British Columbia Hansard — 20140403pm Hansard v10n2

20140403pm-Hansard-v10n2

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) Th ursday, April 3, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 10, Number 2

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 Th ursday, April 3, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introduction and First Reading of Bills ................................................................................................................................ 2777 Bill M207 — Th e British Columbia Local Food Act, 2014 A. Dix Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 2777 Bill 11 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2014 S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak C. Trevena D.

Donaldson Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................................................... 2781 Bill 11 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2014 Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 2781 Bill 18 — Water Sustainability Act S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak A. Weaver S. Fraser D. Donaldson D. Routley G.

Holman Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2801 Estimates: Ministry of Natural Gas Development S. Simpson Hon. R. Coleman V . Huntington R. Fleming A. Weaver G. Holman H. Bains

THURSDAY , APRIL 3, 2014 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL M207 — THE BRITISH COLUMBIA LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2014 A. Dix presented a bill intituled Th e British Columbia Local Food Act, 2014. A. Dix: I move that Th e British Columbia Local Food Act, 2014, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved. Madame Speaker: Please proceed. A.

Dix: Th e purpose of Th e British Columbia Local Food Act is to improve and maximize food security, eco- nomic return and population health outcomes from our public land trust — the agricultural land reserve. Th e legislation will accomplish these purposes through three core elements: (1) implementing a comprehensive strategy on government purchasing locally grown food; (2) reintroducing the successful Buy B.C. program; and (3) mandating a legislative committee on food and agri- culture to prepare, in consultation with the Agriculture Minister, a plan to increase local food production, mar- keting and processing.

Th e plan would set targets and implement policies to meet those targets, which would be reported annually to the Legislature. Our province currently lacks a strategy that ensures we are fully capitalizing on our agricultural land base in a way that grows our economy, improves population health and food security. [1335] Instead, the government has a plan to undermine that, in the form of Bill 24. Other jurisdictions are ahead of B.C. in terms of encouraging farming and food process- ing to support, expand and sustain their agriculture sec- tor.

For example, Ontario, which has a greenbelt, has legislation that supports increasing local food produc- tion from its land base through establishing targets that the Minister of Agriculture needs to report on annually. Along with 33 other American states, Washington, one of our main competitors, uses government procurement policies to promote its agriculture sector. I wish to acknowledge the outstanding work of my col- leagues from Saanich South and Powell River–Sunshine Coast and my communications director, Jasmyn Singh, on this outstanding piece of legislation.

I move it be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Bill M207, Th e British Columbia Local Food Act, 2014, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Polak: In this chamber I call committee stage debate on Bill 11, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 11 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 1:38 p.m. On

section 1. S. Chandra Herbert: It's going to be a delightful day here in the Legislature. We've got the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. Interjection. S. Chandra Herbert: I understand the member for Surrey-Panorama believes it always is, and I am glad he feels that way. Interjection. S. Chandra Herbert: Another member says he's new here. But he's still got a smile on, and I hope he continues to maintain that smile throughout the rest of the day. I notice the Minister of Environment has a number of staff members with her. If she could introduce them to the House so people know who is providing her with as- sistance, that would be helpful. My fi rst question would be about

section 1, the Tow Hill Ecological Reserve. I'm curious. What's the history behind this change? Why was this area included in the ecological reserve to begin with, if indeed it was meant to be part of the reserve? [1340] 2777

British Columbia Debates2778 Thursday, April 3, 2014 Hon. M. Polak: First, I will introduce staff who are accompanying me. I have to my right, Lori Halls, our assistant deputy minister in charge of B.C. Parks and the conservation officer service, and to my left, Ken Morrison, manager for planning and land administration in the Ministry of Environment. Indeed, it will be a won- derful time in committee today. I agree with the member. When the residence was constructed — that was in the late '80s — the boundary signs for the ecological reserve are what they used as the boundary.

It turned out that they were not accurately placed. Th is was discovered in 2007, when there was a survey conducted as part of a pur- chase. Th is goes to correct that. And, in fact, the overall size of the ecological reserve doesn't actually change be- cause the amount of land is so small that it's probably neg- ligible in terms of what it does to the ecological reserve. S. Chandra Herbert: Th ank you to the minister and her staff . I've enjoyed working with them very much on this bill.

I know we had discussed at one point, in future bills like this, hopefully being able to provide the public with a map on the website with clear delineations of what the park was and what the park will be, or what the ecological area will be, so people can get a real sense of what's going on. To look at a bill to say that we will strike out "Plan 4 Tube 1912" and substitute "Plan 14 Tube 2007" is not the most descriptive way that we could explain what a park is.

If the minister could let me know and let the House know if that commitment is the ministry's commitment — to make sure the public have full access to this infor- mation in future bills — that would be helpful. Hon. M. Polak: Y eah, it's something that we want to do as well, because it's helpful for members, right? Otherwise, members — for the information of the House — have the option of going to the Clerk's offi ce and viewing whatever maps are attached to particular bills. But this is 2014, and we'd like to get to a place where we can upload those maps, and people would be able to access them electronically.

In some ways, I think it actually would add to people's sense of security around this, perhaps, because as the member knows, most oft en these boundary amendments are for good reason. Well, they're always for good reason. We maybe most of the time agree on them. Sometimes we don't. But more information is better in terms of the public having confi dence in the process, and so we'll con- tinue to work toward that.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. C. Trevena: Th is

section is quite clearly in to allow the access road for the reconstruction of the John Hart dam. It has been expected. I just wondered if the min- ister could clarify, in light of what has just been said…. Y ou know, we're talking about just where it is. I think that the concern is that it does decrease the size of the park. I know it's by a slight amount, but it is ten hectares. I won- dered if the minister could explain just why this is hap- pening and where it is happening — the minimization. [1345] Hon. M. Polak: Th ere are actually two things occur- ring here.

Th ere's the removal of the four hectares that is Brewster Lake Road. Th at's for the purpose of access for the remediation of the dam. Th en you've got a strip of about six hectares that is being removed for the purposes of the city of Campbell River replacing its water system. Now, they're not complete with all of their design, so the entire six hectares likely won't be utilized. Th ere is pot- entially land there that would come back into the park boundary, and ultimately, aft er all the projects are done, the land may come back into the park boundary.

In the meantime, those lands will be protected under the Environment and Land Use Act. Now, that's not as high a level of protection as a class A park, obviously. But as you can see from the description, this will be sort of a work in progress, and we will see what happens with the lands aft erwards. In fact, we may be back here bringing the land back into the park boundary.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. S. Chandra Herbert: As I've had the benefi t of hear- ing from the ministry staff around this proposed change, I would say that I'm fully supportive of it. However, the public has not had the benefi t of that description. Would the minister be able to explain how Kleanza Creek Park is changing, why it's changing and what the history is of this proposed change? Hon. M. Polak: Th e story behind this one is that, un- fortunately, some time ago the drinking water supply for the Kitselas First Nation had essentially dried up. Th ey were in search of a new fresh drinking water supply.

Th ey were dealing with having to truck in drinking water for their community. Th ey then have subsequently located fresh drinking water. It requires the removal of two hec- tares of land. With the particular location of this removal, it will not have any impact on the recreational values of the park that we can see. It is, again, a small deletion of two hectares, we think for a very essential purpose. Of course, these lands then will be transferred to the administration of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. S.

Chandra Herbert: Does this have any connection to potential treaty negotiations or land claims discussions?

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2779 Hon. M. Polak: Not that we're aware of.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. S. Chandra Herbert: Th is section, as I understand it,

section 4, changes the name of Indian Arm Park and in- creases the size of Paul Lake Park. I'm just curious what the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation's perspective is, as best the minister could describe it, on these changes. Hon. M. Polak: Th e Tsleil-Waututh First Nation are fully supportive of the name change. S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that they are also supportive of the planned changes for the recreational properties as well. Is that correct? [1350] Hon. M. Polak: Th at's

section 5. I'll answer it, and then we can do our passing and ayeing and whatever. Y eah, they are fully supportive of that. S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister share what the new name of Indian Arm Park is? Say Nuth Khaw Yum Park — what is the meaning? Hon. M. Polak: Say Nuth Khaw Yum means serpent's land, and it is aft er the two-headed serpent that once lay across the inlet, according to Tsleil-Waututh oral history. S. Chandra Herbert: Will there be changes to maps, directional signage, etc.? Is the park…? Does it have an ecological management plan, a park management plan, currently? Hon. M.

Polak: Th ere is a park management plan. Th e park management plan actually already uses the First Nations name. Th ere is also a collaborative management board, so whatever other changes need to be made in terms of signage or what have you will be done in cooper- ation with that board. Sections 4 and 5 approved. On

section 6. D. Donaldson: I have some questions around the Indian Lake–Hitchcock Creek addition to the conserv- ancy, as in

section 6(a). It appears there would be 17,835 hectares of land added to the Indian Lake–Hitchcock Creek Conservancy under this section. Can the minister advise what the reasons are for the addition? Hon. M. Polak: Th is is to fulfi l the Atlin-Taku land use plan, which was approved in July of 2011. D. Donaldson: It's been three years since the imple- mentation of the Atlin-Taku land use plan, as the minis- ter described.

