2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 1

CONTENTS

Page

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, Annual Report 2010-11

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Heart of Richmond AIDS Society

L. Reid

Victoria Car Share Co-Op

C. James

Samuel Brighouse Elementary School

R. Howard

Bhangra music and dance exhibit

R. Chouhan

Rally for microfinance awareness

D. Horne

National Child Day and rights of children

C. Trevena

Oral Questions

Auditor General report on environmental assessment process and permit backlog

A. Dix

Hon. T. Lake

Hon. S. Thomson

C. James

Drinking water protection and legislation

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Grant’s law and protection for workers

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Government brochure on marketing businesses in China

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. P. Bell

Auditor General access to information in B.C. Rail court case

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Utilities Commission, annual report, 2010-11

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act (continued)

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2011

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

L. Popham

N. Macdonald

D. Donaldson

R. Fleming

M. Sather

V. Huntington

S. Fraser

Statements

Withdrawal of comments

Hon. S. Bond

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2011 (continued)

S. Fraser

D. Routley

G. Gentner

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

[ Page 8801 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Les: I have a number of introductions today. I will start with the consul general for the United States of America, who is based in Vancouver, Ann Callaghan. She is joined today by the deputy consul general, Sigrid Emrich. The consul general is in Victoria for various meetings, including one I had with her earlier today, and she is also here to take

part in the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region 2011 winter meeting, which is taking place here in Victoria this week.

As you know, we in British Columbia greatly value our close relationship with the United States, and we look forward to working with Ms. Callaghan during her time here in our province. Would the House please join me in making Ms. Callaghan and Ms. Emrich feel very welcome.

I've already referred to the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region winter meeting that's happening here in Victoria in the coming days. On the floor of the House we have a number of the delegates who are here in that regard. I will introduce them to the House, and if we could hold our applause until they've all been introduced.

Starting with Linden Bateman, who's a representative of the Idaho State House; Max Black, who is an Idaho State legislator; Deborah Boone, state representative from the Oregon Legislative Assembly; Lawerence Denney, Speaker of the House from the State of Idaho; Dennis Egan, Alaska State senator; Karen Fraser, Washington State senator; Phil Hart, representative of the state of Idaho; Bob Herron, representative from the Alaska State Legislature; Jim Honeyford, Washington State senator; Charlie Huggins, Alaska State senator; Jim Peterson, president of the Montana State Senate; Gary Stevens, Senate president of the Alaska State Legislature; Jeff Thompson, state representative from the Idaho House of Representatives; Elliott Werk, senator from the Idaho State Senate; Mike Schaufler, representative from Oregon State and PNWER president; and Don Toff, the Speaker of the Saskatchewan Legislature.

These guests are joining us today on the floor of the House.

As well, there are numerous other PNWER delegates who have joined us and will be joining us in the precincts over the next several days. As I said, they're here for the PNWER winter meetings, and I would like to ask the House to extend a warm welcome to all PNWER delegates.

J. Horgan: On behalf of the official opposition, I want to welcome all of the delegates from jurisdictions in and around British Columbia. It is a pleasure to have you here in the most civilized Legislature in the Dominion of Canada, where order is always in play and pleasantness is the order of the day. Thank you for coming, and we'll see how it goes over the next half-hour.

R. Hawes: Joining us in the precincts today are Dr. Chris McBride, executive director of the B.C. Paraplegic Association, and Linda Annis, director of marketing and development and public relations for the paraplegic association. Could the House please make them both welcome.

C. James: I have two guests in the gallery today — a constituent of mine, Alan Thompson, who is here to watch question period, and he's joined by his friend, a constituent from my colleague from Saanich South, Jonathan Rainer. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: Today it's my pleasure to introduce two special young people in the gallery today. Josiane Houngbo-Anthony and Diego Cardona recently helped organize the Champions for Children and Youth Summit, titled "Fresh Voices from Long Journeys: Insights of Immigrant and Refugee Youth."

Last month more than 120 immigrant and refugee youth gathered for the summit in Vancouver with the Representative for Children and Youth to discuss issues and barriers they face as they build new futures in British Columbia. This afternoon Josiane and Diego will be sharing their insights and recommendations that came out of the summit with the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.

[1340]

Accompanying Josiane and Diego is Vi Nguyen, program coordinator from the Vancouver Foundation. Also joining us today is John Greschner, associate deputy representative. Please join me in helping them feel welcome in the House.

K. Corrigan: I am very pleased that we have in the House today Gordie Larkin, a long-time friend. He was a CLC rep for years — highly respected in this work. He's worked with the United Way labour campaign, and he is also been a director of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Despite that, he continues to be a very good friend and neighbour, and nobody leads Solidarity Forever better than my good friend Gordie Larkin. Would you make him feel welcome, please.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In the House today is a good friend. Bill Brooks is an employee of the Tim Horton's Children Foundation and does a lot of good work through that.

[ Page 8802 ]

He's also a constituent. I would like the House to make him welcome.

C. Trevena: I'd like to join the Minister of Children and Families in welcoming the two young people from the summit who helped to organize the summit — Diego Cardona and Josiane Houngbo-Anthony. They had some very powerful stories to tell to the summit, and I that hope people will listen to those stories.

Also, I would like to welcome Vi Nguyen from the Vancouver Foundation as well. She helped make this summit work. I hope the House will make sure that these people are made very welcome and that their stories are heard and acted upon.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I want to welcome a number of guests who have been here meeting with the members from both sides of the House today on issues that are important to all of us.

I'd like to welcome the officers from the B.C. federation: Jim Sinclair, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Irene Lanzinger, the secretary treasurer; Reid Johnson, who is the president of the Health Sciences Association of British Columbia; Bob Jackson, the regional executive vice-president for British Columbia for the Public Service Alliance of Canada; David Black, the president of the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 378; Brenda Brown, the vice-president of the B.C.

Government and Services Employees Union; Tom Sigurdson, executive director of the B.C. and Yukon Trades Council; Ken Robinson, president of the Hospitals Employees Union; Ray Keen, business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1003.

I had the opportunity to meet with some of these distinguished guests this morning. I very much appreciated the conversation that we had, and I would ask everyone to make them feel warmly welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Don Harder to this Legislature. He's a multiple Grammy Award winner, a Juno Award winner and a proud representative of the Little Mountain Brass Band. His son Derek Harder works in research here — very ably — and he is very proud of him. Will the House please make Don feel very welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sorry, but the member for Chilliwack made an omission in his introductions. A long-time friend of mine, Mike Cuffe, is the state representative from the great state of Montana. Would the House please make him welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: I've known Mr. Cuffe for at least seven minutes.

B. Penner: Like my colleague the member from Chilliwack as well as the Minister of Agriculture, I would like to recognize a couple people who weren't mentioned earlier as being here as part of the delegation from the Pacific Northwest Economic Region. We met a few minutes ago in the Ned DeBeck Lounge, where my long-time friend and legislative colleague from Washington State Jeff Morris was attempting to explain the differences between the U.S. and Canadian parliamentary or legislative systems.

Also attending is George Eskridge, a representative from Idaho, and his wife. They're taking

part in a further ongoing discussion that's happening right now down the hallway in the Douglas Fir Room, further exploring the differences between the Canadian and U.S. Systems.

[1345]

In preparing them for what some of the members will see here in question period today, I was telling them that it's a form of theatre. The member for North Coast described it as good theatre. I'm not sure that I fully subscribe to that view. It's certainly theatre. Whether it's good is another matter.

Also there were the members for Richmond-Steveston and Abbotsford South.

Generally, we were trying to prepare them for what they're about to see during question period, and the heckling we're now hearing from the gallery, from a very rambunctious individual is indicative, I think, of what you'll see during question period.

My daughter and my wife are contributing to that, so I'd like to also introduce the two leading ladies in my life, two very beautiful young women: Daris LaPointe and Fintry Penner.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the Office of the Ombudsperson, 2010-2011.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HEART OF RICHMOND AIDS SOCIETY

L. Reid: I rise today to dedicate my remarks to two amazing Richmond residents, because in the words of k.d. lang, Joanna and Brian Wardley beautifully combine. They have been the heart and soul of the Richmond AIDS Society since its inception.

After 14 years of operation the Heart of Richmond AIDS Society continues to address HIV/AIDS in the community of Richmond by supporting the needs of HIV-positive persons and their family and friends. The creation of the Gilwest Clinic at Richmond Hospital — which provides access to specialists, nurses, pharmacists, counsellors, social workers and a dietician

[ Page 8803 ]

— is a critical achievement which continues to build awareness.

Their prevention education program moved into its fourth year of operation in 2011 and continues to reach young people throughout the Richmond school district. The program also continues to be well received by youth and school staff alike.

Supporting persons with HIV/AIDS and their families and loved ones continues to be a central focus of the society. This past year this support program experienced another solid year of service provision in the areas of counselling, group support, advocacy and food and health care. They have maintained a range of material supports offered to their clients, while their relationships with other health professionals and service providers have deepened.

These connections continue to play an integral role in providing support services to their clients. I have attended their monthly dinners and know how important this outreach is in our community.

The services of the Heart of Richmond endeavour to respond in the most effective manner possible to the impact that HIV and AIDS have on the members of our community. I would like to extend special thanks to everyone who's involved and in particular to the volunteer board member staff for their ongoing dedication to providing these services.

It was my pleasure to attend their gala in November and reconnect with lovely souls who believe in this work.

My heartfelt thanks to each and every one of you.

VICTORIA CAR SHARE CO-OP

C. James: It all started with a few friends and one vehicle. Fifteen years ago they came together with a bright idea and started the first car-share co-op in North America. Before long other co-ops were popping up in cities across the continent.

Now the Victoria Car Share Co-op is proudly celebrating its 15th anniversary. It operates a fleet of 22 vehicles shared by more than 500 members around Victoria. All operational costs are paid from vehicle usage revenues and administration fees.

Victorians have embraced car-sharing as a practical and convenient transportation solution. Car-sharing offers the benefits of owning a vehicle without the cost. Car-sharing spreads that cost among many people instead of just one or two.

Belonging to the co-op is cost-effective, convenient and environmentally friendly. Research has shown that car-sharing can significantly reduce the number of vehicles on the road and, in doing so, help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Households that share vehicles tend to cycle, walk and take transit more often. People also drive smarter when they're sharing a car because they do their errands all at once rather than several trips to the store, and those who choose car-sharing prefer more fuel-efficient vehicles, like hybrids and Smart cars.

In the last two years the Victoria Car Share Co-op has grown by more than 30 percent, and members of the co-op also have access to other car-share networks in Canada, including Vancouver, the Kootenays and Smithers.

