British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, November 19, 2014

20141119pm-Hansard-v18n1

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Th ird Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 18, Number 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) .................................................. Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

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

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................

Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................

Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 5411 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 5412 Whistler Athletes Centre J. Sturdy Kitsilano Neighbourhood House D. Eby B.C. Y oung Farmers Association D. Plecas Multiculturalism J.

Shin Social needs of seniors and ASK Friendship Society Moira Stilwell Student action on shark protection and Fin Free Victoria A. Weaver Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5414 Cabinet appointments K. Corrigan Hon. C. Clark Cabinet appointment of Harry Bloy and relationship with Premier K. Corrigan Hon. C. Clark S. Robinson Appointment of Brian Bonney as government communications director M. Karagianis Hon. C.

Clark Working relationship between Harry Bloy and Brian Bonney S. Hammell Hon. C. Clark Appointment of Brian Bonney as government communications director M. Mungall Hon. C. Clark Multicultural outreach strategy and staff role and changes L. Krog Hon. C. Clark D. Eby N. Macdonald Multicultural outreach strategy investigation report S. Simpson Hon. C. Clark M.

Farnworth Point of Privilege (Speaker’s Ruling) ..................................................................................................................................... 5419 Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5420 A. Weaver

Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 5420 Bill 8 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014 Hon. M. Polak R.

Austin Reporting of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5422 Bill 8 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014 Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 5422 Bill 7 — Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014 Hon. J. Rustad S.

Fraser Reporting of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5431 Bill 7 — Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014 Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 5431 Bill 4 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014 Hon. S. Anton L. Krog N. Macdonald M. Farnworth L. Popham D. Eby B. Ralston A. Weaver V . Huntington Hon. S.

Anton Bill M203 — Terry Fox Day Act (continued) J. Martin M. Elmore

WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 19, 2014 Th e House met at 1:34 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. [1335] Introductions by Members Hon. P . Fassbender: This week is International Education Week, and today we’re celebrating, here in British Columbia, our fi rst off shore school in Japan. We had the pleasure of hosting Mr. Seiji Okada, the consul general of Japan, and a group of Japanese students who are here in Victoria earning their Dogwood.

These students are also accompanied by Laura McTavish, the English language learning coordinator for Victoria High School, and Jeff Davis, the vice-principal representative from the school and the international pro- gram in the Victoria school district. I ask the House to congratulate Mr. Okada and to welcome these students. A. Weaver: I am pleased to introduce a class of 16 fi rst-year law students here today from the University of Victoria. Th ey’re here to learn about the legislative pro- cess and Hansard Services. Th ey’re accompanied by their law, legislation and policy professor, Donna Greschner.

Would the House please make them welcome. Please also let me introduce Isaac Hordiyuk, a grade 12 student who is visiting the gallery today. He’s one of Canada’s top debaters, and he’s visiting here just for the single day, perhaps thinking about taking politics as a ca- reer path down the road. Would the House please make him welcome as well. Last, but certainly not least…. And please, to all mem- bers here, don’t dissuade my young friend Isaac Hordiyuk from moving down the political career in the future. I’m sure he’s going to enjoy question period.

Finally, please let me introduce a remarkable group of talented young students from Glenlyon Norfolk School who have been actively engaged in Fin Free Victoria. Th eir names are Connor Bosenberg, Anastasia Castro, Lily Davies, Drake Erickson, Deandra Livora, Marissa Smithson, Caitlin Steves, Sofi e Finn-Storan, Jasmyne Storm and John Windell. Together, they’re here with their teacher Margaret McCullough, who was a recent recipient of the prestigious Prime Minister’s Awards for Teaching Excellence. Would the House please make them welcome as well. Hon. N.

Letnick: If you come to Victoria and look at this wonderful building at night, I think one of the fi rst things people remark on are all the little lights that are on the outside of the building. In the early ’30s, late-1920s some person was hired to do that job. He happened to be the grandfather of one of my guests here today, and that’s Walter Gray, the mayor of Kelowna. Not only is Walter related to this wonderful building through his grandfather; of course, Walter served four terms as mayor of Kelowna. Unfortunately for the mem- bers in this House, he also inspired me to get into pol- itics.

But the good news is he inspired Colin Basran, who was elected mayor of Kelowna, to get into politics as well. Walter, as we all know, is leaving political life in the city of Kelowna and has been named chair of ICBC. Would the House please make Walter very welcome. B. Ralston: I t’ s my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a delegation of visitors from the state of Yucatan in Mexico.

Joining us in the gallery this aft ernoon is René Arcila, who is the Auditor Superior, Supreme Audit Offi ce of the state of Yucatan; Aida Canto, the legal director; Cecilia Aké, special aud- itor of performance audit and institutional development; and José Montalvo, the special auditor of fi nancial com- pliance. With them also is the Auditor General of British Columbia. Th is morning the delegation had a chance to engage in dialogue with the members of the Public Accounts Committee and are now in the gallery to observe the pro- ceedings this aft ernoon.

Would the House please join me in making them all very welcome. J. Y ap: I’ d like to also join with the member for Surrey- Whalley in extending a warm welcome to the Auditor General, the Superior Auditor for the state of Yucatan, René Márquez Arcila, and his team. We had a won- derful meeting with them — members of the Public Accounts Committee — this morning and a wonderful lunch. Th ank you, Madame Speaker, for hosting. Would the House please give a warm welcome to our friends from Yucatan. [1340] J. Shin: I have three very special introductions to make in the House today.

Firstly, today is my one and only brother Jimmy Shin’s birthday. For the last two decades he has been his sister’s keeper as he beat the 25 percent odds of being my perfect bone marrow transplant match. Would the House please wish Jimmy, the better child out of the two of us for my parents, a very happy birthday. Secondly, joining us in the gallery today are my all- time favourite Korean Canadians. I’m the apple of their eyes, for better or for worse, and they also remind me that despite all of our differences on all sides of the House, we are all apples of somebody’s eyes, those who love us.

Would the House please welcome my Momma 5411

British Columbia Debates5412 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Bear, Michelle Shin; my Poppa Bear, D.J. Shin; and my 88-year-young grandma, Ok Hyun Cho. Please make them feel very welcome. Lastly, on November 15 Port Moody elected a young, energetic Korean Canadian into their school board who knocked on 10,000 doors not once but twice to earn the confi dence of the electorate. At a time when campaigning seems to have belittled into mass advertising and some- times character assassinations, I really thank her for set- ting that positive tone that it doesn’t have to be that way.

She’s here with her parents, Sun Keum Hwang and Sang Keun Park, and her most incredible volunteer, Yu Min Lee. Would the members please congratulate and welcome our brand-new school trustee Lisa Ka Y oung Park. Hon. M. de Jong: When you enter the Finance Minister’s offi ce, the fi rst person you will meet is a re- markably bright, articulate and hard-working young lady named Alexandria Garcia. Y es, things deteriorate as you move further into the offi ce. Alexandria is in the chamber for the fi rst time watching question period, and I know all members will make her feel welcome. Hon. T.

Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the chamber Daniel Dian. He’s a grade 7 stu- dent who is here with us today. He attends Scott Creek Middle School. His interests include public speaking and politics. In 2014 he won the community public speaking contest for his age group. For his research on and fas- cination with politics he recently interviewed a number of politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister James Moore and me. His essay was published in a number of newspapers.

He has also received, I think, in 2013 the highest dis- tinction in Royal Conservatory piano exams, having successfully completed four levels up to now. He’s con- sidering a future in law and views himself as a future Prime Minister. When you meet kids like Daniel, you certainly real- ize that we’re going to be in very good hands. We have a very bright future here in British Columbia. I’ d ask that the House please make Daniel and his mother, Sheila, welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25B) WHISTLER ATHLETES CENTRE J.

Sturdy: Today I rise to talk about the Whistler Athletes Centre and the role it plays in fostering elite sport not just in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky but through- out British Columbia and Canada. Th e Athletes Centre was at the core of the Whistler Olympic village during the 2010 games, and it hosted competitors from the Nordic, alpine and sliding disci- plines. Today the facility is the epicentre of athlete development and training in the Sea to Sky and pro- vides year-round, state-of-the-art facilities for high- performance athletes.

Th e centre’s amenities include a fully equipped 4,000-square-foot gym, a 5,000-square- foot gymnastics hall, recovery rooms, a physiology test- ing room — all designed to be a one-stop shop for some of the world’s best athletes. Th is fall the centre hosted the Canadian Sport Institute Pacifi c’s Podium Search. I was pleased to be able to attend the event, which saw 27 athletes between the ages of 14 and 22 take

part in a talent identifi cation camp. [1345] Th is free event tests athletes between 14 and 22, aspir- ing athletes, for sports performance at the highest level. It connects them with coaches, sports representatives and former Olympians who are passionate about de- veloping youth through sport. It introduces them to high- performance environments and gives them a chance to test their skills against current national team standards. Th e Athletes Centre was a perfect venue for the event, and at the end of Podium Search 14 participants were invited to further their athletic development.

Podium Search is planned again for next spring, both in Whistler and around the province, and I expect we’ll see even more enthusiastic youth in attendance. Facilities like the Athletes Centre are a lasting legacy of the 2010 games. Th ey’ve turned British Columbia into a premier hosting and training destination and allowed homegrown talent to pursue their dreams and ambitions. I’m sure we’ll see some of the alumni this spring at the Canada Winter Games in Prince George from February 13 to March 1. KITSILANO NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE D.