Can the minister advise if there have been any activities that have taken place in the last three years before these 17,835 hectares were added — activities that might be contrary to the reason for the creation of the conservancy in the fi rst place? Hon. M. Polak: No, not that we're aware of. Th e delay was largely the result of some necessary consultations with an overlapping First Nation. D. Donaldson: Th ank you, to the minister, for that answer. I have been to the Indian River where it drains into Atlin Lake. Th ere's a guide-outfi tter who has his base camp and residence in that area.

I believe his territory for guiding extends possibly into this area that's being dis- cussed. Was that guide-outfi tter consulted, and how was he consulted about the impact of this addition? [1355] Hon. M. Polak: As with other land use plans, the con- sultation with tenure holders and licensees takes place during the land use planning. If this amendment is to pass, then B.C. Parks would be in touch with any tenure holders or licensees. In the case of a guide-outfi tter, the particular protection being placed on this land wouldn't be in confl ict with the continuation of the guide-outfi tting operations. D.

Donaldson: For some fi nal clarity, then, the addition that's being considered under

section 6 here will not im- pact the guide-outfi tter's authorized activities in any way? Hon. M. Polak: He would have to be making applica- tion for a park use permit because now, of course, in addi- tion to the Wildlife Act tenure that the guide-outfi tter would possess, there would also be a requirement for them to have a park use permit. However, in this land use plan, one of the features of it is that existing activities like that would be allowed to continue.

Th ere would have to be consultation, obvious- ly, and there would be some specifi c guidelines with re- spect to how the park use permit would be complied with. Ultimately, it should not change what the guide-outfi tter is currently doing in his or her operations. But that would be the legal framework of it, because now of course it would be placed under the Park Act, and so therefore it would require the appropriate permitting. D. Donaldson: How much would the cost of this park use permit be in this instance, then, as an additional cost to this guide-outfi tter?

British Columbia Debates2780 Thursday, April 3, 2014 Hon. M. Polak: Th e base fees would be $500 a year. Now, not knowing the particular operation, I can't speak to if there are other structures, perhaps, or things like that that may add to those fees, but they would be minimal. D. Donaldson: Th e minister said that the activities of the guide-outfi tter would be able to continue with no change. Would this apply also to when, potentially, the guide-outfi tting licence changes hands? [1400] Hon. M. Polak: Th is legislation doesn't change the current manner in which we manage transfers.

If there was a change, there would be the usual processes through the Wildlife Act in terms of the tenure transfer. Th ere is nothing here that would prevent an individual from then again applying for a park use permit. D. Donaldson: I appreciate that answer. I just want to get a little bit more clarity, because I don't know if I posed it in the best way possible. Th e addition of these 17,835 hectares doesn't impose, in a grandfathering kind of way, any conditions on the guide-outfi tting licence, should it be sold, in the future? Hon. M.

Polak: Park use permits can be transferred, but it would have to be adjudicated by a statutory decision- maker. It wouldn't be up to the individual whether or not the transfer takes place. We allow for it, but that has to be reviewed by the statutory decision-maker. S. Chandra Herbert: I thank the member for ques- tions around his neck of the woods and his constituency. It's a massive area.

I enjoyed looking at the maps with the ministry staff to try and understand who might actually use that area, because it didn't look like there were a lot of roads, aside from maybe some abandoned logging roads or mine roads and so on. So to hear the member's ques- tions around the guide-outfi tters and others who get in there was very useful. Th ere are other sections in this

section 6. "Mahpahkum- Ahkwuna/Deserters-Walker Conservancy" — I just want- ed to ask around this section, as well as the "Qwiquallaaq/ Boat Bay Conservancy." I will let the minister try this one — the "Ug ʷiwa'/Cape Caution Conservancy." I don't have the benefi t of knowing the local First Nation to have their support in saying the names. Are there other user groups in these areas that may be impacted by this change in designation — forestry tenures, AACs, guide-outfi tters? If so, have they been informed of these proposed changes, and what are their thoughts? [1405] Hon. M.

Polak: Th is area does have a conservancy management plan. It is the result of a very extensive con- sultation process that was conducted collaboratively with the First Nations. Th e marine foreshore that's being add- ed to the four conservancies should not have any impact on the current activities that take place. D. Donaldson: We're still on

section 6, so I'd like to go back to 6(a). I have been able to mull over some of the answers that the minister gave, and it caused me to have another question that I want some clarifi cation on, if she can provide it. Th e current authorized activities that the guide-outfi tter has that take place over the proposed 17,835 hectares that will be added to the Indian Lake–Hitchcock Creek conservancy under this

section are something that is well defi ned. If the guide-outfi tter was to decide to sell his business, as it stands now, it seems as if there wouldn't be any encumbrances on those activities. Y et under this section, as the minister has said, it's going to add a level of Park Act permit. As she said in her last answer, that could mean a review of the activities if the guide-outfi tting licence was sold. It seems to me that that's an increased level of uncertainty, especially in regards to the current business and the cur- rent activities and the current state, if he was to sell that business now.

Is that, in fact, the case? Would the addition of this conservancy mean that there would be another level of oversight on the activities that wouldn't be a problem right now if that licence was sold? Hon. M. Polak: We actually do have very many guide- outfi tters in conservancies around the province. As a re- sult, we have worked very hard to align our reporting requirements with those of FLNRO under the Wildlife Act. Certainly, the conditions that might be placed through a park use permit are not there to frustrate the work of a guide-outfi tter.

Rather, what would be put in place would be those kinds of reasonable guidelines that you would expect a guide-outfi tter to be already in compliance with. [1410] Again, we seek to be very well aligned with the expect- ations of the guide-outfi tters' tenure, so it would oper- ate similarly to the park use permits that are in place for guide-outfi tters in other conservancies around the prov- ince right now.

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. S. Chandra Herbert: Could the minister explain what is happening in

section 7? Hon. M. Polak: I have a sneaking suspicion the member is asking me this question just to dare me to pronounce this. It is Ugʷiwa'. Th ere. Th ere's my practised pronunciation,

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2781 which I'm sure I have just not done nearly as well as I should have, with all due respect to the First Nation involved. Th is is, I think, an important change. as we are doing in the number of areas. We are recognizing the legacy of the First Nations and changing the name from Cape Caution– Blunden Bay Conservancy to Ugʷiwa'. Not only that, we are adding 94 hectares of marine foreshore to the area. S. Chandra Herbert: Ugʷiwa'/Cape Caution–Blunden Bay Conservancy, from the map, looks like an incredible place.

Are there specifi c reasons why this area is being added to the conservancy in terms of ecological values, spiritual values, historic reasons? Is it actively used by the First Nations? Hon. M. Polak: Some of the features. Th is area will protect intertidal and marine areas that have some pretty high ecological values. Th ey include kelp beds, grey whale feeding grounds, foraging areas for marbled murrelet, a number of intertidal fl ats, high tide lagoons, very globally signifi cant tidal rapids.

Th e Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw First Nation also considers the marine area surrounding the conservancy to be part of their sea gardens. D. Donaldson: On

section 7(c), the addition of 25,255 hectares to the Upper Gladys River Conservancy. Th is is to the east of Atlin Lake on Taku River Tlingit traditional territory in the constituency of Stikine. Could the minis- ter advise on the reasons for this addition? Hon. M. Polak: Again, this is fulfi lling the Atlin Taku land use plan. D. Donaldson: As the minister advised earlier, that plan was instituted in 2011, so it has been three years. Could she give us an idea of why this 25,255 hectares wasn't included when the plan was instituted in 2011? Hon. M.

Polak: Again, it was necessary for us to engage in some consultation with an overlapping First Nation. [1415] D. Donaldson: Th ank you for that, to the minister. In those three years that have passed since the plan was in- stituted in 2011 and the addition of this 25,255 hectares that will occur once this bill is passed in 2014, have there been any activities, ongoing or new, in this area being considered that would go against the objectives of the conservancy? Hon. M. Polak: None that we're aware of. D. Donaldson: I just stood up to say thank you very much. Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved. Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 2:16 p.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. Report and Th ird Reading of Bills BILL 11 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Bill 11, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 18 — W ATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:20 p.m. On

section 1. S. Chandra Herbert: Th e wonderful, fantastic day continues in the Legislature with Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act. A cue to drink a glass of water, won- derful, tasty B.C. water — again, not from a bottle but from a glass and from a tap. Th ank you, hon. Chair and Members, for humouring me. Th is section, "Defi nitions," is where we are able to get an understanding of what the government means with a variety of use of terms. Th e bill, of course, is approxi- mately 143 pages long, so I know the Member for Surrey- Panorama is going to enjoy every single moment of it.

He's giving me the thumbs-up. I know that the minister and her staff will be enjoying this, as well, because they've worked for many long years, the staff in particular, to get us to this stage for a histor- ic bill to upgrade our Water Act. Of course, the people of B.C. have been waiting 100 years to update this act. Th ey're quite elderly now and are quite excited that the act has fi nally come. Anyways, the fi rst question I had is in the defi nitions

British Columbia Debates2782 Thursday, April 3, 2014 section. If the minister could explain the meaning of "aquatic ecosystem." It says it's "in relation to a stream" and "means the natural environment of the stream, including" the stream channel, fi sh, wildlife and other living organ- isms "insofar as their life processes (

i) are carried out in the stream, and (ii) depend on the natural environment of the stream." Is there a reason that that is held just to stream, not creek or river or water body? Why just a stream? Hon. M. Polak: Before I answer the question, I'll just introduce the staff I have with me. To my left is Ted White, manager of water strategies and conservation, water pro- tection and sustainability branch, with the Ministry of Environment.