We learned it as children, and the lesson holds. Sharing is a good thing.

I hope all members will join me in congratulating the Victoria Car Share Co-op on its 15th anniversary and thank its members for doing their part to make our air cleaner and our community a better place to live and get around.

SAMUEL BRIGHOUSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

R. Howard: I recently had the pleasure of attending the opening of a new school in my riding, the new and much improved Samuel Brighouse Elementary. I also had the pleasure of being a student at the old Samuel Brighouse Elementary in the '60s, when the old school was still brand-new.

[1350]

It's amazing to reflect back on those years and the then new school. Back then the new was represented by classroom seats that were not joined by a wooden rail, and the new seats were made out of some kind of composite. The outside windows had these newfangled roll of shutters. It was all pretty advanced stuff. The landscaping back then consisted of grass and a crushed gravel parking lot.

We fast-forward to 2011, when the landscape and buildings themselves have become teaching tools. Community gardens, green roofs, solar panels, rainwater catchment, pine beetle wood, a smart heating and ventilating system. The list is seemingly endless.

However, the most impressive feature of this new school is that it is designed as a neighbourhood learning centre. The building is designed to be used by the entire community, and the design process was kicked off by asking the students what they wanted their new school to look like. You can see their thoughts reflected in this new school.

I would like to congratulate the board of education past chair Linda McPhail, current chair Donna Sargent and the rest of the Richmond school trustees, as well as the school principal, Mr. Adam Heeney, vice-principal Denise Chambers and their whole team, for creating a place where I am sure that people will want to be for many years to come.

BHANGRA MUSIC AND DANCE EXHIBIT

R. Chouhan: Let's talk about bhangra today. I am sure that all members in this House have seen bhangra and

[ Page 8804 ]

have danced with the performers. Bhangra is a lively form of music and dance that originated in the Punjab. It reflects the long and often tumultuous history of that region. While bhangra began as a part of the harvest festival celebrations, it eventually became a part of such diverse occasions as weddings and new year celebrations. Moreover, during the last many years bhangra has enjoyed a surge in popularity worldwide.

Today I rise to acknowledge the first museum exhibition on South Asian Canadian history, Vancouver's Bhangra Story. It is co-produced by the Museum of Vancouver and the Vancouver International Bhangra Celebration Society and co-curated by Naveen Girn and Viviane Gosselin.

I had the pleasure of visiting this interactive exhibit this summer. It connects Vancouver's unique bhangra music and dance with politics, identity and diasporic life. This important exhibit reflects the stories of South Asians living in Canada, using culture as a lens to see the history of labour movements, gender roles, transnational sound and identity. As a young activist in the South Asian community, my colleagues and I used bhangra as a tool to educate, organize and mobilize the farmworkers. We used bhangra as a storytelling tool to teach people about the value of their labour.

I am proud to be part of this important exhibit. Because of its popularity it has been extended to January 2012. I encourage you all to experience the rich cultural history of bhangra. Visit this interactive exhibit to play instruments, read about bhangra's connection to social protest or dance in the performance lounge.

RALLY FOR MICROFINANCE AWARENESS

D. Horne: Starting this Saturday from November 19 to 28, my former boss and longtime friend Dr. Steven Funk will lead his Race4Change Team in three custom-built classic Porsches in the East African Safari Classic Rally. This gruelling 5,000 kilometre race over treacherous terrain tests both drivers and vehicles. However, the race is only a backdrop for Funk's vision, which is to raise awareness for microfinance.

Microfinance provides small amounts of critical startup money at very low interest to impoverished persons wanting to establish a fruit stand, farm, sewing business, repair shop or other entrepreneurial endeavour. It gives recipients a hand up instead of a handout.

Microfinance allows individuals to receive the money needed to realize their dreams. Repayment is higher than 95 percent, much higher than what we see here in North America oftentimes. Race4Change empowers women in Kenya and helps them feed, clothe and care for their children. Race4Change and other providers of microfinance offer dignity to the poor, break the poverty cycle by providing the latest model that allows people to help themselves.

[1355]

His vision began when he completed in the 2009 safari in his Peugot 504 coupe while supporting Nobel Peace Prize nominee Ingrid Munro and her Jamii Bora microfinance association.

In 2011, Race4Change has grown larger, attracting such other sponsors as Tuthill Porsche, the Sager Foundation, bugbam.com, support from President Clinton's foundation — all groups giving their resources and support to the very good and ambitious campaign.

I wish Steven Funk's Race4Change team, consisting of Björn Waldegård, Fabrizia Pons, Travis Pastrana, Ian Duncan and Patrick Njiru, all the best. I urge you to find out more at www.race4change.org. All donations go directly to the microfinance loans, and nothing goes to the rally.

NATIONAL CHILD DAY

AND RIGHTS OF CHILDREN

C. Trevena: It's perhaps appropriate that I mark National Child Day today, a few days early, while we have in the gallery some exceptional young people, people who are active in designing and implementing the children and youth summit, by and for immigrant and refugee youth. These young people work for months to develop the two-day conference which left all participants inspired and engaged.

National Child Day is actually on the 20th of November. It marks the adoption of two significant UN documents, the convention on the rights of the child and the declaration of the rights of the child. The young people in the gallery are well aware of these UN declarations and referred to them often during their conference.

We in this House should take note of them also, not just when we mark Child Day, for our record is not good, either in Canada nor in B.C. I'd like to highlight just a couple areas: child poverty and child labour.

On this side of the House we regularly cite the appalling level of child poverty in this province. Allowing children to languish in such poverty is in direct contravention of the United Nations declaration of which we are signatories. That demands that a child "shall have the right to adequate nutrition and housing." The declaration also states the child "shall not be admitted to employment before an appropriate minimum age. He shall in no case be caused or permitted to engage in any occupation or employment which would prejudice his health or education, or interfere with his physical, mental or moral development."

In 2003 we became the jurisdiction with the youngest work start age in North America. Children are protected better in Alabama and Mississippi. Here in B.C. kids can work at any time of the day at any worksite. There's been a tenfold increase in injuries among children.

This year when we mark Child Day, let's do it with sincerity rather than spin. Let's commit to embracing and enforcing the UN declaration on the rights of the child.

[ Page 8805 ]

Oral Questions

AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT ON

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

AND PERMIT BACKLOG

A. Dix: This morning the Auditor General appeared before the Public Accounts Committee — his office and the environmental assessment office — to discuss a report that he released that was sharply critical of the government's approach to environmental assessment. The report concludes that the environmental assessment office's "oversight of certified projects is not sufficient to ensure that potential significant adverse effects are avoided or mitigated."

In fact, we heard in Public Accounts this morning that of 115 certificates issued by the EAO, there had not been a single site visit in six years prior to the release of the Auditor General's report in July.

Given this indictment of the government's record, my question to the Minister of Environment is simple. How can British Columbians have any confidence in the government's approach to environmental assessment?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, I want to thank the Auditor General for the very good work that he did. I met with him to discuss his report. We accept the Auditor General's recommendations, but I do have to take exception to the member opposite's misleading information in terms of site visits.

It's quite clear that the environmental assessment office is one step in the permitting process. Following that, the proponent needs to get permits from Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; Ministry of Mines; Ministry of Environment. These permitting authorities, in fact, do make site visits and follow up on the requirements of those permits.

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I have to admire the new approach of the government to question period. They get a report that's an utter indictment of their record over ten years, and the minister says: "We accept the report, hon. Speaker." Now, whether it's community living, whether it's forestry, whether it's the environment, it's the same thing. We have successive Liberal ministers, and their defence in the last few days is: "You know, if only we'd had a Liberal government in the last ten years, things would be better."

The Minister of Environment refers to the permitting process. So let's move on, and let's ask the Minister of Natural Resource Operations. Boy, that's been a successful reorganization. Information obtained from freedom of information says there's a backlog of 7,000 permits — the minister talks about permits — across natural resource industries. You know, it's not only communities and people who care about the environment who are concerned with the environmental assessment office. It's businesses concerned with the failure of that ministry to deal adequately with permits.

So it's very simple. How can he…?

Hon. K. Falcon: He loves his own voice.

A. Dix: The Minister of Finance just said in this House: "He loves his own voice." You know, it's comic relief over there, hon. Speaker. It's comic relief over there.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Could the member pose the question, please.

A. Dix: A backlog of 7,000 permits is clearly unacceptable. What is the minister doing about it?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, we have identified that there is a backlog issue and a backlog of permits. That is why….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

We're certainly not disappointing our guests, are we?

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: That's why we've provided $24 million to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, to the Ministry of Mines and to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations, in order to address those backlogs. We've got an aggressive timeline to address those. We're providing the resources to be able to do that.

It's very interesting to note that in requesting that information, the members, for example, of the BCGEU, recognize the importance of addressing those, because they recognize how important it is to move forward with economic activity in this province. That's why we've provided that funding, that's why we have an aggressive timeline to address those, and that's why we're committed to provide the economic opportunity throughout all the regions in the province.

[ Page 8806 ]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, I'm sure the minister will agree, and I agree with him, hon. Speaker. You know, they seem reluctant to go through the detailed reports of the Auditor General and the results of freedom-of-information inquiries. They seem reluctant to deal with this, and I understand the minister's problem. I mean, successive Premiers have made a mess of his ministry. They've done and undone. Now they're reviewing the doing and undoing. I think, in fact, that the Minister of Finance under Bill 7 will have to issue a 200-page report just on what the Premier has done to his ministry.

[1405]

The fact of the matter — and the minister will know this — is that the Minister of Finance knew and the government knew that there was a backlog of 7,000 permits when they cut his ministry by $48 million in the spring. They knew that the backlog existed when they cut all of the natural resource ministries by $60 million in the spring. Failure coming in and coming out of the EA process; failure in the permitting process.

If there are timelines, what are they? Let's be specific. Let's lay out the timelines so that the people of British Columbia and investors to British Columbia know what the facts are.

Hon. S. Thomson: The reorganization of the Natural Resource Operations Ministry was designed to provide integrated decision-making, more efficient decision-making, more timely decision-making for decisions on the land base. That's what the reorganization has done.

This restructuring has been supported by all of the associations that we've talked to, the stakeholder groups in the industry. It's been supported by employees. They recognize the importance of the direction that we have within this ministry to provide for that integrated approach, to provide for the efficient decision-making. That, combined with the additional resources that we've been able to provide to the ministry through the B.C. jobs plan, will ensure that we address these backlogs and get economic activity moving in all regions of the province.

C. James: Well, I'd like to tell the minister that he didn't even have support from his former colleague. The member for Kootenay East, who was the former Minister of Energy and Mines, stated last year: "…the resource ministries are starved for resources. You can't get your work done in any of these ministries."

