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 2, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Movember fundraising campaign for prostate cancer awareness

J. Slater

Rowing in Victoria area

L. Popham

Compensation for injured veterans

G. Hogg

RCMP services in Burnaby

K. Corrigan

Canadian Search and Disaster Dogs Association

M. Coell

Chantal Bilulu and KAIROS Canada Women of Courage Tour

M. Elmore

Oral Questions

Costs to B.C. of federal anti-crime legislation

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

K. Corrigan

Death of senior at care facility and call for seniors advocate

K. Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong

Access to information on seniors care facilities

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

Investigation of election campaign for member for Vancouver-Fraserview

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Children and Family Development Ministry handling of personal information privacy breach

D. Routley

Hon. M. Polak

B.C. Ferries executive compensation

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. de Jong

J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Revised

schedule F, fiscal year ending March 31, 2012

Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, Annual Report 2010-2011

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act

Hon. S. Thomson

R. Fleming

M. Sather

G. Gentner

Reporting of Bills

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Nurse Practitioners Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

N. Letnick

C. Trevena

D. Hayer

M. Mungall

D. Barnett

N. Simons

J. Thornthwaite

B. Routley

B. Bennett

C. James

M. Stilwell

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 9 — Natural Resource Compliance Act

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

[ Page 8597 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: Today is Take Our Kids to Work Day. Karen Aitken, our director of public education and outreach for this assembly, has her son at work today. So I'd like to introduce Alistair Aitken, who is a grade 9 student at Oak Bay Secondary School, and ask the House to please make him very welcome today while he visits his mom's work.

The second group visiting today is a school group from my riding. It's Sir James Douglas School, and it's 26 grade 5 students and five adults. Would the House please make those guests very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Carrying on with the theme of "Bring your children to work day," I'd like us to welcome to the House this afternoon Marlon Couture, who is a grade 9 student at Oak Bay high school. She is here today with her stepmom, Maria Wilkie, who is a hugely valuable asset in my ministry. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have two good friends in the gallery today I'd like to introduce: Don Jantzen and Orville Jantzen. They and the whole Jantzen family have made so many contributions to their communities, to the labour community, to the political community, and I hope that the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, would like to, in the same vein, welcome some people to the gallery today in the spirit of Take Our Kids to Work Day. I appreciate that the other members have already introduced children going to Oak Bay high school, which, of course, is in my riding.

Today I would like to introduce Tessa Graham, who has been with the provincial government for over 20 years and who I had the pleasure of working with when I held a different ministerial portfolio. Today she has brought along her daughter Charlene Booth, who is going to Reynolds high school, along with her daughter's friend Matthew Trembull, who goes to Lambrick high school, another high school in my riding. I hope the House would please make all three of them very welcome.

D. Black: I would also like to take a moment to welcome Don Jantzen and Orville Jantzen. They're long-term friends of mine as well. As a matter of fact, the first time I ran for nomination for Member of Parliament, Mr. Don Jantzen decided that he would support a different candidate. After that nomination I was successful, and he became one of my biggest supporters and was very helpful in my many years in politics. I want to make both of them welcome in the Legislature today.

Hon. G. Abbott: Building on the compelling theme that has emerged in introductions here around "Bring your kids to work day," in the gallery is a large group of highly valued Ministry of Education employees, along with their incredibly bright and charming grade 9 kids. They're here today to take

part in the Learning Partnership 17th annual Take Our Kids to Work Day. Over 200,000 grade 9 students across the country are taking part today.

May the House please make welcome the students — Nicole Calvert, Ben Firkins, Kristin Fraser, Lilly Powell, Emma Hornell, Elsa Staift, Megan Vieweg, Harrison Archdkein; and their parents — Cherrie Calvert, Jacqueline van Dyk, Brian Fraser, Janet Powell, Janet Bartz, Christina Teskey, Lenore Gibbons, along with some additional ministry staff who are making sure the adults find their way safely around this Legislature. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

G. Coons: In the gallery today are two good friends. On the topic of bringing your kids to work, Doug Thom is a retired teacher, so he doesn't have a place to bring his daughter Laura to his workplace. They're from Prince Rupert, and he has brought his daughter to watch us work today, so please make them welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: This morning we were joined in one of our caucus outreaches by the lovely women from the Catholic Women's League of Canada, the B.C.-Yukon council. I'd like to welcome Lorilee Jordan, Nancy Simms and Pat Deppiesse to the gallery, and I would like the rest of the group here to make them feel welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I believe that the Premier has been detained, so I'll take the opportunity to welcome 20 members from the Ag Council to the Legislature today. I'd like, if I may, to actually read off some names because they do so much important work for British Columbia: Lou Cook, Kevin Boon, Ray Baylis, Irma Kutcher, Ray Marlik, Dick Klein Geltink, Ken Vanderberg, Rolf Soth, Jack DeWit, David Green, Joe Sardinha, Lynda Atkinson, Steve Heppell, Rhonda Driediger, Bob Pringle, Reg Ens, Grace Cho, Rob Candle, and ably led by both Dennis Lapierre, who is the vice-chair for the B.C. Ag Council, and Garnet Etsell, who is the chair of the B.C. Ag Council.

[ Page 8598 ]

They do so much good work for British Columbia and agriculture. Could this Legislature please make them most very welcome.

[1340]

Hon. C. Clark: I'd like to join the Minister of Agriculture in welcoming the B.C. Ag Council here to the precincts. I know that I'll be meeting with them later today as well.

I'd also like to introduce Nicholas Pantazopolous. He is here for a visit to the Legislature on bring your kids to work day. He is an avid political watcher, a self-described amateur historian, a grade 9 student at Reynolds Secondary, an avid reader of the newspapers — says that he prefers the fiscally conservative columnists. Would the House please make Nicholas very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

FOR PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS

J. Slater: Each November thousands of British Columbians join their fellow men around the world and stop shaving their upper lips. They do this not to just look more macho but to raise money for a great cause: prostate cancer research. This year is no different, and once again several MLAs and staffers have decided to form a team, Political Momentum.

This cause is clear, and the rules are simple. There are only five. Four have to do with shaving, and the fifth mandates that all participants conduct themselves like country gentlemen. Well, maybe four out of five's not bad.

Movember is a relatively new phenomenon, started in 2003 by some ambitious moustache lovers in Australia who sought to bring the noble 'stache back into fashion. By tying it to a noble cause, I believe they have succeeded. Last year some 119,000 Canadians raised some $22 million for prostate cancer research, and since 2003 Movember raised $176 million around the world.

More is needed. One in six Canadian men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetimes. One in 26 will lose their lives to it. For that reason, prostate cancer is not a political issue. I encourage my friends from the opposite side to form their own Movember team, or if they don't feel like storing their razors for a month, they can donate to ours.

ROWING IN VICTORIA AREA

L. Popham: Shoulder, ready, up! The Victoria City Rowing Club is a non-profit community rowing club operating out of the Victoria Rowing Society boathouse located on Elk Lake in Saanich South. Rowing became established in Victoria because of the Royal Navy base in Esquimalt. Races between naval officers and the civilian amateur oarsmen of Victoria were a natural outcome. Races on the Gorge and the Inner Harbour attracted hundreds of spectators. These rowing events were as much social gatherings as sporting events in the 1800s.

The first rowing club of Victoria was established in 1865. After that, rowing moved into the 20th century and continued to exist in Victoria in one form or another. In 1927 the club moved to the Gorge. Belonging to the club on the Gorge was somewhat of a status symbol, and most members of prominent society were members. However, when the Depression struck, it gradually took a toll on the club, and in 1938 the clubhouse was sold, became a beer parlour and moved to Esquimalt.

World War II hit, and when James Bay Oarsmen returned from the war in 1945, they discovered that their clubhouse was now inhabited by sea cadets. Club morale dropped. There were problems between the executive and the oarsmen.

In 1952 the oarsmen moved their headquarters to Elk Lake, where they took out a 99-year lease. Its current location provides a base of operation for the Canadian national team, the University of Victoria, the Victoria City Rowing Club and the Greater Victoria Youth Rowing Society. This weekend I look forward to watching my son, Kye, participate in the south Island high school regatta.

If you ever find yourself out in Saanich South on Elk Lake in a shell, remember this. Hold her hard, and watch your blades.

COMPENSATION FOR INJURED VETERANS

G. Hogg: As Canadians, we expect our government's practices, policies and legislation to reflect our values. Our compassion, our caring for others, our history, our heritage, our collective memories and our wonderful pluralistic, multicultural society are all reflections of those values. One of our most cherished memories is that of the soldiers who fought for Canada, fought for our way of life.

[1345]

Today's soldiers have honoured and maintained the proud tradition established by our military, from protecting democracy to peacekeeping missions around the world. However, we are not now providing our disabled veterans with the support that I believe most Canadians would expect. The father of a recently injured soldier has expressed that a soldier with internal trauma and the loss of multiple organs recently received a lump sum payment of $41,000. If they had purchased an annuity, they would receive $141 per month.

If that same person were a tree faller or logger in British Columbia covered by WorkSafe, they would receive $1,400 per month. We have hundreds of injured

[ Page 8599 ]

veterans across Canada. We are not supporting them as well as we support our injured workers.

A newly formed society, Equitas, is dedicated to supporting injured veterans and rectifying this inequity. A law firm offered pro bono legal services to assist this dedicated group of Canadians as they work to provide balance, equity and fairness for our newly disabled veterans — a fairness which Canadians understand and a fairness which I believe Canadians expect. I urge this House to support Equitas in their drive to ensure that our practices, policies and legislation reflect our values — Canadian values.

RCMP SERVICES IN BURNABY

K. Corrigan: For the last 60 years the RCMP have been providing policing services to the citizens of Burnaby. The Burnaby RCMP is the second-largest detachment in Canada and the third-largest police service in the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to welcome our new chief superintendent, Dave Critchley, returning from a challenging assignment in Afghanistan where he served as a senior police officer mentoring the Afghan national police. He is a strong supporter of community-based policing, an approach to crime prevention that has always been a cornerstone of Burnaby's success in deterring and preventing crime. I would also like to congratulate Staff Sgt.-Maj. John Buis, who has just celebrated 35 years of service with the RCMP.

In Burnaby officers are out and about not just when there is a crime, but visible and involved at events and active in community organizations throughout the community. For example, Superintendent Critchley and other officers attended a citizenship celebration where he spoke about policing in Burnaby to new citizens and their families, many of whom had come from countries where the police are not to be trusted or sought out for help.

