2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

By-Election Results

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 47 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Brain cancer in children and Hannah's Heroes Foundation

L. Reid

Downtown Victoria Business Association and reCYCLISTS compost program

C. James

Mining industry employment in Nechako Lakes area

J. Rustad

Vedder River Cleanup Society

G. O'Mahony

West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society

R. Sultan

Noons Creek Hatchery and Port Moody Ecological Society

J. Trasolini

Oral Questions

Changes to adult education courses for high school graduates

A. Dix

Hon. G. Abbott

R. Austin

Funding for post-secondary education and skilled labour shortage

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Returning the Favour Care Home and assisted-living spaces in Port Alberni

S. Fraser

Hon. M. de Jong

Management of interface fire risks

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

Privatization of liquor distribution

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsperson

J. Les

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Ombudsperson

J. Les

M. Elmore

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2012

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Hon. I. Chong

V. Huntington

G. Gentner

N. Macdonald

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 40 — Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

S. Simpson

D. Donaldson

K. Conroy

R. Fleming

S. Fraser

Estimates: Management of Public Funds and Debt

Estimates: Other Appropriations

[ Page 11721 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: From the great city of Port Coquitlam, home to the largest marshalling yard in western Canada for CP Rail, we have a city councillor — the youngest city councillor in the province of British Columbia — who the first time out was 24 when he was re-elected. He topped the polls at the last municipal election, and someday I expect to see him taking a seat in here. Would the House please make Coun. Brad West most welcome.

From the neighbouring municipality of Coquitlam, we have a woman who has dedicated herself to protecting the environment and raising environmental issues in the Tri-Cities area. She has been president of the Burke Mountain Naturalists, one of the leading naturalist organizations in the province with an excellent reputation. That is Elaine Golds. Would the House please make her most welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of friends of mine from Abbotsford, Barry and Monica McLean, are visiting us today. Monica works, and has for many years, as a nurse at Maple Ridge Hospital, and Barry heads up the family aggregate firm. Both of them are here visiting, and I know members will make them both feel very welcome.

C. James: I have two guests and a group to introduce today. We have with us today in the gallery Ken Kelly, who is the general manager of the Downtown Victoria Business Association and also co-chair of the Business Improvement Areas of B.C. organization. With him is Fran Hobbis, who is the newly elected chair of the Downtown Victoria Business Association and past chair of the association's Clean, Safe and Sustainable committee. Would the House please make both of those guests very welcome.

[1340]

It's also my pleasure to welcome to the House 24 grade 5 students from St. Patrick's School in Victoria. The students are here today to learn about the Legislative Assembly, how government works, and observe the proceedings this afternoon. The students are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Zuback, and three parent chaperones. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: A couple of introductions, first of all from the staff of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. We're joined by Don White, who is the executive director with the trade initiatives branch, which is responsible for trade policy negotiations and disputes, including the softwood lumber agreement. He is joined by a number of his staff: Janel Quiring, Rebecca Ewing, Teresa Zhuang, Josh Smith, Matthew Carnaghan, Mike Nielsen, Linda Jakubowski and Erin Stead.

In addition, I saw one United Steelworker from Prince George that I know up there. I can't see all of them, so I apologize if I've missed others. Don Iwaskow joins us from Prince George as well. I'd ask that the House make all the staff and Don very welcome.

B. Routley: Today we have with us a group of United Steelworkers who are here talking to MLAs, particularly about forest issues. They certainly have a focus on the concerns they have with the rising number of raw log exports. With us today are Trena Legge, Jaswant Sanghera and Douglas Tingley. Please join me in welcoming these brothers and the sister to this House.

J. Les: I have two introductions to make today: first, two classes from St. Mary's elementary school in Chilliwack, 30 students from grade 6 and 30 students from grade 7. They are accompanied today by ten teachers and parents. I know they're in the precinct. They're not in the gallery at the moment, but I'm sure they will be joining us shortly. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

As well, today in the gallery we have British Columbia's Ombudsperson. She has a certain interest in an item of business that we'll be conducting a little later on. She is joined, as well, by her husband, Gordon Thompson. If the House makes the appropriate motion later on today, she will be the first Ombudsperson in the history of the province of British Columbia to be reappointed. Would you make her very welcome.

M. Elmore: It's my great pleasure, on behalf of Joe Trasolini, to thank the following people with us today in the House for attending the swearing-in ceremony this morning. We have Marcello Trasolini, Gino Trasolini, Marie Trasolini, Bill Milne, Pierina Pagliaro, Settimmio Pagliaro, Luke Laurino, Gianni Laurino, Anthony Laurino, Elaine Golds, Kevin Hagglund, Paul Harris, Yvonne Harris, Sharon Kent, Angela Shaw, Elaine Willis and, of course, Joe's wife, Cecilia Huang. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: A number of us met this morning with representatives of the B.C. Construction Employers. One of them was so inspired by the ambience of this building and the presence of the people here that he's decided to stay through question period. Would the House please welcome Rick Wagner.

[ Page 11722 ]

N. Macdonald: I'd like to join with the member for Cowichan Valley in introducing some United Steelworkers that are here joining us: Mr. Steve Drescher, Mr. Mohinder Gidda, Mr. Don Iwaskow and Mr. Ed Kent. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

D. Black: It's my particular pleasure today to introduce Judy Darcy to the House. Judy is the nominated candidate in New Westminster for the New Democratic Party and will be running for election in the next campaign in the seat of New Westminster. I ask all members here to make her welcome.

J. Horgan: I notice in the gallery an old friend of mine, Linda Carlson, who is an expert on the Crusades. If any members want to question her on the events a thousand-odd years ago, she's right there.

[1345]

R. Fleming: I would like to introduce two guests who are here today in the gallery. The first is Max Collett, who's from Vancouver. He's a partner at Bull, Housser and Tupper, and he's a member of the B.C. Business Council's environment committee and a former high school classmate of mine. I'll be meeting with him after question period.

The other guest here that I'd like introduce is Mr. Bill Woolverton, who is with us from down the way on the Island. He is the chair of our party's standing committee on the economy and the environment. Would the House make both of these gentlemen welcome.

H. Bains: I also would like to join with my colleagues from Columbia River–Revelstoke and from Cowichan Valley in welcoming members of my old union: Mo Gidda, Steve Drescher, Jaswant Sanghera, Doug Tingley and Trena Legge. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that these men and women have a lot to do with who I am and what I have learned as a trade unionist. Please help me welcome them to this House.

S. Simpson: I am really pleased to introduce a couple of guests and friends who are here visiting us today, Tom Dufresne and Mark Gordienko. Who they represent is the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the Canadian area, Tom being the outgoing president and Mark the incoming president. I hope everybody will make them welcome.

S. Hammell: I rise today to introduce a number of guests who are here from the Chilliwack-Hope area. They're here to observe the swearing-in ceremony.

I would like to introduce Al Ens, who is the president of the federal constituency association; Richard Harrington, a former campaign manager; Jennifer Woodruff, who put in countless hours in the campaign; Chris Gadsen, who is a director of the Vedder River Cleanup Society; Edward Gardner, a leader in the communityand a wild salmon warrior; Heather Plett and Myron Plett, who are former coworkers of the new member; and members of the family of the new member for Chilliwack-Hope — Paden Harris, Jennifer Blanchard, Lee and Geraldine Flemming, Glen Thompson and Michelle O'Mahony. I would like the House to make them welcome.

I would also ask the House to please join me in making welcome two personal introductions of mine, Brett Barden, my amazing CA, and Sukh Johal, a member of the constituency association. Would the House also make them welcome.

J. Kwan: A little over a year ago I met a wonderful woman at the Burnaby Board of Trade. She is a small business person, and she is very involved in the community, particularly in the Korean community. She works endlessly in her church, as well, in connecting members of the community with the broader universe that she's connected with. I would like the House to please welcome Sophia Bae, and she is visiting the House today with her mother.

By-Election Results

Clerk of the House:

May 7, 2012

Hon. Bill Barisoff

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On October 6, 2011, this office received your warrant advising of a vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of Iain Black, member for the electoral district of Port Moody–Coquitlam. On January 30, 2012, a second warrant was received after the resignation of Barry Penner, member for the electoral district of Chilliwack-Hope.

On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I simultaneously issued writs of election for the electoral districts of Port Moody–Coquitlam and Chilliwack-Hope on March 22, 2012, ordering by-elections be held to fill the vacancies. The writs specified general voting day to be April 19, 2012.

The by-elections were held in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act, and the completed writs of election have been returned to me.

In accordance with

section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby certify the following individuals to be elected to serve as members of the Legislative Assembly: Joe Trasolini of the B.C. NDP for the electoral district of Port Moody–Coquitlam; Gwen O'Mahony of the B.C. NDP for the electoral district of Chilliwack-Hope.

Sincerely,

Keith Archer, PhD

Chief Electoral Officer

British Columbia

[1350]

[ Page 11723 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the result of the election of members be entered upon the Journals of this House.

Motion approved.

A. Dix: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Gwen O'Mahony, the member for the electoral district of Chilliwack-Hope, and Joe Trasolini, the member for the electoral district of Port Moody–Coquitlam, who have taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claim their right to take their seats.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. [Applause.]

Now I'll ask the members to take their seats in the Legislative Assembly.

The hon. members for Chilliwack-Hope and Port Moody–Coquitlam took their seats.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 47 — COASTAL FERRY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. B. Lekstrom presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Bill 47 amends the Coastal Ferry Act. The amendments are required to respond to the recommendations contained in the independent B.C. Ferry Commissioner's report presented to the province in January of this year. The report is the product of the Ferry Commissioner's public review of the current coastal ferry services–model system.

The amendments will help address concerns about the affordability of ferry services that prompted the review. The principles of the act are being amended to ensure that the primary role of the B.C. Ferry Commissioner is to balance the interests of ferry users, the interests of taxpayers and the financial sustainability of ferry operators.

The amendments will also provide the Ferry Commissioner with greater discretion when setting price caps, allowing, for example, cross-subsidization between routes. These changes will help reduce the pressure for higher fares.

The commissioner will also have enhanced regulatory oversight powers to improve the efficient delivery of ferry services. The commissioner will be able to approve major capital expenditures, conduct routine performance reviews, request ferry operators to prepare plans, review policies, conduct public consultations and make service level adjustments. The commissioner has been given additional tools to deal with the extraordinary circumstances, no longer being restricted to just increasing the price caps.

The amendments are part of a comprehensive response to the Ferry Commissioner's recommendations, a response that is based on a vision where all three parties — taxpayers, ferry users and ferry operators — contribute to ensuring that coastal communities are connected in an efficient, affordable and sustainable manner. I will provide more information on these amendments at second reading.