To my right is Donna Forsyth, legislative adviser, strategic policy branch, with the Ministry of Environment, and behind me is Valerie Cameron, water stewardship manager with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Th e reason the word "stream" is used and not more words than that is because of the defi nition of stream later on in the "s"

section of the defi nitions. Th e member will see that it is very all-encompassing and includes the watercourses that the member mentioned. S. Chandra Herbert: Now, would it be correct to say that also includes water where maybe there's a big run- off in the spring session, as the snow melts, and you get a periodic stream that then disappears for the rest of the year, as the water is no longer there? Hon. M. Polak: Y es. Th e test for whether or not this ap- plies is not whether or not the water is there all the time. Th at isn't what we're concerned about.

It's whether or not it exists in a stream channel when it's there. Y ou will see "stream channel" defi ned just underneath "stream." [1425] S. Chandra Herbert: Would any of these…? Including aquifer, I guess, is the question, then. What would occur if an aquifer has not been identifi ed? I know there are a number of cave systems, and there are a number of other systems throughout the province which have not been adequately mapped. Does this include things that have yet to be mapped? Hon. M.

Polak: In conjunction with the defi nition of "aquifer," then one also needs to look at the defi nition of "groundwater," which here is defi ned as meaning "water naturally occurring below the surface of the ground" — so whether or not it has been mapped. S. Chandra Herbert: Th at would include deep saline aquifers? Hon. M. Polak: Y es. For the purposes of the legislation, water is treated as water, be it a saline aquifer or not. Th e discussion that we have had in terms of exempting deep saline is one that will be refl ected in the regulations but not in the act itself. S.

Chandra Herbert: Th ere have been many questions around "benefi cial use," around the idea of water being held as a public trust, of the idea that if you are granted the authority to use the province's water, you need to be using it in a way that is good for the public interest that refl ects that water is an incredibly valuable resource. I understand that with this change, there's been a move to say that we should be using water "as effi ciently as practicable." Can the minister explain what she believes that means? Also, I understand, that there may be any applicable regulations.

I understand they're not written yet, but is there a thought to what those regulations will require — what the broad focus of them will be? [1430] Hon. M. Polak: Th e purpose here — and the member has captured it, to a certain extent, as well — is to get to a place where there is no waste, be that somebody who is licensed to use water or a water use that is not captured in terms of licensing.

When it comes to benefi cial use, the standard against which that will be measured is what we will be developing in the regulations, again guided by the idea that we want to achieve a circumstance where water is used for a specifi c purpose and that it is used with the idea of elim- inating any waste of that water fl ow. S. Chandra Herbert: When we talk about developing regulations to ensure that there is no waste of water, I think people would be very interested in those regulations.

In many municipalities and communities, especially where water use becomes very diffi cult as the water is scarce, neighbours will look at neighbours and, in some cases, will say, "Well, that person is washing their driveway with fresh water, as opposed to a broom," and would ques- tion: "Is that a waste of water?" In my view, I would think so. But that could lead to all sorts of questions around enforcement, in terms of education. Who knows exactly what the regulations state? Would it be a municipal use? Would it be through a bylaw?

Would it be, if you lived in a rural district, a provincial law — or regulation, I guess? Will there be consultation — an open consultation rather than just a preselected group who have to sign off on confi dentiality agreements to not share what's being discussed in the development of these regulations? Hon. M. Polak: In order to bring life to this legislation and achieve the objectives that we are setting before our- selves, we recognize that we are going to need the active participation and collaboration of other levels of govern- ment, including First Nations. I personally have committed to the First Nations

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2783 Leadership Council that we will be working closely with them as we develop the regulations. I know my staff will also be undertaking to consult and work with local governments, because of course, in terms of implemen- tation…. Th e member used an example of washing a driveway, for example. Th ose types of regulatory pieces would be open to local governments, in terms of their by- laws, etc., and how they manage water locally. We do need to be working collaboratively, and we in- tend to do that through the development of the regula- tions as well.

It's important that this act and its attendant regulations be designed in a practical way if we want people to actually adhere to what is outlined. S. Chandra Herbert: Th e example I used was prob- ably a municipal example. Obviously, a lot of water gets used outside of municipalities, in industries and so on. I think of agriculture. My grandparents were farmers, and there was a lot of water used in their farming needs. Sometimes the challenge, of course, is you are, let's say, irrigating a fi eld, and you may not know that a hose used to get the water to the fi eld has a major leak. Maybe it's underground.

Maybe you haven't looked at it. Maybe it's in a distant

section of the land that you don't get to a lot. [1435] What kinds of impacts could this have on an industry? What kinds of expectations are there going to be? Is it a waste of water if they have a leaky pipe that they're not aware of, and how will that be determined? Hon. M. Polak: We believe it's quite necessary for us to be working together with sectors like the agriculture sector. Th e approach we will take is one of developing best practices and developing improved methods of edu- cating and making aware those people who are involved.

We've already seen signifi cant cooperation and much improvement in the agriculture sector, in particular, as we've worked through the development of the legisla- tion. We have every reason to anticipate that the various sectors, including agriculture, will be quite interested in working with us to develop those best practices and to see that they are implemented. S. Chandra Herbert: I think people in the water com- munity, as they describe themselves….

I had no idea there was such a wide and vast network of individuals concerned about water in this province until really get- ting into the Water Act and looking at it. I'm sure the minister and her staff have been quite encouraged that there are so many people who care about our water. One of the questions they oft en ask around benefi cial use is: does it include things like stream health?

Is it, in the understanding of the minister, that when you talk about wasting water, benefi cial use is about effi cient use of water, including that you wouldn't use water in such a way that you damaged a stream's ability to support aquatic life? [1440] Hon. M. Polak: I think I'm going to give the member an answer to his question. If I've interpreted his question incorrectly, then we can try it again. Th e benefi cial use

section is all about the effi ciency of use — no waste, all that. When we get into activities or use that may have a negative impact, then really, you want to take a look at the defi nition just a little further down. "Changes in and about a stream" gets to modifi cations that may have a potentially negative impact on a stream. I hope that answers the member's question. S. Chandra Herbert: I think it partially answers the question. I had hoped, and I think….

I would interpret "benefi cial use," of course, to be about the public inter- est — that the benefi cial use of water is making sure that it benefi ts not only the individual using it but the public in general, who the province holds the water in trust for. What I wanted to know is…. While it talks about using it effi ciently, I don't think that anybody would agree it would be an effi cient use of water if we, for example, drained an aquifer while only using a small amount to wash our dishes and fl ush the toilet.

We were very effi cient, we had a low-fl ow toilet, but we drained an aquifer, and it was no longer there. Th at wouldn't be a benefi cial use — I would argue — under the term "benefi cial use." It may benefi t the person individually to fl ush their toilet, but the public interest would not be served because it could destroy an aquifer. Is that in the thinking of the minister in terms of bene- fi cial use, or is it just restricted to the idea of making sure you use it effi ciently? Hon. M. Polak: I'll have another go at this.

Th ere's a distinction here in terms of our use of the phrase "benefi - cial use" versus other jurisdictions — for example, in the United States — where the allocation and the eventual use of the water are combined, if you will. [1445] We've made a distinction. Th e issue of benefi cial use is aft er the licence has been granted. It becomes the test which responds to the question: "All right, you have a licence.

Are you using that licence for the purpose for which it was granted to you, and are you doing so in an effi cient way?" Th e question with respect to, "Is there enough water for us to grant you a licence of a certain amount," is a separate piece, and that is where we con- sider environmental fl ows. It's where we consider the health of an aquifer, how much water is available, how many users there are, etc. Th ere is the licence-granting decision. It weighs all those things into account.

Th e "benefi cial use" defi nition is there as part of the test: once the person has a licence, are they fulfi lling the obligations of that licence, in terms of specifi c purpose and the effi ciency with which they are accomplishing that.

British Columbia Debates2784 Thursday, April 3, 2014 S. Chandra Herbert: Th ank you to the minister for that answer. I have an amendment I'd like to make, in terms of the defi nition of "benefi cial use." I think bene- fi cial use is about much more than just the effi ciency of how you use it but also includes…. I'll read it out. [To amend

Part 1 of the Act by repealing the defi nition of "bene- fi cial use" in

section 1 and adding the following section: Defi nition of "benefi cial use" 1.1

(1) Subject to sub-sections (2) to (4), "benefi cial use" means a use of water that is reasonable, effi cient and consistent with the public interest in the proper utilization of water resources, including the use of water for navigational, environmental, and recreational uses.

(2) Benefi cial use carries with it a responsibility to protect stream health and use of water which compromises the ecological health of a stream shall not be considered benefi cial use.

(3) Water use that compromises the sustainable use of an aquifer by depleting groundwater is not a benefi cial use.