The RCMP, working closely with the city of Burnaby, have had spectacular successes in the past several years with crime tracking steadily downward since 2002. Community safety is not just a job for the police but is a community effort. There are over 80 auxiliary constables who volunteered almost 10,000 hours in 2010. In addition, there's a vibrant Block Watch program, SpeedWatch, a highly successful youth restorative justice program, the school liaison program and much more. I just want to thank the RCMP who have proudly served in Burnaby for the past 60 years.

CANADIAN SEARCH AND

DISASTER DOGS ASSOCIATION

M. Coell: When disaster strikes, the difference between life and death can often come down to just minutes. That makes the work of organizations like the Canadian Search and Disaster Dogs Association all that more important.

With its primary operations located on the Saanich Peninsula, CASDDA provides trained dogs and trained handlers for search and rescue of survivors trapped in disaster areas or in the wilderness. These services are provided completely free of charge to communities that put out a call for help in times of need, whether they are local, national or international.

Run entirely on an extraordinary team of volunteers, the association's committed handlers put in long hours every week. They train their dogs day and night in all types of weather so that the team is best prepared for any type of situation they may encounter. These remarkable men and women are willing to put their personal and professional lives on hold with just a moment's notice, travelling across the world to offer their help whenever and wherever it is requested.

One example came last year when their invaluable services were called upon after the devastating earthquakes that occurred in Haiti. The men and women of CASDDA believe that in a world that is torn by natural disasters, discrimination and misunderstandings, we must all do our part to lend a helping hand, offering help and hope where the need arises.

[1350]

I ask the House to join me in thanking the dedicated volunteers of the Canadian Search and Disaster Dogs Association for their tireless efforts and commitment to the safety and well-being of not only our community but communities around the world.

CHANTAL BILULU AND KAIROS CANADA

WOMEN OF COURAGE TOUR

M. Elmore: This year KAIROS, a national organization that unites 11 churches and religious groups for ecological justice and human rights, organized a Women of Courage Tour to highlight the contributions women make in the struggle against violence and for global justice and peace. The tour of women human rights defenders aimed to raise awareness about the impact of armed conflict on the lives and rights of women and girls and to make visible the violence faced by women in migrant and indigenous communities in Canada.

Last month I had the privilege of hosting a reception for Chantal Bilulu, a representative of Héritiers de la Justice, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We were joined by women from the local African-Canadian community and community partners and organizations.

Chantal painted a grim picture of violence in villages, attacks in the middle of the night, rapes, murder and disposition of lands. She explained that there is an epidemic of rape, a common weapon in the ongoing resource war. Impunity contributes to the effectiveness of sexual violence as a strategy of war.

[ Page 8600 ]

Chantal organizes workshops to counsel and train women who have been victims of sexualized violence and accompanies them to court to file charges against the perpetrators. Chantal shared stories of the intense bravery of women in the DRC who, in the midst of terrible violence, of war, of rape and of hunger, come together to shape the future of the country, to pass laws against sexualized violence and ensure women's participation in the government. She called for support from the international community for justice and peace in the DRC.

While the DRC is a long way from B.C., we have similar issues and struggles here. Amanda White, a Haida elder who had lost a cousin in the residential school system and another on the Highway of Tears, said, "Our struggles as women are similar," and that we need to include men in the struggle.

Chantal concluded by saying that women of courage need other women who dare to speak their truths. We need to break the silence and build alliances with other organizations and do this without fear. Chantal is a true woman of courage and a great inspiration.

Oral Questions

COSTS TO B.C. OF

FEDERAL ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier. I want to ask: does the Premier agree with the Liberal Premier of Ontario and the Liberal Premier of Quebec that the federal government must not be allowed to download the cost of its crime bill onto provincial taxpayers?

Hon. C. Clark: In British Columbia we are concerned about the potential costs associated with the crime bill. There's no question about it. We are in discussion with our colleagues federally on how exactly we will manage those costs, and I know that the Solicitor General is working very, very hard on that with her federal partners at the moment.

But let me say this, though. We are not, on this side of the House, interested in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I say that because there are many elements of this bill which I think British Columbians and Canadians feel are important changes for Canada.

I think that British Columbians like the idea of making it tougher for people who commit sex offences against children to get out of jail. I think British Columbians support protecting the public better from violent young offenders, and I also think that British Columbians generally support ending the practice of house arrest for serious crimes. Those are all things that British Columbians are behind, and they're all things that people on this side of the House are also 100 percent behind.

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

A. Dix: Well, as the Premier will know, the federal government first introduced the bills 18 months ago, virtually the day after the last election. The Prime Minister said that he was going to bring in and reintroduce these bills and pass them within 100 days of the throne speech. That was his intent.

[1355]

The government has had lots of time to prepare, so on the issue of costs, I guess the question to the Premier is very simple. What is the government prepared to do to ensure that B.C. taxpayers aren't the ones footing the bill for a crime bill that's going to cost provincial taxpayers a huge amount of money?

Hon. C. Clark: I'd really like to know where the Leader of the Opposition and his party stand on this particular bill, because what they do is stand up and talk about the costs, which are serious issues. We're concerned about them, and we're certainly working to make sure that we can find a way through that.

But you know what? What about the cost to our society of sex offenders walking out for free? What about the cost to society of young offenders who commit violent crimes getting away with a slap on the hand? Canadians and British Columbians are not in support of that approach to crime.

If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the courage to stand up and state where he stands on the content of the bill, I will quote one of his colleagues in his own party who says she finds the federal bill offensive.

Well, frankly, I don't find it offensive. I think Canadians and British Columbians do want to know that they live in a country where our justice system is indeed a system of justice, and they want to know that the laws of this country are going to keep our streets safe.

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

A. Dix: I am sure that the Premier will be communicating that position to her national leader, Bob Rae.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Member.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: You know, I just note to the member for Chilliwack that I always take everything he says seriously.

[ Page 8601 ]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, has said that in his view, there will be substantial costs to the provincial treasury: $6 billion to $10 billion — right? Kevin Page has made this case.

You know…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …these are pretty serious issues, and the Minister of Finance and others who have created a situation in British Columbia….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Members, we've got to be able to hear the question so we can also hear the answer.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: What's happening in British Columbia, as all members know, is that this government isn't funding the justice system, as it is, properly. That's why we've seen a dramatic increase in cases, which we've raised in this Legislature, of criminals going free — because of this government and because it's taken too long to bring charges to court. This is the reality of the situation right now. This is the reality people are facing in the justice system.

This is what the Ontario Liberal Premier is saying. The Ontario Liberal Premier is saying he demands of the federal government…. "If, for example, you want us to build new prisons in Ontario and staff those prisons with highly trained personnel at an additional cost to us, it is incumbent upon you, as the creator of those costs, to come up with the money."

So does the Premier of British Columbia agree with the Liberal Premier of Ontario, the Liberal Premier of Quebec and the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland that there has to be a discussion of cost-sharing before this bill is passed?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, first, let me join the Minister of Finance in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on being concerned about costs, being concerned about taxpayers' money and how it might be used. I'm delighted. Maybe we can look forward to their assistance and support as we work toward balancing the budget, which is absolutely what we intend to do. I'm delighted to see he's up and supporting fiscal responsibility. It's the first time. But you know what? I hope that there will be many more times.

[1400]

I will end by saying this. The Leader of the Opposition stands up and talks about costs. I am concerned about the costs. We do need to be. We're certainly working with the federal government to try and make sure we find a way through the mechanics of this so that it doesn't end up being incredibly costly for British Columbians.

But you know what is costly? It's costly for all of us when people who commit sex crimes against children don't go to jail. That's costly for all of us in our society. It's a crime against every British Columbian when something like that happens.

It's costly for all of us when violent young offenders walk away with a slap on the wrist. It's costly for all of us when we have a system of justice in our country that people have lost confidence in and that people don't believe delivers justice for the victims of crime.

I support keeping our streets safe, I support making sure that our children are safe from sex offenders, and I support the elements of this bill that will mean that Canada and British Columbia are safer places because we have laws that will protect us.

K. Corrigan: The federal crime bill is not a new development. It's been around since last year. The homework to be at the table to negotiate funding should have been long done. It should have been done months ago, but it wasn't.

These increased costs are coming at a time when our justice system is already strained and under-resourced to the point of crisis. Our provincial courts are already backlogged. On average, ten cases are thrown out every month because of delays stemming from a shortage of sheriffs, prosecutors and judges.

My question to the Premier: why has this government failed to have a plan in place to make sure that B.C. is not left with downloaded costs?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, my question remains for the opposition. Where do they stand on the content of this bill? Where do they stand on a bill that intends to make Canadian streets safer? If we can agree on that, if we can agree that we want to get to the same goal, then surely we can find a way to work together to get there.

But the opposition sits here and says, "Well, first of all, we're not going to tell you where we stand on the content of the bill. We're not going to tell you whether or not we support these measures," which I believe will make British Columbia's and Canada's streets safer. Then they say that they want to figure out…. They can't even figure out a way to get there.

The answer to this lies in this approach. First, agreeing where we want to get to. And we do want to get to the same place as the federal government does. That's making sure that British Columbia's streets are safer and making sure that our justice system has the confidence of the public. Then what we need to do is sit down with the federal government, which we surely are right now, and try to figure out how we are going to get there.

[ Page 8602 ]

But when the member gets up and asks her next question, she should stand up and tell us exactly where she stands on the contents of this federal bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: It's this government that has created a crisis in our court system, and it's this government that has created a crisis in our prison system. Our prison system is becoming increasingly overcrowded and volatile. Already B.C. is grappling for resources to deal with a growing inmate population.

We have hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs stemming from the federal crime bill that could push our correctional system to a breaking point. Will the Premier inform Ottawa that this government will not accept costs being downloaded onto B.C.'s correctional system?

[1405]

Hon. C. Clark: So we're sitting here listening to a member stand up and lecture us all on how we need to have a justice system that works, when she's the same member who stood up and ranted for months about the fact that she didn't want to have another provincial prison built in her community. Where is that? Where is that? The member doesn't support putting people in prison because she doesn't support actually having prisons in her community.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member. Just take your seat.

DEATH OF SENIOR AT CARE FACILITY

AND CALL FOR SENIORS ADVOCATE

K. Conroy: Another day, another story about the failure of seniors care in British Columbia. Ted Powis, who was 93, fell down a flight of stairs at Hollyburn House in North Vancouver. By the time staff found him in the stairwell the next morning, he had passed away. Maybe if there was a security camera in the stairwell, staff would have found Mr. Powis before it was too late.

