2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

First responders

J. Tegart

Nisga’a new year celebrations

R. Austin

Small business and reduction of regulations

J. Yap

Balbir Singh

R. Chouhan

Nutrition Month and healthy eating campaign

J. Thornthwaite

Refugee sponsorship

G. Holman

Oral Questions

Disability benefits and bus pass program changes

J. Horgan

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

M. Mark

S. Fraser

M. Mungall

Access to SkyTrain fare gates by persons with disabilities

D. Eby

Hon. P. Fassbender

Ombudsperson review of Health Ministry investigation

A. Dix

Hon. T. Lake

School district funding

R. Fleming

Hon. M. Bernier

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2015

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act (continued)

L. Popham

Hon. N. Letnick

V. Huntington

A. Dix

Reporting of Bills

Bill 11 — Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Mines Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. B. Bennett

N. Macdonald

D. Plecas

D. Donaldson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Hon. S. Thomson

H. Bains

B. Routley

D. Routley

[ Page 10947 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the House today are former MLA Val Roddick and her husband, Noel Roddick, and also Rod Swenson and his son, Joel. The Swensons are counted among many multigenerational families that have contributed to the success of farming in Delta and British Columbia. Their family has been farming in the West Ladner, Brunswick Point and Westham Island areas of Delta since the 1890s. They are here today to discuss issues important to the continued success of agriculture in their community and, indeed, the entire province.

Also, Val Roddick was a former parliamentary secretary to the then Minister of Agriculture. Val and her husband, Noel, have since retired from operating their successful horticulture business in Delta and continue live on their Westham Island farm as well as stay actively involved in their community.

Would the House please make all these wonderful agricultural people very, very welcome.

[1335]

C. James: I have two visitors in the gallery today. They have travelled all the way from Nanaimo to ensure that their voices would be heard on the issue of bus passes for people with disabilities. I’d like to introduce Brent Frame and Sonya Granhall and ask the House to please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. C. Oakes: Today was the first annual Red Tape Reduction Day, and we had some guests that came today. We had Karen Philp, the executive director of the Kidney Foundation of Canada for B.C. and the Yukon. We’ve seen more organ transplants done last year than ever before.

We had Iain Hooey, organizer of the Victoria Whiskey Festival, the second-best festival in the world and close to going to number one; Laura Jones, executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; and finally, Mike Croy, a family from Moose Heights. I like to say that. Mike is a Teamster, local union 213, and talked about the importance of the Helmets to Hardhats program. I know that there are two very special veterans in our lives who are looking down on today and would have been really proud.

V. Huntington: I’d like to join the Minister of Agriculture in welcoming Val Roddick, the former MLA for Delta South, and her husband, Noel; and Joel Swenson, whose father, Rod, has been in my office a number of times. The issue they’re speaking about today with the minister I’ve represented to both the Ministers of Natural Resources and Agriculture on numerous occasions. Hopefully, they’ll do better today.

J. Wickens: I am happy to have two guests in the House today, two women that I consider mentors and leaders. They are disability advocates, education advocates, and I’m so happy that I got to show them my new office. Would the House join me in welcoming Cathie Camley and Clair Schuman.

Hon. J. Rustad: Every once in a while, you get the true joy of having your spouse down here. Today I have my lovely wife, Kim, down here, and I’d ask the House to please make her welcome.

H. Bains: It is quite an honour for me to stand here today to introduce someone who I watched growing up and who made us proud nationally, internationally. We have a little argument going on, debate going on, within our own household. I say he is the Bobby Orr of field hockey, but my sons say: “No, Dad. He’s the Wayne Gretzky of field hockey.”

Nonetheless, we all agree that the greatest, I would say, field hockey player in the world is with us today, Mr. Balbir Singh Sr., the guy who scored five goals out of six goals that India scored to defeat England in 1952 — five goals. And you will hear more from my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds about his history.

There are other people who are with him that I would like to introduce. His son Ringo Dosanjh is here, and the guy who wrote the book about him finally, called The Forgotten Legend , Patrick Blennerhassett and his friend, Amy Leong.

Please join with me and give them the warmest welcome that ever we could give to anybody.

N. Macdonald: I’d just like to introduce a good friend of mine and my brother here behind me. It’s Anthony Britneff. He’s from Victoria. In all of the work that we did, as the minister will know, on forestry, this was the mind behind our work. We really appreciate that he’s here, and he’s here for Forests estimates.

The minister will know that there’s a lot coming at him, and I’d just like you to join me in welcoming a good friend to B.C.’s public lands.

L. Reimer: I, too, would like to welcome to the House Clair Schuman and Cathie Camley, two ladies I worked with on the Learning Disabilities Association, Fraser North

chapter — both great advocates for special needs children. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

[ Page 10948 ]

S. Robinson: I have two guests joining me today in the Legislature. Graham Campbell is the uncle of one of my good friends, Doug Stan. He’s touring Victoria, so he’s been invited to question period. And I learned that Graham has quite an interesting history with the CCF, the NDP and the Dave Barrett government.

Graham is a native of Winnipeg, and after joining the RCAF and fighting in the Korean War, he attended the founding convention of the New Democratic Party and ran, actually, in the 1962 election. He wasn’t successful and decided instead to pursue a different kind of career, became an academic and starting developing switching systems for the Internet. In the ’70s, Graham was the science adviser to the Ed Schreyer government in Manitoba and was sent here to British Columbia to exchange information about this new public insurance program being implemented by the Barrett government called ICBC.

Graham joins us with his girlfriend, Sandra Cohen, who originally hails from the States. Will the House please join me in welcoming these guests to the proceedings today.

S. Fraser: Two very close friends are in the gallery today visiting me, Colm and Judy Harty from Qualicum Beach. Joining them in the gallery is their son, Aidan Harty, and his wife, Shino Sato, and baby, Emma, and they are all from New York City. Will this House please join me in making them all feel very, very welcome.

R. Fleming: I’d like to welcome to the House today a visiting intern from Ottawa’s parliamentary internship program. Bryan Heystee is an intern from the office of Murray Rankin, who is the Member of Parliament for Victoria.

Bryan will be working here in Victoria all week. I know he will miss the snow in Ottawa while he does work in our MP’s office. I would ask the House to make Bryan most welcome so that he has a memorable week here, including this tour of the Legislature and all the functions that he’s performing for our Member of Parliament. Thanks very much. Please welcome Bryan.

M. Dalton: First of all, I’d like to welcome my wife here, my lovely wife of 30 years, Marlene. I always enjoy when she joins us. She’s here also with friends of ours, Lucy Solecki and her sister, Anna Maria Ruiz, from Guadalajara, I believe, Mexico. Bienvenido a nuestra casa . Would the members please make them feel welcome.

Just another couple that I’d like to introduce, and that is Christine Goertzen, and she’s here with her husband, Jason, who I introduced a few days ago. They’re with Leading Influence Ministries. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Shin: We have a group of 21 students and their professor from Vancouver Island University visiting the Parliament Buildings today to watch the question period and, of course, to meet with both government and opposition members.

The students are enrolled in the upper-level political science class entitled “Business and Government Relations” and are here to discuss the government engagement with the business community and particularly small business in B.C. If the House will please make them feel very welcome.

L. Krog: I hesitate to say the member has stolen my thunder. However, I do want to welcome as well Prof. Dana Collette along with the 21 students from Vancouver Island University. This is an interesting group of students because Vancouver Island University, as many of the members know, places a great emphasis on attracting students from around the world. You are looking at potentially future employers from many nations around the planet, and I’m delighted to see all of them here. They’re very interested to watch question period and observe some of the interesting cultural habits of the lower part of Vancouver Island.

M. Mungall: Well, joining us in the precinct today are some truly amazing advocates. We have Laurel Walton; Joan Wright; Kelly Newhook with Together Against Poverty and Jennifer Matthews; Faith Bodnar, Sheenagh Morrison and Karen DeLong with Inclusion B.C. We also have Michelle Goos and Cheyenne Furlong-goos and a really dynamic couple who I’ve come to enjoy and meet over the last few months, Sonja and Brent. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

[1345]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FIRST RESPONDERS

J. Tegart: I’m pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fraser-Nicola to give thanks and appreciation to our first responders across this great province of ours. Every day British Columbia’s police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency personnel put their lives on the line to keep us and our loved ones safe. We ask much of them, and they make many sacrifices.

Emergencies can happen anytime, anywhere, so these men and women are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. They may be away from their families and loved ones for long stretches of time. Many of them actually volunteer for the job out of a sense of duty to their community.

Too often we take their service for granted. That is why I think it’s so important we take time to recognize and thank them for putting themselves in harm’s way every day.

Small communities in our province go out of their way to recognize their local first responders. I’m pleased to be attending such a celebration in Princeton on Friday

[ Page 10949 ]

night put on by the Royal Canadian Legion to celebrate their First Responders Appreciation Dinner.

I encourage this House to join me in thanking these outstanding individuals for the work they do and the sacrifices they make. I ask that you hold them in your thoughts today.

NISGA’A NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Austin: Last weekend I was honoured to attend celebrations of the Nisga’a new year or Hobiyee in the Nass Valley community of Gitlaxt’aamiks. This celebration signals the beginning of the food-harvesting season and coincides with the arrival of the oolichan in the Nass River. It’s a celebration of drumming, dancing and singing that is truly a wonder to behold.

Of course, this year many members here in this chamber recently saw an example of this when Nisga’a drummers came here to witness and celebrate the recent swearing in of the first Nisga’a woman ever elected in British Columbia, the new member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Well, we saw perhaps 25 people in that dance group, so just imagine a hall filled with up to 180 dancers in a single group, and members can probably realize just how moving and spectacular this cultural highlight of the Nisga’a year truly is.

Dancers came from all over the northwest. This is an event that includes all ages, from hereditary chiefs, matriarchs and elders to babies strapped to their mother’s regalia, as the drums are pounded and they dance traditional dances of the various crests and wilps , or houses.

I want to thank the community of Gitlaxt’aamiks, home of the Lisims Government, for their hospitality and for feeding the hundreds of people who came to participate or watch. As Dr. James Gosnell said, the Hobiyee spectacle is better than anything that Hollywood can put on, and there is a feeling of pride that is evident on all the faces of the Nisga’a who attend.

All that remains for me is to wish everyone here a happy Nisga’a new year. Hobiyee .

SMALL BUSINESS AND

REDUCTION OF REGULATIONS

J. Yap: In every corner of our great province, you’ll find a small business that’s contributing much to our provincial economy. In my community, it might be Steveston Barbers, A Monkey Tree Emporium or Steveston Bakery.

Small businesses represents 98 percent of all businesses in our province. They provide nearly 54 percent of all private sector jobs, the third highest in the country. More than one million British Columbians are employed by a small business.

