British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 27, 2014

20140527am-Hansard-v14n1

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, May 27, 2014 Morning Sitting Volume 14, Number 1

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Second Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation......................................................................................................Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) .............................................

Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) .................................................. Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................

Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................

Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 27, 2014 Morning Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 4193 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 4193 Stolen Hearts of Cowichan documentary fi lm project B. Routley Foot health and training of podiatrists Moira Stilwell Norman Gagatek and brain injury rehabilitation services N.

Macdonald Community events in Abbotsford-Mission area S. Gibson Chinese-Canadian clan association and kinship society buildings J. Kwan Willard "Kootchie" Charlie J. Tegart Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4195 Eminata Group and University Canada West operations D. Eby Hon. A. Virk S. Simpson L. Krog M. Farnworth Global natural gas supplies and liquefi ed natural gas development in B.C. A. Weaver Hon. R. Coleman Cleanup of fuel spill into Lemon Creek K.

Conroy Hon. M. Polak Preparedness for oil spill response S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak Consultation on changes to agricultural land reserve N. Simons Hon. N. Letnick Standing Order 81.1 ................................................................................................................................................................ 4200

Schedule for debate on Bill 24 Hon. M. de Jong Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4201 R. Fleming S. Robinson Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 4201 Bill 24 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014 (continued) On the amendment (continued) M. Elmore S. Simpson C. James

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 4209 Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued) Hon. T. Lake J. Darcy K. Corrigan Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 4214 Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued) L. Krog Hon. S. Anton V . Huntington H. Bains

TUESDAY , MAY 27, 2014 Th e House met at 10:03 a.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members M. Karagianis: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Richard MacIntosh, who is now the acting business manager for the International Boilermakers, Lodge 191. Richard started his apprenticeship with the Boilermakers in 1981 and has served as a workplace stew- ard and held positions of lodge president and recording secretary. He was an instructor at BCIT and also a gradu- ate of the Harvard trade union program. [1005] It's a great pleasure to welcome him here.

He, of course, is replacing my friend Jimmy Fitzpatrick, who I marked the passing of here a few weeks ago. I'd like the House to please make him very welcome. Hon. T. Wat: Recently the government of Canada completed a free trade agreement with the European Union and Korea. Th is free trade agreement will help to really grow our economy. In the gallery today we have the members of the British Columbia Ministry of International Trade team who were instrumental in fi ght- ing for our province's interests in those agreements.

With us today are Janna Jessee, Linda Jakubowski, Trevor Paul, Mike Nielsen, Matthew Carnaghan, Monica Gervais, Rebecca Ewing, Teresa Zhuang, Gail Greenwood, Janel Quiring and the executive director, Don White. Will the House please join me in welcoming them. C. James: I have two very special guests in the gal- lery today. Th e fi rst individual is someone who just re- ceived the Community Leader of the Y ear award here in Victoria and who keeps the volunteer sector going in the community but, for me, has been my mentor and my biggest supporter.

I hear other members in the House introduce their mothers and say that they better behave when their mothers are here. In my case I tell my mother to behave. Just kidding, Mom. With my mother today is her partner, who we have been thrilled to welcome into our family. Would the House please make Mavis DeGirolamo and Bill Corbin very welcome. J. Th ornthwaite: Today we are very honoured to have in the gallery the executive director of the Dietitians of Canada, Sonya Kupka.

I'm not too sure exactly where she is, but she's coming to meet with some of the members of the Legislature today to explain how positive partner- ships are with the dietetic profession and government, and how great we all try to keep everybody healthy. R. Fleming: Joining us in the House today are a group of educators — parents, academics and representatives of the Sierra Club, B.C. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Lenny Ross, Daphne Macnaughton, Bob Peart, Daniel Ross, Carmen Ross, Calvin Parsons, Enid Elliot and Nikki Wright. Would the House please join me in making them welcome. J.

Martin: Joining us this morning is a good friend of mine from just up the road, in Chemainus. Please join me in welcoming John Sherry to the House. Hon. D. McRae: Today in the gallery we have two visitors from the Comox Valley. John and Lynda Brocklehurst are franchisee owners of a Tim Hortons in the community. Th ey support everything from hos- pice to youth soccer. Th ey're absolutely great support- ers of numerous organizations in our community. We're lucky to have them. Will the House please make John and Lynda welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25B) STOLEN HEARTS OF COWICHAN DOCUMENTARY FILM PROJECT B.