We have seen the benefit of the Representative for Children and Youth in bringing to light serious issues for children in this province, and we know that a seniors advocate could make recommendations to ensure that facilities are safer for seniors. An advocate can point out problems before they become tragedies.

Will the Health Minister finally do the right thing and commit to instating a seniors advocate for British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: No member of this House could see the circumstances in which this gentleman was found and in which he passed away and not be affected and not want to extend condolences to the family.

The information, as I understand it, is that the facility involved was an independent living facility. People — individuals and their families — make choices about the type of facility that they want to live in, based on their abilities and their abilities to function independently.

I'm advised that the home in this case is examining what has taken place, the opportunities to make improvements. In this kind of independent living facility there is not the kind of surveillance that exists in higher standards of care, but there is always room for improvement.

I have said to the member in the past in this House that I see the potential for a role for a seniors advocate, but we are working with groups, including the B.C. Health Coalition and the Ombudsperson, to establish what that role might be.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Families are growing frustrated waiting for this government to do something, waiting to ensure tragedies like this don't keep happening. Seniors, families, caregivers, stakeholders and the opposition have repeatedly raised these stories. The Liberal government's consistent response is: "Everything is fine. Nothing needs to change. We're looking into it."

Well, the Liberals have had ten years. Why the delay? Why does it take so many tragedies before we see any action? When will we finally have a seniors advocate for people in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: We all seek improvement, but to suggest, as the member has, that improvements haven't been made; to dismiss out of hand, as she apparently does, the dramatic expansion of housing alternatives; to dismiss out of hand, as apparently she does, the statutory creation of a residents bill of rights…. These are significant steps forward. To dismiss, as she does, the establishment of a patient care quality review panel that every day provides residents, patients and their families with an avenue to explore the kinds of concerns that we all have — that is disingenuous.

[1410]

I have assured the member that we are working with the Ombudsperson. We will continue that work, and we will continue to work with the groups who day in, day out dedicate themselves to the task of providing dignified care to seniors, to ensure that we provide them with dignified care and improve that care as we go.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ON SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

C. James: This minister says he's working with the Ombudsperson. Well, given this government's record,

[ Page 8603 ]

that is no comfort to seniors and their families. This is the same Liberal government that has failed to implement the Ombudsperson's recommendations around full disclosure.

On Monday in this House we raised the issue of the choking death of Eldon Mooney at Sunrise of Lynn Valley. There were 23 reported breaches of care at that facility. Well, if you look on the government website today, there is still no report of those breaches of care. A family that was looking into this facility would see no breaches of care. The Ombudsman called for a one-stop comprehensive website to disclose these issues at facilities.

My question is: will the minister stop stalling and commit to full disclosure today in this Legislature?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't know that I can be any clearer than I was yesterday when we canvassed this very issue. I made it clear to the opposition, to members of the House that the government's expectation, the government's objective and my expectation is that patients, residents and their families will have unimpeded access to detailed information that will allow them to make an informed choice about their housing alternatives.

We have made progress. People can go to a website. Now, I think there are improvements that can be made to that website, but contrast that with the information that was available ten years ago. You know what that information was? Nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker. Contrast that with the options that existed for patients and their families to pursue a complaint against a facility. What existed ten years ago? Nothing.

We have work to do. We will do that work. We will work with the Ombudsperson. But to suggest, as this member and others are, that we haven't made progress is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I'd say to the minister: 23 breaches of care, and what's on the website? Nothing. Nothing from this government.

This isn't the first time this issue has come up, that we've raised these concerns with this government. In 2007, I stood in this Legislature and raised the concerns around Beacon Hill Villa, a facility that you can see right here from the Legislature, and the kinds of concerns of care that were there.

In 2008 the former Health Minister committed to a full, comprehensive website. He said, after we raised the issue of Beacon Hill Villa, that he would move on it "in a matter of weeks." Well, that was more than three years ago.

The Ombudsman recommended the same type of website in 2009, and what happened today? Nothing. So much for action from this government. So much for the claims of openness and transparency from this Liberal government. Seniors and their families deserve better.

I will ask again: why won't the minister take action today?

Hon. M. de Jong: And I will say again that if the member wants to be taken seriously in a discussion, she should have that discussion on the basis of facts, because there is a website, a comprehensive one. It may not be perfect, and it may not be the kind that she likes, but seniorsbc.com was established in direct response to the Ombudsperson's recommendations.

The member can stand up here and try to score political points by rewriting history, by trying to pretend things haven't happened that have happened, but they have. Actually, if we are going to have an informed conversation, we should agree to do it on the basis of the facts.

[1415]

Do I think there can be improvements made to the website that was established in response to the Ombudsperson? Of course I do.

But again, to suggest that we haven't made major steps in providing information and expanded information to their patients and their families is wrong. It is disingenuous, and I must conclude that it is being advanced simply to advance a political agenda and not actually to improve providers of seniors care.

INVESTIGATION OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN

FOR MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER-FRASERVIEW

L. Krog: My question is to the Attorney General. The Finance Minister himself referred to the original allegations surrounding the member and the Liberal campaign for Vancouver-Fraserview as "very serious." Now there are even more serious allegations of $40,000 worth of overspending during the election….

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat. I warned yesterday to be very careful in the direction that you're taking this. You should not be looking to impugn another member in the House.

Continue, Member.

L. Krog: I will simply ask this question, then, hon. Speaker. Has a special prosecutor been assigned to look into the new allegations surrounding this matter?

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me that the member opposite, who I believe is a member of the bar, would actually ask the Attorney General of British Columbia whether or not a special prosecutor has been appointed. It is absolutely not within the purview of the Attorney General to know that or to be informed about that, and I am not getting involved in anything to do with those kinds of decisions, as is the role that I have as the Attorney General.

[ Page 8604 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It's serious enough for the CEO of Elections B.C., an independent officer of the Legislature, to be considering the issue. I would think it's serious enough for the Attorney General to consider. The question is very simple: has a special prosecutor been appointed — yes or no?

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY HANDLING OF PERSONAL

INFORMATION PRIVACY BREACH

D. Routley: Yesterday I raised the issue of private government information found in a Saanich dumpster. Mr. Speaker, unlike the ministry staff, this morning I took the opportunity to view the actual footage of the dumpster documents. The woman who found and retrieved the documents reports that she called the Ministry of Children and Families and was told she would get a call right back. But a week later, after not hearing from the ministry, she called CTV News . We know that B.C.'s Information and Privacy Commissioner has launched an investigation into this issue.

My question to the Minister of Citizens' Services is: during that week when the concerned citizen did not hear anything back and those documents were still sitting in that dumpster, what steps did the ministry take to retrieve the dumpster documents?

Hon. M. Polak: I would be happy to once again review the timeline with respect to what has happened in regard to this incident with the member, as I have done previously.

I am pleased to inform the House that all of the individuals whose information was contained in the documents that we have in our possession have now been contacted. I am concerned that the documents in our possession do not match the description of those reported in the media.

I have to say that if the media have information that is related to a privacy breach, I really would expect that they would cooperate and provide that information to government lawyers so that we can actually do our job and address this situation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: I understand the ministry has had the opportunity to view the files. I had that opportunity, and I took it. The minister does everything but brush this off.

It is a serious privacy breach. Clearly, the Information and Privacy Commissioner feels that there's a serious issue, yet this government appears to have done nothing while sensitive documents from the Ministry of Children and Families sat in a dumpster. A concerned citizen took this seriously. The media took it seriously. The opposition takes this seriously, and the Privacy Commissioner now takes this seriously.

[1420]

Why did this government sit on its hands for a week while sensitive information about British Columbians sat in a dumpster?

Hon. M. Polak: For the benefit of the member and for other members of this House, I will review the timeline once again. The Ministry of Children and Family Development came into possession of the documents from the Saanich police on Friday afternoon. By the end of day Monday we had completed the review of those documents and had contacted all but one of the individuals affected, and by the end of day yesterday we had completed contacting all those individuals.

The ministry has done all that it possibly can with respect to the documents in its possession. However, we do remain concerned that the description the media has provided about that documentation, which they have on film, is not consistent with the documents in our possession. We would hope that if the media are in possession of information that would assist us in investigating this breach, they would provide it.

Unlike the member, the ministry has not been afforded the opportunity to view the film outside of making it part of a filming opportunity for the reporter, which in turn causes us concerns with respect to the privacy of those individuals.

B.C. FERRIES EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

G. Coons: Yesterday we asked the Premier what she intends to do about the outrageous executive bonuses at B.C. Ferries. The comptroller general said in 2009 that the targets used to determine the bonuses "appear to have been set too low." Yet the very next year the million-dollar man and his three vice-presidents get floated $1.1 million more in bonuses alone.

The Transportation Minister came to the Premier's rescue yesterday, saying: "When it comes to salaries and benefits for the executives at B.C. Ferries, we dealt with that." That's absolute nonsense, hon. Speaker. British Columbians know it's nonsense. The comptroller general knows it's nonsense.

So again to the Premier: will she immediately end the outrageous bonuses for the executives at B.C. Ferries?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We did canvass this yesterday, and I will reiterate what I said then. Obviously, we share the concern with the public on the salaries and the benefits that came to light through B.C. Ferries. We actually, as a government, took an initiative under Bill 20 to ensure that that doesn't continue.

But what I'm hearing the member say is, "Go ahead and break contracts," something I thought the member

[ Page 8605 ]

didn't stand for — or the other side, his party. It was incredible to me….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Let me carry on, because this is a good question.

Member, if what you're asking for is to break contracts, you should stand up and say it in those words. But what I'm telling you in this House….

You were here, Member, when we dealt with Bill 20. We dealt with it. We have made sure that those salaries and benefits will not continue, but what we're not going to do is break an existing contract and cost the taxpayers of British Columbia more money.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege relating to comments made by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who is, I should say, a respected member, an hon. member of this chamber, a former Leader of the Opposition.

Yesterday I advised this House of my expectation that regular routine inspection reports and inspection reports dealing with incidents and verified complaints would be posted. Today during question period the hon. member stood in the chamber and asserted that that wasn't the case.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Out of fairness to the member, as is customary in this House, I offer her this opportunity — and the House will want to offer her this opportunity — to withdraw those comments in light of the fact that the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Opposition House Leader, just take your seat.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I would advise the member to briefly state his point of privilege.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The website, which I assume the member did not consult before she made her statements in the House, says: "Vancouver Coastal Health has now posted a full investigation report into the death of Mr...Mooney, a resident of Sunrise of Lynn Valley."