While B.C. enjoys some of the highest small business confidence numbers in Canada, there’s always more we can do to make it easier and more efficient for people to run a business here. We know that red tape costs time and creates frustration for small business owners. That’s why we held a six-week public consultation on reducing red tape this past fall. We wanted to hear directly from British Columbians, who were generous with their ideas and simple fixes to improve service delivery. In fact, more than 5,900 people participated on line, and we received more than 400 ideas, including more than 280 through the public engagement.

[1350]

Working together, we’ve reduced unnecessary regulatory requirements by 43 percent. That’s more than 155,000 requirements out of the way.

In honour of Red Tape Reduction Day, the province is repealing 37 provincial regulations. These are outdated and unnecessary requirements that create duplication, confusion and frustration. By simplifying the law, we are reducing costs, delays and inconvenience for British Columbians, improving services and making them easier to access and simpler to use.

BALBIR SINGH

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure and honour to speak about an unsung hero and a forgotten legend. Mr. Balbir Singh has won three Olympic gold medals in field hockey — the first, in 1948, in London, winning India’s first gold medal as a sovereign nation. He won the second gold in Helsinki. He led his team in scoring, including setting an Olympic Guinness record in the final when he scored five goals. That record stands to this day. Then again in 1956, in Melbourne, he won his third gold medal when he led his team. He scored 22 goals over three Olympic games.

Mr. Singh was the only chief coach and manager to lead India to a World Cup victory in 1975 in Kuala Lumpur. In 2012, he was named one of 16 iconic Olympians by the International Olympic Committee, along with Jesse Owens and Australian track and field star Cathy Freeman. He was the only South Asian and field hockey player on that list.

Mr. Balbir Singh is 92 years young. Today he’s joined by a great author, Patrick Blennerhassett. Patrick has written a very invigorating book about Mr. Singh called A Forgotten Legend . This book will be launched on March 5 at 2 p.m. at the SFU Surrey campus. Mr. Singh will also be there, speaking at that event. Mr. Balbir Singh lives in Burnaby with his son Ringo Dosanjh and his family.

I salute you, sir. You have made us proud. I wish you a very joyous and happy life.

NUTRITION MONTH AND

HEALTHY EATING CAMPAIGN

J. Thornthwaite: March is Nutrition Month, a time for all Canadians to find out about the simple ways we

[ Page 10950 ]

can achieve better health. Eating healthy is one of the best things we can do to feel better and boost our health. Even small changes, like swapping pop for water, can make a difference.

Each month the average British Columbian eats 100 meals, which means there are 100 opportunities to make healthier choices. That’s why this year the Dietitians of Canada are challenging Canadians to take a 100-meal journey by pledging to make a small change to their eating habits and to stick with it, one meal at a time.

Committing to a healthy change is the first step, and the province offers a number of resources to help you make it as easy as possible. HealthyFamilies B.C. is our health promotion plan. It encourages healthier choices and is aimed at improving health and well-being at any stage of life. On-line tools, such as sodium sense and shopping sense, are also available, as is Informed Dining, a program that provides nutritional information on menu items at participating restaurants.

There are also strategies you can use to stick with your plan, such as writing down your goals and sharing them with others and creating a meal plan so you know what you’ll be eating ahead of time. If you ever need help, you can dial 811 and speak to a registered dietitian over the phone.

Half of Canadians over 20 live with a chronic disease, and many more are at risk. Diet and lifestyle are major contributors, and a small dietary change can go a long way in improving our health. This month, Nutrition Month, I encourage all British Columbians to learn about the nutrition tools the province has to offer and to take charge of your health, one meal at a time.

REFUGEE SPONSORSHIP

G. Holman: There are a number of groups throughout my constituency of Saanich North and the Islands who, with many others in B.C., are sponsoring or supporting Syrian refugees escaping from the terror of war in the Middle East. The Galiano Refugee Project, under the auspices of the Anglican Diocese of B.C., is fundraising to support a Syrian family or group to live on the island or in a nearby community.

[1355]

The Mayne Island Refugee Response team will allocate one-third of its donations to local sponsorship initiatives, one-third to larger organizations keeping refugees safe in camps and one-third to activities for refugees to help them become part of the community.

On Saltspring, a refugee sponsorship group is working hard to raise funds and secure accommodation for six refugees coming to Saltspring, including three children. On Pender and Saturna Islands, the refugee support project is a community outreach project of the Anglican Parish of Pender and Saturna Islands. Pender is the first of the Gulf Islands to welcome a new family, who arrived at the end of January. The children are already in school.

On the Saanich Peninsula, we have two groups organized by local churches and working actively with the Greater Victoria Inter-Cultural Association: SPRIG, the Saanich Peninsula Refugee Initiative Group, and RAPID, refugee action by Peninsula churches immediately. Both groups are already well on their way to reaching their fundraising targets and securing accommodation for their families.

I invite members of this House to join me in thanking all of these groups throughout British Columbia for providing opportunities for B.C. citizens to help Syrian refugees who’ve been displaced from their homelands. But let us never forget the tens of thousands of children and families in this province who also need a helping hand and who we have a moral, ethical and — for some — even a legal obligation to support.

Oral Questions

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND

BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

J. Horgan: For the past two weeks, we’ve been raising issues in this House about the callousness of the B.C. Liberal government — a government that, for nine years, refused to increase disability pensions for the most vulnerable in British Columbia. For nine years, a string of zeros. For nine years, the party on that side of the House said no to the most vulnerable in our community.

This year they decided to give a modest increase. And then they clawed back the bulk of that increase to take away access to public transit here in British Columbia.

Today there was a rally on the front steps of the Legislature, and there was no murmuring from the peanut gallery there. There were people that are being affected by B.C. Liberal policies — not apologists for B.C. Liberals but people affected by their decision.

Those people want to know…. Rod, from the Action Committee of People with Disabilities, said to me: “Will you please ask the minister this question: ‘Why is it that this government is balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in British Columbia?’” Can the minister answer that question?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What I can tell the Leader of the Opposition is that what we have done on this side of the House is created fairness and equity in the system for people with disabilities, as we have increased the rates — $170 million investment for people across the province, some receiving $77 and some receiving $25 and a subsidized bus pass.

For those members who are here visiting us in the House who seem to be concerned about their subsidized bus pass, I want to clarify for them that they still have access to their subsidized bus pass program, and they will be receiving an increase to their rates.

[ Page 10951 ]

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Had the minister or anyone on that side of the House had the jam to go out and speak with the hundreds of people assembled on the steps of the Legislature, she may well have been able to try and spin that story for them.

But nine consecutive years of zeros while the minister of electricity has been jacking up hydro rates almost every single year except in the election year…. You’ll remember that everything was fixed then. Everything was perfect pre-election.

After the election, a torrent of increases for just about everything in British Columbia. And now the Minister of Social Development is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Hundreds of people came to speak to the minister today, and she couldn’t make it outside.

My question to the minister is: will you restore the bus pass — the $45 bus pass — that has been in existence for the past number of years? Will you do the right thing — restore the bus pass and give these people a break?

[1400]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Let me acknowledge to the members and those who were outside today my apologies for not being available to be there to speak with them on the front steps.

I was in Vancouver, meeting with the federal Minister of Persons with Disabilities, speaking to her, meeting with her, in exactly the regards of how we create better opportunities for people with disabilities, how we create a more accessible British Columbia, how we continue to work on the programs and the services that we provide for people with disabilities in this province.

It is this government that has invested in people with disabilities. It’s this government that has put in policy reforms that have increased the opportunities for people with disabilities, whether it is the gifting for people with disabilities on income assistance — to not have that affect their income assistance rates — whether it’s the increase to asset limits from $5,000 to $100,000 for people with disabilities, the annualized earning exemptions or technology at work. Those are all things that this government has put in place.

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

J. Horgan: It’s a shame that the minister couldn’t be available, and it’s a bigger shame that not one single member on that side of the House could make themselves available to talk to some of their constituents on the front lawn of this Legislature. That’s a shame. Too bad for the minister. But where were the rest of you? Having lunch, I guess — having lunch.

The government talks about choices. The minister says that this is about choices. There was a choice the Premier made: to spend half a million dollars on private jets while we clawed back a bus pass from the disabled. We had $130,000, according to public accounts, to pay the camera crew, but we don’t have any money to protect the most vulnerable. We had $236 million last year….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

J. Horgan: We had 236 million bucks to give to the richest people in B.C. last year. The Minister of Health might have been here. He voted in favour of that, and he’s going to vote in favour of it again this year.

I want to ask…. I want to plead with the Minister of Social Development: listen to the people you’re supposed to represent, not the spin doctors back at public affairs, and restore the bus pass for the most vulnerable people in B.C. It’s not a federal decision; it’s your decision. Do the right thing.

Madame Speaker: I’ll remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I find it very difficult to understand how I restore something that hasn’t been cancelled. The members opposite….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Minister, we’ll just wait. Please proceed.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

As well, I’d like to point out that in the Georgia Straight today the member for Nelson-Creston was quoted as saying that she doesn’t want to make the commitment outside of the formal process for helping people with disabilities in their future election platform — also noting that in their 2013 election platform, they also didn’t have any solutions for people with disabilities.

Yet, today they bring everybody here for a photo op — a photo op — for their political gain, while they create anxiety and fear for people with disabilities around this province, when we are trying to assist them as best we can, when we can.

M. Mark: What the Minister of Social Development won’t admit is that her decisions are having real impacts on real people. Kyla lives in East Vancouver and is on disability pension. As you can imagine, she already has a pretty hard time making ends meet. Now she will have to choose between keeping her bus pass — something she relies on — or trying to keep up with the rising cost of putting food on the table.

[ Page 10952 ]

What choice does the minister think that Kyla should make?

[1405]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to acknowledge the member opposite for her first question here in the House since becoming an MLA.

The fact of the matter is that people with disabilities don’t have to make the choice between the bus pass. The bus pass is still there for them. They will still have their transportation needs met. In fact, 45,000 people who weren’t receiving supports for transportation are now receiving money in their pocket, in their hand, so they can make the right decisions.

Madame Speaker: The member on a supplemental.

M. Mark: Pashta lives here in Victoria. She has a hard time walking, and uses a cane. Needless to say, she needs her bus pass if she wants to make it to her medical appointments. But like Kyla and the hundreds of people gathered out on the lawn and in the Lower Mainland, she will now have to choose between basic transportation and trying to keep up with rising costs.

Why does the minister think that the freedom of choice she offers people on disabilities really is any choice at all?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I truly understand that people were hoping for more of an increase to their rates. As a person with a disability, I know exactly what they go through each and every day. I’ve lived it. I’ve been there. I’ve been on income assistance, so don’t tell me I don’t understand, because I do.

We are doing the best we can to support people with disabilities, on this side of the House. We are doing everything we can, whether it’s helping them with their health care, their prescription costs, their medical needs, wheelchairs, walkers, canes, transportation needs that they need met so that they can live in their communities, so they can get to school, so that they can get to their medical appointments.

