operations in the province's care facilities through the Residential Care Regulation, to ensure that residents are protected from any adverse ef- fects — such as disruption in continuity and quality of care before, during and aft er large-scale staff replacement — and that they and their families are fully informed of any impacts of any substantial changes to the operations. [1440] J. Horgan: I rise on a point of privilege.

During ques- tion period the Minister of Energy and Mines stated that the opposition voted against the fl ow-through provisions in Bill 8. Th at's not the case. It's inaccurate. Perhaps the minister will want to refl ect upon that and then rephrase his remarks. Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, that does not con- stitute a point of privilege. Th at is a point of debate be- tween members. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Th e members will come to order. Interjection. Madame Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, you will come to order. Tabling Documents Hon. S.

Anton: I have the honour to present the British Columbia Utilities Commission's 2012-2013 Annual Report.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, March 5, 2014 1875 Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, the continued esti- mates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, to be fol- lowed when they are complete by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. In this chamber, Committee B, continued second read- ing on Bill 5, to be followed in due course by second read- ing on Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act. [1445] Second Reading of Bills BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 (continued) Madame Speaker: Hon.

Members, seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate. Hon. S. Th omson: I appreciate the opportunity to close debate on Bill 5. Just to say, fi rst of all, that I appreciate the comments and the indications of support from the members oppos- ite for many, many components of the bill. I appreciate the heads-up on areas that they have indicated that they will be canvassing during the committee stage of the bill. We are working in some of those areas that they've recognized and commented on.

We are working with those organizations, because in many cases, the issues raised are outside the scope of the legislation. I also was just advised by the member for Delta South that she would have normally liked to comment on second reading, but without having a voice, she wasn't able to do that. Her voice is recovering. But as I indicated, I'm sure she'll be there in committee stage, when we get into the section-by-section debate on the bill. With those comments, I move that the act be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, you've heard the question. All those in favour? Some Hon. Members: Aye. Madame Speaker: Opposed? Motion carried. Minister, if you would be so kind as to move second reading. We passed the motion to refer to committee but not the motion to pass second reading. Hon. S. Th omson: I move second reading. Motion approved. Bill 5, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for con- sideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading on Bill 4.

BILL 4 — PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Hon. M. Polak: I move this bill be read a second time. Th is bill provides increased clarity and certainty re- specting the authorization of activities in parks with an area less than 2,023 hectares, for commercial fi lming and for activities related to research. Th ese amendments to the Park Act will ensure that the ministry has adequate statutory authority to authorize activities and avoid the need for boundary modifi cations in some instances. Let me be clear. Th ese proposed amendments do not allow, promote or otherwise enable industrial projects in parks and protected areas.

For lands that are currently in a park, a boundary amendment must fi rst be made to re- move those lands from the park. Decisions to remove lands from parks are not taken lightly. Th ere is a rigorous process in place for reviewing boundary adjustments, and the proposed amendments in Bill 4 do not change the existing requirements. [D. Horne in the chair.] Prior to a decision being made on whether or not to re- move lands from a park, First Nations, public and stake- holder consultation occurs. Alternative sites outside of parks are evaluated. Environmental, social and economic factors are all examined.

It's a very serious and very well- thought-out decision. We have a well-established process for that. Th ese amendments do not change that process. Th ese proposed amendments to the Park Act focus on three circumstances. First, subsection 9(5) of the Park Act is an absolute prohibition of all activities that may remove, destroy, damage, disturb or exploit a natural re- source in parks that are 2,023 hectares or less.

Th e refer- ence to parks 2,023 hectares in size or less is being deleted. [1450] As a result of this amendment, parks of a similar class will be managed to the same standards regardless of their size, while allowing for compatible outdoor recreation activities. Second, there is presently no expressed statutory au- thority to authorize fi lm production in class A parks, even though this is a longstanding activity in many parks.

Currently to issue this type of permit in class A parks, the minister must be of the opinion that the fi lming and re- lated activities would be "necessary to preserve or main- tain the recreational values of the park involved." Th is threshold is stricter than necessary for authorizing the types of impacts resulting from commercial fi lming.

