2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Ministerial Statements

Condolences for victims of shooting at Western Forest Products mill in Nanaimo

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2014

J. Darcy

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Golf industry

E. Foster

B.C. Youth Week

J. Shin

Josh Dueck

Michelle Stilwell

Taxidermists and export permit process

D. Donaldson

Stan Rogers

J. Martin

Pine Free Clinic

D. Eby

Oral Questions

School district funding for specialized support services and teaching positions

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

R. Fleming

Hon. P. Fassbender

S. Robinson

Burnaby school district costs and funding

K. Corrigan

Hon. P. Fassbender

Release of report on investigation into executive compensation at Kwantlen University

D. Eby

Hon. A. Virk

Reporting of executive compensation at Kwantlen University

D. Eby

Hon. A. Virk

Consultation on changes to agricultural land reserve

N. Simons

Hon. N. Letnick

Ban on sale of flavoured tobacco

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Tabling Documents

Correspondence with respect to compensation paid and employment contracts at Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Motions Without Notice

Membership of select standing committees

Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions

G. Holman

J. Thornthwaite

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Animal Health Act (continued)

N. Simons

Hon. T. Lake

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Animal Health Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Local Elections Campaign Financing Act

S. Robinson

Hon. C. Oakes

V. Huntington

A. Weaver

H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

M. Farnworth

Hon. P. Fassbender

S. Fraser

V. Huntington

H. Bains

C. Trevena

J. Rice

M. Mungall

M. Elmore

R. Fleming

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation

Hon. D. McRae

J. Kwan

B. Routley

[ Page 3291 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Ministerial Statements

CONDOLENCES FOR VICTIMS OF

SHOOTING AT WESTERN FOREST

PRODUCTS MILL IN NANAIMO

Hon. C. Clark: The member for Parksville-Qualicum, in her prayer today, offered the thoughts of this House, expressed the wish of this Legislature to offer condolences to the people of Nanaimo, to the people of the province and, in particular, to the individual families who have been so tragically affected.

Police were called to the Western Forest Products mill in response to calls about a shooting. The RCMP were on the scene within minutes, and they have a suspect in custody.

Details about the tragedy are still emerging, and officials are still investigating, but we do know that four people were shot. Two are being treated at hospital; two have lost their lives.

Thankfully, this kind of tragedy is almost unknown in British Columbia. Thankfully, most of us here today cannot imagine what the victims and their families must be going through. But they should know that they are not alone.

The people of British Columbia are standing with them. Victim support services are on the ground, available to witnesses and families of the victims, if they need it.

I know that members on both sides of this House will join me in extending our thoughts and our prayers to the victims, their families and everyone in the resilient community of Nanaimo who are affected by today's events.

A. Dix: On behalf of the opposition, I want to join with the Premier in sending our thoughts and prayers, particularly to the families of those that work at Western Forest Products, those who work at mills in British Columbia, those who live in Nanaimo.

My colleague the member for Nanaimo has gone back to his constituency.

My colleague the member for the Cowichan Valley was in this mill many times as a representative of working people. I can tell you that his shock and sense of grief should reflect all of our sense of shock and all of our sense of grief.

Violence affects us deeply, all of us. When these events occur, they have echoes that can last a very, very long time.

It's important for us, I think, to express solidarity with the people involved, the families involved, the workers who are there, their families, what they must be going through today and to reflect in our own lives, as well, that events happen sometimes that come as a shock, that aren't expected to us.

It reminds us of the need with our friends, with our colleagues, with our families, with those we love to not let pettiness and grievance stand unresolved and to call them, to hug them, to express that on this kind of day, because I think these events affect all of us, in that sense — and to take that sense of what it means in our own lives and send it with our thoughts and prayers to the families affected and to the people of Nanaimo.

[1340]

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the House today are 12 grade 11 students and two adults from George Elliot Secondary from my riding. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Darcy: Joining us in the galleries today are three students from New Westminster, former students of the New West Secondary School now in university: Rajita Dang, who's a student at SFU; Saba Faremi from UBC; and Brianna Cook from SFU. Two of these students have also been leaders in the Canadian Cancer Society Club in the New West Secondary School. They're joined by my wonderful constituency assistant Nadine Nakagawa. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them here today.

Michelle Stilwell: Joining us in the House today are two very special guests from my days living in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Pastor Bob Jacob — along with his wife of more than 50 years, Vi Jacob — is here. Leading and guiding at Grace Lutheran Church, Bob and Vi were wonderful role models for me and countless other young people who were lucky enough to attend their Sunday school classes, youth groups and services. It's just absolutely wonderful to have them here today. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Shin: I have the pleasure of introducing to the House my oppa , which means "older brother" in Korean. He's just a few years older than me, and we are not blood-related, but with his unwavering support and friendship, he wouldn't qualify for anything less than that. He also happens to be my constituent in Burnaby-Lougheed.

Mark Se-Hyun Lee came to B.C. as an international student and decided that this is where he wants to put his roots down. He has since devoted the last ten years

[ Page 3292 ]

to assisting others from around the world to explore and experience the best of B.C. His young company, which is ten years old now, has expanded across Canada with seven offices, expanded to nine countries and also boasts a global on-line community of 93,000 active members. All this he accomplished in his 20s.

Mark just came back from his business trip abroad and rushed over to Victoria so that he can cheer me on today with his team. I would like to introduce four of them: Kuk Hyun Kim, Max Choi, Nam Young Shin and Hwan Hee Kim. Would the House please make my dear friends and supporters from the Korean community feel very welcome.

E. Foster: In the House today we have members of the B.C. Allied Golf Association: Trevor Smith, Tricha Larsen, Kris Jonasson, Blair Armitage, Donald Miyazaki, Michelle Collins, Andy Hedley and Jerry Rousseau. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. James: I have a constituent visiting today. He is the past film commissioner for Victoria, but his real claim to fame is that he's the father of our wonderful communications officer, Megan Mills. Would the House please welcome David Mills to the gallery today.

Hon. T. Lake: I have two sets of introductions today. First of all, I'd like to introduce two of my constituents from Barriere, Jill and Bob Hayward.

Jill has always shown relentless dedication to the community of Barriere, having been recognized just a few years ago with a Diamond Jubilee Medal and yesterday with a B.C. Community Achievement Award. She is a leader for the North Thompson Agriplex and a strong advocate for agriculture and agritourism. She has shared her abilities with many organizations, such as the McLure Wildfire Monument Society, the North Thompson Fall Fair and Rodeo, Rural Crime Watch, and Learning and Literacy.

Her husband, Bob, is with her in the gallery today. It's the first time, I think, I've seen Bob without his cowboy hat. I hardly recognized him. Would the House please make Jill and Bob Hayward most welcome in the House today.

I also rise today to introduce two guests. Interestingly enough, Sim Hayward is from Australia, so I don't know if she's related to Jill and Bob Hayward, but maybe I've helped to reunite some families here today. Sim is visiting from Australia, where she's chair of the Cairns sister cities advisory committee. She's here visiting Sidney, B.C., to celebrate the 30th anniversary of their sister city relationship.

Also joining her is Sidney councillor Marilyn Loveless, who is the council liaison to the Sidney Sister Cities Association. Would the House please make Ms. Hayward and Ms. Loveless feel very welcome here today.

[1345]

R. Chouhan: I join my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed to welcome one of my constituents, Da Som Lee, who's a member of this delegation which is visiting us today, along with the students and business leaders. Would the House join me to welcome Da Som Lee.

Hon. S. Anton: Joining us in the House today is Mr. Blair Qualey, president and CEO of the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to also introduce two of my constituents who are with the Korean delegation being hosted by the member for Burnaby-Lougheed. I would like to welcome Keung Hee and Yee Jin, and would the House please make them feel very welcome as well.

S. Sullivan: One of the privileges of being an MLA is to be able to work with the wonderful legislative assistants. We have one very talented young person who is here today. It happens to be his birthday. Now, he's famous for having the best socks in the building, and, also, he has a lot of talent. I wish I could buy stocks in this young man. I'd like to please welcome and congratulate Derek Robertson.

H. Bains: Within the vicinity — in fact, I believe he's outside, with a little blowhorn — is Morgan Forey, visiting us here today. This man was homeless, with addiction. He overcame his issues. Now he has taken on the task of bringing awareness about mental illness.

He has decided to travel and visit every legislature in this country on his own, and also the Canadian Parliament, to bring the issues of homelessness and mental health and to convince the legislators and every person that he can of the importance of dealing with mental illness and doing more to deal with mental health. So please help me to welcome Morgan Forey — and his attempts.

M. Morris: I have the great pleasure today of having one of my constituents, an extraordinary lady from Prince George, down here. She was one of 31 other recipients yesterday who received the Community Achievement Award at Government House.

This lady has volunteered in numerous societies around Prince George. She's a founding member of the Prince George Community Foundation. She was an organizer of the P.G. Cerebral Palsy Sports Association, and she's just been one of the pillars of the community for a number of years now. Would the House please welcome Judy Dix and her husband, Colin.

[ Page 3293 ]

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to join in welcoming the delegation of student and business leaders from the Korean community that have been brought here by my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed. I particularly want to express a welcome to Man Young Oh as one of my constituents. Will the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my great privilege and pride today to recognize and welcome to the House five amazing constituents of Cariboo North: Ashley Schmidt, from the Quesnel Downtown Association; Teresa Smith, owner of Circle S Western Wear and the Quesnel downtown promotions chair; Carol Pitkin, owner of Super Suds, owner of Outlaw, owner of Carver's — amazing small businesses in our community; Tracey Roberts, publisher of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer , in business since 1908; and Kayla Kinloch, of south Quesnel business improvement area.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are very proud that we have three fantastic business improvement areas in our community. You contribute to build strong communities on behalf of business improvement areas across the province. We're incredibly proud. I know that you've learned a lot. I can't wait for to you bring those ideas back to our community.

Would the House please help me and welcome our constituents.

[1350]

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, want to join with the Burnaby-Lougheed MLA — my colleague, the very able MLA for Burnaby-Lougheed — in welcoming some of my constituents — Sun Hwa Bong, Sung Eun Kim, Sae Byeol Jang — who help make up the vibrant life that we know in Vancouver–West End.

Welcome to the Legislature.

J. Yap: There is a group of 41 students and three teachers from Saint-Charles School in Saint-Brieuc, France, who are visiting the Legislature today. They are going to have a tour just after question period and then will come into the gallery, but I wanted to introduce them.

They are accompanied by Alex Campbell — who I know you know, Madame Speaker — the retired principal in McMath Secondary School in Richmond-Steveston.

These students and teachers are here as part of a unique exchange that has been going on for a number of years, The students from France are here for the next two weeks and here in Victoria today, and in the fall a group of students from McMath Secondary in Steveston will go to France for the reciprocal visit. It's a great program that has been going on for a number of years.

