2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows school district

M. Dalton

Nanaimo cycling organizations

D. Routley

Hike for Hospice and Crossroads Hospice Society

D. Horne

Royal City Musical Theatre

D. Black

Werner Heine and promotion of soccer in 100 Mile House

D. Barnett

Riverview Horticultural Centre Society

D. Thorne

Oral Questions

Government position on Enbridge oil pipeline proposal

R. Fleming

Hon. C. Clark

G. Coons

Hon. T. Lake

Medical supplements for disability benefits recipients

M. Karagianis

Hon. S. Cadieux

Costs for court cases on election advertising legislation

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Payment of legal fees in B.C. Rail court case

J. van Dongen

Hon. S. Bond

Privatization of liquor distribution

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 40 — Amendments to Nisga'a final agreement

Hon. M. Polak

S. Fraser

R. Austin

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 37 — Animal Health Act (continued)

L. Popham

M. Mungall

M. Farnworth

M. Sather

K. Conroy

Hon. D. McRae

Bill 38 — Pension Benefits Standards Act

Hon. K. Falcon

B. Ralston

S. Fraser

R. Cantelon

C. Trevena

Bill 39 — Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

R. Chouhan

N. Letnick

H. Bains

D. Hayer

D. Routley

L. Krog

K. Corrigan

S. Chandra Herbert

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (continued)

G. Coons

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

N. Macdonald

J. Horgan

S. Fraser

M. Sather

L. Popham

S. Chandra Herbert

M. Mungall

Estimates: Other Appropriations

[ Page 11393 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: Today is the last day for a gentleman who has worked in this House for many, many years, under different portfolios. Matt MacInnis has been my ministerial assistant for the last year and a bit. He has done a wonderful job, I think, helping members on both sides of this House steer their way through some of the more interesting and challenging issues facing all of us. I know that he will be sadly missed by all. I'd ask that the House please send a big thank-you to Matt MacInnis for his wonderful time in government.

[1335]

S. Simpson: I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to introduce my wife, Cate Jones, who's here today visiting with us in the House. Cate doesn't get over here very often, but she does come from Victoria. She's here today for a very special reason.

Her father, George Jones, who's been practising law for 53 years here in Victoria and has been very, very active and involved in the community, is being honoured at a dinner at the Empress tonight. We're very excited about that. Among all the things, of course, that George is very involved in, in the community, rugby is one of his passions. He was one of the founding members of the Canadian Rugby Foundation. All the money that's raised from the dinner tonight will go into a bursary for women players who are going on to post-secondary. Please welcome my wife and say thanks to George for everything he's done.

M. Coell: I have two guests in the gallery for question period today: Tina Brandenburg Usher and her young granddaughter Kimanda Jarzebiak. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Corrigan: I would also like to welcome Cate Jones, because as well as being the member for Vancouver-Hastings's wife, she is my wonderful constituency assistant. She is experienced, she is brilliant, and she's really funny. We have a great time at the office, and I am most lucky to have her working with me. Again, if you'd make her welcome please.

R. Howard: It is my pleasure to welcome seven guests to the gallery today. I had the pleasure of having lunch with these seven marvellous individuals. They are representatives from the Richmond Chinese Community Society, otherwise known as RCCS. We have two directors here, Clara Chow, who's a past president, and Alex Wong, who's a current director.

Very importantly, they have with them five members of the RCCS youth group, who do marvellous work in the community. We see them out at the RCCS events, which are many in the community. The youth always stand out with their bright orange T-shirts with white lettering. More importantly, they recently engaged in some of their own initiatives, including a gaming conference where they bring people together to experience and enjoy video gaming but also use that opportunity to try and reach out and find common interests in other subjects as well.

With us, we have the president of the RCCS youth group, Nickolas Lee, and one of its founders, Billy Leung. We have Andy Leung, Gordon Fan and Sherlock Lau. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Horne: It was with great pleasure this morning that I welcomed 59 grade 7 students from Scott Creek Middle School, who will be joining us shortly in this chamber. They're here with a group of other students from Quebec, who are on exchange. I found it rather interesting, when taking questions, that many of the students from Quebec…. Their questions all concerned the monarchy, which was an interesting thing.

I have to thank their teachers for bringing them here today too. The dedication of the teachers to bring the students here today is a really great thing. I think they're going to have a fantastic day in Victoria, so I hope we'll make them all welcome.

J. Slater: In the gallery today is my brother, Kim Slater, who is a retired teacher from Nanaimo. He's here to have meetings with other senior advocates to take care of our seniors in the province. May the House make him very welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to join the member for Boundary-Similkameen in welcoming his brother, Kim Slater, to the Legislature. Kim is a chair of the Vancouver Island Association of Family Councils. It's the only regional family council association in B.C. He's an outspoken advocate for seniors and family councils, and I think both sides of the House could learn from his experience. Please join me in welcoming him, again, to the Legislature.

[1340]

M. Dalton: In the House today, as he is almost every day, is Tim Schindel. Tim is the legislative chaplain, a volunteer chaplain, and he's here to service both sides of the House. I know he's organizing a prayer breakfast to-

[ Page 11394 ]

morrow morning. He is here with his mother and father. Art is his father, and "Mrs." is his mother. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MAPLE RIDGE–PITT MEADOWS

SCHOOL DISTRICT

M. Dalton: Mr. Speaker, 15,000 students, 940 dedicated teachers and hundreds more support staff constitute school district 42, Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge. The district's vision is for every individual to feel valued and for all learners to reach their full potential.

The district is committed to educational choice and demonstrates this in the many innovative options it offers to students. For example, this was the inaugural year of the environmental school project, a collaboration between school district 42 and Simon Fraser University where the classroom is in the outdoors, rain or shine.

Then there is Kanaka Creek Elementary which piloted year-round schooling in British Columbia and has been a huge success.

Alouette Elementary is a cyberschool. Over a thousand students are in French immersion. Parents waiting in line overnight to enrol their child is a testimony to the excellence and appeal of the program. Also, there is the Connex program, offered to students suffering from health issues like anxiety or depression.

The high schools attract students with their different programs, whether it's the trade and technical development at Samuel Robertson, self-paced learning at Thomas Haney, a hockey academy at Pitt Meadows Secondary, the International Baccalaureate program in Garibaldi or the digital arts program at MRSS.

Having taught in the district for 14 years prior to the last election, I witnessed firsthand the passion and vision of the teachers for students, demonstrated in their lesson plans and their involvement with students inside and outside the classroom.

Also to be commended is superintendent Jan Unwin, school board chair Mike Murray and all the school board trustees, PAC members and all parent volunteers who play such a vital role.

School district 42 is an amazing district where youth can flourish and learn.

NANAIMO CYCLING ORGANIZATIONS

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about Nanaimo, the Hub City, but it's a bicycle hub to me. We have several organizations. The Mid Island Velo Association is headed up by Peter McCaffery. He organized his first cycling event in 1956. He's organized five cycling clubs in England, Ontario, Alberta and B.C. He was a technical director with Canadian Cycling Association, a Union Cycliste Internationale official who officiated at Olympic and Pan Am Games. So our cycling community is in good hands with the Mid Island Velo Association.

They offer Monday night and Saturday morning club rides, Tuesday criterium races, Thursday time-trial races. They also host the Cobblestone Classic, a downtown race in Nanaimo, as well as the Island cyclocross championships this year in November.

I will have the honour later this month in Bike to Work Week of being part of the celebrity team with Tony Hoar, a former Tour de France rider, as we race against car commuters to test our bicycling strength.

The Nanaimo cycling community also is blessed by the Greater Nanaimo Cycling Coalition, our Hub City cycling advocates, which promote bike safety and offer local maps and brochures such as parking information for bicyclists. We also have an inventive, innovative Hub City cycling co-op which offers its members — and I'm one of the members — the free use of tools and discounts on parts.

Nanaimo is indeed the Hub City, and I invite all cyclists to come to Nanaimo. We're a cycling-friendly community, and we welcome all racers, commuters and pedestrian cyclists.

HIKE FOR HOSPICE AND

CROSSROADS HOSPICE SOCIETY

D. Horne: This coming Sunday, May 6, people from across Canada will join together for the Hike for Hospice. This is an incredible event with national profile and great support, including Peter Mansbridge, who is one of the big supporters of this event.

[1345]

However, 100 percent of the funds remain in the community where they are raised. In the Tri-Cities all of the proceeds will go to help our local Crossroads Hospice Society continue to provide compassionate care to those facing the end-of-life experience.

Crossroads Hospice Society was established in 1988 to serve the communities of Anmore, Belcarra, Coquitlam, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody. The aim is to provide those in need with the support that is necessary in their last moments. Crossroads operates primarily through volunteers — 132 actively trained volunteers who work with patients and families. As well, Crossroads has 98 additional volunteers who operate the hospice thrift store to provide financial support for

[ Page 11395 ]

Crossroads.

A 14-member voluntary board of directors governs the society, led by Bob Tanaka, the president; Jill Cook, the vice-president; Lara Gerrits, the board secretary; and Jason Jakubec, the treasurer; as well as an incredible staff of 18, led by Barb Henham, the executive director.

Crossroads believes that the end of life should not be a frightening, painful or lonely experience. Crossroads volunteers and staff work to provide life-affirming care for patients and their families, helping them with the emotional, physical and spiritual concerns that often arise as the end of life approaches.

The hospice provides various programs, including bereavement-support packages, a number of support groups as well as one-on-one support. One of their great programs is creating memory albums. Volunteers work with the families to produce a scrapbook of memories to help tell the story of their loved one.

This Sunday, May 6, join the tenth annual Hike for Hospice in your community. The Tri-Cities will have two locations — Port Moody city hall, or join me at Hyde Creek rec centre at 9 a.m. — to support this great cause.

ROYAL CITY MUSICAL THEATRE

D. Black: I'm pleased to speak today about a wonderful artistic resource in New Westminster, the Royal City Musical Theatre. It was founded around Evelyn Benson's kitchen table in 1990 and grew out of a love of music, theatre and dance.

Since then, RCMT has become one of the most popular musical theatre producers in Canada. They provide high quality entertainment and create opportunities for performers, musicians and technicians to present their talents and to develop their skills. They produce large-scale musicals, with as many as 60 performers on stage. With a full-sized orchestra, professional leading actors and large vocal and dance choruses, the scale and spirit of their productions is truly impressive.

Each year, in April, they mount a lavish production of a renowned musical. Past performances have included South Pacific , West Side Story , A Chorus Line and Hello, Dolly! , which just ended a very successful run. I attended on opening night, and it was truly a fabulous performance.

Royal City Musical Theatre provides an opportunity for aspiring artists to work with professional directors, designers and actors throughout a lengthy rehearsal process. In addition, specialists are brought in to provide training in specific areas required by the production.

Royal City Musical Theatre is community-based and community-supported. It's largely funded through donations and ticket sales. The quality of their productions attracts thousands of visitors to New Westminster each spring for a unique and entertaining experience.

It's been very well documented that the arts enrich our society in many, many ways. New Westminster is indeed fortunate to be the home of an abundance of artistic talent, and one of our leading groups in the Royal City is the Royal City Musical Theatre group.

WERNER HEINE AND PROMOTION

OF SOCCER IN 100 MILE HOUSE

D. Barnett: Tens of thousands of youth and adults across B.C. brave rainy, muddy, exhausting soccer practice because players are dedicated and determined. Teams play, rain or shine, all over the province.