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

Bill 47, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BRAIN CANCER IN CHILDREN

AND HANNAH'S HEROES FOUNDATION

L. Reid: There can be no more terrifying a diagnosis than the words: "Your child has a brain tumour." Every year the parents of more than 3,500 children in North America hear those words. Brain cancer is an extremely aggressive disease that is difficult to cure and has a high mortality rate.

Brain tumours are the most common solid tumours and the second leading cause, after leukemia, of cancer-related deaths in children. The majority of children — 80 percent — with the more aggressive forms of brain tumours will not survive more than two years.

Surgery and chemotherapy are the mainstays of current treatments of brain cancer. Surgery for brain tumours is especially challenging because of the sensitive location of the tumours. Children who have undergone the brain tumour surgery often experience long-term difficulties in learning and memory.

Complete surgical recession is often impossible due to the invasive nature of the tumours. Adding to that, in certain groups of patients the tumours become resistant to the current chemotherapeutic drugs, leaving no other treatment options.

Hannah Dale Hatlen was five when she died of brain cancer. In her honour, her family created Hannah's Heroes, a foundation which is today funding pediatric

[ Page 11724 ]

brain cancer research at the Child and Family Research Institute at B.C. Children's Hospital. Their research is dedicated to all the patients and their families who struggle against pediatric brain tumours.

The pediatric brain tumour research group has new data which shows that brain tumour cells must have a protein called PLK1 to divide. PLK1 levels are higher in cancer cells than in normal cells. When this protein is blocked, cancer cells either die or their growth is suppressed.

The role of PLK1 is largely unexplored in pediatric brain cancers and could be a crucial new link in treatments. Heartfelt thanks to this team of researchers who every day bring hope to B.C. families, and to Cathy Lee, graduate student and the first Hannah's Heroes fellow.

DOWNTOWN VICTORIA BUSINESS

ASSOCIATION AND

RECYCLISTS COMPOST PROGRAM

C. James: Less than two years after it began, the reCYCLISTS program is being expanded by the Downtown Victoria Business Association. This pedal-powered zero-emission compost and recycling service has diverted more than 15,000 kilograms of organic and recyclable waste from area landfills since it began in September of 2010.

A modified pedicab-style trike, which is piloted by a member of the DVBA clean team, picks up the waste. Each trike can carry 200 kilograms of compost or recycling material at a time. Last year the program was expanded to include pickup of difficult-to-recycle items such as soft plastics, Styrofoam and CFL bulbs. It's a progressive and cost-effective alternative to waste disposal and fits perfectly with the association's exceptional commitment to sustainability.

Right now 30 Victoria downtown businesses actively participate in the program, and the association is looking for more. Along with an expanded role for the reCYCLISTS, the DVBA has also introduced its green index. It's an on-line tool to inspire businesses to incorporate more ways to help their operations be sustainable.

The DVBA, led by a very committed and forward-thinking board, is always looking at ways to do things better. They're part of a provincewide network of about 60 business improvement associations. Together, these associations represent 40,000 member businesses that are the lifeblood of their communities.

As social conditions and economic challenges evolve, these business improvement associations play an important role. The most successful ones are responding to the change by being innovative and agile.

The Downtown Victoria Business Association is certainly an example of problem-solving by thinking differently. They're leaders in our community, and I hope members of this House will join me in thanking them for their forward thinking and their leadership in pedalling for a better planet.

MINING INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT

IN NECHAKO LAKES AREA

J. Rustad: Next week is Mining Week, and I know we're going to hear a lot of wonderful things from the ministry. I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight how mining is helping families in my riding of Nechako Lakes.

My area is host to Endako Mines, Huckleberry Mines, New Gold's Blackwater project, which they're hoping to start construction on in 2015, and servicing Mount Milligan. In addition, there are more than a dozen exploration projects driving employment opportunities.

After the tragedy at Babine Forest Products, Endako mine is now employing 36 displaced workers. Some are with Mount Milligan, and Huckleberry is also working with the community to explore opportunities.

But it's not just about the families directly supported by these operations. There are also many spinoff benefits helping to build strong communities. Brad Miller from Fort St. James experienced an incredible surge of business, thanks to construction at Mount Milligan. Brad was in the right place at the right time when someone suggested that he haul drinking water with his 1978 gravel truck.

[1400]

Up until then, he had no work. Now, he hasn't had a day off since November 6, 2010. He says it's changed his life.

With two Bobcats, an excavator, six trucks and over 30 employees, he takes care of site maintenance at the mine. Bam Bam Trucking, named after his bam-bam of a daughter, Brady Anne Miller, is a thriving, successful business, and his family has a stable future.

It's clear that mining is imperative to our province's future. All members should do everything they can to expand the success by supporting projects around the province, projects like the Prosperity mine. In preparation for Mining Week, I want to say thank you to my determined constituents who have helped build this industry and to everyone who has helped make these opportunities a reality.

VEDDER RIVER CLEANUP SOCIETY

G. O'Mahony: The Vedder River flows through my riding of Chilliwack-Hope, and each year thousands of Pacific salmon and steelhead make their way back to this river as spawning adults. The Vedder River is home to the bull trout, rainbow trout and mountain whitefish. In the lower river the native birds, such as the great blue heron and bald eagles, nest and hunt.

The Vedder River's scenic setting is within a short travel distance from Vancouver and has become known as a recreation corridor with rafters, campers, anglers,

[ Page 11725 ]

birdwatchers and hikers visiting the area all year round. While the majority of visitors are respectful of the Vedder River's sensitive habitat and picturesque beauty, unfortunately, with increased usage through the years, the area has also become a dumping zone.

From beer cans left strewn around campfire pits to abandoned vehicles, the reckless dumping has not only created an unpleasant eyesore but a dangerous environmental hazard. Fortunately, in response to the growing needs of the river, the Vedder River Cleanup Society formed in 2002. From Styrofoam cups to illegal grow-op refuse, the society has removed more than 70 tonnes of garbage. They arrange three group cleanups per year, each drawing between 100 and 250 participants.

I've had the pleasure of working with these dedicated members, and I am greatly encouraged by the work they have done and continue to do each and every day, as many of the society's volunteers keep a careful watch on the river between scheduled cleanups. While it is discouraging to witness flagrant disregard for an area that both wildlife and people depend upon, it is heartening to know that groups such as the Vedder River Cleanup Society exist.

WEST VANCOUVER

SHORELINE PRESERVATION SOCIETY

R. Sultan: West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society is a volunteer organization seeking to enhance our foreshore, the beach area between low tide and high tide. Children play on our beaches, and of course, marine creatures inhabit it when the shoreline is properly preserved. Unfortunately, a comparison of photographs reveals West Vancouver's foreshore is a thin remnant of what it once was.

Why? There are a variety of reasons: damming of the Capilano River, blocking the flow of sandy sediments; private bulkheads, tending to convert beaches into ocean; and rock removal, discouraging both sediment capture and marine life.

How can beach erosion be replaced with beach accretion? Shoreline Preservation Society to the rescue. Ray Richards, Jack Wood, Beryl Allen, Chuck Brawner, Kevin Webb, Hugh Hamilton and Bryan Williams, in close collaboration with the municipality and the streamkeepers, are implementing measures which provide groynes or dikes to capture the sediments flowing down many other streams; artificial reefs offshore to break the waves and encourage kelp growth and creatures of the sea; and educated landowners who appreciate the long-term futility of bulkheads.

The good news? Slowly but surely our beaches and marine life are being restored. Thank you, Shoreline Preservation Society.

[1405]

NOONS CREEK HATCHERY AND

PORT MOODY ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY

J. Trasolini: First, let me say how happy I am to stand here today representing the people of Port Moody–Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra in the B.C. Legislature.

The Noons Creek Hatchery is located at the mouth of Noons Creek in Port Moody. The hatchery is operated by the Port Moody Ecological Society, founded in 1991. Also located on the grounds are a water quality lab and outdoor classrooms for school children of different grades.

The Port Moody Ecological Society is an entirely non-profit volunteer organization. Although there are hundreds of volunteers, I wish to mention two key award-winning contributors here today: founding president Rick Simpson and noted environmentalist Dr. Elaine Golds.

The most popular event that takes place at the hatchery is the yearly Fingerling Festival held on the first Saturday in May. This past Saturday I was there for the 21st anniversary of this successful family event. It was delightful and inspiring to watch hundreds of children releasing the fingerlings from their buckets into the waters of Noons Creek.

This day-long event is one of the largest and fastest-growing environmental festivals in British Columbia. It showcases over 50 organizations and businesses, and it attracts over 4,000 people.

This is a celebration of renewal and hope. Our hope is that our children will learn to love the environment and grow to promote ecological health. Please join me in congratulating all of the volunteers of the Port Moody Ecological Society for their amazing contribution.

Mr. Speaker: I want to commend the new members for keeping their two-minute statements under two minutes.

Oral Questions

CHANGES TO ADULT EDUCATION COURSES

FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

A. Dix: Many adult British Columbians, even if they've graduated high school, need to upgrade their high school credits to take advantage of post-secondary education, training and job opportunities. Last week the Ministry of Education informed school districts that a program that provides high school courses to high school graduates is being cut substantially.

My question is to the Premier. Given the importance of education and training to our economy, why is the government again cutting access to post-secondary education and training opportunities for adults?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, we should note that for

[ Page 11726 ]

Where one has seen a big change in terms of the dollars, because the cost of this has moved from $1.5 million five years ago to $15 million today, is in the proliferation of elective courses. For example, there will be changes with respect to things like film and television, photography, art preview, equine studies — all of which are, I'm certain, enormously interesting to the individuals who take them, but they are not consistent with the education guarantee.

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

A. Dix: Physics, calculus, financial accounting, law, digital media development, marketing and tourism are other programs in question as well. I think the minister will acknowledge that these are important programs and that students should have access to them. The government announced it with great fanfare when they did.

It's easy for the government to say the programs should be cut; harder for those students that need access to those programs to achieve what they need to achieve in the future. The government has cut apprenticeships. They've announced cuts to post-secondary education. They're cutting access….

Interjections.

A. Dix: Well, they have.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …are simply out of touch. The members opposite are simply out of touch with their own material, with their own reports that show that 80 percent of the jobs of the future require post-secondary education. And this is the jurisdiction in Canada that's cutting post-secondary education and access to education.