I would ask the House to join me in welcoming these students and teachers who are visiting from Saint-Charles School in Saint-Brieuc, France.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a longtime family friend — in fact, I think he's been a family friend for almost 40 years — Ed Westlind. He's actually a constituent of Nelson-Creston right now, but he's a part-time constituent of Skeena, also, as he's working up in Kitimat. He's here today with his partner, Anne Brewster — Ed Westlind and Anne Brewster. I would ask the House to please join me in making them very welcome.

L. Reimer: Hi. It's my pleasure today to introduce my wonderful legislative assistant, Mr. Suneil Karod. Would the House please make him welcome.

D. Barnett: Today I would like to ask the House to welcome with me a constituent of mine, a gentleman who is very involved in the forest industry, a great community volunteer and a director on the board of the Northern Development Initiative Trust. His name is Tom Hoffman. Please help me welcome him here today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M211 — TOBACCO CONTROL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

J. Darcy presented a bill intituled Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2014.

J. Darcy: I move that the bill intituled the Tobacco Control Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

J. Darcy: I am introducing this bill, which prohibits the sale of flavoured cigarillos and other flavoured tobacco products, because our current legislation does not do enough to protect our youth against the harmful effects of nicotine and tobacco.

These products are often packaged to resemble tins of candy or cosmetics, like lipsticks or mascara, and they come in a wide variety of flavours. They often produce a sweet-smelling smoke instead of the usual harsh tobacco taste and smell. Flavoured tobacco products are often sold in single sizes for as little as $1, all of which makes it easy for young people to become addicted to tobacco.

The tobacco companies have a very, very slick marketing strategy going that targets youth, and the bad news is that it's working. A recent youth smoking survey found that 53 percent of youth tobacco users in British Columbia had used flavoured tobacco products. That's

[ Page 3294 ]

over 30,000 B.C. students.

Tobacco is still the leading cause of death and disease in B.C., killing over 6,000 British Columbians every year. It costs the B.C. economy $2.3 billion a year, and the majority of new tobacco users are under 18.

We have made great strides in reducing smoking rates in British Columbia, but we must do more. Ontario and Alberta have already banned the sale of flavoured tobacco. The Canadian Cancer Society is calling for a ban. The Minister of Health has stated that he supports such a ban, yet we continue to see these products sold to youth in British Columbia. If there ever was a time for us to come together on a non-partisan basis, this would be the time.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of this House after today.

Bill M211, Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

GOLF INDUSTRY

E. Foster: The first golf courses were built in British Columbia 122 years ago, the first at Jericho Beach in Vancouver in 1892. Over the last few years the Vancouver Golf Club, Shaughnessy Golf and Country, Qualicum Beach Memorial Golf Club and Royal Colwood golf and country club on the Island, and Vernon Golf and Country Club — obviously, one of my favourites — all celebrated their 100th birthdays.

Golf courses and the golf industry in B.C. have come a long way from the early courses, which are still among some of the top in British Columbia today.

As many members of this House already know, the appeal of the game of golf is hard to ignore. During the 14.5 million rounds of golf played each year, British Columbians get to go outdoors and enjoy one of the simplest, safest and most often recommended forms of exercise, walking. In fact, a round of golf where the player is walking will burn off more than 700 calories. Of course, if you cover as much of the golf course as I do, that could be as high as 2,000. This is part of the reason that golfers have a mortality rate 40 percent lower than those who don't exercise.

The golf industry is present and is locally owned and operated in every community, and in British Columbia it contributes $1.6 billion to the province's gross domestic product. Directly and indirectly, golf employs almost 47,000 British Columbians, including substantial numbers of youth. Over 43 percent of those employed by the industry are students.

The excellence of our golf courses is well recognized at home and abroad. B.C. golf tourism is the main reason why almost one million Americans made overnight trips to British Columbia last year.

When it comes to taking care of the environment, the B.C. golf industry takes a responsible approach to managing their local environment by naturalizing managed green space into wildlife and plant habitat and by building wildlife corridors for local animals.

As a result, golf is good for our health, good for our environment and good for our economy in British Columbia.

Please join me in welcoming our guests, and when you have time in your schedules, please take a few minutes or an hour or two to visit one of the 300 locally owned golf courses in British Columbia.

B.C. YOUTH WEEK

J. Shin: Madame Speaker, 12 percent of our population in B.C. is young people, like the many that we have here today in the House. Starting tomorrow, for the next seven days our province will be celebrating B.C. Youth Week.

What started just as a little project by a small group of municipal planners and youth recreation leaders quickly spread to a provincewide initiative, and 19 years later, B.C. Youth Week now brings all of us together to not only engage and connect but really empower and celebrate the young British Columbians that we have.

Again this year we can look forward to a week full of fun activities organized by youth for youth. We'll have opportunities to recognize their contributions at youth award ceremonies. I look forward to honouring the work of Burnaby Youth Sustainability Network in my community.

From B.C.'s children waiting for adoption to child poverty, from hidden sexual exploitation to cyberbullying, we can hear from the young people themselves about the issues that they care about and their advocacy presentation as well as forums. We can get inspired by their drive and talent at various entertainment events as well as sporting competitions.

We can also meet the many people in our community making a difference in the lives of youth. I would like to thank just a few from my constituency: our Burnaby school board and trustees, B.C. Adoptive Families Association, Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, Burnaby Family Life, task force against sexual exploitation, Rotary Club clothing drive, Masjid al-Salaam and Education Centre, Do What U Luv group and, of course, businesses like UVANU, in the House today, that are sowing into our community.

Wherever Youth Week is celebrated, the idea behind it is all the same. As the member for Surrey–Green Timbers has taught me, our job as a society should be no less than

[ Page 3295 ]

to shower our young people with love and give each and every one of them an equal shot at life.

JOSH DUECK

Michelle Stilwell: With the flowers in full bloom and the sun shining outside today, I'd like to take a moment to go back to the snow in the mountains of Sochi. Last month British Columbia's Josh Dueck earned the privilege of being Canada's flag-bearer for the closing ceremonies of the 2014 Paralympics.

[1400]

Josh won gold and silver as a sit-skier during the games. A former freestyle skier, Josh became a paraplegic in March of 2004 after he broke his neck trying to execute a flip. Ten years later he was standing on the podium in Sochi. That dedication deserves to be recognized.

I know Josh personally through many different avenues throughout our sporting career, and I can honestly say that he has a well-deserved reputation for pushing the limits and leaving nothing behind on the course or in life. Some of you might have heard of Josh in 2012 when he earned that worldwide notoriety for becoming the first sit-skier to perform a backflip.

To be a world-class athlete you must make sacrifices. I know, from my experience, that having a supportive family is a huge help, and I know that Josh appreciates the support he gets from his family and friends. I hope Josh can also get a boost from knowing that he has the support of British Columbians, including the members of this House.

TAXIDERMISTS AND

EXPORT PERMIT PROCESS

D. Donaldson: They are small business people, they are mainly in rural areas of the province, they depend on good stewardship of our natural systems, and they are artists who deal in still life, quite literally. I'm talking about taxidermists in this province. There is estimated to be about 200 of these small business people across B.C., with many being in rural communities, close to where the animals on which they depend can be found. In Smithers-Telkwa alone there are four taxidermy businesses, all owned and operated by longtime community members.

Taxidermists offer a value-added service that keeps money in local communities. They are highly skilled craftsmen and artists with their services in demand from clients around the world. They are independent, passionate about their work and the animals on which they depend and aren't prone to creating professional associations or bodies, so the impact of their work on local rural communities can be overlooked as people in government focus on megaprojects.

The value-added nature of their work is extremely important. For example, the difference between skinning, salting and drying a hide for export…. It can run in the $350 range,

whereas a full, life-size mount of the animal can bring up to $7,000, depending on the species. That is why taxidermists are concerned about the ability of non-residents to take dozens of hides with them under one export permit to be worked on by taxidermists in another country.

There is also a problem with the time it takes for local taxidermists to get export permits for a client — two- to three-month waits due to backlogged permitting in the provincial office. This discourages non-resident hunters from using local taxidermists. Business has been lost.

Taxidermists I have spoken with have some simple solutions to these issues. They just need to be listened to. If that happens, then all of us living in rural areas will share in the benefits.

STAN ROGERS

J. Martin: Legacy — the life of Stan Rogers is the very personification of that word. He passed away suddenly on April 16 at the age of 65 due to a heart attack, but that is not why Stan Rogers will be remembered in Chilliwack and across the province. Stanley Douglas Rogers was a visionary, a community builder and a developer with a tireless work ethic. He had a generous heart and did everything possible for his family, his community and his church.

That is why I rise in the House today to recognize the legacy of Stan Rogers. He spent 18 years growing Rogers Foods before spending the next 24 years in property development, most recently as the founder and president of Legacy Pacific Land Corp.

Through the course of his life, Stan generously volunteered his time and expertise to numerous community and non-profit organizations, seeking to better the lives of people in his community. He worked with the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, B.C. Trade Development Corporation, B.C. Food Processors Association, the chamber of commerce and Rotary, among so many others.

[1405]

Most importantly, he was a father, a husband, an adviser and a dear friend to so many. His legacy in our community is immeasurable, which explains why some 700 people attended his celebration of life last week.

I would ask us to keep Stan's wife, Anita; his sons Collin, Cameron and Corbin; and each of their families

[ Page 3296 ]

in our thoughts and prayers.

PINE FREE CLINIC

D. Eby: More than 40 years ago an innovative new medical clinic opened. Operating out of a ten- by 20-foot trailer, the Pine Free Clinic was a Vancouver first in providing free, confidential care for young people. Since that remarkable start decades ago the clinic hasn't slowed down. They're now based on West 4th Avenue, and they've become Kitsilano's public health care heart, six days a week, all day and after regular working hours.

Three regular nurses, two front-desk staff, a counsellor and a rotating team of part-time doctors, all with a special interest in working with youth, call the clinic home. They take their youth-centred mandate very seriously. "Youth have enough to worry about with their health issues without worrying about being judged by a roomful of other people," said a former nurse.

The employees at the clinic are paid on salary, giving them the chance to spend extra time with scared, confused young people who are looking for medical and, sometimes, life assistance. Youth from all over the Lower Mainland come for over 12,000 clinic visits each year.

While keeping young people at the centre of everything they do, this clinic has also taken the "free" in its name literally, expanding its mandate to serve those left out of our health care system. For example, the Pine Free Clinic offers, of course, free services to refugees not covered by MSP. In fact, anyone who doesn't have an MSP card or insurance can come in for treatment. By providing care for those that nobody else will, the clinic fills an essential public health niche in preventing the transmission of infections and diseases that would otherwise go untreated and undiagnosed.