(4) Th e Lieutenant-Governor in Council may pass regula- tions further defi ning what is meant by benefi cial use, and how that benefi cial use is to be addressed in existing licences, allocation decisions or other decisions, includ- ing, but not limited to: (

a) defi ning environmental fl ows or other indicators of stream health in relation to (2) and the obligations of licensees to protect stream health, (

b) setting standards or requirements in relation to de- pletion or the obligations of licensees to protect the sustainable use of an aquifer under (3), (

c) setting standards of effi ciency or reasonableness in re- lation to benefi cial water use under water licences, and (

d) further defi ning benefi cial use and the proper util- ization of water resources.] Th at's a proposed amendment. I'd like to move the amendment now. On the amendment. Hon. M. Polak: I appreciate the eff ort that the member has put into this. Clearly, a lot of the items refl ected in the amendment are reminiscent of other aspects of the act. I will not be recommending support of the amend- ment, simply because, as I explained earlier, our approach in the bill is to address "benefi cial use" with respect to a licence that's already been granted.

Th e decisions with re- spect to protection around environmental fl ows, health of an aquifer, we have decided to place into the act in such a manner that it is considered when the granting of the licence takes place — then "benefi cial use," that defi nition being used as the test with respect to whether or not the licensee is appropriately operating that licence. S. Chandra Herbert: I think it's important that we name that offi cial use and be specifi c about it. I under- stand the minister's reticence to support the change, as it puts down very concretely what "benefi cial use" can be.

I would urge support of this. I understand that a lot of this will be decided in regulation. Th e opposition felt that it was important that we name concerns, that we name areas where benefi cial use and the lack of benefi cial use occur so that both the government and the wider com- munity have more legal strength in protecting our water resources. I'll be urging support of this amendment. [1450] A. Weaver: I just wish to speak in favour of the amend- ment. I would like to raise, of course, that I have not had the privilege of studying the legal aspects of this.

However, I did notice that the West Coast Environmental Law did submit that "benefi cial use" include a public benefi t com- ponent in order to ensure that social and environmental concerns can be addressed alongside private concerns. While I only just got this amendment a few minutes ago, I do believe this is trying to move in that direction. I recognize, of course, that government will have a diffi cult time supporting the amendment in light of the fact that this has to go through their legal counsel prior to build- ing it into the bill.

But I think the intent of this amend- ment is correct, and that is the reason why I believe it is important to ensure that there is a public interest in the law, not only of subsequent regulation or in the granting of permits but in the actual law itself. [1455] Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 27 Corrigan Simpson James Ralston Dix Popham Fleming Conroy Austin Hammell Donaldson Chandra Herbert Huntington Macdonald Eby Mungall Bains Elmore Heyman Darcy Krog Robinson Trevena D.

Routley Fraser Weaver Holman NAYS — 40 Horne Bing Hogg McRae Stone Fassbender Oakes Wat Virk Rustad Yamamoto Sultan Hamilton Reimer Ashton Morris Hunt Sullivan Cadieux Polak Coleman Anton Bond Bennett Letnick Barnett Y ap Th ornthwaite Dalton Plecas Lee Kyllo Tegart Michelle Stilwell Th roness Larson Foster Bernier Martin Moira Stilwell [1500]

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2785 S. Fraser: I would note that in the defi nitions

section of the act, Bill 18, there is no mention of the terms "cave," "cave resource," "karst," "karst land," "karst topography." Can the minister explain those omissions, please? Hon. M. Polak: If there was water that existed in a cave or in a karst, that would be, then, an aquifer. [D. Horne in the chair.] With respect to the cave or the karst itself, those are land forms, the governing of which is taken care of through other legislation. Th at is within the purview of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. S.

Fraser: "Aquifer" is the term that would broadly cover subterranean systems in the province of British Columbia. It's interesting, though, that it's simply…. Th ey're not cited as such. Caves are essentially…. Usually we're referring to the limestone caves. Th ey are developed over millennia through the dissolving of the limestone. Slightly carbon- ic acid–laden rainwater seeps through the grounds that have these karst features, the limestone features, and they create a unique ecosystem underground. I know that the Minister of Environment must know that these are probably the most fragile ecosystems in the world.

Th ey are unique in many ways, and they con- tain unique species. But they are water delivery systems, in essence. [1505] Again, the term "aquifer" — I guess the closest we'll have is "(

c) a part of one or more geological formations that is groundwater bearing and capable of storing, trans- mitting and yielding groundwater." Th at misses the sig- nifi cance of these systems. Th ey are underground water delivery systems. Th e act appears to not even recognize them as such. If you have a river on the surface, that's captured in the defi nitions and captured in the act. A river with the same volume of water fl owing through an underground cave system is simply not even contemplated in the act or in the defi nition. Again, why was that? It's a glaring omission.

Most other jurisdictions in the world have actual specifi c cave protection laws on the books. Alaska, I would submit, is the closest one to us — very eff ective and very transfer- able to us. Why was it not even mentioned in this act? Hon. M. Polak: As I said before, the governance of the protection of caves, karsts and other land formations is not governed under this act because it is governed by other acts. It's impossible to compare apple to apple with respect to other jurisdictions because, of course, their legislative framework would have developed independ- ently of ours.

In our case, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has responsibility through a number of diff erent pieces of legislation, and would account for the protection and the appropriate treatment of caves, karsts and other land forms. With respect to why it has not been included in this specifi c

section of defi nitions in this act, the use of the term "aquifer…." Th e member read part of the defi nition already. We have used that in a similar manner to the way in which we have used the term "stream." Th e pre- vious member, the critic, inquired with respect to why we had not mentioned other forms of surface water. In fact, within the defi nition of stream, that's captured. We have sought to do the same thing with the term "aquifer." It is, therefore, we believe, adequately captured with respect to the defi nition of an aquifer.

I understand the special signifi cance of these land forms, but if there is groundwater existing in a cave or a karst, then that water, and the governance of it, is captured in this act. Th e land form itself is the responsibility of the legislative frame- work within FLNRO. S. Fraser: Th anks to the minister for the answer. I am confused. I know a little bit about this. I introduced Bill M206, Cave Protection Act, 2010. Th e reason I entered the bill onto the order paper, which was never brought up subsequently for debate….

It was supported by every cave expert in the province and in the country — in the world, actually. Th e reason that I proposed the Cave Protection Act was because, actually, no ministry has adequate protection. Th e Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — the closest they have to even mentioning caves and karsts is they have several karst protection or- ders on the coast. But it's only very specifi c to forestry use, if I'm not mistaken. There's a multitude of influences and impacts that can happen on the surface in areas that have karst land.

Th erefore, the limestone cave systems are water transpor- tation systems underground, with, again, unique species involved with them. Oft en — not always, but oft en — it does become part of a drinking water system or a system associated with aquatic life, fi sheries and such. Can the minister explain just how that protection has been brought in place by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations or any other ministry? I'm certainly not aware of it. [1510] Hon. M.

Polak: In terms of discussing the Water Sustainability Act, aquifer — the defi nition of it here — would include a cave or a karst "that is groundwater bearing and capable of storing, transmitting and yield- ing groundwater." With respect to the adequacy of the legislative frame- work and FLNRO, that wouldn't be a subject for our dis- cussion here today.

British Columbia Debates2786 Thursday, April 3, 2014 S. Fraser: Well, okay. I'll bring that up with the minis- ter responsible again, I guess. I'll go back to the term "aquifer," since that seems to be the one we're working with that's supposed to cap- ture the underground water systems that are associated with caves. It doesn't mention caves, so the average person — or the cave expert, too — would not know that this act even refers to the unique systems that caves are. Citing the minister, she referred to the defi nition of stream.

It spe- cifi cally lays out "a lake, pond, river, creek, spring, ravine, gulch, wetland or glacier." It's quite specifi c, yet the term that I'm being asked to accept — that covers caves and the water systems therein under the term aquifer with no actual mention of it. Again, it seems like a glaring gap just in the defi nition portion if this is indeed supposed to capture water sys- tems that are delivered through limestone cave systems in this province. And we have some of the major systems in the world.

I would like to refer to a system that I entered above Sproat Lake, near Port Alberni — a newly discovered cave system. Two hours into the cave system we were in a chamber similar to this size of chamber with a massive river at that point fl owing through it. We still haven't de- termined where that water is coming from and going to. To have no mention of this in

an act that purports to be addressing the needs of water in the province — does the minister not agree that seems like a glaring omission? Hon. M. Polak: Th e defi nition of aquifer in the pro- posed act reads as follows: "'aquifer' means (

a) a geo- logical formation, (

b) a group of geological formations, or (

c) a part of one or more geological formations that is groundwater bearing and capable of storing, transmit- ting and yielding groundwater." I understand the mem- ber's specifi c interest in and the value he places on caves and karsts. I certainly understand that. But surely the member is not arguing that a cave or a karst is not a geo- logical formation. S. Fraser: Not at all. However, I am arguing that failing to cite the term or terms that I have referred to, whether it's caves or karsts, is certainly, I believe, an omission that is problematic.

I think it's important that the people of British Columbia know that you're capturing those sys- tems in this act. I would cite another problem that has occurred be- cause of general ignorance of caves and their importance as water delivery systems. I'll refer to the Walkerton scen- ario that happened in Walkerton, Ontario. As the minis- ter is probably aware, a number of years ago there were a great number of people aff ected. Some lost their lives. Many are still facing the health eff ects of fecal coliform contamination of their water system. [1515] Even through the investigation that followed….