[1410]

I think the minister will agree that there are some students who are going to be denied access. This is a new barrier to education for those students. Can the minister explain why the government is taking this action at this time?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, it's very clear that for those who are seeking to move on to university, there will be no changes that will limit their opportunity to go on to university. In some cases some of the elective courses will be free on line. In other cases…. This is a change.

I know the Leader of the Opposition smiles, because he has never had to make a difficult decision. And as long as they never form government, he never will have to make a difficult decision.

For those courses that are essential to getting a high school degree, they are free and are continuing to be free. For those who are going back to high school to retake courses so that they can upgrade their status for university, again, those will continue to be free.

What we are concerned about…. Again, I know in the realm of difficult decisions, this might be a horribly difficult decision for the Leader of the Opposition. We are seeing completion rates as low as 35 percent in some of these courses, particularly the elective courses.

It is inconsistent with the best use of the taxpayers' dollars that we see full funding for things like photography, film and theatre, etc., when we can reinvest those dollars in early childhood education and literacy programs that make a difference.

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

A. Dix: The difficult decisions aren't being faced by the government. The difficult decisions are being faced by young people, by adults who need skills, who need their skills upgraded, who need access to courses like physics, which apparently is an alternative, for the Minister of Education. That's the problem here.

My question is to the Premier, frankly. The government is cutting apprenticeships, cutting opportunities, cutting advanced education and skills training. That's their plan. That's their plan in a skills shortage — to cut off opportunities for young people. It is not the right approach.

While the minister talks about saving money, let's talk about BCeSIS. Let's talk about advertising the Premier's jobs plan. How about putting money into education for young people? How can the minister, at a time when young people need more access to education, not less…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: How can the Premier justify these continuing cuts?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's unfortunate that, clearly, the Leader of the Opposition didn't do his homework on this before he raised the issue. Again, it is going to be free and continuing for those who are seeking graduation from high school. For those who are going back and upgrading,

[ Page 11727 ]

again, it will continue to be free.

In some cases what the school districts may do is require a deposit, which will be returned to them upon completion, or at least substantial completion, of the course.

The Leader of the Opposition always has all the answers, because he never has to make any difficult decisions. So to the Leader of the Opposition: if one had to choose between equine studies or photography or film and theatre — again, all of which are very fine things…. If he is going to pretend to one day be able to lead a government in British Columbia, surely he can make a decision between those things and early childhood education and literacy programs, which are vital for the future of this province.

[1415]

R. Austin: Upgrading high school courses is essential for many adult high school graduates who find their opportunities limited due to a lack of qualifications. Of course, many of these graduates are struggling to get by and have limited financial means to pay for courses. For a variety of reasons, on-line education is not a suitable option, often because they don't have access. The popularity of these courses is a testament to their importance, with full-time-equivalent student enrolment having risen almost tenfold in less than five years.

Again to the Minister of Education: when will he restore free access to these courses so that no British Columbians are denied access to the education they need to maximize their potential and unlock future opportunities with better higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, there is no need to restore it because it has not been lost. As I explained to the opposition leader, for those who are seeking high school graduation, it remains free and is continuing just as it has in the past. For the core courses that one requires, for example, for admission to university, it continues to be free for those who wish to do that. Where there will be a change is around some of the electives involved.

Again, I hope this is not too tough. I mean, if this is an early test, Mr. Speaker, for an opposition that pretends to someday want to be in government…. Will they really have a tough time making the decision between the core courses required for university entrance, or would they go with continued full funding of things like film and television, family studies, photography, equine studies, art preview, portfolio skills, etc.? What we have seen over the last five years is a proliferation, under the education guarantee, of these kinds of courses.

If this is too tough a decision for this government-in-waiting to adopt, they should let us know today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: This comes from a government that spent $100 million on a computer system, BCeSIS, which never even worked over its ten years of trying to make it work.

This government's approach to education and training is incredibly shortsighted. Everybody knows that business and industry and our entire economy rely on our K-to-12, post-secondary, and trades and apprenticeship systems to supply well-trained, well-educated workers.

Yet at every turn, this government seems intent on putting up barriers to those who want to better themselves. It's not just the individuals who can't afford tuition who suffer, though that in itself should be cause enough to rethink these policies. It's the entire province that is affected.

When is this minister going to reverse this shortsighted, ill-considered decision, restore funding for these courses and stop denying British Columbians the chance to get the education and training that they need?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, it is obvious from that question and the other questions we've received today that this supposed government-in-waiting is going to be waiting for a long, long time, Mr. Speaker — a long, long time.

[1420]

I think every member on this side of the House is enormously proud not only of the investments that we have made in StrongStart, in full-day kindergarten and in enhanced programs in kindergarten through grade 12 but also of the 25,000 new seats in colleges and universities across this province.

When you stack up those investments against the sorry record of this government from 1991 to 2001, you could not see a clearer contrast between a government that makes appropriate investments, that makes tough decisions and opposition members that run away from even the easiest decision that they could ever make around education, both at K-to-12 and secondary.

FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AND SKILLED LABOUR SHORTAGE

M. Mungall: Yesterday Capilano University, which of course is right in the backyard for the Advanced Education Minister, passed their budget. Here's what that budget document says: "Next year in addition to seeking ways to increase revenue, we will most certainly be forced to reduce programming and/or student services, as the ministry has announced a $20 million cut in the post-secondary education system."

My question is to the minister of Advanced Education. Institutions know, economists know, industries know that cutting post-secondary education will worsen the

[ Page 11728 ]

skilled labour shortage. Why doesn't she?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I know that our Minister of Finance has been wanting to get a question, so I'm going to, on his behalf, tell you that we have been through the worst recession in 70 years. B.C. has fared this global economic downturn better than almost any other jurisdiction in North America. Governments all around the world have to control their spending, and B.C. taxpayers expect us to do the same.

This government's strong fiscal policies are attracting investment to B.C. This government's strong fiscal policies have created the environment for growth. Because of this government's strong fiscal policies, our triple-A credit rating was just reconfirmed. [Applause.]

There was applause from this side of the House. Nobody from the opposite side of the House applauded, because they don't actually get the significance of this. I know if the NDP were in government right now, our economy wouldn't be growing, investment wouldn't be coming to this province, and instead of predicting a growth in jobs, people with skills would be leaving B.C. to find work.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: It's a real shame. The Minister of Advanced Education is looking for a new job title, the minister of rhetoric, because that's all she just offered.

The fact is that we have a major skills labour shortage on line right now, and Capilano University is not alone in sharing their concerns about this. In February all 25 presidents of public post-secondary institutions wrote the minister, making it clear that the impending cuts that her ministry is putting forward are going to hurt students. It took six weeks for her deputy minister to write back, and she still asserted that the cuts wouldn't be felt by students.

When is the minister going to stop denying the seriousness of the situation? The seriousness of the situation is that the biggest economic woe for British Columbia is that skilled labour shortage, and she's making it worse. When is she going to recognize that those cuts to post-secondary education are going to be detrimental for B.C.'s economy?

[1425]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Let me remind the member opposite that we have asked the college and university sector over a two-year period to reduce just 1 percent of their administration expenses — 1 percent. We invested $1.9 billion in operating funding for our institutions this year, a record investment in operating.

That's over $5 million a day, and that doesn't even include the huge investment that taxpayers have made in capital. You can't walk onto any of our campuses these days without being amazed at the investment that this government has made.

Let's put this into context. This government inherited a system that was starving for capital, starving for operating and starving for student spaces. It was well known, while the NDP were in government, that if you wanted to enter university in Canada, it was harder to get into a university in British Columbia than any other province in Canada.

RETURNING THE FAVOUR CARE HOME

AND ASSISTED-LIVING SPACES

IN PORT ALBERNI

S. Fraser: In Port Alberni, as in many places in the province, there is a shortage of assisted-living spaces for seniors. Yet despite these wait-lists, a small home-like facility known as Returning the Favour is being denied clients by VIHA, by the health authority. The facility is fully licensed and accredited. Residents and their families and health care professionals in the valley want Returning the Favour to stay open. Seniors in Port Alberni deserve that kind of service.

Will the Health Minister explain why those in need of assisted-living services are being denied these services when there is already a shortage of assisted-living spaces in the Alberni Valley?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is describing a matter that he has brought to my attention previously, and which I have discussed with him. The challenge, of course, is this. We set standards to ensure that seniors in British Columbia, when they access assisted-living facilities and homes, will live in a dignified and proper environment. That is as it should be.

We have made great progress in expanding the range of rooms and living options that are available to seniors. It would be easy to stand here and say that we'll make exceptions, but we owe it to seniors to ensure that everywhere in communities across British Columbia we are providing them with assisted-living options that meet the standard that we would want to see in place for our parents and grandparents. That is the standard that will be in place.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: That's an interesting answer. I mean, seniors in an acute care bed in the West Coast General waiting for assisted-living spaces is not exactly quality health care.

I raised this with the minister over a year ago, and nothing has happened. The problem is that VIHA is trying to downgrade this facility to supportive housing while there is a critical shortage of assisted-living spaces. It doesn't make any sense.

This facility isn't a supportive housing facility. Every one of its 11 spaces is registered as assisted living under

[ Page 11729 ]

the registrar, and VIHA is charging the families assisted-living rates. So VIHA, and maybe the minister here, is playing games.

The important thing is that my community needs access to these assisted-living spaces. Will the Health Minister explain why these needed spaces aren't available to seniors in the Alberni Valley?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, in pursuit of his cause today, chooses, I think deliberately, to ignore one fundamental fact, and that is that ten years ago the wait-list for residential care and assisted-living facilities in this province extended, in communities across B.C., to over a year. Over a year seniors and their families were obliged to wait, because there simply weren't any options available. Today that has been reduced to 90 days.

[1430]

Is there more to do? Most assuredly there is. But the best guarantee we can give to seniors about our commitment to make further improvements is to look at the record of achievement that has been made over the last ten years.

MANAGEMENT OF INTERFACE FIRE RISKS

N. Macdonald: Last year we were reminded of the dangers of wildfire when a fire swept into Slave Lake in Alberta, causing $700 million in damage. The Filmon report in 2003 stated that fuel treatments in forests interfacing with communities had to be done as a priority. As the minister knows, it's essentially firebreaks.

To date, since 2003, only 2.6 percent of the work identified as needing to be done has actually been done. It's clear, I think, to anybody looking at this that the government's approach does not work. When will British Columbians see an effective interface fuel management plan from this government?

Hon. S. Thomson: We take the wildfire risk very, very seriously, and that's why I know that on both sides of the House we recognize that we have a world-class fire management team and fire management system in place with our staff and the fire management branch. I'm confident that they've planned and they're prepared for the upcoming season.