The recent announcement that this decades-old clinic will close has been met with shock and disbelief. Countless former patients have shared stories about how Pine provided them with knowledge and care that they desperately needed as young people. Former staff are baffled that such a fixture of public health in the Lower Mainland could be seen as a cost liability instead of a cost saver.

Working together, we can save the Pine Free Clinic, because although it has been 40 years, it is just as innovative and essential now as it was when it first opened in 1972.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING FOR

SPECIALIZED SUPPORT SERVICES

AND TEACHING POSITIONS

A. Dix: My question is for the Premier. Across British Columbia school districts this week are facing budgets that as a result of shortfalls, will lead to the layoff and reduction of speech pathologists, teachers, teacher-librarians and teaching assistants — people who provide basic services to students.

Does the Premier not agree with me that these shortfalls and the resulting cuts will dramatically affect students' ability to succeed and seek opportunity in their lives, whatever path they choose?

Hon. C. Clark: We have to support young people in school. We have to make sure that we are making the investment that they deserve so that they can, each of them, fulfil their tremendous potential in the province. We need to do that for them. We owe them a duty as another generation to make sure we're supporting them.

Equally, we need to do it for us, because it's those young people that will guarantee the future of every citizen of British Columbia. You cannot build an economy without people who are skilled and ready to be able to take on those jobs.

That's why we are continuing to make historic investments in secondary and post-secondary education in British Columbia. That's why we've continued to see improved results in districts and in demographics all across the province. We have much, much more to do. We need to make sure that we are aligning our spending and our investment in the right places and spending it as well as we can.

But one of the untold stories about education in British Columbia is that we do it here almost better than anywhere else in the world. We should be very, very proud of that, and it's as a result of government's long-term commitment and historic funding to our system that that's true.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

[1410]

A. Dix: The success we have in our public schools is about teachers and parents and students and support workers who deliver every day in spite of a government that consistently shows it doesn't care about public education.

Maybe the Premier can explain this — or the Minister of Health, because they're doing it in Kamloops too. Maybe the Premier can explain this, because the government seems angry.

Perhaps it's not the government that is losing access to speech pathologists. Perhaps it's not the government that's losing access to learning assistants. Perhaps it's not the government that's losing access to its shop teachers. Perhaps it's not the government that's seeing more students in classrooms. Perhaps it's not the government who has a special needs student who needs support. But parents do and students do, and this government is letting them down.

[ Page 3297 ]

Announcements aside, does the Premier agree with me that laying off speech pathologists, teachers, support workers and those that support those with special needs is bad for public education in B.C. and that it's the government's policies that have directed us in that direction?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll say this. The member is right about this part of it. It is parents, students, teachers, administrators and support workers that make our education system great. That is absolutely true.

My father devoted his life as a public school teacher in Burnaby to supporting young people and making sure that they could fulfil every bit of potential that they had in their lives and that they had the support and the foundation, the building blocks, of a great public education to get there.

The member's question, though, was about whether government is continuing to fund education. I am happy to report that, indeed, government is continuing to fund education — at record levels, no less — in British Columbia. The average per-pupil operating grant during the school year is the highest level at $8,654 per student. That's a 36 percent increase over 2001. Over the past 13 years we've increased annual funding by $1 billion. That's over a period of time where the number of students in the system has declined by 70,000 overall.

Can we continue to do better? Absolutely. That's why this week we've announced how we want to re-engineer our secondary and post-secondary system and create a new blueprint for the future to make sure that we can continue to produce the graduates, the young people who can fulfil every ounce of potential that they can.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Almost 2,000 specialized teachers lost in the time of this government. I mean, in the Premier's own riding, for every dollar they add, they take $3 away. The result of that is….

Interjections.

A. Dix: You know, it's not students in grade 4. It's not students in grade 4.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: They don't want to hear this because they're contemptuous of parents and teachers in public education. Their contempt was shown in the evidence before the B.C. Supreme Court. That's where their contempt was shown.

It wasn't a child in grade 4 that caused the government's incompetent hydro rate policies that are costing money in public education this year, but….

Interjections.

A. Dix: There they go again, hon. Speaker. They don't want to hear about it. They don't want to hear about the government's policies leading to the laying off of teachers and speech pathologists. At a time when students need outstanding education more than ever, they are being let down by their government.

Those parents, those teachers and those students are being let down by their government. How is it good for public education in school district 23, apparently represented by the Premier, to cut $70 in per-pupil funding every year that they have to find in the classroom — per student? How does that make it better? How does that increase the possibility of going from learner to earner?

[1415]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as is often the case, the reality differs quite differently from the member's perception of it here in British Columbia. B.C. students rank No. 1 of any province in the country in reading and science and are second only to Quebec in math, according to the OECD data.

How did we get there? How did we get to amongst the best results of anyplace in Canada and amongst the best results of anywhere in the world? It's because we have historically high levels of funding per student across the province. It's because class sizes in British Columbia haven't gone up, on average, since 2001. It's because we are the only jurisdiction across the country that tracks class sizes consistently across the province. It's because we have some of the richest data by which we can track how well students are doing, through our FSA tests, all across the province.

We track it, we look at the outcomes, and we ensure that they continue to improve. For example, when you look at the number of special needs students that are graduating, it's increased by 166 percent. The number of aboriginal students who are graduating increased by 103 percent.

We're very proud of those results. We get them because we measure, we track results, we change what we're doing based on the results so that we are always striving to do better, and we continue to make huge investments, on behalf of the people of this province, in the future of this province in our education system.

R. Fleming: I think what we've learned is that the Premier's definition of huge increases is five years of frozen funding to the operating grants of education in British Columbia. The ministry's own data shows that B.C.'s public schools lost 340 classroom teachers last year. This year, despite B.C. student enrolment projecting to

[ Page 3298 ]

grow, school boards are being forced to cut 350 more teachers and teaching assistants.

When will the Minister of Education assume his responsibility for taking resources out of B.C.'s classroom and start working with school districts so that our kids have the very best education system and chances in life instead of it getting worse under this budget?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, the members opposite complain about what's wrong with education. The Premier has clearly articulated what's right with it. Number one, the outcomes in British Columbia are the best in the country and recognized around the world.

Let's talk about investment. All-day kindergarten to give children a great start on their education — $120 million invested in all-day kindergarten. We have also invested in a learning improvement fund that has hired 500 more teachers, that has hired 400 more educational assistants, that has allowed for more hours of educational assistants in classrooms. The results speak for themselves.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister can make up reality all he wants. The current reality in communities….

[1420]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

R. Fleming: I think members across the way should listen to it, because these are communities they represent.

Can the Minister of Education explain to his colleagues as well as to parents in Delta and Maple Ridge why his government is cutting supports for their children and taking away their chance to do their very best in school and get a job in the future?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I've already spoken about the investments we've made in all-day kindergarten, in the learning improvement fund to help with special needs throughout the province. I also recognize that we have clearly said that what's important in this province is that we make the right choices within a fiscal framework that's going to ensure the integrity of our educational system. But $1 billion a year since 2001 invested in education is a significant proof of this government's commitment to education.

I challenge the boards around the province every time I speak to them to work with us, to find the ways to ensure that they balance their budgets and maintain the priorities of a quality education. We work with teachers, we work with parents, and we work with students to ultimately ensure the positive outcomes that the Premier's already spoken about.

S. Robinson: Can the minister recommend which of these positions should be cut so that the Coquitlam school district can balance its budget: three psychologists, four speech and language pathologists, two behaviour specialists, two counsellors, five youth workers, 27 class-size and learning support teachers, 27 educational and teaching assistants or 38 teacher-librarians? In fact, there is no choice. Coquitlam is being forced to cut every single one of these positions.

Melissa Hyndes, the chair of the Coquitlam school district, said: "Minister, you have asked us to tighten our belt. In Coquitlam the belt is around our neck, and we are sucking air."

Maybe the minister can suggest what members of this House should tell the parents of children who will lose support services that they depend on because of this government's downloading and chronic underfunding.

Hon. P. Fassbender: When you look at the budget for education in this province, $5.7 billion is invested in a quality education that's proving results. I recognize that school districts have choices to make, as does this government. We work with them every single day. We support them through programs like all-day kindergarten, like our early learning supports that we provide. I know that every district in this province is committed to learning outcomes for students, as we are on this side of the House.

Madame Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: If the minister maybe got out to a few of those budget meetings, he would see that there were absolutely no choices. This is not about choices.

Kyle Parker is a grade 12 Coquitlam student who uses his iPad to communicate. Kyle says his speech pathologist, his skill development teachers and educational as-

[ Page 3299 ]

sistants are helping him to graduate with his peers. All three of these positions are being cut next year.

[1425]

Kyle is one of the lucky ones, as he will graduate this year with the skills he needs to be successful, but those who come after him will not get the same opportunities because of this government's decisions. How is this situation acceptable to this minister?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As this government moves forward in our educational programs, I want to remind the members opposite as well that since 2001, this government has invested $238 million for capital and seismic upgrade programs in this province.

We have continued to invest in programs for early learning. I have said it already: all-day kindergarten has absolutely changed the landscape for young learners as they enter the system.

We continue to focus on learning outcomes. We do the best. We continue to be a leader in the world, and that is because of the hard work of the teachers in the classroom and the commitment of this government to continue to fund education at record levels.

BURNABY SCHOOL DISTRICT

COSTS AND FUNDING

K. Corrigan: Madame Speaker, the Burnaby school district is doing everything right. It has among the lowest administrative costs in the province, stable enrolment, generates significant revenue from its international students and other programs. It's a leader in innovation and has forged many partnerships. Despite being extraordinarily well run, this district is being forced to make up a shortfall by cutting $3 million in services and programs next year.

That means next fall class sizes will increase. There are going to be cuts to aboriginal education, cuts to custodians, cuts to learning resources and major cuts to adult education — to name just a few.

Yesterday the minister acknowledged that Burnaby school district is "doing a great job" and "running a tight ship." If well-run districts like Burnaby are doing everything possible to keep costs low and generate revenue yet are still being forced to make millions of dollars worth of cuts, how can the minister and the Premier claim that this government is adequately investing in the future of British Columbia's children?

Hon. P. Fassbender: For the member from Burnaby, I would like to maybe bring some facts to the table. I know they're hard to understand, but let me be very clear. In 2001 and 2002 the per-pupil funding in the Burnaby school district was $5,926. In 2013-2014 it is $7,877. Now, I want to help the member from Burnaby recognize that that is a 32.9 percent increase.

I recognize the good work that the Burnaby school district does on behalf of the children in their school district. I acknowledged that yesterday. I recognize that they're looking at their budget, as we've had to. The reason this government has brought in a balanced budget, has made hard decisions, is to protect the interests of every single taxpayer.