Those are things that this side of the House has provided for them and will continue to provide for them.

S. Fraser: The real world in my constituency…. The Port Alberni Association for Community Living has written to the Premier, asking her to reverse this heartless decision. I trust that the association president, Susan Waldie, is pretty clear about what the effect of this minister’s changes are. According to her, people on disability pensions “will slide deeper into poverty.”

Does the Minister of Social Development really believe that Ms. Waldie, a respected disability advocate in this province and in my constituency, is fearmongering?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’ve canvassed the facts on this multiple times — last week, Monday, Tuesday, again today. I continue to support the $170 million that we’re investing to increase the rates for people with disabilities around this province.

I can’t speak to anyone’s unique circumstances. Everyone with a disability starts somewhere else in life. Everyone with a disability has their own level of function and ability. What we try to do on this side of the House is to ensure that we wrap supports around individuals so that they can be successful, so that they can reach their full potential and they can be a part of the community. That is our goal. That is our aim.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: In the real world, government’s decisions have effects, and it should get beyond the heckling and the rhetoric. Ms. Waldie’s only interest….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the question.

Just wait.

[1410]

S. Fraser: Ms. Waldie’s only interest is in speaking out for those who government do not seem to be listening to. Her message to this government is simple: “On behalf of those we represent, Community Living B.C., I ask you to raise the rates and leave our bus pass alone.”

Will the Minister of Social Development listen to Ms. Waldie, or will she just accuse her again of spreading fear?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order. This House will come to order.

Please continue.

S. Fraser: Will the Minister of Social Development listen to Ms. Waldie, who knows what she’s talking about, or will she just accuse her again of spreading fear?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: On top of the $170 million investment we’re making to increase the rates and provide a bus pass for people with disabilities around this province, CLBC is also receiving $36 million to help support….

[ Page 10953 ]

exemptions, to increase the earning exemptions, to come up with technology at work to help support people so they have the tools to get back into the workforce, to help them in their training. It’s this government that continues to look forward progressively and innovatively so that we can find solutions to help support people with disabilities.

M. Mungall: I’d like to tell the minister about Tabitha Naismith. She’s a single mom with two children. One is just a baby. She lives on disability in Surrey, and she needs her bus pass to get around because she has epilepsy and she can’t drive. She has no other choice, as she puts it.

So when she sees the new monthly cost of a B.C. bus pass…. And it is a new cost, period, full stop. The Liberals can try and spin it another way, but if we’re going to tell the truth in this House…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: …it’s $52 a month, and that’s new. When she hears that, she thinks of her kids first and foremost and the choices she needs to make for them. What that means — $52 a month for her — is baby formula and diapers that she needs for her family.

Does the minister really think it’s fair to force Tabitha to choose between a bus pass that she needs to get around or the baby formula and diapers that she needs for her children?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I can assure the member again today that she simply has it wrong, and I can assure that the person that she’s speaking of will receive the bus pass in the same way, if she chooses, with a $25 rate increase to her income assistance. On top of that, the individual — I can’t speak to her specifics — receives child care subsidies, medical and optical and dental, prescription expenses covered as well. Those are all supports that we put in place to ensure that people with disabilities are supported in our province.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: If Tabitha chooses not to get the bus pass that she needs, then she gets to keep $52 a month extra, and that is something that she would use to pay for the needs for her children.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer and the question.

Please continue.

M. Mungall: If she chooses to get a bus pass, she will not see that $52 out of the $77. That’s the reality that she’s looking at.

[1415]

She’s also looking at the fact that she lives in B.C. Housing and her rent is based on her income. Her income is going to go up, and she’s concerned that so is her rent. So not only is she spending $52 a month now on a bus pass, but her rent’s going to go up, and she’s not going to see a dime of the increase that this government has claimed that they’ve put in place for her.

The minister can continue to get mad at those who aren’t buying her spin, or she can just do the right thing and end this bus pass clawback. Will she do that?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member opposite continues to raise the anxiety levels and the stress levels for people with disabilities, I’d like to confirm with her that the person….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: People with disabilities who are living in government housing will not see a rent increase based on this increase to people-with-disabilities income assistance rates.

I also want to recognize that the reality is that the member opposite…. Where was she when 45,000 people…? Her Twitter handle actually says that she stands up for fairness and equity. Well, this is about fairness and equity across this province for people — 45,000 people who didn’t receive the supports that everybody else received.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Where was she when she had the opportunity to advocate for her own constituents in Nelson-Creston who weren’t receiving any transportation subsidies? They now get the full $77 rate increase, and people around this province will be better off than they were yesterday.

ACCESS TO SKYTRAIN FARE GATES

BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

D. Eby: As if clawing back bus passes from people with disabilities wasn’t heartless enough, just yesterday we learned that this government is closing SkyTrain and Canada Line fare gates next month despite having no plan in place for people whose disabilities mean they can’t tap in with a Compass card. On April 4, when the fare gates close, a simple trip for someone whose disabil-

[ Page 10954 ]

ity restricts the use of their hands will look like this: call TransLink, wait on hold, arrange a meeting time, hope you’re not delayed, meet the attendant who will open the gate for you, and then take the SkyTrain. Happy red-tape-reduction-awareness day, everyone.

Now, the minister responsible has been embarrassed into action by news reports on this, but this plan has been underway for nine years. Why has this government failed to address this problem until there were news stories about their failure to support people with disabilities?

Hon. P. Fassbender: You know, I find it very difficult when the members opposite are bringing a view of the facts and twisting them to create concern and fear on the part of people who don’t deserve that.

Persons with disabilities deserve access to all of the services that this province has to offer. I can assure the members of this House and those people in the gallery that this government has made it very clear to TransLink that before any gates are closed, solutions will be in place to ensure unfettered access to persons with disabilities. That is our commitment. That is the message. And the management in the operational side of TransLink is committed to making sure that that happens.

[1420]

OMBUDSPERSON REVIEW OF

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

A. Dix: Throughout the Health firing scandal, this government has ensured that senior decision-makers responsible for the wrongful termination of researchers received vastly better treatment than researchers such as Dave Scott, Ramsay Hamdi and Roderick MacIsaac. For years, Liberals defended a botched Health Ministry investigation that cost Mr. Scott, Mr. Hamdi and Mr. MacIsaac their careers, dignity and sense of security. Mr. Scott and Mr. Hamdi lost their jobs. Mr. MacIsaac lost his job and then his life.

Those responsible for these deliberate actions, which had terrible consequences for those involved, were allowed to cover up their actions and their responsibility. That was a finding of the McNeil report. Several, including the new Deputy Minister of Finance, have been more than protected; they’ve been promoted.

Now the Minister of Justice has set up a legal indemnity program for the Ombudsperson investigation, one that offers those responsible for the misconduct access to up to 25 times the legal support as those harmed. One rule for the powerful, one for the victims.

Why is the Minister of Justice denying these researchers and Linda Kayfish access to adequate legal representation?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member well knows, this matter has been referred to the Ombudsperson, an independent officer of the Legislature, and those questions are to be posed to that office.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: It’s one thing for the Minister of Justice to deny people proper representation. It’s one thing for her to do that. According to the Ombudsman: “The government has established the indemnity policy.” That’s the Minister of Justice. She has an obligation to answer to that in the Legislative Assembly.

The inequality and injustice that the Minister of Justice is responsible for get worse. Government officials participating in this process have access to all the resources of government and to all the documents and all the emails to inform their response to the Ombudsperson. The researchers have no basic right to information and have been told that if they want to access the documents, they can try the FOI process. Good luck with that.

Even then, further hurdles have been placed in their path by the government, for which the minister is responsible in this House. Linda Kayfish, for example, has been informed that she needs to prove that her receiving the documents is in Roderick MacIsaac’s best interests. Ms. Kayfish is pursuing justice, I say to the Minister of Justice, on behalf of her brother because he is no longer alive.

Moreover, the government’s ongoing contempt for the rights of the researchers shows they’ve learned nothing from the McNeil review. Marcia McNeil, in her review of the botched investigation, found that researchers and others “did not have an adequate opportunity to review documents and respond to questions arising from them.” Now this injustice is being repeated by the Minister of Justice.

After all that has happened, why doesn’t the Minister of Justice, who is responsible in this House for the legal indemnity, responsible in this House for access to documents, ensure that the individuals whose rights have been trampled by the Liberal government get some access to justice?

Hon. T. Lake: I asked the Finance Committee to refer this matter to the Ombudsperson. The Ombudsperson is the independent officer who is responsible for administrative fairness…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Hon. T. Lake: …in dealings with the government. The Standing Committee on Finance unanimously approved a budget for the Ombudsperson. If the Ombudsperson would like to revisit that with the committee, that is within their purview. It is best left with the Ombudsperson.

[1425]

[ Page 10955 ]

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

R. Fleming: A report that recently came out from the B.C. association of school board officials showed that B.C. school district administrative spending is 30 percent below the Canadian average and has the lowest per-pupil cost anywhere in Canada.

Sadly, the Liberals’ reward for school district efficiency is having the Premier say there’s low-hanging fruit everywhere in the school district and ordering cuts of $54 million for administrative spending. This is on top of downloaded costs, over the last decade, of $190 million.

This report came out well in advance of the B.C. Liberals’ budget last month, yet the budget slapped another $25 million cut onto school boards for so-called administrative savings, on top of the $29 million cut in the previous budget.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Has the minister even read the report? If he has read this report, has he taken the opportunity to tell his cabinet colleagues that trying to squeeze more blood from this stone is the reason why school boards across British Columbia right now are being forced to consider firing teachers and closing schools in neighbourhoods and communities in B.C.?

Hon. M. Bernier: On this side of the House, when we announced the budget this year, there are a couple of things we announced within that budget — a $110 million increase in the Education budget here in British Columbia, taking it to record levels.

I think what’s important to highlight in that is the importance we have in the education system in the province of British Columbia. We’ve increased the budget 32 percent — $1.2 billion we’ve increased the budget — while we’ve been in government. This is important for the students of British Columbia. That is funding in the classrooms. That is why we have one of the best education systems in the world — because of the funding and the importance we’ve put towards education in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege.

Tabling Documents

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise to table a report. I have the honour to present the 2015 Annual Report for the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In

section B, the chamber of the assembly, I call continued committee debate on Bill 11. In

section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

section 37 (continued) .

L. Popham: Since we’re coming back to this after taking a break, I’m wondering if the minister could explain the intent of

section 37.

Hon. N. Letnick: So 37. The inspector may seize offence-related things. An inspector may need to seize certain things as evidence that an offence has been committed. In such cases, certain requirements apply. For example, in this section, it will allow inspectors to seize things that could constitute evidence of an offence. In such cases, the following requirements apply. The inspector may detain the food or agriculture product, analyze the food or agriculture product or arrange for such analysis to be conducted, amongst other things.