Such reports have not been previously posted due to the privacy concerns. However, given the public nature of this incident, it has been posted with the permission of the family.

The member's statements were incorrect. She misinformed the House, and as is customary in this House, I offer her this opportunity to withdraw those remarks.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Opposition House Leader, or the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, you have a right to respond.

J. Horgan: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. Clearly, then, the Minister of Health wants to engage in debate after question period. He had ample time….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

J. Horgan: I suggest, hon. Speaker, that if we were to review the amount of time the minister did take to respond to his questions, he would have given the member the opportunity during that time to make any retraction that might have been appropriate. However, to bring up sections of a website after the fact makes it extremely difficult for us to respond.

I would suggest, hon. Speaker, that we be given an appropriate amount of time…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …to review the material before we respond.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

I will take both submissions under advisement and come back with it.

Hon. M. de Jong: My submission was merely to provide the member with the customary opportunity. It seems I will have to reserve my right to make a formal presentation that the member deliberately misled the House, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

[ Page 8606 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: In accordance with

section 6 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, I am tabling a revised

schedule F for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012. The revised

schedule F reflects the changes to ministerial accountabilities resulting from the government reorganization that took place on September 26, 2011.

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the following report: the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia Annual Report 2010-2011 .

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon we will start with Bill 2 in committee, intituled the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act. Should we complete that, we will move to second reading of Bill 10, intituled the Nurse Practitioners Statutes Amendment Act, and then to Bill 9 in committee stage, the Natural Resource Compliance Act.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area

Conservation Act

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move amendments to

section 1 standing in my name under the orders of the day . The proposed amendments to

section 1 delete the provisions in the definition of the Flathead Watershed area that exclude protected areas from the watershed area, and replace the term "mineral claim" with "mineral title".

SECTION 1 , by deleting the text shown as struck out :

"Flathead watershed area" means all those parcels or tracts of land that on November 9, 2009, were situated in the Kootenay District and contained within the boundaries as shown on the official plan for the Flathead Watershed Area, deposited in the Media Vault, GeoBC, Victoria as Official Plan: Flathead Watershed Area, dated November 9, 2009; , but does not include the following :

(

a) a park, recreation area or conservancy, as those terms are defined in

section 1 of the Park Act ;

(

b) an ecological reserve under

Schedule A or

Schedule B to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act ;

(

c) an area established as a protected area by order in council under the Environment and Land Use Act ]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Thomson: The amendment to the definition of the Flathead Watershed area ensures that deletions from the area can be carried out only by amendment to this act. This more closely complies with the spirit and intent of the agreement with the state of Montana and the Nature Conservancy.

Replacing the term "mineral claim" with "mineral title" ensures that placer mineral claims are included in

section 5 of this act.

Section 5 prohibits a free miner from registering mining claims in the Flathead Watershed area.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, around the

section of

definitions here, there are some things noticeable by their omission. One of them is including what I think is a rather standard definition of "recreation areas."

[1435]

There is an opportunity in this bill to include some kind of definition for the watershed area that would define and clarify recreation principles and

definitions, but it's not included in the act. I wonder if the minister can explain whether that was contemplated or if there is another reason why its inclusion is not in this bill.

Hon. S. Thomson: Before I respond to the question, I just wanted to introduce the staff who are assisting here today. Barb Thomson with Energy and Mines, director of corporate policy and legislation; Richard Grieve, the director of policy and legislation with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; and Bryant Fairley with the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat.

Just to respond to the question specifically. "Recreation areas" is not defined in the

definitions because it's not referred to in the act. The recreation in this area is dealt with through the land use plan. There was no need to put the definition specifically into the legislation because it's not referred to in the act. The act is specific to dealing with the prohibition and disposition in that area related to mineral, coal, and oil and gas exploration and activity.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister why there is no definition — it is included in other pieces of legislation looking at lands that have been set aside in British Columbia — that defines what a resource use permit is. There is no inclusion in this bill, and I wonder if the minister could explain its absence.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the term "resource use permit" is not used in the act. There is no requirement to have it in the

definitions, because it's not referred to

[ Page 8607 ]

in the act. The answer and response for that question is the same as the answer to the first question.

R. Fleming: The title of the bill is very explicit in that it considers what it will accomplish as law as a conservation act. Yet, I think, also curious by its absence is any definition of conservation goals for the area in question, for the watershed. I'm wondering if the minister, again, had discussions about whether explicitly conservation principles or goals of the act should have been included in the

definitions

section of the bill.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this definition is not in there because it's not referenced in the act. The conservation goals are set out in the land use plan which has been developed over a long period of time for this area.

This act, again, to point out to the member, is specific to addressing the commitments of the legislation to deal with the prohibited activities in the area, following through on the commitments of the memorandum of understanding and the agreement between the province and the state of Montana in terms of prohibited activities.

[1440]

That's what this bill is specifically designed to do — to follow through on those commitments that were previously done by administrative order and order-in-council to enshrine those principles in the legislation as part of that commitment and agreement.

R. Fleming: I would ask the minister, in the definition regarding "Flathead watershed area," definition 1(c) — "an area established as a protected area by order in council under the Environment and Land Use Act " — if the minister could highlight all of those areas that are included under this subclause that are dated on or before November 9, 2009, and if there have been any additions to that that fall between the period referenced and today's date.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised, firstly, that the boundaries of the Kootenay district have not changed since November 2009. And just to be clear to the member, the

section (

c) that he is referring to is part of the amendment which is being removed from the bill as part of the amendment that we are speaking to.

R. Fleming: I would ask the minister maybe to respond, again, to the question I asked earlier about conservation policies not being explicitly referenced in conservation goals in the legislation. To be considered a conservation act, one would think that that would be a key feature of the bill that we have before us here today at committee stage. In fact, it is not.

There are some prohibitions, of course, that are very important and that have been worked on by various parties internationally and in our province and in our neighbouring province of Alberta. But in this bill there is nothing that explicitly talks about the conservation activities that would be set out for the area to be achieved. It simply prohibits some activities.

And given that protected areas have been reviewed provincewide very recently by the Auditor General, who issued a report that showed that in many of the managed land areas, like this one, those lands are not well managed in terms of the goals and plans that govern them….

So I think a key point of accountability of new legislation like this is to make explicit what the purpose of the legislation is, to include that, of course, in the

definitions

section and in the subsequent clauses in the bill. And we don't see any. We see very little discussion and anything in this bill before us that has anything to do with conservation other than the title of the act.

So again, I would ask the minister whether it was discussed in his office and with other parties that have had a longstanding interest in the bill that's before us to explicitly include conservation principles and goals for the watershed area that is proposed to be protected from oil and gas activity.

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I want to remind the member that this act is specific to dealing with the prohibitions as part of the agreement. The overall conservation goals and policies for this area — you know, broad goals — are dealt with through the southern Rocky management plan, through the higher-level Kootenay-Boundary plan, through the memorandum of understanding between British Columbia and Montana on management of the area, through management direction for forestry in the area through the Forest and Range Practices Act.

The overall conservation goals, which have all been recognized as contributing to the unique nature of this area, are recognized as doing that. This legislation is specific to dealing with putting in place the legislative strength behind prohibitions that have been agreed to as part of the agreement between British Columbia and Montana.

R. Fleming: With the indulgence of the minister, I'd just ask him to back up a little bit from when he introduced the amendment a few minutes ago to explain again the deletions and the implications of the references to the Park Act and the Protected Areas of B.C. Act and the Environment and Land Use Act, which were in the

section that we're debating now.

Again, he barely had an opportunity or had no opportunity to motivate on why they were originally included and why he has now proposed to amend them out of the bill before us. So I'd just ask him to back up a minute and walk me through that again.

[ Page 8608 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: The reason for providing the amendment, so that it doesn't include the following, is to exclude those areas from the Flathead Watershed area to ensure that there is not a process around where those areas could be established in there.

As you know, within certain classifications, those areas — for example, a class B park, potentially, that was created — could allow for some of those activities that are actually prohibited by the legislation. So it was removed in order to make sure that there wasn't a process that could bring an area into the Flathead Watershed area that would, by virtue of establishing that, not be covered by the prohibitions that are provided for in the legislation.

[1450]

R. Fleming: So I think the minister has said that the motivation for it was to provide flexibility for future agreements in the area that may include additional and more formal land protections in the watershed but to allow flexibilities for what those agreements may contain that would otherwise be out of compliance with existing legislation. Is that the answer I just heard?

Hon. S. Thomson: No. The reason they were removed in the amendment…. What it previously said was "but does not include the following." What it means is that if you had established those areas within the Flathead Watershed area, any one of those provisions potentially would not have been covered by the prohibitions in the legislation.

This was a step to strengthen this to make sure that we fully complied with the intent of the agreement and to ensure that the prohibitions are applied to the full area and that there isn't a process to be able to establish and put in a different classification within that Flathead Watershed area that would then not be covered by the provisions of the legislation in terms of the prohibitions.

R. Fleming: Well, again, not trying to put words in the minister's mouth but to ask him to explain it another way. If I hear him correctly, he's saying that in order to make the prohibition more explicit and enforceable with regards to oil and gas activity and mineral exploration in the watershed, that is enhanced by removing references through these three other pieces of legislation. Is that the advice the minister is getting?

Hon. S. Thomson: To be clear, what we are doing here is strengthening the legislation to ensure that the prohibitions apply. By not providing the opportunity for other areas to be created within that watershed area, it would then not fall under the provisions of the prohibitions because the wording previously said "but does not include the following."

If steps were taken to create a class B park in a portion of the Flathead Watershed area that's covered by the prohibitions, potentially that would mean these…. Because it does not include those areas, then it would not be covered by the prohibition.

So it was a step, based on legal advice, to make sure that the legislation fully complied with the agreement and the intent.

R. Fleming: If I could just ask the minister to elaborate on his answer. In the example that he gave, suggesting that were there in future a class B park created in a portion of the area that we are discussing today, if there was a reference to the Park Act, which is now proposed to be deleted in the amendment….

Is he saying that that is because there are actually stronger abilities to make mineral claims under that designation of park than there would be under the legislation we're contemplating today? Is that part of the explanation in the example that the minister used?