Routley: I would like to introduce you to the docu- mentary fi lm project Stolen Hearts of Cowichan. It's pro- duced by Raven Light Media, directed in partnership with Cowboy Smithx and Patricia Dawn. Th e documen- tary is about the many newborn babies that have been removed from their mothers at birth in the Cowichan Valley, particularly from Cowichan Tribes moms. The impact of this practice is traumatizing to the baby, the mother and families — and our entire com- munities, rippling out to aff ect us all.

Th rough the docu- mentary, they host the stories of mothers who have lost their children and fought to gain them back, stories of grandmothers and grandfathers fi ghting for their grand- children to be returned. Th rough their shared experience, it is hoped that there will be a deeper understanding of the implications this has on society and our community as a whole.

Th e pro- ducers of this documentary have interviewed aboriginal women, elders, retired ministry workers, medical profes- sionals and front-line agency service providers. [1010] Th e intent of this documentary fi lm is to off er the si- lent voices a space to be heard, to be known and to be 4193

British Columbia Debates4194 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 honoured. One of the goals of the fi lm is to off er alterna- tives from other communities who have created healthy and successful methods for helping everyone, especially the children. Th ese alternatives are proving to be heal- ing and helpful. Our province and our country are rich in demonstrat- ing amazing possibilities. We believe in caring Canadians. Our history holds stories of many heroes creating change for the betterment of all people. We know that togeth- er we can bring positive change for Cowichan families.

Th is summer please look for and watch Stolen Hearts of Cowichan. FOOT HEALTH AND TRAINING OF PODIATRISTS Moira Stilwell: A fundamental component to essen- tial everyday living begins with a functional transporta- tion plan. Healthy and pain-free feet, as we all know, are a basic status oft en taken for granted. Th e provision of good foot health care is paramount. With the increasing drive towards long life, active and healthy living, government has a partnership role to help in achieving this end. Lucky are those who in a lifetime have no need for specialized services and attention to feet care.

Y et the reality that exists today is that with aging demographics, there is an increasing demand, especial- ly with wear and tear and the increased challenges de- manded from sporting and active-living models. Along with this is the rising incidence of diabetes, arthritis and other foot health–associated medical visits that clog and increase the strain on the medical system. Th is is where the active role of podiatry can play a pivotal and complementary role in offering prevent- ive care as well as alleviating suff ering through timely care and management.

So I rise today to raise awareness about a need to recruit hard-working and gift ed British Columbians who are trained as podiatrists to come back to B.C. to practise. Podiatry provides complementary medical support, oft entimes covered by extended health care coverage, that can alleviate the burden on our public mental health system. Currently there is no English-speaking podiatry program in Canada and no residencies available to those British Columbians. Madame Speaker, I see a profi table role for all of us to change this situation. NORMAN GAGATEK AND BRAIN INJURY REHABILITATION SERVICES N.

Macdonald: I recently met again with two constitu- ents in Invermere who have a remarkable story. Norm Gagatek and his wife, Kimberley Harris, have been fea- tured numerous times on Global. Th e whole province watched Norm's amazing progress and recovery follow- ing a devastating brain stem stroke. As a young man, seemingly healthy, Norm's life changed completely overnight. Following his stroke, doctors prepared to transfer him to permanent long- term care. His discharge note said that he would likely remain dependent for all activities of daily life for the rest of his life. Kim never accepted this diagnosis.

She knew that Norm was capable of so much more. She knew he had the will and determination to prove those predictions wrong. She knew that if he could receive the rehabilitation treat- ment he needed, he would surprise everyone. But British Columbia does not have a facility that provides the slow- track rehabilitation that Norm needed. Instead, Kim had to fi ght to get Norm a placement in the Halvar Jonson Centre in Alberta. It was through this adversity that Kim and Norm de- cided that once he got well, their life's work would be to improve brain injury services here in British Columbia.