It's a sad spectacle to witness the Premier travelling to Asia, saying that we're open for business, when the reality is that this government can't even provide the basics of an efficient permitting process here at home. That's all because of shortsighted Liberal cutbacks.

My question is to the Minister of Natural Resource Operations. Can he tell this House how he explained to potential investors in China that they would be proponent No. 7,001 when it came to necessary permits if they wanted to come to British Columbia?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, the concerns raised by the member referenced were prior to the additional resources being provided. We've recognized the importance of addressing the backlog. We're providing the resources to be able to do that, and that's what we're committed to do within this ministry — to provide that integrated decision-making, to address the backlogs in many of those permits and permitting areas.

We've also established…. If you want to talk about the investment from the Asia-Pacific as part of our job plan, those are addressed towards major projects. Those are not impacted by the backlog of many of the regular authorizations that we work with. So we're addressing those. We've got a major projects initiative within the ministry and within the government to address that investment from the Asia-Pacific. That's what we'll continue to do. The B.C. jobs plan and our focus on the Asia-Pacific will drive that investment here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I'd just like to remind the minister of the numbers again. Almost a 7,000-permit backlog, $60 million cut last year, and $24 million over two years is going to fix this problem? Everyone knows that's not going to fix the problem, Minister. You need to put the resources in place.

While the Premier is using photo ops to unveil her jobs plan, the Auditor General is sounding the alarm that the environmental assessment office is not doing its job properly. So what have we seen under the B.C. Liberals? We've seen no certainty for business. We've seen no protection for the environment, huge permit backlogs, no oversight, no penalties. The Auditor General is slamming the B.C. Liberals once again.

[1410]

My question is to the Minister of Natural Resource Operations. Given this mess, how can British Columbians have any confidence that the Premier's promise of new economic growth will be subject to any kind of thorough environmental process?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I want to reiterate that we've provided the resources to address the backlog. It's about providing an integrated decision-making on the land base through the new structure of the ministry. It's about providing those additional resources to address the backlog. It's about providing for economic activity throughout the province.

[ Page 8807 ]

I've said very clearly all along that it's also about ensuring that as we go through that process and address the backlog, we're going to ensure that the environmental standards are maintained. That's part of the oversight process, part of the work in addressing the permit backlog. We'll make sure that we move those forward. We'll also make sure that as we do that, the environmental standards are maintained.

DRINKING WATER

PROTECTION AND LEGISLATION

R. Fleming: Yesterday….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a national drinking water report card was issued, and it showed that over the last five years the Liberals have made no progress on protecting drinking water in British Columbia.

Too many communities across B.C. don't have access to clean water, as the Environment Minister well knows. Spences Bridge, next door to his own constituency, has had a boil-water advisory in effect for five years. Many other rural communities in B.C. face similar warnings year after year.

My question is to the Environment Minister. Why have the Liberals done nothing to improve the quality and safety of B.C.'s drinking water during the last five years?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, I would suggest that the member get out and see the province and know that the town of Spences Bridge is actually in his colleague's riding, not my riding.

The fact is that abundant quantities of safe drinking water are what British Columbians expect. That is why over the last ten years we've had the Canada–B.C. infrastructure fund and we've had the British Columbia community water improvement program, the Canada–British Columbia municipal rural infrastructure program, Towns for Tomorrow program — over $330 million from the province of British Columbia.

We will continue to invest in infrastructure throughout the province to ensure that safe drinking water is available to each and every British Columbian.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Here's the Liberal record over a decade in power. This government has not introduced one single drinking water protection plan for any community anywhere in British Columbia, no matter how contaminated the water is.

Here are some quotes from the report yesterday that show how badly British Columbia stacks up against the national record. "All jurisdictions except British Columbia have some mandated form of chemical sampling." Expanded chemical sampling was a specific recommendation made in the wake of the Walkerton inquiry.

Yesterday's report reminds that "there are no completed and legally approved drinking water protection plans in B.C."

The new Water Act was supposed to be ready by late 2010. The minister knows that. Yesterday he says that we may have to wait two more years until 2013. Not good enough.

Again to the minister: why isn't the Liberal government making the security of safe drinking water a top priority for British Columbia?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, it may be the member's view that putting off the water sustainability act is dragging our feet, as I heard the member say on the radio. But actually, if that's how the member wants to characterize the wishes of First Nations communities, then I would think that they would probably feel that's a bit disrespectful.

First Nations communities have asked for more time for input into the water sustainability act. Communities all around British Columbia have said, and engaged with us…. Over 2,250 responses, and they've said: "We would like to take more time. We would like to have draft legislation. We would like more consultation."

If that's what the member opposite calls dragging your feet, well, I don't. I call it listening to British Columbians, and we'll continue to do that.

GRANT’S LAW AND

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

R. Chouhan: Grant De Patie was killed in 2005 trying to prevent a gas-and-dash robbery when he was working alone at Maple Ridge gas station. After his death his family, supported by the B.C. Federation of Labour and others, successfully convinced the province to adopt Grant's law, requiring drivers to pay before filling up and regulations requiring a protective barrier or more than one worker on the night shift.

Earlier this year WorkSafe B.C. announced that it would suspend, or it would continue to suspend, enforcement of these regulations, pending a review whose results we have yet to see.

Could the minister tell us why it is acceptable for regulations protecting workers at risk to go unenforced?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

[ Page 8808 ]

The tragic death of this young man is something that happened a few years ago, and I know that all of us still would extend our deepest sympathy to his family. There is nothing more difficult, I don't think, or few things in life that are more difficult, than a tragedy of this kind.

Certainly, I know that what was important to his family — I believe what was important to his family — was to try to make some sense out of this tragedy. I know they worked with government, with WorkSafe B.C., with the B.C. Federation of Labour on bringing forward Grant's law.

This was the first mandatory gas prepayment law in Canada. Others have followed, but we were the leaders in this one, and it has been tremendously successful. In the past in Vancouver alone gas-and-dash thefts were over 200 a year. I'm happy to say that there was only one incident in 2010. So the legislation has been successful.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: I know that the minister is reluctant to answer my questions, and I'll tell you why the government is so reluctant to enforce these regulations. It's so that the B.C. Liberals can further water down safety requirements for workers at risk. That's the reason they are not enforcing these regulations.

Grant's law has provided leadership, as the minister has said, across the country, and the Liberal government should be seeking to protect and strengthen this law. Instead, the B.C. Liberal government is conducting this review in an attempt to water down regulations and once again put late-night retail workers in harm's way.

Can the minister stand up here today and commit to Grant's family and to the other workers and their families that she will defend Grant's law and not cave in to the pressure to take a step backward, with watering down the regulations?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, thank you to the member opposite. I want to be clear that Grant's law, the gas-and-dash legislation that was brought forward…. We're absolutely committed to it, and there is no intent to change it.

The member opposite is referring to some consultations that WorkSafe B.C. has concluded — extensive public consultation on the "working alone or in isolation" regulations. These are regulations that enhance safety measures for workers who work alone or in isolation, and some retailers have come forward expressing concerns, particularly in rural British Columbia.

[1420]

One of the responsibilities that we have is to make sure that British Columbia is a great place for workers and a great place for employees. We need to make sure that safety is taken into consideration, but we do need to listen in the case of these consultations. WorkSafe, I think, has concluded them, and we are waiting to hear the results of the consultations, which are expected shortly.

GOVERNMENT BROCHURE ON

MARKETING BUSINESSES IN CHINA

S. Chandra Herbert: Last week the Minister of Tourism launched his trip to China by promoting and publishing a tourism guide which endorsed the suggestion that we should ban the promotion of gay tourism and casino tourism in China. Hours later, the minister apologized and admitted there was no such ban.

Government publications go through extensive vetting, researching and editing. They reflect the minister's point of view and the beliefs of his government. Can the minister explain why this Liberal government singled out the banning of gay tourism and casino tourism when we deal with China?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I would like to start out by acknowledging that I did pass on an apology to the member opposite personally and to anyone else who may have been offended by the language in that document. It does not reflect my views nor the views of this government, and it's not something that we condone.

I also did indicate to the member opposite last week that I would ask my deputy to conduct an investigation. I have seen preliminary results from that investigation. I am waiting for my deputy's return from Asia. I'm expecting her to be back on Monday, and at that point I'll be further disclosing what we found.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the minister's first response was to defend the publication and promotion of this brochure, a brochure that was clearly discriminatory. He then blamed the Conservative government in Ottawa; then he blamed the Chinese government. He defended it, and it blew up in his face.

The minister has now had over a week to figure out how his Liberal government got it so very wrong. If the minister wants to right this wrong, he will stand here in this House today and share the preliminary information he has about how his government got it so very wrong.

Hon. P. Bell: I don't want to make light of the situation, because it is a very serious one. We've taken it very seriously. I returned from Asia yesterday afternoon. I had a detailed briefing this morning personally, and my deputy is still in Asia and will remain there until the weekend. I don't think it's appropriate that I disclose any further information on this file until my deputy returns, at which point in time I'll be better able to brief the member opposite and make the House aware of the situation.

[ Page 8809 ]

AUDITOR GENERAL ACCESS TO

INFORMATION IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

J. Horgan: Yesterday the Attorney General stood in this place and said that her government was "cooperating" with the Auditor General, despite the fact that the Auditor General had twice to go to court to have documents released so he can conduct an audit into the $6 million giveaway to the legal team for convicted B.C. insiders Dave Basi and Bobby Virk.

Now, the minister will know that under the Auditor General Act,

section 9, it says: "The auditor…must keep in confidence all information obtained in the exercise of a power or in the performance of" his duties.

In light of that, why is it that the government doesn't trust the Auditor General?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm going to reiterate the same answer that I gave the member opposite yesterday. We are in no way blocking the opportunity for the Auditor General to receive important information. In fact, we have waived privilege when it comes to cabinet documents. We are doing what is required as the Attorney General to make sure that when it comes to third-party protection of information, we are complying with that request through the courts.

But let's be perfectly clear. We are supporting the Auditor General, we have released all documents that we are permitted to release, and we will continue to cooperate with the Auditor General.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I don't know how difficult this is. Most British Columbians assume that cooperating means: "How can I help you? What can I do to accelerate your process?" But in the B.C. Liberal world what that means is that we need to protect someone's interests, and it always is a B.C. Liberal interest, not the public interest.

[1425]

I know we have a batch of questions from the Premier to the government about the $6 million payoff, but let's start with just the question of the auditor. The Premier stated, with respect to the municipal auditor: "Nobody in government really likes having an Auditor General because they often point to the things you're not doing so well or that you could do better, and that creates a tension that exists in government that doesn't protect the taxpayers' interests."

