2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 34, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Anthony Humphreys

Mr. Speaker (Hon. B.

Barisoff)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Farnworth

Horgan

Introductions by Members

Motions on Notice

Komagata Maru (Motion 62)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Chouhan

Hon. W.

Oppal

J. Brar

D. Hayer

H. Bains

Nuraney

H. Lali

Hon. C.

Taylor

Puchmayr

R. Hawes

Hammell

M. Polak

L. Krog

McIntyre

C. Wyse

R. Lee

Farnworth

Mayencourt

Gentner

Hon. M.

de Jong

Electoral reform referendum question (Motion 57)

Hon. W. Oppal

On the amendment

J. Horgan

On the main motion

J. Horgan

Hon. W. Oppal

Second Reading of Bills

Bridge River Valley Flying

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr401)

H. Lali

Committee of the Whole House

Bridge River Valley Flying

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr401)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Bridge River Valley Flying

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr401)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Tributes

Anthony Humphreys

Hon. B.

Penner

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Hon. B.

Penner

Tributes

Anthony Humphreys

Simpson

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Sather

C. Evans

Estimates: Other appropriations

[ Page 12789 ]

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2008

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Tributes

ANTHONY HUMPHREYS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, it is with considerable regret

that I must advise the House that our Sergeant-at-Arms, Tony Humphreys, died

earlier today in Victoria. He is survived by a foster son in Victoria, a mother

and a brother in Vancouver, another brother in Australia and a sister living in

Calgary.

Tony had suffered health reverses over the last six months, but in

keeping with his well-known affection for the assembly, he carried on his duties

whenever his health permitted. The passing of this senior permanent officer of

the assembly has left a considerable void, although his loyal staff is rallying

in an attempt to fill the void.

Tony had a distinguished military career with the Canadian

Military Engineers, rising to the rank of colonel after 33 years of service. He

was appointed by the assembly as Sergeant-at-Arms in September 1991 and served

the assembly with great distinction since that time.

[1005]

He was active in church matters, keen on sailing and flying and

did much volunteer community work. He engendered enormous loyalty from all his

staff, and his devotion to this place was known by all of us.

I will be sending letters of condolence to his family, and I would

ask the House to stand with me and observe a moment of silence.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, like the marble columns that

surround us here, Tony Humphreys was a pillar in his own way in this

institution, and the news you have brought to us today, for all members, is sad

news indeed. His affection for this institution, for this chamber, revealed

itself in the manner in which, through the years, he conducted himself, led his

team and served the members of this chamber. You have accurately described an

individual whose devotion to his duty here and elsewhere and at other times

during his life was exemplary.

Many have come through those doors and served the public here. He

has done so with distinction for many, many years, has left an indelible mark

and will be missed by those that are here today and those that have come before

us.

On behalf of the government, we want to extend to Tony's family

and to all that know him and hold him in affection our sadness, our prayers and

our thanks for the service that he has rendered to a grateful province.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, in rising on this sad occasion,

I pause to reflect on the words that you have said and on the words that the

Government House Leader has said, because they remind me of my first time back

in 1991 when I met Mr. Humphreys. What became apparent very early on were his

commitment and his loyalty to this institution, to those of us who serve here

and to those of us who work here.

If I were to think of four words that described Tony Humphreys and

how he carried out his duties in this place, they would be duty, service,

loyalty and honour. His respect for this institution was enormous. His loyalty

to this institution, I think, all of us recognize — but not only that: his

loyalty to those he worked with, to those of us in this chamber and to what this

place stood for.

He did it honourably. That is a word that is not often used in

politics sometimes, but Tony Humphreys served this institution and this place

with a great deal of honour. He leaves big shoes to fill. I know that on this

side of the House, hon. Speaker, we join with the government and yourself in

extending our condolences to his family. We will miss him greatly.

J. Horgan: I'd like to share with this House an anecdote

about Tony. Just some weeks ago school children from my constituency were

visiting, and I pointed to Tony in the photograph in the foyer and said: "That

man carries a sword." When you're in grade 5, there's nothing more exciting than

a man carrying a sword, and I told the school group of his role and function

here in this place.

[1010]

There were two groups, one on the first floor and one on the

second, and they managed to come together at the opening. Of course, being grade

5s, they were boisterous and they were loud. Within a minute Tony arrived, stern

as always, looking at the children. They turned, and I said: "That man's got a

sword." And there was silence. I'll remember that always.

I met Tony back in 1991, working in this place. I never thought

that I would be sitting here and watching him carry the mace out, and I'm very

saddened to say that we won't see that again.

Introductions by Members

K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself on this

very auspicious day, with the motion in the House coming before us, I would like

the House and all members to welcome the distinguished guests who have joined us

in the galleries this morning.

We have representatives from the Komagata Maru Heritage

Foundation, the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation, the Komagata Maru

Foundation, the Descendants of Komagata Maru Society and many other groups and

individuals in the Indo-Canadian community who, through their actions, have

demonstrated their concern that this indignity be acknowledged. Please join me

in a very special welcome.

[ Page 12790 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 62.

In the little House, I call Committee of Supply — for the

information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Environment.

Motions on Notice

KOMAGATA MARU

Hon. M. de Jong: Motion 62:

[Be it resolved that this Legislature apologizes for the

events of May 23, 1914, when 376 passengers of the Komagata Maru, stationed

off Vancouver harbour, were denied entry by Canada. The House deeply regrets

that the passengers, who sought refuge in our country and our province, were

turned away without benefit of the fair and impartial treatment befitting a

society where people of all cultures are welcomed and accepted.]

I wonder what people were thinking in the spring of 1914. I wonder

if they knew that the world stood on the brink of a cataclysm — the likes of

which had never been seen before or that the guns of August would ignite with a

fury that would see empires crumble and the lives of millions impacted forever.

I doubt it. I doubt it.

In Canada, a country not yet 50 years old, and a Vancouver where

trolley cars carried a growing population along the tree-lined boulevards, no

one was thinking about the cauldron of hatred that was simmering in the Balkans

or the orgy of death and destruction that would be unleashed by two gunshots in

Sarajevo. But in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, our own toxic mix of

intolerance, suspicion and racism was about to boil over and reveal itself in a

very different way.

On May 23, 1914, a boat arrived. A Japanese steamer sailing from

Hong Kong slipped through the narrows between Stanley Park and the North Shore.

Unlike the passengers on the countless cruise ships that sail into our harbour

today, the lights on the yet-to-be-built Lions Gate Bridge did not welcome them.

[1015]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

In fact, for these 376 passengers from the Punjab, there was to be

no welcome at all. For these passengers, their odyssey at sea began on April 4,

1914, and remarkably, for most of them, that odyssey at sea would last for

nearly six months.

The decision to deny entry to these people searching for a better

life derived from the application of myriad Canadian laws and regulations —

things like the continuous journey requirement that had been built into

immigration regulations. There can be no doubt that these laws were deliberately

designed to camouflage a more sinister objective: to restrict immigration from

Asia, to restrict immigration from India and to promote a white Canada policy.

For the passengers of the Komagata Maru , their forcible

expulsion from our shores on July 23, 1914, was not the end of the saga. While

the world's attention shifted to events taking place in Europe, the Komagata

Maru sailed on with its cargo of human misery, sailed on for Calcutta, where

it arrived at the end of September 1914. There, at a place called Budge Budge,

the final act in this transcontinental tragedy played out with the violent

deaths of 20 individuals who resisted their forced repatriation to the Punjab.

I read about this and learned about this for the first time as a

14-year-old, remarkably, in a book about Canada's first hockey legend, Cyclone

Taylor. He was one of the immigration officers that went out to the boat. I

learned a little bit from that book about the story.

But this day has been made possible because of the people and the

groups who have worked so hard to keep the memory of this dark

chapter in our

history alive. We heard them referred to just a moment ago: the Komagata Maru

Heritage Foundation, the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation, the Komagata

Maru Foundation and a myriad of others who understood that to properly embrace

the history of a nation is to embrace all of the history, to understand it and

to acknowledge it.

It's ironic that today as we work feverishly to forge closer ties

with India, the efforts of Baba Gurdit Singh, organizer of the Komagata Maru

voyage, would probably have been regarded as visionary. Happily, times have

changed. Unhappily, the ability to present this apology directly to the victims

of the events of 1914 no longer exists. But if we could today, through

descendants, through people that continue to care, we would say: Ah-seen kāmăn

dā jaa-chack hăăn, Thu-hăă-nuu jee-I-yan-nū kān-dā hăăn.

[Punjabi text provided by Hon. M. de Jong.]

Forgive us. You are welcome.

[1020]

R. Chouhan: First of all, I would like to welcome the

delegation from the South Asian community who have joined us today to be part of

this debate, to listen to the debate in the House about this motion.

I rise to support this motion. This is a motion that requires not

only an understanding of what has happened in the past but also to recognize the

racist policies of the time which caused that misery and that incident in 1914.

In the first two decades of the 20th century, the Canadian government passed

several bills to limit the civil rights of Indians arriving in Canada. That

included the right to vote, hold public office, serve on juries or practise as

pharmacists, lawyers and accountants.

That was also the time when, in Australia, a policy was passed to

keep Australia white. The Canadian government at that time, because India was

part of the British Empire, was not openly trying to create a law or policy

which could create a problem for the British government in India. Although when

Australia passed their policy and New Zealand adopted that policy after that,

the Canadian government also started thinking about doing the same thing here in

Canada.

In order to stop Indians coming to Canada, they came up with a

very unique plan called a continuous journey. People from India, prior to that,

could have come through Calcutta to Canada without any disruptions. However,

[ Page 12791 ]

when the government at that time decided that they must keep Canada white,

they came up with this plan, and they passed a law called continuous journey.

To challenge that, Baba Gurdit Singh chartered a ship called

Komagata Maru and brought 376 passengers to Canada. We know the history, as

the House Leader cited some of the incidents. When those people arrived here,

they met with every possible resistance the government could think of at that

time.

When they were not allowed to land, a shore committee was set up.

In the shore committee we had Hussain Rahim and Sohan Lal Pathak, who were in

charge of that committee at that time. They were asked by the community not only

to find ways and means to protest against that but also to file a legal

complaint to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Later on the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of the

government and did not agree with the complaint launched by the shore committee.

After a couple of months on the shores of Vancouver, British Columbia, the ship

was sent back. They arrived back at Budge Budge in Calcutta, and 20 people were

killed.

Since then the South Asian community in North America,

particularly in Canada, has been demanding an apology. It has been asking that

the government should recognize that the injustice done in Canada must be

corrected and must be acknowledged. So that's why a demand for an apology has

been very strong and coming from all parts of Canada. Recently, as we all know,

the federal government has decided to extend that apology.

[1025]

I'm glad that we had a motion a couple of weeks ago, tabled by my

colleague from Panorama Ridge, asking for an apology. We unanimously passed that

motion in this House. Today we have another motion, and I'm here to support

that. I ask that all members of this House join unanimously, strongly, to send

this message that a wrong was done, and today we are here to apologize. We

learned from that past, and we will never do it again.

Hon. W. Oppal: I rise in the House to speak to Motion 62.