Possibly one of the most dedicated advocates of soccer is Werner Heine from 100 Mile House. Just last week Mr. Heine received the prestigious British Columbia Community Achievement Award for his tireless efforts and outstanding leadership in the soccer community.

He is a man of many talents. Coaching, refereeing, organizing, fundraising and promoting are just some of the ways he was able to improve the town's capacity to host tournaments and provide its own teams with world-class soccer fields. It is because of Werner's vision and purpose that we were able to secure the funding for the fields from federal, provincial and local governments, as well as from the Northern Development Trust.

[1350]

He was able to bring the 2011 U15 B Cup Provincial Championships for boys and girls to 100 Mile House, and now we are getting ready to host the championships again, in 2013.

Over 600 young soccer players and the entire community have Mr. Heine to thank for making 100 Mile House a soccer destination. Werner Heine is a local hero, and a good friend to so many people in 100 Mile House. It's safe to say that he is a champion both on and off the field.

RIVERVIEW HORTICULTURAL

CENTRE SOCIETY

D. Thorne: I rise today to speak about the Riverview Horticultural Centre Society, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary. It was Mental Health Week in the spring of 1992 when a Riverview Hospital community relations committee decided a walk through the scenic grounds would be a good idea. They invited David Tarrant from the UBC Botanical Garden and Bill Browne, a retired Vancouver parks' horticulturalist, to lead two walks.

They had no idea how many, if any, people would be interested — 500 people showed up, and the small group of volunteers realized they needed to get organized. The Riverview Horticultural Centre Society was the result, with a mandate to preserve and protect the land and trees of the Riverview Hospital site as a community-oriented, financially viable centre for horticulture, education and therapeutic activities. Now, 20 years and many walks later,

[ Page 11396 ]

the vision remains the same: protect the treasure that is the Riverview site.

This is particularly important at this time because the province is in the process of closing Riverview. Some buildings have already closed, and my constituents, along with people from all over the province, are wondering what will be in store for this unique property. But the trees are still beautiful and the grounds serene as the society holds what could be its last summer of tree walks. Members will continue to raise public and political awareness about the ecological heritage and health care value of the 244-acre property.

The Riverview Horticultural Centre Society is proof, as the land its members have loved and protected for 20 years continues to be an oasis of beauty. Anthropologist Margaret Mead said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

I ask the House to join me in congratulating this fine organization.

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 57 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They are here to learn about how the provincial government works. They're joined here by their teachers, Mr. Rick Bath and Ms. Nancy Bakken, as well as over 33 volunteers. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

R. Fleming: Yesterday the Premier stood in this House and claimed she has no position on the Enbridge project. What a difference a year makes. Last year the newly installed Premier said: "The northern gateway has to be at the very top of my priority list. Developing the northern gateway — it's got to be absolutely job one."

Developing the northern gateway has got to be job one. No prejudging the process there. So to the Premier: can she come clean with British Columbians and admit that she really is all for the northern gateway project and that it's been her job one since day one?

[1355]

Hon. C. Clark: I mean, talk about coming clean. We have an opposition over there that's prepared a budget for British Columbia. They know how much they're going to be taxing people. They know how much they're going to drive up the deficit. They know where they're going to be spending money, and yet they still hide it from the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Premier, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. C. Clark: The opposition needs to come clean with British Columbians about where they stand. They need to come clean where they stand on issues of the budget. They need to show British Columbians the budget that they produced but continue to hide. They need to come clean on their positions with respect to bargaining with public sector workers. They've refused to do that as well.

With respect to northern gateway, let me say this. Our government is pro-pipeline. We are pro–LNG pipeline. In fact, in our jobs plan we have laid out very specific goals for three pipelines that would go from the northeast to the northwest to add value to natural gas, one of the most abundant and valuable resources in British Columbia. Those pipelines will mean a tremendous growth in GDP in British Columbia and a tremendous growth in revenues to government.

We are very much in favour of those pipelines, so when it comes to coming clean, I would ask the opposition to tell us exactly where they stand on LNG. They don't support the methods that would be required in order to power LNG, but they won't come clean and tell the public that.

Maybe when the member gets up and asks his supplemental, he can come clean on some of the issues where they've been hiding from British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The opposition has been extremely clear about its position on natural gas, and that member — who was in the House in the 1990s, when she voted against Fair Share agreements and opening up the gas fields in the northeast of the province — knows better than most in this place.

But if I may, let's get back to Enbridge and the environmental risks of oil spills in supertankers, because that's what we're asking the Premier about today. The Premier's views have changed in other ways over the last year. She has found, apparently, a new-found respect and faith in the federal environmental review process. She said: "The process matters a lot."

Yet last year this respect for process was nowhere to be seen. When the federal Environmental Assessment

[ Page 11397 ]

Agency rejected the Prosperity mine because of the unsupportive environmental destruction it would cause, she attacked it as "a dumb decision."

It's becoming increasingly clear that the only consistent element in the Premier's approach to the Enbridge pipeline is the presence in her office of political staff from the Prime Minister's Office and Enbridge itself.

To the Premier: when will she stop hiding? When will she begin standing up for the interests of British Columbians instead of the interests and agenda of Conservatives in Ottawa?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, there is a vast gulf between these two sides of the House. On this side of the House we believe in economic development. On this side of the House we believe in the creation and protection of jobs for British Columbians.

On this side of the House we believe in regulation that works to attract investment and protects British Columbians' social and environmental interests. We want to be sure that that happens in this process, and we want to make sure that that happens in other processes.

Just once I would like to see members on that side of the House stand up and say that they support all the job creation opportunities that are out there — just once, just one project. Would that member stand up and say that yes, he supports LNG…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …yes, he supports the methods that would be required in order to power it up, which means…?

You can't say you support LNG on one hand and you don't support Site C and independent power projects on the other. The member knows that.

[1400]

He knows that when he says that, he isn't coming clean with British Columbians. He needs to stand up, just for once, and say that he is in favour of economic development in this province. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are in favour of jobs. We are in favour of economic development. We're in favour of building and opening up this province, because this next decade could be great for British Columbia.

G. Coons: B.C. communities directly affected by the Enbridge pipeline have long recognized that the risks of the project far outweigh the benefits. As a result, they are overwhelmingly taking a stand against the pipeline. In 2010 the Union of B.C. Municipalities resoundingly voted to oppose northern gateway and the crude oil tanker traffic it would bring to our coast.

Since then Prince Rupert, Terrace and Smithers have joined with the villages of Queen Charlotte, Masset and Port Clements in formally declaring their opposition. Locally elected officials in communities directly put at risk by oil spills along the pipeline route and from supertankers on the coast are speaking up for the communities they represent.

Why is the Premier refusing to represent the interests of northwest B.C. communities and B.C. as a whole before the joint review panel?

Hon. T. Lake: As we pointed out yesterday, the process, to this side of the House, is important. We make decisions for all British Columbians. We look after the interests of all British Columbians, based on information. We are still getting that information. The process is not finished. We haven't prejudged the outcome.

We are protecting the interests of all British Columbians as an intervener, as suggested by the member for Stikine last year. It gives us the ability to have a flexible and more comprehensive participation in the process. We are going to base our position on information, not speculation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: All the risk and no benefit. The Central Coast regional district as well as the Skeena–Queen Charlotte regional district both oppose Enbridge. The Premier needs to quit hiding behind the process and represent British Columbians.

Let me quote from a few local officials. The mayor of Smithers, Taylor Bachrach, says: "We support resource industries, but we are not willing to bear the risk of pipelines. Oil pipelines do not fit with our economic vision for our community."

Queen Charlotte mayor Carol Kulesha says: "It is simply too much to risk, the consequences too high." The mayor of Terrace stated that he would be arm in arm with the citizens of Terrace to oppose Enbridge.

These locally elected officials are taking a stand on behalf of the people they represent. We as the official opposition are taking a stand. When is this Liberal government going to take a stand on behalf of British Columbia as a whole and say no to Enbridge pipeline?

Hon. T. Lake: I'll tell the member when we will take a stand — when it is responsible to take a stand. That's when the process has got to the point where there's enough information upon which to make a decision.

The opposition is nothing if not consistent. They were opposed to the Olympics. They were opposed to the Sea to Sky Highway. They were opposed to the Canada Line. If the opposition's vision, or lack of vision, existed in this province, we wouldn't have a Bennett dam. We would not have a Coquilhalla Highway. We would have no development in this province.

We respect the environmental assessment process. We

[ Page 11398 ]

will take

part in that process. We will protect the interests of British Columbians, because that's the right thing to do.

[1405]

MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTS FOR

DISABILITY BENEFITS RECIPIENTS

M. Karagianis: On Monday I raised serious concerns here in the House about a constituent of mine who is very ill. She needs to have nutritional supplements at the direction of her doctor so that she is strong enough to have a double mastectomy. Jolayne is on a disability benefit and applied for these supplements to be covered because she can't afford them on her own.

After we raised questions in this House, the minister responsible said: "The situations that were brought up…were resolved before I became minister." Well, in light of the repeated and well-documented failures of the previous minister, the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, I'd like to ask the minister if she does not think that it's time for this case to have a fresh look.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The issue that the member opposite is raising is, of course, an issue to deal with an individual. I won't speak about an individual in this House, in respect of that individual's privacy and, in fact, in respect to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which I must abide by.

That said, when concerns arise and when individuals present to the ministry to request benefits, a decision is then rendered by the ministry as to whether or not that individual is entitled to that benefit. If the individual does not agree with that decision, they are in fact able to make a request for reconsideration.

In general, I'd like to say that there are in fact more people than ever before receiving these types of supplements in the province of British Columbia. The health assistance branch deals with thousands of requests each year and carefully reviews those and makes decisions based on eligibility requirements. They do that with every effort to take that responsibility in reviewing those things very seriously and do so with the greatest of care.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, my constituent is very ill, and she has already been through the process six times. Six times she's been refused by this government.

I think it's very disturbing that this government would stick to such a cruel and callous position on this in order to save a few hundred dollars. I think the B.C. Liberal government has failed Jolayne and failed other British Columbians in similar situations.

Well, fortunately, the community has stepped up. This morning the Esquimalt Legion and district poppy fund, after hearing about Jolayne's situation, held an emergency meeting and have agreed to do the government's job for them. They are going to pay for all the supplements that she needs to get healthy for her surgery.

So I'd like the minister to explain why community organizations have to hold emergency meetings to help desperately ill British Columbians because this government has failed to do its job.

Hon. S. Cadieux: When this issue was raised on Monday, I asked the member opposite to please bring it forward to my office if she would like me to look into it. The member did that yesterday. I have provided her with a response — that we are indeed looking into the matter.

I have asked staff to ensure that every benefit that clients are entitled to is being made available to them in a way that is consistent with our responsibilities. In fact, staff make every effort to review things thoroughly and do so with information that is provided by clients and their physicians.

COSTS FOR COURT CASES ON

ELECTION ADVERTISING LEGISLATION

L. Krog: Yesterday the Liberal government introduced legislation in a last-ditch effort to save their gag law. I'm not going to speak to the legislation itself, but I do have a question. I do have a question about previous court proceedings.