Again, to the Attorney General: how about some genuine cooperation? How about trusting the Auditor General and getting to the bottom of this? The public, the people of B.C., want to know why $6 million is going to the legal team for two convicted B.C. Liberal insiders.

Hon. S. Bond: Either the member opposite is uninformed or is knowingly misleading this House. Let's have a look at page 2. Let's be clear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, in the document filed….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. S. Bond: In the document that was filed, the member opposite might want to turn to page 2. In page 2, under the part that says "Factual basis," let's read item (c): "The provincial government has repeatedly advised...." This is in the courts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, take your seat again. Attorney, take your seat.

Members. Members.

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps under

section 2, item (c). It states, in the factual basis, that "the government has repeatedly advised the Auditor General that it is willing to provide him and his office with access to all documents potentially subject to third-party, solicitor-client privilege as soon as the issues in that regard are resolved" — has repeatedly advised we are willing to provide those documents once the issue is resolved.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the 2010-11 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: The orders of the day this afternoon…. We will continue with committee stage of Bill 13, intituled the Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act. Should we complete that, we'll be moving to second reading on two other bills this afternoon, 19 and 17.

[1430]

[ Page 8810 ]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Metal Dealers and

Recyclers Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 13; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

K. Corrigan:

Section 24 of the Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act, which we're continuing on with today in committee stage, deals with injunctions and the ability for there to be an application to the Supreme Court for an injunction.

I have a question about the operation of subsection 24(3), which provides that "With respect to considering an interim injunction under subsection (1), (

a) the court must give greater weight, importance and the balance of convenience to the enforcement of this Act than to the continued operation of the person or business entity."

I was interested in this change, essentially moving the burden of proof, and I'm wondering if the minister can let me know whether there are precedents for this type of provision and whether it's a usual type of provision to tell the court, direct the court, what they must give weight to.

[1435]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to once again welcome staff from the Solicitor General Ministry to the House today — Clayton Pecknold, Kjerstine Holmes and Kathy Kirby — who began our work yesterday in the afternoon on this bill.

There is precedent. It is actually replicated, as much of the bill is, based on the Security Services Act.

K. Corrigan: We heard yesterday that many of the provisions of the act are based on that act. Nevertheless, I'm wondering…. Maybe I can get an explanation on this. This does not simply place the burden of proof on the act as opposed to "the continued operation of the person or business entity." It somehow seems to…. It says that it has to be given greater weight.

I do not understand exactly how that operates, because what a court does is balance one side versus the other. How do you, in a concrete way, give greater weight to that? Does it mean that the evidence from that side is more important, even if it isn't more persuasive? I wonder if I could get an explanation of that.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we are, in essence, giving guidance to the courts in terms of the importance of this act, and they make balanced decisions about that. They balance those decisions all of the time. In essence, in considering the information that's before the courts, we are putting the focus in a particular area. It is not without precedent. As I said, it is also covered and replicated in the Security Services Act.

[1440]

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm wondering: in framing this act, did the minister, with the assistance of staff, take a look at whether or not injunctions had been applied for and granted or not granted under this similar provision in the previous act? Has there been any court experience, any precedent, and did that in any way affect the decision to include this?

Hon. S. Bond: No. Well, the Security Services Act has not…. There has not been a situation where that has been utilized, and in fact, this is another one of the tools that we are looking to include and clearly articulate to push compliance. As I said on numerous occasions yesterday afternoon during the very lengthy discussion we had, the goal of this bill is to bring compliance to the industry. It has been welcomed by many legitimate metal dealers and recyclers. Again, this is a way to create an incentive for people to comply.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm interested that it hasn't come up in court yet, that there haven't been precedents. My understanding of the law is that when a case is taken to a judge or justice, what happens is that there can certainly be statutory requirements that the burden of proof go one way or the other or with the level of the burden of proof — beyond a reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities — and a reverse onus.

But I haven't heard of a judge, when they're making a decision about whether they're going to have an injunction or not, not to simply balance the evidence and the information in making the decision but be directed actually to say that you will give more weight, importance and the balance of convenience to the enforcement of the act rather than to the continued operation of the person or business entity. I haven't seen anything like that before, and I'm wondering if the ministry, in framing the act, had any concern about whether or not there could be a challenge to this section.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, we always craft legislation with the eye that there not be the potential for challenge. That's why we work very carefully with the appropriate constitutional lawyers and others who advise us.

This is not a new section. It is a

section that is also in place in the Security Services Act. In fact, the other two points that are critical are that this is an interim injunction

[ Page 8811 ]

and, secondly, that this is after a series of examples of non-compliance. This is basically to bring focus to the fact that this is not a first occasion, that there is non-compliance. It is for an interim injunction, and it is not a new section. It is included in another similar act.

K. Corrigan: I'm certainly not disagreeing with the intent of the section, and I recognize that this would be as a result of multiple infractions or misbehaviour. But that's not really what my question was about. It was more about evidentiary rules and how they're applied — and just wanting to ensure that if we're supporting this section, that it is fully supportable and would not be subject to a challenge because the court is being directed to do something which would be in their purview, as opposed to the ability of government to provide direction. But unless the minister has something else to say on that, I won't ask any more questions on that.

[1445]

Hon. S. Bond: No, we simply want to present the bill. We have worked to assume that there will not be a challenge. In fact, as we've said, in practice we certainly have not seen that occur with the Security Services Act.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

K. Corrigan:

Section 25 deals with offences under this act as opposed to what we spoke about earlier and what is earlier in the act, which are administrative penalties. My understanding is that if somebody is found to have committed an offence, as opposed to going through the administrative penalties process, the penalties themselves are more severe and, in addition, the fallout, I guess in some ways, is more severe.

The

section provides that anybody "who contravenes any of the following commits an offence: (

a) sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 or 8."

Section 2 is the one that said you can't sell metal without identifying.

Section 3 is that you cannot buy metal without getting all the identification that is required under the act.

Section 6 talks about providing information to the police.

Section 7 talks about keeping the transaction info, and

section 8 requires the registration.

What is missing here is

section 5 of the offence act. I don't have it with me right now, but I believe.… No,

section 5 is there. Never mind. I'm getting ahead of myself.

Okay, my question was: why not

section 4? Why is

section 4 not included under the list of provisions that mean somebody would have committed an offence if they contravened the section?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sorry. We need to ask for clarification as to which

section 4 of which act. We were with the member opposite to a certain point, and then we have no idea which act or which section. So if she could clarify.

K. Corrigan: I apologize. That is entirely my fault because I changed my train of thought in the middle. I'd gotten ahead of myself.

Section 25(1)(

a) says that "a person who contravenes any of the following commits an offence…" The sections that are referenced — that somebody could commit an offence by contravening these sections — were 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. So somebody could commit an offence by contravening.

But

section 4 of the act deals with stolen property. That's the one that says: "If a metal dealer or recycler or any of its employees has reasonable grounds to believe that regulated metal in the possession of the metal dealer or recycler is stolen property, the metal dealer or recycler or the employee, as applicable, must immediately inform the local police authority of the fact."

This is the one that says they have to inform the police if they believe that it's stolen property. I'm wondering why that isn't included in the sections which say that you are committing an offence if you don't follow it.

Hon. S. Bond: We did canvass this extensively yesterday in

section 4, but for the member opposite, there is no offence associated with the requirement as it was determined that doing so would characterize the

section as having an intent to create criminal law.

[1450]

K. Corrigan: We did talk about it, but not in the context of creating an offence. So is the minister now saying that if

section 4 had been included, the provincial government would have taken a step, perhaps, over the line, entering into federal jurisdiction and entering the area of criminal law, which they can't do?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, these would be…. There are offences in the Criminal Code. In fact, in looking at our discussion yesterday and looking back, the question that the member opposite asked was how this would fit into the Criminal Code of Canada, when we were discussing

section 4. In fact, we have canvassed it, and yes, that is the answer.

K. Corrigan: Yeah, I appreciate that we did discuss it and about the fact that there was a fitting-together and there's align with the Criminal Code. But I did not understand at that point, because we weren't at

section 25 yet, that that would mean that the government could not include, as a provincial offence,

section 4. I appreciate that clarification. Unless the minister wants to respond further, I'll go on to the next thing.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me how the decisions were made about what could be an offence

[ Page 8812 ]

and what could be an administrative penalty. Are there things in here…? I'd have to go back and go through it all, but there are provisions in here that simply are subject to administrative penalties and some which are subject to being called offences. I'm wondering how the decisions were made.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the differentiation is based on — well, partly on — the seriousness. But in terms of administrative sanctions, they are more directly related to the recordkeeping regime, the compliance in regard to collecting of information — those kinds of things.

In the case where we're looking at committing an offence, obviously there's the opportunity for Crown or, potentially, law enforcement to be involved. So the administrative sanctions are related to the recordkeeping regime. Less serious, certainly, but also we would see that potentially, police or Crown could be involved with those things that are considered an offence.

K. Corrigan: But the sections that have been cited as being ones which, if contravened, could be committing an offence are precisely the ones that are to do, or much of it is to do, with recordkeeping: providing the identification, keeping the information, transaction information — all of those things.

Can I assume, then, that it primarily has to do with the seriousness of the contraventions that would determine whether or not it would be an offence or whether there would be an administrative penalty applied?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that's a fair

interpretation. I think there is also…. We recognize there is overlap.

[1455]

Obviously, the police or Crown are going to be interested in public safety, particularly the more serious items that would be considered an offence. But yes, there would be overlap, and it probably is a degree, as the member opposite points out.

K. Corrigan: You will have to forgive my lack of complete knowledge of how things work under the Offence Act. So if somebody is going to be charged with committing an offence as opposed to an administrative penalty, what would the process be? Would it not be the inspection officers that could actually lay that charge, or does it have to be the police? I'm trying to figure out what the relationship is there.

Hon. S. Bond: Okay. We had a very interesting discussion about the process, so it was obviously a good question — timely for both the member and I.

In fact, the inspectors will focus particularly on the regulatory regime, so they would not be responsible for the offence part of the process. An inspector would be able to go in and take a look. There is routine oversight. If there is something that is not done appropriately, it could result in a fine — a ticket of some sort.

If that were to increase or if there were a significant pattern or if the seriousness of the behaviour continued, the registrar would be able to then look at that. The registrar could then look at multiple times that there has been non-compliance. The registrar can also, as the member might recall, issue the larger fee, which is the $5,000 to the $50,000. But after that, if there were to be….

I think we move into the next sections, which talk about the more serious offences. At that point, as it escalates, the police or the Crown may be involved. But the inspector does the routine regulatory reviews, deals with the issuing of, potentially, a one-time offence penalty. But as it escalates, it would move its way up from the inspector to the registrar and, ultimately, with the serious offences, police or Crown.