I know a lot of the blame was placed on the town of Walkerton. Th e actual fact was that there was an assumption that the source of the contamination, which I believe was cattle, was quite a far distance from the water intake for the drinking water in Walkerton. It was assumed that by the time any water laden with those pathogens was to make it — seep through the ground over 40 days or whatever was anticipated by hydrologists — to the water source, it would largely be purifi ed just through the natural pro- cesses that happen through seeping through the ground.

Th e water travelled within a matter of hours to the water intake system in Walkerton. Th e fecal coliform contamination was pretty much at full strength because it essentially travelled through an underground river, and no one recognized that.

Again, omitting citing things like caves, specifi cally, as being protected — not protected, because I want a diff erent act for that… But not citing them, specifi cally, as water transportation systems — in 2020 hindsight, knowing that the failure to recognize caves as water transportation systems in another juris- diction in Canada contributed to a mass poisoning of a town…. Again, would the minister care to comment on that? Hon. M. Polak: I've read into the record the defi nition of aquifer, which I believe reasonably describes what the member is describing. Caves, karsts would be captured within that.

In addition to that, in terms of the member's concern that people reading this act understand what it is we are governing, there is also the defi nition of ground- water, and I will quote that. Th e defi nition says: "'groundwater' means water natur- ally occurring below the surface of the ground." When you take the defi nition of aquifer and when you take the defi nition of groundwater, I don't think there is any po- tential for mistaking the fact that water that would be found in a cave or a karst would be governed by this act. S. Fraser: I simply disagree, which is fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

Th e fact that you cite a number of defi nitions — aquifer, groundwater…. Comparing them to the "stream" defi nition, which is very prescriptive, the omission of caves as part, specifi cally, of aquifer or groundwater makes it seem like you are purposely omit- ting those systems so that they would not be captured in this legislation. Again, when you get to the defi nition of a "surface stream", the defi nition is quite complete. It's glaringly incomplete by failing to cite caves in this act. Y our ministry certainly must be aware of the Cave Protection Act that I proposed a while ago.

I didn't do that in a vacuum. I had experts in the province and in the country and in the world help me with that. I won't be proposing an amendment, but I would ask the minister to consider clarifying caves and cave systems as being captured by this act specifi cally.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2787 Hon. M. Polak: I appreciate the member's special in- terest in this. However, there is a reason why the defi n- ition of stream has that specifi city, and that's because this is the Water Sustainability Act. Th is act does not govern the land forms. Th is act governs the water that may be found in those land forms. Hence, as I've said before, I believe that the defi nition of aquifer adequately describes and captures the water that would be found or could be found in a cave or a karst. D. Donaldson: The question I have regarding the "Defi nitions" section,

section 1 of this bill, is in regards to "critical environmental fl ow threshold." [1520] Would the minister advise whether she believes that spiritual and cultural use by First Nations has been taken into account in the defi nition of critical environmental fl ow threshold? Hon. M.

Polak: Critical environmental fl ows deal with the ecosystem — aquatic life, etc. — to the extent that any impact of being below the environmental fl ow threshold that had a negative impact on the ecosystem such that, perhaps, fi shing rights were impacted or other traditional uses of the aquatic life, etc., would be considered with re- spect to environmental fl ows. However, when we're talking about other purposes…. For example, perhaps it's a First Nations traditional bath- ing area. Th at would not come under critical environ- mental fl ows.

Th at would instead be something that is taken into account under the duty to consult when the licence is fi rst granted. It would be part of the allocation decision already, as a result of the duty to consult. Th e reason environmental fl ow thresholds are being added as a defi nition in the act and as a consideration in the act is because, as the member will know, under the Water Act, that was not a consideration for the statutory decision-maker.

Th e duty to consult, however, with re- spect to First Nations, is one that goes well beyond the Water Sustainability Act and, of course, already is in place for the allocation of things like water licences. [1525] D. Donaldson: Th ank you for that answer from the minister. Th e proposed Water Sustainability Act has the potential to impact First Nations rights and title interests. I want to address this in

section 1 because it has impli- cations throughout the bill. So we might as well get it in the defi nition

section and address it. Th e First Nations Fisheries Council has said: "Th ere are the aboriginal title and rights impacts resulting from the assumed provincial jurisdiction over the waters of B.C., and there are impacts that may result from the contem- plated policy and management directives." Th e policy discussion paper on this bill was released October 18, in the fall, and public comment was asked for close to a month later, November 15. Can the min- ister describe, in relation to

section 1, who was con- sulted in the First Nations sector in regards to the Water Sustainability Act and in regards to this defi nition

section once the legislative proposal was released October 18? Hon. M. Polak: Th e vast majority of the discussions took place with the First Nations Leadership Council. We also were in contact with treaty tables that were active. We distributed the discussion paper directly to all 203 First Nations for comment. With respect to the reason that there wouldn't be specific mention of aboriginal rights to water in the act, fi rstly, the member will know that

section 35 of the Canadian constitution already would supersede our act, and our obligations are clearly instituted through that

section of the constitution. With respect to establishing rights and title with re- spect to water, the member will know that that is some- thing of an ongoing discussion — the nature of the relationship of First Nations, in law, to water — and is not something that I believe we could potentially solve within the Water Sustainability Act but becomes a much broader issue with respect to defi ning the breadth of rights and title of First Nations. D. Donaldson: Th e minister mentioned, in relation to

section 1, of course, the consultation that occurred with First Nations aft er October 18 and before the tabling of this legislation — to have an impact on how this defi n- ition

section was arrived at by the government. She mentioned the policy discussion paper — the draft act, I suppose, is another way of saying it — was distributed to 203 First Nations, so I have an idea it was mailed or delivered somehow. But she mentioned treaty table consultation and First Nations Leadership Council discussions. Could she describe or advise how those took place? Were they face-to-face meetings? How many meetings aft er October 18? For the treaty table discussions on this document and on

section 1, how did they take place? [1530] Hon. M. Polak: With the First Nations Leadership Council, of course, I was not involved from the begin- ning of this. Many people have been involved over the time of the consultation. Th e majority were face-to-face meetings. I was involved with a couple of those face-to- face meetings getting closer to the introduction of the act and the fi nalizing of the legislation. As I said before, we have committed to involving the First Nations Leadership Council and others in the de- velopment of the regulations.

With respect to the treaty tables, really, that was more about notice because, of course, anything that's happening in terms of legislation around resources of just about any kind can potentially

British Columbia Debates2788 Thursday, April 3, 2014 have an impact on discussions that are taking place at treaty tables. So we felt it was important to keep them apprised. D. Donaldson: Th ank you for the answer from the minister. Th e actual draft legislation in a form that was near to what we see in front of us — in a form that First Nations could actually get their teeth into — was distrib- uted, from what I understand, October 18. Th en we had the legislation introduced to this chamber recently. Was it last week? I can't remember when it was that the actual legislation was introduced.

Th e minister described a couple of meetings with the First Nations Leadership Council and this notice being given at the treaty tables and the document being mailed to 203 First Nations. Does she feel that there was an ad- equate amount of time from October 18 until the actual introduction of the bill for First Nations to respond to a very complicated piece of legislation, in reference to sec- tion 1 that we're considering at the moment? Hon. M. Polak: I should just clarify for the member that while the legislative proposal was very detailed, it was not a draft of the act.

I just don't want to leave that impression. Let's understand, fi rstly, as we've talked about in this House on numerous occasions, that the development of this act has taken place over many years. Th at has in- volved First Nations frequently. It has been an ongoing discussion that has informed our staff as they have constructed the act. Th ey are, of course, as they draft legislation such as this, considering our obligations with respect to

section 35 of the constitu- tion, our obligations with respect to treaty First Nations in British Columbia and — notwithstanding the fact that we were not able to provide them with a draft of the legis- lation itself — certainly the feedback from those First Nations, the input. I attended the First Nations Summit, for example. Th ere has been every attempt made to get as compre- hensive an understanding of the needs and the desires of First Nations with respect to this act as we possibly could. And we'll reiterate the commitment that we have to be working closely with them in the development of the regulations.

D. Donaldson: I understand that the minister, espe- cially…. She had a previous role as Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, so she expresses the under- standing of how important the consultation is. [1535] In regard to, specifi cally, this legislative proposal that was released on October 18, 2013, what changes or addi- tions to

section 1 and — if she wants, so we can deal with this now — the rest of the bill were made as a result of consultation with First Nations? Hon. M. Polak: Hopefully, the member will appreci- ate that I'm not meaning to sound fl ippant when I say this. I hope it doesn't come across that way. Of course, throughout the consultations and discussions with First Nations, at that time the legislation was not draft ed. Th e defi nitions weren't draft ed, so it wouldn't be correct for me to say, "Here's something that changed from what it began as," because of course, there was nothing there.

What I can say is that, certainly, the discussions that had taken place with First Nations throughout the staff development of the Water Sustainability Act were in- formed by First Nations. In addition to some of the con- sultations that I described, we also held, over the course of that development, three diff erent workshops for First Nations to walk through elements that we anticipated in- cluding in the Water Sustainability Act.

Th ere was every attempt made to gather as much input as we could and understand as completely as we could what First Nations wished to see refl ected in the act and how we would appropriately address their requirements in terms of our

section 35 obligations. S. Chandra Herbert: Th e question is around critical environmental fl ow threshold. It's a part of the bill that I'm glad is there to discuss — to certainly protect aquatic species and aquatic ecosystems much more so than they are today. I'm just wondering what does "signifi cant or irreversible harm to the aquatic ecosystem of the stream" mean? What would "signifi cant" be? Is it that a few fi sh died? Is it that half of the fi sh died? What is the test? Hon. M.