Eby: Th is past weekend more than 2,500 people helped warm the freshly renovated home of the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House, an institution many of us af- fectionately refer to as the heart of our community. My family and I were excited to take

part in the celebration, where we saw reunions of decades-old relationships formed as part of the Whistling Shrimp café crew. We also saw new friendships deepen at the neighbourhood youth talent show. It will be looked back on fondly years from now. Kits Neighbourhood House has as fascinating a history as it has a promising future. At the opening of Kits House in 1974 many, including the mayor, worried that the fa- cility would become a crash pad for hippies. Arguably, it did.

But it also evolved to become the heart of the com- munity, a vital meeting place helping to combat isolation and empower people in our diverse and rapidly changing neighbourhood. Greenpeace had some of its first meetings at Kits

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5413 House. Organizers at Kits House also founded in the late ’70s what was then an innovative program aimed at reconnecting people with disabilities to the commun- ity. One of the fi rst benefi ciaries of their eff orts, a young woman with cerebral palsy, fl ourished, ultimately win- ning a medal in what was then called the International Wheelchair Olympics.

On this foundation the new, renovated facility has im- proved child care space as well as low-cost housing, all seamlessly integrated into three buildings which preserve heritage yet fl ow together as one, thanks to the eff orts of the builders and architect Sean McEwen. Th e programs and initiatives from Kits House are too numerous to list. Th ere are arts groups, theatre compan- ies, family drop-ins, seniors groups, community kitchens, conversation circles, pocket markets — something for everybody. Th ese programs bring together and improve the lives of the community through a shared feeling of neighbourliness.

I, for one, am happy and proud to have them as my neighbours. Thank you to all of the staff and volunteers of the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House for your eff orts to make this heart of our community beat every day. B.C. YOUNG FARMERS ASSOCIATION D. Plecas: It may come as a surprise to many, but the average age of a farmer in British Columbia is 55 years old. I’m talking old. I’m saying this, asking all the young people in the gallery to be attentive to this, because if nothing else, that should tell us we simply do not have enough people taking on a career in agriculture.

Th at, of course, among other things, should be import- ant to us because of our concern about food safety. But to help the situation, a fantastic group of enthusiastic indi- viduals, numbering about 250, have banded together to form the British Columbia Y oung Farmers Association. Th eir motto is “Keeping farming alive with the next gen- eration. ” Th e B.C. Y oung Farmers promotes youth participation in agriculture through a number of diff erent programs, including the annual B.C. Y oung Farmer award, which recognizes young people who participate in the Fraser Valley Regional Science Fair. Th e B.C.

Y oung Farmers also supports its members by holding special events such as Farm Fest. Th is year, that featured a tour of the newly opened University of the Fraser Valley Agriculture Centre of Excellence. Th is organization also encourages members to partici- pate in knowledge exchange events that promote advice and information on how to improve farm operations. They also provide support to young farmers through webinars, networking events and access to technical pub- lications.

I would ask all of us, then, in this House to join me in acknowledging the great work done by this organiza- tion to encourage more young people to have farming as a career. [1350] MULTICULTURALISM J. Shin: Th is week, the third week of November, B.C. is celebrating Multiculturalism Week. Multiculturalism is honoured by law through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act from 1988, in

section 27 from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as by the B.C. Multiculturalism Act from 1993 to en- sure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government which shall foster a society in which there are no impediments to the full and free participation in the economic, political, social and cultural life. Canadian multiculturalism is the envy of many coun- tries around the world. It is considered a distinguishing element of what defi nes our Canadian identity and one of our most signifi cant accomplishments as a society.

We can attribute our cultural pluralism to immigration, although during the 1800s and early 1900s the ethnic groups faced barriers in Canada such as unequal pay and without a right to vote. Th ese legislative restrictions were amended in the late 20th century, resulting in an infl ux of diverse people. Currently Canada welcomes approximately a quarter million immigrants every year from over 200 countries, making us one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the world, and 40 percent of Canadians are either of the fi rst or the second generation, with one out of fi ve Canadians not born in the country.

As we go from observing the Remembrance Day last week to celebrating multiculturalism this week, we must ask ourselves: when all the tributes are said and the cere- monies are celebrated, how are we any diff erent and how have we changed? How about one less road rage, one more apology, one less mudslinging, maybe, and one more thank-you? It doesn’t take a miracle for a better world, and I respect- fully challenge each of us to do something now and to- morrow that’s with a little more thoughtfulness, a little more kindness and, perhaps, starting with the question period today.

SOCIAL NEEDS OF SENIORS AND ASK FRIENDSHIP SOCIETY Moira Stilwell: Our province’s seniors are healthier, more independent and living longer than ever, but for many older people, loneliness and isolation are on the rise. In fact, recently researchers at the University of Chicago found that loneliness can be twice as harmful to the elderly’s health as obesity. A sense of fellowship is vital to seniors’ quality of life, particularly for those who are suffering from chron-

British Columbia Debates5414 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 ic illness or unable to meet their own social needs. It’s vital that they remain engaged and connected with their community, and that’s exactly what the ASK Friendship Society aims to do. ASK — or Arbutus, Shaughnessy and Kerrisdale — is one of the many adult daycare programs available through- out the Lower Mainland. Th eir mission is to provide op- portunities that enhance quality of life through programs that offer seniors fitness training, nutrition planning, health monitoring, personal care and friendship.

ASK believes that by helping seniors stay active and so- cial and by providing opportunities to learn new things, they can build a sense of community, improve their men- tal and physical health, and keep them living independ- ently in their own homes and, thus, out of our health care system. I was able to tour the society’s facility earlier this month and saw fi rsthand the diff erence it makes in the lives of clients. The ASK Friendship Society is an in- valuable resource for our community.

I want to thank Christine Stardom, the executive director, as well all of the staff , volunteers and caregivers who work so hard to ensure that the social needs of Vancouver seniors are met. While aging is inevitable, the ASK Friendship Society proves you don’t have to do it alone. STUDENT ACTION ON SHARK PROTECTION AND FIN FREE VICTORIA A. Weaver: Today I’ d like to speak to you about the importance of the youth voice in our society.

I’ d like to illustrate this by focusing specifi cally on the eff orts of a remarkably talented group of young students from Glenlyon Norfolk School who are being featured in a documentary entitled Child of Nature , produced by Enigma Films under contract with Warner Brothers. Sharks have been present in our oceans for over 400 million years. Th ey’ve survived earth’s fi ve great extinction events, including times when up to 80 percent of all mar- ine species were wiped out.

But they are struggling now in the anthropocene, the sixth great extinction event, because of a cruel and wasteful process known as shark-fi nning. In February 2012 Rob Stewart, director of the fi lm Sharkwater, gave a powerful presentation to Glenlyon Norfolk School. He inspired and motivated the students in the room, and they became determined to do what they could to make people aware of the plight of the world shark population. Together with their teacher Mrs. Margaret McCullough, these students set up a not-for-profi t known as Fin Free Victoria.

Th is incredibly passionate and articulate group of young students has worked tirelessly for several years. Th ey’ve visited numerous municipalities and business- es in Victoria, Vancouver, Richmond and elsewhere on Vancouver Island. [1355] They’ve given presentations to restaurant groups. Th ey’ve collected signatures on petitions. Th ey’ve con- ducted media interviews. Th ey’ve participated in press conferences. Th ey’ve met with municipal councillors as well as with provincial and federal politicians, some of whom are in the room today.

At all times they’ve done so with the deepest respect for, and sensitivity to, British Columbia’s diversifi ed cultural heritage. Th is group of young students has been so eff ective that shark fi n soup has disappeared from the menus of all Victoria restaurants. “Fin-free” stickers are proudly dis- played instead. Th e same is true for a growing number of establishments in Richmond and Vancouver, thanks in part to the collaborative eff orts of Fin Free Victoria. It gives me hope and inspiration to see the youth of to- day so engaged in such important societal issues.

While we in this room ultimately represent the decision-making generation, it is their generation that will have to live with the consequences of our decisions. Each and every one of us should refl ect upon that from time to time. Oral Questions CABINET APPOINTMENTS K. Corrigan: My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier stand by the appointments she has made to the provincial cabinet since becoming Premier? Hon. C.

Clark: When I get a chance to look up and down the rows of the men and women who sit with me in this Legislature in cabinet and out of cabinet, I get a chance to refl ect on the incredible dedication of, as the member from Oak Bay said, people who think about the future, who are remembering every single day that the decisions we make are not just ones we will live with our- selves but ones that the future generations, our children and grandchildren, will live with every day.

With an eye fi rmly on the future, I am surrounded by an exceptional group of men and women who work hard every day to build a prosperous future for British Columbia, one that will guarantee that people can build the kind of fulfi lling lives that they hope to have, no mat- ter where they live in the province, and that will ensure we can always continue to support those social programs which count us as Canadians and which we hold so dear. Madame Speaker: Recognizing Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental. CABINET APPOINTMENT OF HARRY BLOY AND RELATIONSHIP WITH PREMIER K. Corrigan: When the Premier appointed Mr.

Harry Bloy to her cabinet on March 14, 2011, it was because the Premier knew him pretty well. Is that correct?

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5415 Hon. C. Clark: Y ou know, appointing a cabinet is one of the most diffi cult tasks that any Premier faces and also one of the most important tasks, thinking about — as I have with every one of the men and women who sit with me here today — their specifi c skills, what they can bring to the table, how they can make a diff erence for the fu- ture of British Columbia, making sure that the regions of our province are represented, ensuring that there is a balance so that it refl ects the population of our province appropriately.

I cannot say enough, Madame Speaker, to you and to this House and to the people of British Columbia how proud I am of the dedication, the forward-looking nature, the hard work and the sacrifi ce that every single one of these cabinet ministers makes every day. We are not all perfect; that is certain. Nobody in the world is. But I can tell you I have never worked with a group of men and women about whom I am more proud. Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supple- mental. K. Corrigan: In March 2011 the Premier gave Mr. Bloy a cabinet minister’s duties and a big cabinet min- ister’s salary.