[1500]

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that. That's helpful to me as well.

Just to be clear, the minister said that there could be a one-time offence. Was the minister talking about offence, in the term of "offence," to say…? No. Okay. That's fine. I understand. I just wanted to make it clear.

So if somebody was going to be charged with an offence under this act, then it would necessarily be done via the police, and the registrar would probably make that recommendation. Then it would be the police that would be proceeding and making recommendations to Crown counsel and going from there. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct, and I should correct the record. I shouldn't have used the word "offence." I should have used "violation" or "infraction."

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: Okay, good. I'm glad. The member said she wasn't offended, and I'm happy about that. I was trying to find the correct word. So yes, the description that the member gave is accurate.

K. Corrigan: Maybe I should reword that. I didn't take offence. That's what I meant.

If somebody is charged with an offence, or if the proceedings go by way of the administrative penalties, in either of those cases, the person who had been charged — would their name be entered into the PRIME-BC database?

Hon. S. Bond: If charged or investigated, yes.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I just want to be clear — charged and investigated with an offence. How about if charged or investigated under the administrative procedures of the act?

[ Page 8813 ]

Hon. S. Bond: No, because at that point it would not involve Crown or police.

K. Corrigan: Okay, so charged or investigated. So if somebody was investigated by the police but charges were not laid, that person's name would go into the PRIME-BC database?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, that question is beyond the scope of this act. It does talk about offences, but it doesn't assume what the police will or will not do. In practice, if the police are investigating or charging, obviously it does go into their database. But that is beyond the scope of this bill.

K. Corrigan: I do appreciate that. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the full impact of the act could be. So that was just, I assume, a clarification, then? Information, if it doesn't go to the police, doesn't end up on PRIME-BC?

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: The assistant deputy minister of police services assures me that if an investigation starts and the police are involved, then it goes into PRIME. But other information, if it's related to administrative or other infractions, does not. But if the police are involved, they would make the decision to use their database.

K. Corrigan: Is it possible…? Could the minister see, in the operation of this act, that there could be a weighing of which way to go — that perhaps investigation would start in a dual way, or the registrar would be looking at how to proceed, and at some point a judgment call would be made that it should be…?

I mean, I understand what the minister has said about increasing severity. But is it possible that a decision could be made that it should be investigated by the police — the information, therefore, would go into PRIME — but then at some point it's decided that proceedings will go by way of the administrative process. Is that something that is contemplated?

Hon. S. Bond: The best way to capture this is that it is not likely to be routine that that would occur. There could be the circumstance where the police do investigate and decide that there would not be charges pursued. That, though, would not necessarily trigger the administrative penalty process. They're separate, so it doesn't mean the registrar would automatically go back and take a look at that.

It's important that I put this on the record. Certainly, in terms of the management of PRIME, it is managed under the freedom of information and protection of privacy. There are very significant rules related to the capturing of that data. So we would not expect it to be routine at all that there would be a large number of circumstances where the police would investigate, have the information in PRIME, and then nothing would be pursued. We don't expect that to be routine at all.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you for those answers. I have a question about this

section 25(5), which provides: "If a business entity commits an offence under this section, an employee, officer, director or agent of the business entity who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the commission of the offence also commits an offence."

So I am wondering if the business entity, as an entity itself, can be charged with an offence and found guilty of the offence and then have this larger penalty attached to it. I just want clarification on that. I assume that's the case, but….

Hon. S. Bond: Both the business or the individual could be charged.

K. Corrigan: I was pretty clear on that. I just wanted to make sure I had it right.

Subsection (7) says: "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply for the purposes of this Act." This is where I got ahead of myself earlier, and I apologize for confusing all of us, including myself.

[1510]

Section 5 of the Offence Act says: "A person who contravenes an enactment by doing

an act that it forbids, or omitting to do

an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment."

I'm wondering: was this

section specifically excluded because it didn't want all sections…? It wanted to determine which sections of this act constituted an offence. Is that why this

section was not included?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

K. Corrigan:

Section 26 is the one that provides what the penalties are for committing an offence under this act. It provides that "An individual who commits an offence…is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $10 000 or imprisonment for not longer than 6 months, or both." And then: "

(2) A business entity that commits an offence under

section 25 is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $100 000."

Again, my understanding is that it would be the same as when we were speaking yesterday about the Administration Act, in that the total for any given set of circumstances could add up to more than $100,000. Is that correct? There could be individual and business entity charges.

[ Page 8814 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, that's correct.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Now, it provided earlier in the act that when there was a fine under the administrative penalties, the registrar would "pay all amounts derived from administrative penalties into the consolidated revenue fund."

My question here is: because there is no similar provision in this section, what happens to fines that are levied when there has been an offence committed?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it would be the consolidated revenue fund, and it would be as other offence penalties. It would be the same process.

K. Corrigan: So the reason that there was no specific provision about what happens with these fines as opposed to the administrative penalties is that this is the normal course of events. When there is an offence, there are fines for an offence as opposed to the administrative penalties, where you had to provide for that in the act. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

K. Corrigan:

Section 27, this part, deals with the registrar of metal dealers and recyclers. "The minister must appoint, under the Public Service Act, an individual as the Registrar of Metal Dealers and Recyclers." I just want to confirm — I believe it was said before — the expectation is that the registrar would be the same registrar as under the Security Services Act? Have I got that right?

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: It is the minister that appoints. The staff will be making a recommendation to me, and I'm assured that the recommendation I receive will be the current registrar that we have within the framework of the ministry.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

Actually, you know what? I've read through it, and it's fine. I have no questions on that particular section.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

section 30.

K. Corrigan:

Section 30 says: "This Act does not apply to a person who purchases or sells a used motor vehicle that has been, or will be, crushed for the purposes of recycling it." I'm wondering, when we have the act that is dealing with, essentially, trying to remedy theft of metal, why it is that there was a decision made that those that are in the business of crushing automobiles and recycling them — why this was not included in the act.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the decision was made to exempt this group because they actually fall outside the scope of the legislation as we believe, since it focuses on protecting critical infrastructure. So from our perspective, we needed also to be conscious of how broad the legislation is when it captures the auto wreckers.

I should point out to the member opposite, though — because this was certainly an item for discussion as we crafted the bill — that one of the things that's important to remember is that if the auto wrecker or people who crush vehicles were to begin to purchase other metals that are listed in the regulated metal list or metal that is relevant to critical infrastructure, they would be. At least, that part of their business would certainly be drawn under this bill.

K. Corrigan: So was this decision made because there were other regulatory schemes or a framework that was felt would cover, or is it felt there was no need to cover automobiles? Because it seems to me that this would be, potentially, an area where you could have abuse as well.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I think, really, the intent is that the primary goal of the bill is to protect public safety in light of the growing problem that we've experienced with metal theft from critical infrastructure. So the bill is focused on high-value metal, and I think that's also an important consideration for the Privacy Commissioner. I am sure there is an important connection to not casting the net too broadly.

We also did look at best practice, as we discussed yesterday, in regard to municipal bylaws, which also exclude vehicle crushers from the application of scrap metal transaction monitoring. Again, we are attempting to monitor and focus on the transaction to shut down the market in high-value metals which relate most specifically to public safety.

[1520]

So there was, I think, a fairly good discussion about this section, and we made the decision that, in essence,

[ Page 8815 ]

we wanted to focus on the public safety aspect and on those high-value metals.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

K. Corrigan:

Section 31 is a rather lengthy

section — about a page and a half long, a page and a third long — that deals with regulations allowing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulation. As we all know, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is cabinet….

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: My parents are from Alberta. I say "lieutenant." It's my background. I can't say it. I'll try. Thank you for the lesson from the members opposite.

This provision is, as I was saying, a very lengthy provision that allows cabinet to make regulations with regard to this act. The length of this

section just, I think, highlights the concern that I have expressed before. There are so many parts of this act that are not going to be passed, debated, discussed in this chamber because so much of it is going to be done by regulation which, again, is done by cabinet behind closed doors. There is no debate related to it.

I recognize that the minister has over and over said that the reason for that is to provide flexibility, but I think there are other ways that some flexibility could have been provided while at the same time allowing for this chamber to have a chance to debate what really is the essence of the act. So much of it is in the details of what is going to be regulated and how it's going to be done.

That's just a final comment on this very lengthy section. I don't actually have any questions on the individual workings of each of the sections or subsections in this particular section.

Sections 31 to 33 inclusive approved.

On the title.

K. Corrigan: I just have a question on the title. I went to the announcement of this act that was in the rotunda a couple of weeks ago, and there was a big sign there that I thought said "the theft of metal act." Am I mistaken or not? Was this originally going to be called the theft of metal act, or was it just a sign that said "theft of metal"?

Hon. S. Bond: The title has always been intended to be this title.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Metal dealers and

recyclers act

Bill 13, Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1525]

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading of Bill 19, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2011.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2011

Hon. S. Bond: Switching hats, Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 19, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2011, now be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. S. Bond: Bill 19 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act include a number of changes to ensure the continued ability of the commission to meet its statutory obligations effectively by focusing on preserving farmland while expanding enforcement. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture will address the changes in more detail during debate.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Amendments to the Mines Act provide the power to introduce regulations, exempting specified low-risk activities from the requirement for a mines permit. This change will reduce the regulatory burden on proponents of specified low-risk activities and allow government resources to concentrate on activities of higher risk to the environment, the public, worker health and safety.

[ Page 8816 ]

Consultation will occur with First Nations, with industry and with the public in developing the regulations.

Amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will add 9.7 hectares of land to the Stawamus Chief Park along the Sea to Sky Highway. These lands are being added to the park as a result of a private land acquisition.

The bill makes two sets of amendments and provides some clarification of regulation-making authority under the Wildlife Act. First, Ministry of Environment conservation officers will have more comprehensive enforcement authority to deal with the mismanagement of attractants, such as garbage and food, in order to prevent human-wildlife conflicts and to increase public safety. Currently, the act only prohibits intentional feeding or attracting of dangerous wildlife. The changes will put the responsibility on everyone to do their part to manage attractants that could be a magnet for dangerous wildlife.

The Wildlife Act will also be amended to create new recreational opportunities for youth and adults and support the guide-outfitting industry. Being a guide-outfitter is often a lifetime career, so the bill extends the term of the guiding territory certificate from a maximum of ten years to a maximum of 25 years, creating greater business certainty. The bill also moves the requirement to submit a guide report, following a hunt, from the act to the regulations and provides an opportunity to extend the deadline for submitting the report.