That's why we've invested over $62 million in the strategic wildfire management program, working with communities and First Nations across the province, putting those fire protection plans in place. And 285 communities have taken advantage of that program.

The program continues. There's still funding available to communities to participate in the program, new intake periods for that program. We'll continue to work with communities to make sure they're prepared for the upcoming season.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: So let's listen…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

N. Macdonald: …to the answer there, because the assertion I made was that this is ineffective. The Association of B.C. Forest Professionals reports that only 44,000 of 1.7 million hectares identified as needing treatment have actually been treated. What the minister answered was that they've spent a lot of money. So basically, it's ineffective and expensive, and that's the problem.

There needs to be a new approach. That is clear to anyone who has looked at this issue. When is the government going to put in place an effective program so that communities are protected as we head into the next wildfire season?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, we have a world-class wildfire management branch in this province, one that has got great professionals in the branch, one that is actively recruiting and training the people needed for the upcoming season. Again, we invest very, very significant resources in community wildfire planning.

The members opposite like to quote reports, and the Forest Practices Board report…. Maybe they should just look at what this report said. In their follow-up report in February the Forest Practices Board released their report on fire management planning. It acknowledges that not only are we acting on the recommendations; we've taken positive steps to improve fire management planning. The overall standards of quality, completeness and timeliness are very good, and 94 percent were adequate for intended purposes.

PRIVATIZATION OF

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: We've asked the government to produce a business case to justify the Liberal warehousing privatization to prove that it's good for British Columbians and good for taxpayers. We've asked for it numerous times. It's not been provided.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

[ Page 11730 ]

[1435]

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, when they don't have an answer, they laugh. A nervous laugh it is. Today we have asked for this business case, and the government hasn't provided it. We simply believe that it does not exist and that it's never been done.

Today in Vancouver at a government briefing on this issue, numerous business interests asked question after question about pricing and cost structures, and they got no satisfactory answers from government officials. This process is unravelling as an inept B.C. Liberal exercise. It's ideologically driven and gets called further into question every time we get a little more information.

Would the minister either table in this House the business case or tell us the truth — that it does not exist?

Mr. Speaker: Before you start, I want to remind the member to just be careful of his language.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that when the member is at the end of question period, he's trying to find a question. He feels the best way to do it is just shout it across the House, because he's got no depth in the question.

The reality is that we're out to negotiate an RFP. Part of the process in Vancouver today was an open process. The questions will go away. They'll be answered back to the people who asked them. That's the process in place. Tomorrow it will be a meeting with the proponents that are interested in bidding on the process. As I told the member before, it's about warehousing and distribution. It will be a fair process. It will be taking place.

I don't know what the member is so afraid of. The fact is that rather than go and build a multi-multimillion-dollar warehouse to modernize our own distribution system, we go to the marketplace to save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and, at the same time, find some other revenues to offset the budget so that we can take care of health care and education and the things that are important to British Columbians, when this isn't a business we necessarily need to be in.

I don't know what the member's problem is. The reality is that the RFP is out. It will be done properly. It is being done properly. The member opposite can go and make up any story he wants, which he does from day to day with regards to this issue, and he'll still be wrong at the end of the day.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Les: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsperson.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Les: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I move that

the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

J. Les: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a further motion requesting the Lieutenant-Governor to reappoint Kim Carter as the Ombudsperson for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSPERSON

J. Les: By leave, I move:

[That this House recommend to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor the appointment of Kim Carter as a statutory officer of the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Ombudsperson for the province of British Columbia pursuant to

Section 2 (2) of the Ombudsperson Act (RSBC 1996 c. 340).]

In conjunction with the moving of this motion, I would like to explain briefly why the committee was pleased to make the unanimous recommendation to reappoint Ms. Carter for a second six-year term to the position of ombudsperson.

The special committee was impressed with the incumbent's dedication and accomplishments during her first term. The members believe that British Columbia will continue to be well-served by Ms. Carter's solution-oriented style and her commitment to administrative fairness.

In closing, I would extend my sincere appreciation to all members of the committee for their dedication and their contribution to this selection process.

M. Elmore: I rise and would also like to give my comments and thank the Chair of the committee and also the entire committee for a very thorough and thoughtful consideration of the reappointment. We were able to reach a unanimous decision to recommend to reappoint the Ombudsperson, Kim Carter.

[1440]

We're very impressed with her, her expertise and her innovative leadership and also her vision for the office.

Motion approved.

[ Page 11731 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will start committee stage of Bill 41, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. For the information of members, by agreement,

section 4 of this particular piece of legislation will move over to the end of the debates or be stood down until the critic for Finance and the Minister of Finance are available, because they're both in estimates this afternoon. We have that by agreement, so if we complete that, that

section would be passed, as well as the committee stage, later on.

Moving after that in committee stage, we would go to Bill 36, intituled the School Amendment Act; followed by Bill 37, intituled the Animal Health Act; and then Bill 40, intituled the Legal Profession Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room this afternoon we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Finance. Should they complete that today, early, then we would move to the Ministry of Health.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2012

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 41; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. members, we are considering

section 74.

section 74.

M. Farnworth:

Section 74, the Health Professions Act, is the application of Labour Mobility Act to nurse practitioners. In this section,

section 20.02 states:

"

(2) The Labour Mobility Act does not apply in respect of the occupation of nurse practitioner.

(3) Section 20 (4.1) (

e) of this Act does not apply to a person applying for registration to practise as a nurse practitioner under this Act.

(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation repeal this section, and on that repeal

section 6.1 of the Labour Mobility Act is also repealed."

Can the Minister of Health explain the purpose of this section, please?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can, and that may be the best question to ask at this stage of the proceedings. Here are the circumstances that we find ourselves in with the advent of nurse practitioners in British Columbia, which I think all members agree has been a positive thing and is a positive thing. We hope to utilize even more of them in a greater variety of roles.

There continues to be discussion and debate nationally about the qualifications to become a nurse practitioner. Fair to say that in British Columbia we have set the bar the highest, particularly by requiring nurse practitioners to have successfully written something called the OSCE, the objective structured clinical examination. The OSCE is a significant examination; it's a tough examination. British Columbia requires nurse practitioners to have successfully passed it before they are qualified to practise as nurse practitioners. We believe that's appropriate. That is not the standard that has yet been adopted, although there continue to be discussions, at a national level.

The situation we are endeavouring to avoid with the introduction and, hopefully, passage of this

section is where nurse practitioners arrive from other jurisdictions in Canada and demand the right to practise without having completed that particular examination. One of the features of the

section that the hon. member has already highlighted is the provision that would allow the exception to be repealed by regulation. That is included in the act as an indication of our hope and belief that the negotiations will prove fruitful and we'll arrive at a national standard that includes the requirements that we have, in which case the exception would no longer be required.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad the minister spoke about the OSCE, not to be confused with the Oscar. I do think it's important that we get on the record why this

section is in place and the fact that we do have this exam. It sets a very high standard, as the minister pointed out. He's dealt with some of the questions I was actually going to have in the other section.

The question that I will ask at this particular point is…. If the intent of the ability to repeal at a future date is based on or is going to be determined by the adoption of our particular level of standards or standards that are acceptable to the province and basically are equivalent to what we have today, at that point it would be repealed. Does the minister have any sense of how long it will take, or has he any indication as to the speed at which these negotiations are taking place? Also, could he let me know if there are other provinces that already have in place the same standards as we do?

[1450]

Hon. M. de Jong: In reverse order, Quebec and Alberta have a similar requirement but with respect to a much narrower scope of practice, so it would be incorrect to suggest that the OSCE requirement exists across the board, even in those jurisdictions.

The first question around timing. I am reminded that, unlike a circumstance in which I would say to the member, "Well, we're in discussions, and within the next period of months we hope to have resolution," this one, I am advised, is likely to be in the 18-to-24-month period. It involves federal officials, multijurisdictional — sufficiently long, as frustrating as that might be, to warrant the inclusion of the provision in a law, albeit with an ability to

[ Page 11732 ]

rescind that law to avoid a circumstance where we have nurse practitioners with differing qualifications.

M. Farnworth: : I appreciate the answer from the minister. Has there been resistance from other provinces to the direction that we are going to go, to the point that, perhaps, there's pressure on British Columbia — to say: "You know what? Your standard is very nice, but it's a bit high, and we would like you to lower your standard"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Oh, yes.

M. Farnworth: I raise this because this particular section…. I mean, we have invested a lot of time and effort in this province in the development of the position and the role of nurse practitioners and the scope of practice around nurse practitioners. I think it's really important that we make it clear that the level of education, the level of training that we require in this province is not something that we are going to give up. That is important to B.C, and so I see this

section as sending a strong message.

The question I have relates, because this deals with labour mobility, in particular to Alberta. Has the ministry examined the consequences or the potential consequences of TILMA upon this particular section? Is there any conflict with the Labour Mobility Act, which B.C. signed with Alberta, with regards to us enacting a

section like this?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just confirming that we believe, following analysis, that the sections included here are consistent with the obligations we have assumed pursuant to interjurisdictional agreements.

M. Farnworth: Has the ministry looked at…? Would it be possible for this

section to be challenged by an out-of-province nurse practitioner, for example, who is licensed in other jurisdictions within the country? Is there a sense, you know, that this will stand the test?

Hon. M. de Jong: Challenges are always possible. What I would want to say to the member, though, is our larger concern was that without the section, a nurse practitioner coming from another part of Canada without similar credentials, the OSCE component, would have been in a relatively strong position to demand to be registered as a nurse practitioner. That was our larger concern.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I understand exactly where he's coming from. I think that that's something we want to make sure is addressed within the legislation.

[1455]

Can the minister outline for me the consultation that took place around this particular

section with regards to nurse practitioners?

Hon. M. de Jong: A two-part answer. I don't want to create the impression that, with respect to this

section itself, there were extensive discussions with agencies outside of British Columbia. There have been and continue to be discussions around the general issue, but I don't want to suggest that we took the

section and alerted agencies outside of British Columbia. We did, however, engage specifically and directly with respect to these provisions with the college of nursing and the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Sections 74 to 79 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Hon. Members, we've concluded sections 74 through 79, and we are returning to a consideration of

section 1.

section 1.