As has been stated, it was 94 years ago today, on May 23, 1914, that the ship of

Japanese registry the Komagata Maru sailed into Canadian waters. The 376

passengers all carried British passports and were all members of the British

Empire. Many had come here in order to make Canada their permanent home.

Twenty-two of them were returning residents, and some, like Janetpura Puran,

were students or would-be students. They all had dreams to come here. As has

been well documented, they were not permitted to disembark.

I will not detail the indignities and the hostilities with which

they were greeted. That has been well documented, and they're not in dispute.

Suffice it to say, they encountered racism and hatred. As they remained on ship,

they were deprived of many of the necessities of life. Elected officials,

members of the media and the public collectively fanned the flames of hatred.

The cry of the day was that Canada was a white man's country. The ship finally

departed on July 23, 1914.

Today this treatment would be unimaginable. We, as a province and

as a nation, embrace people from all cultures as new Canadians and immigrants to

British Columbia. The people who have come here from the Punjab since then have

made a tremendous contribution to Canada and to this province. The cultural

diversity that they bring has enriched our experiences as a province and as a

nation.

Yet the events of the Komagata Maru remain with us as a

reminder that governments and communities must be ever mindful to be respectful

and welcoming of all immigrants and refugees. The memory of the Komagata Maru

is entrenched in the memories of the descendants of the Indo-Canadians and

Indians alike.

Motion 62 acknowledges the racism that the passengers of the

Komagata Maru endured and apologizes for that suffering. We as a province

must apologize categorically for the events that took place relating to the

Komagata Maru .

I would like to make special mention at this time of some of the

many individuals and organizations that have communicated with this government

to express their support for this motion: the Khalsa Diwan Society, which was

always instrumental in assisting people from India from their earliest arrivals;

the Komagata Maru Heritage Foundation; the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial

Foundation; the Komagata Maru Foundation; the descendants of the Komagata

Maru passengers; and many groups and individuals in the Indo-Canadian

community who, through their actions, have demonstrated their concern that this

indignity be acknowledged.

I want to thank the members of the community who have come here

this morning to celebrate this occasion and to acknowledge the past wrongs that

have taken place in our province.

J. Brar: Time after time after time, every government

recognized that the incident of the Komagata Maru shouldn't have happened

in this province and in this country. Yet nobody stood up and said to the

Indo-Canadian community: "We are sorry. We are sorry for this incident." That

didn't happen during the last 94 years.

[1030]

I was approached by the community members, community activists,

community organizations to do something to put an end to this tragic incident

that we have in the history of this country. As a result of that, I submitted a

motion in this House on April 7, 2008. It was a real honour for me to rise in

this House on May 12 to move a motion with regard to this century-old tragic

episode of Komagata Maru , urging this House to support a statement of

apology by the provincial and federal governments.

Today is the 94th anniversary of the Komagata Maru

incident. I am pleased to see that the government of British Columbia has

decided to bring this very important issue back to this House for debate.

Therefore, I am very, very pleased to support this motion asking

[ Page 12792 ]

this Legislature to apologize for this incident that took place 94 years ago.

[Punjabi was spoken.]

As said by many other people, on May 23, 1914, a ship named

Komagata Maru carrying 376 passengers from India entered Burrard Inlet,

Vancouver. After that long journey they were turned away and not allowed to

enter Canada. We must note that the Komagata Maru ship was denied entry

to Canada due to a racist immigration policy called "continuous journey."

At that time, to be admitted to Canada immigrants had to come by a

continuous journey from their country of birth and enter Canada with at least

$200. Since no ship at that time came directly from India, no Indian could enter

into this country. In chartering the ship Komagata Maru , Baba Gurdit

Singh's goal was to challenge that racist immigration policy called continuous

journey.

The Komagata Maru tragedy is a huge black mark in the

history of Canada. It's a powerful symbol of the injustices and racism that took

place on our beautiful land at that time. Madam Speaker, 94 years ago a bad

history was made on our land, and today we are turning the page, and we are

making a new history that we will all be proud of — that Canada is a land of

opportunity to all people, not only white people.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all the people who are

here today to witness this historic apology which has been due for the last 94

years. I would also like to recognize the work and the efforts of many, many

individuals and organizations to bring this historic day for the community.

My special thanks to the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver for

their meaningful efforts and support to the passengers during their two-month

struggle at Burrard Inlet. My special thanks to the family members for their

patience in waiting for this apology for 94 years. My thanks to Komagata Maru

Heritage Foundation and Komagata Maru Foundation and my sincere thanks to

Professor Mohan Singh Foundation for their extraordinary work in recent years to

bring awareness in the community and to make this issue a priority on the

political agenda of the provincial as well as the federal governments.

Last but not least, on behalf of the Indo-Canadian community, I

would like to thank every member of this House — every member of this House from

both sides — for coming together to bring an end to this historic 94-year-old

tragedy, a dark

chapter in the history of Canada.

[1035]

D. Hayer: I fully support Motion 62 by our government on

the Komagata Maru apology. I have often spoken in this House and outside

to condemn the Komagata Maru tragedy that began on this date — May 23 —

94 years ago, in 1914.

First, I want to thank the Khalsa Diwan Society that was

established in 1907. They have fought against this since 1914. Also, I want to

thank the Komagata Maru Foundation, Komagata Maru Heritage Foundation, Professor

Mohan Singh Foundation and descendants of the Komagata Maru passengers.

Also, I want to say thank you to the community leaders and the

many organizations, as well as the community leaders who are no longer with us

today, from a very broad, diverse community, who have stood up to say that this

was wrong, who have kept the issue alive, who have helped to bring us to this

point, to make sure it does not happen again. It took many years, almost a

century, to come to this point.

Just last week, I spoke on a motion calling for the federal

government to issue an apology and the circumstances that saw 376 persons — 340

of them were Sikhs, 24 Muslims and 12 Hindus, all of them British subjects —

virtually imprisoned aboard the Komagata Maru ship anchored in the

Vancouver harbour. They languished on board the fateful ship for almost two

months before they were sent packing back to India, some of them eventually to

their death when they arrived in India.

Today all those words that I have spoken, all those words so many

people who are sitting in our gallery today have spoken and many other people

from our community who are no longer with us have spoken, have actually come to

succeed, where we are finally issuing the apology. This is the first time any

government in Canada has issued an official apology. I want to say thank you

very much to our government, our Premier and all of the members of the

opposition who have helped to make sure this apology happens.

It's good to see that we have no discrimination today. It's good

to see that our Canada has changed, where we allow immigrants from different

parts, regardless of their race, their colour or their descent, to succeed at

anything they can dream of. I want to make sure this type of incident does not

happen again. All of the Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia, around the

world and in Canada will be happy with what this Legislature is doing today. It

is fixing a dreadful wrong that should have never occurred in Canada.

I also want to say that our youth of today and our youth of the

future…. We don't want them to forget the incidents of the Komagata Maru,

this tragic tragedy. This whole episode is something that we want to make sure

nobody repeats again. This is why it is taught in our schools, in social studies

11 and civic studies 11 classes.

I know we have many speakers who want to speak on this, so I will

cut my remarks short and say thank you very much to the House and to every

member in the House who is helping us to issue this apology on the Komagata

Maru. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the community.

H. Bains: It is with pride that I stand here today to

support this motion. I'm not going to talk about the history, because many have

mentioned it here in this House. I'm in a congratulatory mood, because finally,

after 94 years of kicking and screaming, from legislators to the parliament, no

government saw it fit to right the wrong of 94 years of history. Finally, we are

seeing the results.

There's no doubt in my mind, no doubt even today, that if it

wasn't for the strength of the Indo-Canadian

[ Page 12793 ]

community from coast to coast to coast in Canada who have established

themselves as the premier and mainstream community in every field of this

country and made contributions in every sector of our economy…. We are seeing

some results finally, and they have established, themselves, that they can no

longer be ignored in this country.

[1040]

As a result, I want to thank the Khalsa Diwan Society and those

leaders who were there at the time — people like Naginder Singh Gill, Bhai Bhag

Singh, Bhai Balwant Singh, who gave their lives and who nurtured those

passengers in that very difficult time and left a legacy for us. I want to thank

them because as a result of their sacrifice and their vision, I am sitting in

this chair today. [Punjabi was spoken.]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity, in conclusion, to

pay my tribute to and thank the passengers of Komagata Maru and honour

their progressive thinking and their bravery and valour to challenge the laws of

the day for social justice. These people put their lives on the line for their

beliefs and to stand up for what was right. For that, I want to thank them.

I want to thank every member of this House and every person and

organization that exists today — and many of them are here today — that kept

this issue alive. Our Punjabi radio stations — Radio India, Sher-e-Punjab,

Channel M and many others — and other organizations kept this issue alive.

Finally we are seeing closure to this issue and trying to omit the black mark

that existed in our history for centuries. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker,

for the opportunity to speak on this.

J. Nuraney: Let me, first of all, offer my warm welcome to

the members of the Sikh community who have come here to witness what they have

been waiting for, for a long time.

Today we are witnessing a gesture by this government which

redeems, to a certain extent, the injustice that was meted out to the passengers

of Komagata Maru on May 23, 1914. There were 356 — 12 Hindus and 24

Muslims — on board that ship. This incident is recorded in our British Columbia

history as a stain on the ethics and values that we hold so dearly — that is,

inclusiveness and respect for others.

This act of racism has become an indelible memory in the minds of

the pioneers and Canadians who worked so hard to make our province what it is

today. The contribution of the Sikh community in the development of our province

is well known, not only in the past as the pioneers in the industries of

forestry and agriculture, but today they continue to be very valuable members of

the Canadian society and continue to play a very significant role in what Canada

stands for.

We could say that this outrageous act, which violated the rights

of individuals to seek out their destiny, was outrageous. Today, as we offer our

apologies to those affected, we must also take this opportunity to look within

ourselves and ask the fundamental question: have we really eradicated racism?

Each one of us has a duty to be vigilant and to guard against any

act of racism in our society. I would submit that such acts of racism are a

result of ignorance.

[1045]

Let me quote from the holy Koran in reference to the entirety of

the human race. It says: "O mankind, be careful of your duty to your Lord, who

created you from one single soul and…created its mate, and from them twain hath

spread abroad a multitude of men and women."

Madam Speaker, as I congratulate our government for this noble act

of apology, let me say that we should consider this tragic incident as a lesson

to develop tolerance, respect and understanding for others and to inculcate

these values in our children and in the next generation so that such acts of

racism may never take place in our society.

H. Lali: Like my colleagues on both sides of the House, I

join in support of Motion 62. As you know, the Komagata Maru incident was

a real black mark in the history of Canada in terms of race relations that took

place. I'm not going to go into the history, but obviously, the continuous

journey act that was passed was a real racist policy, as you know, designed to

keep people from Asia from actually coming to Canada at that time. Baba Gurdit

Singh, who was in charge of the 376 people, wanted to test that law when it was

brought in.

Once the ship had returned back to India with its occupants, the

whole issue did not just end there. There was a lot of misinformation going on

at that time which was trying to link Mr. Gurdit Singh's passage to Canada as

somehow being a part of the effort to try to overthrow the British government.