British Columbia Debates1876 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 A new provision has been added that expressly allows the minister to issue a park use permit for fi lm production if, in the opinion of the minister, the activity is not detri- mental to the recreational values of the park involved. As a result of this amendment, the ministry will have the ap- propriate statutory authority to allow commercial fi lming and related activities in class A parks.

Th irdly, a new provision is provided that gives the min- ister authority to issue a permit for research in a class A park or a conservancy if, in the minister's opinion, issu- ing the permit has value to park managers or if the re- search relates to a specifi ed purpose.

Currently, to issue this type of permit in class A parks or conservancies, the minister must be of the opinion that the research and related activities would be neces- sary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved or that the impact of research on nat- ural resources in a conservancy would not hinder the development, improvement and use of the conservancy. Th ese thresholds are insuffi cient to authorize the full range of research activities that arise, including, in par- ticular, those associated with some forms of academic research or a boundary adjustment proposal.

Excuse me just a moment. Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you mind yielding the fl oor for ten seconds? I will recognize the Minister of Tourism and Small Business to seek leave to make an introduction. Hon. N. Y amamoto: I would like to seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. N. Y amamoto: We have some new guests joining us in the House at the moment. Th ey are 27 grade 12 stu- dents from Carson Graham high school. Th ey are here to visit the House. Th ey're with three chaperones. My stepdaughter, Julia Pinnock, is in grade 12 at Carson Graham right now.

It's a great high school, a brand-new high school in North Vancouver. It's a pleas- ure to have them in the House. I hope I have a chance to speak to them, if they have some time later. Would the House please make them welcome. Debate Continued Hon. M. Polak: Th ank you to the member. I appre- ciated a chance to get a drink of water. I apologize. I'm suff ering from a bit of a cold.

Th ese thresholds are insuffi cient to authorize the full range of research activities that arise, including, in par- ticular, those associated with some forms of academic research or a boundary adjustment proposal or other in- vestigations related to assessing proposals for commer- cial and industrial land uses.

As a result of this amendment, the ministry will have a clear authority to allow research activities in parks and conservancies, including low-impact geotechnical studies aimed at undertaking investigations to gain in- formation, where appropriate, for proposals for bound- ary adjustments under the cabinet-approved provincial protected area boundary adjustment policy, procedures and guidelines. To be clear, these amendments do not authorize eco- nomic and industrial projects in class A parks and con- servancies.

Th e amendments enable the collection of information so that informed and better decisions can be made. Deputy Speaker: Minister…. Member for Vancouver– West End. S. Chandra Herbert: The Speaker could call me Minister; I don't mind. But that would require greater re- sponsibility and me to be on that side of the House speak- ing on a bill which probably wouldn't look quite like this. Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act. I think it's important, when we talk about parks, to remember from the very beginning, when we're looking at

an act like this, what our stated goal is as a province, what the B.C. Parks ser- vice says our objective is for parks. Th ey say that we hold parks as a public trust. Th ey are there for the protection of natural environments, for the inspiration, use and en- joyment of the public. [1455] What does "a public trust" mean? It means that not one of us in this House has the right to individually decide do something that might damage a jewel, an object, a park, a place — in this case our parks for the future — for the general public.

We, whether it be the government side or the opposition side, do not have the right to proceed without involving the public. Th ey're not just our parks. Th ey're not the parks of 85 MLAs in this House — of course, we are members; they are partly our parks — but they belong to the millions and millions of British Columbians who use them every year. Th ose are the people that we in this House are sup- posed to represent. Th e parks are their parks, and we, as individual MLAs, of course stand to speak in support and improvement for those parks.

Th e question I have when I look at Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, is: were any of the public, any of those millions of people whose parks we are discussing today, consulted on a process which, while not leading instant- ly to industrial development in the park, as the minister has stated, could? Does it make it easier for a road, a pipeline, a transmis- sion line, a mine or some other potential use in that park

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, March 5, 2014 1877 to happen? I think it does. I think this bill does makes that easier. Does it make it so that it happens instant- ly? No. But that's beside the point. What we're talking about here is: are we bettering protection for our parks? Are we bettering support for our parks with this bill? I would say no. I think there are certainly aspects of Bill 4 which could be supported.