Today Norm is a walking, talking miracle. When I fi rst met Norm aft er his stroke he had only limited ability to move and was barely able to communicate. Now he's walking upstairs. He's correcting Kim when she forgets a name and helping out around the house, a miracle that occurred because Kim fought for Norm to get the treat- ment that he needed. At the last meeting, Norm and Kim asked me for my assistance. Th ey asked me to take every opportunity to tell decision-makers in the province just how much ser- vices for brain injury victims are needed right here in British Columbia.

We need to be reminded, because Norm went to bed one night having never thought about slow-track rehab services and woke up having his whole life depend upon it. COMMUNITY EVENTS IN ABBOTSFORD-MISSION AREA S. Gibson: There's lots to do this summer in the Abbotsford-Mission area. We have the Mission Soapbox Derby. It started out many years ago, and at one point there were 20,000 participants, back some years ago. [1015] It's come back again. For those members of the House and others who would like to go in a race, you can go with children ages eight to 14, but there's also room for you.

It's your chance to have a lot of fun and maybe speed a little faster than perhaps you'd like to on a regular street. Also, if you like both kinds of music, country and west- ern, there are options for you. Th e Rockin' River Music Fest will be on for three days, with Terri Clark, who is a Canadian — some of you know her — and Rascal Flatts. Th at will be taking place in July. Also, there's the Mission Folk Festival, if you like that kind of music, out in Mission. Th ere's lots of stuff going on. Y ou're welcome to come out to Mission and enjoy the hospitality and savour the

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 27, 2014 4195 moment as you drive through the community and smell the strawberries, the raspberries and the blueberries. CHINESE-CANADIAN CLAN ASSOCIATION AND KINSHIP SOCIETY BUILDINGS J. Kwan: Chinese associations and societies have over 100 years of history in the province of B.C. Th ey were founded in the spirit of kinship, which historically served to address the social, political and fi nancial needs of Chinese Canadians in communities across B.C.

Th ey were in many respects extended families to their mem- bers and provided signifi cant aid and support to them, including the provision of housing at a time when dis- crimination and segregation were rampant. Built in the early 1900s, today many association buildings are old and dilapidated. On May 15, 2014, all members of this House sup- ported a historic motion to reconcile and apologize for past discriminatory legislation, policies and practices against the Chinese-Canadian community.

One pro- posal stemming out of this process is a legacy project to honour the historic role of Chinese clan associations and kinship societies. This meaningful proposal originated from the ob- servations of over 25 diff erent service providers in the Downtown Eastside who gathered to share and discuss fi rsthand observations from front lines concerning issues faced by Chinese seniors. Issues of concern identifi ed today include language barriers, isolation, racism, dis- crimination, inadequate or unstable housing, safety, food security and barriers to accessing medical and mental health services.

In the spirit of bridging our history through the current realities of today, organizations such as the UGM, Mosaic, the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood House, the Dugout, SUCCESS, the Chinese Freemasons, the Chinese Cultural Centre, the Shon Y ee Benevolent Association, Canada Chaoshan Business Association and many others endorsed the pro- posal to create a fund to help renovate and upgrade clan and society association buildings and to repurpose and re-equip them with usable community cultural space, food programs for seniors and aff ordable housing.

Our province has a chance to reconcile its history and then, in turn, strengthen its future. I look forward to working with the government to realize this dream. WILLARD "KOOTCHIE" CHARLIE J. Tegart: I rise in the House today to honour and cele- brate the life of Kootchie Willard Charlie, a St'át'imc art- ist, educator, storyteller, respected elder and, best of all, a friend to many. Kootchie Charlie was born on St'át'imc traditional territory at Six Mile near Lillooet and was a proud member of the frog clan of the T'it'q'et band.

Kootchie mentored generations of youth in St'át'imc traditional teachings and culture. He held school art workshops, shared traditional fishing techniques, coached lahal bone game players, and, shared St'át'imc values. Kootchie was a carver for most of his life, carv- ing intricate masks, spirit animals, paddles, totem poles and sculptures from materials such as soapstone, cedar, alder and juniper. Kootchie began carving in high school under the men- torship of Benny Paul. Kootchie went on to study art in Vancouver and showcased his work throughout the prov- ince and Mexico.