To the Premier, is she unwilling to stand here today…? She knew Mr. Bloy pretty well when she appointed him? [1400] Hon. C. Clark: I have a feeling that this line of ques- tioning is not going to end here. I have a feeling that the members of the opposition have a plan, a series of ques- tions that they’re going to put, and they hope that at this early stage they’ll fi nd a way to ensure that it’s as embar- rassing as possible for the government. All I can say is this.

In terms of the cabinet that sits here with us today and the majority members of this Legislature who make up our caucus, who British Columbians elected and in many cases re-elected to send back to Victoria to represent them, we have men and women who are dedicated to creating a prosperous future for British Columbia, working hard to make sure our kids have the future that they deserve. Th ese men and women are the men and women that British Columbians chose to serve in their government, to run this province, because they believed and had con- fi dence that we would do the right thing and build a great future. S.

Robinson: Th e Premier chose to put Mr. Bloy in cabinet. Mr. Bloy had been in Gordon Campbell’s caucus for about ten years, but Mr. Campbell never saw fi t to put Mr. Bloy in cabinet. What was it that the Premier saw in Mr. Bloy in March 2011 that made her give him a cabinet minister’s duties and a big minister’s salary? Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m hoping at some point that, as one member said, we can get to the last

chapter of this story sooner rather than later. And I also hope that that last

chapter includes some questions about the current cabinet and what we’re doing in British Columbia. But let me say this. I do note that of all of the decisions that have been made about cabinet, British Columbians were pretty clear in the last election not to send any of those members to sit in cabinet in this Legislature. Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a sup- plemental. S. Robinson: This question is to the Premier. Mr. Bloy was the only member of the then Liberal caucus to publicly support her in her 2011 campaign to become Premier. Is that part of the reason why she appointed him to her cabinet? Hon. C. Clark: We’re at

chapter 5, and we still don’t have any questions for the current cabinet. I have to as- sume that the question bank for the opposition’s research group is running a little bit low. I know at some point they will have an opportunity to ask about the current busi- ness of government and people who are currently sitting in cabinet — a group of which I could not be more proud. Of course, if they don’t have any questions about the current workings of government, perhaps they could ask the leader of the Green Party to get up. I know he’s always got something smart to say.

APPOINTMENT OF BRIAN BONNEY AS GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR M. Karagianis: Well, I do have a question for the current Premier. On October 27, 2011, the Premier ap- pointed Mr. Brian Bonney as a director in the govern- ment communications and public engagement office, also known as GCPE. Th is question is to the Premier. When the Premier appointed Mr. Bonney as a director, it was because she knew him quite well. Am I correct? Hon. C. Clark:

Chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 — 6 we’re at now. I’m really hoping that the members will get to questions about what the government’s currently doing. I would note that there was an election between the time the member is examining and now and lots of chance for the public to think about, based on all the questions and all the things that they knew that were go- ing on, who they wanted to serve in the cabinet. [1405] I can say I am very pleased with the people that are serving in this cabinet and, again, happy to note that the people of British Columbia were quite resounding in their decision that no one sitting on that side of the House deserved to sit in cabinet.

British Columbia Debates5416 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a sup- plemental. M. Karagianis: On October 27, 2011, when the Premier appointed Mr. Bonney as a GCPE director, he had previously spent six years as operations direc- tor of her B.C. Liberal Party. Now, I don’t know why the Premier doesn’t want to answer questions about Mr. Bonney, but in October 2011 when she appointed him it was in part because the Premier knew Mr. Bonney had been a B.C. Liberal Party director. Am I correct in that? Hon. C.

Clark: Question period is valuable time for the opposition, and it’s valuable time for the public. It’s a chance in our democratic process for members of the opposition to hold the government to account for the things that we’re doing today, to talk about the decisions that we’re making. It’s a legitimate forum to do that. Y ou know, I know we’re at

chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 now. I am hoping that at some point we can get to the end of this story and get on with talking about some of the issues that are of such pertinent importance to the future of British Columbia, the reasons that the people of British Columbia selected this party and this govern- ment to represent them. Th ey want a prosperous future, and we want to deliver that. WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HARRY BLOY AND BRIAN BONNEY S. Hammell: In 2009 Mr. Bonney managed Mr. Bloy’s campaign in Burnaby-Lougheed. In 2011 Mr. Bloy was the only MLA to support the Premier’s leadership.

Th e Premier gave Bloy his fi rst-ever cabinet post and made Mr. Bonney a GCPE director. Th e Premier knew the connection between Mr. Bonney and Mr. Bloy. Is that not correct? Hon. C. Clark: At this point I feel like I’m obliged to say that I think in this question period we have never seen a better and stronger argument for offi cial party status for the Greens. Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a sup- plemental. S. Hammell: To the Premier, if the Premier was aware at the time of a close connection between her cab- inet appointee, Mr. Bloy, and her GCPE appointment, Mr.

Bonney, was a deliberate decision made that Mr. Bonney’s job in GCPE was to work on multiculturalism with Mr. Bloy? Hon. C. Clark: Okay, so

chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 —

chapter 9 in the book. I think the member may have got her fi les mixed up. Th ese questions were canvassed quite extensively, I should note, before the election in full view of the public by members of the opposition. I think she’s probably gone back in her fi les and pulled out something from 2011 or 2012. Th ey may want to pay their writers more. Th ey could get some new questions rather than using ones that are three years old. APPOINTMENT OF BRIAN BONNEY AS GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR M. Mungall: On October 27, 2011, when the Premier appointed Mr.

Bonney as a GCPE director, it was in part because she knew that Mr. Bonney had been a public supporter of her leadership campaign and to be Premier. Is that correct? [1410] Hon. C. Clark: Y ou know, I think I’ve answered those questions, the quite long list of questions. And in be- tween the time when these issues were last canvassed in the House, we had an election, and in that election British Columbians decided that they wanted the folks on this side of the House to have their hand, a steady hand, on the tiller, to create prosperity for the future.

Th ey looked at the folks on that side of the House, and they decided to consign them again to opposition. What happened in that election? In that election, this opposition stood up every day and said: “We want to spend more money, but we don’t want to grow the econ- omy to pay for it. ” Since then they’ve said, “Oh gee, we don’t believe in…. We think that we want to balance the budget, ” but it’s that member who stood up and said: “I think our provincial government can do better. If you want to know what we’ d do, go look at our 2013 election platform. ” She said that in October 2014.

So my question for her is this. Does the NDP stand by all of those massive spending promises that they made in the last election? Do they continue to stand by that? Is that their continuing policy? Rather than talking about things that happened before the election on which people had a chance to decide, maybe that member can stand up and solve for us some of the mysteries about where she actually stands on the future of this province. Madame Speaker: Recognizing Nelson-Creston on a supplemental. M. Mungall: Mr. Bonney publicly supported the Premier’s leadership campaign.

He bragged to the media that he had sent out 2,000 e-mails urging people to vote for her. It’s a simple question. I hope the Premier will answer it. Can she stand in this House today and truthfully say that when she appointed Mr. Bonney as GCPE director, she was not aware of his role in her leadership campaign?

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5417 Hon. C. Clark: I think if the member has an allega- tion she’ d like to make, she should make it. I think the members of the opposition, rather than standing up here in this kind of theatrical farce…. Just get the end of the book and let us know what’s going on. And if they’re not prepared to do that, maybe the member can tell us which ones of her election promises she’s prepared to jettison or if she stands beside all of them.

While the budget committee came back with NDP members saying that they expect to have a balanced budget, this member says that the NDP continued to sup- port the almost $2 billion in new spending. Which is it? Do they want a balanced budget, or do they want to stand by all those election promises that would have meant dig- ging into taxpayers’ pockets for $2 billion more? MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY AND STAFF ROLE AND CHANGES L. Krog: On December 1, 2011, in these very precincts the Premier’s longtime friend and deputy chief of staff chaired a meeting on a multiculturalism strategy. Th e attendees at Ms.

Kim Haakstad’s meeting included the Premier’s appointee Mr. Bonney, the Premier’s appoin- tee Pamela Martin, B.C. Liberal caucus staff and B.C. Liberal Party staff . To the Premier, she agrees, does she not, that the December 1, 2011, meeting occurred just as I described it now? Hon. C. Clark: Well, I mean, I understand regret. We’ve all had losses in our lives and things that we regret and things that we wish we’ d done diff erently.

I take it that the members didn’t feel like they adequately canvassed all these issues during the many months that we were in the Legislature a couple of years ago, and during the election campaign they didn’t feel like it, so now they want to con- sume a question period talking about those things again. I think we could be serving British Columbians better by talking about things that are germane to today. How is it that the government has balanced two budgets in a row?

How is it that we have managed to cut alcohol-related road deaths in half? [1415] How is it that we’ve seen trade with China go up by 1,900 percent — a 20-fold increase? How is it that we, despite the opposition wanting to run up the white fl ag, managed to negotiate a fair and aff ordable settlement with the teachers of British Columbia? It’s because this cabinet is working hard. It’s because this caucus is serv- ing their constituents. It’s because this B.C. Liberal gov- ernment is making British Columbians proud. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Nanaimo on a supplemental. L. Krog: Th ey’re simple questions.

I’m sure the Premier could focus enough today on giving a simple answer to a simple question. On December 1, 2011, the day of this strategy meeting, Ms. Haakstad’s senior colleagues in the Premier’s offi ce in- cluded the Premier’s appointee, Deputy Minister Athana Mentzelopoulos. To the Premier, will the Premier con- fi rm this — that Ms. Mentzelopoulos was Ms. Haakstad’s Premier’s offi ce colleague when the December 1, 2011, strategy meeting was held? Hon. C. Clark: Finally the opposition has stumbled across the name of someone who still works in these precincts.