But you know, I don't think it's really my place in this place right now to say: "We haven't talked to anybody in B.C., but through my own synapses in my own brain, I've decided what's best for the people." I think we need to consult with the people of B.C. when we make changes like this, and I'll be discussing that a little bit later. So what is the bill? Is this a bill about building public trust, or is this a bill of the B.C. Liberal government say- ing: "Just trust us"? Is it the public trust, or is it "just trust us"?

Unfortunately, this bill is "just trust us" — just trust the government to look out for you with your own parks. Y ou know what? I don't think that's good enough. I think we need to do a better job of involving the people of B.C. in decisions like this. Th ere are aspects of this bill which could be support- able, but I think we need to actually involve the people in ensuring that the best level of protection for our parks exists. To date zero consultation with the people of British Columbia has occurred on this bill. What does this bill do?

As the minister mentioned, it increases the ease for commercial fi lming to take place in B.C. parks. Anybody around this House will know that I'm a big fan of the fi lm industry. I think it's a very good industry for the province with thousands upon thousands of jobs, good-paying jobs, with great spinoff s to communities all across the province. Of course, they have been fi lming in our parks.

So increasing the ease for commercial fi lming to take place in our parks, changing it from necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park to permitting the activity if it's not detrimental to the rec- reational values of the park, I can understand that. I know there was a challenge at Cypress Provincial Park around, I believe, Planet of the Apes . Th ey wanted to fi lm there one of the sequels or prequels or numer- ous attempts to talk about apes on a distant planet. Th ey wanted to do that in that park, and there was a big hold- up. It was challenging.

I know time is money in the fi lm industry, and it became quite diffi cult. Eventually they found a way to do it there. I saw the fi lming taking place. It was not detrimental to the park. But that's under the current act now. Th at's under the current legislation now. So it did occur. Now, could it be easier? Could we make sure that that process is a little bit cleaner? I can understand that. But again, you've got to talk to the people whose parks these belong to, whose parks we're discussing today.

Th e second part of the bill removes additional pro- tections for smaller parks, changing a provision which was brought in, in 1965, that gave parks that were 2,023 hectares or less additional protection compared to lar- ger parks. [1500] Now, the idea behind this, as anybody who looks at ecological science, anybody who looks at habitat, is that smaller parks, when impacted — so it could be a park of a couple kilometres or so — by potential roads, transmis- sion lines, pipelines, etc…. In those parks, when you do something like that, it has a bigger impact.

Quite oft en, as we've seen development occur across the province, parks become little islands where species at risk fi nd their homes. If you start bisecting smaller parks with industrial projects or roads or things like that, you could make it so that those species are extirpated. Y ou could make it so the ecological values of the park are under threat. So this was brought in. I thought it was a good idea at the time, because we need to provide better protection for parks based on their ecological values. Certainly smaller parks, I think, face bigger challenges to ecological protection than lar- ger parks.

Th is bill removes those additional protections. It should be noted that 70 percent of our class A parks, the parks with the greatest level of protection, are below 2,023 hectares. Th is change adds 70 percent of our parks to a process which could eventually lead to greater indus- trial activity in the parks. Th e third thing this bill does is allow the minister to give permits for "research" in parks.

Th is includes activ- ities that might not be necessary, which actually could be detrimental to preserving or maintaining a park, which are detrimental to the recreational values of the protected area or which are not in alignment with that protected area's purpose — maybe an environmental assessment or maybe a decision or a desire to put in a road. We have to work in the realm of the "maybe" because while the minister says today, "I might not like this," there might be a minister tomorrow — a diff erent minister — who decides that actually they do want industrial activ- ities to occur in the parks.

Policy is policy, but legislation is the rules. Policy can be changed in an instant; for legis- lation you actually have to come back here and change that legislation. Th e challenge with research is that research for aca- demic reasons — to understand how a frog lives or what kinds of trees exist or maybe how to deal with pine beetle or other things like that — can be important. Th at can be valuable, and that could be consistent with preserving ecological integrity with parks. Certainly, research occurs in parks today. Research goes on today. There are certain provisions where if you're not….