M. Mungall: So

section 1 and the following 12 sections have to do with the Engineers and Geoscientists Act. I just have a few questions that I would like to put down on the record just to make sure that the House is doing its due diligence.

section 1, where it says, "Subject to the bylaws made under

section 10 (1) (b.2), nothing in this Act or the bylaws," I'm just wondering if the minister can explain what the changes are there.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: This

section inserts a reference to the new

section 10(1)(b.2), which is enacted by

section 4 of this bill, and to sections 2(6) and 2(7) of the act. Essentially what it is, is a cross-referencing amendment.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Mungall:

Section 2 makes some changes, saying that vice-presidents will now be elected by members. I'm guessing, then, that in the past or currently right now the vice-presidents are not elected by members. How are they chosen, and why has the government gone this route to have them elected by members?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It has always, actually, been the practice that members do vote for the vice-president and the president. What this

section refers to is the voting rights of the limited licensees, who will be considered as full members.

[1500]

M. Mungall: I just want to make sure that it's put on the record — the consultation that the ministry has done with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, better known as APEG. I know that

[ Page 11733 ]

the minister and I often — in the estimates debate, as well as these types of debates — have a good chuckle at the amount of acronyms that can be found in the post-secondary education file.

APEG. I'm sure that the minister has done a considerable amount of consultation with them. I'm wondering if she can elaborate for this House what consultation she did do.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Consultation by APEGBC — I guess we should probably say what it is; it's the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. — has been quite intense. It began with an examination of the legislation in 2009. Proposed amendments were identified back then and developed and reviewed by over 100 senior members and public appointees serving on various APEGBC task forces and committees.

Articles explaining and updating APEG's amendment proposals appeared in several of the publications, the association's magazines, throughout 2010. These were followed by membership surveys in October of 2010, and those results were published in December of 2010.

There have been presentations at two annual general meetings, at regional meetings, and there has been actually a task force report, which has been available on APEG's website now for several months.

M. Mungall: It does sound like…. The minister is well aware that APEG has been advocating for this for quite some time, and that's exactly what they've been telling me. I'm just wondering why the minister has, then, decided to bring this up at this time and not earlier. Was there some work that needed to be done to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, or is it just a matter of timing?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I just mentioned, the intensive examination of the amendments started in 2009 and concluded essentially in 2010, but it wasn't actually until 2011 that APEG did approach the ministry or approached myself for us to consider some of these amendments to their act. We examined some of their amendments, and the timing of the legislation is actually quite timely. This is the first opportunity that we've had to introduce it to the House.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

M. Mungall:

Section 4 establishes a council of conduct review program for members, licensees and certificate holders, it's my understanding. It also establishes the standards of practice or a code of conduct for that same group of people and requirements and procedures for reinstatement of former members.

I think this is part of the disciplinary process that they're looking to change — if the minister can just confirm that.

[1505]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite is correct. This

section actually amends the act to allow for these disciplinary measures to take place. What this

section does is it just enables the bylaw-making powers so that APEG can actually do what we have intended for them to do.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

M. Mungall:

Section 5 is giving "the holders of limited licences the same ability" as members of APEG "to apply to the court for an annual meeting to be held, to request a general meeting, to receive notice of a meeting and to request a vote by ballot." This is extending rights that exist by full members to those who have limited licences. I'm just wondering how this will impact the organization.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member opposite is right in summarizing the intent of this section. What it does is it allows a small number of limited licensees who have been considered members in good standing of the association to participate fully as full members. They currently pay full fees like a professional engineer but haven't, until these amendments, been able to participate as full members.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

M. Mungall:

Section 6 allows the council — my understanding is it's the elected council of the association — to delegate its powers to the registrar. I'm just wondering if the minister could please provide an example of that type of delegation.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Under the current legislation, all applications for membership must be submitted and approved by a registration committee of council, even the most routine of applications. What this amended provision could be used for, for instance, is to allow the registrar to process applications for admissions that are non-contentious because the applicants clearly have met all of the criteria for admission.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

M. Mungall: This

section "allows the council to enter

[ Page 11734 ]

into an agreement with the governing body of engineers or geoscientists in another…jurisdiction." Specifically, it looks to me like they're saying that that other jurisdiction be another province. However, the wording in the explanatory note is "another province or another jurisdiction."

My first question on this

section is: if it's not another province, what would be the other jurisdiction then? Is it in the United States? Is it anywhere in the world? Is there a specific idea of where this will be, or is it kind of wide open?

[1510]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Again, this

section is to facilitate national mobility.

Section 14.1 is to deal with mobility within Canada.

Section 14.2 — because this

section 7 has two parts to it — deals with other jurisdictions. They could be other countries in other jurisdictions in the world.

M. Mungall: Then my next question would be in terms of the potential to displace British Columbia workers, and I have a concern around that. If we start bringing in professional engineers and geoscientists from other jurisdictions, that could potentially displace existing professional engineers and geoscientists here in British Columbia. I'm just wondering if the minister has addressed this issue at all with APEG and what they have said about that.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I know as a former business person that if I can hire somebody within British Columbia or Canada to do something, it's a lot easier to do that. But APEGBC recognizes that this change will actually enable APEGBC to bring in highly qualified professional engineers whose skills, in some areas, we have a shortage of in British Columbia.

APEGBC already has a lot of these agreements with other countries to recognize credentials. What we're doing is making it easier for the mobility of workers and to ensure that we don't have projects in British Columbia being held up because we don't have that specialized skill working here in British Columbia.

[1515]

M. Mungall: The association, then, will be governing that labour mobility to ensure that no one here in British Columbia is displaced by workers from another jurisdiction?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: APEG will only enter into an agreement with another jurisdiction if it's beneficial to British Columbia. Also, I just want to add that this actually allows the freedom of mobility for our own workers to go to other jurisdictions in those areas where there are agreements to work as well.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

M. Mungall:

Section 8 allows registrars "to channel complaints against members, licensees or certificate holders and requires a report to the investigation committee in specified circumstances." I'm just wondering if the minister can explain how this is differing from the existing process.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Currently all the complaints that are received by the association must be referred by the registrar to a member for review, whether they're serious or whether they're minor or even unfounded.

What the new

section is attempting to do is that instead of referring all the complaints to a designated member, the registrar can actually choose, instead, to refer a complaint to the practice review committee or the conduct review committee.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering how this new complaint process…? Will it expedite the existing complaint process and allow things to be done in a more timely manner? Or does it add a few more hurdles so that there are further checks and balances? I'm not saying that if it expedites it, there wouldn't be a sufficient number of checks and balances. I just want to get a sense of how this will be felt by members in terms of the complaints process.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: What this will do is that complaints will be able to be resolved through less formal means. Overall, this should result in better outcomes with discipline that fits the seriousness of the complaint.

[1520]

We're able to actually triage the types of complaints. So if it's a minor offence, we're hoping that this new system will actually be able to deal with those minor complaints quickly and efficiently. If the complaints are more complex, then they will be directed to a practice and conduct review. If it's a very serious complaint, it will actually go to a disciplinary inquiry.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

M. Mungall: In

section 9 what the explanatory note says is that it's repealing "an obsolete reference to

section 32" in there, so it looks like it's doing some cleanup work, and "requires a person being investigated to appear before the investigation committee or subcommittee and allows the committee or subcommittee to make recommendations or to channel certain matters to the practice review or conduct review committee."

[ Page 11735 ]

My understanding here in reading this — and if the minister can just confirm if that is a correct understanding — is that this

section is, first, cleaning up a little bit of the wording in the existing legislation, as well as further defining the complaint process and the disciplinary process.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, that is correct.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

M. Mungall: In

section 10 the explanatory note here "requires a member or licensee to report disciplinary action taken against the person in another province and allows the council to refer any such matter to the discipline committee." Again, this is a change from the existing disciplinary process. That's my understanding. If the minister can just explain briefly how that change is different than the current process.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Under the current legislation, to apply disciplinary action taken by other jurisdictions in British Columbia, the association must repeat the entire investigation and discipline process, including a hearing.

By allowing the association's discipline committee to make an equivalent order without a new hearing, this amendment will reduce the time and expense of duplicate proceedings, which will better protect the B.C. public, and it will make it harder for engineers who have acted improperly in other jurisdictions to simply relocate to British Columbia to avoid the consequences of their inappropriate conduct to occur here.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

M. Mungall: I beg your indulgence, Madam Chair. It just sounds like, with

section 10…. We let it pass, but I think that the minister highlighted in her explanation how it basically means that if you just skip out of town, you're not off the hook, and I know that APEG really appreciates that.

For

section 11, this is looking at "the personal liability protection of the council members," and it adds that "personal liability protection of employees, officers and people acting on behalf of the association."

I'm just wondering: currently, do these people not have the benefit of personal liability protection? And if the minister can explain: what is the benefit of doing this personal liability protection — of extending it to these people?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: This

section protects the professional staff of the association, who in the past used to be professional engineers or geoscientists who were protected from being sued. Now the association is actually hiring staff who may not be professional engineers. They may be lawyers. What it does is it protects the employees of the association from being sued. Members already are afforded the protection.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

[1525]

M. Mungall: This

section requires that anybody in a conduct review committee — my understanding is that that is a disciplinary process — "regardless of a claim of confidentiality" has to provide information.

I'm wondering if the minister could just please clarify exactly what that means and how it will impact members in terms of their rights to privacy and confidentiality.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Right now if a member undergoes a review or a disciplinary action, they are obliged to provide the appropriate information for the case to be reviewed. Because we're adding different types of committees and reviews — in this case the conduct review committee — we're asking that the conduct review committee also be given that same power to request information from the member that may be under review.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering, in discussions with APEG about this particular section, if the minister can just shed some light on any examples that they provided when they were consulting with the minister on why this type of

section would be necessary.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I mentioned, members that are undergoing a conduct review already have to provide the relevant information. Because we've added an additional committee, a conduct review committee, we're asking that the legislation be changed so that the committee has the power to request the appropriate or relevant information with respect to the issue or the engineer that may be under review.

Some of those examples may be past complaints of the professional involved or past practice complaints. What this may do is show a pattern of conduct that may be of concern to the conduct review committee.

M. Mungall: I just want to thank the minister for bringing this legislation forward. I know that APEG has been wanting to see it for quite some time, as we already noted.

I'm really pleased to see it come forward, and I appreciate her and her staff for taking the time to just go through a few questions and put them on the record. I know that I

[ Page 11736 ]

always like to do this, because you never know when you might get an e-mail or phone call or a letter in the office. We want to be able to send it out to those APEG members to show them that, yes, we did have these conversations, we did ask these questions, and both the government side and the opposition side were satisfied with everything.

So I just want to say that and thank the minister.

Section 12 approved.

[1530]

The Chair: For the information of members, we're moving to consideration of amendments under "Community, Sport and Cultural Development,"

part 2.

section 13.