Kootchie's traditional carvings tell the stories and history of the St'át'imc, and his works oft en included a frog in tribute to his family clan. Up until his recent passing Kootchie carved in winter, fi shed and gathered in summer and celebrated cultural, family and community events all year round. Kootchie will be remembered for his generosity, friendliness and fantastic sense of humour. I would like the House to join me in celebrating the outstanding spirit and life of Kootchie Charlie. [1020] Oral Questions EMINATA GROUP AND UNIVERSITY CANADA WEST OPERATIONS D.

Eby: In 2011 Ricki Petersen was one of many stu- dents attending the Eminata corporation's University Canada West. Th ey took her tuition money and then closed their campus without notice the day aft er the tu- ition refund deadline. In the news the spokesperson for Eminata told Ricki and the public that Eminata would do right by the students, that they would get a refund. But that was a lie. Ricki is still paying off a $7,000 B.C. stu- dent loan with no degree to show for it.

Th e agreement the government signed with Eminata said that the minister can cancel or suspend their ability to use the word "university" for any misrepresentation, fraud or abuse. With conduct like this, why is this com- pany still allowed to use the word "university" in British Columbia? Hon. A. Virk: I thank the member for his question. Th e member certainly may be aware that government has done a core review of everything within the Advanced Education Ministry. Part of that core review was looking at how the public sector and the private sector univer- sities are managed.

Part of that core review also, as was announced several months ago…. Th e member certainly knows, on the other side, that we're examining how the regulation of the private sector is done. In fact, the pri- vate career-training authority board has been disbanded. Th is government was very concerned about the quality of education, and with that concern of quality of educa-

British Columbia Debates4196 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 tion, that board was disbanded. Th e regulation of the pri- vate sector has been taken within government, and we're working through the process right now. We're working through the process to make sure the quality of educa- tion in the private for-profi t, the not-for-profi t and the theologic sector is done properly and appropriately. We want to make sure education quality stays high in British Columbia. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental. D. Eby: Th is matter is squarely on the minister's desk.

Th ere's a company operating that is ripping off B.C. stu- dents. Th e chair and founder of Eminata, the owner of University Canada West, Peter Chung, has an unpaid judgment of $12 million in California owed to students there for lying about employment opportunities in the school's accreditation. His school there was closed by the California government for student loan fraud. Th ree separate newspapers in India, with circulation in the millions, have published articles warning Indian stu- dents to avoid University Canada West.

Th e school has three times the student loan default rate of B.C.'s best- known private university, Trinity Western. Why is the minister still allowing this company to operate in British Columbia and use the word "university"? Hon. A. Virk: As I noted, the quality of education and the educational brand of British Columbia is our num- ber one priority. Keeping that in mind, the regulation of the private career-training in British Columbia has been varied.

Th e board was removed as of just several weeks ago, and the deputy minister in my ministry has been ap- pointed as a regulator for all private education in British Columbia. As a result of that, we're going to ensure that quality of education continues and that we have the checks and bal- ances — and the fact that private educators continue to provide the best quality of education in British Columbia. Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a fur- ther supplemental. D. Eby: Th e minister would love to put this off on an- other board, but this is on his desk.

Th e agreement says that the minister has the discretion to pull the use of the word "university." Before joining Eminata, Eminata's current president and their vice-president of marketing both worked at private colleges successfully sued by the governments of Ontario and California for millions in student loan fraud. Here in B.C. a former Eminata recruiter told the B.C.

Supreme Court that Eminata executives told them to lie to students about the availability of student loans, mislead students with fake job placement statistics and show fake portfolios of student work that actually be- longed to students at other schools. All of this information has been part of the public re- cord for more than a year. Can the minister explain if his ministry has taken any steps to investigate why this school is allowed to use the word "university" and inves- tigate the track record of this place? [1025] Hon. A.

Virk: As I noted before, the regulation of the private career-training institutions in British Columbia were the purview of an industry-led board. As of sev- eral weeks ago, this government made the courageous decision to disband that board, to take the regulation of that industry within government. Part of that move is to ensure that there's continued quality that we continue to look at, that students are served. We're going to con- tinue to do that. S. Simpson: Th e buck stops with the minister, not with the board. It's the minister who's responsible for this.