[1410]

My question is to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. How much money has the government spent trying to restrict political free speech in the Supreme Court of B.C. and B.C.'s Court of Appeal?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite knows full well that we will have an ample amount of time to have this discussion, and we'll have it where it's appropriate. With legislation that's before the House, we'll have that in committee stage.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, I appreciate that the Attorney General, with the glare of the camera lights on her today, might not feel like answering the question, but it's a legitimate question on behalf of British Columbians. Again, the very simple question to the Justice Minister, the Attorney General, is: how much money has her ministry spent defending B.C.'s gag law in the B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said in my previous answer — and I'm going to repeat again — I have the pleasure of debating regularly with the opposition critic. I enjoy it thoroughly, and I look forward to a full discussion about

[ Page 11399 ]

this in committee stage of the bill.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

J. van Dongen: My question is with regard to the government's forgiveness of the $6 million in legal fees pertaining to the Basi-Virk matter. In a public statement issued on October 20, 2010, the Deputy Attorney General stated: "The Deputy Minister of Finance has authority under the Financial Administration Act respecting this matter."

The act sets out very specific limits for the forgiveness and extinguishment of debts owing to the provincial government. These specific limits are put in place under

section 18 of the act. No explanation has previously been given by the government as to this specific statutory authority that was exercised by the deputy minister.

I would like to ask the Attorney General which

section of the Financial Administration Act or regulations legally authorized the Deputy Minister of Finance to forgive and extinguish Basi and Virk's $6 million liability.

Hon. S. Bond: As I've said numerous times in this House, in a statement provided by the Deputy Attorney General on the Basi-Virk matter dated October 20, 2010…. I quote from that statement: "Legal services branch" — again, this is attributed to the Deputy Attorney General — "referred this matter to me and to the Deputy Minister of Finance. The Deputy Minister of Finance has authority under the Financial Administration Act respecting this matter. He and I considered this issue…. No one outside of the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge of this or involvement."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. van Dongen: The question I have is the specific statutory authority. The October 2010 statement by the Deputy Attorney General makes it clear — in fact, states three separate times — that Basi and Virk had a liability to repay their legal fees. In the same statement he says: "The indemnities provided that they would have to do so unless acquitted on all counts."

This Legislature and the people of British Columbia deserve to know on what legal authority this transaction was completed. I'm asking the Attorney General, in her unique role and responsibility as the Attorney General, to examine the transaction, including the settlement agreement, and ask herself if that transaction is consistent with the substance and intent of this Legislature in

section 18 of the Financial Administration Act.

[1415]

Finally, my question to the Attorney General: was the authority of the act properly exercised to forgive and extinguish Basi and Virk's $6 million liability?

Hon. S. Bond: I made the answer very clear in my last response to the member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: As the Deputy Attorney General made clear, the Deputy Minister of Finance "has authority under the Financial Administration Act respecting this matter. He and I" — and that refers to the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister of Finance — "made the decision, considered the issue."

As the member opposite well knows, there is a review underway by the Auditor General. That work is underway as we speak. We are cooperating completely with the Auditor General, and we await the outcomes of that review.

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: Don Drummond, chair of the commission on reform of public services for the Ontario government, in his economic and fiscal performance report spoke to the issue of government business enterprises, including their Liquor Control Board.

He recommended: "Do not partially or fully divest any or all of the province's government business enterprises…unless the net long-term benefit to Ontario is considerable and can be clearly demonstrated through comprehensive analysis."

Yet here in B.C. we are selling off liquor warehousing with no business case or analysis. Further, it's being done in a restrictive and rushed manner that excludes bidders and has created concern that the fix is in for Patrick Kinsella's client, Exel Logistics.

We know that decisions based on ideological considerations rather than thoughtful, well-analyzed deliberation almost always go badly, and that is exactly what's happening here.

My question to the minister: does a business case for this liquor privatization scheme exist — yes or no? And if so, will the minister table it today?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'd like to remind the member opposite that this is not Ontario. We don't have a huge structural deficit and a huge fiscal problem. As a matter of fact, he wishes to compare us to a jurisdiction that recently had a credit downgrade instead of a credit approval — a triple-A credit rating, like British Columbia has.

We are out for an RFP. There was a ton of research done before the RFP was put together. Our people went

[ Page 11400 ]

out and did the work. The RFP is on the street. The RFP will be done in a proper manner with the fairness commissioner. They will make their bids. We will select the right one.

We will get out of the distribution and warehousing in the province of British Columbia because it's not something we have to be in, in order to meet the public policy and revenues for the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: One thing we certainly know about the government is that the idea of thoughtful, comprehensive analysis is foreign to all of them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: We've seen this type of reckless sell-off of government's assets before with B.C. Rail, and we know how well that went. That was a classic case of ideology and recklessness over thoughtful decision-making based on evidence and research.

We do not need to repeat the incompetent mismanagement wrapped in scandal that we saw at B.C. Rail with the Liquor Distribution Branch. We are going to see higher consumer prices for beverages or lower government revenues. It will be one or the other, if not both. And we will have given up a real asset in the process.

[1420]

The minister wants us to believe he can do magic, but nobody is buying it. If the minister truly has a business case to support this irresponsible decision, then table the business case now and let British Columbians see that there has been some thoughtfulness about this.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's quite humorous, actually. The member opposite gets up and says: "You've got to have an exhaustive analysis and a business case." And then they completely go out, write a five- or ten-page letter on the northern gateway pipeline and ignore the exhaustive process in place with regards to environmental protection in Canada, because they actually think they don't need to do any of that process. They actually only want process when they think it's their process.

The fact of the matter is that this is a good move for British Columbia. We don't have to build a new warehouse and invest tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We'll still be able to distribute alcohol in an efficient way across British Columbia. We'll probably find efficiencies in actually doing it the way the RFPs would come back.

I know you are afraid of the innovation of the private sector, Members opposite, but sometimes they can do things better than government can. As they go through that process, the one thing….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite over here is chittering and chattering away.

I read a memo recently. Quoted in the memo, in the NDP era in about 2000-2001…. The memo says, "Let's sell off some major assets," including B.C. Housing and the Liquor Distribution Branch and other assets. With no process, no analysis, they were looking for money because they wanted to get out of the glue. That's where they had put the province of British Columbia — down the road, into the glue, into a disaster — and we had to pull them out of it.

J. Horgan: Now, I know it's all laughs and chuckles on that side of the House, but we'll see who gets the last laugh when the Premier has the temerity to call an election.

My question goes to the minister responsible for hyperbole, the Minister of Energy, the minister responsible for the beer truck. If you're so confident in your assertions, if the tons of work that you allege has happened, why not share it with the world? Shine a light on your brilliance, Minister. Table the document.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite is pretty confident about 2013. But don't get too overconfident, hon. Member, because when they figure out what you guys would really do to the province of British Columbia, they're not going to let you be government after the next election.

They'll learn. Over the next number of months the people of British Columbia will find out about the $400 million in loan guarantee write-offs — as a result of that government, when they were government in the 1990s — having to be written off by the people of British Columbia with no benefit to the people of B.C.

They will find out about the fact that they were prepared to sell B.C. Hydro. They'll find out about the fact that they'll put taxes on natural gas at a level that will push investment out of British Columbia, to kill the LNG opportunities for the people of B.C. They will find out that the competency over there doesn't exist for them to be able to be government, and it will still be us standing here in 2013.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

[ Page 11401 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In the little House this afternoon we will go into Committee A right away to do the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Following that, if there is time, we will start the Ministry of Education.

In this House we will be doing a motion on notice of the Nisga'a final agreement, amendment agreement No. 2, followed by second reading of Bill 37, intituled the Animal Health Act.

Should there be time, we would follow the order as I laid out yesterday, which would be Bill 38, Pension Benefits Standards Act, and later on this afternoon we are back at some of these. There may be one bill we would reverse, depending on an important meeting that is taking place on the premises.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 40 — AMENDMENTS

TO NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT

Hon. M. Polak: I rise to move Motion 40 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to

section 38 of

Chapter 2 of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement Act , the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Nis g a'a Final Agreement set out in the attached Nis g a'a Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 2).

NIS G A'A FINAL AGREEMENT

AMENDING AGREEMENT

(No. 2)

THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT is dated for reference March 27, 2012

AMONG:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

("Canada")

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

("British Columbia")

AND

THE NIS G A'A NATION, as represented by the Nis g a'a Lisims Government Executive

("Nis g a'a Nation").

WHEREAS:

A. On May 11, 2000 the Nis g a'a Final Agreement came into effect.

B. The Nis g a'a Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for amendment of various of its provisions.

C. The Parties have previously agreed to make certain amendments to the Nis g a'a Final Agreement so as to alter the boundaries of Anhluut'ukwsim La x mihl Angwinga'asanskwhl Nis g a'a , also known as the Nis g a'a Memorial Lava Bed Park (the "Park"), by removing certain lands from the Park, and to specify the requirements for making alterations to the boundaries of the Park in paragraph 104 of

Chapter 3 — Lands.

D. The Parties now agree to propose the further amendments to the Nis g a'a Final Agreement set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement, including amendments to make corrections and to address the occurrence of certain events that are contemplated by the provisions of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement.

E. The Parties have determined that the processes set out in paragraphs 37, 38 and 40 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions apply to the proposed amendments set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement, except as noted in paragraphs 20 and 38 of this Amending Agreement.

F. The Parties have agreed to set out in

Part III of this Amending Agreement other amendments to the Nis g a'a Final Agreement which have already taken effect as a result of the happening of events that caused those amendments to occur automatically under various provisions of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement in order to have a consolidated record of those amendments.

G. The Parties have determined that the processes set out in paragraphs 37, 38 and 40 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions do not apply to the amendments set out in

Part III of this Amending Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree that the proposed amendments to the Nis g a'a Final Agreement set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement be recommended

a) by the Nis g a'a Lisims Government Executive to Wilp Si'ayuu k hl Nis g a'a,

b) by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Governor in Council, and

c) by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to the Legislature of British Columbia.

PART I —

DEFINITIONS

1. In this Amending Agreement:

a) "Nis g a'a Final Agreement" means the Nis g a'a Final Agreement among the Nis g a'a Nation, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia, as it took effect on May 11, 2000, as amended;

b) "Table of Contents" means the table of contents in the part of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement containing the

Preamble and Chapters 1-22;

c) "Appendices" means the part of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement containing the Introduction and Appendices A-M, and includes the table of contents to that part;

d) a reference to a

Chapter by number or name is a reference to the

chapter of that number or name in the part of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement containing the

Preamble and Chapters 1-22; and

e) a reference to an Appendix by letter or number is a reference to the Appendix of that letter or number in the Appendices.

2. Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Nis g a'a Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Nis g a'a Final Agreement.

PART II — AMENDMENTS REQUIRING CONSENT

3. The seventeenth entry in the Table of Contents under

Chapter 8 — Fisheries, which currently reads "Schedule F — Provisional

Schedule of Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust Settlement Amounts", is amended by deleting "Provisional

Schedule of".

4. The eighteenth entry in the Table of Contents under

Chapter 8 — Fisheries, which currently reads "Schedule G — Provisional

Schedule of Funding under Paragraph 111 of the Fisheries Chapter", is amended by deleting "Provisional

Schedule of".

5. The second entry in the Table of Contents under

Chapter 12 — Administration of Justice, which currently reads "Community Corrections Services", is amended by deleting "Corrections" and substituting "Correction".

6. The third entry in the Table of Contents under

Chapter 14 — Capital Transfer and Negotiation Loan Repayment, which currently reads "Schedule A — Provisional

Schedule of Capital Transfer Amounts", is amended by deleting "Provisional

Schedule of".

7. The ninth entry in the Table of Contents under

Chapter 20 — Eligibility and Enrolment, which currently reads "Dissolution

[ Page 11402 ]

of Enrolment Committee and Enrolment Appeal Committee", is amended by deleting the second occurrence of "Committee" and substituting "Board".