Polak: I think, likely, the term "irreversible" is more easily grasped in terms of a defi nition than "sig- nifi cant." Th is would require some professional decision- making. Certainly, there are many professionals in the fi eld who would be able to evaluate whether or not a par- ticular impact was signifi cant or, indeed, irreversible. If I sound vague, it's because this would need to be de- termined on a case-by-case basis. It is very much depend- ent upon the particular site, the particular type of water fl ow, the particular type of ecosystem.

A professional would then adjudicate whether or not that was signifi - cant in that specifi c location in that specifi c ecosystem. S. Chandra Herbert: Curious, the significant — I understand we would argue there could be a case-by-case basis. Irreversible, I think, is obviously a lot easier to ex- plain.

Th e reason I ask is that one person may say it was a signifi cant change to a species, where you might have had a whole lot of fi sh in the river — using fi sh as one example — and then a change in the river fl ow left it so that maybe instead of 100 fi sh, you only had 20 fi sh, and the 20 fi sh could live there forever, but you were never to get back to 100 fi sh. I just think it's important that we try to be as clear as we can about what signifi cant means because when the

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2789 legal test comes, it's important to know whether signifi - cant is the majority of a species — maybe it's a newt; maybe it's something else that relies on the stream fl ow — and that it's clear that if a majority is gone, that is a sig- nifi cant action.

I think not knowing what signifi cant is leaves the legal test quite wide open. [1540] Maybe there are earlier legal tests the minister could refer to which explain what signifi cant means, in terms of the legal landscape, but to say that it really depends on the case, and it's a case-by-case basis and it's hard to explain, doesn't give me quite enough comfort. If there's some way to be as specifi c as possible, with something in terms of what the legal test is, I'd appreciate it. Hon. M.

Polak: I'm going to argue the opposite, be- cause it is very important, with respect to decisions that are made on the land base, that those decisions be made by qualified professionals. Anything we do to insert specifi city into a term like "signifi cant" then impacts on the discretion that that professional has to make their judgment based on the science. I want to know, and I'm sure British Columbians would want to know, that the person deciding what is signifi cant is not going to be the minister, in draft ing legislation, but is going to be a fi sh habitat specialist on site or a biologist on site.

So it's important that the term "signifi cant" be left as it stands and that we allow those important professionals to make those decisions based on the science that they observe in the particular location. S. Chandra Herbert: River systems, stream systems, karst systems, cave systems — whatever you want to call them — obviously are very diff erent in many parts of the province. Critical environmental fl ow thresholds are important. But a question which has come up again and again is: are they proactive, or are they reactive?

Are we able to go out and do the stream analysis, the water analysis, in many parts of the province so that the users, so that the licensers, are very able in saying, "Th is is the only amount of water you can use. Y ou cannot use more. In this month we have lower water than we expected this time of year, so actually you have to even use less" — so that it is a proactive rather than a react- ive strategy? Of course, nobody wants to see irreversible harm to the aquatic ecosystem, but using this threshold, unless it's a proactive approach, we may get to the case where we say: "Well, wait a second.

Y ou did not follow your critical environmental fl ow threshold." Now we don't have any more endangered newts in this stream because they've been irreversibly harmed, or the fi sh numbers have be- come so low that they're not able to ever get back to the strength that they should have. How is critical environmental threshold going to be used in a proactive way rather than just a reactive way? Hon. M. Polak: Th e proactive piece of this — in other words, what's examined and considered when the initial allocation is made — is the "environmental fl ow needs," a little further on in the defi nition section.

Th e critical environmental fl ow threshold is the reactive part. [1545] Environmental fl ow needs are considered when the fi rst decision is made, when the allocation is made. It's made based on consideration that the environmental fl ows be maintained at an appropriate level. Th e critical environmental fl ow threshold would be if an unforeseen event took place. Maybe there's a drought. Maybe there's seismic activity that aff ects water fl ow. An unforeseen activity takes place, there is, therefore, a critical environmental fl ow threshold that is breached, and action then can be taken.

Th ose are the two pieces: environmental fl ow needs be- ing the proactive piece, and critical environmental fl ow threshold being the reactive piece. I wonder if I could ask the members' indulgence. Could we take a fi ve-minute recess? Would that be acceptable? Th e Chair: All right. Th e committee will take a fi ve- minute recess. Th e committee recessed from 3:46 p.m. to 3:52 p.m. [D. Horne in the chair.] S. Chandra Herbert: "Date of fi rst use" is a term that's in relation to the use of groundwater.

According to the legislation, it means "the date from which the comptroller, a water manager or an engineer is satisfi ed in accordance with the regulations that groundwater from the aquifer has been used (

a) regularly and benefi cially on an on- going basis, (

b) for the water use purpose, and (

c) on land, or for a mine or undertaking, to which, if the water use purpose were licensed, the licence would be appurtenant." I'm curious…. I've said that a lot; I'm a curious kind of guy. When we think about the date of fi rst use, First Nations people were here a lot longer than us, used the water in many a diff erent ways in communities all across this province from time immemorial, as the phrase goes. How does that understanding relate to this under- standing of date of fi rst use? Hon. M.

Polak: Th is, fi rst of all, applies to ground- water, and it is here because of the transitioning from the existing groundwater users. First Nations would be treat- ed as anyone else. If they established that there had been a well in use, even if it began thousands of years ago, then that would be considered in terms of order of precedence. [1555] S. Chandra Herbert: Th e defi nition of "mine" includes "a placer or mineral claim or land held or occupied for

British Columbia Debates2790 Thursday, April 3, 2014 the purpose of winning a mineral from the claim or land, whether held in fee simple or by virtue of a record, regis- tration, lease or licence." Would that include abandoned mines, mines from a long time ago? Hon. M. Polak: The very short answer is that it wouldn't matter. Now, that's the very short answer. Let me explain why. Th e reason we have the defi nition in here is that it re- lates — and we'll get to this at a later point — to

section 9(a), where we describe someone who can get a licence. One of the potential qualifi cations is that they be an owner of land, or a mine, right? As I say, the short answer is that it wouldn't matter whether or not it is abandoned. For the purposes of this, it's defi ned simply so that when we describe that person who can get a licence, we can say "mine," and it's under- stood what that would be, in that case. S. Chandra Herbert: "'Wetland' means a swamp, marsh, fen or prescribed feature." What is the minis- ter imagining would qualify under prescribed features?

Does it need to be something that is always there, or could it be periodically there, depending on, say, a tide, high water months, those kinds of things? Hon. M. Polak: In fact, the reality is that we are in- cluding the term "or prescribed feature" precisely because we want to be certain that should we come upon a situa- tion that we don't believe is covered by the specifi cs of swamp, marsh or fen, we would be able then to add an additional description. It is for the purpose of giving us that fl exibility, we think. We have captured all the appropriate descriptions that would relate to a wetland.

But understanding that governments and legislation writers are never perfect, it is conceivable to us that we may come upon maybe a grey area. As you can appreciate with a wetland, there is a cer- tain amount of greyness between where the land feature begins and the water feature ends. Th is provided us with the fl exibility, should we need it, to designate additional lands as wetlands.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. [1600] D. Donaldson: Th ank you, hon. Chair, for this oppor- tunity to address

section 2, "Water use purposes."

Section 2 outlines a number of purposes that this bill considers under water use: "conservation purpose," "domestic pur- pose," "industrial purpose," "irrigation purpose," "land improvement purpose," "mineralized water purpose," "mining purpose," "oil and gas purpose," "power purpose," "storage purpose" and "waterworks purpose." I think the feedback that First Nations provided to this proposed legislation was that they've been asking for a spiritual-cultural use to be included as a water use pur- pose. I would like the minister to advise why spiritual- cultural use by First Nations is not included in

section 2 under "Water use purposes." Hon. M. Polak: Th e purposes outlined are the purpos- es for which we would grant a licence. I can't imagine a circumstance where we would want to place First Nations and their spiritual and cultural purposes under a licence. Th at's why one would not include that in this section. D. Donaldson: Th e

preamble to

section 2 says: "Th e following defi ned purposes are the purposes in respect of which water may be diverted from a stream or an aqui- fer." So then the minister is acknowledging that water can be diverted from a stream or aquifer by First Nations for spiritual and cultural purposes without need to be cov- ered under the Water Sustainability Act? Hon. M. Polak: Th e granting of a water licence cre- ates a right for that licensee to use the amount of water allocated for the purposes that are specifi ed, and you see some of them here. In the case of First Nations, who would be utilizing water for some spiritual or cultural purpose, the fact is they already have that right under

section 35 of the constitution, right? For a spiritual or cultural purpose, you would not cre- ate a water allocation licence. I cannot imagine a circum- stance in which we would be asking a First Nation to apply for a water licence in order to engage in a spiritual or cultural purpose. D. Donaldson: Th anks for that answer from the min- ister. It stimulates a lot of potential questions. I'll just ask them one by one, and this is just one. [1605] From what I gather from the minister, she's saying that her understanding, then, is that

section 35 rights regarding the spiritual and cultural use of water by First Nations would be the highest priority and would trump all aspects of water use in this bill. Hon. M. Polak: No, the statement wasn't one of prior- ity. Th e statement was with respect to why you would not include that purpose in this section. Th is

section defi nes purposes for which you would provide a licence, right? Since First Nations have a

section 35 right to conduct their spiritual and cultural activities — right? — then it would not generate a need for a licence. It does not speak to the issue of precedence. We, of course, will cover that a little further on in the act in terms of who has priority uses and for what purposes those might be. S. Chandra Herbert: Could the minister discuss the