Th e last time we talked about the Eminata corporation in this Legislature, it cost the Premier's only caucus sup- porter his job in cabinet. We remember Harry Bloy. He was the ill-fated cabinet minister who passed along sensi- tive information to the founder of Eminata, Peter Chung. Mr. Chung at the time claimed to have infl uence with high-ranking people in government, apparently enough to get Mr. Bloy to do something that put his seat at the cabinet table in jeopardy. In this province the term "university," a valued term, can only be used with the express permission of the Minister of Advanced Education.

Th is corporation con- tinues to use the term "university." Will the Advanced Education Minister tell us, Mr. Chung's claims of infl u- ence aside: why is the Liberal government and why is he still allowing this institution to use the term "university"? Hon. A. Virk: I'm at a loss as to how I could be poten- tially any clearer to the members opposite. Th e regula- tion of the private career industry was the purview of a board that was industry-led. Th is government is ensur- ing that student quality and education quality is number one.

In doing so, we have taken over the regulation of the private career-training agency to ensure quality access to students, to ensure the quality of education in British Columbia stays high. Th ose concerns that the members raised are part of that regulation change, and we're going to continue to work on that. Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver- Hastings on a supplemental. S. Simpson: Th e responsibility rests with the minister. Th e responsibility is on his desk. He's the one who has to do this, and he shouldn't slough his job off .

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 27, 2014 4197 Mr. Chung and his $30,000 of donations to the B.C. Liberals isn't the only Liberal insider involved with this situation. Gwyn Morgan, the former head of the Premier's transition team, was recently appointed by the Premier to the position of chair of the Industry Training Authority. Well, Mr. Morgan is also a fi nancial backer of Eminata. He gave the company a half-million-dollar loan so that they could buy University Canada West. Now, in court documents fi led in November, he says they stiff ed him for the full amount plus interest.

Again, the use of the term "university" is at the min- ister's discretion. If the minister revokes Eminata's abil- ity to use the term "university," the Premier's friend, Mr. Morgan, is almost certain to lose his entire investment. But setting aside Mr. Chung's claims of infl uence and Mr. Morgan's investment portfolio, why will the minister not revoke the ability of Eminata to use the term "university" when it discredits advanced education in this province? Hon. A. Virk: In British Columbia we have a very ro- bust system of public and private universities.

We have 25 excellent public post-secondary institutions, comple- mented by many, many excellent private institutions that provide excellent education to students. Where that edu- cation quality is compromised, we are committed to en- sure that education quality stays high, and we're going to ensure that continues. [1030] L. Krog: It's very interesting to listen to this minis- ter this morning talk about protecting the reputation of B.C.'s universities when he has an opportunity to do something today to act properly and protect that repu- tation.

We've obtained an e-mail from government staff dated June 5, 2013, and it reads as follows: "Hi, all. University Canada West is a donor for Friday's event. Th eir president and CEO is Randy Cox. Please send him an invitation this evening indicating the company's fi ve guests." Th e event in question was the announcement ceremony as part of the swearing-in of cabinet, a government event which sold access to corporations. How much did this company pay for access to this gov- ernment event? Five thousand dollars. Y et aft er all we've heard about Eminata this morning, is the government investigating Eminata? No.

Th ey're selling Eminata ac- cess to the Minister of Advanced Education, the Premier and the cabinet at government events. Can the Minister of Advanced Education, exercis- ing his responsibility this morning, explain why, instead of investigating Eminata, they are selling access to the Premier and the entire B.C. Liberal cabinet for $5,000? Hon. A. Virk: Well, as I noted, our educational system is comprised of public post-secondary and a very robust private for-profi t, private not-for-profi t and theologic- al…. We have an excellent university system all across the sector.

If there are issues with quality — student quality, stu- dent outcomes…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. A. Virk: Th e education quality assurance brand of British Columbia — we intend to keep that brand as strong and vibrant as it is. M. Farnworth: My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is really quite simple. Does the minister have confi dence in University Canada West as an excellent private educational institution in the prov- ince of British Columbia? Hon. A.

Virk: Th e private universities and private colleges in British Columbia go through the same de- gree quality assurance branch as public universities. Th e rigour by which they put their degrees forward is the same rigour that the public universities must go through. When a degree is approved, it's the same independent board that examines it, and it's the same rigour that's applied across the sector and will continue to be applied. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental. M. Farnworth: Perhaps I wasn't specifi c enough.