8. In

Chapter 1 —

Definitions, the definition of " Nis g a'a Lands " is amended by deleting "9 or 11" and substituting "9, 11 or 14.1".

9. Paragraph 38 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions is amended by deleting "Legislature" and substituting "Legislative Assembly".

10. Paragraph 69 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions is amended by deleting the second occurrence of "Ottawa" and substituting "Ontario".

Chapter 3 — Lands is amended by adding the following paragraphs:

14.1 The lands formerly subject to Woodlot Licence 141 as shown in Sketch 1 of Appendix B-3 are:

a. granted by British Columbia to the Nis g a'a Nation in fee simple, subject to:

i. any charge, encumbrance, licence or permit existing on those lands at the time of grant,

ii. any condition, proviso, restriction, exception or reservation subsisting on those lands at the time of grant, contained in

A. any grant or disposition from the Crown, or

B. the Land Act ,

in favour of any person other than the Crown, and

iii. any limitation under federal or provincial law comparable to those set out in clause 14.1(a)(ii) subsisting on those lands at the time of grant in favour of any person other than the Crown; and

b. added to Nis g a'a Lands.

54.1 If, at any time, the Nis g a'a Nation owns the estate in fee simple to any parcel of land within District Lot 931 Cassiar District Plan 1515 that is not listed in Appendix D-2 and D-3 as among the Category A Lands at Gits'oohl (the "Gits'oohl Category A Lands"), the Nis g a'a Nation may, with the agreement of Canada and British Columbia, add that parcel of land to the Gits'oohl Category A Lands and, notwithstanding paragraphs 37 to 41 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions, that parcel of land will become Category A Lands upon receipt by Canada and British Columbia of written notice in accordance with that agreement.

54.2 Notwithstanding paragraphs 37 to 41 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions, if the Nis g a'a Nation adds a parcel of land to the Gits'oohl Category A Lands in accordance with paragraph 54.1, Appendix D-2 and D-3 will be deemed to be amended to reflect the change to the Gits'oohl Category A Lands.

12. The

schedule to

Chapter 8 — Fisheries entitled "Schedule F — Provisional

Schedule of Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust Settlement Amounts" is amended by deleting "Note 1 to this

Schedule will be deleted, and will no longer form part of this Agreement, when this

Schedule is completed in accordance with that note and the effective date occurs.".

13. The

schedule to

Chapter 8 — Fisheries entitled "Schedule G — Provisional

Schedule of Funding under Paragraph 111 of the Fisheries Chapter" is amended by deleting "Note 1 to this

Schedule will be deleted, and will no longer form part of this Agreement, when this

Schedule is completed in accordance with that note and the effective date occurs.".

14. The

schedule to

Chapter 14 — Capital Transfer and Negotiation Loan Repayment entitled "Schedule A — Provisional

Schedule of Capital Transfer Amounts" is amended by deleting "Note 1 and Note 2 to this

Schedule will be deleted, and will no longer form part of this Agreement, when this

Schedule is completed in accordance with those Notes and the effective date occurs.".

15. The

schedule to

Chapter 14 — Capital Transfer and Negotiation Loan Repayment entitled "Schedule B — Loan Repayment Amounts" is amended by deleting "Note 1 to this

Schedule will be deleted, and will no longer form part of this Agreement, when this

Schedule is completed in accordance with that note and the effective date occurs.".

16. The spelling of the Nis g a'a Village of La xg alts'ap is corrected as follows:

a) in the definition of " Nis g a'a Highway " in

Chapter 1 —

Definitions, by deleting "La x galt'sap" in subparagraph (

a) and subparagraph (b), and substituting "La xg alts'ap" in both subparagraphs;

b) in the definition of " Nis g a'a Village " in

Chapter 1 —

Definitions, by deleting "La x galt'sap" and substituting "La xg alts'ap";

c) in subparagraph 11(

c) of

Chapter 13 — Indian Act Transition, by deleting "La x galt'sap" and substituting "La xg alts'ap";

d) in subparagraph 12(

c) of

Chapter 13 — Indian Act Transition, by deleting "La x galt'sap" and substituting "La xg alts'ap"; and

e) in Appendix F-3 — Place Names to be changed by British Columbia, by deleting "Laxgalt'sap" and substituting "La xg alts'ap".

17. The spelling of the Nis g a'a Village of Gin g olx is corrected as follows:

a) in the definition of " Nis g a'a Highway " in

Chapter 1 —

Definitions, by deleting "Gingolx" in subparagraph (

b) and substituting "Gin g olx";

b) in the definition of " Nis g a'a Village " in

Chapter 1 —

Definitions, by deleting "Gingolx" and substituting "Gin g olx";

c) in subparagraph 11(

d) of

Chapter 13 — Indian Act Transition, by deleting "of Gingolx" and substituting "of Gin g olx"; and

d) in subparagraph 12(

d) of

Chapter 13 — Indian Act Transition, by deleting "of Gingolx" and substituting "of Gin g olx".

18. The table of contents of the Appendices is deleted and the document entitled "Table of Contents" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted. 1

19. The table of contents of Appendix A is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix A" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

20. Appendix A-1 is deleted, and the document entitled "Appendix A-1" and the map following that document attached to this Amending Agreement are substituted. 2

21. Appendix A-2 is deleted, and the document entitled "Appendix A-2" and the 32 maps following that document attached to this Amending Agreement are substituted.

22. Appendix A-3 is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix A-3" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

23. The table of contents of Appendix B is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix B" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

24. Appendix B-2 is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix B-2" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

25. Appendix B-3 is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix B-3" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

26. The table of contents of Appendix C is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix C" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

27. Appendix C-5 is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix C-5" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

28. Appendix C-6 is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix C-6" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

29. Appendix C-7 is amended by adding "616T 014" under the heading " TRAPLINES ".

30. The table of contents of Appendix D is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix D" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

31. Appendices D-2 and D-3 are deleted and the document entitled "Appendix D-2 and D-3" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

[ Page 11403 ]

32. Appendix D-4 is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix D-4" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

33. Appendix D-5 is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix D-5" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

34. Appendices D-6 and D-7 are deleted and the document entitled "Appendix D-6 and D-7" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

35. Appendix F-2 is amended as follows:

a) under the column titled "Nis g a'a Name" the entry in the fifth row which reads "Ksi Gin g sox" is deleted and "Ksi Gins g ox" is substituted;

b) under the column titled "Nis g a'a Name" the entry in the sixth row which reads "T'aam Gin g sox" is deleted and "T'aam Gins g ox is substituted; and

c) under the column titled "Nis g a'a Name" the entry in the forty-seventh row which reads "Sganisim Gin g sox" is deleted and "Sganisim Gins g ox" is substituted.

36. Appendix F-3 is amended under the column titled "Nis g a'a Name" by deleting the entry in the twenty-fourth row which reads "X''uji" and substituting "X'uji".

37. The table of contents of Appendix G is deleted and the document entitled "Appendix G" attached to this Amending Agreement is substituted.

38. Appendix G-1 is deleted, and the document entitled "Appendix G-1" and the map following that document attached to this Amending Agreement are substituted. 3

39. Appendix G-2 is deleted, and the document entitled "Appendix G-2" and the map following that document attached to this Amending Agreement are substituted.

40. Appendix L-2 is amended as follows:

a) under the column titled "Catalogue No." and the column titled "Object" the references to item "V11—C-149" and to "Rattle (Shaman)", respectively, are deleted;

b) under the column titled "Catalogue No." and the column titled "Object" the references to item "Vll—C-151" and to "Rattle (Shaman)", respectively, are deleted; and

c) under the column titled "Catalogue No." and the column titled "Object" the references to item "Vll—C-152" and to "Rattle", respectively, are deleted.

PART III — AMENDMENTS NOT REQUIRING CONSENT

41. In accordance with paragraph 38 of

Chapter 3 — Lands, Appendix C-1 was amended by:

a) in

Part 1,

(

i) deleting "BC TEL" and substituting "TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc.", and

(ii) deleting "TOK Communications" and substituting "Tower Radio Ltd.";

b) in

Part 2, deleting "BC TEL" and substituting "TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc."; and

c) in

Part 3,

(

i) deleting "Nass Cattle Company Ltd. Inc. #346159" and substituting "Nass Cattle Company Ltd. Inc. #320786", and

(ii) deleting "E. Fleenor/ C.E. Fleenor/ D. Dimaggio" and substituting "Charles Edward Fleenor and Dana Fleenor".

42. In accordance with the notes in the

schedule to

Chapter 8 — Fisheries entitled "Schedule F — Provisional

Schedule of Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust Settlement Amounts", that

schedule was amended by:

a) changing the title of the

Schedule to "SCHEDULE F — LISIMS FISHERIES CONSERVATION TRUST SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS";

b) deleting paragraph 1 of the

Schedule and substituting:

"1. The amounts to be settled on the trustees of the Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust are:

a. $10,353,728 by Canada; and

b. $3,106,119 by Nis g a'a Nation"; and

c) deleting Note 1.

43. In accordance with the notes in the

schedule to

Chapter 8 — Fisheries entitled "Schedule G — Provisional

Schedule of Funding Under Paragraph 111 of the Fisheries Chapter", that

schedule was amended by:

a) changing the title of the

Schedule to "SCHEDULE G — FUNDING UNDER PARAGRAPH 111 OF THE FISHERIES CHAPTER";

b) deleting paragraph 1 of the

Schedule and replacing it with:

"1. Funding under paragraph 111 of the Fisheries

Chapter will be as follows:

a. $5,953,393.88 will be paid by Canada; and

b. $5,953,393.88 will be paid by British Columbia."; and

c) deleting Note 1.

44. In accordance with the notes in the

schedule to

Chapter 14 — Capital Transfer and Negotiation Loan Repayment entitled "Schedule A — Provisional

Schedule of Capital Transfer Amounts", that

schedule was amended by:

a) deleting "Provisional" from the title of the Schedule;

b) completing the table in the

schedule as follows:

DATE

CANADA WILL PAY

BRITISH COLUMBIA WILL PAY

On the effective date

$20,347,407.20

$1,674,323.80

On the first anniversary

$20,347,407.20

$1,674,323.80

On the second anniversary

$12,023,467.89

$989,373.15

On the third anniversary

$12,023,467.89

$989,373.15

On the fourth anniversary

$12,023,467.89

$989,373.15

On the fifth anniversary

$12,023,467.89

$989,373.15

On the sixth anniversary

$12,023,467.89

$989,373.15

On the seventh anniversary

$12,023,467.89

$989,373.15

On the eighth anniversary

$20,916,662.46

$1,721,166.01

On the ninth anniversary

$20,916,662.46

$1,721,166.01

On the 10th anniversary

$20,916,662.46

$1,721,166.01

On the 11th anniversary

$20,916,662.46

$1,721,166.01

On the 12th anniversary

$20,916,662.46

$1,721,166.01

On the 13th anniversary

$20,916,662.46

$1,721,166.01

On the 14th anniversary

$20,916,662.46

$1,721,166.01

; and

c) deleting Note 1 and Note 2 to

Schedule A.