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2791

section around domestic purpose? I understand that was one of the changes with the legislation, to ensure the pro- tection of household use of water in the event of scarcity. Hon. M. Polak: Here's where we're going to start to struggle with the sheer volume of sections in this act, and I will try to bring some clarity to this. "Domestic purpose" in

section 2 only relates to licensed surface water use, okay? Th en when you are looking at essential household use and what would take precedence in the case of scarcity, that's actually covered in subsec- tion 22(11). I'll just read it for the member. It relates to very small uses of water. It says: "For the purposes of this section, 'essential household use' means the use by the occupants of one private dwelling of not more than 250 litres of water per day for (

a) drinking water, food preparation and sanitation, and (

b) providing water to animals or poultry that are kept (

i) for household use, or (ii) as pets." Hopefully, that does the trick. [1610] S. Chandra Herbert: It does explain it. I think the question — and maybe it has to come up in a later sec- tion; we'll see, but I'll try now while it is being discussed — is, of course, the question around fi rst-in-time, fi rst-in- right and how that relates to domestic purpose.

If an industrial user was the fi rst user or one of the fi rst users of a water resource — particularly, let's say, a groundwater resource — the concern had been and has been that you could fi nd a situation where the industrial user would have precedence over the domestic user, as the domestic user came later. Th us, they would not be able to drink water in their homes, have a shower, water their horse — if it's a domestic use horse rather than a farm horse, I suppose. I just want to see if that is dealt with adequately under "domestic purpose." Hon. M.

Polak: Now, this is where it starts to get nicely complicated. I'll do my best. It does, though, just to be clear, with respect to the defi nition of domestic purpose…. I think the member will see when I answer the question that, really, the defi nition of domestic pur- pose only goes so far in helping us answer this question, which is why maybe we want to get into this later. But I'll answer what the member has asked. When granting licences, the day-to-day domestic user, the householder with a well, fi ts into fi rst-in-time, fi rst- in-right. Th ey don't have a priority just because they are a household user.

Th ey are in line, with whatever point in time they started using their well. I'll make a pitch to any person who, on a Th ursday at 4:15, is sitting watching Hansard. If you have a well, we'd really like you to register it because that will help, as we manage this. We're not going to charge you for it. That's when it's granted, right? Here you are. It's granted. Y our place in the FITFIR priority is where it is based on the date. However, in a time of scarcity, essen- tial household use would trump any industrial user or other kind of licence that had been granted.

FITFIR is there for the purposes of day-to-day operations, if you will. Th e essential household use would trump FITFIR in a time of scarcity. S. Chandra Herbert: Th at does explain it in a very good way. I think, when we talked about licensing — or choosing not to license domestic water well users because the administrative burden could be quite high and, in- stead, choosing to, I guess, request or require registra- tion…. Th at then kicks FITFIR into gear, so to speak.

I think that's my understanding of it. [1615] Maybe just now, while we're talking around this: what kind of campaign eff ort, or what have you, will be used to encourage all the very few people who are not watch- ing Hansard at 4:15 on a Th ursday to ensure that their domestic water wells are registered? I know everyone watches Hansard at 4:15 on a Th ursday, but for those that aren't, what are we going to do to support their eff orts to have their water wells registered? Hon. M. Polak: Well, I'm shocked and appalled that the member doesn't think people are paying attention to Hansard at 4:15 on a Th ursday.

Nevertheless, we won't rely only on that. I should make it clear that when we are speaking of voluntary registration, we are speaking of existing groundwater users who have their household wells. Assuming the Water Sustainability Act passes, once it's in force, new water wells would be required to be registered. Certainly, as we go forward with implementation, we will want to build that awareness in cooperation with the various stakeholders with whom we will be work- ing and therefore get the message out to communities.

Of course, we'll be working with our local government partners, First Nations and diff erent sectors of users as well. I don't think you're looking at a major prime-time television commercial campaign. S. Chandra Herbert: So "'mineralized water purpose' means (

a) the bottling and commercial distribution of water so impregnated with mineral salts, elements or gases as to potentially give the water therapeutic properties, or (

b) the use in commercial bathing pools of water that is (

i) impregnated with mineral salts, elements or gases, or (ii) naturally at a temperature suitable for that use." Is this to get at things like…? I'm thinking of hot spring pools like the beautiful Ainsworth Hot Springs or small- er, much lesser-known hot springs up near Skatin on In- SHUCK-ch Road or other incredible hot springs we have across this province, in addition to, of course, mineral water bottling operations. Hon. M. Polak: Th e member is right. Th ose are the

British Columbia Debates2792 Thursday, April 3, 2014 types of things we're trying to get at. Th e reason it's here is that the existing defi nition in the Water Act — and there are, in fact, licences for this pur- pose; it's actually interesting — is "'mineral trading pur- pose' means bottling, distributing, using and dealing in water so impregnated with foreign ingredient as to give it medicinal properties, or water of a temperature that gives it a commercial value." Th is is our best eff ort at modernizing the defi nition.

We will be transitioning existing licence holders into be- ing in line with the new defi nition. Th ere is also a provi- sion within the transition section. We'll get to it later on, I guess, is what I'm saying. S. Chandra Herbert: I have been to many hot spring pools. It's a favourite thing for my husband and me. What kind of licensing currently exists around hot spring pools? [1620] I know there are, certainly, the commercial hot springs. Th ere are many hot spring pools that are out in the wil- derness. It just would be helpful to know, because I was not aware of a great deal of regulation on that. Hon. M.

Polak: Th e trigger here is whether or not there is modifi cation to, in this case, a hot spring. So if you and your husband want to enjoy a hot spring some- where, you don't have to get a licence for it. If a hot spring spontaneously erupted on my tiny spot of land in front of my townhouse and I wanted to charge people money to come and enjoy it, again, unless I modifi ed it in some way or diverted it or diverted it and stored it, there wouldn't be an issue around a licence. If it's left in its natural state, then there's no licence required.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. S. Chandra Herbert: Is

section 3 just housekeeping to say that because we've introduced a new water sustain- ability act, nothing in this act can be seen to be contrary to the Water Protection Act? What kind of provisions in the Water Protection Act are we thinking about that this

section is required in the legislation? Hon. M. Polak: More or less this is housekeeping. I'll read you the old

section from the previous Water Act. It said: "Except for a purpose defi ned in

section 1 of this Act, a person who is not registered under the Water Protection Act must not divert, extract, use or store any water from a stream." One of the changes that will result from this act com- ing into force is because under the old act there was no licensing of groundwater users, that meant that we main- tained a list of unlicensed users, right? Of course, now they will all be licensed. Again, it is housekeeping getting to what we believe is better wording and refl ects the recognition of the Water Protection Act and its relationship to this act. Sections 3 and 4 approved. On

section 5. [1625] S. Chandra Herbert:

Section 5, under

part 2, "Licensing, Diversion and Use of Water."

Section 5 dis- cusses vesting water in government. "

(1) Th e property in and the right to the use and fl ow of all the water at any time in a stream in British Columbia are for all pur- poses vested in the government, except insofar as private rights have been established under authorizations. "

(2) Th e property in and the right to the use, percolation and fl ow of groundwater, wherever groundwater is found in British Columbia, and for all purposes vested in the government and are conclusively deemed to have always been vested in the govern- ment except insofar as private rights have been (

a) established under authorizations, or (

b) deemed under

section 22 (8) [pre- cedent of rights]. "

(3) No right to divert or use water may be acquired by pre- scription." Th is

section discusses what I think is something that is vital in terms of whether or not this legislation can have any force or not: who, in fact, has the right to control water? It suggests that the province of British Columbia does, to make decisions, to make modifi cations, to do all those kinds of things, to enforce rules, laws, to give per- mits, to allow a wide variety of things — industrial use, commercial use, personal use and so forth. It doesn't, however, discuss what I think is important, which is that, in a sense, we are all mere mortals here do- ing our work.

We come, we go, we make mistakes, and we make improvements. We are holding provincial natural resources like water in a trust for the people. Just as B.C. parks are seen to be in trust for the people of B.C., a public trust, so, I believe, water is. Th is does not say that though. It suggests that water is held by the government, and maybe the argu- ment could be that the government, just by its nature, is acting in a fi duciary role, in a responsible role for the people of British Columbia.

However, the people of British Columbia, at least some of them, have said to me that they think we should be clear that we do not, in this House…. We are not the only ones who have responsibilities to water, that in fact everybody does and that they should have the ability to be able to protect our water as well. Th ey should have the ability to hold us accountable if we, as legislators, or if the government side does things that threaten our water, makes decisions which could permanently damage water resources in certain parts of the province. I'd like to move an amendment. The amendment would amend

section 5. It would add a new category or

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2793 a new, I guess, subsection. It would read: [To amend

section 5 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined: 5

(1) Th e property in and the right to the use and fl ow of all the water at any time in a stream in British Columbia are for all purposes vested in the government, except insofar as private rights have been established under authorizations.