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: Maybe I'm having a little difficulty in clarifying the point or making it clear. The way that this works is you have the watershed area, total area that's defined, where the prohibitions apply. By having the previous list of the sections there that says "but does not include the following" — with those lists — you could have the theoretical situation where, within that overall boundary of the Flathead Watershed area, a class B park could have been created inside that area.

That would have meant that the prohibitions of the legislation do not apply to that because, as it was previously worded, it said "but does not include the following."

There are circumstances within a class B park or a controlled recreation area where some of the activities that are prohibited by this legislation could take place.

This was to remove that potential opportunity or potential weakness in the wording that's currently there — to make sure that the total area continues and the prohibitions that are provided from this legislation will apply to the total area and that there isn't a process where some of the area within that overall box could have been excluded from those provisions through that kind of step.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

M. Sather: First of all, I want to briefly congratulate, certainly, the minister and the government on bringing this legislation forward. It's going to be, and has been, widely accepted, particularly in that part of the province which is directly affected.

Previously, as intergovernmental relations critic, I had the opportunity to visit the Flathead and was absolutely astounded by not only the beauty and the diversity

[ Page 8609 ]

of wildlife in the area but by how accessible it is to any that want to visit it.

I just wanted to ask the minister a couple of things.

Well, I should mention, also, that kudos, of course, go to those in the non-profit sector that helped to bring this issue forward those many years. I think particularly of Casey Brennan and John Bergenske from Wildsight. They, of course, do have concerns, as the minister will know, and perhaps has intentions, as well, of bringing it into park status at some point in the future. But that remains for another day to be discussed, I should think.

Now, I noticed that under the

definitions,

section 1, "mining activity," there was a change made from the order-in-council regarding the Flathead Watershed area with regard to gravel, rock and those operations, which are, as the minister will know, highly contentious, some of them, throughout the province, particularly in settled areas. I know in Pitt Meadows we had a contentious issue over the quarry there.

I see that changes have been made, or it appears to me that they have been made, such that the legislation brought forward refers to: "… does not include a quarry or a sand or gravel operation where the area of activity is 2 hectares or less…." And then it gives a tonnage amount as well.

[1500]

So for relatively small operations — quarries and sand and gravel — the definition of mining activity does not apply. Then I'm assuming from there…. I guess maybe it's self-evident, but I'll ask the minister anyway, if I have that right. Those small kinds of operations — sand, gravel, quarry operations — would be, then, permitted under this act.

Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is in the

definitions

section because it directly reflects the agreement in the memorandum of understanding between the province of British Columbia and the state of Montana, where it states, clearly, under the agreement, under

definitions: "For further certainty, 'mining' as referred to in this MOU does not include the small quarry or sand or gravel operations where the area of activity is two hectares or less, and not more than 20,000 tonnes per annum is removed or to be removed."

The provision in the definition directly reflects the agreement that was signed. That was the commitment of the province to do that. That was part of the administrative order, and it's part of what we are now bringing forward in the legislation.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for clarifying that.

I guess what I am looking at is the order-in-council of February 9, 2010, where it said: "'mining activity' means any activity related to (

a) the exploration and development of a mineral, a placer mineral or coal, or (

b) the production of a mineral, a placer mineral or coal." It doesn't mention those others, but I think the minister is probably referring to another document that I am not aware of.

Given that those smaller gravel and sand operations are permitted, I think one of the things…. That seems reasonable on the face of it, but I am wondering. A lot would depend, I would think, on the placement of such an operation. If it were along the Flathead River, for example, which has a fairly flat approach to it in many locations….

I don't know. I have no idea where such operations might be, but I'm just wondering the minister's thoughts or if there are any provisions — I don't see it here — with regard to placement of these smaller sand and gravel operations. Or could they be virtually at any location within the Flathead Watershed area?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, any approvals for activity with these operations would be subject to the Mines Act, to the mineral exploration code. So any activity would require a permit. The gravel, which is in many cases utilized for roads…. The roads within the area are primarily forest service roads, which are covered under the Forest and Range Practices Act.

I think one of the other important points that members opposite and the member would benefit from — and I view this the same way — is that on the Montana side of the Flathead there is a very, very extensive road network. If we had a prohibition on these activities within the area on our side of the border, within the area it would mean we would have to be trucking gravel in for those purposes from there or from other areas.

This is actually, in one sense, an environmental protection measure by recognizing that there is the need for some of those materials within the area to support other activities in the area and recognizing that this has been carried on for many years. We still have the area recognized as a very unique area. We continue to support the resource activities that continue to be permitted in the area, and it actually is a protection measure. Again, to reference that any activity requires permit, which is under the Mines Act and the mineral exploration and reclamation code.

M. Sather: I just wanted to clarify, then. I believe the minister said that there was a more extensive network of roads on the Montana side around the Flathead, which wouldn't entirely surprise me, because there isn't a tremendous number of roads on our side — as I've seen, anyway. There are some, but it's not roaded to a really highly extensive degree.

I'm wondering, though, if there was something I maybe didn't understand, or if the minister could clarify. Now, he was saying that we didn't want to restrict these kinds of activities, the mineral activities, and he made

[ Page 8610 ]

mention of the larger amount of roads on the Montana side.

I wasn't sure exactly what point he was making there. Was it that Montana would have some objection, or might have had some objection, to us being more restrictive around sand and gravel prohibitions? What was the inference there, particularly with regard to Montana having a more extensive road network and wanting us to not prevent mineral exploration?

Hon. S. Thomson: I just want to back up one step and thank the member opposite for his acknowledgment of the very important step that has been taken here with this legislation.

Just to clarify the point I made, it has been a longstanding practice to have the small operations in here to support road activity or other activity. This has been there for many years, within the area. It was viewed, and I think it is viewed — as that's why it was specifically referenced and identified in the MOU — that it has less impact overall by being able to allow to continue to have these small quarries or operations within the area, as opposed to having to truck and bring gravel into the region from another area.

[1510]

M. Sather: That brings me, then, to a question. I mean, earlier there was a discussion about the title, and conservation not being laid out, and the minister talked about how it is laid out in other acts. Fair enough. But what does the minister, as logging is permitted in the watershed area…? I didn't notice any roadbuilding when I was down there.

Being that forestry is also under his bailiwick, what does he anticipate in terms of further roads in the near future or, let's say, over the next five years for logging purposes in the area? I guess we would then need more mining activity, sand and gravel activity, to assist in the construction of those roads.

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, any road activity with respect to the forest industry is subject to the Forest and Range Practices Act. The major licensee in the area is Tembec. They are a certified licensee, a certified operation, and work to the highest standards. Whenever they undertake activity, they bring in partner environmental organizations to ensure that the activity they plan and undertake continues to meet the certification standards they operate under. The overall area is covered by the southern Rockies resource management plan. Again, the provision to be able to have these small quarry operations helps support those activities where they take place.

While I am up, I just wanted to clarify — because I understand from the Chair that in dealing with the amendment for

section 1, it may not have been clear when I made my additional comments — that we had two amendments in that first amendment, one dealing with removal of those sections. The other was the one

section replacing the term "mineral claim" with "mineral title."

I understand there may have been some lack of clarity as to whether that was caught in dealing with the amendment. Just so we make sure we deal with this correctly, I would move the second amendment, which is in

section 1, the definition, to replace the term "mineral claim" with "mineral title."

SECTION 1 , by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

"mineral claim" "mineral title" has the same meaning as in the Mineral Tenure Act ;;]

On the amendment.

M. Sather: I'm assuming the minister can clarify this. Is the reason it has changed from "claim" to "title" that it's the word "title" that's used in the Mineral Tenure Act? I'm just wondering: what is the difference between a mining title and a mining claim?

[1515]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify, the "mineral title" is a broader definition. As noted in my comments, it ensures that the placer mineral claims are included in

section 5 of this act.

Section 5 is the

section which prohibits a free miner from registering mining claims in the Flathead Watershed area, so it's a broader definition.

M. Sather: I don't know if this question is out of order. But can the minister tell me how many titles there are in the area?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised there are 13 mineral titles or mineral claims, including coal, and no placer claims.

Amendment approved.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the definition of mining activity that explicitly refers to and excludes quarrying, sand and gravel operation activities and to ask the minister for some information that may be of interest to committee stage of the debate about current permit activity.

Also, when we get to the

section where mining activity is expanded upon, what is going to happen after permits expire? I'm only aware of one quarrying permit in the watershed currently. It does have an expiry date. If the minister could expand upon whether those will be renewed or can be applied to be renewed or whether they become extinguished upon the expiration of permits.

Hon. S. Thomson: I think I've addressed the response to the first part of the member opposite's question quite

[ Page 8611 ]

extensively in the previous answers, when we discussed why the provision is here in relation to the specific agreement in the MOU.

But just to confirm, there is one current permit in the area. That permit, when it expires, would be eligible to be re-permitted if the applicant made that application, provided that it would stay within the limitations currently in the legislation. Any other permit that was made that falls within those limitations would be considered and would be subject, as I said earlier, to the Mines Act, to the regulations and everything that governs those permits. But at the current time, there's only one permitted quarry operation in the area.

R. Fleming: The restrictions that the minister refers to are simply around the size and volume. Is that correct? Those are the only ones referred to here. But I'm wondering if he has something else to add to the discussion. I appreciate his previous answer about the existing quarrying permit and what the permit holder may do, what rights they may exercise upon the expiration.

[1520]

I think there is some confusion amongst the business and the individual that operates that permit now, because I think it's been communicated to them that they don't anticipate they can renew that permit. If there needs to be anything more explicit said on that on the record here and then, of course, maybe with staff in the region with that individual, I would ask the minister if he would kindly do that.

Hon. S. Thomson: I've just been advised of where the confusion may have occurred with respect to this, and this one particular permit. It goes back to a point where the member previously talked about the OIC provisions that were brought in where the OIC didn't have the provision in it, and in fact he's correct there.

We had a time period between the OIC provisions and this legislation where this particular condition or this particular part of the agreement was actually not in place. There would have been some potential confusion on the part of the operator that he may not have been able to renew his permit, and there may have been some communication related to that because of the provisions of the OIC.

What I am advised is that staff have been in contact with the operator — that the misunderstanding is being clarified. Clearly, if the operator wants to continue that permit beyond the expiry date, provided that it remains under the limitations in this legislation and provided that it meets the other requirements through the permitting and application process and then compliance with the provisions in a regular application process, he would be able to continue his operation.

R. Fleming: Just while we're on this definition of mining activity, I wanted to ask the minister if he's aware of any other activities under this subsection around sand and gravel operations and quarrying that may not be permitted — in other words, they do not fit the new restrictions — and whether there will be any eligibility for those holding tenures to seek compensation from government.