45. In accordance with the notes in the

schedule to

Chapter 14 — Capital Transfer and Negotiation Loan Repayment entitled "Schedule B — Loan Repayment Amounts", that

schedule was amended by:

a) completing the table in the

schedule as follows:

DATE

THE NIS G A'A NATION WILL PAY

On the effective date

On the first anniversary

On the second anniversary

$2,000,000.00

On the third anniversary

$2,000,000.00

On the fourth anniversary

$2,000,000.00

On the fifth anniversary

$2,000,000.00

On the sixth anniversary

$2,000,000.00

On the seventh anniversary

$2,000,000.00

On the eighth anniversary

$10,339,822.44

On the ninth anniversary

$10,339,822.44

On the 10th anniversary

$10,339,822.44

On the 11th anniversary

$10,339,822.44

On the 12th anniversary

$10,339,822.44

On the 13th anniversary

$10,339,822.44

On the 14th anniversary

$10,339,822.44

[ Page 11404 ]

; and

b) deleting Note 1 to

Schedule B.

PART IV — PROCEDURES

46. The proposed amendments set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement will take effect in accordance with paragraph 41 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions, on the date that the last Party required to consent to the amendments gives its consent.

47. This Amending Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one Party to another Party by facsimile transmission and a facsimile so transmitted will constitute an original document. Signed counterparts held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument.

FOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, signed this _________ day of _________, 2012.

____________________________________

The Honourable John Duncan, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Witnessed by _________.

FOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, signed this 24th day of April, 2012.

____________________________________

The Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Witnessed by _________.

FOR THE NIS G A'A NATION, as represented by the Nis g a'a Lisims Government Executive, signed this 27th day of March, 2012.

____________________________________

H. Mitchell Stevens, President.

Witnessed by _________.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

APPENDIX A NIS G A'A LANDS

Appendix A-1 Index of map sheets of Nis g a'a Lands

Appendix A-2 32 map sheets of Nis g a'a Lands

Appendix A-3 Description of Nis g a'a Lands

Appendix A-4 List of former Nis g a'a Indian reserves on Nis g a'a Lands

APPENDIX B EXCEPTIONS TO NIS G A'A LANDS

Appendix B-1 Land in the vicinity of Red Bluff that has been set apart as Indian Reserve No. 88

Appendix B-2 Fee simple parcels within the boundaries of Nis g a'a Lands

Schedule 1 Fee simple parcels with a right to access within the boundaries of Nis g a'a Lands as set out in paragraphs 25 and 27 of the Access

Chapter

Appendix B-3 Woodlot Licence and Agriculture Leases within the boundaries of Nis g a'a Lands

Sketch 1 Area of former Woodlot Licence 141

Sketch 2 Area of former Agriculture Lease 631313

Sketch 3 Area of former Agriculture Lease 633080

Appendix B-4 Roads associated with the fee simple parcels referred to in Appendix B-2

APPENDIX C INTERESTS ON NIS G A'A LANDS

Appendix C-1 Interests on Nis g a'a Lands

Part 1 Existing interests

Part 2 Public utility transmission and distribution facilities

Part 3 Roads

Appendix C-2 Applicable forms of document for existing interests listed in

Part 1 of Appendix C-1

Document 1 Licence of Occupation for Communication Site

Document 2 Licence of Occupation for Provincial Communication Site

Document 3 Licence of Occupation for Communication Site with Utility Access

Document 4 Licence of Occupation for Communication Site with Road Access

Document 5 Licence of Occupation for Communication Site with Road Access and Utility Access

Document 6 Licence of Occupation for Hydro Communication Site

Document 7 Licence of Occupation for Forestry Experimental Plots

Document 8 Licence of Occupation for a Hydrometric Station

Document 9 Licence of Occupation for a Navigational Light

Document 10 Licence of Occupation for a Telephone Exchange

Document 11 Permit of Occupation for Waterworks

Document 12 Special Use Permit for Forestry Operations

Document 13 Lease (not published)

Appendix C-3 Applicable forms of document for Public Utility Transmission and Distribution Facilities listed in

Part 2 of Appendix C-1

Document 1 Grant of Right of Way and Licence for Public Utility Works to British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

Document 2 Grant of Right of Way and Licence for Telecommunications to BC TEL

Appendix C-4 Applicable forms of document for Roads listed in

Part 3 of Appendix C-1

Document 1 Grant of Right of Way for Secondary Provincial Roads

Document 2 Grant of Private Road Easement

Document 3 Grant of Right of Way for Access Roads to British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

Appendix C-5 Recipients of certificates of possession issued by Nis g a'a Nation for parcels of Nis g a'a Lands

Appendix C-6 Recipients of certificates of possession issued by Nis g a'a Nation for parcels of Nis g a'a Lands

Appendix C-7 Angling guide licences, traplines and guide outfitter licence wholly or partially on Nis g a'a Lands

APPENDIX D NIS G A'A FEE SIMPLE LANDS OUTSIDE NIS G A'A LANDS

Appendix D-1 Map of Category A and B Lands

Appendix D-2

and D-3 Category A Lands

Appendix D-4 List of estates, interests, charges, mineral claims, encumbrances, licences and permits affecting Category A Lands

Appendix D-5 Sketches showing the location of active mineral claims on Category A Lands

Sketch 1 Mineral Claims in the vicinity of former Indian Reserve Nos. 26 and 26A "Tackuan"

Sketch 2 Mineral Claims in the vicinity of former Indian Reserve Nos. 27 and 27A "Kshwan"

Appendix D-6

and D-7 Category B Lands

Appendix D-8 List of estates, interests, charges, mineral claims, encumbrances, licences and permits affecting Category B Lands

APPENDIX E MAP OF NIS G A'A COMMERCIAL RECREATION TENURE

APPENDIX F HERITAGE SITES AND KEY GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES

Appendix F-1 Sites of cultural and historic significance to the Nis g a'a Nation to be designated as provincial heritage sites

Appendix F-2 Names to be recorded in the British Columbia Geographic Names Information System

Appendix F-3 Place names to be changed by British Columbia

[ Page 11405 ]

APPENDIX G PARKS AND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE

Appendix G-1 Map and description of Anhluut'ukwsim La x mihl Angwinga'asanskwhl Nis g a'a , the Nis g a'a Memorial Lava Bed Park

Appendix G-2 Map and description of Gingietl Creek Ecological Reserve No. 115

Appendix G-3 Map and description of Bear Glacier Park

APPENDIX H TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR FOREST RESOURCES

Schedule 1 Map of Forestry Transition period planning criteria for forest development plans

APPENDIX I MAPS OF NASS AREA AND AREAS FOR BIVALVE HARVESTING

Appendix I-1 Map of Nass Area with general location of intertidal Zones for Bivalve Harvesting

Appendix I-2 Map of Observatory Inlet Bivalve Harvesting Area

Appendix I-3 Map of Nasoga'a Gulf Bivalve Harvesting Area

Appendix I-4 Map of Winter Inlet Bivalve Harvesting Area

APPENDIX J NASS WILDLIFE AREA

Map and metes and bounds description of the Nass Wildlife Area

APPENDIX K MAP OF GUIDE OUTFITTER AREA

APPENDIX L CULTURAL ARTIFACTS AND HERITAGE

Appendix L-1 Nis g a'a Artifacts to be transferred from the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Nis g a'a Nation

Appendix L-2 Nis g a'a Artifacts to be shared by the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Nis g a'a Nation

Appendix L-3 Nis g a'a Artifacts to be transferred from the Royal British Columbia Museum to the Nis g a'a Nation

Appendix L-4 Nis g a'a Artifacts to be held by the Royal British Columbia Museum

APPENDIX M DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Appendix M-1 Collaborative Negotiations

Appendix M-2 Mediation

Appendix M-3 Technical Advisory Panel

Appendix M-4 Neutral Evaluation

Appendix M-5 Elders Advisory Council

Appendix M-6 Arbitration

1 The Parties acknowledge that upon the consolidation of the amendments set out in this Amending Agreement the Appendices will be repaginated and appropriate page numbers will be inserted into the table of contents of the Appendices.

2 The Parties acknowledge that some parts of the amendments to Appendices A-1, A-2, A-3, B-3, C-5 and C-6 set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement have already taken effect as a result of the happening of events that caused those parts of those amendments to occur automatically under various provisions of the Nis g a'a Final Agreement.

3 The Parties acknowledge that under paragraph 104 of

Chapter 3 — Lands (as amended) the Nis g a'a Nation and British Columbia may by agreement amend Appendix G-I and that Canada's consent to the amendment set out in paragraph 38 of this Amending Agreement is therefore not required. ]

It is my great honour to rise in the House today to move the amending agreement No. 2 to the Nisga'a final agreement, British Columbia's first modern-day treaty. This is the second resolution presented to this House to update the Nisga'a final agreement. The resolution approving the first amending agreement updating the boundaries of the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park was passed by this House on November 23, 2011.

I am pleased to say that these amendments have the approval and support of the Nisga'a Lisims Government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, it's hard to hear the minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Polak: The amending agreement No. 2 contains two additions to the original treaty meant to promote the reconciliation between British Columbia and the Nisga'a Nation.

Under the terms of the amending agreement, woodlot 141 would be granted to the Nisga'a Nation and added as Nisga'a lands. According to the Nisga'a final agreement, if lands subject to woodlot 141 cease to be a forestry tenure, it was to be transferred to the Nisga'a and become Nisga'a lands. These amendments facilitate this transfer in 2010.

Nisga'a requested that an amendment be made to the final agreement to allow fee simple lands owned by the Nisga'a Nation in the former Gitzault Indian Reserve to be added to Nisga'a category A lands. These lands were removed during the McKenna-McBride royal commission almost a century ago. This amending agreement responds to that request by adding in a process to add lands from the former Gitzault Indian Reserve purchased by the Nisga'a as category A lands and make part of their land base whole again.

In addition to these amendments, there are a number of technical amendments to the Nisga'a final agreement to correct typographical areas and update terminology.

There are also amendments to three appendices to the final agreement that contain metes and bounds descriptions. These descriptions, developed in cooperation with the surveyor general of British Columbia, more accurately describe the boundaries of Nisga'a lands by incorporating the significant amount of survey work of Nisga'a lands that has occurred.

In addition, the 35 map sheets and the appendices have also been updated to reflect these more accurate descriptions and have been vetted by the Nisga'a and the surveyor general of British Columbia.

Finally, this amending agreement incorporates several deemed amendments, which reflect events that have occurred under the terms of the final agreement to ensure transparency is maintained.

I would like to thank the Nisga'a Nation and all my colleagues in this House for making these amendments happen. They underline the partnership between British Columbia and the Nisga'a Nation and ensure that the Nisga'a final agreement is a living document that supports prosperity and certainty in the northwest.

S. Fraser: I'll be rising to speak to the motion as the critic for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I must say, when this first came across my desk and the minister sent me a note around that, apprising me that this would be coming forward, I was somewhat confused. We had an amendment last year, and it was almost a déjà vu experience for me.

Of course, that was dealing with some boundary

[ Page 11406 ]

changes — absolutely necessary and, really, totally supportable by all and important, of course, for the Nisga'a people to have accuracy and have the treaty reflect changing realities and reflect the accuracy that's necessary as we move forward.

[1430]

This particular motion deals with, really, two main issues. Besides that, there are a number of typos. I note even that instead of Ottawa, Ontario, in one part of the treaty it says "Ottawa, Ottawa." There are some housekeeping issues that are being dealt with, too, which are also important because they reflect the accuracy of that document. And of course, it's very important that these corrections be made.

I understand from the briefing with the minister's staff, and I thank her for that, that this has been in the works for five years. Of course, it's a tripartite issue with treaties, so the federal government will be, subsequent to this House, dealing with these amendments, probably in June. Get that on the record. Hopefully, the federal government will be able to move this thing through quickly as a non-controversial motion and an amendment or amendments. That would be done through an order-in-council, I'm led to believe. Again that's appropriate in this situation.