V. Huntington: Could the minister just clarify? So an inspector is entitled to enter a premises without warrant just under the reasonable belief that there may be an issue?

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

This particular section, 37, is about seizing offence-related things. This is not about entering premises. Entering premises we already covered under

section 14.

[1435]

V. Huntington: Well, I guess I missed that.

I’m assuming, then,

section 14 requires them to get a warrant. Is that the case? Or are they able to just enter a premise to seize? Obviously, you have to enter the premise to seize. Is there any mechanism that is required, under

section 14, for them to seize and enter?

[ Page 10956 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: I need some direction from the Chair. We’ve already debated and passed 14. What’s your ruling on the procedure here?

The Chair: Is the member just seeking clarification or asking a question back on a

section which we have already passed?

V. Huntington: I was seeking clarification. I’m not looking into 14. I was not in the House when 14 was discussed, so I obviously did not hear that discussion, Mr. Chair.

However, let me, then, go to subsection (3) of

section 37. “If an inspector is of the opinion that seized or detained food…is not required for the purpose of a proceeding…, the inspector must (

a) return the food or agricultural product to the person from whom it was seized….”

What is the expectation of the condition of that food or agricultural product that will be returned? Is the inspector under any obligation to maintain the condition of the product at the time that it was found, at seizure?

Hon. N. Letnick: A very good question. There are two parts to it. They must return the food or agricultural product or dispose of or destroy the food or agricultural product if return is not practical. So in the case of a product not being in the condition that the member is contemplating, they would dispose of or destroy the product.

V. Huntington: What I’m getting at is: if the condition of the product deteriorates while in control of the inspector, what is the obligation or liability of the inspector, should he decide that the product isn’t such that he can proceed under the act?

Hon. N. Letnick: We have to acknowledge that this is an inspector seizing products for evidence purposes. The test here would be one of reasonableness on the part of the inspector. I would just add that if the inspector is seizing for evidence, it is possible that it would be in the possession of the inspector for some time. If it’s a food that could spoil, then probably option (

b) is what would happen. They would have to dispose of the evidence afterwards.

V. Huntington: I guess what I’m trying to get at, again, is this. If the inspector under subsection (2)(

b) has conducted the analysis of the food or agricultural product and, under (3), determines that it is not necessary to proceed under the act, and the food, for whatever reason…. Perhaps he has made a mistake. Perhaps the analysis said there is absolutely no problem. The reasonableness of the seizure was there. There was an assumption there was a problem, some evidence there may have been a problem. In fact, there is no problem. Yet, in the care and control of that inspector, that product has deteriorated.

What is the liability, then, of the government, the inspector, the administrator? What is the liability?

Hon. N. Letnick: The short answer is none. No liability.

V. Huntington: Just to be quite clear, food can be seized. If there turns out to be absolutely no problem with the food or agricultural product that the inspector has received, the individual who owns that food or agricultural product or is storing it for distribution is then out the cost of that product? Is that the case?

[1440]

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, I have to remind the members that the inspectors would be working under the theory of reasonableness, the principle of reasonableness. So we all agree inspectors would be reasonable in how they would seize and what they would seize.

If, however, the product is determined that it’s not necessary as evidence anymore, and if the product is at a point where it cannot be returned as food because it is not healthy, then specifically to answer the hon. member’s question, 38(4), which we haven’t got to yet, clearly states that there is no right of action against the inspector.

L. Popham: My question is regarding

section 37(2)(a). In my view, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The words that are used are “detain the food.” I’m assuming this means seize the food, but it still repeats the meaning in the line above.

Should it say “seize the food”? I don’t know how you detain food. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. N. Letnick: Seizure implies that we actually take possession of the food. Detained implies that we stop it from going to the next

part in the value chain.

L. Popham: In this section, it seems that, in my view, there are inadequate administrative fairness provisions. The inspector is required to give a receipt for food that is seized — or detained, I guess — under

section 13(2)(

a) but not in this section. The seizure powers are broader in

section 37, but the accountability provisions are less or else missing. Could the minister please tell me about that?

Hon. N. Letnick: Under

section 37(4), the inspector “must give written notice to a person.” That would be the receipt that the member is looking for — the accountability.

L. Popham: Is written notice the same as a receipt?

Hon. N. Letnick: The written notice would have details as to what was taken and why, as opposed to a receipt, which implies that you actually purchased something.

[ Page 10957 ]

L. Popham: Is written notice defined anywhere?

Hon. N. Letnick: The written notice is common through legislation, but the form of the written notice would be determined by the minister.

L. Popham: But this is legislation. If food is seized or detained…. I think specifically for food or goods, at minimum, a receipt should be issued, and I don’t see anywhere…. The written notice idea that the minister has put forward — what is required in written notice is decided upon by a minister, but how do we know a minister would include a receipt?

I think the receipt — for the value of those goods — should be incorporated into this section, because the seizure powers are quite broad.

[1445]

As my colleague brought up, this could be a huge amount of goods adding up to quite a large receipt. So if the person whose goods were seized or detained…. If they were in some way perishable, and they were lost, I don’t know how you would move forward if you tried to get a claim on those goods if there isn’t an actual, proper receipt accounting for the value of those goods.

Hon. N. Letnick: Let’s take an example. As you said, someone goes in. An inspector goes in and finds a reason to seize a product or a bunch of products. The inspector would then provide the producer — the farmer, whomever — with a written notice. The written notice would include what was taken, the reasons for what was taken, and there wouldn’t be any need to identify the value because, under

section 38(4), there is no opportunity to claim damages.

L. Popham: If there was an error, there’s no way of getting the cost of the goods back. If there was an error that was made by the person conducting the seizure, there’s no way for a farmer to regain the value of his goods.

Hon. N. Letnick: In 37(2), you detain the food or take the food. In 37(3), you decide whether or not it’s going to be used as evidence. If you decide that it’s not going to be used as evidence, you can either return the food or agricultural product or dispose of it. In either case, there is no recourse for damages under

section 38, which we will get to in a minute.

L. Popham: Just getting back to the idea of a receipt or a written notice, in 13(2), it’s described as a receipt. So why wouldn’t it be continued on into this section, where we describe what the minister has described to me as written notice, which is, in his view, a receipt? Why don’t we just say “receipt”? We’ve already used the word receipt in 13(2).

Hon. N. Letnick: Going back to

section 13(2)(a) “give a receipt for the records or things.” For example, they might want to take a photocopy of whether or not someone has the proper certification to sell something as organic. That’s when they would give them a receipt for taking that copy. It’s not intended for seizing agricultural products or food, as we’re talking about here.

L. Popham: Okay. Thank you. I’m still not really clear on the difference.

[1450]

You’re in receipt of a certification, certificate, or any other information that was gathered in 13(2), but you’re gathering information in this

section as well.

I just would like to make a suggestion. Maybe add in a 37(5) that would read: “The inspector shall immediately give a receipt for anything seized, and such receipt shall, at a minimum, include an identifying description of the object seized, the time, the date and the location of the seizure.” Maybe that’s information that would be in a written notice, but it’s not clear.

That’s not clear. I think there’s a big difference between a receipt and a written notice. I think that if the minister is not interested in making that sort of change in this section, at minimum, it should be included in the definition so we all understand what could happen in

section 37.

[1455]

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

It’s an interesting discussion as to: do we define written notice? Written notice is used in many statutes across government ministries, and as I said before, written notice is much larger than a receipt. It provides way more information than a simple receipt would ever provide, including reasons for seizure, the amounts, locations and all manner of other things. I think it’s best to leave written notice as large as possible to give flexibility to the ministry, if and when the time comes that an inspector makes seizures.

L. Popham: I understand where the minister is coming from. I guess my concern is, then: is written notice defined somewhere that it could be referred to, perhaps not in this legislation but in other legislation in B.C.? One of my concerns regarding this whole bill is that there are many instances that can be left up to the minister’s

interpretation, and consistency within this bill is really important.

I think this is an opportunity. We’re merging three bills together to make one that reflects what we really want. Leaving it up to the minister’s

interpretation, to me, is not strong legislation. In my view, properly written legislation should not be able to be interpreted any other way except for the intent of the legislation. So as long as there’s an area where we can take a look at a definition of written notice….

[ Page 10958 ]

What the minister has just said is that it’s a much larger scope than a receipt. That’s good news to me. But I would hate to rely on a minister with a different opinion that thinks written notices written on the back of a napkin…. “Hey, we took your stuff. Here’s your written notice.” I know that’s an extreme example, but if it’s not defined, that’s what we’re down to. My job, of course, in opposition is to think of worst-case scenarios in order to strengthen legislation. So that’s why I’m throwing that example out there.

Is there an area where we can look at a definition of written notice that clearly defines what the minister has said he thinks it needs?

Hon. N. Letnick: The member is right. Her job is to try to make the legislation even better, and I appreciate that.

Part of the outcome of that, though, is the conversation, which is recorded by Hansard, that we’re having right now where the minister has gotten up and said written notice is larger than just a receipt. It should include things like what was taken, why it was taken, where it was taken. Of course, the minister of the day would be crafting or approving written notice based on the advice of legal counsel.

V. Huntington: I’d just like to chat for a second about why I am concerned about sections of this nature. We see them every once in a while in legislation in the House.

The minister may have picked up on this over my years of questions. Often I’m asking about the what-ifs, the exceptions, the things that happen that nobody anticipates or that just result from a mistake. How does the legislation protect the individual from the mistake government makes?

I agree with the minister that flexibility in a piece of legislation like this, especially when you’re dealing with offences, is absolutely necessary. I believe that the issue of reasonableness is absolutely essential to the ability to be flexible and to operate effectively as an inspector in this case. What I don’t believe is appropriate is legislation that forgets and neglects to protect the person that is injured by the exception.

That is my concern here. You have a situation in which goods can be seized with reasonable foresight, with all the flexibility necessary. I don’t criticize the nature of the ability of the inspector to move on an issue that he feels is important.

[1500]

What we have here — and the following section, which absolutely protects government — is an inability to recognize a mistake that injures an innocent party. I do not believe that is responsible legislation. I believe the minister should be protecting individuals that fall into that category of mistake.

This could ruin an individual. It’s the exception. It probably won’t happen. If it did happen and an inspector made a mistake — there was no evidence that he could use to pursue charges under the act or an offence under the act — then what about that individual who’s left without his product? Perhaps the product is a year’s work. Perhaps the product is a harvest. It could ruin that individual, and there is no recourse permitted for that individual nor is there any protection for that individual by the state.

I believe that is poor legislation. I do not believe it is democratic. I really believe that there is too often legislation on the floor of this House that refuses to accept and protect the exception.

I wish the minister would consider that and perhaps, at some point, suggest an amendment that would protect that individual who was improperly impacted by the reasonable decision of an inspector. I’m not suggesting the inspector was wrong; it’s just that an error was made.

The Chair: Member, there was no question in that.