The amendments also create a new mentorship-style initiation hunting licence for B.C. residents 18 years of age and older who want to explore hunting under the close supervision of an experienced hunter. In addition, youth licences will now be available to youths aged ten to 17, up from the current ages of ten to 13. This creates more inclusivity for teen youth and allows for the possibility of new recreational opportunities for interested youth.

A minor amendment to the Public Service Labour Relations Act is necessary to ensure that references to organizations included in the act are current and accurate. Specifically, this amendment will replace the reference to the public affairs bureau with the organization's new name, government communications and public engagement.

The Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act is being amended to expand the scope of the environmental remediation sub-account. This sub-account funds remediation of environmental damage and complex investigations of non-compliance. The amendments will permit the fund to be accessed for remediation or complex investigations caused by a violation of statutes under the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. This will ensure that the ministry is able to fund remediation and investigation costs where they are needed most.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will facilitate British Columbia's implementation of the Canadian driver licence agreement. Without this change, all current B.C. licence holders would need to produce proof of citizenship upon licence renewal. The amendments will enable the government to exempt existing driver's licence holders from the requirement to prove their Canadian citizenship or legal entitlement to be in Canada.

[1530]

The Public Sector Employers Act is "amended by repealing the definition of 'minister'" in two sections. The amendments will ensure that the

interpretation of the term "minister" will occur under the

Interpretation Act and remove any conflicts between the act and orders-in-council designating ministerial responsibility for different portions of the act.

Finally, the bill includes two validating provisions. First, a provision will retroactively validate and provide ongoing application of the Maa-nulth Forest Compensation Interim Regulation. This will ensure that the regulation which provides for a forestry compensation scheme for lands that became Maa-nulth treaty lands continues until all compensation negotiations relating to extinguishment have been concluded.

Also, following the amendments to the Public Sector Employers Act I described earlier, any action or decision taken by the Public Sector Employers Council is validated and deemed to be not affected on the basis that the Minister of Finance did not act as chair of the council for any period of time after June 23, 2008.

L. Krog: Always a delight to rise in the House and speak to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, and I'm sure the Attorney General is just delighted to be the lead on another bill in this chamber. But I will be brief today. I know that the Attorney General will love to hear that. A number of my colleagues will have a great deal more to say about the misc bill because it contains so many various changes and applies to so many various ministries and, therefore, critic roles as well.

I'd be remiss if I didn't note the particular changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The big change there is the change from the public affairs bureau to the government communications and public engagement. My, oh my.

I see that the former Attorney General is so excited he can't resist pounding the desk at this change. I suppose all the jokes about the politburo will now be out of fashion in Victoria.

The government communications and public engagement. Well, well. Ten years into their reign as government, and they want to finally engage the public. I'm so delighted at this forward-looking step that is so going to engage British Columbians. The change of a name, I'm sure, will just bring thousands of British Columbians forth who

[ Page 8817 ]

would otherwise never have thought of consulting the public affairs bureau, when we now have the government communications and public engagement organization.

I'm not sure whether we'll see the public affairs bureau staff, as it formerly was, out in the streets now handing out surveys or perhaps approaching myriads of citizens on the street, asking their opinion of the B.C. Liberal government and all they've achieved in the last decade. It conjures up images of something that's so exciting I can barely contain myself in addressing the bill today.

I'm delighted. Of course, it required a full legislative change — I mean, not simply an order-in-council. We actually have to debate this in this chamber, because this is certainly earthmoving and earthshattering — almost as exciting as the Minister of Finance's bill before the House, which contains all of four sections, as I recall.

B. Ralston: There's going to be a report.

L. Krog: Oh, and there will be a report, the Finance critic assures me, as well. It's just too exciting for words.

You know, hon. Speaker, I'm not sure what that change represents as far as this government is concerned. If this is the best you can cast up as a name change…. I'm reminded of Shakespeare, of course — a rose is still a rose by any other name — but there are probably less kind similes that might describe the name change with reference to substance versus form.

I think we'll all recall the remarks of the first female Prime Minister of Canada — who I remember commenting during a leadership race, I believe, to lead the Social Credit Party of British Columbia — that form without substance was a dangerous thing.

I'm not sure whether the substance of the public affairs bureau as it still exists is going to change or whether, with government communications and public engagement, in fact we will now see this bright new interest in communicating with British Columbians and listening as opposed to actually telling them what a great job the government is doing, regardless of how grim the story may be.

That is, as I say, so interesting that I very much look forward to the opportunity, I'm sure, that many members will wish to take to ask the Minister of Finance exactly what the purpose of this particular change is and why it's so important that we hear it in this House.

[1535]

A number of other changes. The Agricultural Land Commission Act. Our critic will have a great deal more to say about that, but I don't think that is going to solve the problems of agriculture in British Columbia any more than changing the name of the public affairs bureau to the government communications and public engagement organization is going to do.

There are some nice, positive, simple steps that I'm sure won't create many issues for the opposition. But when I see the changes to the Wildlife Act giving conservation officers more enforcement powers to prevent wildlife conflicts and increase public safety…. It's a very good thing, but I guess the real question is: will there be any money to hire people to do more?

The Minister of Environment staff now is barely a shadow of its former self. It's much like the characters in a Victorian novel: living in reduced circumstances, precious little by way of resources, responsible for territories that in many parts of the world constitute nations of millions of people. In fact, the responsibility expected of those who work in the Ministry of Environment — and the Ministry of Forests, for that matter, as well — is simply extraordinary.

The same thing, of course, applies to agriculture. We're shifting around names. We're giving more enforcement powers, but at the end of the day, are we really, really intent on doing anything positive whatsoever with these changes? Are we in fact going to provide the resources to allow these dedicated public servants to do their jobs, to enforce the law, to protect the environment — to protect, if you will, the great legacy that has been left to us by previous generations of British Columbians?

That, I suspect, is not a question that is going to meet with a positive response. I doubt very much that the Minister of Environment is going to stand up and tell us that there will be significant numbers of new hires in his ministry to enable these changes to be, in fact, effective.

I see there is a nice concession to the recognition of the importance of youth participating in hunting and increasing that age limit and providing new opportunities. That's a positive step.

But at the end of the day, like much of what we've seen from this government in the last few years, I'm not convinced and not satisfied that we're really going to see any significant change, that we're going to really see improvement.

To conclude where I started, I think the most obvious conclusion one has to draw from something as inconsequential as changing the name of the public affairs bureau is that this is a great deal more about form than it is about any substance whatsoever — another disappointment from this government and, I'm sure, many more to come between now and May 13.

L. Popham: Well, I didn't think this day was going to come. I've been waiting for one full year for the report from the Agricultural Land Commission chair to be released, and as promised, it came with legislation that we're going to be debating in here at the end of a session.

The report that the commissioner released was about 100 pages long — very, very in-depth, very thorough — and my personal feeling is that it should have been released a year ago to the public and to the stakeholders. It reflected the consultation that took place with over 300 people and 60 stakeholder groups. Basically, that group

[ Page 8818 ]

of people, those stakeholders, including myself, were left in the lurch for one full year, wondering when the minister was going to release this report.

It went through three different ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture. It waited while the budget was decreased, and as we waited, more land was excluded from the agricultural land reserve, more construction fill was dumped on farmland, farms were ruined, farmland was turned into wasteland. One full year.

The chair of the Agricultural Land Commission put a lot of effort into this, and I'd like to say on record that I think it's very insulting that that report was held back for over a year. There are a lot of people in this province who believe very, very strongly in agriculture. It's the backbone of our province, and to hold a report with such critical information, when we all could have been working together, for over a year is unacceptable.

[1540]

That being said, I am relieved that the report is released. The legislation that comes with it…. I've been reading the messaging coming from the other side of the House, and it's hardly a day to celebrate. There's been a baby step made.

We see $600,000 being committed right now to the Agricultural Land Commission, when the minister and I both know that just to clear the backlog of ten years of deterioration with the Agricultural Land Commission support would take $2 million. This government believes agriculture is of such little importance that they only committed $600,000, so they're not actually interested in fixing the problem, because we know that would cost $2 million.

Ten years of eating away at the agricultural land reserve and the commission, and we get $600,000 — $600,000 committed, maybe next year. We haven't seen a commitment for the $1 million for the next budget year. We haven't seen that commitment, but I know there's $600,000 committed.

Just to address the deficit with the mapping infrastructure, the GIS system and getting those ducks in a row will probably take the whole $600,000. That's an expensive process. It could have been dealt with over the years, but instead, now we are going to rush into it.

I know that there's some conversation around cost-sharing. When I went out with the Land Commission enforcement agents to take a look for myself at the fill dumping in the Lower Mainland…. You know, I wondered if the minister — the current minister, the minister before him or the minister before him over the last two years — had actually gone out with the enforcement officers and gone for a ride around the Lower Mainland where the enforcement officers could point out the critical parts where fill dumping is out of control.

I mentioned in this House that I thought fill dumping on farmland was out of control in this province, and on the local radio station here in Victoria, on CFAX, the minister actually said he's never heard that it's out of control. So that makes me curious….

Interjection.

L. Popham: On the ALR? Is that right? The minister is now trying to converse with me in the House. He's saying that the ALC doesn't believe that fill dumping is out of control. I know that the ALC is watching this debate right now. So I'm glad he got that on record in the House that he doesn't believe fill dumping on the ALR is out of control, because it's absolutely out of control — absolutely.

If the minister wanted to solve that problem in this House with his legislation, he would have called for a moratorium on fill dumping until we realize how much damage has been done over the last ten years.

In fact, the minister would have taken a look at all of the applications for fill dumping that were approved. He would have taken a look at the farmland that was involved, and he would have taken a look to see if these farms who had approved dumping on them and unapproved dumping on them were actually more viable ten years later. That's what should be happening. That's what the minister should have been fighting for, because right now we are seeing valuable, valuable farmland be ruined by construction fill because there's no provincial fill dumping plan in this province.

So $600,000 committed now. We've got some rushed legislation. The minister continued to say that he didn't want to release the report without legislation. Well, I don't understand what would have been the problem, except for the fact that we now can't discuss the report for the last year. We don't have 12 months to discuss the recommendations that the chair put forward. We now have to just swallow what the minister has decided is good enough for the Agricultural Land Commission.

One of the recommendations that is absolutely shocking to me is that the minister decided we didn't need to go from a regional commission panel system with the ALC. We didn't need to change that, even though 50 percent of stakeholders said they wanted to go back down to one single panel, provincial panel, with the Agricultural Land Commission.

That was effective back when the New Democrats were running the show, and as soon as the Liberal government came in, they disbanded that provincial ALC panel and decided that six regional panels of three commissioners were going to be more effective.