Hon. S. Thomson: There are no other permitted sand or quarry operations within the Flathead.

G. Gentner: I want to refer back to the mining activity. Does that include all previous mining activity in that definition?

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, this legislation prohibits permitting for mining activity as outlined here, other than the limitation of the quarry or sand or gravel operation. As I stated previously, within the Flathead there is only one current permitted sand or gravel quarry operation that is within the limitations of this legislation and this agreement.

G. Gentner: I was thinking in terms of previous exploration. Cabin Creek, Howell Creek were subjected to some preliminary exploration studies, etc. I'm just curious as to whether this legislation will deal with some previously disturbed areas.

I also want to know: under the production of a mineral placer — mineral, coal, sand, gravel or rock — does this legislation prevent removal of peat?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, peat does not fall under the definition of mineral, so it would not be captured by this prohibition. Any activity there would need to potentially be covered under a Land Act tenure application process there.

Maybe I'm not quite understanding the member opposite's question, in terms of what he's referring to. I just want to be clear that this legislation prohibits the permitting of activity in the areas that are referenced here. I think we've covered well the issue around quarry and sand or gravel operations.

G. Gentner: The minister mentioned, of course, that the reason for these small quarries is to provide tonnage for, I believe, maintaining roads in the area. Has the ministry done any strategic plans or have an idea of how many tonnes it will take to maintain the roads in the Flathead?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: No. Regular maintenance is undertaken in the area. We've had no difficulties accessing gravel for the regular maintenance.

[1530]

[ Page 8612 ]

Again, just to confirm, there are no permit applications. This provision has been in operation for quite some time. But no, we haven't done any strategic plan as to what amount of gravel may be required in the future. But again, it would have to come through by permit. It would have to fall within the limitations of this legislation. Again, I want to stress specifically that this legislation brings in the provisions of the agreement and the MOU between British Columbia and Montana.

G. Gentner: I understand that it can permit future roadbuilding in the area. It's alarming to me that the ministry hasn't captured how much gravel it will take to maintain or perhaps look at future roads for forestry.

But my question is: how much gravel…? Can gravel within the Flathead area be used for purposes outside the Flathead?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the very short answer to that would probably be: theoretically, yes; economically, probably no.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister can explain procedures and details around subsection 2(1)(

c) around the issuance of licences to occupy and use Crown land in the Flathead watershed as it relates to

section 39 of the Land Act.

Hon. S. Thomson: This reference is to

section 39 in the Land Act, which is a provision where the minister may issue a licence to occupy and use Crown land, called a licence of occupation, subject to the terms and reservations the minister considers advisable. What the legislation says here with respect to this

section is that the minister is prohibited from doing that if it relates to mining activity.

R. Fleming: I understand the prohibitions in this section. I wanted to ask the minister some questions about compensation — potential liabilities, in that regard, to the province. I think this is probably the best

section to ask the minister about that.

The first question would really be about whether this bill has exposed government to any compensation claims and negotiations as a result of the mining prohibition and the loss of mineral tenure. I guess, really, the minister could at least back up his response to the MOU that was signed with Montana prior to the formalization of those conditions in this bill and really anything that relates to negotiations with the Crown around compensation from the extinguishment of mining and mineral tenures.

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite likely knows, when the MOU was signed and the OIC put in place, there was a commitment that there would be compensation discussions related to the existing tenures. Those discussions are underway and continue.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could expand upon that and describe how many different negotiations and different mineral tenure claims that have been forfeited are now underway with the Crown.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, as I stated earlier, there were 13 tenures. Discussions continue, and we need to allow those discussions to continue. I'm not prepared in the House here to discuss the details or the nature of those compensation discussions. Those continue, and that's where the discussions are appropriate to take place, not here on the floor of the Legislature.

R. Fleming: I wanted, nevertheless, to ask the minister a couple of questions around the parameters. The passage of this legislation, I think, is relevant to some of the questions that we have on the opposition side around Crown liabilities, potentially, for loss of tenure. We have seen recently the courthouse steps model of settlement play out in British Columbia, and that has been very expensive. We want to be reasonably assured that mistakes that are costly are not being made in regards to the Flathead.

My question to the minister would be how these negotiations are being carried out, if indeed they are being led by his ministry, and if so, whether they're using a set of guidelines and procedures that government follows that are related to the loss of mineral tenure for compensation.

We know that part of the backdrop of signing the memorandum of understanding with Montana and having that announcement in time for celebrations in 2010 was able to leverage private conservation and charitable foundation money from the United States and from Canada, Alaska, and that was deliberately for tenures and liabilities that would be incurred.

I would ask the minister to at least give the House some additional information about how negotiations are being carried out and whether they're in accordance with a set of guidelines and procedures.

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, just to confirm, as I said previously, compensation…. The discussions, negotiations are underway. It's being managed with a cross-ministry process, in addressing it. Again, what I will say is that discussions continue, and I'm not prepared…. Given that those are important discussions between government and the tenure holders — to not state further detail with respect to those discussions because they continue currently.

[ Page 8613 ]

R. Fleming: I take part of the minister's point, but I think it's fair that the House be assured that the government is evaluating the mineral tenure and conducting the negotiations with some confidence.

We've just seen probably the worst example of how a claim has been extinguished in British Columbia, which had a serious cost escalator clause to it, by government changing its mind and telling tenure holders one thing and doing another and running interference in the background. That has been an expensive and very poor episode, I think, in this government's most recent experience.

My questions are simply to ask the minister about whether it has evaluated its mineral tenures and its potential exposure to claims here and whether it's using third-party methods to do so. What we saw in the Blizzard uranium mine example is that lawyers evaluated the claim, not based on sunk costs, not based on real expenses that that company made but other factors that had everything to do with incompetence in managing the tenure claim for that company.

I think it's important, in passing potential protections through this law, that the public have some assurance that it's going to be able to do so in an orderly fashion and that the negotiations that are being done by government are being done competently, because most recently we've seen an example where the opposite was the case.

[1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, to confirm. There's a cross-ministry team working on the compensation discussions and negotiations with those impacted tenure holders. Those processes continue. They are underway, and I think at this point it's just appropriate to say that the discussions continue.

Given that those are negotiations between private companies and individuals in government, beyond acknowledging that there is a process underway and the compensation discussions continue, that's the extent of the information that I should provide here, because I want to ensure that in no way, in terms of my response, do I prejudice or complicate any of those discussions that are underway.

There is a senior cross-ministry team managing that process. I'm confident that they will continue to do so within all the provisions of policy and from a legal perspective.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about a status report of the commitment that private conservation groups made that surrounded the signing of the memorandum of understanding with Montana. I believe the figure was a commitment to raise $15 million. I don't know if there's a breakdown of those figures — how much would come from the United States fundraising efforts and how much would come from Canadian sources or Canadian organizations.

It would be, I think, an appropriate question at this point in time, because we are talking about exposure and liabilities around mineral tenures that are being surrendered, just to see how that's progressing and how much money has been fulfilled from the date of the MOU from that commitment.

Hon. S. Thomson: As was announced at the time of the signing of the MOU, the commitment from the organizations was $9.4 million. That comes from the Nature Conservancy of Canada and The Nature Conservancy, which is the U.S. organization or the U.S. equivalent. How that is split between those two organizations is up to them, but in combination the commitment is for $9.4 million.

The commitment is that that would be provided once government had followed through on their commitment to bring the previous agreements, which were done through administrative processes, into legislation.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the minister for that answer and just ask him for his commitment — and whether the government will publish figures and details around final payments that may be necessary for compensation for the loss of mineral tenure.

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, we have the assurances of those organizations that on the passage of the legislation, the commitment for the funding is there. In terms of the compensation payments, those would be part of public accounts.

M. Sather: There are some unique lands in this area known as the Dominion coal blocks, some 33,000 hectares in the headwaters of the Flathead River and 66,000 hectares in the adjacent Elk Valley. I wanted to ask the minister if the Dominion coal blocks are within the Flathead Watershed area, in whole or in part.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, with respect to the Dominion coal blocks, there are two blocks. The northern block is completely outside of the area. There is a percentage of the southern block that is within the area. I'm advised that the total size of the southern block is 45,000 acres and about 20 percent of that is in the area.

M. Sather: Well, it is a unique parcel that dates back to, I think, around the early 1900s with the CPR having acquired these properties. There were negotiations in recent years about transferring the Dominion coal blocks from the federal government to the province. I wonder if the minister could update the House on whether those negotiations are still ongoing or whether they've been abandoned or concluded.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise the member, discussions continue. There are ongoing discussions. There have

[ Page 8614 ]

been, as you know, ongoing discussions for many years on this. From time to time those discussions take on some additional activity, but I think the way to portray this is simply that there are ongoing discussions.

[1555]

M. Sather: It's my understanding, then, that on those lands the surface rights, including coal, would be owned by the federal government, but the subsurface rights, including leased petroleum and natural gas would be under the purview of the province. Would that be correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

M. Sather: One of the interests in development of that area has been around coal bed methane, which, as I understand it, is situated next to the Dominion coal block, in that area — in the Crowsnest area. Would there be a prohibition, then, under this act, from mining for coal bed methane?

Hon. S. Thomson: Chair, I think the member opposite may have moved…. Maybe he's wanting to advance the debate, but I think he's moved on to the next section. But just to be clear, with respect to the next section, that

section would prohibit that.

G. Gentner: Under

section 2. I'm trying to grasp the severity or trying to get clarity as to what you can't do under

section 11 of the Land Act or

section 38 of the Land Act, which I think has got more to do with leasing, and

section 39, which is more about licensing. To the minister: is not forestry a type of leasing or licensing from the Crown?

Hon. S. Thomson: All of the authorizations for forestry are under the Forest Act.

G. Gentner: What other activities are authorized, after the placement of sections 38, 39 and 11, of the land, other than forestry?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, this

section relates to all possible activities or permitting with respect to mining. That's the purpose of the legislation, so that reference to these sections is specific to mining activity in the Flathead Watershed area. That's the purpose of ensuring that these sections prohibit mining activity in the area.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

Hon. S. Thomson: I have two amendments standing in my name to this section, so I move the amendment to

section 5 standing in my name that adds subsection (1.1) to

section 5.

SECTION 5 , by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) The chief gold commissioner must not exercise the power under

section 21 (3) of the Coal Act to cancel all or part of the coal land reserve established under this Act.]