To this day there is not a shred of evidence that is made available to actually

support that theory. Unfortunately, some of the government agents of the day,

the immigration officials, were trying to pass that on as something that was

legitimate, when it was not.

When they returned to Calcutta, in Budge Budge, as has been

mentioned by others, there was a melee that took place, and 20 of the occupants

of the Komagata Maru were actually killed in the shootout that took place

by the army and the police at the time.

One of the questions I always ask is: what was going through the

minds of the people who actually came here and tried to immigrate to Canada at

that time? What was in their minds? It reminds me of the stories that my mom and

dad used to tell me about 1947, when the partition of India took place into

India and Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of people were massacred. It reminds

me of aboriginal people I talk to who went through the whole residential school

system and also the folks that were massacred in 1984 in Delhi in the riots that

took place after the assassination of Indira Gandhi.

They all talk about the same thing. They felt shame. They felt

guilt. They felt anger. That's what had happened.

There are folks — and I've seen some editorials out there, even in

the last few days — suggesting that there was no need for Canada or British

Columbia to apologize.

[ Page 12794 ]

What were we apologizing for? What do apologies do, when you're dealing with

people — whether it's the aboriginal people that were apologized to by this

Legislature in the late 1990s in terms of what happened to the aboriginal people

in the residential school system…?

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

What it offers is healing. It offers healing, even though it's 94

years late. Even for someone like me and for others who were not around at that

time, to read about it brings about that feeling of shame and guilt. It also is

an acknowledgment that yes, our racist policies were racist at the time, and

yes, there were a lot of wrongs done at that time. That's what this is all

about, whether you're talking about any of those instances where those apologies

were offered.

Finally, before I sit down, it is important to offer this apology,

because, as we see on epitaphs when we see Remembrance Day celebrated, it says:

"Lest we forget." Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, and we

don't want to repeat that racist history again.

Like the others, I acknowledge all of the Punjabi friends who are

sitting up in the galleries today. [Punjabi was spoken.]

[1050]

We're finally issuing a resolution of apology, so I want to

acknowledge all of the folks that are sitting up there in terms of hearing the

apology taking place today.

Hon. C. Taylor: I have the rather unusual privilege to be

in my second layer of government service that is acknowledging the situation of

the Komagata Maru incident.

In 1989 I was an elected member of Vancouver city council at a

time where we acknowledged this shameful incident and in fact created a memorial

so that we would remember it. Here we are 19 years later, once again and at a

different level of government, in our provincial Legislature, acknowledging and

apologizing for something that is, as others have said, a very dark period in

our history.

It has been said very eloquently what the facts are from the

situation, so I think that it's left for me just to look with amazement, dismay

and anger at what actually happened. Imagine! My Canada, which I'm so proud of,

had a policy that was actually whites-only immigration. It was done very

carefully, of course. It was a very carefully unspoken but very insidious policy

that ensured that immigration would come primarily from white European

countries.

I tried to put myself in the place of those who were in government

at that time and to imagine the conversation that happened, presumably behind

closed doors, and the conversation that said: "How can we accomplish this

without really telling people what we're trying to accomplish?" They came up

with

an act that said: "You must have continuous journey to Canada."

That must have seemed like a solution for those who wanted

whites-only immigration, except that CP had a very successful continuous journey

shipping line going from Calcutta to Vancouver. So what did the government do?

They created the pressure to stop CP from doing that one continuous journey, so

that when the Komagata Maru set sail in 1914, it travelled from Hong Kong

to China to Japan to Vancouver. Therefore, it had to challenge this immigration

policy that was based on discrimination.

It is a shame for all of us to remember that our country did this,

but I think that part of the healing process is to go through this, where we

apologize for it. To those individuals who have been affected directly or

indirectly, to those in India whose future was determined by this policy of

discrimination and to the world who watched Canada with dismay as we perpetuated

this whites-only policy — to everyone — we say: "We apologize."

C. Puchmayr: Well, this is certainly a momentous day for

all of us here in the Legislature.

We will never right the wrongs of racism that were perpetrated

upon the passengers of the Komagata Maru 94 years ago today in anchorage

off Stanley Park. We'll never reverse the pain that was inflected on the 376

passengers of that ill-fated voyage. We will surely never reverse the lives lost

through illness that felled some of the passengers who became prisoners of

injustice and intolerance from that horrific journey. We will never reverse the

political persecution and execution of 20 of the passengers as they returned to

India.

The fact that it has taken so long to get to this moment in this

grand chamber once again shows the reluctance of us to move swiftly in a merely

symbolic way. But the fact that we are here today speaking words of apology, the

fact that we are here in this chamber speaking of reconciliation of the past

wrongs, is significant.

[1055]

If this moment is to be more than just symbolic, it will only be

judged by the sincerity that is displayed from here forward — how we communicate

the past wrongs to our young people and how we respect tolerance of all cultures

and of all nations, from the first nations to the next nations. This moment will

only be judged on how we stand up and challenge the racism in our communities

and how we share the experience of the many cultures that make up the colourful

mosaic that we so proudly call Canada.

As the globe shrinks and we live closer physically, economically

and electronically, we must never assume that we have resolved the wrongs of the

past such as the Komagata Maru. We cannot rest from this lesson. It takes

merely a stroke of a governor's pen to create the modern-day prohibitions to

immigration that jeopardize all lessons that history has taught us. Let's

celebrate this day and then remain vigilant so that a true and welcoming Canada

continues to always hold her arms open to all.

R. Hawes: It's an honour to be able to stand today and help

lend my voice to what I hope will be some closure to this long, long-overdue

tragic incident. The apology is long overdue. Madam Speaker, our history

[ Page 12795 ]

in Canada actually has been checkered with these types of things.

We've had the Chinese head tax, but we've addressed it. We've had

years of mistreatment of our aboriginal community that we're working very hard

to address and to correct. We wouldn't allow women to vote years ago, and that

was corrected. Our past has been filled with incidents that I think wouldn't be

tolerated today, and we've learned from those.

I want to thank the members in the gallery of the Punjabi

community who have persisted in making sure that this day comes. Hopefully, it

will come in Ottawa, where our national government will also apologize for this

incident. I think it's really important that we don't forget that this incident

occurred, and I'm confident that the members of the Punjabi community who are

here today will ensure that there is no forgetting and no going backwards.

I frequently write letters in my constituency office for members

of the South Asian community who are trying to get relatives to come here for

weddings or funerals. I don't get asked to write letters for those from other

parts of the Commonwealth. I just wonder if that sort of pernicious racism, to a

smaller degree, perhaps…. It seems to still be there.

I think that we should be pressing our Immigration Department to

ensure that the exact same policies apply to those from the South Asian

countries as apply to those who would want to come here to visit from Australia

or England. I don't think we should rest until we are absolutely certain that we

don't have any racism that exists, and I still see it.

Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to have been able to speak here

today. I want to especially thank, in my own community, the Gursikh Society who

are a very important part of the economic mosaic in the community in which I

live.

I am proud to say that in this country we have become an extremely

multicultural society that embraces all cultures, but we still have a long way

to go. I know that both sides of this Legislature believe we should be

ever-vigilant. We should work hard to make sure that racism in all its forms is

wiped out and that everyone is treated with equality.

[1100]

S. Hammell: It is a great honour to stand in this House and

support the motion moved by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and

Reconciliation, and I do think I'll take just a moment to read that motion. It

says:

"Be it resolved that this Legislature apologizes

for the events of May 23, 1914, when 376 passengers of the Komagata Maru,

stationed off Vancouver harbour, were denied entry by Canada. The House deeply

regrets that the passengers, who sought refuge in our country and our

province, were turned away without benefit of the fair and impartial treatment

befitting a society where people of all cultures are welcomed and accepted."

That incident can be viewed from a number of perspectives. We've

heard some in the House today, and I concur with the perspectives that were

presented. But I want to take a look at the incident from just a slightly

different perspective, and that is the perspective of leadership. Unless we as a

community learn from the mistakes of our past, it is said, and I concur, we will

be destined to repeat those mistakes in the future.

I think that part of the issue here — and the lesson we can learn

— is us understanding the power of the establishment, the power of the

established order, those who hold power and what they can do, the lengths that

they are willing to go to maintain that power as they see it, and how justified

they are or were in using the power to maintain the order.

The federal government — our federal government — passed the

non-continuous laws. They forbid Indian community members from holding the right

to vote, from holding office. Indians were not permitted to become lawyers,

members of the establishment, accountants, pharmacists. They were forbidden to

take their place in our community. They were denied the right to vote.

They were forced to pay $200 to land. When you were making ten

cents a day, $200 was a fortune. The federal government passed the continuous

passenger law, and to boot, they pressured steamship companies not to sell

tickets to the community.

For those of you who have read the history of this, the mayor of

Vancouver, in his position as a leader, said: "I intend to stand up absolutely

on all occasions on this one great principle of a white country and a white

British Columbia." That was the leadership of the day. That was the established

order of the day.

For us as citizens of today, what we have to be is aware that that

kind of order can be limiting. If we compare that kind of leadership to that of

Baba Gurdit Singh…. If we compare the leadership here to him and the passengers

that came and tried to break through that barrier, we see a man committed to

equality, to justice, to fairness in terms of a country and a citizenship of the

world and the Commonwealth. He had a right, as did the passengers that were with

him, to be here in this country and to take his place in this country.

I am so proud of this assembly, because these were real people.

Their treatment represents a very black time in our history. I'm very proud and

pleased to take

part in this debate and, with the rest of this assembly, to

offer my deepest apologies.

M. Polak: Many have spoken about the auspicious occasion

that this represents as we, as a Legislature, as members in this assembly, come

together to support

an act of apology. There is, sadly, a concern that I have

heard come from my community as this has been publicized that I want to deal

with very directly. That is the cynical response of some members of the public

to say that this isn't necessary, that this is political pandering, that this is

empty. I want to confront that in the strongest possible terms.

[1105]

There are many things that happen in a political body such as ours

that are deserving of cynicism and that are deserving of a questioning eye. But

on today of all days I want our public to understand that this is a

[ Page 12796 ]

group of people from different political perspectives coming together to do

the right thing because it is the right thing.

Ninety-four years ago people came seeking entry to this country.

Today this House comes humbly seeking forgiveness, because that's what an

apology is. When we apologize, it doesn't end the dialogue. It begins one, and

it begins it in a state of peace and love, seeking forgiveness, just as those

individuals sought entry into Canada.

We can hope, humbly, as this House seeks forgiveness, that we are

treated with the kind of example that we know is commonly experienced from our

brothers and sisters in the South Asian community. I thank them for the

opportunity to be here today and to be a part of what is an amazing action on

the part of a Legislature — that of confronting

an act of government years ago

that was based on hatred with

an act of a Legislature today based on peace, and

humbly seeking the forgiveness of those who have been offended.

S. Hammell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: In the gallery are students from Creekside

Elementary from Surrey. I think they're so fortunate to be here to observe this

debate and take

part in this session today. Could the House please make them

welcome.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: Well, I am honoured, too, to be able to stand and

speak in this House today.