I suspect that the Burnaby school district should be doing exactly the same thing, which they are.

RELEASE OF REPORT ON INVESTIGATION

INTO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: The Minister of Advanced Education told this House that the government's report on their investigation into executive compensation at Kwantlen University was "due sometime in mid-April."

It's April 30. Where's the report?

[1430]

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite was clearly at the announcement yesterday. He was standing in the back, and none too happy with the fact that we're making generational changes in post-secondary education.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, that's the same question that has been posed, I believe, perhaps about 30 times in a row. The report is forthcoming. It should be delivered to the Minister of Finance in due order.

REPORTING OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: Let's try a question that the minister may have more luck with.

This week we obtained an offer of employment letter for a vice-president at Kwantlen. In addition to $170,000 in salary, she was offered an additional $50,000 in consulting fees, a $50,000 moving allowance, a $20,000 research allowance and "a housing loan," the details of which are to be negotiated.

The total compensation for this VP significantly breaks the government's salary cap rule for the Kwantlen president, let alone a vice-president. Now, we've raised this vice-president's consulting fees before, and the minister said that they were previous to her employment at Kwantlen, yet here they are included in her offer of employment.

Has the minister any explanation for how this happened while he was the vice-chair of the board at Kwantlen?

Hon. A. Virk: Once again, at the risk of sounding even more repetitive, the report that has been asked for by the Minister of Finance is due shortly, and we'll be able to report accordingly.

[ Page 3300 ]

CONSULTATION ON CHANGES

TO AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

N. Simons: Last Wednesday the Agriculture Minister said that people around the province would get a chance to weigh in on the future of the agricultural land reserve. He said that all options were on the table, "from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill." Now, something happened, because this week, on Monday, he said that the bill would be "passed prior to the end of this legislative session."

My question is to the Premier. First of all, who's in charge, and can she tell this House if there will in fact be real consultation with the public prior to changes being made to the way we protect agricultural land in this province?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The key thing to remember here is that the legislation was introduced to help sustain the farming sector and those who work in it. The main principles of the legislation — which of course, due to House rules, I can't speak to or debate right now — are to help farmers grow their businesses and earn a better living, to support farming families to continue to produce food on our land and, also, to ensure that the Agricultural Land Commission is independent in its decision-making process.

We have worked hard to make sure, over the years, that that has happened, so much so that we now see we have results of nearly $11.7 billion in gross income for the year 2012. We're heading for 2017 at $14 billion in revenue. We see improvements in the amount of money going for meat inspection systems. We see improvements, $6.5 million, for greenhouse carbon tax relief. We have about $900,000 a year in lift for the Agricultural Land Commission — all of this to help sustain and improve farming throughout British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: An interesting answer, just not to the question I asked. My question was about consultation.

The Agriculture Minister promised provincewide consultation and said that all options were open. Then we find out that the minister means, when he says consultation…. He says: "The consultation piece from the public is when I sit down and go through my personal stories that people offer to me."

Will the people of the province actually get a chance to consult and to provide input to the minister, and does the Premier agree that consultation, according to this Minister of Agriculture, means sitting down and reading his e-mails?

[1435]

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, 40 years ago, when the ALR was brought in and ever since then, there's been consultation all the way through. In 2010 the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission went out and consulted throughout British Columbia and produced a report. At the same time, the Auditor General went through and provided a report. Successive Agriculture ministers have gone around and toured the province, including this one, and provided some information back to caucus and colleagues in cabinet as to what to do with farming and agriculture.

In the last few months we've seen that continue, and in the last few weeks I've received hundreds and hundreds of letters, which I have gone through and read. Actually, I was there last night and reading some more letters. They continue to come in.

It's very important to me to understand the pros and cons of the legislation. I'm getting that. I understand there are many people who support the legislation, and why. I also understand there are many people who have issues with the legislation. But notwithstanding any of that, if anybody else has a particular point of view, I'm willing to hear it. I'm open to hearing it and would encourage hearing it. They should send me letters, and I'll continue working on it.

BAN ON SALE OF FLAVOURED TOBACCO

J. Darcy: Tobacco kills over 6,000 British Columbians every year; 30,000 young people in British Columbia will begin smoking this year. Yet our tobacco legislation in British Columbia does not protect youth from the harmful effects of nicotine and tobacco.

Today tobacco companies are carrying out a slick and very aggressive marketing campaign, marketing fruit- and candy-flavoured tobacco products to young people, and unfortunately, it is working. Over half of tobacco users in British Columbia who are young have used flavoured tobacco, and it often serves as a gateway to lifelong cigarette smoking.

In order to protect young people from the serious risks of smoking, we need commitment from this government. The Cancer Society in British Columbia has called for a ban on flavoured tobacco. Ontario and Alberta have already instituted such a ban. The Health Minister said in January: "We…"

Madame Speaker: Pose your question, Member.

J. Darcy: "…certainly have the commitment to correct this problem, because the last thing we want are young people being turned on to smoking."

Will the Minister of Health commit today to banning the sale of flavoured tobacco, as Ontario and Alberta have already done?

[ Page 3301 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, and thank you for your concern and your genuine concern about young people and smoking — a concern that I share.

I think every member in this House agrees that we must do everything we can to reduce the incidence of smoking in the province of British Columbia, particularly among young people. That is why we have among the most restrictive legislation in terms of marketing cigarettes. They are hidden from view. We have an aggressive enforcement campaign to ensure that young people do not smoke cigarettes.

We have said that we will work with the federal government. I've sent two letters to the federal minister on this issue, and I've also said that if the federal government does not take action, we will take action. We are updating our tobacco control strategy. The members opposite I know will agree that the biggest single thing you can do to reduce smoking is to increase the cost of smoking, something we have already done, and we will always continue to look at ways and means of reducing the incidence of smoking, particularly among young people, in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

D. Eby: I rise to tender an offer letter for a vice-president at Kwantlen University.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP OF

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the following:

[Scott Hamilton, MLA be appointed as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, replacing Hon. Norm Letnick, MLA;

Dr. Moira Stilwell, MLA be appointed as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Health, replacing Hon. Norm Letnick, MLA; and

John Yap, MLA be appointed as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, replacing Hon. Norm Letnick, MLA.]

[1440]

I've provided an advance copy to the official opposition.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Petitions

G. Holman: I'd like to present a petition gathered by the Canadian Federation of University Women in my constituency, 165 signatures calling for the adoption of a comprehensive poverty reduction plan in British Columbia.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, have a petition to present from the Canadian Federation of University Women. I have 36 signatures from the area of the North Shore on poverty as well.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members — the Ministry of Education will be followed by, eventually, the Ministry of Social Development. In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 19, the Animal Health Act, is to be followed thereafter by committee stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

section 6 (continued) .

N. Simons: On the advice of the former Agriculture Minister behind me here, I believe we've completed

section 6.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

N. Simons: The question I have relates to the temporary licensing. According to the act, the chief vet can issue a temporary licence, with or without conditions, that's valid for no more than three months.

Section 11(2)(

e) allows for the chief vet to "issue the licence or permit with or without terms or conditions."

My question, really, is just around what the need is for a temporary licence when a regular licence can be issued for a temporary period. In other words, the authority of 11(2)(

e) covers what apparently is permitted in 11(2)(d).

The Chair: I understand the member for Richmond-Steveston wishes to make an introduction.

[ Page 3302 ]

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: Earlier this afternoon I introduced to the House a group of 41 students and three teachers from France. They now have arrived, and I wonder if members could join me in welcoming them to the province of British Columbia and to our Legislature.

Debate Continued

Hon. T. Lake: The temporary licence would be in situations where there's a time-limited activity. For instance, a one-day horse sale would be an example of a temporary licence or permit.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

N. Simons: It's a similar question. Sort of the same question applies. The chief vet can "do anything under

section 11 (2)" with regard to registration, so is there a similar explanation as to why that's added here?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry, I'm not understanding the question.

The Chair: Can the member repeat the question?

[1450]

N. Simons: Okay. Well, my understanding of the legislation is that the chief vet is permitted to do essentially everything under

section 11 with respect to registration. Perhaps the minister can explain why the need for separate….

I might be getting myself confused here, which would not be the first time, I would add, in case anyone would suggest that. I'm sure the minister is likely to. Perhaps if that question isn't clear…. Perhaps it doesn't make sense, and I'll follow up later. So we'll go on.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

N. Simons: The inclusion of subsections (3)(

a) and (b), subject to retest, the inclusion of the subsections could potentially lead to delays in taking administrative action. Is that something that the minister has contemplated?

The Chair: Perhaps the member could repeat once again that question as well.

N. Simons: Off to a flying start here, aren't we?

Section (3)(

a) and (b), "Before taking an administrative action, the chief veterinarian must provide to the operator (

a) a written notice stating," and then there are four more subsections to that, and "(

b) a reasonable opportunity to respond, in writing…." I'm just asking about the delay that section (3)(

a) and (

b) could cause in taking an administrative action.

Hon. T. Lake: These are licensing administrative actions. This

section doesn't really refer to disease control, but it's to provide administrative fairness. So if the chief veterinarian is telling an operator to do something, there has to be some fairness in giving the operator a chance to respond.

N. Simons: Can the minister tell us to whom the chief veterinarian reports to?

Hon. T. Lake: Joining us today is our chief veterinary officer, Dr. Jane Pritchard, who is behind me and supporting us today. Dr. Pritchard, as the chief veterinary officer, reports to the Minister of Agriculture.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

N. Simons: In this

section 15: "

(4) The chief veterinarian must provide written reasons for an action taken under subsection (3)…and a person may not request further reconsideration." My question really relates to whether or not there's any further review provided anywhere else in the legislation.

[1455]

Hon. T. Lake: These decisions are on applications for licences, including fur farms, game farms, livestock dealer, livestock agent, public sale yard, slaughterhouse. Those are examples of the licences that are issued under the Animal Health Act.

The chief veterinarian, then, would make a decision. If that decision was in the negative, the applicant would have the ability to request a reconsideration, and then the chief veterinarian must, as the member outlines, provide written responses to that reapplication or that reconsideration.

At the end of the day, the chief veterinarian and the ministry work with the applicant to try to overcome any obstacles that they may have in terms of meeting the requirements. But if at the end of the day, after reconsideration, the request is denied, then there is no recourse.

N. Simons: Just to clarify, to make sure that I'm clear

[ Page 3303 ]

on this, after considering a request for reconsideration, the chief veterinarian may take, as applicable, one or more of the actions described. But then it seems to me that there's almost like.... It seems a bit unfair in terms of administrative fairness that an important decision like this would not be allowed to be presented again for an opportunity for reconsideration.