A. Dix: I’m very appreciative to rise in this debate. I think the issues involved — these issues of inspection, these issues of food safety, the issues brought forward under this legislation — are very important issues.

In particular, this question which the member for Delta South has expressed a point of view on, I think, is worthy of a response from the minister. I think what the member for Delta South was expressing, on behalf of her constituents, was a legitimate and reasonable question, which was to make a point about this style of legislation and what it means for the people actually dealing with it in the field.

I think there’s often a disconnect between those of us who propose legislation, which has all kinds of implications for the future for those who must, on behalf of the government, do the inspection, and their relationship to those who receive the inspection.

Since the member for Delta South has made, I think, her concerns quite eloquently, I’d be very interested, personally, in what the minister thinks of the member for Delta South’s argument in this case and whether he would do the member for Delta South the kindness of a response.

[1505]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the members opposite on this question. I think it’s important to enunciate that this is an improvement over existing legislation. In existing legislation — in the FPSA and FPGA — actually, it says to detain and destroy — period. There is no process. There is no fairness. There is no reasonableness. There’s no opportunity to return.

This legislation actually is an improvement over the previous legislation. It’s also consistent — well, at least

section 38 is, which is really what we’re talking about here, which we are not on yet, but I’ll talk about 38 a little bit — with language that we’ve already passed in the

[ Page 10959 ]

House just recently with the Animal Health Act and the Fish and Seafood Act.

So it’s better language than what’s currently in play. The process is better. It’s fairer. It’s more reasonable. And the odds of something happening under this legislation that would violate all our sensibilities in this House are way less probable to happen than what the current legislation is.

Could it happen? I would have to concede that, yes, possibly — but very, very unlikely.

A. Dix: If I may understand the minister, he’s saying, “I’m from the government. We’re here to help at such time that this legislation that we care about so deeply is brought into force by regulation,” which presumably, will be some time after the next election or the one after that.

In any event, I just had a question. And I apologize to the minister because while I have been focused rapier-like on all of his responses, I may have missed his response to this. I may be asking him to repeat himself, which won’t be for the first time. But….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Mais oui. Bien sur .

Under subsection (4):”An inspector must give written notice to a person from whom food or an agricultural product is seized before taking an action under subsection (2) (

a) or (3) (b)” is taken. And that’s the action both to seize and to destroy.

I wanted to just briefly explore with the minister, if he can take us through an example. I think what people who listen to this debate…. Sometimes these debates are a bit abstract, so perhaps the minister can take us through an example here of — if, for example, you were having, in that case, food initially seized or detained, which is what the first provision is, and then destroyed — what that process would be like in practice.

In other words, what happens at that point? What notice is given prior to the inspection, if any? What notice is given after? And then what notice is given prior, for example, to the destruction of the food in question?

[1510]

R. Lee: I would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: In the gallery right now, we have 24 students and, also, 12 adults from Confederation Park Elementary School. They are led by their teacher, Ms. Geetu Parmar. Earlier I talked to them regarding what’s discussed in this House today. I told them it’s about food classification. They are very interested in organic food, naturally. Would the House please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. N. Letnick: If the hon. member was here yesterday with his hon. critic and I…. We had all kinds of examples. It was a great day of providing examples for almost every possible

section of the act. Actually, it took us to 6:30, if I remember correctly.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: Correct. Absolutely. Did you want this answer in French? I’m not sure if I’m allowed, based on the rules of the House. I have to actually put them in writing first and then get them translated so everybody can have it.

The Chair: Let’s get back to the answer.

Hon. N. Letnick: Here’s the example. Someone gets a tip that a producer is saying that their eggs are grade A when really they’re not, or they believe they’re not. An investigation happens. The producer gets a visit by the investigator. The investigator looks at the eggs, determines that there is a case to be made that perhaps they’re not the right grade, could take the eggs immediately or can come back later and take the eggs. They have to provide that written notice that we were talking about before.

The written notice, subject to the minister’s outline at some point, would describe why they took the eggs, how many eggs they took and the rest of it. Then there would be an analysis done on the eggs — I would presume, off site — to determine whether or not they met the grade. If they met the grade, then the producer would be advised of that, and if they didn’t make the grade, the producer would be advised.

Then the inspector has two choices, as per the section: to either return the eggs, if they are in a condition to be returned, or dispose of the eggs.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I could just say to the minister: making something better doesn’t necessarily mean you’re making it right. The issue here is protecting an innocent from the force of government.

Could I ask, perhaps, given the minister’s example right now…? Would the regulations require the inspector to take due care and attention while the product is seized and being inspected and analyzed? Could he at least tell us here that regulations will require some care be taken for that product?

I want to say here…. The minister may be too young to remember the tainted tuna issue of many years ago, where the tainted tuna wasn’t tainted. But the person

[ Page 10960 ]

who owned that tuna lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and went bankrupt, couldn’t survive. Why would the minister put an individual, a citizen of this province, in that potential risk area when he doesn’t have to?

[1515]

Will he at least tell us, if he won’t amend the act to protect the exception, that the regulations can be made so that due care and attention are made to seized goods, even though seized reasonably, until there is evidence that they are, in fact, improper?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, a very good discussion. I think we’re going to make the member happy. And I know it’s not about making the member happy. It’s about taking care of British Columbians — before she tells me that.

Under

section 28(1), it says: “The minister may do, by order, one or both of the following:…(

b) establish standards of practice for inspectors….” I’ll commit to you today that when we do that, the ministerial order will be to take due care to preserve the quality of food.

V. Huntington: Well, for that, I do thank the minister. That is an assurance that will be helpful in the long run, I hope, to those who have been offended by something the inspector did, and with reasonable cause. While I would prefer that the legislation protected the individual, at least the regulation will go some way to doing that.

L. Popham: My question is regarding the method of inspecting or seizing or detaining. I’m going to use an example for the minister.

If you’ve got some certified organic goods and some conventional goods, and they’re seized or detained or handled in any way by an inspector, there are very strict guidelines around conventional and certified organic goods being handled separately. Has that been taken into consideration in the procedures of inspection or seizures?

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, we haven’t set that out yet. The commitment I made is that the ministerial order would set out that they’d need to take due care and attention. When the ministerial order is crafted, that could be something that’s looked at, at that time.

L. Popham: Could the minister remind me, again, when that would be?

Hon. N. Letnick: To enlighten those that are watching, we are debating a new agricultural act. It has not passed yet. If it gets passed, once it gets passed, the regulations then, of course, would be crafted. Along with the regulations would also come the accompanying ministerial orders that go with that.

As to specific dates, we’ve committed to make sure that this is in place prior to the 2018 timeline, before organics must be certified. My assumption is that it’d be a lot before that, but if you want an outside date, that would be it.

L. Popham: While we’re talking about how the regulations will be crafted — obviously, regulations will be crafted in relation to

section 37 — I think this is an appropriate time to bring this up.

[1520]

I believe that there are stakeholders that the minister has worked with up to this point, in making this legislation, who believe quite strongly that they will be very involved in the crafting of those regulations. Can the minister confirm that that’s true?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for acknowledging the consultation work that the ministry has done with several groups out there through this process. Some of the regulations, of course, would come with the old acts that are being moved into this new act, and I would imagine they’ll be tweaked and improved as they come through. Then, of course, the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. would be one of those stakeholder groups that the ministry would consult with on the regulations.

L. Popham: The regulations that are going to be tweaked and improved coming from other acts — will there be consultation on those? Will that be part of the process?

Hon. N. Letnick: I don’t think I can give an omnibus answer to that to cover everything. It would depend. If it’s something substantive, something new, then of course the ministry would want to consult with the affected parties, but a lot of it will be very basic transmission of the old regs into a format that’s acceptable under the new act.

L. Popham: Regulations, for example, that would pertain to certified organic farming and produce…. Anything that is in the purview of COABC…. As far as regulations go, will COABC be invited to give their input on every single regulation that would pertain to the “certified organic” part of this bill?

Hon. N. Letnick: As we move through the development of the regulations, those items that are directly impacting the organics sector, under the protected labels

section of this act…. Those are things, of course, that we would consult with the organics sector on. But it’s possible, under protected labels, that there’d be other parts, other regulations, that aren’t specific to organics.

I can’t give you a blanket “yes, everything to do with protected labels will go to the organics,” because, quite frankly, you’d be wasting their time and their energy. We need to focus with them on those things that are specific to organics in the regulations.

[1525]

[ Page 10961 ]

L. Popham: Do I have the minister’s assurance, then, that for everything that falls under protected labels that would have to do with certified organic products, COABC would be invited in to consult on those regulations? And if so, can the minister tell me, in his mind, is this a one-time consultation? Or do they get to walk with the minister through these regulations to make sure it’s a good fit for COABC?

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer to the first question is yes. On the second part, we would consult on the content and on the procedure of matter. When the reg is then ready to start to be drafted by the legal team, it’s at that point that we wouldn’t go back to COABC. We would have already consulted on the content and the procedure.

L. Popham: I understand that’s probably the normal process. At the point when they’ve been drafted, will there be a chance to go back to COABC to show them the legislation that’s been drafted that pertains to them to get further input to make sure that before it’s implemented, COABC understands exactly how this legislation will affect them?

Hon. N. Letnick: We can share the regulations with COABC under a confidentiality agreement.

L. Popham: I’m curious. Why would that not be an open and transparent process for everybody to participate in?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m going to read a legal text, just to make sure I get it in the record correctly for the member opposite. “It is a required procedure regarding sharing of draft legislation. Legal requirements and parliamentary practices apply.”

L. Popham: Okay, that’s fine. So those asked to participate or to review those regulations will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Fair enough.

[1530]

The group that’s asked to participate, then — and they’ve signed their agreements — how much input will they actually have? I’m asking this on behalf of an organization that believes very much in the intent the minister described this bill as having.

The concern now is that most of what the minister promised isn’t in this bill right now. We are depending on the minister to put what he promised into this bill by regulation. How can they be guaranteed that that will happen? The only way I can think of that they would be guaranteed is if they were asked to fully participate until those regulations are published.

Hon. N. Letnick: I think it’s, again, important to remember that the minister is accountable to the government, of course, and to the people of British Columbia, including the very important stakeholders like those that the hon. member is speaking about, which is the members of the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. and their supporters.

I’ve already said that the ministry would consult on issues, matters of importance, when it comes to organics, with COABC on making sure that the content is right in those regulations. It is possible — again, I can’t tie the hand of a future government — that this actually happens after the next election.

I have every hope to be the one to make sure that those regulations are in sync with what’s being advocated today. All I have to say is that we will work with COABC to make sure those regulations meet the intent that we’ve committed to, which is that by 2018, if you are advertising yourself in the province of B.C. as organic, you’ve been certified to do so.

L. Popham: I would like to have assurances in Hansard, because the minister told me earlier that Hansard was just as good as the law for holding people accountable. I would like assurances from the minister that COABC will be consulted on the regulations and that there will be full agreement by them that the regulations cover off everything that they’ve requested before the minister implements them.