According to the minister's own Linear Energy Projects and Protected Areas document, some re- search can occur. But I understand the desire to provide greater clarity for what that means. What kind of research are we talking about? Well, what

British Columbia Debates1878 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 we're adding to the legislation would be research which could include an environmental assessment, a feasibil- ity study — looking to see whether or not you could put…. Locating, designing, constructing, use, mainten- ance, improvement or deactivation of one or more of the following: "(

a) a road or highway; (

b) a pipeline; (

c) a transmission line; (

d) a telecommunications project; (

e) a prescribed project or a project in a prescribed class of projects" — which could be changed to mean just about anything — "(

f) a structure, improvement or work relat- ed to a project described in any of paragraphs (

a) to (e)." What this could mean potentially — and I just say pot- entially because likely the minister, and she's already said this, does not mean this will occur; this is just research to occur — is that in a future government or a future min- ister…. Th is minister says this is not her intention, but a future minister could say, "Well, we want to allow drill- ing for oil in a park, just drill a few chuckhole test sites to see if this is possible" and could possibly check for dig- ging some ore samples to see if there was good ore that could potentially be mined in a park.

It could include other things, like a highway, potentially, through a park. I think we need research, absolutely. But under this section, you could potentially open the door for mining, for cutting of trees, for a bunch of things which nobody would ever think they would want in the park. [1505] Now, if the minister disagrees, I would hope there would be legislation, an actual clause here explaining exactly what kind of research that means. Could you de- cide to say: "Let's dig for ore to see whether, under an en- vironmental assessment process, maybe you could have a mine in a park"? Th at has happened before.

I think it's important to note that Strathcona Park, actually one of the very fi rst parks in British Columbia, was changed back in the '60s to al- low a mine in there. Th ere was a change back in the '60s under that process. It was a diff erent process, but it's im- portant to remember that that kind of thing has occurred and could occur again, whether it's with this government or a future government. Environmental assessments and preparing for en- vironmental assessments, we should remember, can in- clude many things. One recent environmental assessment process….

Proposed activities to do under that scheme were to have approximately 59 test pits to inform de- tailed engineering of new tailing storage facilities, ten geophysical lines along the proposed main west and south embankments of the proposed project, approxi- mately eight geotechnical drill holes of approximately 50 to 75 metres in depth to inform detailed engineering, approximately ten diamond drill holes of up to roughly 250 metres in depth within the pit area to collect samples for confi rmatory metallurgical work to be performed and approximately 23.5 kilometres of exploration trail required to access exploration sites.

Now, this didn't happen in a park — this environment- al assessment. But my concern…. Certainly, I would hope that the act could be changed, or the amendments could be clarifi ed, to say explicitly that that's not the kind of thing that could occur in a park. But unfortunately, the government insists on saying, "Just trust us" — not the public trust but: "Just trust us." I think it would be interesting….

Back in June 2013 a document called the Linear Energy Projects and Protected Areas was sent out to potential applicants for pipelines and energy projects who might, potentially, have their projects circumvent a park. Th is was sent out, and the minister stated to the media that the reason that this was sent out was to provide clarity about the existing policy. Th e argument was that you need to know what you need to do if you are potentially applying to remove a

section of park to put a pipeline through. Th at was the policy in June 2013. Th e argument was that there is a two-stage process under the current policy — not the amended policy, not the policy proposed here. Th ere was a two-stage process. Th ey had to provide a high-level project description with basic information about the nature and location of the project, status of discussion with communities and First Nations, and the expected impacts and benefi ts of the project.

It would then go to the Minister of Environment, who could determine whether, on the face of it, suffi cient public interest was associated with the proposal to merit a more detailed and rigorous application to amend the boundary of the protected area — stage 2. If the minister decided there was no suffi cient public interest, the process could be denied, and the protect- ed area boundary could not be amended. However, it could proceed to stage 2, in which the proponent would then have to document what alternatives for the project existed.

"Alternatives that would avoid the need to im- pact the protected area were considered and why they are deemed to be unfeasible. Th ey must also conduct an as- sessment of the environmental and social impacts of the proposal on the park and its users and propose adequate mitigation to avoid or minimize those impacts." Th ey also have to, currently, consider how to compen- sate for the loss of protected area lands, either through replacement lands or through other measures to enhance the protected areas environment. On the face of it, the current process makes sense.