When I was in grade 3 at French Creek Elementary School in Coombs,

this big kid came into the class. He wasn't as tall as the member for

Surrey–Panorama Ridge, but he was probably suited to about grade 7 or 8. He was

put in our grade 3 class because he was from India. His name was Harshan Bains,

That was my first contact with a member of the South Asian

community. I've often thought since that time, as I've grown older and I hope a

little wiser, what it must have been like for him, a big kid stuck in a

classroom filled with white kids. He was the only face of colour in that whole

classroom. What must it have been like for him?

Scottish, Norwegian, some German, some French. I'm a white, heterosexual male.

I've never faced discrimination in my whole life. I never faced it on the basis

of my religion; I'm a baptized Anglican. I never faced it on the basis of my

colour. I never faced it on the basis of my orientation or gender.

I am a child of privilege. But those in the gallery today

represent another group. They were not, if you will, the children of privilege

or the child of privilege that I was. Their ancestors, when they came to this

were white, and they were welcomed. They never faced what the ancestors of some

of the members of this chamber did.

Unlike my sister-in-law's family, who were Japanese Canadians…. My

sister-in-law's parents and her older siblings were all interned in the Second

World War. I never faced any of that.

[1110]

The point of what I'm trying to say today is that, as I look into

the gallery, I want all of those who are listening today to understand that I,

as a representative of the privileged classes of this country, both now and

historically, and speaking particularly to those who still face discrimination

on the basis of their race or their orientation or, indeed, their gender, want

to say I'm sorry. I'm honoured to be able to speak here today.

I want to apologize on behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo, whom

I represent. One of the oldest cities in this province had its own history of

racism, particularly against the Chinese community in the early days. So I'm

sorry.

I'm delighted you're here. I'm proud of this Legislature for

passing this motion today, as I'm sure it will. It is an historic moment. It is

a recognition, an acknowledgment of an historic injustice. Let us all move

forward from this time today to try and build the kind of British Columbia that

every one of us, I believe, wants our children to inherit.

J. McIntyre: This 94th anniversary of the arrival of the

steamer ship Komagata Maru in Vancouver is taking on a special

significance today, not that this is cause for celebration. With this motion in

the B.C. Legislature today, we have the opportunity to finally apologize for the

racism, discrimination and intolerant behaviour that the 376 passengers from

India, all British subjects, had to endure so long ago. They were denied the

opportunity that my ancestors and those of most of us serving in the House were

privileged to experience when they arrived on Canada's shores many years ago.

The Komagata Maru passengers came in search of a better

life and a brighter future, but they were turned away. This treatment, by any

modern standard, is shameful and completely unacceptable, and we need to use

this dark part of our history to ensure that we never repeat this unforgivable

act.

I've had the privilege of making friends with Indo-Canadians at

the temple in Squamish, and I've seen firsthand the quality of life that they

have today because of the hard work of their ancestors in building and

contributing significantly to that town's success. So I would like to extend

this apology directly to all my constituents who have been affected by this

black mark in our province's and in our country's history.

I welcome the opportunity to support Motion 62 publicly and add my

voice to this assembly's apology.

In closing, I'd like to ask us all to recommit ourselves to

honouring and celebrating the diversity and the tolerant attitudes that we now

share in Canada today. Let us all share in those blessings that we enjoy

[ Page 12797 ]

and ensure that those who follow us enjoy the same and that we never stop

learning from the past.

I support this motion wholeheartedly and apologize for the pain

and humiliation that this racist policy of the past inflicted so blatantly 94

years ago today.

C. Wyse: It is indeed with mixed feelings that I stand in

this House today. I'm not quite certain where I wish to begin, but where I've

decided I wish to begin is that, as a member of this Legislature, I take

ownership for an injustice that took place over 90 years ago to over 300 people

who attempted to come to the place where I call home. That is significant to me.

It's with that ownership being taken here in this Legislature that, in my

opinion, allows healing to take place. It is that significant part that is being

demonstrated here in this Legislature.

[1115]

We had an injustice that took place that was based upon racism. It

included some of the worst attributes of humans. It involved prejudice, it

involved discrimination, and it involved intolerance. By taking ownership of

those feelings, it's my opinion — and I hope I am correct — that it provides an

opportunity for healing to take place.

I wish to recognize the courage of the 376 individuals who

provided this situation for us here to share. It's their courage to simply want

to arrive in an area and contribute to that particular society.

It's important in the area where I'm from, the Cariboo, to

acknowledge the contribution that the Indo-Canadians have made to my area, my

community, my province and my country. I don't wish to narrow that contribution

to just one very small part of Canada, because that contribution has been made

right across the entire nation. But as I represent that area and take ownership

for something that took place here in British Columbia, it is equally important,

I believe, to recognize the contribution that has been made to this part of the

province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In closing, I want to thank those individuals and organizations

that have stayed the course to have this particular day, which I can be part of,

and to extend unequivocally my support for this motion and my apologies for an

action that took place over 90 years ago.

R. Lee: I rise to support this motion. Ever since

Confederation and until the end of the Second World War, Canadian governments

introduced laws to restrict immigration based on race.

In 1878 the province of British Columbia passed a strict law to

prevent Chinese immigration. However, the federal government of the time went to

the court to rule that the provincial Legislature had no jurisdiction over

immigration. In 1885 the federal government itself passed a Chinese immigration

act that required all Chinese entering Canada to pay a $50 head tax, which was

increased to $100 in the year 1900 and $500 in 1903. In the early 1900s, $500

was two years' average salary.

The head tax was ended by the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923, which

virtually stopped all immigrants from China. During this period of race

discrimination, the Canadian government made laws to block immigration from

India indirectly by requiring that immigrants had to come by continuous journey

from their country of birth and enter with at least $200 cash.

The government of the day also forced the only direct shipping

line run by Canadian Pacific to stop services between Canada and India, as we

heard. It was under these kinds of discriminatory policies and actions that the

incident of Komagata Maru happened.

I believe that today it's not only a milestone in this House to

recognize the discriminatory characteristics of these unfair laws, but it also

serves as a reminder that as legislators, we have the utmost responsibility to

ensure fairness in the laws we pass as well as fairness in the execution of

those policies, laws and regulations.

Redressing the past injustice may bring up many unpleasant

memories. Sometimes it's like cutting open a scar — painful. However, any

surgeon can tell you that if the wound is not treated right, it will not heal

properly.

Looking through the lens in our hearts, we all benefit from a

clear, undistorted, unbiased view of these historical events. Thanks to the

Indo-Canadian community for bringing this issue forward. I'm pleased to support

wholeheartedly this motion.

[1120]

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure today to take my place in

this debate on this important motion.

We are celebrating our 150th anniversary of the founding of

British Columbia in 1858, and that is a tremendous opportunity to celebrate not

only the great things about British Columbia, the great things in our history,

but also to take time and recognize those things that are not so great, those

periods in our history that we look back on with regret and that we apologize

for.

I can stand in this House today, and I can say to the people in

the gallery watching this debate sat sri akal — good morning; welcome —

but 94 years ago not only would I not have been able to say that. I would most

likely not have ever even wanted to say that. It is a period in our history that

it's important we don't forget. But to understand how we got here today, we need

to understand where we came from, and that means both the good and the bad.

The events that occurred in 1914 just prior to the First World War

on the Komagata Maru illustrate not only racist attitudes of the time,

not only how discrimination governs so much of our daily lives but how

discrimination governed how we functioned as a society.

It also serves, I think, as an opportunity to show in the

intervening years just how far we've come. Not only can we stand here today and

apologize for what took place but also celebrate the contribution that South

Asians have made to British Columbia in those 94 years in every walk of life, be

it economic, be it business, be it labour, be it the arts, be it politics, be it

health care, be it education, be it the judiciary. South Asians have made

tremendous contributions to the building of this province.

[ Page 12798 ]

Oh, wouldn't it be great if we could go back to those people who

made that racist decision back in 1914 and say: "Look at the mistake you've

made. Look at the talent you've turned away. Look at the opportunity you've

denied this province."

Hon. Speaker, today is an opportunity for us to apologize. Today

is an opportunity for us to commit that we as a society have learnt from the

mistakes of the past. Today is the opportunity to say that we welcome everybody

if this province to build a new and prosperous British Columbia for everybody

and truly say sat sri akal .

R. Chouhan: Hon. Speaker, I want to say today bole so

nihal .

L. Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, I know time is short, so I just

want to acknowledge the people that are here today. Up until just a few years

ago I did not know about this black mark on our history, and it is the result of

work by the Komagata Maru Heritage Foundation, the Komagata Maru Foundation, the

descendants of the Komagata Maru Society and the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial

Foundation. These folks invited me to come to an acknowledgment ceremony seven

years ago, and that's when I first learned about this thing that happened.

So I'm here to say thank you to them. You are the reason why this

motion is here. You have carried the torch. You have brought this all the way,

all these 94 years. You are to be saluted. Please accept our humble apology.

[1125]

G. Gentner: I, too, am here to apologize. Very quickly, I

want to share with you my upbringing. I grew up in a racist community, a racist

tradition. Social Darwinism was created in the Edwardian period, which this

history was all about. Unfortunately, I grew up in this tradition of thinking we

were somewhat different than others. My first babysitters were people from the

Punjab, and it certainly changed my ideas as a young person. So early in life we

get…. I have to say that I apologize for what happened then, and I apologize for

what is happening today.

When we see, even today, with prominent people who come forward —

I'll leave names unmentioned, but people who could be involved with VANOC — who

suggest that you should not sing the national anthem in another language, I

think that's wrong. This is a journey that will continue every day, and I humbly

apologize to the House and to our friends who visit us today. It's time to march

on to a brighter, happier future.

Hon. M. de Jong: A remarkable day and debate here in the

chamber. I want to thank all of the members for their contributions, for

speaking with conviction, speaking with passion. We have, with our words today,

tried as best we can to redress the injustices that occurred 94 years ago, and

perhaps 94 years from now people will look back on this

chapter in the history

of this province in this chamber and reflect fondly on what a great day it has

been.

With that, I move Motion 62 and the apology contained therein.

[1130]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, please take your seats.

Members, the question is on Motion 62 by the Government House

Leader.

"Be it resolved that this Legislature apologizes

for the events of May 23, 1914, when 376 passengers of the Komagata Maru,

stationed off Vancouver harbour, were denied entry by Canada. The House deeply

regrets that the passengers, who sought refuge in our country and our

province, were turned away without benefit of the fair and impartial treatment

befitting a society where people of all cultures are welcomed and accepted."

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and

Proceedings .]

[Applause.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 57 standing in my name on

the order paper.

ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM QUESTION

Hon. W. Oppal: I move Motion 57, which stands on the order

paper in the House Leader's name.

[Be it resolved that this House approves the following

wording for the electoral reform referendum question which will appear on the

May 12, 2009 general election ballot:

"Which electoral system should British Columbia use to

elect members to the provincial Legislative Assembly?"

The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)

The single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV)

proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform]

As members of this House will….

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, could you take a seat. There are a

couple of people who want to make introductions. Sorry, Attorney.

[1135]

S. Hammell: I would like leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: The second set of students from Creekside

Elementary are here in the gallery observing this occasion. So would the House

again join me in making them very welcome.