Hon. N. Letnick: I think I’ve made my intentions clear, but again, I can’t fetter the responsibility and authority of a future government. Again, I would ask the members of COABC and the member opposite to look at the public record. I think I’ve been very clear on this matter.

L. Popham: I think the minister is making my point, which I tried to make yesterday. If the requirements are not written into legislation and they’re left to regulation, then the minister’s intentions are worth I’m not sure what, because he’s not even committing today to committing that he may be the minister when this happens. He may or not be the minister when these regulations are drafted.

He has made huge promises to the organics community. When he walked out with this legislation a couple of weeks ago and made an announcement, what he announced was the intention of what, perhaps, the regulations would be. Now he’s saying that he may not be the minister who actually implements the regulations.

I understand where the minister is coming from. He is in a tight spot. He can’t make those promises to me. But it’s my job to advocate for the people that I care about in the organic community who have put their trust in a minister to do what he promised them he would do, what he stood beside them in photographs and announced that he would do. That’s what I’m wanting assurances for right now.

There perhaps is a time in the future when the current Minister of Agriculture won’t be that minister. And that

[ Page 10962 ]

would be a terrible thing. [Laughter.] The minister, I believe, believes in the organic industry as much as I do.

[1535]

That’s why I think that together, we know that to strengthen this legislation, leaving most of it to regulation is, I would say, risky, because this minister might not be there, and he has just told us that. If he is not starting on these regulations tomorrow with the organic community, then I think he will have let the community down. I want the minister to walk side by side with the organic community until those regulations are released.

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s sounding more like question period than on specific legislation, but that’s okay. I’m happy to work on this with the hon. member.

Let me remind the House that the organic sector doesn’t want the legislation in right now. We’ve consulted with them. They do want the three years to transition. We are working with them to make sure they have the three years. It doesn’t mean we have to wait three years to actually get the legislation passed. I hope that we can get the legislation passed in this session and then start working on the regulations with the organic sector.

The member and the organic sector have my commitment on that. My commitment represents the commitment of this government. I certainly hope after the next election that this government will be in power once again to follow through on that commitment.

A. Dix: Just briefly on

section 37. The minister described this section, I think aptly, as an improvement over the existing law. He will know — and this is of significance, I think, to all new law — that we have employment standards law in B.C. that has effectively been put in the hands of those least able to exercise power in society to enforce. We have laws on the books that are theoretically enforced but not enforced in fact.

The minister has suggested that this is an improvement, that this is, in effect, an addition of needed regulations in the agricultural economy. Is he of the view that the enforcements of such regulations, including those contained in

section 37, will themselves require more resources?

Hon. N. Letnick: Most of the legislation that we find in front of us today is actually in place now under old legislation. The resources that we have available to our ministry and our partners like CFIA work together to make sure that it’s acted upon.

As we build the regulations for the protected label portion that we are planning to do in the very near future, subject to the passage of this bill, then we will determine whether or not more resources are necessary to make sure that they are enacted upon properly. Of course, then, that means I would have to advocate to government for the resources accordingly.

The other part of that is something that the hon. critic could ask me, perhaps in estimates — to do with the financial indications of this bill.

[1540]

A. Dix: Again on

section 37, because I think it’s a significant point. While it’s true the regulations have not been drafted, they have been envisioned. One doesn’t create an abstraction of legislation. One has an idea where you’re going.

My understanding is that the minister, in association with this, announced $60,000 but no dollars for extension officers, no dollars for program support, no dollars for producer education and no dollars for enforcement. Given that, I assume, all of that is true, what he’s saying is, in a sense, that these amendments — some of which are based on existing law, some of which I think he described, himself, in our debate on this

section of the legislation, as an improvement — would require, presumably, an improvement and an increase in the number of people involved in the process.

It makes no sense to have laws on inspections if there are no inspectors, in a sense. The laws do set a standard for people, but you also require that. On all sides, one would hope that it’s education that matters the most but that inspectors would be important.

I guess the question is: am I correct in saying that there are no dollars attached to the legislation? And does he think…? In particular, with respect to this

section and the sections related to inspection, does he believe that the improvements, as he described them in our debate just a few minutes ago, are sufficient in and of themselves — like, law as public education — as opposed to requiring more people involved in their enforcement?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes,

section 37 is an improvement — an improvement that actually goes to help protect producers, to provide inspectors with more of a process that they have to go through to achieve our common goals as legislators here. But it doesn’t require more inspectors to do that. So the answer is no. There are no extra resources that would be required to achieve the laudable goals of

section 37.

A. Dix: Just to be clear, what the minister is saying is that the time and effort per inspection is longer. Is that what he’s saying? Is that what he’s suggesting? I just want to fully understand the depth of his response.

Hon. N. Letnick: With the extra clarity that’s provided under

section 37, actually, it’ll make the whole job of the inspectors more efficient. Therefore, you would not need more inspectors to achieve the same outcomes.

A. Dix: I’m just interested because the minister said in one response that more steps are required as a result

[ Page 10963 ]

of these sections and then, in the next response, that it was more efficient. The minister is taking

part in his own théâtre de l’absurde over there. In any event, that doesn’t seem reasonable. In fact, if you are increasing the time required, then presumably, that has impacts on employment and on the process of inspection. So I think it’s a reasonable question to ask.

The minister has, I gather, given the assurance that the increased regulatory burden that he’s suggesting will not require more agricultural inspectors. I think that’s a very interesting point of view — given the cuts, over the last number of years, to the ministry — and presumably, one that he’s interested in. It’s one that…. I guess we’ll be forced to wait and see in Agriculture estimates, under this minister or…. You know, you never know. If you wait three months, there might be another one.

[1545]

Hon. N. Letnick: Just to make sure that the record is correct, since I became minister, there’s been a 23 percent increase in the budget of this ministry. I know the hon. member might be thinking of a different ministry or a different time — to say there have been cuts in this ministry. Actually, in fact, the budget for this ministry has gone up by 23 percent since I was first appointed minister in 2012.

A. Dix: The record of the government on this question is pretty clear. The priority they’ve given is pretty clear.

This is not a question of self-absorption. The reality is, as has been fully detailed by my colleague from Saanich South again and again, that support for agriculture has been missing year after year after year. What we are doing now, to the extent we’re doing it — and we’re happy to be involved in this debate — is playing catch-up.

With that, I’ll be happy to, unless the minister would like to say more, close the debate on

section 37, one of his favourite sections of the bill.

Hon. N. Letnick: Once again, I think the results speak for themselves. We had a record year last year — $12.3 billion in agrifood sales, 5.9 percent more than the year before. The year before was a record year as well — $3 billion in exports, another record year. We had a record year in cherries. We have more products in B.C. in many classifications, not only year to year but forever.

I think if the member would like to travel with me around the province this summer, maybe spend a month on the road and talk to farmers and ranchers, he will find that agriculture is alive and well in B.C. We are looking forward to achieving $15 billion in agrifood sales by 2020, thanks to a great plan that we have, a five-year plan that people in the industry helped to craft.

Once again, I have to remind the member opposite that we increased the budget for the land commission. We’ve increased the budget for BCFIRB. We continue to put more resources in this ministry because it is a priority of government, and it’ll continue to be my priority and the priority of all the people involved in this ministry — for as long as I live, anyway. Let’s put it that way.

If he wants to rebuttal that, I can have more stuff to throw at him.

The Chair: Member on

section 37.

A. Dix: On

section 37. Of course, the minister is not on the section, but I appreciate that he wants to extend the debate.

I’d just make this point. We’ve lost 2,000 jobs in mining in the last year. You want to throw statistics? If he’s saying that improvements in agriculture are to the credit of the government, then the minister responsible for mining is responsible for those failures. He wants to take credit? The 35,000 jobs we’ve lost in forestry that have hurt rural B.C. are the responsibility of the Minister of Forests. He can take responsibility for that.

My point is that over time, the government has failed. We have been encouraging and making this an issue. My colleague from Saanich South has done a superb job of doing that, and the result of that is that, finally, we’re getting a little bit of response on this important area from the government.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m happy to close debate on

section 37.

My point is just one to correct the record. The hon. member stood up and said that we had cutbacks in Agriculture in our budget. It’s not true. We’ve had an increase of 23 percent since 2012. That is significant, given the challenges that we have, of course….

Interjections.

The Chair: The Chair would like to hear the answer, please.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair.

L. Popham: It’s hard for me to listen to the minister boast about an increase to the budget of the Agricultural Land Commission when we know exactly what’s happening in that commission. We know exactly what’s happened with the agricultural land reserve. So the minister’s argument is absolutely lost on me.

It is also lost on me when I hear about the lofty goals of the minister, when he continues to build a house of cards around agriculture by not having extension services and field services built into this ministry. One of the foundations of a strong agriculture economy in a province is having a government that supports extension services and field services, which this government absolutely does not.

[ Page 10964 ]

The house of cards will continue to be built until we realize that our crop productions are dropping in areas, and we don’t know why. That’s already happening, and it’s all to do with underfunding of field services. That’s a debate we’re probably going to have in estimates and not in

section 37. Obviously, we’re all very eager to get there.

[1550]

The minister mentioned, about

section 37, that some of this legislation has already come into effect in the Animal Health Act. So I’d like to hear an example in the Animal Health Act of how a

section like

section 37 in this act has worked or an example of how it’s been used.

Hon. N. Letnick: A $1.1 million increase in the base budget for the Agricultural Land Commission — that’s a 33 percent increase. A twenty-five percent tax credit for people who are donating food to registered non-profits. PST exemptions for telescopic handlers, skid steers and other things. We continue to fund B.C. ag in the classroom. Eight million dollars over the last four years for the Buy Local program. And the list goes on and on.

We’ve seen record growth in asparagus, beets, cauliflower, peppers, cattle, milk, chicken, salmon. And one that’s really close to the member’s heart — honey — has gone from just over two million pounds to almost four million pounds last year.

We can continue in estimates, absolutely. But I can throw back anything the hon. member has when it comes to how good agriculture is doing.

To specifically answer her question on the legislation, the answer is none.

L. Popham: So this legislation, which the minister touted as being in another act and as working great, has no examples?

Hon. N. Letnick: There has been no occasion to use it at this point.

L. Popham: So we actually have no idea if it’s good legislation at all. We have absolutely no idea. That’s a problem for me.

But if the minister wants to talk about the general agricultural support in this province, he’s really opened the door up. We’re supposed to be on

section 37, but it relates to funds, and I would like to just mention about the Agricultural Land Commission and his supposed increase.

One of the reasons why we see an increase in the Agricultural Land Commission is because he’s created a commission which costs more to operate and is less effective. We’ve created two zones so that he and his pals may take land out of the agricultural land reserve a lot easier in a zone that some cabinet members don’t believe in.

Interjection.