I understand that the opposition, perhaps, wishes that they had approached the election diff erently and that their arguments about some of these issues were accepted by the public in the election. But these issues were talked about very extensively in this Legislature, outside of it and then during the election campaign.

British Columbians decided to choose a government that they felt would best serve their interests — one that would stand up for economic prosperity; one that would build a liquefi ed natural gas industry in our province, support our resource sector squarely; one that would make sure that we are creating a prosperity fund to pay down the debt for our children and keep taxes low. Despite all of these issues having been raised, British Columbians said they wanted this government to serve them. Th at’s why we’re here today, and that’s why when British Columbians spoke in the election, we took them seriously.

We’re going to keep those promises, and we are going to deliver a prosperous future for the people of British Columbia. D. Eby: On the topic of the Premier’s senior pol- itical appointees, on December 1, 2011, the day that Ms. Haakstad got the government’s quick-win strat- egy underway, the Premier’s appointee, Mr. Sweeney, was the deputy minister of government communica- tions. Will the Premier confi rm that Mr. Sweeney was her appointed head of government communications on December 1, 2011? Hon. C.

Clark: I can say I am really very, very proud of the men and the women that I work with, both on the political side and in our civil service. We have all worked together to make sure we are really building a prosperous future for the province. Of over $236 billion in proposed projects now in British Columbia, $82 billion of those are already under- way, putting people across the province to work. B.C. ’s unemployment rate is at 6.1 percent — well below the national average, the fourth lowest in the country.

Since the release of the B.C. jobs plan, $7.2 billion in economic expansion has gotten underway, including $3.9 billion last year, and 71,500 net new jobs since the incep-

British Columbia Debates5418 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 tion of the B.C. jobs plan. Th at’s what people voted for, and that’s what we’re delivering. Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental. D. Eby: A simple question. The Premier made an interesting switch just two weeks aft er Ms. Haakstad’s quick-win meeting. On December 16, 2011, the Premier moved Mr. Sweeney from government communications to Ms. Mentzelopoulos’ position in the Premier’s offi ce and vice versa. To the Premier, she swapped Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Mentzelopoulos into each other’s former position, didn’t she?

Y es or no. [1420] Hon. C. Clark: Madame Speaker, I hope with the long and theatrical run-up to this that by the time we get to the member for Port Coquitlam and his question, it’s a really, really good one. N. Macdonald: As head of the GCPE, starting December 16, 2011, Ms. Mentzelopoulos became Mr. Bonney’s GCPE boss. Th at’s Mr. Bonney, the Premier’s leadership campaign supporter; the Premier’s appointed GCPE director, who had been on the job just eight weeks; the GCPE director who had just attended Ms. Haakstad’s initial quick-wins meeting. Can the Premier confi rm that when she appointed Ms.

Mentzelopoulos as the deputy of GPCE, she made her re- sponsible for, among other people, Mr. Bonney? Hon. C. Clark: Okay, so by my count — one, two, three, four, fi ve, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12…. Maybe that’s one more to go until we fi nally get to the big money question from the member for Port Coquitlam. I’ll wait and see what he has in store. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Columbia River– Revelstoke on a supplemental. N. Macdonald: In December 2011 the Premier moved Mr. Sweeney to her offi ce and put Ms. Mentzelopoulos in charge of Mr. Bonney in the GCPE. One might expect that Mr.

Sweeney was obliged to brief his replacement, Ms. Mentzelopoulos, on GCPE’s newest fi le — say, those fi les originating in the Premier’s offi ce itself. Th e question to the Premier, in December 2011, did she instruct or expect that Mr. Sweeney would brief his replacement on the fi les GCPE was working on with the Premier’s offi ce? Hon. C. Clark: Y ou know, I know the opposition does some thinking about question period before they come, and they write the questions in advance. I mean, in this case they’re three years old, but nonetheless, they wrote them in advance.

Th ey’re reusing them — reduce, reuse, recycle. I completely get that. I understand it. Maybe the leader of the Green Party would appreciate this line of questioning in question period. But you know, there are a lot of issues that British Columbians are thinking about. Th is is a very legitimate forum for the opposition to be able to put those questions forward.

I also do some thinking about question period beforehand, and I had thought that members might have some very vital questions about education, vital questions about what’s going on with Mount Polley, vital questions about what’s going on with the coroner’s inquest in Burns Lake and for the Lake Babine mill. What about questions with respect to ferries and some of the questions that they’ve raised publicly with Seaspan? All of those are issues that we would be very, very happy to talk about in question period.

I hope that at some point we can get to those questions so the NDP can prove that although they are in opposition, they do at least have something relevant left to say. MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY INVESTIGATION REPORT S. Simpson: We know that in the Premier’s offi ce there was a meeting around an offi ce strategy. It was attended by the GCPE director. Two weeks later the Premier swaps out the GCPE deputy and her Premier’s offi ce deputy. We have to assume that they talked to each other. We know that the results of that was quick-wins. Th e Premier asked her deputy, Mr.

John Dyble, to review the quick-wins scandal. She said the goal was to be “absolute- ly sure” and that there was “no sharing of resources be- tween the government and the party” and that “it should never happen. ” To the Premier, does she consider Mr. Dyble’s March 14 report to be thorough and complete on the issue of sharing resources between the government and the party? [1425] Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. C.

Clark: If ever there was proof that the oppos- ition in British Columbia is struggling to fi nd its iden- tity and fi gure out what it stands for, it must be found in this line of questioning in question period today. Th ey will have to change their name from the NDP to the Irrelevant Party one of these days soon. Th ey on the one hand say they want a balanced budget, and then they also say that they want to continue with their plan to spend $2 billion more in taxpayer’s money. Th ey say they support LNG, but then they say they don’t

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5419 support fracking. Th ey say they support mining, and then they attack it every single day. Th is is an opposition without an identity, it’s an opposition without a plan, and it’s an opposition without principles. If there is every any proof of that, it is this question period today. Now, Madame Speaker, I give you and this House the fi nal questioner, getting to the point, the member for Port Coquitlam. M.

Farnworth: What we’ve witnessed from the Premier is a refusal to answer basic questions on an issue that has been of importance to British Columbians and an issue that has seen two people close to her, appointments that she’s responsible for as head of the executive council, go- ing to appear in court. Interjection. M. Farnworth: Th e member says I’m out of order. Well, I’ll tell you what’s out of order: a Premier that doesn’t want to answer the most basic questions put to her in this House. We’ve been talking about Mr. Bonney, Mr. Bloy, Ms. Haakstad, Mr. Sweeney, Ms. Mentzelopoulos.

Th ey’re the Premier’s people. Th ey weren’t inherited. No one forced them upon this government. Two of those operatives and the company they own are facing charges for Election Act violations. According to the special prosecutor, there may be more to come. But the question I’m putting to the Premier that I’ d like an answer for is Mr. Dyble. Mr. Dyble had before him quick-wins-related e-mails from Mr. Bonney’s Mainland Communication account and quick-wins-related e-mails in the B.C. Liberal Party director Mark Robertson’s Mainland Communication account, but Mr.

Dyble did not make any mention of Mainland in his report, even though it was involving quick wins and is co-owned by the Premier’s GCPE appointee and by a director of the Premier’s Liberal Party. So perhaps the Premier can answer this. Does the Premier have any explanation for why Mr. Dyble failed to report to the public about a company run by her ap- pointee, Mr. Bonney, and by her party’s Mr. Robertson? Hon. C. Clark: Well, I have to say I’m disappointed.

Aft er all of that run-up, a half-hour of question period, asking the same question again and again, they fi nally get to the punchline, and it just wasn’t that good. [End of question period.] Point of Privilege (Speaker’s Ruling) Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake rose on a point of privilege. On October 6 the member had reserved her right to bring forth a matter of privilege. Th e Chair also heard a submission of the Government House Leader on Th ursday, November 6, 2014, on the same matter.

I would like to thank members for their submissions, which I have carefully reviewed.

In essence, the member’s point of privilege is based on what she terms as the deliberate misleading of the House on March 5, 2014, by the Minister of Advanced Education in his response to a question by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey respecting executive compen- sation at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. [1430] To support the point of privilege, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake provided a report titled Kwantlen Polytechnic University: A Compensation Review , dated June 13, 2014, prepared by Rob Mingay, assistant deputy minister, labour relations, public sector employers coun- cil secretariat, Ministry of Finance.

Th e report reviewed compensation off ered or paid by Kwantlen Polytechnic University to members of the exec- utive. Th e report acknowledges that the minister was one of several individuals who provided information in sup- port of this inquiry. The Chair was unable to determine — following a reading of the report, a reading of the question by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the response of the minister — that a prima facie breach of privilege has been made out. What there undoubtedly is before the Chair is a dispute by members on the

interpretation of facts. Neither the report provided by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake nor the exchange in this chamber off ers evidence that the minister sought to deliberately mislead the House with his remarks on March 5. Breaches of privilege involve the protection of mem- bers from impediments to their functioning as Members of the Legislative Assembly,

whereas contempts of the House are, broadly speaking, off ences against the dig- nity and authority of the House itself. Th is strict defi n- ition of privilege or contempt cannot be expanded to include controversies as to facts and opinions or, in the case, diff ering opinions or conclusions on the interpreta- tion of reports. Th e point raised by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake appears to be more a matter of debate than it is one of privilege or contempt.