D. Hayer: I have a group of special students here from William

F. Davidson Elementary School — 106 students from grade 5. They are here for

this very

[ Page 12799 ]

historical event. They are with their teachers — Mrs. Patricia Fowler, Mrs.

Brenda Champion, Mrs. Linda Levers Erickson, Mrs. Joyce Buckham — and 20

volunteer parents who have taken time away from their busy schedules to be with

the students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an announcement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Brar: I understand that the members of the community

have been invited for lunch after this, but in the spirit of cooperation and

celebration, I would like to invite them for a quick cup of tea in room 201.

Debate Continued

Hon. W. Oppal: As members of this House will recall,

government made a commitment in the throne speech in September 2005 to bring

forward for debate a draft of the question to be decided in the May 2009

referendum on electoral reform. This motion asks the House to approve the

wording of the question that will be on the ballot for that referendum.

The referendum question would read: "Which electoral system should

British Columbia use to elect members to the provincial Legislative Assembly —

the existing electoral system, first-past-the-post, or the single transferable

vote electoral system, BCSTV, proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral

Reform?"

Members may recall that the question asked in 2005 was the

following: "Should British Columbia change to the BCSTV electoral system as

recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform — yes or no?"

The proposed wording for the 2009 referendum clearly identifies

the two choices, one being the current system and the other being the form of

STV specifically proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The

question is different from that in 2005, in that it removes some language that

we heard was perceived as biased in favour of a yes vote, particularly words

like "change" and "recommended by." In addition to a number of complaints

received during and after the 2005 referendum that the question was not as

neutrally worded as it could be, a post-referendum study by the NRG Research

Group queried the neutrality of the question.

Government has carefully considered these issues and reviewed

referenda questions from other jurisdictions. I believe that the proposed

wording is clear and neutral and will help to ensure a fair debate on the

important matter of which system British Columbia uses to elect members to this

House. I urge all members to support the motion.

I move Motion 57.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to stand here and participate in

the discussion on the motion before us today, Motion 57 in the name of the

Government House Leader. I listened carefully to the Attorney when we were

debating Bill 6, the legislation that would implement the referendum during the

coming election campaign in May 2009.

We had, I think, a fairly stimulated debate about the issues, and

the Attorney assured this House at that time that executive council would bring

forward a question. I'm very pleased that he has ensured that that question is

before this Legislature for discussion before it goes on a ballot next May.

[1140]

In that debate, the Attorney will remember, I raised the issues

that had been brought to my attention not just by the alumni of the citizens'

assembly, two of whom are from every constituency in the province, but by the

two, certainly, from my constituency who were very, very active in promoting and

advocating for the single transferable vote. I listened carefully to them at

that time and to others who have contacted me in my constituency and here in the

Legislature.

I'm pleased to see that the government has brought forward a

question that they believe to be as neutral as possible, and I think that

neutrality was the crux of the challenge following the debate. There was also

the supermajority issue, and we canvassed that issue in committee stage of

legislation that was recently passed by this House.

I do still believe that the supermajority is a challenge and an

obstacle. If the question, although it may well have been biased in 2005,

couldn't achieve the supermajority at that time, with all of the attention that

had been focused around the work of the citizens' assembly and all of the

promotion of trying to find balance in this place, whether it be having a

vibrant opposition or having a government more cognizant of the diversity of

opinions in the community, then I'm rather suspect that the question will pass

now with the 60 percent — not just 60 percent per constituency but 60 percent of

the constituencies.

So I'm pleased to support this motion. I know many of my

colleagues want to speak on this, or certainly some of my colleagues do, but I

would, hon. Chair, with your indulgence, like to move an amendment to the motion

and add the following. It would be the third bullet in the motion, and it would

read that you would have the option of the existing electoral system or the

first-past-the-post; you would have the option of the single transferable

electoral system proposed by the citizens' assembly; and a third one, which

would go as follows: "a mixed-member proportional electoral system."

On the amendment.

J. Horgan: That is one of the questions that was put on the

ballot in Ontario recently and is certainly another option or alternative for

electoral reform, not just here in British Columbia but in Canada.

With that, I move that amendment and seek leave to speak to that.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, the amendment is out of order as

it is beyond the scope of legislation on which the motion is based.

[ Page 12800 ]

On the main motion.

J. Horgan: Continuing on the main motion.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect your ruling, and I thank you for

that, but I do believe that it's important that, certainly on this side of the

House, we be on record that there is a multiplicity of alternatives and options

for electoral reform. Certainly, the citizens' assembly reviewed all of those,

but the mandate of the assembly was very narrow. They were directed to come back

with only one option, and the option they selected at that time, at that moment

in history in 2004-2005, was the single transferable ballot.

It's my opinion that there are other options. There are other

ideas in the community. If we are going to canvass the public again, at

significant cost…. A referendum is not without its impact on the treasury. We

have, as the Attorney outlined in legislation passed earlier in this House, put

forward blocks of money for a yes and a no campaign to actively promote either

side of the question.

It's just my opinion, having had the opportunity today to rise on

this debate, that we put on record that a mixed-member proportional system is

certainly as viable and as legitimate as anything that could have been brought

forward by the assembly, as anything that could have been concocted in the

executive council. It's something that I believe citizens would want to pass

judgment on as well.

Our electoral system is the foundation of our democracy. How we

arrive in this place is very important. It is, for many people, their one single

opportunity to exercise their judgment on how they would like to see the

province coordinate its activities, spend its tax dollars and provide services,

whether they be health, education, social services, economic development

initiatives and so on.

[1145]

The foundation of our democracy is how we bring people to this

place. We don't draw lots. We don't pick randomly. We put forward names and

ideas, and we debate those at election time. I think that if we're going to

fundamentally change how we do that, how we send people to this place, which the

referendum is contemplating, then there should be a range of options open to the

public. I certainly believe that the mixed-member option is one that we on this

side of the House — or at least this member, speaking for myself — would want to

support.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for your time. Again, I

regret but certainly appreciate your ruling on the mixed-member proportional

representation idea. I'm hopeful that the Attorney…. I don't know, on a motion,

if we're going to have a closure of debate or if the Attorney's remarks were

finished. I certainly would like to hear his views on the matter, and I'm

certain we could get unanimous consent for that if the House were asked.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney

General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I appreciate the comments and the advice

given by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. However, it is the position of the

government that the recommendations as proposed by the citizens' assembly be

adopted, and accordingly, that is the position of the government.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill Pr401, Bridge River Valley

Flying Association (Corporate Restoration) Act.

Mr. Speaker: We'll take a short recess of a couple minutes

till the member for Yale-Lillooet gets here.

Second Reading of Bills

BRIDGE RIVER VALLEY FLYING

ASSOCIATION (CORPORATE RESTORATION)

ACT, 2008

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill Pr401, Bridge River

Valley Flying Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, be now read a

second time.

Motion approved.

H. Lali: The Bridge River Valley Flying Association had

actually fallen off the records due to some non-reporting over a decade and a

half ago, and what this bill does is actually restores the society. As you know,

that area up in the Gold Bridge, Bralorne, Bridge River, Tyax area is an area

where there will be tourism and recreation activities that are growing and

business opportunities coming with it.

What this allows is to actually restore the society. Even though

they have, for the last decade and a half, carried on business as usual, they

were really in contravention of the law. They're basically restoring the society

to allow them to do some of the work that is necessary and to apply for federal,

provincial or other types of grants to build fencing, do some brushing and also

clearing and grading.

This is so that there would not only be economic opportunities

available, but the medevac, the air ambulance, could also land there in case of

an emergency. It will be an area that will be growing. That's what this does.

By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Bridge River Valley Flying Association (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BRIDGE RIVER VALLEY FLYING

ASSOCIATION (CORPORATE RESTORATION)

ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; K.

Whittred in the chair.

[ Page 12801 ]

The committee met at 11:50 a.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

H. Lali: I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BRIDGE RIVER VALLEY FLYING

ASSOCIATION (CORPORATE RESTORATION)

ACT, 2008

Bill Pr401, Bridge River Valley Flying Association (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:18 a.m.

Tributes

ANTHONY HUMPHREYS

Hon. B. Penner: If members will indulge me for a moment.

Just before I move the formal motion, I would just like to comment on the recent

sad news about the passing of our Sergeant-at-Arms here at the Legislature, Tony

Humphreys. Most of us here, of course, got to know him over the years as being a

fixture in the building and a very dominant personality around the buildings. He

cared a great deal about the buildings.

I first met him probably many years before — I was actually

elected here in '96 — because I was a legislative intern here prior to that.

But actually, my most vivid memory of Mr. Humphreys has nothing to

do with the Legislature, at least not directly. It was in the spring of 2005

during the election campaign, and I was on my way to the campaign office in

Chilliwack when I came upon a motor vehicle accident near the former Canadian

Forces base in Chilliwack. It had appeared that a cyclist had been hit by a

vehicle. In fact, I could see someone's leg sticking out from under a vehicle on

the side of the road — obviously, the cyclist's.

So I got out of my vehicle and went to see if there was something

I could do to assist, because emergency vehicles had not yet arrived. As I was

down on my hands and knees looking under the vehicle, there was a young boy

there that was pinned under the vehicle, trapped by the axle. The boy was

saying: "Can you do something to get the vehicle off of me?" He was quite lucid,

but obviously in some pain and distress.

[1020]

In the event, it turned out that he had fractured his leg in a

couple of places and required a pin or two inserted. But as I was down on my

hands and knees pondering what to do, I heard this very calm voice behind me

saying: "Well, Barry, what do you think we should do?" I turned around and

looked over my shoulder, and there behind me was Tony Humphreys. It was almost

as if I was having a strange dream sequence, because it was so out of character

for how I usually encountered Tony Humphreys, and it was him.

It turned out he was there to visit some old friends that he had

known when he was in the military. He had served a number of years at Canadian

Forces Base Chilliwack, so he was in town to visit some of his former

colleagues.

The two of us were trying to devise a method to lift this vehicle

off the child and got the jack out of the back of the minivan that had

unfortunately struck the cyclist. Eventually the emergency crews came, and the

boy was successfully extracted from under the vehicle.

That will always be, I think, my most vivid memory of Tony, with

him and I working to try and get this boy out from under this car. Quite out of

context with what happens around the Legislature, but yet our experience here at

the Legislature meant that we knew each other and felt comfortable working

together under those trying circumstances.

So Tony will be dearly missed — I know not just by his family and

friends but certainly by all of his friends here at the Legislature, including

the staff that have worked so closely and loyally with him over the years,

keeping us all safe and hopefully looking respectable in the hallways.

That comment is directed particularly towards members of the press

gallery who sometimes resented instructions to look appropriate when they were

in the Speaker's corridor, but nevertheless, I think that was an appropriate

direction from Tony to them.

[ Page 12802 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP

AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

(continued)

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $216,815,000 (continued).

Hon. B. Penner: Now, if it suits the member for

Vancouver-Hastings, maybe this would be an appropriate time for me to give some

quick responses to a couple of matters we didn't have the details on yesterday.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows had a question around the

sandhill crane response. I can advise the member that I think it was just

yesterday, again, that we had a Ministry of Environment person, a biologist out

of our Surrey office, Mr. Blackbird. Tom is his first name. He was out yesterday

with members of the HCTF to explain the benefits of the program. I understand

there may have been some lack of full awareness on the part of HCTF about the

potential benefits.