I would also like to note for the record that we did get the information today that I requested from the minister's staff and the deputy minister regarding the woodlot 141. It's 399.5 hectares — actually a fairly small portion of the entire Nisga'a treaty land settlement but a significant one, I would suggest. That wasn't clear at the time of the briefing, so I thank the minister's staff for providing me with that. Then, the Indian Reserve No. 24 — I believe that's the number — is 7.9 hectares, and that may be added to the Nisga'a lands if it's acquired as fee simple.

Those amendments and the housekeeping issues are certainly appropriate, and on this side, speaking for the official opposition, we will be supporting the motion and thank all those that have put this work into place. I also want to recognize the Nisga'a Nation for their patience in getting this through and, again, congratulate them on a treaty that is being treated, appropriately, as a dynamic, living document.

R. Austin: I would just like to say a couple of words with regards to this motion. As the MLA for Skeena and someone who works closely with the Nisga'a and the Nisga'a Lisims Government, I am very proud to stand here and be in support of this.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Polak: I want to thank the opposition members for their cooperation, and I move the motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call continued debate on second reading of Bill 37, intituled Animal Health Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

(continued)

L. Popham: I'll continue my debate from yesterday. I did have about seven minutes to point out that this legislation, second reading, was brought in, in a very rushed way. I think it's the Liberal government's version of democracy on a diet.

When I read through the government's own

summary of the consultation that was done with the members of the agriculture sector and the public of British Columbia, one of the things that was very important for the population of B.C. is…. The note says that "the people of British Columbia noted the importance of fostering and sustaining trust and collaboration and the need for clarity regarding the system and the expectations involved." That's right in the

summary of responses to the discussion paper for this bill.

That lays out pretty clearly, to me, that openness, sharing of information and allowing for proper time for due process is critically important to the people of B.C. It's very important for me, to be able to do my job properly as the critic for the Ministry of Agriculture.

I do believe that we are coming to the end of a session. I think there's legislation that has to be rushed through. I don't appreciate it. I don't appreciate it as somebody who is trying to do a comprehensive job. I also think it's disrespectful to the people of British Columbia. They don't like to see things rushed through. It doesn't allow for due process. I think it's….

Interjections.

[1435]

L. Popham: The members on the other side are making, I believe, disrespectful comments, which shows to me that the arrogance around rushing legislation through is alive and well with the B.C. Liberals.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

[ Page 11407 ]

That's an interesting point to read, which is right in the government's own discussion papers.

This bill is actually focused on providing provincial authorities the power to respond to animal disease outbreak and animal health emergency, and I think that's commendable. I think that it's something to keep in mind. We have seen many disasters happen in the agriculture industry that were devastating for, obviously, the livestock involved but economically, as well, for the agriculture sector.

I think that addressing these things is important. We all agree that our food systems must be secure. There's no debate there. We understand that. Allowing authorities to act quickly and effectively in the case of disease outbreak and emergency is something that we understand, and we agree with that.

Now, in the amount of time that I've had to peruse this large piece of legislation, I've noticed a couple things that I'm going to bring up today.

One of the things is that I think this bill has failed to maybe include some of the necessary checks and balances that it may need. There's great authority given to the chief veterinarian and his or her inspectors. In fact, it's an extraordinary amount of power. It's an unlimited amount of power.

I find that when looking at the intent of the bill, in order to address something in a very fast way…. I think that's what's gotten us to this place. I don't think it necessarily takes into consideration the work of farmers. That's one of the things that…. Obviously, when we're dealing with legislation with agriculture, we want to consider the livelihoods and the people that are doing the jobs.

I did my very best to try and consult with people who may have added input — I think it was 351 submissions — to this legislation. There was a consultation period that took place. I've been trying my best to reach some of the people that were consulted, although under the time constraints it's very difficult to do that. I did send out a note to the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia listserv asking people who are members if they remembered adding any input into this process.

In actual fact, I got a few responses back. Some of the responses I got back were that they had given input but hadn't heard back. I think part of a consultation process and part of reaching out to that many people is also keeping them informed with what's going on and how the legislation is moving ahead. I don't think there was any follow-up. So when legislation is just dumped into the chamber, it's sort of a rude awakening to the people that thought they were part of the process.

One of the people that did give a lot of input — and I think had some very, very interesting input — was someone who is very well respected within the agriculture community and has always given thoughtful advice. He sits on the B.C. Agriculture Council, although his response was not on behalf of the B.C. Agriculture Council, as far as giving some input on this listserv. He was representing community interests.

It's still something that I think we should take into consideration, and as we move into committee stage, this is some input that the government may consider when thinking of amendments. Perhaps we'll propose amendments.

This, I think, is quite a big one. The act gives the chief veterinarian an extraordinary amount of what appears to be arbitrary power. It appears able to be exercised without recourse, should an action turn out to be imposed in error.

[1440]

One of the things in the bill that is questionable, maybe, is that the chief vet is not accountable to the Minister of Agriculture. Decisions can be made by the vet, and there are no checks and balances to make sure that that decision was made in a proper way.

Now, there is an example of how this has worked in the past in British Columbia, and that's with the powers that were allotted to the provincial apiarist, which is the person in charge of bees and beekeeping in B.C. The same powers were allotted to the provincial apiarist. What we saw two years ago, I believe, was an example of how these powers could lead to bad decision-making, if there aren't any checks and balances in place.

On Vancouver Island we have an area that was restricted from imports of bees. Some people would have considered it, for up to 29 years, as a quarantine. The minister disagrees with me on that point, but the beekeepers on Vancouver Island fully agree with me. They considered it a quarantine. They considered it something that protected them, on the Island, from certain disease profiles.

Now, the provincial apiarist was confronted with the situation, it's my understanding, by one very aggressive advocate for lifting this quarantine. He basically, I believe, threatened to sue the Ministry of Agriculture if that quarantine or those restrictions weren't lifted. The government, unfortunately, didn't feel like they had any legs to stand on. The provincial apiarist lifted that quarantine. The beekeepers on Vancouver Island found out about that change in their lives, which affected their livelihood, in the newspaper the next day.

This is of huge concern to people on Vancouver Island, who felt that they were mistreated. It was not fair. There was a decision that was made that didn't go through a process. It was made by somebody who had the authority to make a decision without any checks and balances in place.

I believe that if there's a provincial authority that has that power and if we're giving that power…. There's certainly no disrespect to the provincial vet. If that power is being given and we are putting all our trust in one person, then there really should be no reason not to have checks and balances. There should be no reason why the decision being made should not have to be proven.

[ Page 11408 ]

I believe in Ontario there is a working group that has formed, because Ontario has the same legislation. The powers that were given to the chief vet there are similar. There's also a group that works with that vet to make sure that the process is being followed. I think that's something we could probably have in British Columbia to make sure that when a decision comes down, such as the change in regulations around the Vancouver Island bee quarantine, it has a way of being vetted by the community that's going to be affected.

That's one of the concerns I have with this bill. I'm not sure that we're moving in the right direction as far as protecting farmers, because they're a huge part of this equation. We want to make sure that we don't have disease outbreaks that we can't control. We do want to have a process that acts quickly, but we don't want to leave half the equation out. I think that's something we need to consider.

In Ontario the opposition to the government there did put forward an amendment to be considered. Unfortunately, it was turned down, but it was asking for some checks and balances. I think that if we want to look at that amendment, we can see that there were similar concerns in Ontario around the amount of power. This was turned down, but I think it's still something that we should probably look at as we are guided through committee stage. I hope the minister would be aware of that.

The idea of controlling disease is very interesting to me. This actually applies not only to domestic animals but to disease spread into the wild populations and vice versa.

[1445]

It is quite timely that this is coming in now, because there's a situation that has been kind of growing in British Columbia around wild sheep and domestic sheep. There are a few herds of wild sheep that are around B.C. There are four separate herds that we know of. I've had a great conversation with the Wild Sheep Society. In the United States there's a disease that's spread from domestic sheep to wild sheep, and that's because of contact. Apparently, it's passed in saliva.

I don't recall the name of this disease, but once that disease spreads from domestic sheep to wild sheep, they get a disease that's similar to pneumonia. They end up dying, sometimes within 45 days, and this spreads throughout the herd. There are documents that show the kill rate on these wild herds can be up to 90 percent. I believe some of these sheep are blue-listed for us here, and we should be taking precautions. I'm hoping that this legislation will help us do that.

One of the things I believe this legislation would call for is that when we see an instance where there may be a disease threat, we're to mitigate the disease spreading. Some of that could be, in the case of the wild sheep, perhaps doing some type of fencing. It also could designate areas where domestic sheep aren't able to live because they're too close to the wild sheep herds, and vice versa.

I think that's something that maybe this legislation will help us deal with. I think it's quite serious. In fact, the Minister of Environment comes from an area where there are these wild sheep that live in the mountains. Some of the disease pressures that we would find with this transfer of disease from domestic to wild are there. I look forward to having that discussion with him, because I believe that the wildlife vet for the provincial government is also very aware of the situation. I believe that she would like it to be dealt with in a timely manner before we end up with a disease outbreak that annihilates the wild sheep population.

The wild sheep population is interesting, because there is quite a good economic argument around why we would want to keep these sheep as well as an environmental argument. The sheep association — some of them are hunters — would use this for their livelihood. We want to protect these things that enhance our economy in smaller communities, and this is one of them. So I think we have a big interest in protecting that.

If this legislation is able to make sure we do that in a better way, then I'm very supportive of that. I think that reporting out as we go along and involving the Wild Sheep Society in part of the committee stage review is also very important. It's a conversation that I'm going to keep having with them to make sure that as we go through the legislation, it pertains to a situation like this.

One thing that I really love about doing this job is to be able to outreach to the communities that are affected by legislation, making sure it's working for everyone and making sure it's fair.

That's probably where I'll stop. I still want to make sure that the government is very clear that I don't think there was enough time before bringing in second reading. It makes it more difficult to do our jobs. It makes it unfair to the public of British Columbia and the stakeholders involved. I would appreciate in the future that consideration would be taken when bringing in second reading so close on a large piece of legislation.

M. Mungall: I want to give full compliments to my colleague the opposition critic for Agriculture, the member for Saanich South, who has shown an incredible amount of knowledge on this bill, despite having about 48 hours from the time it was introduced in first reading to now to give it full analysis.

I think it really goes to show the extent to which she knows her file and knows the agricultural issues that exist around the province, her incredible capacity in bringing that knowledge to this floor and speaking on behalf of British Columbians and the tremendous work that she's been doing not only on behalf of an area that I know she's very passionate about but on behalf of all British Columbians. She's a real asset to the opposition team here.

[1450]

[ Page 11409 ]

I will talk a little bit about what this bill is about. I can only speak a little bit about what this bill is about because it's actually a very long bill. Like the member before me said and like I've already said just now, we've only had 48 hours to actually digest this bill.

This bill is 65 pages long. It has 119 sections. It is impacting not just one previous act but a full four acts: the Animal Disease Control Act, the Fur Farm Act, the Game Farm Act, and it fully replaces the Bee Act. This is a lot of information. This is a lot of change here to these pieces of legislation in British Columbia, yet 48 hours to digest it and be able to get up on this floor and try to speak to all 119 sections.