Members will know that it has been a longstanding practice in this House that an hon. member’s statement is accepted by the House in the absence of indisputable evidence to the con- trary. Th is practice is well described in the decision of Speaker Schroeder of April 13, 1982, which is cited in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fourth edi- tion, at page 351. Indeed, there must be prima facie evidence that the minister deliberately misled the House. Th is requirement

British Columbia Debates5420 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 of evidence to the House as being deliberately misled is described in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, at page 111, and in Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 224. In this case, there is no such evidence in possession of the Chair, and accordingly, the application by the mem- ber for Burnaby–Deer Lake fails. I thank members for their attention. Petitions A. Weaver: I have a petition to submit. It’s a peti- tion to ban shark fi n products in the province of British Columbia.

Th ere are 528 names on this petition, and it was brought to my attention by the young children that I discussed today. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage on Bill 8, protect- ed areas. [1435] Committee of the Whole House BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014 Th e House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 8; M. Dalton in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:36 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. M. Polak: Just to introduce the two staff that I have with me, to my right is Ken Morrison, our manager of planning, and to my left , Jim Standen, our assistant deputy minister in charge of parks and the conservation offi cer service. R. Austin: Before asking questions in committee stage, I’ d just like to give those who are watching or those who are going to read Hansard a little bit of background to this bill, if they didn’t watch the debate yesterday in second reading. Th is bill, Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, is an extremely short bill.

It consists of two sections, the fi rst of which is a long list of coordin- ates that detail a pipeline route. Th e second

section of this bill is simply announcing when this bill would come into eff ect. It’s unfortunate that people who are listening or watch- ing perhaps don’t have access to a map, but if they want to contact my offi ce or the minister’s offi ce, they can per- haps get access to some links which would show them the potential route or pipeline that we’re talking about here and the part of the Memorial Lava Bed Park that’s being removed. I just wanted to give that so that people under- stand the questions and put them into context.

With that, I’ d like to ask the minister if she could please elaborate on what potential other routes were considered that either did not have impacts on the Memorial Lava Bed Park or took a diff erent route through the park. Hon. M. Polak: There were a number of different routes considered. Th ere were six conceptual routes that were evaluated by the company, including the one that we are dealing with today at the end. Th ree routes were considered that avoided the park en- tirely.

Th ese included a marine route through Alice Arm and Portland Inlet, a route through the Kiteen Valley and a route north of the Nass River. Th ey also examined two more southerly route options, known as the Alder Peak route and the south lava bed route, both of which would impact the park to some extent. [1440] I’m just trying to get to the nub of this here so you don’t get too much extraneous information or unneces- sary…. In landing on this route…. Ultimately, it’s worth noting that this route has fewer water course crossings in comparison to the south lava bed route.

Of course, as has been discussed in the debate in second reading, the current route choice follows quite closely the route of the highway — which, of course, tends to lessen the level of disturbance that will occur in the park. R. Austin: Th e minister noted in her brief that B.C. ’s protected areas have a very high level of protection, and decisions to make boundary adjustments are not taken lightly. Th at being the case, what was the criteria that was used to justify this particular decision in removing these 12 kilometres from the park? Hon. M.

Polak: Each one of these processes, or each one of these decisions, follows along the provincial pro- tected area boundary adjustment policy process and guidelines document, which has been in place since about 2000. It sets out the principle, fi rst of all, that boundary ad- justments may be considered where there are compelling provincial economic, social and environmental benefi ts to be realized from the proposed boundary change. Every proposal includes an assessment of the environmental, social and economic impacts and benefi ts that may re- sult from the proposed boundary change.

All those applications have to consider alternatives for avoiding the park. Th e information is then considered alongside the outcomes of First Nation and public con- sultation in deciding whether or not the boundary ad- justment should proceed.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5421 In addition, in this case, to considerations set out in that boundary policy and process and guidelines, I also, of course, considered the wishes of the Nisga’a Lisims Government in leading up to the place we are today here in the Legislature. A tremendous amount of back-and-forth discussion has taken place involving the company, involving Nisga’a and involving government to arrive at striking the right balance in terms of where the boundary adjustment would take place or if, indeed, it should take place. R.

Austin: Th ank you to the minister for that answer. I realize that this amendment will only come into ef- fect once the full environmental assessment certifi cate has been approved under the law. My question: if there is no fi nal investment decision with regards to the Pacifi c NorthWest LNG project, will this amendment still come into eff ect, in any case? [1445] Hon. M. Polak: We have committed that this will not take eff ect unless and until the regulatory approvals are granted.

In addition to that, in order for the boundary adjust- ment to be complete there needs to be an amendment to the Nisga’a fi nal agreement. I am given to understand in discussions with Nisga’a that the amending agreement to the Nisga’a fi nal agreement will contain terms and condi- tions to ensure that this boundary amendment does not take eff ect unless the project proceeds. R. Austin: Further to my previous question, can I ask the minister…?

If indeed the project specifi ed by this amendment does not take place, but another company chooses to, for example, build an LNG facility elsewhere on the coast — for example, within Nisga’a territory it- self…. I think the minister is probably aware that the Nisga’a have visited Asia and have attempted to show specifi c sites within the Nisga’a core lands that could be used for an LNG plant. If the Pacifi c NorthWest was not to have a go, and they were to pull back for whatever reason, could this pipeline route then come into eff ect to further an LNG facility elsewhere? Hon. M.

Polak: First, just a clarifi cation in that the issue isn’t so much whether or not another company could do that. Another company could be taking over the same project. If that was the case…. For example, the member will be aware that very oft en environmental assessment certifi cates are granted to one company, and then another company purchases the project. Th ey still have the certifi cate with the project. If it was a diff erent project….

I suppose one couldn’t say it’s absolutely impossible, but it would be close to impossible, because if it’s a diff erent project, then there would have to be an entirely new environmental as- sessment process. Th ere would have to be entirely new discussions with Nisga’a, and, again, the Nisga’a fi nal agreement amendment will have provisions with respect to the project itself proceeding. While I don’t think we can say with 100 percent cer- tainty that that’s not possible, I would say it’s in the range of 99.9 percent. [1450] R.

Austin: I take it, then, that this pipeline route is specifi c to the project on Lelu Island. If that was to never happen and there was to be one further north on the coast, then obviously I take it that there would have to be a completely diff erent bill brought forward and a dif- ferent amendment. Okay. Th e bill also notes that the

section that’s going through the Memorial Lava Bed Park has a right-of-way of ap- proximately 32 metres on either side of this pipeline route in order to construct it. Can I ask the minister who is going to be responsible to ensure that that 32-metre-wide right-of-way is adhered to and isn’t extended in any way by the company when it’s building the route? Is it going to be the Nisga’a enfor- cing this themselves? Or is it going to be the government of British Columbia that ensures that that right-of-way is adhered to? Hon. M. Polak: A couple of things.

First, just to be clear about the issue of the right-of-way, the corridor is not a uniform width throughout. Th ere will be areas where the width is a bit larger to accommodate where they expect to have equipment and things like that. Th e 32-metre right-of-way is a likelihood post-construction. Th at hasn’t been fi nalized. It’s what we expect. But suffi ce to say that the boundary adjustment doesn’t necessarily conform to what will ultimately be right-of-way. Once the construction is complete, in discussions with the company, we would determine an appropriate right-of-way.

Th ere could very well be land that is re- moved from park status as a result of this adjustment yet doesn’t become right-of-way. It just ends up being Crown land that is not part of the park because it maybe is not needed as right-of-way. It might not be a full 32 metres. It is what the company has asked for. We don’t anticipate that there’s going to be any need for additional right-of- way. In terms of compliance and enforcement, there are various natural resource ministries who have responsibil- ity on the ground for that.

We operate in an integrated way between our compliance and enforcement offi cers and those who work with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. B.C. Parks staff will also be present in the area. Th ey’ll work in conjunction with the environmental monitors to ensure that, as the work takes place, transgressions

British Columbia Debates5422 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 don’t occur and that if there are any such incidents, those would be dealt with. Again, we don’t have expectation that additional areas will be impacted, but it is something that we’ll be watching closely. [1455] R. Austin: Can the minister confi rm whether in the agreement with the Nisga’a Nation there is a guarantee that this pipeline route will only be used to transport natural gas and not be used to transport — or changed later on for — diluted bitumen or any other oil pro- duct? Hon. M.

Polak: In discussions with staff , we don’t have information as to whether or not that’s actually included in the agreement with Nisga’a. However, the Minister of Natural Gas Development has announced publicly that he will be addressing that broad concern of First Nations in some way through either the legislative or regulatory responsibilities of his ministry. R. Austin: So to the minister’s knowledge, then, the Nisga’a never brought this up themselves when they were in discussions with…? Interjection. R. Austin: Okay. Th ank you very much. Sections 1 and 2 approved. Title approved. Hon. M.

Polak: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 2:58 p.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014 Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, reported complete without amend- ment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. M.

Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act. [1500] Committee of the Whole House BILL 7 — NISGA ’ A FINAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Th e House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 7; M. Dalton in the chair. Th e committee met at 3:01 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. J. Rustad: I’m pleased today that we’ll be able to move the bill forward. I just want to take a moment to thank members for their comments in second read- ing and, as well, to introduce the staff that I have here with me. I have Lloyd Roberts, who is the executive director for implementation and legislation with my ministry, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation; Geraldine Hutchings, legal counsel for the Ministry of Justice; and Bridget Minishka, director with aboriginal tax policy for the Ministry of Finance. I look forward to the questions. S.

Fraser: It’s good to be here, again, at committee stage of Bill 7. I’ d like to begin by thanking the minister and his staff for making themselves available to myself and Kenn McLaren, my researcher, the other day and helping to take me through this bill. We seem to have a full pull for support for the bill, but I will have some questions for clarifi cation for myself and for those watch- ing. Some of this is complicated in its writing, and any clarifi cation that can help clarify some of the legalese, if I will, is always useful for those that are watching. I know some are on this.