Our understanding is that there will be a submission made either

to the HCTF or by the HCTF, the Habitat Conservation Trust foundation, to do a

burn next year. Looks like it did not take place this year. You were asking if

one had taken place, and yesterday I wasn't sure. So that's the hope for next

year.

This year we do have a B.C. conservation corps team. That's the

program with recent graduates and young students to manually clear vegetation

along the dikes to reduce predation by coyotes. We'll continue this program next

year, as well, in an effort to assist the sandhill cranes in the member's

constituency.

There was also a question from the member for Vancouver–Fairview,

I believe, pertaining to False Creek. The note that I've just been handed

indicates that it's our understanding that False Creek is provincial

one of a number of parties — including the city of Vancouver, the private

landowners and the federal Crown — involved with cleanup in False Creek.

Several areas have already been assessed and remediated associated

with redevelopment of the uplands. Currently the federal government is

undertaking work on federal properties through their agencies, specifically the

Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans within False Creek. If

the member for Vancouver–Fairview wants additional information, we can endeavour

to get those details.

Then lastly, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca had a question

around TFLs 25 and 19. A certain winter ungulate range, I believe, was the

question. Western Forest Products has said that they would maintain the ungulate

winter ranges as long as they own the land. I believe replacement areas were

found on the same TFLs, 25 and 19, in the area of the TFL that was not removed,

and so that's the status.

[1025]

Now, I understand there may be a change in ownership. I think the

member's question pertained to what happens in the event of a change of

ownership, and I don't have those details here. So that's still a question that

we need to determine.

Tributes

ANTHONY HUMPHREYS

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for his comments and his

story about Mr. Humphreys. I certainly would agree with him, as would I'm sure

all the members, that Tony will be sorely missed. It's certainly true. I know

that he had a firm hand around attire.

In the Speaker's hallway only yesterday I had a journalist, a TV

reporter, who wanted to do an interview. He called up and talked to our

communications people and said: "I really need to do this interview, but can the

member come out to the rose garden? I forgot my jacket, and I'll never be

allowed in the Speaker's hallway without my jacket." That was Tony Humphreys,

who assured them and all of the journalists through fear that they actually had

to find a tie and a jacket, at least for the men. That has been a challenge for

some of our friends in the media.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: We don't have a lot of time this morning. We're

going to try to deal with two issues. We're going to deal with parks, and then

we're going to see if we have some time for environmental assessment after that.

I expect those are the two things that we'll discuss this morning.

Could the minister now tell us, with the additions that have been

announced in terms of parks and protected areas, how much acreage or hectares

are protected now in British Columbia through the parks and conservancies

system?

Hon. B. Penner: At this point we believe that about 14.26

percent of B.C.'s total land base is considered to be dedicated to protected

area status. This is according to figures that the integrated land management

bureau has provided. That number includes provincially and federally protected

areas as well as the publicly announced protected areas for land use plans. So

that's the percentage.

In terms of what that translates into in hectares, we're trying

confirm and to make sure we've got the most recent numbers. That would include

Bill 38, which is currently before the Legislature and may be subject to

committee stage debate this afternoon. So it might take until this afternoon to

get the full, new, updated number. But I'm advised that Bill 38 contains an

extra 660,411 hectares of lands that will receive legal protection.

I've got a note here that as of December 2007 — so before Bill 38

— the amount of area protected through provincial parks, conservancies,

ecological reserves and protected areas covered 12,044,112 hectares, or 120,441

square kilometres, that are managed by B.C. Parks through the Ministry of

Environment.

[ Page 12803 ]

Again, that number may need to be adjusted to reflect Bill 38 and

those additions. If one does that, as it appears my assistant deputy minister

for environmental stewardship has just done, then you come up with a total of

12,704,523 hectares. That's assuming, of course, that Bill 38 passes, which I

hope it does in the next week or so.

S. Simpson: The minister says that we have almost 13

million hectares of parks and protected areas in the province. What's the annual

budget for administration of those parks and protected areas?

[1030]

Hon. B. Penner: If the member refers to the Supplement

to the Estimates document, the member may be pleased to know that

now, this year, for the first time we're actually breaking out a separate number

for parks management. I know we've had these types of questions in previous

years, where the member has been asking us to break down the environmental

stewardship division's budget and how much of that pertains to parks management.

The member can take some pride in the fact that it's now being done.

On pages 42 and 43, if the member refers to that document, you'll

see that in fiscal 2007-2008 we had operating expenses for parks management of

$34.83 million and that the amount budgeted for 2008-2009 operating expenses for

parks management is listed as $37.777 million.

S. Simpson: We may need to use the math capacity of your

ADM here for this again. You never know.

We're roughly talking here — I'm just trying to do this a bit off

the top of my head, and I might not be close — something in the range of a

little more than $3 a hectare. If you break it down that way, it's what we're

spending on total management of our parks and our protected areas. Would that be

accurate?

Hon. B. Penner: My assistant deputy minister for

environmental stewardship tells me the member's math is roughly correct. It's

important to note, though, that spending decisions aren't based on a formula of

dollars per hectare. It's based on what our operational needs are, and of

course, they vary, depending on the location of the park, the nature of the park

or conservancy, its intended use and what the park management plan indicates.

S. Simpson: Yesterday I know that the minister spoke about

some increases in staffing positions related to parks. I believe it was five

FTEs last year and about four FTEs in new park rangers and the number of three

new park planners, as well, for about 11½ positions that have come into play.

Could the minister tell us: in its entirety, when we look at the

staff within the ministry that are dedicated to the management and care of our

parks and protected areas, how many people are we talking about?

[1035]

Hon. B. Penner: The total number of people looking after

B.C. parks and conservancies would be approximately 1,000 through the course of

the year. That number consists of 307 people working directly for government in

the form of regional managers, area supervisors, parks and protected areas

section heads, park planners, park rangers, executive directors and Victoria

branch staff at the headquarters here, and then about 700 employees working for

various park facility operators around the province to deliver services.

Oh, just before I take my seat, I should also point out that in

response to the previous question on expenditures for B.C. parks, I neglected to

mention the capital investments. I think my assistant deputy minister is getting

me that number now in terms of capital for the current year. I think capital

investments over the last three years have totalled something in the order of

$65 million into B.C. parks.

The amount budgeted for this year — I think we're just quickly

compiling — may be in the range of $12 million. I'm trying to find it here in

the…. Pardon me. It's $14.996 million, so about $15 million.

S. Simpson: Just to clarify that number. The minister said

that roughly about 300 ministry staff are involved. Could the minister tell us

whether those are 300 FTEs or what the FTE number would be? Could he confirm

that of that number — probably about 70 would be my guess — would 70 of those

FTEs be park rangers? Or what might that be with rangers?

Hon. B. Penner: It doesn't look like we have the FTE number

immediately available to go with the 307 people, the figure I gave earlier.

Those are ministry employees. The member is correct. Quite a number of those

would be seasonal employees, such as park rangers and other staff. But we don't

appear to have a breakdown here of how many FTEs that 307 translates into.

I would believe that…. Well, I was out in the field. A number of

those positions are seasonal,

whereas some of the more senior positions,

especially in headquarters or at the regional level, would be year-round

employees.

[1040]

S. Simpson: Does the minister know the number around park

rangers, the full-time-equivalent for park rangers? My sense is that it's about

70 FTEs. Does the minister know if that's accurate?

Hon. B. Penner: We've just apparently been provided with an

estimate of the FTE count. It's about 208 overall, with about 73 FTEs in the

park ranger category.

S. Simpson: Just to make sure and kind of get some

groundwork for that leads me to the discussion that I look to have with the

minister for the next few minutes, which is around whether that is sufficient.

The minister made a comment, which I certainly don't disagree

with, that the issue is being able to provide adequate management of our parks

system. It's

[ Page 12804 ]

not how many people, but it's the ability to provide adequate and quality

management of our system with the resources that are applied.

What we know is that we're talking here…. If we have 70 or 73

FTEs, with the amount of hectares that we're talking about in parks and

protected areas, we probably have a situation where it's about one ranger to

about 200,000 hectares of land. That compares to our national parks here, where

it's about one to 65,000 hectares; Alberta, about one to 26,000; Saskatchewan,

maybe one to 80,000 or so.

So the question I have for the minister is: considering those

discrepancies — and I certainly accept that management practices can make things

more efficient, depending on how you apply that management — is the minister

satisfied at this point that we are applying enough resources in terms of park

rangers to provide the protection in our parks and protected areas that we

require, when you consider the vast discrepancy in the numbers in British

Columbia versus the numbers that other jurisdictions have clearly determined

that they require to meet their needs?

I'm interested in knowing if the minister is satisfied that there

are enough resources going in to meet those needs.

Hon. B. Penner: Just to be clear with the member, there are

about 225 staff that have park ranger status working for B.C. Parks throughout

the year. So the base number that the member may be using to do his calculation

needs to take that into account.

Again, it's in the busy seasons that we ramp up or staff up our

services, but we don't just rely on park rangers. As the member knows, we also

have 700 employees working for us through park facility operators that the

ministry contracts with. So we have a different management model than the

federal parks.

In addition, we also have conservation officers that provide

additional services within B.C. parks when they're called upon to do so. That's

different than the model employed by the federal parks, where their park wardens

also include the duties that our conservation officers are called upon to do in

British Columbia. So in British Columbia we have the extra resources of

conservation officers to call upon, when required.

The two branches or services between B.C. Parks and the

conservation officer service have become more integrated in recent years,

resulting in better operational efficiency and provision of services. We have

increased our staffing over the last number of years and our presence through

direct ministry personnel fairly considerably in the last three or four years,

but we also need to keep in mind that there is good work being done for us, as

well, by park facility operators and their employees.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I would

note, in terms of the numbers that I use for other jurisdictions, that I used a

number that relates to park rangers and FTEs because it seemed like the best way

to have some comparability in terms of the staffing at those different

jurisdictions. Rather than using a global number, we used an FTE number to

identify that in order to be a little more fair about the use of park rangers in

any of the jurisdictions.

I accept the minister's comment that conservation officers

sometimes come in and provide a role in the parks, but conservation officers

clearly have a very challenging and wide-ranging job of their own in dealing

with all the responsibilities they have across the province.

[1045]

I have to believe that in terms of the day-to-day management of

our parks, that's left primarily in the hands of our park rangers in terms of

enforcement. That is their responsibility, though clearly conservation officers

can come in and support and assist when it's required. But I'm sure it's our

park rangers that primarily have responsibility for that.

In terms of the other employees, I appreciate that there is a

significant number of private sector employees through licensees that are in our

parks now. Yet I'm sure the minister would agree that their training and

statutory responsibilities and those of park rangers are very different. They

will become even more different after the current legislation that's before the

House passes and those park rangers are given additional authorities, comparable

to conservation officers in terms of their authority.

I think that's a good thing, and I support that. But that creates

an even bigger discrepancy in terms of their authority versus people who are

licensed in parks to provide certain services.