(2) Th e government holds water as a public trust on be- half of all British Columbians, while also considering Aboriginal rights and title. (2)

(3) Th e property in and the right to the use, percola- tion and fl ow of groundwater, wherever groundwater is found in British Columbia, are for all purposes vested in the government and are conclusively deemed to have always been vested in the government except insofar as private rights have been (

a) established under authorizations, or (

b) deemed under

section 22 (8) [precedence of rights] .

(3) No right to divert or use water may be acquired by pre- scription.] On the amendment. S. Chandra Herbert: Th e argument I would make for this is, of course, we as government, we as legislators, have a greater responsibility to the people, that we do not, as MLAs or as cabinet members, own the water. Th e people of British Columbia do. We are certainly owners, collectively, with everybody else in the province, but we are all just one individual person. I think what this would do is this would, as well, re- spect aboriginal rights and title. I think that is vital.

Just because we are members of the Legislature or cabinet ministers doesn't mean, I think, that we have legislative override for the First Peoples of this province as well. Just as we hold this in public trust for the people, we also need to recognize that First Nations in a government-to- government relationship also hold public trust and re- sponsibilities to their own nations and to their own people.

While we may try to govern in a collective way on their behalf, certainly the constitution would say that we must do that in partnership and respecting their rights and title as First Nations. [1630] I will move the amendment now. Th e Chair: Th e amendment appears to be in order. Does the member wish to speak further on the amend- ment? Hon. M. Polak: I won't be recommending approval of the amendment for a few reasons.

Firstly, I just want to reiterate that while I understand, in particular as a former Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, the very important considerations, questions and discussion that are taking place within our society and amongst vari- ous levels of government insofar as First Nations, their relationship to water and how that impacts rights and title, I don't believe that the Water Sustainability Act is the place where we're going to resolve that. Having said that, let's remember the origin of the pub- lic trust policy or doctrine, if you will.

It came about at a time in British common law where it was limited to the Crown's responsibility to hold water or submerged lands in the public trust, at a time when it was important to dis- tinguish what was public and what was private in terms of a more hierarchical society, shall we say, back in the day. When there was an expansion to consider things such as environmental considerations in and around the 1970s, we would then respond by saying that with respect to the environmental issues, we believe that in the very many sections of this bill we have accounted for those.

Lastly, I just want to acknowledge that in terms of vest- ing water with the province, it is true that the responsibil- ity for the protection of water is quite broad. However, there's a diff erence between responsibility and authority, and this

section provides us with authority. So I would not be recommending approval of the amendment. D. Donaldson: I'm happy to take my place in speak- ing in favour of this amendment to Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act. I'd like to direct my comments mainly to the positive suggestion that's in the amendment as it tries to address aboriginal rights and title. I disagree with the minister that there's no place for addressing that issue within the proposed legislation.

I think that that is a critical omission in the legislation, and if we can't begin to address the topic of the interests that First Nations have in water in a bill called the Water Sustainability Act, then we're heading down a road that I think is going to not lead to improved relationships and reconciliation with First Nations in B.C. I'll direct my comments around that and why I believe this is true. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Th e First Nations did not have input into the existing Water Act over 100 years ago that this bill is meant to re- place.

But today there are constitutional and legal obli- gations that require that First Nations are meaningfully consulted with when potential impacts to their aboriginal and treaty rights may occur. We have a body of legal decisions. Unfortunately, it's a large body. I say unfortunately because all First Nations have said, and at the direction of the Supreme Court, that the courts are not the most desirable place to try to re- solve these kinds of things.

But unfortunately, especially since 2004, since the Haida decision, the First Nations in B.C. have had repeatedly to go to the courts to try to get this government to understand what they're obligated to do as far as previous court decisions. [1635] Th e current Water Act from 1909 that this act is ad- dressing does not consider First Nations interests. Th e Water Act regulates water use in B.C., and it's had many impacts on First Nations titles and rights interests, such

British Columbia Debates2794 Thursday, April 3, 2014 as allocation of water licences, expropriation of First Nations groundwater resources and permitting discharge into ceremonial waters. First Nations interests are currently under-represented in water and land use decisions that have the potential to impact First Nations water and water-related inter- ests, and I'll give some examples of that in support of this amendment a little later in my comments.

While there may be acknowledgement from First Nations that the provincial Water Act should be modern- ized, and I think the minister has received those kinds of suggestions, it needs to be done in a way which recog- nizes First Nations aboriginal rights and title as premised on a resolution of jurisdiction regarding First Nations interests. Th ese aboriginal and treaty rights issues are at the heart of the discussions that I think need to be con- ducted around the Water Sustainability Act, Bill 18, and around this very positive amendment that my colleague has put forward.

I think that some thoughts from Judith Sayers from the Hupacasath First Nation, a well-known First Nations leader and the national aboriginal economic develop- ment chair at the University of Victoria, are very appro- priate to speak to this amendment because of some of the comments that the minister has made. Th is was in response to this bill and the contents of the legislative proposal document that went out. I'm quoting from Ms. Sayers when she talks about regula- tions, for instance. Th e minister said: "Well, don't worry about First Nations concerns.

Th ey'll be dealt with when we get to the regulation stage of the bill." And as Judith Sayers has written: "Much of the specifi cs of the act" — the act we're considering — "will be done either by regulations which are not draft ed yet and which First Nations and the public will not have a say over or will be decisions made at the 'discretion' of the decision-maker. It leaves me with the distinct feeling that we are only seeing a part of what will be in the Water Sustainability Act and the eff ects of the Water Sustainability Act.

"While the document does say that the provincial govern- ment will continue to meaningfully engage with First Nations through development and implementation of the proposed Water Sustainability Act, their track record to date does not show this and so does not give much hope there will be more." Again, it's an issue of trust, and that's why this amend- ment, by putting into Bill 18 the reference to aborig- inal rights and title, will go beyond and develop the relationship, as the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation says is one of his goals.

Well, here's a First Nations leader who's alluding to the trust factor not be- ing there. What better way to develop the relationship in a more concrete way than to follow the amendment that I'm speaking to today and introduce at least some language around aboriginal rights and title into Bill 18.

As well as alluding to the trust factor and the fact that First Nations have been saying to this government that aboriginal rights and title need to be put into Bill 18 when consultation did occur since October 18, Judith Sayers writes: "I would like to mention that for several years I sat on a technical advisory group for the Water Sustainability Act. We were never for- mally disbanned and were never told about this legislative proposal or asked for input before it went out to the public." Th at's the document that went out October 18.

"In fact, I didn't fi nd out about the tabling of this document until three days later, and I am pretty plugged into information sources." Again, the government maintains that they conducted consultation and that they're serious about it. First Nations have said in that consultation that the kind of language that's in this amendment around aboriginal rights and title should be in the Water Sustainability Act.

And then we're hearing that there's actually some skep- ticism about the consultation and communication that went on since October 18 in regards to this document. [1640] Finally, as far as the very appropriate and informative comments of Ms. Sayers, she goes on to write: "Rights and title to water are not addressed in any way in the proposed Water Sustainability Act. Provincial ownership of water is assumed, but First Nations know it is subject to aboriginal rights and title to water.

Th ere is no recognition of First Nations rights and title to water, not even a water objective." Again, this is a major shortcoming in the Bill 18 that's been introduced by the government, a shortcoming that would be addressed by the amendment that my colleague has introduced today, a very positive amendment. I don't believe it's good enough to say, as the minister did in our previous discussions, that that aspect of First Nations interest in water is covered under

section 35. I believe this government has a duty to ensure that legis- lation that might infringe upon First Nations interests in water is draft ed and introduced with that understand- ing and recognition. Otherwise, I don't understand how we're going to expect First Nations to believe in the sin- cerity of what's been said by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, that he wants to build re- lationships and pursue reconciliation.

Y ou consult or you try to consult, you get some feed- back and then you produce a piece of legislation that has signifi cant connection to aboriginal rights and title when it comes to water, and then you don't mention that in the document, and you don't use that opportunity. Surely a fair-minded person could understand why First Nations have some skepticism when this government says it's in- terested in developing relationships and pursuing rec- onciliation.

Th e amendment that has been introduced is a good amendment in that it gets to the crux of the matter around First Nations concerns around aboriginal rights when it comes to their interest in water. I'm going to fi nish off by providing an example about why this is so important and why it's important for all people in B.C. and the future activities that are attempted to be pursued on the land by proponents. It's of interest to proponents for projects as well. Th at example has to do with the Kemess North mining

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 3, 2014 2795 project that was proposed in an area close to the constitu- ency I represent. I believe it's in the constituency of the now Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Th ere was an existing mine, Kemess mine. Th ere was a proposal by the company at that time to expand into an area called Kemess North. Th e proposal underwent a rigorous joint review process by representatives of the federal and provincial govern- ments. Testimony was provided by First Nations, TseK'hene and Gitxsan especially.

In September of 2007 the joint review panel made a very important and precedent-setting decision where they concluded that the mine in its present form would not be in the public interest. Th e panel said that any economic and social benefi ts f

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140403pm-Hansard-v10n2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140403pm Hansard v10n2
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0d6f13ca6c9c29114b729f04b0db98f023e5a5dd

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