[1545]

The proof is in the pudding. We all know…. Anyone who's in agriculture, has been involved in agriculture as an advocate, will know that that doesn't work. Having panels around the province doesn't work. It's not my opinion. I mean, I have that opinion as well, but it's not just my opinion. Fifty percent — that would be 150

[ Page 8819 ]

people out of 300 — believed that we needed to go back to a….

Interjection.

L. Popham: I don't know. The minister is wondering which…. It's like he didn't read the report. Which half? So 50 percent. I could go through, and I'll just remind the minister which stakeholders weighed in on this. We've got the B.C. Agriculture Council, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the B.C. Food Processors Association. I don't know if any of these are starting to ring a bell, but these would have been the people that would have said: "No, we don't believe that regional panels are actually effective. In fact, they're damaging the ALR."

The chair of the agricultural commission himself laid it out pretty strongly in his recommendations. I'll just read to you, in case you didn't catch it, what the chair said. Let's see here.

Interjection.

L. Popham: The minister is making comments, but I can't actually hear what he's saying.

Of the groups that discussed the governance issue with the ALC, "50 percent supported the return to a single provincial panel, 23 percent supported the existing regional panels, 7 percent supported a combination of the two options, and 20 percent supported a review of the panel structure." That to me sounds like there might be a problem with the regional panel system.

I can tell you what it might be, because the chair laid it right out. He said: "Pros and cons of a regional three-member panel system." He lists — let's see — 12 cons and two pros.

So the pros: "Applicants support decision-making closer to home. Commissioners are knowledgable about their regional and local issues." I understand that, because if you are living in the same area where you're making decisions on exclusions in the ALR, you would be fairly knowledgable about that area.

But the cons that were involved, which I think are extremely interesting…. If this government claims it wants more accountability and transparency, they should have been reading what the cons were of having these panels.

"Decision-making too close to local governments and people affected by decisions" — so making decisions around things that you might be too close to.

"Lack of provincial focus of the ALR program.

"Do not provide the breadth of experience, knowledge or opinion to examine the host of issues that need to be examined and debated.

"Increased potential for commissioners to be placed in situations of an apprehension of bias of potential conflict of interest.

"Recruitment is often difficult, and some important agricultural areas are not represented.

"Nineteen members of the commission is unwieldy.

"Function more as a permitting agency rather than an administrative tribunal.

"Inconsistent approach to considering applications and administering ALC and provincial policy.

"Personal biases can prevail with such a small decision-making body.

"Chair lacks the statutory authority to intervene on a matter before a panel."

I know that's changed now. The chair does have authority, but he still has to deal with all of these six panels.

"Considerable staff resources are needed to administer panels rather than more thorough, in-depth review of the applications and issues."

And they are "costly to operate."

Given that the Agricultural Land Commission is underfunded…. It's the Auditor General who stated that it was so underfunded it couldn't fulfil its mandate. You would think that one of the points that the chair makes about it being too costly to operate this way would have made an impression on the minister, because we don't have enough money to fulfil the job now. So if there's a way to make cost savings that is even apparently more effective at doing the job, you would do that.

There is a recommendation of a seven-member commission. Then he goes through the pros and cons with that, and he also goes to the pros and cons of a single ten-member commission, which is, in fact, probably where he would like to see us going. We've got 14 pros regarding a ten-member board. So at this point, I'm not quite sure how the minister would have decided to leave things as they were. It doesn't make sense. I think that the minister and I both know that it doesn't make sense.

[1550]

I am still trying to figure that out. I don't know if the minister is going to be discussing that with me or during third reading. But something is a little bit fishy to me when over 50 percent of people who registered their opinions about the Agricultural Land Commission and its governance structure said that the regional panel system doesn't work. It seems to me that that's a message.

And then the chair, the very well-respected chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, Richard Bullock, as well recommended that we go down to a seven- or a ten- single-member commission.

Interjection.

L. Popham: The minister just yelled across the room to me that the chair actually supports the regional system. I'm not sure how that could be, unless the minister waited so long to release this report that this report is now outdated. But I don't think so. He wants me to give the chair a call and discuss it with him. Anyway, I'm….

Interjections.

L. Popham: The government is getting upset on the other side. They're getting a little bit upset because I'm pointing out some glaring, glaring inconsistencies with

[ Page 8820 ]

the way that the minister is producing legislation around a report that we have been waiting for 12 months to receive from the well-respected chair of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. D. McRae: He'll talk to you, if you want to give him a call.

L. Popham: The minister wants me to call the chair. I don't know if I'm supposed to do this right now.

Or maybe he can give you a call.

Maybe the chair can give the minister a call and explain why a regional system doesn't work. Maybe he could do that.

The minister has also stated that the changes made…. I believe there are some good changes. This is not one of them. The regional panel system is not a good change. In fact, I think that it deteriorates the ALR. But there are some good changes. It's a baby step towards strengthening agriculture in the province. It's certainly not the solution. We haven't solved anything here, but we're getting there.

But we have to remember for 10 years the B.C. Liberal government has cut the budget for Agriculture. The B.C. Liberal government has not supported agriculture in this province. So to believe that $600,000 is the fix….

Hon. D. McRae: It's $1.6 million.

L. Popham: A $600,000 commitment right now. Who knows, when the budget comes along, what excuses there'll be when that $1 million commitment actually has to come into play? But we can see from the messaging around this report that this is supposed to lead us to believe that the agricultural land reserve is stronger than ever. That's what it's supposed to lead us to believe.

But it's funny. The day after this report was released, another report was released, and it was the Report on the Budget 2012 Consultations . This report — in fact, on page 47, in case the minister wants to look it up: "Investing in northern development." There are a couple points here around the agricultural land reserve. So we are now…. According to the minister and what has happened with the ALC, the ALR is stronger than ever.

But you can see on point 16 that there is a recommendation to "remove an appropriate amount of land from the agricultural land reserve so that Fort Nelson can expand its residential land base to accommodate the growth pressures and demands of developing" gas exploration. [Applause.]

We've got a member clapping for that, which is, you know, very appropriate.

So we are now stating…. And this is really where the heart of the whole problem is for the last ten years. This is why we have a problem with the agricultural land reserve and this government — because the highest and best use for agricultural land, in the eyes of the B.C. Liberals, is development. That's how the Liberals value agricultural land — highest and best use, anything but agriculture. Anything but agriculture.

Interjections.

L. Popham: That upsets the government when I say things like that because they know that it's true, and they know that the people in this province….

Interjections.

L. Popham: Oh, I've got some…. They want to talk about the agricultural land reserve, so let's see what we've got here. Between April 1 and March 31, 2002 to 2005, I think that….

[1555]

Who was in government then? I think that it was the B.C. Liberals. The ALC approved the exclusion of 70 percent of hectares of ALR land that were proposed for exclusion. The regions with the highest rates of ALR exclusions were Vancouver Island at 89.1 percent, the Kootenays at 83.6 percent and the Okanagan at 82.5 percent.

Now, this is where the trickery begins. This is where the Liberal trickery begins. They say that we don't have any…. It stayed consistent. The ALR has been consistent, but consistency to the B.C. Liberals means that they've got their developments going. They've excluded land from the ALR. But hey, wait a minute. They've actually included land. "So hey, don't pick on us. We like the ALR."

Well, that's not right, because the land that's been included is in the north, which has low growing capacity. So that's the trickery of the B.C. Liberals. That's how they trick us. Nobody believes that story anymore. That's why most of this province….

Interjections.

L. Popham: The minister is trying to lap up some affection over there for his big commitment to the Agricultural Land Commission. It's very upsetting for the government. It's very, very upsetting. These guys — I tell ya….

Anyway, this government, in the eyes of so many, including one of the people who was around right from the beginning…. He knew what the agricultural land reserve meant. That's Harold Steves. He knew what it meant because he was there right at the beginning. You know what he's saying about these changes? He's saying they're baby steps. It's a step in the right direction, and I agree. It's still a long way to go. But here it comes.

Interjections.

[ Page 8821 ]

L. Popham: Listening, listening, listening.

Nothing in the measures announced stops or prevents speculators from buying farmland in places like Delta and waiting for the right offer from the port to buy up some more agricultural land for development. Why? Let's review. Highest and best uses — not farming, with the B.C. Liberals, actually.

The changes also give the ALC chair a more prominent role overseeing regional panels that decide on changes to the reserve, and that's good. Decisions of those panels can now be appealed to the chair. But the province did not follow Richard Bullock's recommendations to create a single provincial panel with representatives from each region to decide on ALR changes.

"Steves said a provincial panel would have been less vulnerable to lobbying at the local level." That's right, and that's the whole point. What is the highest and best use for farmland in B.C.? The only reason to keep a regional panel is so that the highest and best use can stay as development in British Columbia. That's what it is.

This is a very, very difficult topic in here, because there are people that really believe in the ALR and people that don't.

That's just a little taste of what I've got to say on second reading of this report, but I will have much more to say when the legislation comes in for third reading.

I'm going to take my seat, and the government on the other side of the House can breathe and try and calm down a little after hearing such devastating news from this side of the House.

N. Macdonald: Well, a debate usually has two sides speaking. It seems that what we get in British Columbia now is one side deciding that all of their discussions are going to be just yelling from the other side, keeping it off the record.

I mean, it's pretty sad when you have a Minister of Agriculture who is supposed to be in here with changes, after a year where they have hidden the report, where they then make changes that he refers to, and none of the references actually made in the House on record. I mean, there's something pretty pathetic about that.

I think if Gordon Campbell is looking at the army that he had all those years and sees the rabble that it's become, the leader of this rabble, I think he'd be pretty disappointed, pretty depressed.

For all that you can say about Mr. Campbell, at least there was some function, some sense that there was order over there.

[1600]

You don't see that now. The minister should be up speaking.

Deputy Speaker: Members, can I remind you to keep your remarks to the bill that's on the floor, please.

N. Macdonald: Well, I'll speak to Bill 19. It's a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It is a type of legislation that makes presumably minor changes to a number of different pieces of legislation. Now, these changes should be largely housekeeping.

Early in my MLA career we had examples of where we were shown that we really had to watch carefully when bills like this are introduced. I'll go back to a time that predates the current Minister of Agriculture, but many of the members were there. It's Bill 33. Now, Bill 33 was, like this, a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and buried within Bill 33 was a clause. I think it was clause 56.

Now, I use this as an example of why with these bills you really have to go through

section by

section and look carefully at what is actually the outcome. Certainly, with this bill there are a number of areas that we're really going to have to dig down and understand the impact. I'll just talk about Bill 33 for a second, which was another miscellaneous statutes act.