As much as some have said that you should never, ever amend park boundaries and are quite concerned about that, sometimes it makes sense. Th is House, under the current process, has amended boundaries. To suggest that we must bring this through right now, that otherwise no activity will ever occur and it's too hard for people to be involved…. I don't think it really stands up. I think that's why a public consultation would actually be required, because it's important…. Th is is information that the minister provided me this morning. I appreci-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, March 5, 2014 1879 ate receiving it today. Th is is quoting from the document the minister's staff provided me: "Since 2004 our records indicate that there have been 44 modifi cations to pro- tected area boundaries to remove land for commercial or industrial uses." So 44 modifi cations, totalling approxi- mately 811 hectares. [1510] Under the current process this has happened. Now, I think of some modifi cations that we've debated in this House before. We had a modification to Cape Scott Provincial Park.

Th e idea was we needed better park- ing lot access there, and there were some challenges for people to be able to access that park. So some debate in this House, and that change occurred. Th ere have been other processes to allow changes to the boundaries. I look through here — quite a range of parks, whether it was Mount Robson Park, whether or not it was Dzawadi–Upper Klinaklini River Conservancy, Stawamus Chief Park, Elk Falls Park…. Th ese were ones for dedicated industrial use. Th ese things have occurred.

Th e public has had a chance to have their say, and that's how it's gone under the current policy, not the policy that is being amended. Industrial activity has oc curred because sometimes, on balance, you get a better portion of a park added and a less important part taken away. Sometimes you actual- ly get a better environmental benefi t, based on existing policy. But that being said, existing policy could be changed.

It doesn't take long for a cabinet or a minister to say: "We're changing the policy." Th ere's no consulta- tion with the public, and all of a sudden a whole bunch of other activity could be considered. Th is legislation makes that even easier. So if a govern- ment, in future, decided they wanted to, say, put a bunch of pipelines through parks or potentially allow a mine in a park, of course, they would have to change the desig- nation so that it wouldn't be a park. But this legislation makes that easier. I think we need to think about what we do with our parks.

Parks are important things to many of us, to all of us. Th ey are about our health. Th ey're about ecology. Th ey're not just about people, but they're also about pro- tecting the natural world which we all rely on — some- thing that gives us such incredible wealth; something that improves our health, as I mentioned, but also im- proves our prosperity, improves our economy, improves our communities. When we approach park amendments, when we ap- proach changing how the parks structure works, we have to do that with due care. Just as we would not say to in- dustry….

Well, unfortunately, sometimes government does say to industry: "We've changed things on you and haven't even talked to you." Many people are guilty of such things in governments and businesses and other- wise. People do not always consult as best they could. But when you make such a change to the Park Act, you ac- tually have to talk to the groups that use our parks. I will be moving an amendment to the motion. I would like to move, and hopefully I can get some guidance from you, hon. Speaker.

I move: [Th at the motion for second reading of Bill 4, Park Amendment Act, 2014, be amended by deleting the word "now" and substitut- ing "six months hence."] On the amendment. Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to speak to the amendment? S. Chandra Herbert: Y es. Th ank you, hon. Speaker. Again, why should we consider hoisting this motion, pushing this motion six months from now so we can continue to have a debate on this and vote on it? Why should we do that? Well, more heads are better than one. Th e people of B.C., I think, deserve better by our parks.

When you have a motion like this — which, I believe, could weaken environmental protections in our parks, could make it easier so that environmental damage could be done in our parks, could potentially damage the pub- lic trust we all hold for our parks — you've got to talk to the people of British Columbia about it. Y ou've got to ask them: "Does this make sense? Do we want to allow research, whether that is invasive research or not, in our parks? What should the legislation say? Should there be greater protections to say that this is the kind of research we mean?

Academic research, research which doesn't damage the natural environment, research which is consistent with protecting the ecology and rec- reational needs of a park. Is that the kind of research you want to support, British Columbia? Is that something which is consistent with our parks? "Or do you think research which could lead to a high- way or a pipeline or something like that…? Is that the kind of research you would support? Y es or no? What kinds of safeguards would you like to have?" [1515] I understand that the minister has said very clearly that she believes that this bill does not threaten our parks.

Th at's her stated point of view, and I appreciate that she's shared it very forcefully. But I think it's got to be more than just our stated points of view that inform legislation. We look at the federal government. When they have a bill…. At least traditionally, anyway, they used to hold committees. Th ey used to have, and sometimes still do have, sessions where the public gets the chance to in- form Members of Parliament and, yes, even the senators about what should change, about what they like about a bill, what they don't like about a bill, ways to improve bills.