Does the minister have confi dence in University Canada West as being a sound educational institution in the province of British Columbia that he would recognize and recom- mend to his own kids? Hon. A. Virk: Th ere are 320 private career colleges and institutions in British Columbia, 320 that report to their own board of governors, their own processes. Th e same degree quality assurance criteria that all public colleges and universities have to go through — it's the same cri- teria. We are committed to ensure that we have quality education in public and private institutions.

GLOBAL NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES AND LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. A. Weaver: The government has promised British Columbians a generational opportunity of prosperity through development of an LNG industry. [1035] We've been promised a $100 billion prosperity fund, more than 100,000 jobs, a $1 trillion increase in GDP . We've been promised a debt-free B.C., the elimination

British Columbia Debates4198 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 of the PST, thriving schools and hospitals. [Applause.] Hon. Speaker, they should wait for the rest of the ques- tion. Russia, with about 20 times the natural gas reserves as all of Canada combined, just signed a $400 billion 30- year deal with China to provide them with natural gas at a cost of around $10 per million Btu. It's projected to cost about $6 to $8 per million Btu to get gas to Asia. Natural gas is currently trading at about $4.50 per mil- lion Btu in North America.

Th is means that B.C. natural gas is simply not competitive with the new 30-year price target set in Asia. My question to the Minister of Natural Gas Development is this. What's the backup plan for eco- nomic prosperity in B.C. if its LNG goal is not realized? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I want to thank the member for his question, the fi rst question on LNG in four months in this Legislative Assembly during ques- tion period. I want to tell the member this.

Last week British Columbia hosted the most successful government- sponsored conference in the history of the province on liquefied natural gas — or anything, for that mat- ter — in Vancouver. During that conference a tentative agreement between China an d Russia was announced, which might be able to supply maybe 10 percent of the growth in the Chinese market in natural gas if it ac- tually ever gets built. With the distance of the pipeline, the time indicates it will take decades to do.

I sat down with the CEOs and presidents and sen- ior people from all the major companies that are in British Columbia today with regards to liquefi ed nat- ural gas. Not one of them…. Th ey all told me that this is not a game changer for them. Th ey're still confi dent in British Columbia. Th ey know we can compete with them globally. We know the gas will not arrive at the cities, particu- larly on the coast, in China at the price that was quoted in the press release. It is just not possible.

We actually know our prices will be competitive with China, and they tell us they're still coming and they're still investing in British Columbia. Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a sup- plemental. A. Weaver: Japan is in the process of turning back on its nuclear plants. Th e Queensland gas fi elds in Australia are coming on line. Russia is expanding its LNG capacity through Vladivostok. Th e U.S. is ready to go with LNG exports. Qatar has more than ten times the reserves of Canada. China has more than three times the shale gas reserves of Canada.

Th ere is no shortage of natural gas out there to meet world demand. Th e reality is that not a single company has made a fi nal investment decision in the British Columbia LNG industry. Y et we have put all our eggs in one basket, and in the words of Preston Manning at the last B.C. Energy Conference in Fort St. John, we're counting our chickens before the rooster has even entered the hen house. My question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is this.

Will he commit to working towards positioning B.C. as a global leader in the clean tech sector, which will serve as the foundation of tomorrow's economy, and if so, how? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we do know where the supplies and the reserves are of natural gas in the world. We do know that we can compete on that world market. We have been told that specifi cally by major companies like Shell and Chevron and Exxon Mobil and BG and Petronas and others.

Th ey have actually spent in this province, to date, well in excess of probably $8 billion or $9 billion in getting towards working on their fi nal investment decision, the designing of plants and what have you. Interjections. Hon. R. Coleman: I know the members opposite want to heckle, because they don't want to admit that they don't actually support a vision for the future of British Columbia. Th ey don't support liquefi ed natural gas. Th ey don't support the opportunity. But the reality is this. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. R. Coleman: Th ese people have sat down with us.

We've worked out the fi nancial parameters. We know that we're competitive globally. We know we're going to get a fi nal investment decision, and we know we will be successful on this fi le. [1040] Interjections. Hon. R. Coleman: I know the members opposite are heckling because they are so nervous about the fact that they are opposed to liquefi ed natural gas in B.C. But I can tell you this, Member opposite. I'll tell you this very simply. Y ou doubted my optimism going into the election last year; don't doubt my optimism in going on to this fi le. CLEANUP OF FUEL SPILL INTO LEMON CREEK K.