Does it appear to the minister that it's somewhat abrupt that a person's access to reconsideration is somewhat limited?

Hon. T. Lake: Historically, we have not run into a situation where this was a problem for applicants. At the end of the day, there is a reconsideration that is considered in this legislation, but having gone through that process, the applicant obviously is owed a decision, and that decision is then made. It's not a never-ending process.

These are yearly applications, so if there was a concern that the applicant had that they could not overcome, they certainly could address that and apply for that licence in the following year.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

N. Simons: This is clearly one of the sections that has caused the most consternation among individuals who are independent and who consider issues around privacy and personal privacy and protection of information. Can the minister explain the rationale behind

section 16, how it relates to or how it may compare with other legislation in other provinces and whether or not in fact the restrictions on the access to information by the Privacy Commissioner are different here than in other provinces?

[1500]

Hon. T. Lake: I know this is a

section that did cause some concern the last time the legislation was presented. I think at that time it was explained. So I'll explain again the necessity of having confidence in the system to ensure that producers are supplying information that would protect the public health and protect the health of the industry. When reporting information related to animal disease, it's really critical that government have that information quickly and accurately in order to take the necessary steps to contain any spread of disease.

Section 16 was not done lightly by any stretch of the imagination. It mirrors very closely what the federal government policy is and is similar to other jurisdictions like Ontario, whereby this information is protected to ensure the confidence of producers to submit information necessary to prevent the spread of disease.

N. Simons: According to the Office of the Information Privacy Commissioner — in fact, the Privacy Commissioner herself:

"The bill will prevent public access to information about animal disease reporting and testing by exempting information collected in the administration of the Animal Health Act from the access-to-information provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, FIPPA. As a result, journalists, citizens and researchers would never be able to examine the manner in which government is managing its responsibilities under this new act."

Could the minister perhaps provide clarification and explanation if that's not in fact true?

Hon. T. Lake: Under

section 16 the categories of information that are protected are outlined in

section 16(1)(

a) through (f). There is a balance that needs to be struck to ensure that the public has information and the right to information and also the necessary protection of public health, as well as protection of the producer and the industry involved.

The fact is that people's livelihoods are at stake — not just on an individual basis but on a provincewide and, in fact, nationwide basis — if this information is to be disclosed at the wrong or inopportune time.

Having said that,

section 25 of FIPPA says that information has to be released if it's in the public interest, and that's why

section 16(2) is there — to reflect that mandatory release of information by the minister, if it is in the public interest.

N. Simons: Obviously, the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers and food producers are essential. But at the same time, so is the right of the public to be informed of issues that impact them and actions that their government is taking on their behalf.

In the words of Elizabeth Denham:

"Government proposes this broad exemption despite the carefully balanced set of access-to-information provisions and exemptions already present in FIPPA which protect both the public's right to know and a person's legitimate business interests and right to privacy. This balance is the result of policy and legislative decisions originally adopted by unanimous vote of the Legislature and fine-tuned over FIPPA's 20-year history."

[1505]

Can the minister explain how he believes that the Privacy Commissioner is incorrect, that this balance is not the correct balance and that, in fact, further protections of the public are required through better access to information?

Hon. T. Lake: Under the FIPPA act in B.C., information supplied to government can only be protected under the following criteria. That's, first of all, that the information is scientific or technical in nature. Secondly, the information is submitted in confidence to government. Those two are reasonable and easily met. The third relates to information in commercial or financial situations of a third party where it's believed that undue financial loss or gain could arise from the release of the information or that similar information would not be supplied

[ Page 3304 ]

to government when it is in the public interest to receive such information.

That, I guess, is the crux of it. The first two can be met. The last criteria can be difficult to meet to the satisfaction of those people that are interpreting FIPPA, and that is, essentially, the concern — that producers that read FIPPA don't have the confidence necessary to understand that that information critical to their business, to their livelihood and to the industry would not be released.

Government needs to ensure the confidence of the industry and the producers. If they feel like the information is not going to be held confidential, the result will be lack of information submitted and a lack of an ability to react to an outbreak of a disease, whether it's an animal disease or potentially a human disease.

One of the prime goals of this legislation is to prevent the spread of disease and protect individual producers, protect industry and protect public health, so it is absolutely critical that the confidence of producers to submit samples is maintained. That is why we have done this, and that is why the federal government has a similar legislative approach in their legislation as well and, also, why we respect

section 25 of FIPPA, where it is in the public interest that that information can be released by the minister.

N. Simons: Can the minister provide any evidence that the current system in place is incapable of protecting the interests of farmers and the public?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, what we have found in the experience to date is that when producers do not have confidence in the system, they will submit anonymized samples, so they can't be tracked back to the place of origin. Or they will send samples out of the country, to the United States, where they feel they have confidence that that information will not be released. We lose when that happens. We lose the ability to react and respond to a potential disease outbreak.

N. Simons: I appreciate the answer. I'm just wondering if the minister can provide any examples of that occurring.

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: In fact, what we have had are instances of fish farms that would send samples to private labs in the United States. If there was to be a potential disease associated with those samples, the first time the government would hear about it would be when the border closes to those products. You can imagine that that is not really in the interests of the industry or the province. Again, I want to stress it's critical that the information get to the provincial veterinarian and to the Ministry of Agriculture as quickly as possible in order to protect the industry and protect the public.

N. Simons: Well, it's a laudable goal, I know, but I wonder if in fact there are incidents of fish farms sending test samples to U.S. labs or other labs where they have not been also sent to British Columbia labs. Is this the issue at hand? Is the issue that it's happened in the past that the chief veterinarian officer did not get informed of a disease? I'm just looking for examples and less of the hypothetical what-ifs. How is this justified by what's happened already?

Hon. T. Lake: This is, in fact, what had happened in the past, so it is an example of what would continue to happen if we did not instil confidence in the industry in the confidentiality of the information submitted. This is why it is so critical that we have the confidence of industry in terms of confidentiality — so that we can take action immediately when there is a suspected disease that needs to be controlled.

N. Simons: Is there an example of an industry not reporting to the province because they're afraid that the province will disclose the information publicly?

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize if I wasn't clear in my last answer. Yes, in the fish farm industry this is what has happened, because under the existing legislative framework we have, there is a lack of confidence that the information will be held confidential.

N. Simons: So fish farms had notifiable, reportable diseases, and the government found out that they didn't report it, and somehow we're left with legislation to address their concerns. It seems to me that the minister has said that they didn't report it because the protection of that information would be vulnerable. Now, is that in fact the case — that the concern of industry was that they wouldn't report to the province before because they were worried that that information would become public because of the actions of government?

Hon. T. Lake: My understanding is that information was released because of a freedom-of-information request. That put a chill in the producers' confidence in submitting samples, so samples were submitted elsewhere, leaving the province out of the information loop and out of the loop in terms of protecting the industry, protecting the public.

There are no examples that I am aware of where a notifiable or reportable disease was diagnosed elsewhere, through this evasion, if you like, of the provincial system. But it's certainly not desirable to have a sample sent somewhere else and then not have the ability to act quickly to limit the spread of any potential disease.

N. Simons: Samples were sent to U.S. labs, information became public because somehow that information was accessed through freedom of information, and the

[ Page 3305 ]

government's response is to say: "Don't do that again. If you report to us, we won't tell anyone." Is that essentially it? "Don't worry. You can tell us. Don't keep sending your stuff to the U.S. Don't send it to private labs. Just send it to us, because we have this cone of silence here in the ministry."

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: What we're saying to industry is: "We understand why you need confidence in the system." We need to create a system in which confidence is generated and reinforced in order to protect the public and to protect the agricultural industry here in British Columbia.

Under the current regime that confidence was eroded. Therefore, other measures were taken by industry so that they would not take the risk of information being released. Now, when the member says: "Don't worry about it. We're not going to do anything with it. We're not going to release this information…." Of course the information is critical. As the member is well aware, this information is critical. So when that information comes into the province, if it indicates a notifiable or reportable disease, we can immediately take action which will prevent the spread of disease from animal to animal or from animal to human.

Having confidence in the system is absolutely tantamount in this legislation. Without it, the legislation just doesn't work. We've seen examples of this over time in the agricultural industry, where producers fear that by coming forward and being open and working with government to ensure that their animals are disease-free…. If they don't have that confidence, if they fear that information will be allowed to hurt their business, they will not have the confidence to submit those specimens.

The member may be aware of the phrase "Shoot, shovel, and shut up." Unfortunately, over the years in agriculture, in places other than British Columbia, we are pretty sure that goes on sometimes. Governments around the world, when they're looking at disease control, recognize that that happens. So we need to engender confidence in producers that that information will be submitted on a confidential basis, that action will be taken if that information shows that there's a notifiable or reportable disease, and if it is in the interests of the public, then that information will be released under FIPPA.

N. Simons: I accept that explanation. I think it's a question of balance. It's always a question of balance. Perhaps I would err on a different side of that centre line, and that's fair. But it's not really necessarily about my opinion either.

I wonder. We have other options as well — mandatory testing. One could provide incentives for the reporting of incidents. I haven't put a ton of thought into other options, but someone who has is the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who says that

section 21 of FIPPA "prevents the disclosure of commercial information where that disclosure could be harmful to the business interests of a third party."

That's just one angle. The other possibility is that we do have independent scientists, as well, in this province. I think we as the public rely on a number of tiered controls and checks and balances, as it were.

My concern is that perhaps everything gets funnelled into a system where that information becomes fairly secret. I do think that the Information and Privacy Commissioner…. It's possible under this act to have at least some oversight — not to say that you must release this information or not but to provide guidance and advice from her experience, or from the experience of someone filling that position, that we are in fact taking the concerns of the general public and their right to know into consideration as well.

I'm wondering if the examples that the minister provided with respect to fish farms were provided to the commissioner as an explanation and whether or not that was discussed.

[1520]

Hon. T. Lake: I think when we're comparing British Columbia with other jurisdictions, it's important to understand that some other jurisdictions don't have their own veterinary labs, government labs. They will use private labs, and those private labs don't fall under FOIPPA, or a FIPPA type of legislation.

In fact, if a private lab was doing this testing for us here in British Columbia, we wouldn't even have this discussion, because they wouldn't be subject to FIPPA. But we have a highly respected veterinary pathology lab in Abbotsford here in British Columbia. This

section applies because we are doing that testing in a highly regarded government laboratory, and so FIPPA must apply.

What we're saying is that under this act,

section 16(1)(

a) to (

f) protects that information. However, we recognize that where it is in the public interest,

section 25 of FIPPA would still apply.

We are not trying to prevent the public from knowing information when we know it is in their interest to know it. But we are trying to instil as much confidence as humanly possible in the agricultural industry to send their samples to this highly respected government lab and to know that they will have the confidence of the confidentiality of that lab, rather than sending it out of province or to a private laboratory where the same high standards don't apply.