For those that might be watching that didn’t get any of the debate from Bill 2, Bill 7 itself is the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014. It actually empowers the previous agreement, the real property tax coordina- tion agreement, which was signed in July of this year between the Nisga’a Lisims Government and the govern- ment of British Columbia. A lot of the bill, I would also suggest, is regulation. I suppose it still has yet to be developed fully. I’ll ask ques- tions about that as we come along. I guess I have a question on

part 1, on

section 1, if I could begin with that.

Part 1 is settlement legislation. It says sections 6(1) and 8(5) are repealed. For the record, can the minister just highlight what those repealed sec- tions are? Hon. J. Rustad: Th e two sections that are being re- pealed are sections 6(1) and 8(5) of the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act. Th ey are actually being repealed because they’ll be captured by new sections through this piece.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5423 [1505] If you want the specifi c pieces of that legislation, we can pull it up if you’ d like — the Nisga’a fi nal agreement legislation — but I’m hoping that will be suffi cient for the member. S. Fraser: Fair enough. Possibly I can get that aft er. I just didn’t have the fi nal agreement with me at the time, and I know many who are watching would not know. Even if they have a copy of this document, they would not know what sections were repealed there. I’m mind- ful of the time involved to do that throughout the bill. I’ll follow that lead. Now, I realize also I jumped ahead a bit. We were at

section 1. I’m just wondering on the protocol here — if I can be reminded. My next question is dealing with sec- tion 4. Do I need to wait for the Chair to give me the okay on that? I will sit down and wait for that okay. Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved. On

section 4. S. Fraser: On the defi nition of “land, ” it has “the same meaning as in the Assessment Act. ” I get that part of it, but the land…. I mean, we’ve been just dealing with Bill 8, which, to my understanding, was dealing with land that’s actually outside of the treaty lands, the Nisga’a treaty lands. Th is taxation bill, Bill 7, only applies to land within the treaty lands, not within the larger territorial lands. I know the minister is nodding, but if he can clarify that for the record. Hon. J. Rustad: Y es. Just within the treaty lands them- selves. S.

Fraser: Just for clarifi cation, too, the land outside of the designated treaty lands, which have been in place for many years now, that land that’s still arguably within the traditional Nisga’a territory…. Is there any peripheral ef- fect that Bill 7 has on those lands outside of the accepted defi ned treaty lands? Hon. J. Rustad: Th is bill specifi cally deals with taxa- tion within the treaty-defi ned treaty lands, settlement lands, not on the outside area, which is where the rights would be. S. Fraser: Th anks to the minister for that. Just bear with me.

I have had some questions on this which I was not able to answer, so I’m hoping to get that through this line of questioning. Is it ever perceived…? Is there an option for the Nisga’a Lisims Government to, say, acquire land — hypothetical situation — outside of the existing treaty lands, whether it’s contiguous or non-contiguous? And then, is there a mechanism for them to include that into the treaty lands at some future time so it would be captured under the umbrella of the treaty lands itself — land that is not in the treaty lands right now? Hon. J. Rustad: Treaties, of course, are complex enti- ties.

It would be possible for Nisga’a Nation to acquire land and to consider adding it to their treaty lands, but it would have to be done in agreement with the federal government — with Canada — and with the provincial government — British Columbia. S. Fraser: Th at’s helpful. Does the third level of gov- ernment — not always mentioned, but local govern- ment; in this case, it would be the regional district — that would have some responsibility over that land, presum- ably things like zoning and planning of various kinds…?

Would there be a requirement for some involvement at that level if the treaty lands were to be expanded, or pot- entially expanded, outside of the existing treaty lands? Hon. J. Rustad: As we enter into treaty negotiations, discussions or other types of engagement with treaty na- tions or non-treaty nations as we move forward, particu- larly on those sorts of issues, we obviously do engage with local governments and regional districts. [1510] S. Fraser: I think the nature of the questions that were put to me that I was not able to answer, which you are in- forming me on now….

I guess if treaty lands were to be expanded, that could have a potential impact — fi nan- cial, taxation-wise impact — on the regional district in any area of the province. Actually, it doesn’t have to be necessarily just Nisga’a, but it could be any treaty nation that achieves treaty within the B.C. treaty process also. Presumably, there would be consultation with adjoin- ing communities or regional districts. If a treaty nation or, in this case, a Nisga’a treaty…. If those lands were to be expanded, the potential impacts would be probed be- fore any decision would be made — the impacts on the local governments.

Is that safe to say — that some pro- cess would come into play there? Hon. J. Rustad: Our commitment through this pro- cess is certainly that for any of these sorts of matters of a land nature, we enter into discussions with the regional district and/or local governments as appropriate. S. Fraser: Th ank you for that, and thanks for bearing with me on that. Moving on but still in

section 4, the defi nition of “non- citizen, ” as described in Bill 7, is: “means a person who is not a Nisga’a citizen. ” I don’t believe the term “Nisga’a citizen” is actually defi ned here.

British Columbia Debates5424 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Can the minister provide such a defi nition? Just so we know what…. I’m guessing there are issues of marriage. It’s not always clear-cut what citizenship means. Certainly, with nationhood with First Nations, that’s relatively new in the history of this province. I mean, it wasn’t new. It obviously predated contact. But if the minister could help me with the defi nition of that. Hon. J. Rustad: I hope I’m not breaking a rule here by using some technology in this response, as opposed to writing it down.

But I’ll give you the response, and I’ll suff er the consequences thereaft er. In the Nisga’a treaty, a Nisga’a citizen is defi ned: “means a citizen of the Nisga’a nation as determined by Nisga’a law. ” S. Fraser: All right. Thanks for that. Is there any- thing…? I mentioned by marriage. So if a non-Nisga’a resident marries into a Nisga’a family in Nisga’a terri- tory, does that person then become, by defi nition here, a Nisga’a citizen? Or would they remain a non-citizen? What would be the current requirement for citizenship, just for clarifi cation? Hon. J.

Rustad: Hopefully, now I’m back within com- pliance with the rules. Th e Nisga’a defi ne their laws, so that’s a question that really should be put to the Nisga’a in terms of how they defi ne a citizen. S. Fraser: Fair enough. Th anks to the minister for that. Turning the page but staying on

section 4, subsection 10.02 is “ Authority to impose tax on non-citizen owners or occupiers and provide exemptions. ” Th e provision for exemptions — I’m familiar with that in municipal government. It’s quite common with various facilities or groups that are community-based. Oft en it's considered in the public interest by the local government in a muni- cipal government system. [1515] Is it anticipated that that would be a similar criteria for exemptions with Nisga’a? Again, it may be a question to put to the Nisga’a Lisims Government.

But in the mak- ing of this bill, are we expecting to see exemptions used in a similar way? Hon. J. Rustad: Th e real property tax coordination agreement defi nes and lays out any of the exemptions, and it is consistent with what would be happening with- in municipalities. S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that. I guess a protocol question. Since we’re dealing with Bill 7 specifi cally and not with the real property tax coordination agreement, is it permitted to ask questions relating to that agreement that was signed in July?

I’m just not sure what’s appropriate in this place, as we are in third reading of Bill 7. Th e Chair: Member, if it relates to the section, it’s per- mitted. Hon. J. Rustad: Actually, this bill is designed to work with the agreement, so I would suggest that any questions associated with this bill would be appropriate. Obviously, there’s information that may be needed to be drawn on from the real tax agreement. S. Fraser: Th ank you very much to the minister. And thank you, hon. Chair, for that. I guess just a follow-up question on subsection 10.02.

When taxes are levied through this bill, which is part of nationhood — I very much support that — what’s an- ticipated in the case of a default? Someone’s not paying their taxes. A non-citizen, say, is not paying the taxes that are being levied by the Nisga’a Lisims Government. Is there a…? I didn’t see it in the bill itself. And I apologize. It may have been in the previous real property tax coordination agreement. Th ere might have been details there. In the case of a default, is it a similar situation as in a municipal situation, where a property could actually be lost by an owner?

Is it a similar sort of situation? Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a good question to put forward. If anybody on the property of the Nisga’a Lands refuses to pay their taxes, the Nisga’a Nation will collect taxes in accordance with their own property tax law. Th e real property tax coordination agreement actually provides the Nisga’a to impose a penalty amount to unpaid taxes, and that penalty would be at the same level as municipal governments would levy against unpaid taxes. In addi- tion, the Nisga’a will be able to exercise general debt col- lection powers available under provincial law. S.

Fraser: Th anks to the minister for that. Would B.C. Assessment play a role in enforcement or collections? Just a mechanism…. How would that ac- tually occur? Hon. J. Rustad: Th at isn’t the role that B.C. Assessment plays in British Columbia. Th ey go out and do the assess- ment. What you’re asking about, Assessment would not be involved in. S. Fraser: Just to fi nish off on this line of questioning. Presumably, one fi nal remedy could be expropriation, loss of the property. Is that…?

Presumably, that would be the case whether it’s Nisga’a or outside of Nisga’a, but specifi cally with this particular agreement, Bill 7? [1520] Hon. J. Rustad: Th is is similar in terms of municipal- ities. Th ere are provisions as you go and look at trying to recover debt under the general provisions within the

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5425 province to be able to go aft er assets. It is something that would be possible, just like any general creditor would have that opportunity to be able to pursue. S. Fraser: Just for clarity, this would apply to Nisga’a residents as well as non-residents. Is that correct? Hon. J. Rustad: Nisga’a have agreed to the provision that there will be no discrimination between citizens and non-citizens, and the same rules would be applied. S. Fraser: Th ank you. Moving on to subsection 10.04.