M. Mungall: Just a couple of quick questions, again wanting to put a few markers down on the record so that if there are any questions from people around British Columbia, we are able to answer them. This particular

section provides for membership of Tsawwassen First Nation in the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district. I'm wondering if the minister can just explain a bit of the consultation that she had with the Tsawwassen First Nation. We want to be sure that the consultation took place.

Hon. I. Chong: First, I would like to introduce staff I have with me. I have Gary Paget to my left, Deidre Wilson to my right and behind me Kara Woodward and Brad Cox, who are here to provide assistance.

I will say that there has been extensive consultation with the Tsawwassen First Nation. In fact, the reason why we are making this amendment is because Tsawwassen First Nation is interested in becoming a member of the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district. For that reason, as I say, the consultation that is required has been extensive. So it is at their request that these amendments take shape.

V. Huntington: My reading of correspondence that passes between the sewerage and drainage district, TFN and Delta is that the sewerage and drainage district and TFN appear to have come to some accommodation on their membership and on what the terms of that membership might be. I'm wondering why the government feels it has to move in this direction at this time. Could you perhaps explain what the issues are in front of TFN and the sewerage and drainage district that warrant this kind of action by the government?

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member will know, and if not, for the benefit of the House, I'll remind all that when there was treaty settlement legislation with respect to Tsawwassen First Nation, they did become a member of the greater Vancouver regional district — or Metro Vancouver as we know it — and the greater Vancouver water district.

However, the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement did not make specific provisions for membership in the sewerage and drainage district, because membership in that was restricted to municipalities, as opposed to treaty First Nations. It did, though, provide that should the parties reach an agreement, there would be a necessity for government to bring forward the legislative amendments to accommodate the request of the parties, having come to the agreement and the arrangement, where the treaty First Nation and the Vancouver sewerage and drainage district have agreed to that. That's the purpose for this amendment.

It's not being forced on anyone. It is as a result of the conversations they have had, and they believe they are ready to become a member. This legislation is enabling, and should the conversations and discussions they have not reach the final conclusion where they wish to be a member, they may still choose not to be. But this amendment will allow them to be, in the event they are going to reach that agreement. I do believe they are very close to that.

[1535]

V. Huntington: Then do I understand from the member that the language of this

section has been approved or is acceptable to the GV…? I always want to say GVSWD, but it's not the SWD. It's the SD.

Is this language, then, acceptable? Not that it has to be, I understand, but the understanding I get from the correspondence is that the GVS&DD and TFN have been in negotiations with the government on the terms of membership. I find this language very strident, and I'm just wondering if it is language that was agreed to during those discussions.

Hon. I. Chong: The short answer is yes, they are. They have been consulted, and they were permitted through confidentiality agreements, arrangements, to have a very brief, I guess, scan of this — not the legislation in particular but the contents or the intent of it — and they are in agreement with that.

I want to make it clear, as well, to the member that this is parallel to the membership that the other member municipalities currently have, so it doesn't deviate from that. The other member municipalities who are part of GVS&DD will be the same as what the Tsawwassen First Nation will be having in place.

V. Huntington: Is the minister saying that other legislation that enables other members of the GVS&DD to become members contains language that's in this, say,

section 2 of 66.1? That language is the same for all members?

[ Page 11737 ]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm just trying to make sure I get the correct wording and clarification here, because the changes we are making here do provide for, I guess, essentially or virtually the same treatment as member municipalities in the GVS&DD. The provisions for requesting membership are the same as municipalities. That's what we are trying to provide here.

[1540]

The differences are because this is not a municipality. It's because it's a treaty First Nation and therein, perhaps, may appear to be some differences. But virtually, they are identical in how you become a member of the GVS&DD, and this is what we are enabling in this legislative change here, to allow Tsawwassen First Nation to become a member in GVS&DD, as current municipalities are. The current legislation for membership in GVS&DD only allows for municipalities, and not the treaty First Nation.

I hope that's been clarified. If it's something more specific, where the member feels a distinct difference that she has noted, I would be happy to try to give her that clarification.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps to be clear, then. Currently with member municipalities of GVS&DD, there is, under subsection 66(1): "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall have absolute power and authority, upon the request of a municipality which is not a member of the Corporation, to order or refuse to order such municipality to be a member of the Corporation." Currently that is in place for member municipalities, and we are providing for the same with the Tsawwassen First Nation.

Again, the parties did agree to wanting the ability for Tsawwassen First Nation to be a member of the district. In the event that at the last moment there is a change, then they don't have to become a member. This legislative amendment will allow them to come to that conclusion, should they reach that conclusion.

V. Huntington: That's very helpful information on the language issue.

The issue here seems to be one where an existing member of the sewerage and drainage district, Delta, is being asked to accept TFN's use of its upgraded sewer lines. Now, I understand that there is an agreement between Delta and B.C. Ferries, Delta and TFN, to use the sewer line as it exists now. In the case of TFN, that use of the line is subject to a five-year agreement. Does this enable the sewerage and drainage district to overrule Delta's present ownership of that line if Delta doesn't wish to allow the sewerage and drainage district to take over the line?

Hon. I. Chong: What we are doing here is just enabling Tsawwassen First Nation to be a member of the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district. Once they become a member, it will be up to the district and all the members of the district to have the discussion that they wish with respect to what the obligations are for each of the members of the district.

[1545]

We are not dealing with one municipality's agreements with Tsawwassen First Nation. It is about Tsawwassen First Nation becoming a member of this district. Again, if there are issues that are not resolved, and if either the current members of the district are not prepared to accept Tsawwassen First Nation into their district as a member or Tsawwassen First Nation decides that they are not prepared to enter into the district as a member, they can still go their own ways.

But this legislative amendment here enables the membership to take place, should both parties agree to it. That's the extent of what our legislation is. We're not dealing with specific municipalities but with respect to the district on its own.

V. Huntington: Just to confirm my understanding of what the minister has said, Madam Chair, I understand and appreciate TFN becoming a part of the sewerage and drainage district. What you're saying, then, Minister, is that this in no way obligates the sewerage and drainage district to service TFN lands or to expropriate Delta's sewer lines and that that is still subject, once TFN becomes a member, to discussions among the members themselves. Is that what I'm to understand?

Hon. I. Chong: It is up to the district to make those determinations and decide on what the appropriate agreements are that they want to have in place. This legislative change is not about those specifics, as the member is suggesting, hon. Chair. But the district itself would certainly have the ability to have those discussions and, if there are concerns, to raise them prior to the admission of Tsawwassen First Nation as being a member.

V. Huntington: In regard to that, if you look at subparagraph (6), even if this language is the same language that exists in the act for other members, it says that the

[ Page 11738 ]

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations specifying the provisions of "another enactment under which the Board is empowered to make bylaws" and the bylaws "that apply to or in relation to Tsawwassen First Nation as a member."

Does that

section enable the government to do anything that would obligate the sewerage and drainage district to provide services as Tsawwassen would require or request — i.e., expropriate or force Delta's system to be used to provide services to TFN?

Hon. I. Chong: I would just say this to the member: this legislation was specifically requested by the TFN and the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district, to enable the TFN to become a member of the district. This act was designed for municipal members. The TFN is not a municipality. Its powers and authorities are different and are protected by treaty.

[1550]

Legislative changes are required to accommodate membership of the TFN in the district. The approach being taken is consistent with the approach to adding member municipalities to the district. If there were new municipalities created, this would be the similar approach that would be taken.

Again, it has been as a result of discussions that have happened with Tsawwassen First Nation with the district. The letter that the ministry received to request this legislative amendment has come about as a result of those discussions.

I would say to the member that the concerns that she may have, I would have to expect, would have been part of this discussion over the last number of years and certainly in the last year leading up to this stage where they are now very close to becoming a member, which is one of the reasons why we have been asked, as a ministry, to put this legislative amendment forward to enable this to occur.

The concerns that the member, as I say, has raised…. Again, I'm not able to deal with specific municipalities within the district. That's not the purview of what this legislative change is. But only to say that those discussions, I would expect, would have taken place.

V. Huntington: Just let me say, so that it's clear to the minister, I'm in the position here where I represent both communities. I also know the problems both communities are having with these particular discussions. They're difficult ones. My concern in reading this legislation was to discover whether or not this legislation enabled the government to force one or the other into a commitment that they were not yet ready to make.

I believe I understand that this is strictly the language used to enable a treaty First Nation or a municipality to become a member of the GVS&DD. That's my interest here. I just hope that both parties, along with the sewerage and drainage district, can come to a conclusion that represents both's best interests.

We have a problem here where Delta is extremely concerned about the capacity of its sewer line to handle its own needs, and here we have a huge development taking place that was outside of the original regional growth strategy and a community, the Tsawwassen First Nation, asking to use the Delta sewer lines.

It's a difficult issue for both communities and one that probably needs to be resolved by the sewerage and drainage district, but resolving it on the authority of cabinet is what I was more concerned about and not in the traditional manner of a discussion and consensus reached at the regional level. So with that, I thank the minister for the answers. I think I've been satisfied.

Perhaps I'll ask one further question, and I'm not sure whether this minister is able to answer it. Why was TFN not deemed a member of the sewerage and drainage district at the time of treaty? Was it an omission, or was it because of the complicated nature of membership at that time?

[1555]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I do want to be very clear, because I don't want the member to check Hansard and find there is any confusion.

Currently the GVS&DD is, as I say, interested in having Tsawwassen First Nation, TFN, be one of its members. The province is not able to force or require TFN to become a member. However, the province does have the ability to have GVS&DD accept TFN as a member. But it can also do that for any municipality that may come into existence. So if a new member municipality were to be in the region, the government, the province, has the ability to have GVS&DD accept them as a member.

That's what I was trying to convey to the member — that the province has the ability to include new applicants into membership, but we are not able to force or require those applicants to become members if they don't wish to. I hope that's clear enough for the member. That is the way, as I say, member municipalities are also treated.

With respect to her question regarding why this was not included at the time the treaty was negotiated, not having been a party to that at the time, I can only say that my understanding was that there were so many areas of discussion, that this was one area they were not ready yet to enter into. But again, they knew that there was the opportunity — that once the TFN had, I guess, matured to a place where they were wishing to join GVS&DD, they would then be able to do so.

G. Gentner: I want to back up on the treaty negotiations. I want the minister…. I want to fully understand here that the province has no obligations under the treaty to intervene if the TFN cannot make an agreement with the sewerage district.

[ Page 11739 ]

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not able to go into detail and depth as to the treaty agreement that was signed. That's not the purview of this legislative change.