N. Simons: Well, I appreciate that we do have the highest quality of laboratory facilities and that our provincial services must meet very high academic standards. My question is about the…. Does the chief veterinary officer have complete autonomy in the lab? Can that person set the goals and objectives of that laboratory? And is it ever subject to government oversight that could influence the direction or the focus of its work?

[ Page 3306 ]

Hon. T. Lake: While Dr. Pritchard is very learned and very capable, she's not all-powerful, I understand. The laboratory is accredited by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians as well as Standards Council of Canada ISO 17025, which pertains to diagnostic labs. There is an advisory committee as well.

These types of laboratories are highly structured and regulated in terms of their accreditation purposes. Of course, Dr. Pritchard is very involved in the workings of the lab. They have to meet the standards of these two accreditation bodies.

N. Simons: Thank you for that response. I have absolutely no doubt of the veracity of your response. My question, though, has to do with the standards that you mentioned, the ISO standards. Are there other labs in British Columbia accredited to that degree by those same two governing bodies?

[1525]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm informed that we are one of only three veterinary laboratories in Canada that have the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians accreditation, the other two being veterinary colleges at University of Guelph and at Saint-Hyacinthe in Montreal. I'm disappointed to learn that my alma mater of University of Saskatchewan is not one of them that is accredited at this time.

N. Simons: Duly noted. That's good to know. It's interesting. Has that accreditation been ongoing for years? Is this an accreditation that's been maintained? Has it ever been lost?

The Chair: I think the Chair is allowing a lot of latitude on a

section that deals with the protected information, but I'll let the minister answer the question.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, thank you, hon. Chair. I'm happy to, because we're very proud of our provincial veterinary laboratory. It has been accredited for ten years and just received another five-year accreditation.

N. Simons: I do appreciate the latitude, once I was reminded of it. I do think that there are some concerns. According to the commissioner, and to give her due attention, obviously…. This is a person who's got experience and expertise. She notes that there hasn't been an example given to her that has contradicted the purpose of…. Like, there has been not an incident.

I'm trying to find the quote. It's going take me too long, and the latitude previously afforded me will suddenly end. But I do believe that the minister probably understands my question. If, in fact, the act as it stands hasn't been fundamentally a problem, why make it even stronger?

Hon. T. Lake: While we have deep respect for the chief Information and Privacy Commissioner, we sometimes disagree. In fact, it was her adjudicator that allowed release of information that resulted in an erosion of confidence on the part of producers to submit samples.

There is an example whereby a ruling of her office, under the current regime, led to an erosion of confidence in the system. Again, what we are trying to do here is make sure that confidence has been baked into this legislation so that we do in fact have the ability to have the earliest information about notifiable and reportable diseases to protect the public and to protect the industry.

N. Simons: I think that there is the balance of protecting the rights of industry, and there are obvious, important concerns. I worry about the erosion of their confidence in the system. I'm equally concerned about the erosion of confidence of the public in the system. That's, I suppose, where that balance needs to be found.

The commissioner made some recommendations with respect to addressing both her concerns as well as the concerns of government. This is where I have the biggest problem. I don't understand why legislative drafting couldn't be done in such a way as to accommodate the learned opinions of all parties and find a way in which to address those somewhat competing but fundamentally similar concerns.

The commissioner suggested, in fact, "…narrow exemptions that preserve the jurisdiction of access-to-information legislation by either deeming the information supplied by farmers to be commercial information and to have been supplied in confidence" — as they do in Ontario — "or by narrowly exempting specific provisions of access-to-information legislation" — as they've done in Alberta.

Can the minister tell us if those other jurisdictions' examples were examined and in fact why they might have been dismissed?

[1530]

Hon. T. Lake: No model is exactly the same, because each province is a little bit different in terms of the laboratories they have. As I mentioned, in Alberta they don't have a government lab, so their samples are not subject to the government FIPPA laws. In fact, if the situation in B.C. was the same as Alberta, we wouldn't have the necessity of this section.

Ontario is probably closest. The Ontario Animal Health Act is fully exempted from their FIPPA — at least the sections comparable to our sections 16(1)(a), (b), (

d) and (e). And as I mentioned, the federal government does exempt it as well.

This legislation that we are presenting is very, very similar to legislation federally and similar to legislation in Ontario. The member is right. It's about balance. It's about what is the public interest versus the public right

[ Page 3307 ]

to know. The minister has the ability to release information when it is in the public interest.

We have landed in a place where we feel this gives us the best balance between protecting information as well as the public's right to know and protecting individuals and their livelihoods, the industry and its livelihood, and public health. So many new emerging diseases are, in fact, those that come from animals to man, and it's critical, absolutely critical, that we get that information.

If you don't have the confidence, as I mentioned earlier, that information is not submitted to the government laboratory. The government laboratory is subject to FIPPA,

whereas a private laboratory is not.

We have to make sure that the producer has the same level of confidence in terms of confidentiality of the information when supplying it to a government lab as they would outside of government, which would be the alternative they would tend to take if they didn't have that confidence.

N. Simons: I'm curious as to how industry would provide samples to non-accredited laboratories and have those tests be acceptable to anyone other than the three labs we were talking about that were accredited. Can the minister clarify?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, the University of Saskatchewan has a veterinary college, a proud institution that produces excellent veterinarians.

N. Simons: And politicians.

Hon. T. Lake: And politicians.

They have an excellent pathology lab, but it is not accredited by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians. But the Saskatchewan government would rely upon that information from that lab to exercise disease control measures.

[1535]

Not every lab has to be accredited to the level that our B.C. lab is, but the information is still credible. The government has to decide their comfort level with the credibility of the lab. I know the government of Saskatchewan is very confident in the credibility of the lab at the University of Saskatchewan, despite the fact that it isn't accredited to the level that the B.C. lab is.

N. Simons: One of the things that we sort of rely on as a society is independent science to balance official science. Without in any way demeaning the scientific credibility of anyone, second opinions are often sought, and opinions from independent scientists are often sought.

In a province where there's sometimes a perception that certain industries are promoted more than others and certain balances of concern are on one side or the other of an issue — for example, in the area of fish farming in this province; it's a controversial issue and one that brings a lot of people into political action — if in fact the province has sort of a monopoly over information, if independent scientists don't have access to this information, can we truly be confident at all times? Are we supposed to go into this sort of a "just trust us" scenario?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly for research purposes, anonymized data can be supplied to any scientists if they make an application for data. But in terms of the information that would track that back to a location or to a person or a producer, that is withheld, subject to the legislation that we see today. So I guess there has to be a level of trust that the government is looking after the interests of the public.

I'm not questioning the member or accusing the member of saying that the people working in our laboratory would be anything but objective. I think I understand the member's concern that there would be a tendency to protect a certain industry.

I think that is an unfounded concern, given the professionals that are working in the veterinary laboratory division of the Ministry of Agriculture and given the accreditation and the reputation that they rely upon to be accredited. They are obviously very proud. They're professionals. They're upheld to a very high standard. I can assure the member that there would be no ability or tendency to want to favour any particular type of industry when supplying information to government that would protect the public and protect the agriculture industry.

N. Simons: Thank you very much for that response. I have scientist relatives who work for various governments, and I would not in any way doubt their sincerity or their commitment to their work. But I would point out to the minister: yes, we like to trust governments, but we also have safeguards that are put in place, including the Representative for Children and Youth, including an Auditor General and including an Information and Privacy Commissioner. I think that a better balance could have been found.

As a member of the official opposition, it's my duty to make whatever efforts I can to push legislation, nudge it if I can, to try and make it slightly better. With that, I propose an amendment to Bill 19, amending

section 16 by striking out subsection (2).

[ To amend

section 16 of the Act by deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough:

(1) Except as permitted under

section 17 [duty to keep information confidential] or 18 [personal information] , a person described in

section 17 (1) or 18 (1) must refuse to disclose the following:

(

a) information that would identify a person responsible for an animal or for an animal product or byproduct;

(

b) information that would identify an animal or an animal product or byproduct that is located at or in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle;

(

c) information that would identify a specific place at which an animal or an animal product or byproduct is located;

(

d) information that would reveal that a notifiable or

[ Page 3308 ]

reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle;

(

e) information that would reveal that an animal or an animal product or byproduct affected by a notifiable or reportable disease is

(

i) located at or in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle, or

(ii) owned, or in the custody or control of, an identifiable person or body, or that an identifiable person or body is an operator in relation to the animal or the animal product or byproduct;

(

f) information that is derived from a sample taken under this Act or that is submitted to the ministry of the minister or a laboratory identified in an order of the minister.

(2) Despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , a person who would otherwise be required under that Act to disclose information described in subsection (1) of this

section is not required to disclose the information except as required under

section 25 of that Act. ]

Now, while that might be not the most fine-tuned amendment, it is one that I think brings attention to my concern and the concern of my colleagues and those interested in ensuring that the balance is appropriate.

[1540]

I think that it's an opportunity to correct what I think is a flaw in the legislation and provide the government with an opportunity to correct that flaw, to address the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner who, from her expert position, believes is the appropriate balance to be struck.

The Chair: The amendment is in order. Does the member wish to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

N. Simons: Well, thank you for the latitude. I thought I just spoke to it, my concerns. As I mentioned, I believe that by striking out subsection (2) of

section 16, that we, in fact, do not exempt anyone from reporting. I believe that the Information and Privacy Commissioner's role and responsibility and the legislation under which she acts would maintain its robustness.

I hope that the government considers this, and if not, maybe in the future we'll have an opportunity to possibly strengthen the legislation or make it even more precise, as it were, to ensure that the balance, if not at first try, becomes better at the second try.

Hon. T. Lake: I would speak against the amendment and for reasons that I mentioned earlier. I appreciate the member's sincerity, and I would just say that I disagree in terms of where the balance is. This is about protecting the public. I understand that the member is concerned about the public's right to know, and that is why, when it is in the public interest, this legislation says the minister can release that information in the public interest. But above all, this is about protecting people.

Look at the outbreaks of SARS that cost the Ontario economy billions and billions of dollars. Look at avian influenza, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the poultry industry here in British Columbia. Look at emerging zoonotic diseases that have the potential to spread from animals to man and cause extreme morbidity and mortality in the human population. When you're looking at protecting public health, it is critical that information be submitted in a timely way, with confidence for producers.