It addresses the potential for and the entitlement to an administration fee in the amount determined as if the requisition had been received by a municipality. As far as fees go, potential administration fees, is there some- thing pre-set? Is there a formula? Do we have any idea of what that would look like? Is there a standard rate, and would it coincide with what happens in a municipality, for instance? Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a good question the member op- posite has asked.

My understanding is that there is prov- incial legislation that lays out what those administrative fees would be and that any taxing authorities, municipal- ity or treaty would actually look to that to be able to look at the level of administration fee that would be levied. S. Fraser: Just for my edifi cation, who pays that fee? Where does it come from? [1525] Hon. J. Rustad: My understanding is the fee would ul- timately be passed down to the taxpayer, just like it would be with municipalities or other taxing jurisdictions. S. Fraser: Th anks to the minister for that. Th e next section…. Don’t worry.

I’m not going to go through each small subsection of this bill. I’m not trying to run the clock. I have a bulk of questions in

section 4. It’s sort of sparse throughout that, and intermittent. Don’t worry. I’m not going to keep us here for the rest of this session.

Section 10.05 deals with excess homeowner grants. It refers to “the minister charged with the administration of the Financial Administration Act. ” I’m presuming that that is not you — the minister — but would it be the Minister of Finance that has that responsibility? Hon. J. Rustad: Y es. S. Fraser: And then maybe a pithier question. I don’t quite understand

section 10.05. I’ll just read it. “In accordance with the property tax agreement, the minister charged with the administration of the Financial Administration Act may pay to the Nisga’a Nation for a taxation year, from amounts appropriated for the pur- pose, the amount described as the ‘Excess Amount’ in

Article 12.3 of the property tax agreement. ” Could I just get a layperson’s explanation for that? I’ve read it and re-read it many times, and I just don’t quite get it. Hon. J. Rustad: Under the real property tax coordina- tion agreement the Nisga’a have agreed to levy provincial tax rates on residential properties. As part of that agree- ment, the province requires Nisga’a to provide home- owner grants to eligible individuals that meet or exceed the provincial grant amounts.

Because it is possible that the total amount of home- owner grant paid can exceed the aggregate amount gen- erated from the school tax, in order to ensure that Nisga’a is not out of pocket as a result of the requirement to pro- vide a homeowner grant, the province agreed to mirror the approach that applies to taxing Indian bands under the Indian Self Government Enabling Act. Th is is also consistent with the provincial policies that make muni- cipalities whole. S. Fraser: I’m not sure that’s a Coles Notes version, but I appreciate that. Is it just specifi cally related to school requisition?

Could there be other amounts that might have an impact? Y ou only cited the school fees, as I heard, but could other fees apply here too — not fees, but the requisition? [1530] Hon. J. Rustad: Maybe I’ll take this approach and ver- sion, the general Coles Notes version or the short ver- sion of this. Th e Nisga’a are required to collect property taxes, and they’re required to provide the homeowner grant. If for some reason there becomes a diff erence in terms of the amount collected versus the grants and stuff , the province will make them whole. It’s just like what it would be with other municipalities.

I hope that, perhaps, explains it better. S. Fraser: I’ve got it. Th anks to the minister for that explanation. I guess further to that, though, if periodically the amount of the homeowner grant — who is eligible, where that limit is…. It’s a moving target. In history we changed that. Governments changed that. Would that change if it changes provincially? Would that automatically apply to the Nisga’a under this agreement? Would it require any- thing subsequent, like an order-in-council or something like that? Hon. J.

Rustad: Th rough this agreement, the Nisga’a are required to provide at least the same level of home- owner grant that the province has.

British Columbia Debates5426 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 S. Fraser: Again, just to be clear, that’s not the cur- rent…? I mean, if the provincial amount changes, that would still apply? I’m getting a nod, so thank you for that.

Section 10.06: “The Municipal Finance Authority Act does not apply in relation to Nisga’a Lands. ” Now, I probed this a bit in the briefi ng, and I appreciate that, but just for further clarifi cation, do any other acts apply in lieu of the Municipal Finance Authority Act? Hon. J. Rustad: I’m going to have to ask for a lit- tle bit of clarifi cation, because I’m not quite sure what you’re asking — whether you are asking whether there are any other acts that allow the Nisga’a Nation to apply for pooled funding or whether there are any other acts that are impacted or not by this.

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking, so perhaps you could give me a little bit of clarifi cation on it. S. Fraser: I apologize for not being clear to the minis- ter. Well, the Municipal Finance Authority — for those that aren’t aware and that are watching — can provide fi nancing for municipal governments at a pretty good rate. Since this act does not apply to Nisga’a Lands and Nisga’a government, are there other options that can be made available? [1535] Th at lower interest rate is a nice thing to have if you’re a municipal government. It would be a nice thing to have if you were a Nisga’a government too.

Hon. J. Rustad: Treaty nations actually look to the federal fi nancial authority for the opportunity to be able to go aft er the pooled funding to have those lower rates. S. Fraser: Th anks to the minister for that. Finishing off

section 4, which is the one that raised more questions for me than other sections, at 10.08: “Section 5 of the Off ence Act does not apply in relation to this Part. ” Again, can the minister just explain what that means, for those that aren’t familiar with the Off ence Act — just for clarity, please? I would be one of those people that’s not familiar with the Off ence Act, so for my clarity it would be helpful. Hon. J. Rustad: For clarity on this, it disapplies sec- tion 5 of the Off ence Act to

part 2 of this act.

Section 5 of the Off ence Act creates a general off ence when a person does not act in accordance with the requirements of

an act. It is being disapplied because it would be inappro- priate to fi nd Nisga’a Nation liable for an off ence in these circumstances. If any inappropriate behaviour occurs, it would be subject to the dispute resolution mechanisms in the fi nal agreement or the real property tax coordination agreement, depending on the circumstances. S. Fraser: Th anks for that, to the minister. So there are remedies — and I apologize for not being up on this — laid out in the treaty for dealing with that kind of con- fl ict, and therefore the Off ence Act does not need to apply here? I’m getting nods, so I’m going to say that that’s a yes. Th ank you for that.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. S. Fraser: On subsection 5(2) it says: “On or before April 6 of the first year in which the Nisga’a Lisims Government exercises its authority under the property tax agreement to impose real property taxes on non-citizens, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may order an assessor to complete an assessment roll for Nisga’a Lands for that year. ” I’m just curious of the wording on that, particularly the word “may. ” Wouldn’t it be a given that the assessment roll for the Nisga’a lands for that year would be complet- ed by the assessor? [1540] Hon. J.

Rustad: Certainly, the intent is that an assess- ment would be undertaken. It is possible under some circumstances, I suppose, that there may already have been an assessment that is in place, which then would mean that it would not be required to undertake the as- sessment. But the intent certainly is that the assessments would be there. S. Fraser: Th anks to the minister for that. Further to that, is there an assessment already on prop- erty within…? For Nisga’a residents, for its citizens, is there an assessment roll already on the properties spe- cifi cally within Nisga’a treaty territory? Hon. J.

Rustad: Th ere has been a very small compon- ent that has been done in the past, but the full assessment roll is actually being undertaken right now. S. Fraser: Th at’s timely, because I’m assuming that it would be helpful for the Nisga’a, to actually apply the tax- ation, to know what the properties are worth so there’s some basis for that. Th e assessor. Are there any challenges for the asses- sor in British Columbia to assess the value of properties that are in a nation, in a separate nation? Nisga’a has na- tionhood.

Th e basis for assessment of property value in British Columbia is, I guess, pretty well established, but these are relatively new designations, having nationhood. Just how does the assessor make such an assessment? Is there a new set of criteria, that sort of thing? Hon. J. Rustad: B.C. Assessment already has the tools in place for doing assessments. Th ey have been doing as- sessments on other treaty bands, as well as for other lands

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5427 owned by non-treaty nations. Th e rules they have in place are what would be utilized for the assessments. Th ere are no specifi c conditions that have been created for assessment within Nisga’a Nation. S. Fraser: I’m curious. Th is could apply elsewhere, not just for Nisga’a but other nations too. If you achieve freedom from the Indian Act by establishing a treaty and establishing nationhood, does that not vary, potentially, the value of the land?

I mean, in some cases it might be land that was previously reserve status — federal reserve, Indian reserve status. Again, wouldn’t there be some diff erence in assess- ment value when a nation achieves nationhood through a treaty process? I was going to say a B.C. treaty process. In this case it predated the B.C. treaty process, but it is the fi rst modern-day treaty. Would that not have some eff ect for the assessor? Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned, the B.C. Assessment Authority has their parameters and the rules in place when they go out and do the work.

Since that isn’t really directly within this, what I’ d be happy to off er the member opposite is to get in touch with the B.C. Assessment Authority and give him a brief- ing, or have B.C. Assessment Authority provide you with the information as to the background rules and the way they go about doing the assessments within the Nisga’a territory. S. Fraser: Th ank you very much to the minister for that. [1545] In my constituency we have the Maa-nulth treaty, which involves several nations in Alberni–Pacifi c Rim.