What I can provide to the member are those relevant parts with respect to this legislative change. What was provided for in the treaty was that Tsawwassen First Nation may participate in associated entities, and that's the reason why we are here today.

The Tsawwassen First Nation has made a determination, along with GVS&DD, that they wish to participate in this associated entity and, therefore, have asked us to provide that enabling piece of legislative change.

G. Gentner: The minister had mentioned that the reason we're here and the result — this change in legislation — is at the request from another party. Can the minster tell us, the House, who requested this and if it's more than just one party?

[1600]

Hon. I. Chong: I received a copy of a letter dated last March with joint letterheads from both Metro Vancouver and Tsawwassen First Nation and with the proper signatories, therefore, requesting that this membership be provided for.

G. Gentner: So this has nothing to do with, of course, a request by…? I'll call it the sewage district. They never requested this?

Hon. I. Chong: The member will probably know that Metro Vancouver was speaking on behalf of the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district.

G. Gentner: Now, we're dealing with a situation that…. I find it a little unusual that this is sort of being imposed, if you will, upon negotiations between various levels of government. Can the minister explain to me: what were the points of disagreement that prevented the TFN or Metro and, particularly, the district to conclude an agreement leading to membership?

Hon. I. Chong: I think it's important to correct the member. He used the word "imposing" — that we were imposing something on to the members or the member municipalities and the regional district. I want to make it clear that this is not what government is doing.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Again, I would reiterate that this legislative amendment is being brought forward at the request of the TFN and the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district. I want to make it very clear that by accommodating that request, we are enabling membership to take place. So there is not an imposition that government is imposing.

Again, to be clear, this is an entity, a regional entity, that provides services to its regional area and to its members. The difficulty is that they cannot provide services if you are not a member. So the Tsawwassen First Nation would like those regional services provided to them. Therefore, they must become a member.

That is the reason why the legislative amendment is in place: to allow them to become a member and then for them to be able to participate in those regional services that are being provided by the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district.

G. Gentner: This imposition, if you will, means of course that the rates will be imposed on Delta, which currently has the sewage trunk line. Will this agreement or this legislation in any way determine the servicing and maintenance costs borne by the region and/or the municipality to reach the capacity necessary for Tsawwassen — the TFN?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would ask that the hon. member for Delta North refrain from using words that are incorrect because it will lead to misrepresentation, if not mislead the public as to what is occurring here. There is no imposition that the province is placing on the district or on the Tsawwassen First Nation. I want to make that very clear because he has now stated that twice in his request for clarification of this legislative change. It is important to say that for the record.

[1605]

What is occurring, again, is that we have been asked by the district, we have been asked by Tsawwassen First Nation, to bring forward a legislative change allowing them — if Tsawwassen First Nation does want to be included in the district as a member — to be a member.

The sewerage and drainage district is a regional entity and provides services. It can only provide services to its members. Therefore, Tsawwassen First Nation must be a member if it is able to access and make arrangements to receive those services. The district would like, as I understand it, to provide those services, which is the reason why they have come to us — the government — to make the legislative change to enable that to take place.

There is no imposition. At the end of the day, Tsawwassen First Nation, like other member municipalities who are part of the district, are able to negotiate the arrangements with respect to the services they require and the costs associated with that.

Madam Chair, I would again ask that the hon. member for Delta North, in looking at these changes to this legislation, refrain from making allegations of an imposition when, in fact, that is just not true.

G. Gentner: Well, let's just call it the authoritarian nature of government that is pushing this forward. If there is a reasoned approach to negotiations, we wouldn't have

[ Page 11740 ]

to be here. I just don't understand why, if both parties are magnanimous and willing to negotiate, they are requesting one party to become a member when they have clearly in the past been able to negotiate — my understanding is, particularly through Delta — a five-year agreement regarding sewage intake from Delta's sewage trunk lines and, of course, that with B.C. Ferries.

I almost find this is expediting something whereby we didn't really give negotiations an opportunity. I haven't quite understood what the points of disagreement were that prevented TFN or Metro from concluding agreement leading to membership.

Hon. I. Chong: I find it odd that the member is not able to comprehend exactly what is happening here. He is wondering why the two parties are not able to conclude their agreement. Well, the reason why they're not able to conclude their agreement is because they are not a member. They are wishing to conclude the negotiations and make an agreement, but they must be a member in order to do so.

I think the member for Delta North is actually providing a misleading statement, and I would ask that he not continue to do so. We are here today because we have two parties who actually do wish to conclude an arrangement, who do want to conclude with the negotiations. But in order to take that final step, they must have an arrangement where they can do so. The way to do so is to be a member of the district.

We were requested a year ago to provide for a legislative change to allow the Tsawwassen First Nation to become a member, and the district also realized that they wanted to conclude those negotiations and would like Tsawwassen First Nation to become a member. We are now proceeding with that request. Again, hon. Chair, I hope the member for Delta North is able to comprehend that.

The Chair: I'll just make members aware that there is a rule in the House about repetition, and please be aware.

G. Gentner: I'm just curious there. Is it through the treaty process that we'll capture and determine what type of capacity sewage will be provided for? Or is it strictly done with an agreement with the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district?

[1610]

Hon. I. Chong: The service that is required will be established by the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district. The district then would negotiate the price and the method by which that service would be provided.

G. Gentner: As a member of Metro Vancouver and, of course, as a member of the sewage district, will the TFN have to follow the Metro strategic plan, whether it is sewage upgrades or not? Or is it compelled strictly by the treaty it signed?

Hon. I. Chong: We are not today talking about the treaty process. We are here today talking about the Tsawwassen First Nation and its membership into the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district.

What I can say to the member is that when Tsawwassen First Nation join the membership of Metro Vancouver, or GVRD, they are required to abide by all the rights and responsibilities that all other member municipalities are required to follow as members of Metro Vancouver. So there's no difference or distinction with respect to that.

G. Gentner: Just to sort of wind up here and ask a question. Can the minister confirm whether or not her ministry has received any correspondence from third parties relative to this implementation — from organizations other than the TFN, the sewage district, Metro and/or Delta? I'm thinking…. In particular, have you received any correspondence relative to these changes from Port Metro Vancouver?

Hon. I. Chong: Not that we're aware of.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

M. Mungall:

Section 14 is actually quite controversial.

Just for the people who are in the gallery and who are at home…. In fact, we should never underestimate the ratings for this program and this channel. For the people who are watching at home, I know that people in my constituency, in Nelson-Creston, are quite concerned about this section, as well as people throughout all of the Kootenays, including the constituency of Columbia River–Revelstoke. I have no doubt that the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke will also have something to say about this

section and have several questions, as do I.

This

section allows for the government to create a resort municipality without a single person living there. You can imagine that after several weeks of trying to get a meeting with ministry staff about the potential of this actually coming forward, not having our requests answered, to then see this in this miscellaneous bill was a bit shocking.

The last that we heard about this possibility — the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke and myself — was when we were in a briefing meeting with some of the government's senior staff in charge of dealing with Jumbo Glacier resort.

[1615]

The reason why we heard about this possibility in that meeting is because Jumbo Glacier resort was recently approved for its master development agreement

[ Page 11741 ]

by the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. That was a land disposition agreement. The next step for this resort to become a possibility is for it to deal with land use issues.

Now, there are a variety of opportunities, a variety of ways in which that could have been dealt with. One of them was to have the regional district of East Kootenay deal with the permitting process in a typical manner: dealing with the official community plan, any rezoning and so forth, having an appropriate public process, and the people who made the decision at the end of the day were accountable to those who elected them.

Another opportunity to move this forward, we were told in that briefing, was exactly what we're seeing here in

section 14. That is to create a resort municipality before a living soul, other than grizzly bears and deer and other little critters and birds, were living there.

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke and myself wanted to get more information about that possibility, and here we are now debating this particular possibility on the Legislature floor, prior to being able to learn more about it from ministry staff.

That is actually a good example of how quickly legislation is being rammed through this House right now, Madam Chair. This is of grave concern to people throughout British Columbia.

Of course, when I saw this being put on the floor, I immediately called the Union of B.C. Municipalities to ask about whether they had been consulted or not. The president, who also happens to be a regional district of East Kootenay director, had not even been briefed yet on this possibility, on exactly what was in the legislation.

I think that shows a real problem throughout this entire process. It shows, it highlights, how things are being done here in the Legislature right now. But it shows a real problem: how things are being done when it comes to Jumbo Glacier resort and trying to put forward this type of anti-democratic legislation.

I think it's important to note why this shows how this is the way this government has been treating Jumbo Glacier resort, in terms of moving it along, when for 20 years people in the Kootenays have expressed their very, very adamant opposition to Jumbo Glacier resort.

Madam Chair, I'm going to start off with my questions. I'm asking the minister straightforward: is this

section about creating a resort municipality for Jumbo Glacier resort?

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, I would like to correct for the record. When the member indicated that we had not had any, I guess, conversations with UBCM, I do want to state for the record that my staff have advised me that they did contact UBCM staff. They were certainly briefed on the legislation, so they were aware. The view was that the new legislation did not change the policy that our government brought forward with respect to the legislation in 2007.

In 2007 legislation was brought forward to allow for the incorporation of a mountain resort municipality. What we are currently doing is making an amendment that would allow for the incorporation to take place in a developing area and making it clear that, because it's in a developing area, therefore there may not be residents. Without the vote of residents….

[1620]

The legislation was not clear on that, so the amendment we're bringing forward today is to make it clear that the policy decision that was made in 2007 to allow for mountain resort municipalities can, in fact, be effected with or without residents.

M. Mungall: Yes or no: is this about creating a resort municipality for Jumbo Glacier resort?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, what I've indicated to the member is that in 2007 we brought forward legislation that allowed for the incorporation of mountain resort municipalities. This amendment, which is in place before us in this bill, is to allow for that to take place — for a mountain resort municipality to be incorporated whether or not there are residents in the area at the time of incorporation.

If there should be residents that occur, then we would be able to incorporate with those residents. If there are not, as well, we would be able to allow for an incorporation to take place.

This legislation is about making that clear — that a mountain resort municipality may be incorporated. That was a piece of legislation that we brought forward in 2007, and this clarification is with respect to the requirement for residencies.

M. Mungall: Why does the minister, then, think that that legislation from 2007 requires clarification if, apparently, it was possible for the minister to incorporate a municipality without any residents?

Hon. I. Chong: This amendment clarifies the intention of the provisions that were provided originally when we made the changes to the Local Government Act in 2007, and that was to provide for the incorporation of a specialized form of mountain resort municipality that could be incorporated in a remote, undeveloped area. That was the significance of the 2007 legislation.