Getting back to the question. We have staffing levels that are

dramatically different in these jurisdictions. We have funding levels on a

per-hectare basis that are dramatically different again, as we had said — a

little more than $3 a hectare in terms of the budget here, about $20 a hectare

for the national budget and our counterparts in Alberta at about $17, as I

understand it.

When we look at the protection of our parks and protected areas….

We're growing those areas — and that's a good thing — with the new areas that

are being added. The question is: are we applying enough resources to be able to

properly manage those parks and protected areas, or does the minister feel that

we're going to need to ramp that up?

Hon. B. Penner: It needs to be stressed that we have a

different operating model in British Columbia than in the federal parks. So what

the member is talking about is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The member is right about the roles of park rangers, something I

have some familiarity with, having personally had that role in the past. We can

never have enough staff to report on every single thing that's going on in our

vast land base. So we count on a hierarchy of observation and reporting, which

includes people and visitors to the park. The park facility operator staff are

trained to observe and record and report and, if they believe it's necessary, to

contact park rangers or other park staff.

[ Page 12805 ]

The park rangers themselves know that if there are certain

situations, they need to call in backup from the RCMP or the conservation

officers. Park rangers in British Columbia, for example, are not equipped with

sidearms, and I'm not at the point yet where I'm going to recommend that

something like that take place. I don't believe it's necessary.

When B.C. Parks staff get into sticky situations, the protocol is

for us to either call on backup from the RCMP if it's a problem in terms of

people or, if it's a problem involving wildlife, call on assistance from the

conservation officer service.

In addition, B.C. Parks staff do have access to long-barrelled

firearms — rifles or shotguns, as the case may be — to deal with certain problem

wildlife. We have a whole policy in place around the use of those firearms for

those occasions, but that's about dealing with problem wildlife as opposed to

dealing with problem campers. That's one point. We have a very different model

in terms of managing our parks.

[1050]

But in terms of the outcomes, what are the results? The results

appear to be quite positive. Every year B.C. Parks undertakes a very broad user

satisfaction survey, and the results have been increasing in terms of public

satisfaction. The most recent results were somewhere in the area of 83 percent

public satisfaction.

Our service plan goal is to attain and maintain an 80 percent user

satisfaction rate. I'm pleased to report that we've exceeded that and that we're

somewhere north of 83 percent, according to the latest survey.

S. Simpson: The minister talks about the very distinct

differences in the management systems for B.C. Parks versus our national parks.

Maybe the minister could explain some of those or identify for us some of those

distinct differences that make this an apples-and-oranges discussion.

Hon. B. Penner: It's a good question. It's a good area to

explore, because it is useful for the members of the public to know about the

difference.

Beginning in 1983, the maintenance operations in B.C. parks were

contracted out to service providers,

whereas in federal parks, Parks Canada, I

believe all of those services — the camping services, front-country services —

are provided by direct government employees of the federal government. So that's

a very significant difference. One hundred percent of the front-country camping

operations for B.C. Parks are provided by park facility operators under contract

with B.C. Parks and the Ministry of Environment.

In terms of back country, there are some areas where back-country

services are also provided under contract with some of the major back-country

areas like Bowron Lake,

whereas some other back-country services are provided by

B.C. Parks staff — for example, the back country at Manning Park.

If one were to go on the Skyline trail, the Hozameen camp, the

Morich camp or north towards Three Brothers, those areas are still looked after

by B.C. Parks staff directly,

whereas the front-country camping services in

Manning Park are provided by a park facility operator.

That's a pretty fundamental difference, and that change in the

management model was adopted in the 1980s and has been maintained ever since.

S. Simpson: We'll talk a little bit more about the park

facility operators in a minute, I think.

Getting back a little bit more specifically to those people who

provide the responsibilities of a ranger, who act as rangers, whether it is in a

national park or in a provincial park…. Could the minister tell us whether he

sees significant differences in those responsibilities; i.e., is there an

apple-and-oranges position in regard to the role of the park rangers, not the

overall staff but the actual rangers, who have responsibility for the park

facilities, national versus provincial?

[1055]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm on somewhat delicate ground, because

I'm commenting on the role of park wardens. I'm not intimately familiar with

their legal responsibilities. I don't want to step on the toes of our federal

counterparts.

But my understanding, such as it is, is that the park wardens have

a greater peace officer role, or more peace officer status, than provincial park

rangers do. That's what led to an arbitrator's ruling, over the last year or so,

that the federal park wardens need to be equipped with side arms, as a police

officer would, due to their legal status in terms of being peace officers and

having responsibility to enforce certain federal statutes.

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

One point of contrast is that provincial park rangers do not have

authority under the federal Fisheries Act, for example,

whereas I believe the

park wardens would, as do the provincial conservation officers. Provincial

conservation officers do have enforcement status, I believe, under the federal

Fisheries Act as well as a number of other statutes. So our provincial

conservation officers do have peace officer status and can get called in to deal

with a whole range of issues,

whereas park rangers have a more limited suite of

enforcement powers.

But as the member correctly notes, we're working on a bill on the

other side of the Legislature to give them some greater authority with respect

to wildlife.

S. Simpson: As the minister says, that bill will pass at

some time in the next week or so, and it will give them greater authority. I

think that the greater authority is a good thing. I think it makes sense for

park rangers to have greater capacity to be able to protect our parks and the

wildlife that reside within them.

What we have is a situation right now where a park ranger who has

that authority — and that authority is about to be increased, and rightly so —

of having to deal with roughly 200,000 hectares of land per FTE. Now, we can

break that down when we get to seasonals, but I'm sure that that's true for

seasonal and

[ Page 12806 ]

full-time in every one of the jurisdictions in high seasons, when there are

greater visitors.

So it's 200,000 hectares for one ranger. That's roughly, if I

understand it right, with the number of parks that we have…. Of course, this is

a bit of an apples-and-oranges, because all parks are somewhat different. But

it's a large number of parks. It's got to be more than ten parks, 12 parks per

ranger, just to provide some sense of the scope of this.

So the question to the minister is: does the minister believe that

the park rangers can sufficiently do their job — I know they all work hard and

do the best job they can — when they have to deal with 200,000 hectares per

ranger, on an FTE basis, in the province? Is that reasonable to expect them to

be able to manage 200,000-plus hectares of land, on average?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've already indicated, there are

actually 225 staff that have park ranger enforcement capabilities. In total

there are 307 staff that work directly as employees for the Ministry of

Environment in delivering park services, through a range of functions. I've

already enumerated what those various positions are — regional managers, area

supervisors, parks and protected areas

section heads, park planners, visitors,

staff and the like. But the member is, again, overlooking the important role

that 700 park facility operator employees play in providing services.

[1100]

I do believe in an outcomes-based approach, and if you look at the

empirical evidence, which we have from the results of visitor satisfaction

surveys, visitor satisfaction has been going up. People are indicating that

their experience in terms of our parks, whether it's in the front country or the

back country, has been a positive one.

Can we improve? We're always looking for ways that we can improve

the visitor experience and the performance of B.C. Parks in our protected areas,

and that's something we continue to work on.

We're looking to be more specific. We're looking for greater

inclusion and involvement of our first nations. We have a first nations

internship program within the Ministry of Environment. We're looking to hire a

number of seasonal park rangers who come directly from the first nations

community in certain parts of the province, where they can bring more of their

traditional knowledge to bear in helping us manage some of these new

conservancies — for example, in the north coast and midcoast.

We are always looking at ways we can update and improve our

operating model, but from the empirical evidence, it appears that the system is

generally working well. I'm always interested in how we can make improvements,

particularly in terms of signage or better information being made available

through our website and that type of thing. That's something we've actually been

having conversations about in the last week or so and that we'll continue to do.

We have to keep in mind that we have a number of partners that

help us in delivering B.C. Parks services, so to seize on one particular number

doesn't actually reflect the total amount of management effort that's being made

to manage our parks.

S. Simpson: Here is a place where the minister and I

differ. I believe that park rangers have a responsibility. They have a job to do

in the park. That's not the job that somebody who operates a boat launch or a

concession has, who has been contracted and is part of the commercialization of

our parks. It's a different job for these licensees. It isn't their job or their

mandate to provide the kind of oversight and protection and compliance

protection that rangers provide. I see a very, very big difference in those

responsibilities.

The minister talks about 200-odd folks in that category. The

question I would have for the minister is: how many of those 200 spend the

predominant amount of their time in the field?

Hon. B. Penner: I would say that most of them do. It's

interesting to hear the member's comments about what he thinks the role of a

park ranger is. As the member knows, I used to do that job myself.

I believe that the management model we have is appropriate and

that through the extra eyes and ears of park facilities staff and the other

partners we have, the park rangers are able to do the job that we're asking them

to do. Again, the proof is in the pudding. The visitor satisfaction surveys

indicate that visitor satisfaction is on the increase. I'm certainly not aware

of any specific issues that have come to light in recent years around problems

that people would say are attributed to not having a sufficient presence in our

parks system.

Are there things we can do to improve? We're always looking for

ways that we can improve things. The member made a comment about

commercialization of parks. I would just point out that the NDP was in office

for ten years and didn't do anything about contracting in the maintenance or the

provision of services within our B.C. parks system.

The current model was in effect throughout the 1990s and, in fact,

went into effect starting in 1983 until about the year 1986-1987, when I was

working for B.C. Parks, when the provision of all maintenance services and

looking after camping facilities and that type of thing were done on a

competitive bid process in an attempt to make sure that taxpayers' interests

were respected in terms of getting the best value for money, while also putting

in place strict performance requirements in those service contracts so that we

can make sure that we get the best possible amount of service to our parks

system and maintain the standards that people have come to expect when visiting

B.C. parks.

[1105]

Anecdotally, I can tell the member, too, that I continue to get

letters from people that say that of all the parks systems that they visit, they

prefer B.C. parks. I think B.C. parks are incredibly popular with the public and

with visitors from abroad. I don't get many people telling me — no offence to

Alberta or even Saskatchewan — that they'd rather camp in an Alberta park or a

[ Page 12807 ]

Saskatchewan park. They like B.C. parks, and they like them a lot.

S. Simpson: I get a lot of letters too, and many of those

raise concerns about what people feel is an erosion in our parks. I'm sure the

minister would agree with me that neither the B.C. Liberals nor the NDP nor

Social Credit before that can take credit for the natural beauty of British

Columbia, which clearly far surpasses what's available in Alberta.

Could the minister tell us what the visitor numbers for parks have

been in British Columbia for the last three years?

[1110]

Hon. B. Penner: For the years '05-06 and '06-07 we recorded

a 7 percent increase over those two years. However, last year, '07-08, we looked

at a 4 percent decline. The number in the camping category, the overnight

category, was up 2.2 percent, but day use was down by 5.5 percent. Staff

attribute that largely to the poor weather we had through much of last summer,

particularly on weekends when people tend to choose to go to the beach or the

picnic areas.

I have a bit more detail on the visitors satisfaction survey to

address some of the member's concerns around the roles of park rangers versus

other staff. Probably the most on point would be that people are asked about

their sense of security when visiting B.C. parks. We got an 87 percent score in

terms of satisfaction, people's sense of security, when visiting B.C. parks.