As we were having this discussion I was thinking.… Th ere’s a lot of new things happening in Maa-nulth and at Ucluelet and Tla-o-qui-aht and other nations that are pretty exciting. Th ey may well aff ect assessment rates. I appreciate that advice, and I’ll probably take the min- ister up on that. I will contact the assessor and see if I can get some of that information. In subsection 5(3) it says, “ An order under subsec- tion (2) may do any of the following, ” and it’s (

a) that I have a question about. It says: “provide for the deletion of parcels of Nisga’a Lands from the assessment roll for a rural area. ” Why? What would trigger that, just out of curiosity? Hon. J. Rustad: Th is particular provision is really to make sure that the lands are under one taxation roll. Th at would either be the provincial roll or the Nisga’a roll. It gives the ability for it to be deleted off , if need be, so that it will only be taxed once, under one authority. S. Fraser: Th anks to the Minister for that clarifi cation. Moving down to subsection (3), I’ll go to (e). I’ve got some just general questions about the appeals process. Th at’s probably the most germane

section to ask this on. If not, I can be maybe advised. Th e issue of appeals…. Somebody appealing an assess- ment — are we referring to individuals who are appeal- ing their individual assessment on their property value and the taxes that are being levied on that? Or is it the Nisga’a, some government, that might be appealing an assessment. Or is it both or either? Hon. J. Rustad: Th e right to appeal is not limited to just the taxpayers. Anybody that would fall under this can appeal, just like it is for a municipality. Th at’s the provision that’s set up. S. Fraser: Turning the page to

section 5(5), it says: “Section 74 (5) of the Assessment Act does not apply in re- spect of an assessment roll completed under this section. ” Again, I’m confused by just the semantics maybe of that. But why? What are we talking about here that would not apply under the Assessment Act? I’m not sure. I just don’t understand that one clause. [1550] Hon. J. Rustad: This subsection applies to

section 74(5) of the Assessment Act, as the member has said. In relation to this

section of the act, if we’re doing this roll in 2015, the exemptions would not have been created in time. Th is provision removes the otherwise applicable delay of one year created by 74(5).

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. S. Fraser: Just a question. Maybe I’ve missed some- thing, but the fi rst fi ve sections come into force by regu- lation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In the documentation I have,

section 6 does not say that. Have I just got my signals crossed here, or is there another mechanism to come into force besides the regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Hon. J. Rustad: If you look through to the end of the act under “Commencement, ” what happens is there’s a defi nition of various regulations that come into eff ect with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, anything else covered by the table comes into eff ect with the date of royal assent. S. Fraser: Th at royal assent — was that achieved with fi nal agreement? Is that how that happened? Hon. J. Rustad: Th at comes into eff ect with the royal assent of this bill, as it goes through the process.

British Columbia Debates5428 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 S. Fraser: All right. Th ank you for that clarifi cation too. I guess, just relating to coming up…. Th is is

section 6, but right up to

section 34 — from 6 to 34, which is the bulk of this bill…. Th ese would all be…. Stopping at 34, they would be consequential amendments? Is that correct? Hon. J. Rustad: Y es.

Section 6 through

section 34 would be consequential amendments to other acts. S. Fraser: Could the minister just explain how that works? Th e regulations have to be…. Do they have to be developed subsequent to Bill 7? As consequential amend- ments, does somebody have to still work on these to put them into regulation subsequent to Bill 7 being ratifi ed by this House? Hon. J. Rustad: For those sections in question, the only regulation that would be required is actually the regulation to bring it into enforcement. S.

Fraser: Again, just to fi nish that off , that regulation to bring it into force — is that something we do here, or does that happen automatically with adoption of Bill 7? Hon. J. Rustad: Just for clarity on this, back to the

section on commencement,

section 64. Th ere would be no requirement for regulations where it comes into ef- fect on the date of royal assent. Where you have sections that go in by regulation with the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council, that’s where you would see a regulation that would have to move forward. S. Fraser: Th anks to the minister for that. In the interest of expedience, I have no questions until

section 13. [1555] Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved. On

section 13. S. Fraser: “Section 32 is amended by adding the fol- lowing subsection:

(3.2) Subject to the requirements in

section 33, the Nisga’a Nation may make a complaint against all or any part of the completed assessment roll relating to Nisga’a Lands, based on any of the grounds specifi ed in subsection (1) of this section. ” Can the minister just explain the circumstances that might lead to that? I just can’t get my head around it. Hon. J. Rustad: I can provide you, if you like, with the conditions under that section. “Subject to the requirements in

section 33, a person may make a complaint against an individual entry in an assessment roll on any of the following grounds: (

a) there is an error or omission respect- ing the name of a person in the assessment roll; (

b) there is an error or omission respecting land or improvements, or both land and improvements, in the assessment roll; (

c) land or improvements, or both land and improvements, are not assessed at actual value; (

d) land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classifi ed; (

e) an exemption has been improperly allowed or disallowed. ” S. Fraser: Th ank you for that. I get that. Th at makes sense now. In

section 16, it says: “Section 51 is amended by re- pealing paragraph (

c) and substituting the following:” — so the new (c) — “if the property is located in a muni- cipality, a regional district or the treaty lands of a taxing treaty fi rst nation, the municipality, regional district or taxing treaty fi rst nation, as applicable. ” How does this apply to Nisga’a? I don’t see how that…. I don’t believe there are any municipalities or any role for a regional district within Nisga’a territories, which is what this bill applies to. I might be misreading it, but perhaps the minister can clarify that. Hon. J. Rustad: I just want to note…. Are we now on

section 16? Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved. On

section 16. S. Fraser: Should I try the question again? I’m not sure how

section 16…. It’s citing, “if the property is located in a municipality, a regional district, ” etc. I just don’t under- stand why that wording is in there, because that is not the case in this bill. Th is Bill 7 is regarding only Nisga’a territory, treaty territory. So those options don’t…. I just don’t understand why that’s put in there. I want to make sure I understand what it says. [1600] [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. J. Rustad: Welcome, Chair. Keep in mind that this is an amendment to the Assessment Act, so provisions are required to be put in.

We need to make just some adjustments as we’re going in there to streamline it and make sure that it was applicable for the Nisga’a Nation as well. S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, welcome to the proceedings here on the committee stage of Bill 7. Just for clarifi cation, the wording here, including the speculation of a property being located in a municipality or regional district…. Again, I’m not sure I understood what the minister was saying, why that’s cited here if in- deed there is no municipality or regional district that this applies to. Could the minister try one more time for me, please? Hon. J.

Rustad: As I mentioned, this is an amend- ment to the Assessment Act, which applies to the entire

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 19, 2014 5429 province, not just to the Nisga’a Nation, which is why the wording is in there. Th ere could be other circumstances outside of what you may fi nd in the Nisga’a Nation. Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved. On

section 19. Hon. J. Rustad: If I may, I’ d just like to ask for a quick recess. Th e Chair: Th at’s fi ne. Th e committee is adjourned for fi ve minutes. Th e House recessed from 4:02 p.m. to 4:09 p.m. [R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Section 19 approved. On

section 20. S. Fraser:

Section 20 refers to: “In the case of the North West Regional Hospital District, in addition to the infor- mation provided under subsection (3), the assessment authority must provide free of charge the net taxable value of all land and improvements in Nisga’a Lands. ” Wouldn’t that happen automatically again? Why is that a consequential amendment? Wouldn’t that already be being done? [1610] Hon. J. Rustad: As the member may know, the unique- ness of the Nisga’a treaty, compared to other treaties, means there are a few other little complexities that we have to manage through. What this

section 20 does ac- tually makes it so that it will be automatically available. Th at’s just an adjustment to the Assessment Act. S. Fraser: Again, for simplicity, my next set of ques- tions will be on

section 25. Sections 20 to 24 inclusive approved. On

section 25. S. Fraser: In

section 25 (4.3)(a)(iii): “(

a) a requisition for the amount…(iii) bearing interest at the rate pre- scribed under subsection (7) of this

section on any part of that amount remaining unpaid on August 1, and (

b) a statement of the rates referred to in paragraph (

a) of this subsection…. ” Just a question about interest being charged. I mean, I’m assuming that’s on late payments. But are we refer- ring to…? Is the party responsible for the interest the individual property owner? Does any of that fall on the Nisga’a Lisims Government, or is it the individual prop- erty owner that is being assessed that that applies to? Hon. J. Rustad: Th is particular component refers, of course, to the services being provided to Nisga’a Nation, and Nisga’a Nation pays for that service.

If for some rea- son they do not pay that by the prescribed date, then there would be interest which would be charged to Nisga’a Nation, which is the same as what would be for other treaty nations or municipalities. Sections 25 to 31 inclusive approved. On

section 32. S. Fraser: We’re dealing with the hospital district sec- tion here. I understand what’s being stated here: “

(2) Subject to this section, this Act applies in relation to the membership of Nisga’a Lands in the district. “

(3) In addition to the matters set out in

section 3 (1), the letters patent of the district must specify (

a) the boundaries of Nisga’a Lands as a member of the district, and (

b) the terms and conditions of arrangements, agreements or transactions between the district and the Nisga’a Nation. ” [1615] I’m just curious. What happens now, prior to these changes? What’s the relationship right now with the northwest regional hospital district? How does it exist currently, and how will this change with Bill 7? Hon. J. Rustad: What is currently happening is the regional district — I believe it’s area A — encompasses all of the Nisga’a lands, the various components. What this will do is…. Actually, it carves out the Nisga’a lands them- selves as now being a separate entity that then would have membership in the regional health board. In essence, that’s what this

section does. It creates that partnership now that the Nisga’a can become full mem- bers in the regional health district unto themselves with- out being under the regional district in its current form. S. Fraser: Th anks to the minister for the answer. Further to that, are there fees being paid now to the hospital dis- trict to cover the costs associated with usage of the hospi- tal or medical facilities in the region, and will that change through the taxation provisions that are in Bill 7? Hon. J. Rustad: As it currently stands, there is a small amount of Nisga’a lands that, under the taxation, are cur- rently contributing. What this agreement ac

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20141119pm-Hansard-v18n1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20141119pm Hansard v18n1
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	54fb0775bdb25deacdc85a4887b1ea5105c2372f

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