In trying to figure out what this bill is about in the last 48 hours, I went to a government website, and this is what the Ministry of Agriculture is saying this bill is about. It's going to:

"Bring B.C.'s legislation into harmony with other provinces and trading partners, and provide increased assurances about the safety and traceability of B.C.'s animals and animal products.

"Improve the early detection of animal diseases by working with animal producers to implement expanded monitoring programs.

"Clearly state the process producers must follow in the event they identify a disease that has been designated as having significant consequences for animal or human health.

"Take…action to investigate animal disease outbreaks and, if necessary, act on an emergency basis with expedited procedures."

I'm not even halfway through the list yet.

"Introduce surveillance zones and actions that must be taken within them to monitor areas around a quarantine zone.

"Require producers to take preventive measures to reduce the risk of introducing and spreading disease, ensure employees are trained to prevent and respond to disease, maintain records of animal origin and movement, abide by inspector's orders and report any incidents of disease or unusual illness.

"Increase disease control measures such as restricting the movement or sale of animals, food products and animal by-products such as wool or hides derived from them.

"Define the role and powers of inspectors regarding the enforcement of the act, regulations, conditions of licences and permits, and orders.

"Increase the maximum penalty under the act from $2,000 to $75,000 and create an administrative penalty system for less serious contraventions."

That is the backgrounder that the ministry has put forward.

As you can see from the list I just read, it's quite extensive. There's a lot going on here, but all I've had, and all any member on the opposition benches has had, is 48 hours to look at this, to digest it and identify issues that we may have with it or may not have with it.

I think another important note….

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I ask you to align your comments with the contents of Bill 37.

M. Mungall: I would be happy to, Madam Speaker, and I'm getting to that.

It is difficult, nonetheless. One of the things this bill does…. All these acts it is changing, most of them have not been substantially changed since 1948. Again, we have a lot of changes that are being proposed here, yet no time to truly look at them in an in-depth kind of way.

I'll give an example about the Bee Act. The Bee Act is very important for my constituents. I represent the Creston Valley. The Creston Valley is a beautiful valley that produces an incredible amount of agriculture. I ought to know. I benefit from that agriculture greatly. Not only do I get all of my meat that I consume in my household from farmers in the Creston Valley, I get a lot of vegetables there as well.

[1455]

Creston Valley is most known for its cherries. It produces a tremendous amount of cherries every year. You can't help but drive through the community or drive through Erickson and see all the cherry farms.

Why do bees have an importance with cherries in Creston? Well, I think most people in this House and most British Columbians will know that the cherry trees need to be pollinated, and the only little critters that do that are the honeybees. We have many beekeepers throughout the Creston Valley, and they take their bees to a cherry farm, and those bees will then pollinate the trees, and we will be left with some beautiful cherries come mid-July.

In the last 48 hours I have not been able to get hold of a good friend of mine, Alvin Gabruch, who historically was the bee man for the Creston Valley. He was a guy who had over 1,000 bees…. Now, that can't sound right. There's got to be more than 1,000 bees there, Madam Speaker. He must have had 1,000 colonies of bees.

He was the bee man, and he would take his bee colonies to the cherry farms. The bees would fly out, and they would do their thing, and they would pollinate the trees. They'd go to the next farm and the next farm and the next farm. Alvin is the bee man of the Creston Valley.

I didn't get to call him on this and ask him what he thought. I know what he would have said to me, nonetheless, because we have that rapport. If I would have had the chance to talk to him, he would have said: "What's going on? I did not have the chance, Michelle, to read these 119 sections on 65 pages of this bill. I don't have any feedback to give you right now."

Then it makes my job difficult to get up in this House and make sure that my constituent's voice is represented on an issue that is incredibly meaningful and incredibly important to the local economy of the Creston Valley.

On other issues around the Animal Disease Control Act, I have many people in my area who are dairy farmers, who are cattle ranchers, who raise chickens, who raise sheep, who raise goats, who are dairy farmers. We have a wonderful value-added business, the Kootenay Alpine Cheese Co. If you ever do make it to the Creston Valley, Madam Speaker, I fully recommend you stopping by and getting a sample of what is the finest alpine cheese that you can possibly find in this province.

I wasn't able to give them a call and ask them how this

[ Page 11410 ]

legislation would impact them, all 119 sections — how the Animal Disease Control Act, the changes to that act, would impact them and what they do on a day-to-day basis.

Madam Speaker, I believe there's a colleague of mine who would like to do something here and make an introduction. I just got a note from him. I'll have a seat and let him do that, but I'd like to get right back up afterwards.

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: Thank you to my colleague for allowing me the time to introduce some very special guests here. It's my pleasure to introduce 57 grade 5 students visiting here from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They're here to learn about the government. They're joined here by their teachers, Ms. Nancy Bakken and Mr. Rick Bath, and as well as more than 33 volunteer parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Mungall: I thank the member for Surrey-Tynehead for giving me an opportunity to have a sip of water there.

As I was saying, the Animal Disease Control Act and the changes that are being proposed in the 65 pages and 119 sections of this act…. Somewhere in there we have significant changes to the Animal Disease Control Act.

[1500]

Local farmers in my area would have appreciated more than 48 hours to have digested this and to have properly analyzed it to offer me feedback. I know that Randy Meyer, who sits on the local ag council, would have appreciated that. Tom Tarzwell would have appreciated that. Chuck Truscott certainly would have appreciated that. They all would have been extremely appreciative if they'd had the opportunity to give proper analysis to this bill, which only time allows, and 48 hours is not sufficient time. I'm sure that they would like to sleep somewhere in that 48 hours. I know that Roy Lake….

It's not just the Creston Valley. Up at the north end of my constituency, around the north end of Kootenay Lake and in Meadow Creek area, there are some other amazing, amazing agricultural producers out there doing some fantastic work. My good friend Roy Lake used to have 300 head of cattle up in that region.

Now, they've been very devastated economically up there due to the situation with Meadow Creek Cedar, but nonetheless, they have some excellent plans for agricultural redevelopment in that area. These acts may have impacted them, but are they given the sufficient time to provide full analysis to this, to offer me feedback so that I can speak on their behalf? Unfortunately, no.

Another family that I think is important to mention are the Bundschuhs out in Salmo. Now you're getting a little tour of my constituency here, Madam Speaker, of all of the fine places where there are many agricultural producers. That's because I'm a rural MLA and I have the benefit of this tremendous amount of agriculture existing in my constituency.

The Bundschuhs have a working cattle ranch. You can see all of those cows every year at the Shambhala Music Festival, which occurs the first weekend of August. They're very well known for this festival. They have a working farm, and they have several hundred head of cattle. This act would no doubt impact them. Again, they did not have enough time.

So with that, I think it's important to make…. I've made my point, which is that 48 hours is simply not enough for me to have meaningful dialogue with my constituents on the issues that are being impacted in what is, again, 119 sections over 65 pages on this bill. I'm quite disappointed that this is the way in which the Liberal government has decided to do their business.

I have had another experience along this line with another bill, where amendments were dropped on me at the last minute, and the Government House Leader did not appreciate his minister doing that. I'm surprised that this is going on again.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I have cautioned you with respect to aligning your comments to the contents of the bill.

M. Mungall: My apologies, Madam Speaker.

So with that, I would like to say, in summation, that there are several sections, there are several aspects of this bill that will no doubt impact my constituents. I will continue to work with them on these issues. But in future we hope, and the people all over British Columbia hope, that the government will be more respectful of what needs to be done in terms of due diligence when they present legislation.

M. Farnworth: It is my pleasure to rise and to speak to this particular piece of legislation, the Animal Health Act. It is an important piece of legislation, and it's a pleasure to actually speak to the bill. My colleague the Minister of Environment goes: "Are you going to speak to the bill?" I hasten to assure him that I will most certainly will be speaking to the bill.

I will not be addressing issues of timing or the length of time to look at the bill but rather a couple of specific areas of the bill that I think are worthy of some acknowledgement during second reading debate and, most definitely, I think, worthy of and need to be examined during committee stage of the debate. Some….

[ Page 11411 ]

Interjection.

[1505]

M. Farnworth: As my colleague the Finance Critic says, if we ever get to it. I don't know if that is a hint for me to conclude my remarks before I've started.

Anyway, I represent Port Coquitlam, a primarily urban riding, but it is a riding that does have significant parts of it where agriculture is important, primarily around the growing of blueberries — which, for example, rely heavily on bees for pollination.

We have a number of organic-farming operations, one down the end of the street where I live, with pumpkins, again relying on bees for pollination. But cattle, beef cattle in particular, also are raised on a number of farms in my riding.

In fact, just this past weekend, Saturday evening, I heard a slight disturbance outside the house. I went outside late at night with the dogs. They like to do their pee. Lo and behold, one of the cows in the field next door was in labour. The little calves….

There are seven cows in the field. Five have already given birth to calves, and there was the cow, right on the other side of the fence, surrounded by the others, in labour. It was particularly interesting because she was near the street, where people can come by and potentially harass or disturb, but no.

It was about ten o'clock in the evening. She was in labour. Sometime around four o'clock in the morning I could hear that final sort of clear-effort push, and there was a little calf. It was fascinating to see, and it lets you know about the importance of and what goes on in agricultural communities and farms right across the province of British Columbia and why this particular piece of legislation is so important.

It has not been updated, many parts of it, since 1948. I think that's crucial, because the world has moved on since 1948. We were, at that time, a far more agricultural nation than we are now, so it's important that regulations keep up with the times.

As my colleague the Agriculture critic has stated, we are by and large supportive of this bill, but there are some important issues that need to be addressed.

The one that I want to talk about briefly is the issue of the powers that are granted to B.C.'s chief veterinarian to enter property without a warrant and issues that that raises. These are issues that particularly are concerns of the B.C. Agricultural Council.

The reason I say that is because being able to enter property without a warrant is a very wide-ranging power. It is something that is not granted lightly, and I think we need to have a thorough explanation from the government as to why that is so.

The minister has stated that part of this legislation has been developed through what has taken place in other provinces, particularly Alberta and Ontario. In Ontario the chief veterinarian for that province has to get a warrant. So I would like very much to know what the rationale is, why B.C. is….

We're looking at Ontario and saying: "Yes, we're going to do…. We think good chunks of your legislation are important, but in this particular

section we're not going to follow your example." I think that's an area that needs considerable focus on it, because without a thorough explanation, I think it could be open to a potential court challenge.

There are some real privacy issues at stake that I think need to be addressed. I can let the minister know that at committee stage…. That will be something that I think the opposition is particularly concerned about.

My colleague has outlined a whole host of other areas that she thinks need to be addressed. I know that my colleague the Finance Minister is so concerned….

B. Ralston: Critic.

M. Farnworth: Or critic. I'm jumping ahead of myself. That's right.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Yes, I agree — a little early.

B. Ralston: Premature adjudication.

M. Farnworth: Premature adjudication, as my colleague the Finance critic says.

[1510]

But I know he is so determined to see this bill through to committee stage and concerned that we get to it that I think he's encouraging me to be brief in my remarks. Not wanting to disappoint him, I shall be brief in my remarks. Suffice it to say that for me, that's a key issue in this bill that I look forward to seeing addressed in committee stage and having the minister explain the rationale behind it as to why it was this particular option that was chosen as opposed to other potential options.

With that, I shall take my place and listen to the interventions of other colleagues.

M. Sather: I rise to join the debate on Bill 37, Animal Health Act, which is a weighty piece of legislation. I can feel it in my hands. It definitely has heft to it. It is some 119 sections in length. However, beyond that it's a bit obscure, in my view. The explanatory notes, which one looks to in any bill to shed light on just what the intent of

an act is, are all on the front page of this bill.