All of that, people are given the opportunity to do. Y ou know, at a $44 billion budget, as the province has, we should be talking to the people. When we bring legis- lation, laws, that aff ect their lives, we should be talking to them about it.

British Columbia Debates1880 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 One of the oddest things about this place, this Legislature, is that we don't do a very good job of talk- ing to the people at all. In fact, many bills get brought before this House with zero consultation. Th is bill had zero consultation, and this bill changes how our parks are protected. I was on the Vancouver park board as a park commis- sioner. I think back about how we worked with parks in Vancouver.

I think back about the many, many late nights where the public, because they cared so much about their neighbourhood parks, would come and share their thoughts about what we were doing or not doing in their parks. Th ey would come and say…. I think of Nelson Park in the West End, in my neigh- bourhood, a place that I worked to get improved. It was park which was troubled. It had some challenges with drug use. It had some challenges with dogs running wild and dog waste all over the place, so not a lot of kids and parents wanted to use it. On the park board, what did we do? We didn't just say: "We know best.

Boom, here's your new park. Too bad we didn't listen to you. Now you hate it? Oh well." No, what we did was formed a committee of the public to guide the redevelopment of the park. Th at committee took advice from the community. Th e park board took advice from the community. Th ey brought back a plan for that park to say: "Should the washroom go here? Should it go there? Should the dog park go here? Should it go there? What about com- munity gardens? Do you want to have that in a park?" We asked the public for their help in designing a park that would work for them all. Th at's what democracy should be about.

It should be about bottom-up, from the people who are impacted the most. Th ey should be informing this debate, not from the top down, where one person or one government or one minister says: "Th is is the way it should be. Take it or leave it." Th at, to me, is not good government, and it's not good democracy. Now, you can't do that all the time, every single time on every single little piece of a bill. It could become chal- lenging. But you have to give the broad outline to the public, involve them, talk to them and think about it. Y ou might make some amendments, some changes.

Certainly, we've seen more than a few bills brought back to this House aft er it's been pointed out that there are er- rors, or we've had the Supreme Court strike down certain legislation because there was no consultation and there were egregious errors that broke the law. What did that do? Well, it enriched many lawyers. Some lawyers probably bought summer homes because of errors made in this place. Some maybe even made their careers. But the people of British Columbia lost out — in many cases, in millions upon millions of dollars — be- cause of poor draft ing of legislation, because of a lack of consultation.

By moving this amendment, what we're doing here is giving the place, giving some space so that the govern- ment can go out and do what it should be doing. It claims to be an open government that wants to hear from people. Well, then prove it. Go out. Take this bill out. Talk to the many groups who've contacted me, the thousands of people who've sent me e-mails, who've sent the minister e-mails, who've sent their own MLAs e-mails demanding to be heard. Some of them have said: "Y es, I like this amendment around fi lm." Others have said: "We hate this complete- ly.

We think this should be how we do this." Others have said: "Well, we like some of this. We don't like other aspects of this. If you just added an amendment here, maybe that could work." Th at's how good legislation is created. Th at's how good government is created — when you actually listen to the people who voted you into offi ce. [1520] I think this bill, the Park Amendment Act, a bill which aff ects approximately 13 if not 14 percent…. Well, maybe a little less, because 70 percent of that…. Some are class B; some are class A.

But approximately 10 to 14 percent, let's say, a very large proportion of our province — no consultation at all. Is that acceptable? I don't think so. Th e opposition doesn't think so. We think you actually have to listen to the people who elected you. Of course, you'll remember one of the most egregious examples — the HST. People were told that this wasn't going to happen, and the government brought it in. Th ere was a massive outrage, outcry, and it tore the province up for years. Eventually the government was forced to back down, because the people were so angry about not be- ing listened to.

Some said: "Well, maybe I like it; maybe I don't. But you know what matters most to me? Th e government didn't listen to me. Th e government said one thing and did another." I hope — and I was told this emphatically by more than a few constituents — this teaches the gov- ernment a lesson about listening, about engaging, about consulting, so that they all have an opportunity to be in- forming this government.