In terms of cleanliness of grounds, we got a 94 percent score in

terms of people's satisfaction with the cleanliness that they encountered in

B.C. parks, and in terms of maintaining natural surroundings, a 91 percent

satisfaction score, etc. I think that's fairly positive.

S. Simpson: When I look in the service plan on page 29 —

it's part of the reason for the question — I see that the baseline for park

visits is set at about 18 million for '04-05, and then it jumps up to get into

forecasts and targets. What I was looking for are raw numbers for '05-06 and

'06-07 since we seem to have them for '04-05, and then we jump to forecasts and

targets and away from real numbers.

Hon. B. Penner: The numbers I have in this document

indicate that for '05-06, the actual number was 18.3 million — and keep in mind

that's, again, a combination of overnight visitors or campground use in addition

to day use — and '06-07 recorded an increase to 19 million total. Then last year

we had a decrease in day use although an increase in campers, resulting in a

combined total of 18.2 million visits to B.C. parks. I see in a footnote that

that's based on attendance data from April 2007 through to January 2008.

S. Simpson: The visitor satisfaction information. I see

here that we had 80 percent at the baseline and then 83 percent, I think, in

'07-08 for the forecast, and then projections to maintain or improve that. Could

the minister tell us how that information is collected?

[1115]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm just taking a look at page 29 of the

ministry service plan, which the member may have with him. If you'll look under

the chart or the bar there about park visitation and visitor satisfaction,

there's a footnote. It says, in terms of visitor satisfaction: "The satisfaction

rating is based on an extensive satisfaction survey that is conducted in

campgrounds and day use areas around the province and is based on nearly 5,000

respondents."

I'm told by staff next to me that what we do is survey about

one-third of day use operations and camping operations every year with a written

survey. So it's provided to people that are actually in the park. It's done on a

random basis, and then people can return those surveys by putting them in the

mail or in a drop box. Then the results of those surveys are analyzed.

Further on page 29 of the service plan it says: "Since 1985 the

ministry has monitored the effectiveness of providing services in provincial

park campgrounds and day use areas by conducting an annual satisfaction survey

with a random sample of park visitors in these campgrounds." So that's been

going on for about 23 years in order to provide a baseline.

In order for a number to show up in the "good" column, people have

to indicate that their rating of the particular service or the question is

excellent or above average. So when we're striving for an 80 percent or 83

percent satisfaction response, what we're actually looking for is 83 percent of

people rating the particular service as excellent or above average.

M. Sather: Time is short, but I do want to comment on what

the minister said about the cranes in Pitt Meadows and help that may be coming

to that endangered population. It's really encouraging news, and I wanted to

thank the minister for his role in assisting these birds. It's certainly hopeful

that we can save them, and it will help the work that's anticipated.

Now on to the bad news. The once-proud B.C. Parks system has been

decimated under this government, and I don't mean the land base itself. I mean

the services within those parks, and nowhere more so than in the interpretive

services. That's the natural history services that are provided in parks — very

valuable information.

People need to know about nature. They need to understand their

relationship to nature. It's exceedingly important, and that service was

eliminated by this government a few years ago. It's now staggering back in a

haphazard form.

I wanted to ask the minister about a park in my neighbourhood,

Golden Ears Provincial Park, the most visited park in British Columbia. Can he

tell me how many interpretive park service naturalists there will be in the park

this summer?

[1120]

Hon. B. Penner: With respect to Golden Ears Provincial

Park, it has been built right into the service

[ Page 12808 ]

contract with the park facility operator. One of the services they must

deliver and administer is the provision of park interpretive services. So there

will be interpretive services this year at Golden Ears. I don't have the numbers

with me in terms of the number of staff that will be employed by the PFO in

delivering that service, but that is what they are required to do in their

contract.

I just have to say that I completely disagree with the member's

characterization of what has happened in B.C. parks. People have expressed that

clearly through the visitor satisfaction survey that I've already talked about.

Satisfaction levels are going up in terms of people's satisfaction with their

experience in B.C. parks. I already mentioned a number of those responses on an

individual basis, but our global number now, I think, in terms of the document I

just had in front of me, is 84 percent satisfaction overall.

M. Sather: Well, the information I have — and this would be

consistent with what happened last year — is that B.C. Nature, formerly the

Federation of B.C. Naturalists, provide…. Through them, the naturalists are

provided to the park.

My understanding is that only one, so far, has been provided and

that they're looking for a second one. I'd like to ask the minister: who

provides the funding for those positions?

Hon. B. Penner: I wonder if the member could clarify his

question somewhat. When you say one is provided, I'm not sure what you're

referring to.

M. Sather: I'm referring to one naturalist for Golden Ears

Park this summer for the interpretive program. That's provided through B.C.

Nature. I was asking the minister who pays for those naturalists.

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of some of the specifics in the

member's question, we'll have to get back to the member on that, because I don't

have some of those details.

As I indicated earlier, it's now a part of the service delivery

contract for the park facility operator responsible for delivering services at

Golden Ears Provincial Park to provide park interpretive services. Whether they

do that through an agreement with B.C. Nature or just how they are going to do

that, I can't comment. I don't know exactly what they'll be doing to deliver on

their obligation to provide interpretive services.

We do have a good relationship with B.C. Nature. In fact, the

Ministry of Environment helps fund them to deliver some services on behalf of

the Ministry of Environment and B.C. Parks, and I understand that B.C. Nature

also gets funding from other sources.

In addition, in the B.C. conservation corps program, which I

mentioned tangentially earlier, we have 150 people — recent graduates, young

people and students — that work for us through the course of a year. A number of

those positions do focus on providing park interpretive services for B.C. Parks

in cooperation with park facility operators and the Ministry of Environment.

[1125]

This year there will be 15 conservation corps interpretive

positions delivered that way. There are additional positions provided through

B.C. Nature. I think we're anticipating perhaps up to 25 additional interpretive

positions delivered by B.C. Nature. Then there are the PFOs, park facility

operators, who may have their own staff delivering those services directly.

M. Sather: The information I have is that B.C. Nature is

applying for money from Service Canada for these positions. They got the money

for one. The government has not only eradicated the natural history services in

parks, but now they don't even fund them. It's the federal government that's

funding them. So it's a complete lack of support there, and I think the

government really has to pick it up on that end of things.

I just want, lastly, to comment on the minister's comments about

visitor satisfaction. Well, I can tell the minister that I get a lot of

expressions of dissatisfaction with Golden Ears Park. It's largely around —

well, in part at least….

There are a couple of things. One is the parking there and having

to pay for it — constant complaints about that. That is partly responsible, no

doubt about it, for why visitor day use has dropped. I hear that anecdotally,

and we know it's in the numbers as well. The other thing is about trail

maintenance. The lack thereof in Golden Ears Park is astounding.

I'm hoping that the minister will look into this. I think it's a

severe problem with funding in the parks service. I'm hoping that the Premier

will look at this and cabinet will look at this and will start to fund our parks

adequately.

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I'm not sure the member heard my

previous answer. It appears he wasn't tracking it very closely. I said that, in

fact, we do fund B.C. Nature through the Ministry of Environment, and I think

they're to be congratulated for also looking for additional dollars. I'm not

sure why the member would be offended by B.C. Nature attracting funding from

other levels of government in addition to the provincial government.

Certainly, I'm not averse to that, particularly if it helps them

deliver even more services for British Columbians. I think they're to be

commended for that. I can't say much more about it than that.

In terms of the day use fees, the member should keep in mind that

we ask people to pay for camping, and people using day use services are being

asked to contribute a very modest amount to the provision of the day use

services.

I think the program is actually working quite well. It's

generating about a million dollars. It comes into the park system to help

deliver programs. I am not inclined to turn my back on a million dollars,

particularly when the member just said: "Why don't you spend more?" If we were

to give up on a million dollars of revenue, it would be very difficult to do

that.

[ Page 12809 ]

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: At this time Committee A will recess until the

vote in the legislative chambers. Committee A is recessed.

The committee recessed from 11:28 a.m. to 11:41 a.m.

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

C. Evans: I'm aware that we only have a few minutes. So I'm

going to try and fit this into only one question. There's a bit of a prologue.

I'd like to talk about the Creston Valley wildlife management area. The

minister, the minister's staff and I have discussed it several times, so he

knows where it is.

The Creston Valley wildlife management area is part of the Creston

Valley flatlands, which is part of the western flyway. It was once called the

Valley of the Swans. It is part of the land where international migratory birds

move from Alaska, in the United States, through Canada on their way up, often to

the Arctic, to their summer nesting area. People proposed it as a wildlife

reserve ever since the 1900s, when the land began to be diked and used for

agriculture and the swampland used by the birds was being eradicated.

It wasn't until the Columbia River treaty between the United

States and Canada that wiped out marshland, nesting area in Libby, Montana, all

through the Duncan valley up to behind the Mica dam, all through the Arrow

Lakes…. The United States and Canada signed an agreement that Canada would have

60 million acre-feet of water held on what had been marshland. So you can

imagine that that is many, many square miles of the western flyway that we took

from marshland and nesting habitat and made into reservoirs.

As the water began to come up behind the Duncan dam, people of

wisdom in Canada looked and said: "Oh, my goodness. We're about to wipe out the

western flyway."

The Creston Valley wildlife management area was negotiated between

Canada, represented by Lester Pearson, and British Columbia, represented by

W.A.C. Bennett. They said: "Okay, if we're going to wipe out an international

flyway while we sign an international agreement" — which the International Joint

Commission was involved in — "then we should make up the habitat."

So 17,000 acres were set aside in Creston in order to try to make

up nesting habitat to make up for the 60 million acre-feet that we were about to

flood. Dikes were built. Pumps were put in place.

This is not a park. This is a constructed, engineered nesting area

in order to try to make up for many, many square miles on both sides of the

border.

It was agreed that $250,000 would be put in by the province and by

the federal government each, each year, in order to support this man-made

wildlife preserve, to try to keep up our international agreements. In the

intervening 30 years both Canada and the province have withdrawn, and now every

year the minister's staff are approached to put in some kind of stopgap measure

to try to keep it alive.

The staff who've been working there for 30 years don't have any

pensions. They're provincial employees. They've worked their lives, but they

work on contract. They don't have regular terms.

Dikes don't have regular maintenance funds. Some of the pumps

don't work. Essentially, what's happened is that now that the dams are in place

and Canada has forgotten, so has British Columbia.

[1145]

We are in danger of losing the area. I've talked with the minister

and the minister's staff about it. Steve Bullock, who is the chair looking after

the place, has written the first really honest letter I've ever seen, copping to

the fact that we no longer keep our word and cannot sustain the property.

I only have one question, and it's really simple. I don't think

this is fixable here in estimates. I don't think it's fixable in a meeting in

the minister's office. I would like to ask the minister to accompany me on a

non-partisan visit to the Creston Valley wildlife management area — take an

entire day and see if we can address the issues and figure out a future, or

admit it publicly and sell the place and forget it.

Hon. B. Penner: We're not prepared to walk away from that

area or the vision that people have to create a long-term, sustainable

operatio