However, the provisions that were provided for then stated that it authorized "the incorporation of the residents of the area." That language has been interpreted as not being clear. So we were requested to make that clear. The "residents of the area," as I say, made it unclear whether they had to be within, I guess, the undeveloped area.

The technical experts, the legal experts advised us that the existence of residents prior to incorporation

[ Page 11742 ]

was causing confusion. They have asked us to make the amendment, to keep consistent with the 2007 intent of the policy of government of the day that a mountain resort municipality may be provided for whether or not there are residents in the area. That's the reason why we're making the change today in this bill.

[1625]

M. Mungall: I just missed the minister saying about who made these recommendations. If she can just repeat that please.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, that would be on the advice of our legislative counsel and drafters, who take a look at legislation from time to time. If they realize that they are not clear, they request clarification. That's the reason why this

section is before us.

M. Mungall: Why did the minister seek that opinion?

Hon. I. Chong: I just should tell the member that I did not seek clarification. What does occur from time to time is that our staff review our legislation, whether it's the Community Charter or whether it's the Local Government Act or whether it's another piece of legislation we have, to make sure that sections are clear. When it came to their attention that there could be uncertainty and that the provisions provided for were not clear, they received information from the legislative counsel that in fact, yes, we did need to make this

section clear.

M. Mungall: Who brought it to the staff's attention that this needed apparent clarification?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't know if the member is suggesting that I pinpoint a specific staff person. I can say that the ministry staff, as I've indicated, look at our legislation, whether it's, as I say, the Community Charter, whether it's the Local Government Act or whether there are other pieces of legislation like the Sewerage and Drainage District Act that we just spoke about earlier. When they do so, they do so to ensure that they are updated and don't require any changes.

From time to time, if they note that there might be changes that we need to make, they will seek clarification, generally from legislative counsel, who are the ones who assist us in drafting legislation. My understanding is that this is ongoing, that staff look at our legislation brought to their attention that we should seek that clarification. Legislative counsel, therefore, suggested that we do make it clear, to be consistent with the policy that was debated in 2007.

M. Mungall: Is the minister saying that there is nobody in her ministerial staff who met with anybody from, let's say, Jumbo Glacier resort, who then brought it to the ministry staff's attention that there was some need for clarification in this legislation, in the existing legislation?

Hon. I. Chong: That's correct. I can confirm that no one in my ministerial office had any contact with respect to requiring this change.

M. Mungall: Madam Chair, I have sat down with staff in another ministry about this issue, and they explicitly said at that time — in front of the ministerial assistant for the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — that proponents for Jumbo Glacier resort were seeking for Jumbo Glacier resort to be declared a resort municipality before anybody was living there.

I will ask the minister again whether or not any proponent for Jumbo Glacier resort has spoken with ministerial staff about finding a way to create a resort municipality for that resort prior to any residents living there.

[1630]

Hon. I. Chong: If the member wishes to raise issues with other ministers and other ministerial staff, she can do so. I made a comment earlier that no ministerial staff in my office had any discussions requesting that we make this legislative change, and I want to again say that for the record.

What I can say as well, though, is that in 2007 we had made legislative amendments to respond to the Resort Task Force, as I believe it was called, a task force on resort municipalities that was chaired by a former MLA. As a result of the task force on resort municipalities, a report came out. It was determined that it was desirable to have the ability to have the incorporation of mountain resort municipalities around the province. That general intent to enable mountain resort municipalities, therefore, was put in place in 2007.

We implemented those changes by drafting that legislation and passing that. In so doing, we used language that was normally provided for in other legislation with respect to incorporation. When staff were looking at the legislation, as periodically they do, they realized that in using language that was similar to other legislation with respect to incorporation of municipalities, the clarity was not there.

When referred to, legislative counsel agreed and said that we needed to make that clarification more obvious. That is the reason why we have brought forward this amendment, as I say, to be consistent with the policy and the legislative amendment and change we made in 2007.

M. Mungall: Madam Chair, in 2007 the government did put forward legislation to allow for mountain resort municipalities. I believe one place that benefited from that is Sun Peaks. Another is Whistler.

At that time it seemed pretty clear that people had to live there first. If you look at the legislation from 2007,

[ Page 11743 ]

which I have right in front of me, it all focuses on residents. Let's take a look at this.

Section 8: "The minister must not recommend the incorporation of a new municipality to the Lieutenant Governor in Council unless a vote of the persons proposed to be incorporated has been taken under this section."

Then it goes on. In section (2) it lists the circumstances where "the minister may direct that a vote be taken of persons in an area specified by the minister respecting the proposed incorporation of those persons into a new municipality." This is where the minister can tell people who are living there that a vote must be taken.

Section 8(3) says: "A vote under this

section must determine the opinion of the eligible vote." So the vote has to be clear, meaning that people who live there have to know what they're voting on.

[1635]

Section (4) gives examples on what that clarity must be.

Section (5): "As an exception to the requirement that the question to be voted on be in a form that a voter may indicate assent or dissent, a question under subsection (4) (

b) must be in a form that a voter may indicate a preference." Again, a rule on how the vote must take place.

Section (6): "As a limit on the authority of the minister under this section, a vote under this

section must not be held in a local community under

section 838 until 5 years after the later of the following: (

a) the date that the local community was established; (

b) the date that the latest vote under this

section was taken in the local community." What we see here in this

section is all about voting procedures that require residents to be there.

The

section that allows for a resort municipality,

section 11, refers to

section 8. If people are in favour, the minister may recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council incorporation of a municipality as a mountain resort municipality.

It's pretty clear in the 2007 legislation that people need to be living there. It's very interesting, the timing when this has come forward, for the government to specifically say that people do not need to be living there. Will the minister admit that this is awfully convenient timing for Jumbo Glacier resort?

Hon. I. Chong: The resort task force I was referencing, and my staff provided me with that…. It was in 2004 that there was a B.C. resort task force. It was as a result of the recommendation coming out of that task force that some three years later, in 2007, we brought forward legislative amendments to

section 11 that would allow for the incorporation of mountain resort municipalities.

In so doing, it did provide for two models. It provided for a model under

section 8, as the member has indicated, where there would be requirement of voter assent for an existing resort. Also, if the member were to take a look at that legislative change, it says, "Despite

section 8…." Therein lies the other model whereby there would not be an ability to have voter assent, because there were no residents. That was to take in consideration of developing areas.

Again, the information we have received, legislative or…. The legal minds that we have spoken to have said that has not been made clear. They required us to make it very clear that those two models are in fact existing in the legislation. We did need to make that clear.

M. Mungall: The minister has said that none of her ministry staff nor herself has consulted with any proponents of Jumbo Glacier resort on this type of legislation. Has she consulted with any other minister or any other member of this House?

[1640]

Hon. I. Chong: What I said to the member is that I have not consulted with any proponent with respect to this change. Clearly, because the legislation was introduced in 2007 to allow for the incorporation of a mountain resort municipality, I can and will say that I have had discussions with members on both sides of the House with respect to what a mountain resort municipality is. But with respect to this change, I have not had those discussions, as the member suggested, with any proponent.

M. Mungall: My question was, I believe, a bit more specific. I was asking if the minister has been in discussion with any other member of cabinet or any other member of this House specifically about the change she is bringing forward in Bill 41.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm very surprised at the member's question. Cabinet confidentiality is required for all members of executive council, so I don't know why she would question what I discuss at cabinet.

M. Mungall: If she won't share what her discussions in cabinet were because of cabinet confidentiality, then could she please highlight for this House if she's been in discussion with any member of this House outside of cabinet to bring forward this type of change?

Hon. I. Chong: The change that we're talking about today originated in our ministry, with our staff having made a determination that we required…. We did this clarification. So this change was not precipitated by any member, if that is what the member is suggesting. Rather, it was precipitated by my ministry staff.

M. Mungall: The minister said that she had been in consultation or that her staff had been in consultation — or a briefing, perhaps, is what they were saying — with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I would like to know the extent of their consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities prior to bringing forward this legislation.

[ Page 11744 ]

Hon. I. Chong: A requirement of the Community Charter is that prior to making any changes to the charter or to the Local Government Act, we do advise the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Generally, it's their staff, not necessarily their entire executive, because some of the changes that we make are considered minor with respect to that. So we did not, as I say, have a meeting with the executive. That's what she's making a reference to.

Staff did, as a common practice, advise UBCM staff that we were making a change to the Local Government Act to clarify the legislation, but because this did not change our policy, it did not require a consultative process. When there is major change to policy, then generally we will seek input and have a consultative process with UBCM, and that has been the practice.

M. Mungall: I think, then, we should start asking some questions to ascertain whether or not this is a major or minor change. I would argue right off the bat that trying to make a municipality where no one lives — there's not a single person living there who could possibly hold any municipal council or mayor to account — is a major policy change. But let's ascertain whether that is…. Let's ask some questions along those lines.

First, then, if this resort municipality is created and the mayor and council are appointed, will they have a seat on their regional district?

[1645]

Hon. I. Chong: I would say that in 2007 we did bring in legislation. The intent of that legislation was, in fact, to provide for two models of mountain resort municipality incorporation — one model being where there would be residents and one model where there would be no residents because it was a developing area. That was not apparently clear, and that's one of the reasons why we're making the change now.

I want to put that on the record. We are not making a major shift in policy change. That was made in 2007, but the clarity for that was apparently not. The question that the member has with respect to a membership in a regional district, I would have to say that that would be a design question that is yet to be determined with respect to what incorporation takes place.

M. Mungall: If this has yet to be determined, why would you not bring forward legislation when something like…?

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair, please.

M. Mungall: My apologies, Madam Chair. Through the Chair, why would the minister not bring forward legislation that determines that important detail of whether a member from the municipal council of a resort municipality where no one lives can be on the regional district?

Hon. I. Chong: The questions that the member raises are questions that are to be dealt with, with respect to the details of the letters patent. They are not questions with respect to the legislation.

M. Mungall: Then I just want to be clear. At this stage there's no guarantee that someone from the council — mayor or council — could not sit on the regional district if there's nobody living in that resort municipality.

Hon. I. Chong: I would say to the member that what we're doing here in

section 14 is dealing with an incorporation of powers. We are not an incorporation model, as I say, with respect to a model of a mountain resort municipality that has residents or one that is in a developing area that may not have residents.

[1650]

Because there is no decision with respect to incorporation and the letters patent would be the document by which customization of the incorporation would take place, I'm not able to provide the member with any of those specific details. That's what I was referring to earlier when I said those design questions are yet to be determined. The lett