When I moved this amendment, I thought about the children that I talked to — the high school students, the young adults — who say to me: "Well, that government over there" — and it doesn't matter what party they talk about; it could be municipal, federal, provincial — "they don't listen to us — that government." Th ey talk about the government as if it's a separate body that has no involvement in their day-to-day life. "It's those bad people over there." Th ey're upset about this thing, and I say to them: "Well, that government is also your government.

Y ou're also part of that government, in eff ect, as a citizen, through your own voice, through your own vote, through your own involvement in society." Unfortunately, I think — although, of course, the evi-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, March 5, 2014 1881 dence is mixed — that part of the reason why we have declining turnout in voting is people don't feel listened to. Th ey say: "Well, you vote for one or vote for the other. It doesn't matter.

Th e government still gets in." Th eir thinking there, and they've said that to me, is: "Well, they never listen to me, and they never give me a chance to have my voice heard." Th is bill, this amendment, would give people an oppor- tunity to have their voice heard about something that is near and dear to every British Columbian — our parks and how we treat them, how we support economic activ- ity, how we support research, how we support ecological protection, how we support our health, how we support the need for cooperation between diff erent sectors. Th is would give us that opportunity.

Th is amendment also, I think, reminds me of how many of our parks were created. They were created through consultation. Th ey were created through land and resource management plans, where people would be able to sit down with the government. Many of these plans were established in the early 1990s under the premiership of Mike Harcourt. Th ey did a huge process.

It doesn't matter where I go in the province; people will still talk about the LRMP and the CORE process and other processes which involved them in developing their own region's potential — not just parks but areas for tourism, areas for forestry, areas for mining, areas for communities. All of those discussions happened, and they weren't easy discussions. Y ou had people debating. Y ou had people upset.

But they were all in the same room togeth- er, understanding that it was their collective ownership, their collective responsibility to work together for the best interests of their community — that not one person had the ultimate say, but they all did. Th ey all had the say. Th is is not, unfortunately, how this place works enough. We don't involve enough people in the governing of this province. I think the last time there was really a big con- sultation was to say: "What do you think about liquor?" Aside from "What do you think about liquor?

Should we allow people to get more of it or do it in differ- ent places…?" Well, I called for a review of the Liquor Control Act, and I called for a review of the liquor laws in B.C., because I thought they were egregious and far too antiquated. I was glad that there was at least an attempt at consultation there. People went out, and they travelled the province and talked to people. Why can't we do this for this bill? Why can't we do this for our parks? We can ask you, "Do you want to get liquor in a supermarket?" but we can't ask you if you support po- tential industrial activity or research in your park?

Th at to me is pretty fl awed thinking. I don't think that's how government is done best. Th at's certainly not how we get the best decisions. We should be involving the people. Th at's what demo- cracy is. It's of the people so that they all have a chance to be heard and provide their best insight, their best input. [1525] Th ose land and resource management plans — they were tense situations on a number of occasions. People didn't always get what they wanted, but they said they were heard and certainly were able to infl uence the out- come.

So to say that we're going to make it easier for poten- tial industrial use of parks without consulting the people who fought so hard for those parks I think is wrong. It does not do justice to those people. It does not do justice to mountain clubs, to friends-of-various-parks clubs. It does not do justice to environmental organizations that fought so hard to bring in better protections for our parks. It does not do justice to the people of British Columbia. Just as in an election…. Y es, more people voted for the Liberals than voted for the NDP . I think it was about 3 or 4 percent.

Th at doesn't mean the 40 percent that voted for the NDP aren't worth listening to. I think government should be attempting to govern for everybody. Y es, you're going to have disagreements. Y es, you're going to fi nd agreements. But you do that through talking with each other. Y ou do that through working together. Th at's how you build a province where everybody pros- pers. Th at's how you build a province where you have excellent park facilities, excellent environmental protec- tions, an incredibly prosperous economy. It's by involv- ing everybody. Th is bill does not do that.

Th is amendment would give the government a chance to just put a pause button. Th ey might, aft er listening to the public, still decide to proceed with this bill. Th ey still could potentially say: "Well, no. Actually, no changes are needed. We disagree with every- body who has said that they think changes are needed." Th ey would have to make that argument. But as we've seen in the past, they might change their mind.