L. Popham: A member in the room said he hopes so. There you go. That’s where we’re coming from.

Let’s be honest about agriculture. The minister is going to talk to me about the support for apiculture and honeybees in this province. We don’t have enough inspectors. Here’s his house of cards that he’s building, and it’s like ten storeys high at this point, because we’re not tracking diseases in apiculture the way that we should. If you don’t have the supports for agriculture in place, it’s great for a photo op to go out there with a honeybee. But seriously, that bee is going to sting you in the end if you don’t start treating that part of agriculture properly. We need pollinators.

Here we are in 37. The minister said that this works great in other acts. We have no examples. I guess we’re going to have to just keep our fingers crossed, and perhaps it works or perhaps it doesn’t.

What we should be concerned about if we’re concerned about the strength of agriculture is: how does this affect a farmer? In the end, this is about farming, this bill.

Inspections of agricultural goods on farms — we need to know if this works. We need to know if it’s fair.

We need to know, if their goods are seized or detained, if this is a fair process for the farmers. And if the farmers are not being treated fair, is there a proper appeal process? Is there a proper process that keeps track of the goods that are being seized? That’s all we want to know.

Does it work? We don’t know if it works, so I think this discussion is very important.

If the minister at any point could tell us, in the future, if a

section like this in any act is used and if it works well or doesn’t work well, we would appreciate some information on something that we’re going to have to pass, because we don’t have enough members on this side of the House to stop any legislation that there may be questions about. We have to trust the minister. I’m trusting the minister that he actually has researched this act to make sure it works and farmers are treated fairly. That’s my point.

[1555]

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, I could lob the ball back and talk about the land commission and all the other things that are going well in our province, but then I’ll probably get the ball lobbed back and we’ll be here forever. So I’ll tell you what. We’ll just save this for estimates, and we’ll continue discussing how both sides of the House are passionate about agriculture in British Columbia.

Getting back to the legislation, if I may, this

section 37 is about having a reasonable belief that an offence has occurred. It’s standard language in legislation. What we try to do is to try to work with the producers and the farmers to never get to the point where we’re actually seizing these products in preparation for a day in court. That’s the good work that the ministry has done, and we will continue to try to follow that outline.

Section 37 approved on division.

[ Page 10965 ]

section 38.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of

section 38?

Hon. N. Letnick: The rationale for this section. It clarifies that all costs associated with seizure are to be borne by the person from whom things were seized.

This is mostly a new provision from the FSA and AHA, modified to fit the FAPCA legislation, with some crossover from one of the other acts, the ACQA. The

section is also found in the Animal Health Act and the Fish and Seafood Act.

It requires the person responsible for anything seized, disposed of or destroyed to be responsible for all costs. Government may recover these costs through the courts. Persons for whom these things are seized, disposed of or destroyed cannot sue government to compensate for the loss of the value of things seized, disposed of or destroyed.

L. Popham: The minister mentioned…. This is a change in legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: This is a change. This is a new provision from FSA and AHA, but it is modified to fit FAPCA, with some crossover from one of the other pieces of legislation.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It is found in the Animal Health Act already, which passed through the House recently, and the Fish and Seafood Act, which also recently passed through the House.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what he’s attempting to remedy with this change in legislation?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair. You missed an exciting 15 minutes, but that’s okay. We’ll try to make this exciting for you.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, yes. Maybe he can chair estimates. I’m sure that’ll be exciting as well.

[1600]

section 38. Basically, if something happens in 37, where a product is detained or taken,

section 38 says that the government will not be responsible for the costs.

The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Kensington.

A. Dix: Close. Vancouver-Kingsway. But that’s excellent. They’re both places where these issues are important.

Just specifically to the minister, because his ministry will have, no doubt, kept statistics around the cost of seizures annually, under existing legislation: what are those costs?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. As I said just a few minutes ago, this

section is the last resort. The government tries to do everything possible to avoid getting to a place where it has to seize for evidence. Given that the ministry has been successful in working through the program and not getting to this point, there are no records because there have been none. No seizures.

A. Dix: Just to understand, there have been no seizures and therefore no costs of seizures in 2015. Have there been seizures in the last ten years?

Hon. N. Letnick: Not as far as the memory of those people that are with me, no.

A. Dix: I see. That’s fascinating.

V. Huntington: Could the minister perhaps tell us how he intends to protect the innocent from this overtly punitive

section if the individual didn’t do anything wrong, if the inspector made a mistake in his reasonable seizure?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. This is about evidence that is seized potentially for court action. In that particular case, under

section 38, we are basically protecting the government from having to recover those costs.

V. Huntington: What is there specifically in this

section that says an individual whose product was seized but the product turned out not to be tainted, not to be something that the inspector would have evidence to pursue…? What is it in this

section that protects that individual from the costs of the seizure, the analysis and the cost of disposal if it’s necessary to dispose?

Hon. N. Letnick: I have to say, once again, this particular

section is about protecting the government.

V. Huntington: I’m here to protect the innocent. I can’t believe that the government would pursue a

section that doesn’t look at the exception. How could the minister possibly represent a piece of legislation that could penalize somebody for not doing anything wrong?

[1605-1610]

Hon. N. Letnick: I really do understand the concern, and I appreciate where the member is coming from. But this is standard language in the acts. You can find it in the new Fish Act. You can find it in the Animal Health

[ Page 10966 ]

Act. You can find it in the Food Safety Act, which is not

an act from Agriculture.

It says in the Food Safety Act,

section 12, subsection 7, that: “The owner and any person entitled to or in possession of food seized, detained, marked, condemned, quarantined, decontaminated, denatured, disposed of, destroyed or recalled under this

section are jointly and severally liable to the government for all expenses incurred in doing any of those things.” It’s there to make sure that government is protected when it does its work under

section 37.

Having said that, we have already committed to putting into practice the requirement that the inspectors handle the products with due care and attention. I’m not too sure if those were the words that we used before. Whatever the words were before are the right ones. We’ve have already made sure that that’s in there. The written document that will be provided will have a lot of detail as to the conditions of the seizure and the amounts of the seizure, the place and things of that nature.

While I do understand where the member is coming from, this provision is common in several acts to make sure that the costs associated with seizing are to be borne by the person from whom things are seized.

V. Huntington: Well, I understand that. Again, my concern is with the exception. While the minister’s job is, I suppose, to protect the government from the citizen, my job is to protect the citizen from the government.

I just find it unfortunate that there is not some way to recognize the exception and the innocence of an individual who did nothing wrong. This requires the government to obtain the costs of all the seizure and, I assume, the analysis and the storage of the product from that individual. It’s, I think, just a very unfortunate piece of legislation.

[1615]

It doesn’t matter if it’s in other pieces of legislation. The fact is there should be an exception built into all of these sections. If you go back to the seafood one, I think I said the same thing to the same type of

section at that time.

I just, again, reiterate. I’m disappointed when I see this type of legislation anywhere, and it’s unfortunate that that we continue to see it come forward.

Section 38 approved on division.

Section 39 approved.

section 40.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain

section 40?

Hon. N. Letnick:

Section 40 says: “Operator not to be subject to both administrative penalty and offence.” The rationale here ensures that persons cannot be convicted of the same offence twice.

Section 40 approved.

section 41.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain the intent of 41?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, I can.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you for all the advice from the members opposite.

This particular

section sets out how moneys may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown. “An administrative penalty…may be recovered as a debt due to the government.” All administrative penalties must be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

section 43.

L. Popham: Can the minister explain

section 43 now?

Hon. N. Letnick:

Section 43 sets out procedural matters pertaining to legal proceedings. These provisions are modelled from the AHA and the FSA.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of that?

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

Under this, it would set out the limitation period during which offences may be prosecuted — for example, two years from the date the facts are known to the minister.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an agricultural example of what happens if a farm is related to this?

Hon. N. Letnick: Let’s use the egg example from before. Someone is found in contravention of the grading act. Their property is seized. Evidence is put into an evidence container of some kind. They would have up to two years for the offence to be prosecuted.

L. Popham: In a prior section, a person was not able to be fined and prosecuted for the same act. But if it’s two different acts over two different timelines, you can have two different types of penalties?

[1620]

Hon. N. Letnick: If you are convicted — for example, on an administrative penalty — you can’t then go be convicted under the courts, and vice versa. So if you’re con-

[ Page 10967 ]

victed in the courts, we can’t then give you a penalty for the same offence.

L. Popham: Would FIRB follow this legislation if they’re looking into an animal abuse case? If you’re being convicted, which law overrides which law?

Hon. N. Letnick: The B.C. Farm Industry Review Board, also known as FIRB, operates under its own legislation. It has nothing to do with this piece of legislation.

L. Popham: That’s what I thought. Can both bills affect one farm at the same time? Or does FIRB legislation…? Can both happen at the same time?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of how that would happen?

Hon. N. Letnick: You could have a farmer who’s offside on the grading regulations, as per this legislation. Also, part of the farm could be growing blueberries, and under the regulations, they might be doing something offside on the blueberry cannons, and then that would be subject to FIRB’s intervention. So yes, you can have both at the same time.

L. Popham: I’m just thinking about protected labels. If somebody is claiming to be certified organic and they’re a chick producer, but the standards that they’re growing the chicks are not — they’re conventional over certified organic standards — can any seizures that happen under this act be live animal seizures? Or does that fall under FIRB when it’s a live animal?

Hon. N. Letnick: Under this act, you would most likely be looking to seize the eggs, because it’s a food, not the chickens. So I still don’t see the relationship with B.C. FIRB. Perhaps the member would like to enlighten us.

[1625]

L. Popham: I’m basing my assumption that this is complaint-driven. Somebody complains that a chick hatchery is claiming to be certified organic, but they’re not. So the practices of hatching and selling the chicks under false pretences would be reported to the government enforcement officer around protected labels, I guess, but also because it’s a live animal product.

Some of the practices of doing certified organic chick hatching and conventional chick hatching are much different in a lot of ways. So there would be the act of tipping the beaks. There would be the act of immunizing them, which would be put into question in some ways. Animal husbandry practices…. It’s complicated, but you could actually have two acts coming down on one farm. I’m just wondering: at what point does it become a FIRB issue, and at what point does it stay the ministry issue?

Hon. N. Letnick: If I understand the scenario correctly, and it’s a very case-specific scenario, perhaps a farmer was not taking proper care of their animals and at the same time also claiming to purport that they were graded in a certain way when they weren’t — for instance, saying that they were organic when they were not.

In the former case, you would not actually have FIRB initially. You would potentially have the BCSPCA that would come in and adjudicate whether or not the case is true on the harm to animals. Then, on the other piece, as to saying you’re organic when you’re not, that’s when our inspection regime would kick in. So yes, it’s possible that both happen at the same time.

Sections 43 and 44 approved.

section 45.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me if the penalties discussed in

section 45 are different than penalties in the past?