When you know what happens when you don't have this confidence, when you know that the result of that is that people go around the system and prevent a robust animal disease control system.... When that is the consequence of what the member would want to do, I strongly, strongly speak against that. So I would say that we will vote against the amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment proposed by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

[1545-1550]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Corrigan

Simpson

James

Ralston

Farnworth

Popham

Kwan

Fleming

Conroy

Austin

Hammell

Donaldson

Chandra Herbert

Huntington

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Elmore

Heyman

Darcy

Robinson

Trevena

B. Routley

Simons

Fraser

Weaver

Chouhan

Rice

Shin

Holman

NAYS — 43

Sturdy

Bing

McRae

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Wilkinson

Yamamoto

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Clark

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

Dalton

Plecas

Kyllo

Tegart

Michelle Stilwell

Throness

Larson

Foster

Bernier

Martin

Gibson

Moira Stilwell

[ Page 3309 ]

The Chair: The committee will take a brief recess for the return of staff.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The Chair: We are currently considering

section 16.

N. Simons: Would that mean we're on

section 17, just for clarification?

The Chair: We actually haven't passed

section 16. So if you've got any further questions on 16….

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

N. Simons: Some new subsections were added to enable the sharing of information outside of British Columbia, permitted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 33.1(1)(c).

[1555]

Can the minister just explain what those changes entail and whether or not, in fact, this leaves some of the decision-making to the minister, him or herself, as the case may be, in the future?

Hon. T. Lake: This

section was added so that information may be disclosed outside of B.C. for the purposes of subsection (2). That is consistent with the Public Health Act, to allow information-sharing with other jurisdictions. This is permitted under FOIPPA,

section 33.1(1)(c).

N. Simons: I'm still recovering from the defeat of my amendment, so bear with me. I was expecting something else.

The concern raised by the commissioner…. Again, we're talking about privacy and protected information, so that requires that I talk about this particular

section a little bit more. Is it possible…? Maybe I misheard, but is there any oversight, from any independent commission or anything, of a minister's decision as to what to tell the public either in the moment or later on?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, the minister is responsible for making decisions about the release of information that is in the interests of the public. Having said that, the Privacy Commissioner can go back and look at those decisions and, while the Privacy Commissioner cannot reverse the decision, can provide an opinion to the minister as to the nature of the decision-making and provide recommendations for future use and release of information.

N. Simons: Well, let's hope her future advice is heeded, as the case may be, in circumstances where it's merited.

This subsection (3) says: "For greater certainty, information may be disclosed outside British Columbia for the purposes of subsection (2) regardless of whether there is a threat to animal health or public health, or to an animal's health or a person's health, in British Columbia." Can the minister explain why that's in this act?

[1600]

Hon. T. Lake: This is about information-sharing. As mentioned, the Public Health Act is similar, in that information is shared among jurisdictions that informs decision-making and research in other jurisdictions.

Again, it says "may be disclosed," and, of course, there would be discretion in that. But it may be disclosed. Information may be shared for the purposes of informing other jurisdictions and increasing protection of livestock, agriculture and the public.

N. Simons: Can the minister provide an example of situations where that would be important to do, just for clarification?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I was just hoping beyond hope that I would get the opportunity to talk about porcine epidemic diarrhea, so I am. It's a coronavirus, which is a small virus that infects the intestinal tract of pigs. There's an outbreak throughout North America that is causing some real concern, so it's important for us to be able to share information about the results of our tests, which are negative, and the way we test.

We can share that information with other jurisdictions, and that helps in their efforts to reduce the spread of that PED. The benefit is that by sharing that information, we actually help to prevent the spread of disease and prevent it in some way from coming to British Columbia as well.

N. Simons: Could it be said that the commissioner's concerns that there's no oversight by her office or anyone else to make sure that the government is disclosing information in the public interest…? Is that one of those situations where we should just rest assured that government knows best and it's doing what they can? Or is there some other oversight that can reassure the public that they'll be provided information with respect to issues addressed in this section?

Hon. T. Lake: The commissioner had some concerns about the

section that we passed earlier. This

section is, in fact, permitted under FOIPPA

section 33.1 that I mentioned earlier.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

[ Page 3310 ]

section 19.

N. Simons: The minister has added that the act has included timelines. Can he explain what the timelines requested refers to in

section 19?

[1605]

Hon. T. Lake: The timelines would vary depending on the situation. There would be situations in which it would be very urgent to get that information.

An example would be where there is a disease suspected that is transmitted vertically — in other words, from the mother to the offspring. If a producer, for instance, had a disease in a herd and if this was a disease that could be transmitted from the cow to the calf and if the calf had been sold, we would want to know that information as to where that calf was — essentially immediately.

The inspector would put a tighter timeline on the request for information than they would under other circumstances.

Sections 19 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

N. Simons: This

section refers to the reason for seizure, slaughter or destruction. I'm just going to ask a question with respect to some changes that apparently were made. Why were those changes made from the previous version of this bill?

Hon. T. Lake: The cancellation of an operator's licence in the former proposed legislation was grounds for seizure of an animal. That is no longer the case. It seemed a bit heavy-handed, so that was removed. Abandoned animals are not seized unless they pose a risk to animal or human health. Again, that is a change because we felt that was outside the realm of this legislation.

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

N. Simons: Because of the potential disruption of such an order, the legislative changes also seem to have occurred between the bill as it was previously introduced and then as it is now — specifically, the new subsection (5) which allows for the person receiving an animal or product or by-product disposed of under

section 30(2)(

b) to slaughter or destroy, regardless of why it was originally seized. Is that a fundamental change, or is it simply something that was omitted in the first version of this bill?

[1610]

Hon. T. Lake: This

section 30 identifies what may be seized by the chief veterinarian, and then, when the chief veterinarian has seized the item, the veterinarian may return or dispose of the animal, animal product, by-product or whatever it was that was confiscated. The order may specify the manner of disposal, including destruction or sale.

Subsection (4) allows the chief veterinarian to seize and dispose of an abandoned animal without confirmation of a reportable disease or exposure to a reportable disease, and subsection (5) was added to ensure that a person who purchases a disposed item that was seized by the chief veterinarian and then acquires full rights to it can further dispose of it as they see fit. If they are to be in possession of a seized item and acquire the rights to that item, they have the ability to dispose of it as they see fit.

Sections 30 to 35 inclusive approved.

section 36.

N. Simons: Mr. Chair, 36 is referring to deemed control zones and gives the minister quite a significant amount of authority. I wonder if that's something that could potentially be an issue that…. Once again, the apparent lack of oversight with respect to the minister's discretion — is that something that's standard in legislation like this, or is British Columbia creating itself a super powerful minister?

Hon. T. Lake: No, this is not an unusual power for the minister to have. It is to prevent a reportable or notifiable disease from entering B.C. in the first place or to establish or protect an area as being free from a reportable or notifiable disease. These are mechanisms that are employed in disease control elsewhere as well.

Sections 36 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain what issues around warrants can be made by regulation? I'm just curious as to what would be contained in regulations as it refers to

section 56.

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: This allows an inspector to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant "to enter and search a place, including a private dwelling, and take any necessary action…." It says: "…in the manner set out in the regulations…." This allows the development of a form, a standard form, to be used in application to the court for such a warrant.

The Chair: Just for the record, we want to make sure that we have passed

section 41.

[ Page 3311 ]

Section 41 approved.

Sections 56 to 59 inclusive approved.

section 60.

N. Simons: Here's another

section which refers directly to issues around concerns of the Privacy Commissioner.

Section 60:

"During an emergency, this Part applies despite any provision of this or any other enactment, including, (

a) in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act, and (

b) in respect of a specific person or thing, a provision that would impose a specific duty, limit or procedural re-

[ Page 3312 ]

quirement, to the extent there is any inconsistency or conflict with the provision or other enactment."

This is the same

section that was introduced in Bill 37 in 2012, and the commissioner, I believe, made a request that government delete this section. I'm just wondering if, in fact, the minister considered that and what the results were of any conversations he may have had on that in that regard.

Hon. T. Lake: As mentioned earlier, while this Animal Health Act on the surface may seem to be about animal disease — and, of course, a large part of it is about protecting animals from disease — it's also about protecting humans from disease that may originate in animals. This Animal Health Act will work in concert with the Public Health Act, and this

section actually mirrors, almost word for word, the wording in the Public Health Act.

Again, it is important that these two acts work in concert to not only protect the spread of disease from animal to animal but from animal to human as well.

N. Simons: Now, I understand that, and I understand the importance of acting in a sometimes more urgent way when there are emergent issues as defined under the act. My specific concern or issue that I think needs to be raised is that there is the possibility of, as the minister himself mentioned, the ability for the commissioner to go back and make sure that everything was done in a way that protected people's privacy and protected the public interest. There was an opportunity to do just that.

I think that the commissioner, perhaps, should have the authority to oversee the emergency actions being taken that are outside of the regular provisions of this act, just to make sure that the public can have confidence that the purpose and intent of the legislation is adhered to, while at the same time making sure that the protection of the public is respected. Can the minister explain why, perhaps, the Privacy Commissioner isn't given that authority now?

Hon. T. Lake: The Privacy Commissioner isn't responsible for the health of the public — or the health of animals, in this case.

[1620]

The conditions to be met before an emergency is defined are outlined in

section 59. This is where the chief veterinarian believes that one or more areas of the province have two of the following criteria existing in that part of the province: the presence or suspected presence of a reportable disease that could have a serious impact on public or animal health; there is immediate and/or significant risk of spread of the reportable disease; the incidence of the reportable disease is unusual or unexpected; there is significant risk of travel or trade restrictions as a result of the presence or suspected presence of the reportable disease.

In other words, these are extremely serious situations, and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture are responsible for protecting the public and protecting the agriculture industry under these emergent conditions. That is why we feel that it is necessary to have the same level of protection of the information under the Public Health Act and the Animal Health Act.

N. Simons: Well, I'm not suggesting in any way that the commissioner could suspend or delay or intervene in situations that have been defined as emergency. I'm simply suggesting that once an emergency situation has passed, perhaps that commissioner would have the opportunity to review it to ensure that the public good was protected.

In no way am I suggesting that the commissioner would have any say as to whether something is healthy or if there's a threat to human or animal health. I'm simply saying that in that sphere perhaps the commissioner could have some oversight as to how information is used or collected.

Hon. T. Lake: This

section says: "During an emergency, this Part applies…." After an emergency is over, as mentioned previously, the commissioner certainly would have the opportunity to review decisions made by ministers in regard to release of information and provide recommendations to ministers as to her view of the appropriateness of the decision.

N. Simons: As is my proclivity, I believe that this is an opportunity to provide a little more strength to the protection of public interest, so I propose an amendment to

section 60, which would add a paragraph.

[ To amend

section 60 of the Act by adding the text shown as underlined:

(1) During an emergency, this Part applies despite any provision of this or any other enactment, including,

(

a) in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act , and

(

b) in respect of a specific person or thing, a provision that would impose a specific duty, limit or procedural requirement, to the extent there is any inconsistency or conflict with the provision or other enactment.