Th ey might add a few more changes to the bill to make it more palatable, to increase environmental pro- tection, to show what research really means, to say: "Does that mean that you could drill a hole for a gas well in a park as research, or not?" Th ey could be clear in the legislation, in the law — not just in word but in deed. Th ey could make sure that our parks are protected from here out and into perpetuity — with the people of British Columbia, for the people of British Columbia. Not just "Trust us" but the public trust. Th e public trust means engaging with the public, as that builds trust.

Th is government, in terms of environ- mental conservation and environmental responsibility, is not really trusted by the public. Th ere are a lot of people out there who do not trust the government. I know that ministers want to be trusted. Th ey want to be supported. Th ey want the public to believe in what they're doing. Th ey don't come to this place to try and sneak things through always — sometimes people do —

British Columbia Debates1882 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 but they come to this place because, in the best interests of their constituents, the best interests of their own hearts, they think they're doing the best job they can. I would say that if you think you have the best inter- ests of your constituents at heart, the best interests of the environment at heart, the best interests of our parks and our economy at heart, talk to those very people who put you in offi ce. Talk to the people in this province who've fought so hard to establish parks and conservation areas across B.C.

I'd like to read a few notes from a few organizations who've contacted me. Th is is a letter that was sent to both the Minister of Environment and the Premier. It's sent by West Coast Environmental Law; the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, British Columbia chapter; the Wilderness Committee; ForestEthics Solutions; and Sierra Club of B.C. Th ey say here: "Parks and protected areas hold an important place in the hearts of British Columbians. Many of us, of course, have fond memories of camping, fi shing, hiking or otherwise experiencing this prov- ince's parks.

We also appreciate that wilderness parks and protect- ed areas provide a place for the province's non-human inhabitants." I'm reading this into the record because I think that otherwise, the public may have no possibility, if the gov- ernment decides to vote against this amendment, to hear some of the other organizations. Th eir members have dedicated their lives to protecting parks.

Th ey go on to say: "As the phrase 'protected area' implies, British Columbians be- lieve that these lands are protected — the few areas of the province declared off -limits to logging, mining, the oil and gas industry and other industrial use and development.

Th e provincial gov- ernment's website refers to parks as a public trust to be managed for public benefi t and not private gain, and the current Park Act requires that any developments in parks must be 'necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.' [1530] "Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, expressly provides for indus- trial activity within B.C.'s parks and protected areas and paves the way for the removal of land from those protected areas for industrial purposes.

As such, we oppose the bill and believe the vast majority of British Columbians would also not support it. "We take particular exception to

section 3 of the bill, which pro- vides that permits may be granted in provincial parks for research without any requirement whatsoever to consider the impacts of that research on recreational conservation values or the purpose of the park. Th e term 'research' is undefi ned. We have been informed by provincial staff that they consider the term broad enough to include bulk ore sampling and other large-scale industrial sam- pling and clearing activities that are clearly inconsistent with the park's status.

"Since these exemptions are specifi cally directed at research re- lated to industrial activity and to the removal of land from parks, the provisions remove protection in respect of the activities that are most likely to compromise the integrity of the parks. By making 9.3(

c) optional it specifi cally allows for permitting activities that would not be consistent with the purpose of the protected area." Th ey go on to say: "Moreover, the fact that your government chose to introduce Bill 4 with no consultation of B.C.'s public, and," they argue, "has misrepresented the extent of the amendments in its news release and other communications with the public is not acceptable. We ask you to not pass Bill 4 and request a meeting to discuss ways to strengthen B.C.'s parks and protected areas.

We urge you to man- age B.C.'s parks for the benefi t of the public and not for the benefi t of industry and private interests." That's the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, B.C. chapter; ForestEthics; Sierra Club B.C.; West Coast Environmental Law ; and the Wilderness Committee. Th ese are membership-driven organizations. Th ey have thousands upon thousands of members across British Columbia who care very much for our parks. Does that mean that what they say is the only truth? No. Does it mean that their voice should be heard? Y es. Does it mean that they have made good arguments? I would say yes.

Th ey are arguments that I also have con- cerns with

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140305pm-Hansard-v7n5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140305pm Hansard v7n5
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	09d0c9f61f1a22c22c2f989c281b28a118130bc6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).