[1600]

On the amendment.

R. Fleming: I would ask the minister to maybe explain in more detail the reason for this amendment, which was just put on the orders of the day, around the chief gold commissioner and why he is prohibited from exercising other powers under the Coal Act — if he could give some background and information on this amendment.

Obviously, what we have done with this legislation is put a coal reserve over the prohibition, over the area, and what we want to make sure is that by the provisions under the Coal Act, the chief gold commissioner, by regulation, can't turn around and cancel that reserve.

Again, this was brought forward by legal counsel, and it's a provision to make sure that we cover the full intent of this legislation and to make sure that we have the full strength in the legislation.

R. Fleming: I would ask the minister if there are any other activities that are going to be circumscribed by the chief gold commissioner or the mine commissioner as a result of potential passage of this bill.

Hon. S. Thomson: No. In terms of the chief gold commissioner there are no other provisions. This amendment covers off any potential risk that may have been created by having that provision under the Coal Act. The legal advice was to make sure that we covered it off in the first drafting. That was not caught, and we wanted to make sure that we corrected that.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could give me the courtesy of detailing when the gold commissioner was first given jurisdiction over coal reserves in B.C. I realize this may be an old piece of legislation.

Hon. S. Thomson: You're really taxing my knowledge of history here, but I'm advised that this goes back to the late 1800s, when the chief gold commissioner position was established under the original Coal Act.

R. Fleming: I have some questions about the measurement and calculation of coal reserves. I will actually just sit down, and we can deal with the amendment.

[1605]

[ Page 8615 ]

Amendment approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: There's one additional amendment standing in my name.

SECTION 5 , by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(3) A free miner must not register a mineral claim title in the mineral reserve established under subsection (2).]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Thomson: That's to replace the term "mineral claim" with "mineral title" in this section, and to ensure that the placer mineral claims are included in

section 5, which prohibits the free miner from registering mining claims in the Flathead Watershed area.

We dealt with this one in the definition section, and this is simply providing the reference here in this

section to change from mineral claim to mineral title, to be consistent with the definition.

Amendment approved.

section 5 as amended.

Hon. S. Thomson: It's defined by the surface and the boundaries of the area. It covers the overall surface and everything within the boundaries of the watershed area.

R. Fleming: I'm wondering if the calculation of the reserves has anything that is quantifiable in terms of how much of the resource is expected to be contained within the reserve; obviously, where it is; and whether this is published data.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm that we don't estimate coal in place until it's been explored. That is how it's determined, so we wouldn't have that estimate. We stopped exploration in the area by this legislation, so we would not have that estimate.

R. Fleming: Then I would ask the minister if government has any intention to do any testing or exploration in addition to what has been done over many years, to actually look at the scope of reserves or whether government's quantification of that would be not pursued and would be subject to the same restrictions that private exploration will be bound by.

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: I am advised that we do have historical exploration records that provide some information. But from that perspective, we don't have plans to do further exploration. That's prohibited by the legislation that we're debating here.

R. Fleming: I am just wondering, then, from the minister…. The term "coal reserve" denotes storage, but I know that from what the minister has described, that does not appear to be the case, although he has just said there are historical records about the quantities of how rich in the resource this area is.

Again, I would ask him: is that published for this area and other parts of the province where restrictions like this are either in place or contemplated?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm that reserve in this respect, within this, means reserved from disposition. That's the purpose of the prohibition. In terms of historical records, I am advised that those historical records are available in the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

G. Gentner: Just regarding

section 6, can the minister give an explanation why the Offence Act,

section 5, does not apply to this act?

Hon. S. Thomson:

Section 5 of the Offence Act makes it an offence to do anything that the act or regulation forbids, or omitting to do something that

an act or regulation requires. Stating that

section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply means that it is not an offence to fail to comply with the provisions of the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act.

This is normally done when requirements of

an act are imposed on government, since it would be inappropriate to address a failure to comply by means of a provincial prosecution. Persons wishing to enforce the act against government can do so by means of a judicial review.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

On the title.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the minister and to congratulate government for working with many stakeholders and parties over many years to accomplish, I think, what are some key protections in this bill. My colleague also passed on his congratulations earlier, and I wanted to do that at this stage of debate.

I did want to say that I think the title is somewhat misleading. We have discussed at second reading debate and a little bit this morning that, in fact, it's a stretch to call this a conservation act. It is

an act that brings into

[ Page 8616 ]

being some prohibitions around sources of energy that put a watershed at serious risk that was recognized by UNESCO and has been well studied and conserved to the highest standards possible by UN biosphere and by National Park on the Montana side of the border and, indeed, in Alberta.

That is not what is being achieved here today. I don't believe this is a conservation act. If I were to suggest a more accurate title, it might read, "The elimination of mining and oil and gas activity in the Flathead Watershed area act" or something like that, which I think is a more true description of it.

[1615]

I thank the minister for the opportunity to ask questions this afternoon to clarify that and for him to explain the amendments that were put on the orders of the day today, and thank him for his role in bringing the bill to passage. This is going to be an achievement for the Flathead which successive governments can build upon in years to come.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: Very quickly, before I do the motion…. We've had a good discussion here, but I do again want to just reflect on the significance of this bill, the importance of it to the province, the great work that has been done by previous ministers involved in this, by government, by staff, and to recognize that with this bill we have completed our commitments under the MOU.

We've also achieved what I believe is a very important balance in terms of the prohibition of activities and continuing to provide for sound management of the area, continuing to recognize the current resource values in the area and the important role that this plays in the economy of the Kootenays.

We've received tremendous support for this, letters of compliments for the undertaking. So we've had a fairly detailed debate, but I don't want the significance of the moment to pass without those comments.

The Chair: Minister, do you want to move a motion?

Hon. S. Thomson: I rise and report the bill complete as amended.

The Chair: The motion is that the committee rise and report completion, as amended, of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:17 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area

Conservation Act

Bill 2, Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. S. Thomson: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area

Conservation Act

Bill 2, Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading of Bill 10, intituled Nurse Practitioners Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Nurse Practitioners

Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to initiate second reading debate on Bill 10.

The bill addresses 12 different acts, specifically with respect to the role that nurse practitioners may play and, I suppose, more accurately, participate more fully in the continuum of health care services in British Columbia.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I think that it's also fair to say that the intent behind the legislation is to provide British Columbians with more options when seeking medical opinions or accessing the various government programs that are provided for in the legislation that is addressed.

As we go through the legislation that is covered by this bill it will become apparent that a number of existing statutes restrict nurse practitioners from providing the full range of services that are within their scope of practice. That became apparent in the years since the discipline was recognized as we listened to some of the concerns brought forward by not just nurse practitioners but others involved in the delivery of health care services and learned more about how nurse practitioners can play an even more effective role in the delivery of health care in B.C.

[1620]

[ Page 8617 ]

The nurse practitioners themselves, as I think members may recall, were introduced in B.C. in a formal sense in 2005. The expectation and the objective was to have them fulfil additional roles in areas like primary care, chronic disease, disease prevention and health promotion. They are, again, as I think members know, registered nurses who have received an additional level of education at the master's graduate level, and they do have an expanded scope of practice that extends beyond that of a traditional registered nurse role. They have, as I have said, that enhanced training, but they are not physicians. They are not medical doctors and would be the first to admit as much.

When we get to the committee stage we will have an opportunity to explore in detail how the various acts are being amended to allow nurse practitioners to provide services to their full scope of practice, and I don't propose in the second reading debate to go through each one of the acts individually.

By way of example, and I may have mentioned this at the introduction of the bill, the Employment Standards Act and changes to that act would give nurse practitioners the authority to provide certification for pregnancy leave, including confirmation that an employee is able to return to work; parental leave; and compassionate care leave. The mechanism by which that is generally accomplished in the amendments that are included within this act is to amend the definition of a medical practitioner to include a nurse practitioner. That is certainly true in the case of the example that I have just mentioned.

The sum total of the amendments, again, is to increase the options for primary and community health care and to support a broader range of options for families.

In the Crime Victim Assistance Act, even though nurse practitioners are now primary caregivers, under the existing provisions of that act they cannot provide a diagnosis confirming that a patient has sustained psychological harm in the way that would allow them to be eligible for benefits under the act.

These amendments, again, by way of altering the definition or amending the definition, would remove that impediment and would allow a nurse practitioner to render that opinion and that diagnosis in a way that would allow an individual to access the benefits under that program. It would eliminate the need for someone to get a second opinion from a psychologist or a doctor when they are already a patient of a nurse practitioner.

In many parts of the province I suppose it may be possible to say that this will be an added feature, an added dimension that will be convenient but not necessarily essential. In other parts of the province that is not so.

We still, despite the additional training that is being provided and efforts that are being made to expand the availability of physicians, have communities that are underserviced, in some cases communities that have no medical doctors. In those communities the role played by nurse practitioners is essential, and removing the statutory impediments that presently exist to them offering a full range of services within their scope of practice represents a major and important step forward.

I commend the legislation at second reading to the House as a positive step forward, as one that will provide more options to British Columbians and that safeguards the always overarching concern — that is, the safety of patients — by guaranteeing that medical practitioners are providing services within defined areas that are covered by their training and their scope of practice.

[1625]

With that, I look forward to the comments and observations from other members of the House and move second reading.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise on second reading debate of Bill 10 and to offer a few observations and some comments from this side of the House on this particular piece of legislation. It is an important bill, as the minister has said. It is a step forward. It deals with a number of issues as a result of nurse practitioners in British Columbia — the creation of which the minister commented about, in 2005 — and having to rectify about a dozen pieces of legislation so that nurse practitioners can in fact take full opportunity of their advanced training and the skills that they have and their scope of practice as it was laid out.

On this side of the House we will be supporting the legislation. There will be a number of questions that we have in second reading about some key sections and some key areas. We'd also like to offer some commentary in terms of what the bill does in those particular sections, and also on what the bill doesn't do. While there's much to applaud in this particular bill, there's also a fair bit that we are concerned about because it's not in the bill, and also the government's direction that we've taken with nurse practitioners since the creation, the implementation, in 2005.

I think the critique or the criticism is not so much saying that the government has failed, but rather that I don't believe that we as a province and the health system have lived up fully to the potential that nurse practitioners have to play in the delivery of health care in British Columbia. The minister has talked about primary and community care, and that's absolutely right. There is a tremendous role for registered nurse practitioners to play in the delivery of primary care and community care in B.C. But in order to do that, it means that there have to be spaces and jobs and employment opportunities for them.