(2) The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is granted the authority to have oversight over the collection, use, and disclosure of the information that takes place during an emergency. ]

On the amendment.

N. Simons: Hon. Chair, thanks for the opportunity to speak to this amendment. It relates to

section 60, emergency powers.

This

section "provides that when an emergency is declared by the chief veterinarian" — I'm quoting from Elizabeth Denham, the Privacy Commissioner — "an inspector under the Animal Health Act has unlimited powers for collection, use and disclosure of personal information. These emergency provisions are being proposed without evidence of actual need or evidence that FIPPA and PIPA do not already enable this collection, use and disclosure."

Could the minister comment on that?

The Chair: Member, you have a question? You're just speaking on the amendment.

N. Simons: Yes. Oh, that's true.

Well, that's just more evidence that, in fact, perhaps this kind of provision needs to have safeguards in place. The reason for the amendment would be that there doesn't seem to be evidence that FIPPA and PIPA don't do this job already. That's why this amendment, as proposed, would address this shortcoming.

[1625]

I think that, with concern around the fact that it's…. In emergencies there are instances and situations where a process needs to be adhered to almost more carefully because of the emergency type of situation.

As the commissioner stated, the "powers to collect, use and disclose personal information during an emergency" seem to be actually unlimited — that's my

interpretation — and are "susceptible to misuse." The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is set up because it has the jurisdiction to oversee how information is collected, even information that's collected during an emergency.

With that, I think the amendment speaks for itself. Once again, the effort is to put some of the balance back into the act to provide the commissioner with the authority that she carefully manages. I recommend that the House support this amendment.

Hon. T. Lake: I would speak against the amendment. The amendment says, "The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is granted the authority to have oversight over the collection, use, and disclosure of the information that takes place during an emergency" — essentially, taking over the power of a minister of the Crown. In an emergency, that could affect the morbidity and mortality of animals and humans. I think it would be highly inappropriate to abdicate the powers of a minister of the Crown to any other office under such circumstances, so I would argue vehemently against this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 60 approved on division.

Sections 61 to 63 inclusive approved.

section 64.

N. Simons: When the act states that "The minister may, in an emergency, make regulations as follows," how is the minister informed of what decisions are to be made about emergency regulations? How is that process undertaken? How does that process fall out?

Hon. T. Lake: This is a highly unlikely situation, but again, it mirrors the provision in the Public Health Act. So in an emergency there can be exemptions made by the minister through the chief veterinarian.

An example might be an outbreak of an avian disease in a particular area and you have a heritage flock of birds that could be subject to that disease. Because they are in a facility that has biosecurity provisions in place that give confidence to the chief veterinarian that that potential disease could not enter that premise, they would then be exempted from repeat testing, for instance, to ensure that they didn't have the disease.

Again, it would be unusual, but there may be circumstances that would occur in which exemptions would be preferred.

[1630]

Sections 64 to 66 inclusive approved.

section 67.

N. Simons: Speaking on

section 67(2), if the minister may draw his attention to that: "The minister may enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government of another jurisdiction…." Can the minister define "another jurisdiction"? Is that any other jurisdiction? Could it be Canadian provinces, territories, or are we talking about United States state authorities? Or just anyone?

Hon. T. Lake: The most likely example of entering into agreements with another jurisdiction would be with the federal government, but it could be another province. For instance, in Alberta, where there's a much larger cattle

[ Page 3313 ]

herd and cattle industry, they may have an interest in participating in control programs in British Columbia, as our calves enter into their market in the feedlot.

This gives flexibility to respond to different situations. Again, it would be probably unusual, but if it were to occur, most likely it would occur with Canada or perhaps a neighbouring province.

N. Simons: Could the minister just repeat that last part? There was some distraction to my left. I won't identify it, but it was slightly louder than my hearing ability was able to contemplate.

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly. I said these would be unusual circumstances, but again, it allows flexibility. Most likely that agreement would be with Canada or with a neighbouring province, like Alberta.

N. Simons: I don't remember having seen a provision in any act that allowed for the creation of agreements with other jurisdictions with such broad strokes. Can the minister give an example? Was the example something to do with trade or something to do with sharing of information over diseases or reportable or notifiable diseases? I'm not sure what situations would require this agreement.

[1635]

Hon. T. Lake: There are other acts that allow us to enter into agreements with other jurisdictions, particularly sharing of information. I'm not aware of other legislation in British Columbia that allows another jurisdiction to administer

an act. I'm not aware of that, but I certainly can take that on advisement and try to find an answer and deliver it to you.

N. Simons: It was just surprising to me when I saw it the first time. We're essentially giving another jurisdiction the authority to administer a provincial piece of legislation, and I'm not sure if other jurisdictions would have that authority even if we gave it to them. However, maybe that's a moot point, and if the situation arises where that subsection needs to be deleted, I look forward to that day.

I think those were all my questions on

section 67.

Sections 67 to 73 inclusive approved.

section 74.

N. Simons: I just wanted to ask if the minister could explain why the chief veterinarian is specifically not named as immune from legal proceedings. I'm here to support everyone.

Hon. T. Lake: The chief veterinarian is considered an inspector and also a person acting under this act, so they are actually covered in this section.

Section 74 approved.

section 75.

N. Simons: I don't see a reference to an inspector here, and I once again wonder if the…. Oh, I suppose the chief veterinarian is also a veterinarian. I've answered my own question. Is that appropriate in this case? Okay.

Sections 75 to 92 inclusive approved.

section 93.

N. Simons: I'm asking a question on

section 93 of

part 8, "Regulations," with respect to Bill 19, Animal Health Act.

My question: does

section 93(1)(

d) include wild animals?

Hon. T. Lake: It would include game animals that are regulated activities. It would not include wild animals that are regulated under the Wildlife Act.

N. Simons: Just for clarification, is there any

section of this act that relates specifically to wild animals and their interaction with domestic animals?

[1640]

Hon. T. Lake: The wildlife can act as a reservoir for diseases that would spill over into domestic animals, so it's important that they are monitored. A good example would be rabies in bats. If rabies is found in bats, obviously the chief veterinarian is made aware of that. Particularly, if there are diseases that could spread through domestic animals and are found in wild animals, that information would be utilized under this act as well.

Sections 93 to 95 inclusive approved.

section 96.

N. Simons: Can the minister just explain what…? Specifically,

section 96(2), making regulations for the purposes of sections 20 and 21 as follows: "(

d) respecting conditions under which a person may be exempted from a requirement to make a report under this Act" — what is that intended to cover?

Hon. T. Lake: This is like a refresher course for me, and it brings back some pretty bad memories from the '80s.

An example of infectious laryngotracheitis. In poultry, for instance, it's an infectious disease, but if there was

[ Page 3314 ]

an outbreak of that particular disease and a producer could prove that his facility had been vaccinated for that particular disease, they could be exempt from mandatory sampling and reporting because the vaccine would show up identical to the actual virus. So there would be essentially no information gleaned from mandatory testing and reporting.

It's a situation where, upon the information provided, a decision would be made to provide an exemption to a producer.

[1645]

N. Simons: I believe that did answer my question. I just wanted to put it on record.

Sections 96 to 99 inclusive approved.

section 100.

N. Simons: Once again,

section 100 appears to leave a lot of discretion to the minister. Is that standard in legislation of this nature?

Hon. T. Lake: This is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that has the regulatory power in this case, which is not unusual in other pieces of legislation.

Sections 100 and 101 approved.

section 102.

N. Simons: I'm sorry. I only have some notes on this. For some reason my bill was missing this. But with respect to the Bee Act, can the minister explain how the Bee Act has been incorporated into this piece of legislation before us today?

Hon. T. Lake: The Bee Act will be repealed, and the provisions of the current Bee Act that are aligned with this legislation are incorporated into this legislation. The other parts of the current Bee Act will be provided for under regulation.

N. Simons: Under the current legislation, the chief apiarist, I believe, is responsible for the provisions of the act. What is the relationship between the chief veterinarian and the chief apiarist in terms of authority and decision-making power?

Hon. T. Lake: The chief apiarist reports to the chief veterinarian. The chief veterinarian is able to delegate powers to the chief apiarist in terms of management of the provisions of the Bee Act that are now in this and the regulations that would be developed for the bee industry.

N. Simons: Presumably, the chief apiarist has inspectors inspecting for disease under his or her authority as well. I'm wondering if those individuals are also…. I don't know how many there are; maybe the minister can tell us. Do they report to the chief apiarist, or are they employees reporting to the chief veterinarian?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm informed that there are seven seasonal employees who act as inspectors who report to the chief apiarist, who in turn reports to the chief veterinarian.

[1650]

N. Simons: My question is: in what circumstances does the chief apiarist report to the chief veterinarian? Maybe they work side by side. Maybe this is something that is not going to change with this new legislation. But if there are any changes, please can the minister advise?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm informed that there are no changes in terms of how the reporting occurs. An example where the chief apiarist would work with the chief veterinarian occurred when there were some bees that were imported from Alberta. Alberta informed us that there could be a potential of a particular organism in these bees. The inspector confirmed that, and the chief apiarist then reported that information to the chief veterinarian.

N. Simons: When decisions are made around issues like quarantines, is that the decision of the chief veterinarian? Or is it on the advice of the chief apiarist? Or could the chief apiarist make those decisions under the previous legislation as well as the current legislation?

Hon. T. Lake: The minister is responsible for a quarantine order but, of course, takes advice from the chief veterinarian, who would, around apiaries, take advice from or work together with the chief apiarist to make that recommendation to the minister.

Sections 102 and 103 approved.

section 104.

N. Simons: This is the

section which has the repeal of the Animal Disease Control Act, sections of the Food Safety Act, the entirety of the Fur Farm Act and the Game Farm Act, and sections of the Milk Industry Amendment Act. Have all the provisions that have been deleted been subsumed by this bill?

Hon. T. Lake: Not all the provisions of these acts that are being repealed are subsumed into this legislation. As I mentioned, a good example is the Bee Act, where the applicable parts were brought into this legislation. Others would be covered under regulation, and that's the case for some of these other acts as well.

[ Page 3315 ]

Sections 104 to 119 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to report completion of the bill without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1655]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

Bill 19, Animal Health Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 9, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — POOLED REGISTERED PENSION

PLANS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:57 p.m.

section 1.

M. Farnworth: I expect that we'll be able to get through this relatively quickly. There are a number of areas where I do have some questions. I think I talked to the minister ahead of time already about some opportunities for BCIMC. I'll do it in the

section under regulations, and we can have a discussion there.

Hon. M. de Jong: Might I simply introduce to the committee Cynthia Callahan-Maureen and Marcus Gill, who are joining us for the debate.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.