That clause 56 removed local decision-making on the private river diversion projects in rural British Columbia. It had a huge impact, because essentially what it did is it removed our say in whether rivers would be diverted, rivers would be exploited, and took us out of the process.

It was a massive issue in my area. People were and continue to be bothered — more than that — deeply offended by that change. The history to it was, as people will remember, the Ashlu river had been basically given away to private interests so that they could do this diversion. The locals didn't want it. They went to the regional district, and the regional district used the powers they then had to stop the project.

This government, as they so often do, decided that democratic rights are something pretty inconvenient for their private interests, so they came in, and hidden amongst the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, they removed the right of local government to have a say on rivers in their area. That was

section 56 of Bill 33. I remember when that bill was introduced that there was no mention in the opening speech that something so important had been hidden in there. So when we look at these bills we really have to go through and make sure that we understand completely what is in there and that we get full descriptions in the committee stage about the impact.

What do we have here? The areas that I turned to first in the bill were areas that deal with things of real importance to my area, and that would be found in sections 23 through 36. They basically are changes to the Wildlife Act, but they are changes that pertain to hunting.

People who come from rural British Columbia — I think even many who live in urban areas — will know that hunting and fishing are very important not only as recreational opportunities, not only as things that are important culturally but also are pastimes that provide

[ Page 8822 ]

really good, healthy food very often — certainly for my wife, being raised in Golden, for our children being raised in Golden. We basically have the good fortune to raise our children primarily on wild meat, which is very healthy.

What this legislation seems to be doing, I think, with regards to hunting and guiding, certainly on the surface of it, seems to be very supportable. We are talking about a government that is in the midst of continuous changes to allocation issues. These are all pretty complicated. It's important to get them right.

[1605]

What we have been supportive of is the stated intention for the B.C. Wildlife Federation to draw more people into hunting and fishing. I'll tell you why that's important. People should be, I think, even if they do not hunt or they do not fish, appreciative of those that do in that they do have a real love for the land and they do tremendous work on protecting the public lands.

I think we all know that the public lands are under pressure. There are always those that want to move in and to get the public lands and privatize them. We saw it in the example I used with our rivers, when this government was giving away our rivers to private interests. The public, including many in rod and gun clubs, were there fighting to make sure that the fish and the animals that depend upon those healthy river systems were being considered. I think they were really effective, along with the other community groups, in making sure that that environmental consideration was there.

I think, as well, anything that allows people to easily move into hunting will get them committed to the land and will make sure that they are there as advocates for wildlife, which is really important. As I said, it's an important source of food, it is an important recreational activity, and it also makes people committed to the land in a way that's really important.

What we know is that most people who would get into hunting — more so, I think, than even fishing — have to learn it when they're young. The changes here, I think, point to an opportunity to get people in hunting when they're young. It extends the period when they would have provisions for new hunters to a broader age limit. There are also provisions in here that allow more experienced hunters to help new hunters move into hunting in a regular way.

So I think that we know that hunters and people that are committed to harvesting off the land base are committed to those public lands, and we know that we have to get them started early. For that reason, I think that most of the provisions that I see here — and we'll go through committee stage and get exact descriptions from the minister in terms of how it's going to work — I would find supportable and people in my area would find supportable.

The other part of it is around guided hunts. I think there's no question that in many parts of rural British Columbia the guide-outfitters provide an important part of our economy. They are people who provide at least seasonal jobs, and it's important to support them. We are moving, basically, from ten years in terms of the guiding territory certificates that they have up to 25 years.

Just so people understand how this system works, these certificates currently are for ten years, but five years prior to the date ending, they usually reapply and get it for an additional ten years. So it's not as if it currently would end after ten years very often.

Now, what this proposes, as I understand it, is that it would go for 25 years, and after 15 years you would reapply, and it would go for another 25 years. So the advantage, I would presume, is likely to do with financing, maybe with going to the bank with a longer period. As I say, the practice, as I understand it, is that these guiding territory certificates tend to be long term anyway. But we'll explore that, and we'll see what the minister says.

[1610]

So the change is, then, around guide-outfitters. The other one there is around the necessity to report the success of the hunt from guide-outfitters. There's been an extension of the period of time that they've been given to do that, and it'll be interesting to hear from the minister the explanation for why that is needed. Presumably, that comes out of a request from the guide-outfitters.

There is a section,

section 23 and 24, which deals with changes to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. There again we'll be looking for the minister in the committee stage to be laying out the rationale for that.

Basically, those likely are the changes that people in Columbia River–Revelstoke would be looking at most closely. I think that for the most part, there's not going to be a lot that the people have a problem with there.

Other parts of the legislation. We've had quite a bit of detail from our critic on changes to the Agricultural Land Commission. These are in sections 2 to 10. Presumably, they would be arising out of a report that the minister chose to sit on for a year, which is fairly bizarre.

I know that I attended many meetings with representatives from the ranching and agriculture committee who were wondering why that report would take so long. I met with the chair of the committee, who was, I think, mirroring many of those same questions. "Why would it take so long?" I guess any hope that the minister would stand up in this House and actually provide some explanation is simply not on, but you would have expected him to be doing that.

There are changes to the Wildlife Act, and there, I guess, we'll get a definition of "dangerous wildlife." I think that many here from urban areas — perhaps not, because it's even an issue that stretches into suburban and urban areas…. It would be around the definition of what dangerous wildlife is. I think in many….

[ Page 8823 ]

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Oh, a chihuahua. Okay. Suburban

definitions of dangerous wildlife will certainly be different from Golden.

In Golden we certainly would get bears regularly coming into the town. That's not unusual for rural areas and has to be dealt with pretty carefully. We also have a huge concern whenever we hear of cougars in the area. These are things that people would immediately recognize are dangerous. It is not at all unusual for coyotes to come in. Primarily, those would be seen as dangerous to cats and smaller dogs. Potentially, they would be defined as well.

I think what you will find, though, if you were to ask what the most troublesome wildlife is right now in our communities…. Certainly, in Invermere and in Kimberley they would say deer. While most of us don't think that the deer are particularly dangerous….

In Kimberley a woman that I just met with about a week ago was very badly hurt by a deer, simply stepping outside of her house with a small dog and unaware that she was coming close to a deer that had a fawn. She was attacked, and the deer, even though being pushed off by neighbours, was continuously coming back and trying to attack the woman again. She broke ribs. She had a punctured lung.

I think people are often surprised that animals like this can be potentially very, very dangerous. It's one of the reasons that there will be culls of deer both in Cranbrook and Kimberley and likely in Invermere. While that seems a very strong reaction, I think that once a community sits down and looks at the options, they realize the fact that wildlife coming into settled areas is often problematic.

[1615]

This change talks about inducements to animals that would be considered wild. It'll be interesting to see the minister's definition of "dangerous wildlife" and

definitions of what "inducement" actually means. I think, obviously, it refers to feeding bears, but we'll see how widely the minister interprets the definition of dangerous wildlife and inducements.

Just on that topic for a minute, when there are changes to the Wildlife Act, there are also opportunities to take ideas that have been presented to this government for a long time. Living close to Alberta, of course, it's easy for us to look across the border and look at things that they do in their jurisdiction. Often, after they have culled either elk or deer, they are set up with a problem where they have to make sure that the problem isn't re-created.

One of the tools that they have in Alberta is that they have trained dogs, Karelian bear dogs, a particular species that is proficient at moving wildlife out. I know that this province has experimented with Karelian bear dogs, I think near Whistler, but I also know they've decided not to make changes to the Wildlife Act that would allow that tool to be used. That's unfortunate, because in Alberta, used properly, it's a tool that can be really helpful.

We have changes to the Mines Act. If there was one part of this act where we would really want to dig down into the detail, I think it's there. Nobody is against moving decisions on the land through quickly, but all of us who live in rural B.C. in particular realize that these decisions are complex and that they need to be made properly.

The suggestion with these changes that we would short-circuit in some way the changing of land designation to enable mining might make a lot of sense, or it might be something that is problematic. But that will come out in the detail.

I think that the confidence we have with process is certainly undermined with this government when we see something like the Boss scandal, where, even with the provisions we have, we had members of the civil service being ordered to break the law. When they refused to do so, they were fired. These are the sorts of behaviours that you would expect, perhaps, in the Third World, but seemingly, that's the practice here in British Columbia as well.

So when we're looking at changes to the Mines Act, it is with the lens that we can put on it that there's not a great deal of reason why we would trust the government on an issue like this.

I do also want to celebrate

section 22. It's not a real change, but it is, nevertheless, a change that I think most people would welcome. That's that we're going to get rid of at least the moniker for the public affairs bureau.

The public affairs bureau, just to give people an idea, is basically the propaganda arm for the government, for the Premier's office. It was set up with Premier Gordon Campbell as part of his intention to inform British Columbians about all the great things he was doing. It was sort of his baby, and it was part of the Premier's office for a while.

When the costs started to balloon, he moved it elsewhere. But he always controlled it, so it was basically his personal propaganda service.

He was up to 200. I was once corrected by the minister responsible. He said it was only 196. Just to put it in context, President Barack Obama has 42. Premier Campbell had about 198, and this Premier has decided that we'll keep the numbers, but we're going to get a different name.

That is the priority for this government. It's not about doing things properly. It's trying to convince people that something that's not happening actually is.

[1620]

We see it every day in this House, where we're told the sky is green and the grass is blue. If they say it often enough, with 200 people pushing out that propaganda

[ Page 8824 ]

message, they hope that people are going to believe it. But I think those days are over, and whether there are 200 or 400, I think that it's a pretty stale message that simply is not going to get through.

So certainly for me, I am quite happy to see that public affairs bureau become something of a place in history, something we can look back at, and we'll get a new name for those 200 people.

So a bill that has changes. These changes are going to become more evident as we go through the committee stage. It is my expectation that we are going to have a committee stage. It has become practice in this House to forgo the proper work in making a law.

In the last two years almost every major piece of legislation that we've had has not gone through a proper process. The government continuously uses closure. It's my hope that that would not be what we see with this bill and with other bills because it is in that committee stage process that we actually can dig down into the substance.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, one of the members says that it's all up to me. Of course, I don't time when the legislation comes in. I think it's kind of ridiculous that we have bills that the minister will say has taken 18 — well, I think — years to put together, and they decide to put it in front of us in the last week of the House sitting, but that seems to be practice.

I certainly remember the HST bill, and I know that there's going to be another HST bill coming pretty soon, except it's going to do the opposite. I hope to see that as soon as possible. But I remember the HST bill. That was brought in, and then it was very quickly passed using closure, even though we still had time. So that was a lot of fun. It seems that the next HST bill, to get rid of it, as all British Columbians want, is going to take a little bi