Hon. N. Letnick: The penalties are set out in the statute, as the member so keenly has mentioned. They are maximum that can be assessed upon successful conviction through court proceedings. Of course, they are a maximum. The court could apply a lesser penalty.

[1630]

The penalties apply to each day that the offence occurs or continues. Specifically for those that are watching, the maximum penalty is $5,000 or six months in prison or both, for offences by individuals, and a maximum penalty of $20,000 for offences by corporations. The penalty amounts are the same as currently exist under the Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act, which was enacted in 2000, and the Food Products Standards Act, enacted in 1990.

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

section 47.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether subsection 47(2)(i)(ii) is a conflict with the definition of agricultural product, which is a product that “is not intended for human consumption”?

[1635]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for her detailed analysis of the legislation. I will admit that it could have been worded better. However, it still works from a legal sense. You have to look at it as “(i)(

i) ungraded food, and…on grading, are found to be unfit for use as food.” That applies to the first (i). The “agricul-

[ Page 10968 ]

tural products” here is still consistent with the definition of “agricultural product” in

section 1.

V. Huntington: I’m sorry, Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, but I don’t understand what he just said. To me, the only way that makes sense and doesn’t conflict with the definition is to strike the words “that, on grading, are found to be unfit for use as food,” because agricultural products, by definition, are products not intended for human consumption. You couldn’t grade an agricultural product and then declare it unfit for human consumption, because it is by definition not intended for human consumption.

I, personally, see no way around it except to put a period after “agricultural products” and strike “that, on grading, are found to be unfit for use as food.”

Hon. N. Letnick: In the spirit of cooperation, to make sure that we have the best legislation possible, we are going to check with the drafters of the legislation to see if our

interpretation is different and if it requires different wording. We’ll come back to this before the end of this legislation if that’s okay.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair.

[1640]

L. Popham: Mine is just a general question. Can the minister see, in any way, farmers markets being affected by these regulations? Has he consulted the farmers market association?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ve been advised that we did consult with farmers markets when we came up with the certified organic regime that this legislation is working on, but we didn’t actually consult with them on this piece of legislation itself.

L. Popham: Well, some of the items in the regulations, I think, would possibly pertain to them. So I’m just wondering if the minister could maybe communicate with them at some point soon to make sure that they’ve gone over the regulations that are going to be moved into this legislation.

Hon. N. Letnick: As I said before, we will consult with those stakeholder groups that are necessary to consult with and that are impacted by the regulations in a significant manner. If it turns out there is something in there that the farmers markets would be able to provide us with some advice on through the regulations, we will endeavour to do so.

V. Huntington: I’m wondering if you can, perhaps, give me some advice here. I’m not sure how the process would work here. If we move to pass this section, then are we not passing the language as indicated, unless there is an amendment on the floor that we can speak to?

Could you or, perhaps, the minister further explain the process?

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, the intent is to…. I will move that we stand down

section 47, and we’ll pick it up off the table before we complete the bill, if possible. We’ll stand down

section 47 for now, once all the questions are done on

section

Section 47 stood down.

Sections 48 and 49 approved.

section 50.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain this

section to us?

Hon. N. Letnick: The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations for the recovery of administrative penalties.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting penalties authorizing the imposition of administrative penalties; prescribing the sections of the act or regs for which administrative penalties may be imposed; respecting the amount of the administrative penalty that may be imposed, including “(

i) providing for greater penalties for subsequent contraventions, (ii) setting the maximum and minimum penalties…(iii) providing, if the penalty is expressed as a range, factors to be considered in the determination of the appropriate penalty, and (iv) prescribing the grounds on which the penalty may be reduced”; respecting notices for administrative penalties, including the form, content and service of the notice; prescribing the time in which an administrative penalty must be paid, disputed or made subject of an agreement; and providing for payment of an administrative penalty by instalments.

I would think that’s adequate at this point.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me which act this is coming forward from?

Hon. N. Letnick: Administrative penalties are a feature of many modern pieces of legislation. You’ll find it in the Forest Practices Act, the Fish and Seafood Act, the Animal Health Act and others.

[1645]

L. Popham: Is there already a

schedule of penalties laid out by other acts?

Hon. N. Letnick: The legislation says, under

section 52, that the penalty prescribed in this section, section (1)(c),

[ Page 10969 ]

must be not be greater than $5,000. Specifically, a

schedule of penalties would be something that we would be looking to create as we create the regulations.

L. Popham: So there’s not currently a

schedule that we’re going to be using coming from a different act?

Hon. N. Letnick: No, there’s currently not a

schedule of penalties.

Section 50 approved.

section 51.

L. Popham: In this section, “Other regulation-making powers,” can the minister explain to me the intent of this

section and if it’s unusual from any other bill that we have seen?

Hon. N. Letnick: So some aspects of the act require supporting regulations to better enable its implementation. Perhaps exemptions would be regulations that are made to exempt a class of persons, foods, agriculture products, facilities or things from one or more parts of the regulations.

Exemptions are necessary in situations where a regulation should be limited in its application. Service and deemed receipt of a notice…. Regulations may be made respecting service and deemed receipt of a notice, which is necessary in situations where giving notice has legal ramifications, such as compliance and enforcement, inspection, seizure and destruction.

It could also be under powers respecting administrators and audit of certification programs. It could also provide information, so you would, in the regulations, prescribe types of information that can be disclosed. And other powers.

L. Popham: So in part (1): “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting a class of persons, food, agricultural products, facilities or things from one or more provisions of the regulations.”

This, to me, seems similar to

section 35, where the minister may make exemptions as well. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, they are similar. One is

section 35: “The minister may exempt by order”. And here: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting….” Both exempt. One is by order, and one is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

L. Popham: So is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council…? Would that be something that would be transparent to the public?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes. All regulations are public, so therefore it would be accessible.

L. Popham: So if an exemption was made, how would we find out about that?

[1650]

Hon. N. Letnick: All regulations are packaged together with the law. She could find it, or the public could find it, under B.C. Laws website.

L. Popham: Can the minister give me an example of an exemption that might take place?

[1655]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for asking for an example. We’ve come up with a few, but I think the easiest one is…. It says: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting a class of persons, food, agricultural products, facilities or things from one or more provisions of the regulations.”

Let’s say we come up with a regulation for fish, applying a grade to fish, and we exempt any fish that’s inspected at a federally regulated plant. So that would be exempt from the regulation, applying to fish, regarding grading. I’m not saying that that would happen. I’m just saying that it provides some colour to the legislation, an example.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me what is considered a class of persons?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite. The legal term is a class of persons. In common language, we could substitute the word “group” — a group of persons, some people that have something in common when it comes to agriculture — for instance, all egg producers, all wine producers. Those could be a class of persons.

L. Popham: I appreciated the minister’s example. He said he had a couple more. Could he give me an example of an exemption as far as a class of persons goes, a real-life example of why you would do an exemption? I’m not quite clear, if you’re making regulations, on how somebody would be exempt. I get the federal part of this. Are we just exempting any federal slaughterhouses, federally licensed fish farms, anything with a federal licence? Is this mainly what we’re talking about for exemptions?

Hon. N. Letnick: Maybe another example would help. If someone is producing eggs, as long as they’re producing it for animal food, they wouldn’t have to go through the grading provisions. That’s, again, a hypothetical example. Hypothetically, you could say that the difference, as I said before, between fish that’s graded…. But if it’s coming through a federal plant, it doesn’t have to be through here.

Again, these are just hypothetical examples to try to put some life into the legislation. I don’t believe that we are using this currently. The new legislation will come

[ Page 10970 ]

in, plus the regulations to accompany it. As we consult again — with COABC, for example — if something is found, through that consultation, that needs this provision, then the provision is already in the legislation, and it gives us the ability to bring in the regulation at that point.

[1700]

L. Popham: I guess I’m wondering about the protected label and how…. In the minister’s mind, can he see any examples how there would be an exemption from production around the protected label part of this legislation?

Hon. N. Letnick: No, I can’t think of any right now.

Section 51 approved.

section 52.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me: are there any powers given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that are different than in any other acts or bills that we see?

Hon. N. Letnick: I think she’s referring to

section 52(1). That is in every statute.

L. Popham: I don’t understand that. Could the minister explain that to me?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll try to say it a different way. It’s a standard provision that’s common amongst all the acts under the requirements under the

Interpretation Act.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether subsection (3)(

a) could apply to a class of persons who owned or distributed product that was seized and for which, subsequently, there was no evidence found by the inspector to proceed under the act. Could a regulation under this

section be developed that would excuse that individual from the costs of the seizure and disposal?

Hon. N. Letnick: Just for clarity, if I can paraphrase what I think I heard so that I can get a right answer. Are you saying that you’re wondering whether

section 52(3)(

a) would give the government the ability to create a regulation that would exempt a class of people from the provision of payment of costs that we discussed just a few minutes ago? Yes? Okay. The answer is no. It can’t happen.

V. Huntington: Could the minister explain to me why that is not the case, why people found innocent — there was no evidence that the product ought to have been seized in the first place or no evidence that permits proceeding under the act…? Why cannot that be treated as a class of persons or a class of product or food?

[1705]

Hon. N. Letnick: As we were going back and forth with different scenarios, it occurred to me that this is regulation. The other is

section 35; it’s the legislation. You can’t adopt something in regulation that thwarts the intent of the legislation. That’s one of the reasons why you couldn’t adopt a regulation that would basically overrule what’s already in the legislation.

V. Huntington: Well, normally I would have thought that, too, except that this is a very particular wording in this subsection. Unlike all the others, it refers to regulations that may establish classes of persons to which this act applies. Everywhere else you see regulations that apply to regulations that are developed. But this is specifically a regulation that allows them — the minister or Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — to establish a class of persons to which the act applies.

Thus, I ask whether you could create a class of persons who were innocent of any wrongdoing and therefore would not be subject to the costs of a seizure.

[1710]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Just to advise the member, we are looking at the provision — the wording issue that we talked about a little while ago. I think staff have come up with some change to the wording that will satisfy everyone. As we’ve said, the wording is legally correct but unclear so we’ll try to make it clearer, to the satisfaction of everyone here.

While we’re doing that, this particular one, (3)(a), is there to help interpret

section 2, “Application,” and it’s only on

section 2, the application. It says in the text: “

(3) A regulation made under this Act may (

a) establish classes of persons, food, agricultural products, facilities or things to which this Act applies….”

The key words here are “Act applies,” which sends you back, if you are a lawyer, to

section 2. It says: “This Act applies to food and agricultural products….” The regulations, if enacted, would be there to help interpret that. For example, in 2(b), it says: “in respect of which a grading program….” There you could have: it only applies to apples and not oranges.

L. Popham: My question is on

Section 52(4)(a), which highlights geographic areas. I’m wondering why that would be in there — and an example of what that would mean.

[1715]

Hon. N. Letnick: A good example of this is the VQA system, where we use appellations like…. Well, last year I was at the Golden Mile Bench celebrating the