It starts off by saying: "This Bill repeals and replaces the Animal Disease Control Act, the Fur Farm Act and the Game Farm Act, and replaces the Bee Act." Like my colleague before me who spoke about bees and the Bee Act, I wanted to address that issue as well.

[ Page 11412 ]

This bill apparently replaces the Bee Act. My question is: with what? Like I say, there is a lot of verbiage here, but I don't see any reference in it to the Bee Act whatsoever. I have a copy of the Bee Act. It's 1975. I've been told by the opposition critic that the replacement of the Bee Act will come in by regulation, and that may be outlined somewhere in the bill.

I look, for example, at

section 100, under "Other regulation-making powers." Section (2) says: "To the extent that regulation-making authority has not already been provided for in this Part, the Lieutenant Governor in Council" — i.e., the cabinet — "may make regulations respecting any matter for which regulations are contemplated by this Act." In any event, it leaves me wondering what is happening with the Bee Act.

Members will know, I'm sure, that bees are an extremely important aspect of agriculture for their pollination capacities. They will also know, I'm sure, that there has been a crisis. It's not overstating the fact, I don't think, to say that we have a crisis with bees here and in many other places. I would like to know just what kind of mitigating measures, what the government is planning to do for bees in bringing in a new Bee Act. I think it's important to bring in a new Bee Act, but I have no idea from this bill what the government is contemplating.

For example, there are recent studies that came out that have shown that pesticides have led to a dramatic decline of bumblebee queens and interfered with honeybees' ability to find their way back to the hive. We know about beehive colony collapse. One of the things is that oftentimes we can't find the bees, and we wonder what happened to them. Well, this may explain it. These are very important issues that I would hope we could have a fulsome discussion about, because it is very important.

[1515]

When I look at the 1975 act, not surprisingly, because we didn't have this problem back in 1975, there's nothing in that act to address the issue of pesticides and bees. I don't know whether the members opposite are keen on discussing pesticides. I do sit on the committee to look at pesticides in the province, but it is an important issue. I think it's incumbent upon the government to bring in not only weighty legislation in terms of a whole bunch of sections but legislation that addresses important problems before us, like the problems we have with bees.

I also want to refer to some of the remarks by the minister, his opening remarks to the legislation, because they've been helpful, I think, in elucidating to some degree what the government is looking at with regard to bringing in this legislation. He outlined that there are three main goals of the legislation. I want to look first at the second goal wherein he said that the second goal is to ensure the continued productivity and competitiveness of farm operations in B.C. through on-farm prevention strategies, early detection and eradication of animal diseases.

Well, is there something in Bill 37 that will achieve this with respect to salmon aquaculture operations, which he refers to later in the bill? I'll mention that in a minute. But that's what many people have been calling for — the minister to respond to the need for early detection of salmon diseases.

I have to say that the pleas so far have fallen on deaf ears, and that is worrying. I mean, the government's response, quite frankly, has been to participate in league with the federal government to cover up the issue of viruses in our salmon. That's not overstating the case if you look at the objective facts.

That's not good enough. I mean, it's a good goal. I have no problem with the goal at all. Early detection and eradication of animal diseases is extremely important. But it's one thing to have a goal. It's another thing to actually act on that goal. The evidence so far with regard to aquaculture is that the government is not willing to act. The minister and this government have denied that the infectious salmon anemia virus exists in B.C., and that's troublesome.

The minister says that there's no evidence of ISA in B.C. He says that the testing results by Drs. Kibenge and Nylund were negative for ISA. These are the renowned top experts on ISA in the world.

I would like to see that the minister, through Bill 37, is keen to address this issue. Certainly, early detection is important, as he himself has pointed out. Early detection is essential to dealing with animal diseases. Yet when it comes to aquaculture, many British Columbians see no evidence of the willingness of this government to actually take the steps necessary to ensure that early detection is taking place. It's not the fact that tests were negative — unconfirmed perhaps, but certainly not negative.

[1520]

The minister also said that none of what he called suspect cases of salmon viruses were associated with disease. Yet Dr. Kristi Miller, renowned scientist with DFO, testified just the opposite at the Cohen Commission. Her studies indicate that ISA is causing negative health symptoms in B.C.'s salmon. What more does the minister need to act? What more does the minister need to take this issue seriously?

I mean, it's all nice and good to bring in a nice thick bill, and I'm sure that it's going to do some good for something, but I don't see how it's going to do any good just by the wording. It's not enough. We need to see that the minister and this government is serious about dealing with salmon viruses in British Columbia. First thing you have to do — you have to admit you have a problem and not deny the problem. Unfortunately, that's a step of the recovery that this government has not taken yet.

The minister said also in his opening remarks — this is in reference, actually, to the third goal of Bill 37 — to "minimize the likelihood of interprovincial or international trade closures by effectively managing disease outbreaks."

[ Page 11413 ]

It was very clear, through the Cohen Commission and the subsequent actions of this government, that this is certainly their primary concern. As I said to the minister in estimates, it's a reasonable concern to have. He should be concerned about these issues.

But is that the only concern that he has? Is that the only concern that this government has? That's certainly the impression that I and many others received sitting through the many days of the Cohen Commission and hearing much of the testimony and listening to the legal representation for the province, which was totally hostile toward anyone who was there representing the interests of wild salmon. That's just not good enough.

Maybe the minister wants to collaborate with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to come up with a joint strategy where we can look at diseases, certainly, in farmed salmon but we can also look at the health of the wild salmon.

The minister said also, in his comments: "Aquaculture farm-gate sales from farmed salmon, trout, clams, mussels, oysters and scallops totalled more than $418 million. Any threat of disease must be taken very seriously if we are to maintain the economic well-being of families and communities that depend upon these industries." I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more with the minister. However, I remain completely astonished at how this minister says one thing but does another.

I have nothing against Bill 37. We didn't, obviously, have a whole lot of time to look at it, but not withstanding that, I have nothing against Bill 37. I wish, however, that we had something more than this — that, first of all, we knew what in fact they're planning to do with all of these regulations that are coming in at some time in the future. I don't see how you can bring in a bill that is that long and leave really important stuff to regulation somewhere down the road. Yet that's what this government has done once again.

This is an important bill even though it is rather hidden in terms of what it actually will do. It's an important bill. Animal diseases are an important issue, and I agree with the government that we need to address those diseases. Insofar as Bill 37 does that, I applaud the government. But I say again: what, in fact, will this bill do to address some of the important issues that we have — issues that we have with bees, issues that we have with salmon? I don't know. I don't see it in here.

[1525]

I'm hoping that in committee stage when we get a chance to question the minister about what, in fact, this bill is all about — what effect it's going to have on the ground or in the water — the minister will have some enlightening information.

His remarks were somewhat enlightening, I thought. I thank him for his opening remarks, but we will, of course, seek much more than that. It could be an interesting discussion. I hope so, and I hope that this bill will lead to us dealing with animal diseases in a much more prompt, careful and complete way than we've seen in some respects in this province.

The opposition critic mentioned the transmission of diseases between domestic and wild sheep. That's certainly a concern for me as well, as deputy Environment critic, and one that we will be able to canvass with the minister during committee stage. Hopefully there's a plan in place there to deal with that issue.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity and I'll take my place.

K. Conroy: As a member of the Legislature that actually has some experience in birthing cows, unlike my urban colleague, I thought I could stand here for 30 minutes and tell stories of such. But I won't do that to you. Although they do want me to tell a couple….

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Yeah. I won't do that to you.

I just have a few concerns about the bill that relate to cattle breeding. One concern was the actual consultation process. Now, many farmers nowadays and ranchers in this province are very well equipped to deal with computers and the on-line survey system, and a number are not. I've talked to some who just couldn't do it — couldn't get on line and are not computer-friendly.

One person I know of quite personally because we spend a lot of time together on our farm tried to get on it. He's not computer-literate and just gave up on it. He said it was just something that he couldn't do — talked to a few of his colleagues in the business who also had the same frustrations with that process. So I have some concerns about the consultation process — how extensive it was and how much input the ministry actually got before this bill was developed.

Then, one of the other issues is around disease control. We all know how BSE wreaked havoc in the cattle industry and how, in Canada and especially in B.C., we're slowly coming back and things are starting to turn around. We definitely are always really concerned about disease control. But one of the issues for rural B.C. that I'm not sure if the ministry or the minister has taken into consideration in the development of this bill is the fact that there just aren't that many vets out in rural B.C. now that deal with large animals, especially in the Kootenays.

We have a tough time getting large animal vets. The vets seem to like to deal with cats and dogs and small animals, but there are very few vets nowadays that deal with the large animals. I understand in the legislation that if an animal dies, you have to have a vet report out. If there's a suspicion of disease, a vet has to report out on that.

It can be difficult to find a vet, and so I would raise some concerns about that. I'm sure that the Minister of

[ Page 11414 ]

Environment might even agree with me that not all vets like dealing with those great big cattle and even horses. They tend to prefer the smaller animals, and that's especially in the Kootenays.

It's an issue of concern. I'm sure that if we can get to committee stage on this bill that it can be looked at in a little more detail. I definitely hope that the ministry will consider that when they're looking at this legislation.

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

Hon. D. McRae: I thank the members opposite. I think it's to be noted, as well, that there were some concerns raised. One of the common themes was a concern for the lack of time, but that's also one of the reasons why I was so pleased that we were able to offer last Monday an opportunity to brief the critic for Agriculture and the independent members on the other side.

[1530]

I'd like to also thank the members opposite for their extensive 72 minutes of conversation on 120 sections of the bill. They were complaining that there was not enough time given, but I also remind the members opposite that time is always of the essence.

If we go back to, say, perhaps one of their favourite decades, the 1990s, they were always a little bit concerned with time back then. I don't want to belabour the long list I have, but I will give a small smattering of history here.

You might remember 1993. It was a good year. There was a bill. It was a bill called Bill 71. It had 66 sections, and the opposition of the day was given 48 hours to deal with it. But you know what? That's still a lot more time than 1995 — Bill 55, where it actually amended 26 acts in that period. During that time the opposition of the day was give a substantial 24 hours to actually look at that bill and make some recommendations as well.

You'd think that 24 hours would just be a one-off, but it wasn't, actually. In 2000, the millennium year, Bill 8….

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I can't remember, to be honest, what Bill 8 was, but it did amend 28 acts, actually, provincially. But you know what? Fortunately, we had the 24-hour practice in 1995, because in 2000 we were again given 24 hours.

We'd always like a bit more time. It would always be a luxury, of course, but the reality is: please be careful of what you accuse, because it's coming back.

The other thing, which I puzzle here, is we've had a couple of issues lately here. Bill 36, the school amendment issue that was just passed the other day…. I was so glad that the Minister of Education was actually able to call division on that one, because we spent a good portion of one whole day….

I believe we actually started the day before, and the members opposite raised many concerns, and I'm glad that we have that sense of democracy. But in the end the division was called, and it was supported unanimously. I'd like to thank the members opposite for their unanimous support of that and the day and a half of debate that we had.

Interjections.

Hon. D. McRae: I'm only a high school teacher. I won't call it filibustering.

As well, we also brought in Bill 24 last week. I believe it was almost a week ago — the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. I'd like to thank the members opposite for their support and, actually, for their good insight along the way. I appreciate the support that we had with that bill as well, but the extra debate did actually take up time somewhere else.

I want to talk about some consultation issues because people opposite were actually concerned about s