One of the things that does concern us is that the ministry, the government, used to make grants to health authorities to hire nurse practitioners. Well, that is no longer the case, particularly when you're dealing with…. As is often the case when you do something new, it takes

[ Page 8618 ]

a little time for that to take hold, for people to understand the full opportunity that can be created by making a positive change, such as the introduction of nurse practitioners in 2005.

Those grants that allowed health authorities to do that, I think, were a positive incentive to say: "Look, we can change the model of how we deliver health care, and we want to work with you as the health authority in doing that. Nurse practitioners can play a key role in delivering community care and primary care in rural B.C. and in urban B.C., and to do that, we have an incentive to allow that to take place." Well, I think the elimination of that is a mistake. I think that's something that the government seriously needs to look at.

Right now there are only 13 opportunities, employment vacancies, in the province of British Columbia, yet there are 72 nurse practitioners looking for work in B.C.

We spend a great deal of time and opportunity in terms of training nurse practitioners. They get a master's degree. That's a pretty significant commitment on their

part in terms of dedication to the profession, in terms of an increase in their skill set and their education level.

I think we need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to take full advantage of that and that they're working here in British Columbia, as opposed to going outside the province to work in other jurisdictions, where they're taking advantage of the considerable resources that we as a province have put into ensuring and creating the skill set and the skill level that has been achieved here in British Columbia. I think that's an area of concern.

There's an opportunity, as well, for us as a province to look at what other provinces are doing. In Ontario, for example, nurse practitioners are playing a significant role. Again, that's something that we in this province can look towards and design something, which does not have to be identical to what is in Ontario, to look at how their successes can be applied here in B.C. Again, I think, that's an area of concern that we have in this province.

[1630]

The nurse practitioners have said that they are supportive of this particular piece of legislation, that it addresses some of the issues that they have been working to resolve. I think it is important to acknowledge just exactly what some of the important changes are that this legislation will implement.

As the minister stated, it will amend 12 different pieces of legislation, and it will allow nurse practitioners to carry out a range of health-related services — for example, being able to provide certification for pregnancy and parental leave. It seems pretty straightforward, but right now you can't do that if you're a nurse practitioner. Well, this legislation will change that.

Provide a diagnosis if a patient has sustained psychological harm that allows them to be eligible for benefits under the Crime Victim Assistance Act. Again, it would seem straightforward, but at present it's not. So again, that's a positive change.

Carrying out health examinations for people committed to a corrections facility. Substantiating that a consumer has experienced a substantial change in health circumstances for the purpose of cancelling a continuing service contract. Certifying that an employee's family member has a serious medical condition with significant risk of death within 26 weeks. Reporting on the health of patients injured in a motor vehicle accident, for the purpose of ICBC.

Admitting a person to a mental health facility without risk of liability. I know in this particular area we will have a few questions for the minister in the appropriate

section during committee stage, and I'll look forward to hearing answers to those questions.

Certifying that a person is unable to wear a seatbelt for a medical reason, under the Motor Vehicle Act. I know that is an issue that we have had considerable debate about in different legislation, but the fact is there are people — not many, but a few — and a nurse practitioner would have the skills to make that determination. I think it's only appropriate that that is recognized in terms of the changes that are needed to legislation to take full advantage of their skills.

An important one — particularly since a lot of the focus around the creation of nurse practitioners was around the primary and community care aspect of the delivery of health care in this province — is certifying that a student is able to return to school following a communicable disease. If primary care and community care, communicable diseases…. If that's not the level where we would like to see much of that attention or much of it dealt with, I don't know what is.

So again, that's a change that I think is a particularly positive change. It's one that, I believe, the sooner we make, the better it will be.

I also think it is important, though, to recognize that whenever we make changes, there are groups and organizations who have questions, legitimate questions, that they would like to see answered. I know the BCMA has raised concerns in terms of the lack of consultation with their organization, and they have some issues around training and standards.

Again, those are issues that we will want to raise during committee stage of the bill, and I hope that the minister can provide answers that are satisfactory not just in terms of this House but also in terms of physicians and the BCMA.

Finally, I think one of the areas that I would like the minister in his closing remarks or in his reply remarks to address is some of the government's thinking and the direction of where they see nurse practitioners going in British Columbia in terms of the state of negotiations with nurse practitioners, in terms of dealing with other areas that are still outstanding that have not been ad-

[ Page 8619 ]

dressed by this particular piece of legislation and a potential timeline for when those would be addressed, and also, the government's sense in terms of funding mechanisms.

I know one of the issues that has been raised in the past is fee-for-service versus salary. I know that's been an issue with.…

Interjection.

[1635]

M. Farnworth: I thank the member from Kamloops for that interruption. I would just like to, for his clarification, because….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

M. Farnworth: I have to say that praise from the member from Kamloops South is definitely praise indeed.

In my remarks what I am trying to accomplish is for the House to know that this is a positive piece of legislation that will have many, I think, significant and important changes in the delivery of health care if it's implemented in the correct way, if it's part of an overall strategy that seeks to maximize the potential of nurse practitioners in British Columbia. I think it's something that has been a long time coming.

Other jurisdictions in this country are trying to do that. Ontario is one of them. At the same time, one of the things that I also know, having been a former Health Minister, is that whenever change is made….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. At any Health ministers anonymous meeting you will find that the discussion gets around to changes being made. There will be many stories of discussions around the reactions that happen when change is made. Some are positive; some are not so positive.

But one of the things that I think is important is that there are questions and issues that are legitimate and issues that organizations are concerned about. I think it's important that those issues are on the table and that they know, even if they disagree with them, that they have been thought about, that they have been looked at, that there is a sense on the part of government, an understanding of the basis of those concerns and that government is able to offer an explanation as to why a change has taken place or why a change has not taken place.

I think it's important that that is on the record and that we explore those issues at committee stage.

Anyway, getting back to my main point of the comments I am making, we have an opportunity in this province to take advantage of something, which I think is positive, that the government did in 2005 with the establishment of nurse practitioners, which is for them to be part of a health care system and to be able to play a significant role in the delivery of health care in this province.

Along with these changes, I think it means a commitment to recognizing that there will be more changes taking place, that there needs to be probably more assistance from government in terms of making that happen. But also, I think, a recognition that: you know what? We don't have all the answers here in British Columbia. We can be looking at what is taking place in other provinces and other jurisdictions in this area, and we can design something that works for us.

Anyway, with my head full of the accolades and praise from the member from Kamloops South, I will take my seat and look forward to the comments of other colleagues. As I said to the minister, there will be a number of questions that I'll have during the committee stage of the debate. I'll look forward to the answers in response from the minister.

N. Letnick: It's interesting that in the last few hours we've seen two members of the opposition whose faces…. The colour of their faces matches their poppies. But they look like they were having a good time, especially the hon. member, the opposition critic for Health, the member of the HMA. I thought HMA used to stand for something to do with health authorities, but now I know it's the Health ministers anonymous group. It looks like we still have a cohort of three members of the HMA right here in this House, and I look forward to hearing what they all have to say during committee stage on the bill.

But I also recognize that even though the member for Port Coquitlam did provide praise to the Minister of Health over the introduction of this bill, he also took an opportunity to swipe government just a little bit on its performance in the health care area, especially primary care over the last few years.

[1640]

I just want to put it on the record to remind the hon. critic that over those last few years it's this government that has doubled the number of spaces for new doctors from 128 to 256.

It's also this government that's doubled the number of nurse training spaces in B.C. since 2001, over those same last few years. There have been over 17,000 nursing credentials awarded since 2001. I think, along with the doubling of spaces of doctors and the focus on primary care innovation, that government is definitely going to the right place and should be congratulated. I'll continue with that, Mr. Speaker.

What we have is something that was first started in 2005. The nurse practitioner program is now being expanded in scope to allow them to practise after their six

[ Page 8620 ]

years of university education and different levels of experience in different hospitals and communities around British Columbia, to really put to work the skills they have accumulated knowledge for.

I remember, just a few weeks ago, that I was present with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations and also the member for Westside-Kelowna at the opening of a new partnership between Okanagan College and UBC Okanagan. We now have the opportunity to see nurses start two years of college and then move over to UBC Okanagan to finish their two years to get their RN and then have the opportunity from there to go on to be practical nurses.

This is a great way of expanding the number of nurses that we have in the province and also expanding the scope that these nurses can work under and share their knowledge and their passion for health care throughout B.C., especially in rural areas. We can do that. We can continue to train nurses.

We have 45 nurse practitioners that graduate every year, 15 of which are from UBC, 15 from UNBC and 15 from UVic. As we all know, as we all talk about in this Legislature, what we see is that where you are trained is usually the place that you stay, so it's good that we have these nurse practitioners being trained all across British Columbia.

I also want to note that as of October 2011 there were more than 210 nurse practitioners in B.C. It's not an alarming number of thousands and thousands, but it's a good start, and I look forward to seeing, with these changes that this legislation puts forward, that more and more nurses will choose to become nurse practitioners so that they can continue to practise their calling in different parts of the country in a larger scope.

Just to give you some background on who our nurse practitioners are, I'd like to read from a

summary produced by Alison Roots — she's a PhD candidate; and also Dr. Marjorie MacDonald, who is an RN, as well, from the University of Victoria on some brief statistics as to what nurse practitioners do and their profile.

"The average nurse practitioner in B.C. is 44 years of age. They serve a population, about 41 percent of them, in areas with greater than 100,000 people; 22 percent of them in areas less than 10,000; and 37 percent between 10,000 and 100,000." So they run the whole community of British Columbia, from rural all the way to the most dense population areas of our province.

What they do is work mostly in community health centres. Fifty percent of nurse practitioners work in community health centres. Aboriginal health centres get 7 percent; family practice has 30 percent; home care, 4 percent; and other is 9 percent. And 71 percent of nurse practitioners work in sole nurse practitioner settings. I found that a very interesting statistic.

Their funding is mostly from health authorities; 78 percent of all nurse practitioners get their funds from health authorities. There's some blended funding with the health authorities and the ministry of 13 percent and some private practice dollars. Just 3 percent goes to nurse practitioners.

Frequency of patient care activity. Here's what nurse practitioners currently do. Chronic illness is 25 percent. Wellness care prevention is 22 percent. Episodic care and minor illness is 17 percent. Mental health is 13 percent. Health promotion is 9 percent. And the rest is built up in the 10 percent, including some palliative care.

[1645]

What we are talking about is allowing nurse practitioners