Conroy: Here's some optimism that's not working out. It's been ten months since a fuel truck spilled 33,000 litres of jet fuel into Lemon Creek in the Slocan Valley. Not only can fuel still be found; locals recently uncovered

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 27, 2014 4199 eight soiled booms stinking of fuel left in the creek. Th is is the entire problem with the B.C. Liberals' approach to environmental cleanup. "Polluter pays" is meaningless if there is no ongoing supervision of the cleanup. My question is to the Minister of Environment. What penalties will the company pay? What will they face for failing to properly clean up Lemon Creek? Hon. M.

Polak: While the ministry remains involved in monitoring and remediation that is being undertaken, nevertheless, the member knows that the matter is cur- rently before the courts, and I have to be very cautious with respect to any commentary specifi c to the case. Madame Speaker: Kootenay West on a supplemental. K. Conroy: Residents are left with this mess. Th ey're bearing the ongoing costs of this spill. Not a dime of com- pensation has been paid to the organic farmers who lost their entire crops. Th ere's not a nickel for residents who still can't drink their water, and there's no environmental analysis.

Th ere are no people going out and watching. It's before the courts, but there should be people out there working. Th ere should be ministerial people working. So much for polluter pays. The Slocan River Streamkeepers, which has a long history of monitor- ing the water quality of Slocan Creek and Lemon Creek, just did further testing, which showed that the water is still polluted from the spill. Are we going to wait for the courts to be done before we're going to clean up the pol- lution in that creek?

Again, to the Minister of Environment: if polluters pay, why do the people of Lemon Creek and the Slocan Valley continue to pay for this spill? Hon. M. Polak: I know that this has been just an awful experience for the community in and around Lemon Creek. I can't say enough about the community mem- bers and especially organizations like the Slocan River Streamkeepers and how they have participated and worked with us as a ministry. Th ere is ongoing monitor- ing taking place and ongoing remediation. Unfortunately, I can't comment with any detail about this case, but I will say this.

Th e principle of polluter-pay is one that we are absolutely supportive of on this side of the House. To that end, we have just released the second land spills policy intentions paper for comment. I am pleased to say that the most recent federal announce- ment also included signifi cant aspects of our own policy intentions around the principle of polluter-pay, and we continue to advance that aggressively. PREPAREDNESS FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE S. Chandra Herbert: Y et again when it comes to the environment, we get all talk and no action from the B.C. Liberals.

Eight booms laden with jet fuel found in Lemon Creek, left there for ten months. Who found them? Not the Ministry of Environment. No. Not the company that dumped the fuel in the creek. No. It was the citizens, left holding the bag because this government doesn't pay attention to protecting the environment. Y et the spill still hasn't been fully cleaned up. My question to the Minister of Environment: if we can't trust the B.C.

Liberals to ensure that a spill from a single fuel truck is cleaned up properly, how can British Columbians have any faith that this government would act properly should we have an oil spill 10,000 times the size on our coast? [1045] Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the Lemon Creek spill, there is ongoing monitoring that we are undertaking as the Ministry of Environment, ongoing remediation, together with organizations in the community. Th e mem- ber well knows that. We have been the government in Canada leading with respect to not only land-based spills response but also re- search on marine spills response.

Th at is why…. When the federal government released its most recent strategy with respect to spills in the marine environment, do you know what they did? Th ey adopted the very same re- search materials that we had produced by asking Nuka Research to conduct the most thorough research with respect to marine spills ever undertaken on the coast of British Columbia. Th at's what this B.C. Liberal government has done, because we are standing strong on our fi ve conditions. Madame Speaker: Vancouver–West End on a supple- mental. S. Chandra Herbert: Y et again, talk, talk, talk while the gas is in the water.

How is that action? Th at's talk. Th at is not action. Th at is not leadership, unless you count leading in letting oil and gas stay in the water. Let's talk about another project that this government has bungled, the recent coal spill in Burnaby's Silver Creek — yet another example of the Liberals' attempt to talk big and do nothing when it comes to protecting our air, land and water. Th e Liberals let the railway company that spilled the coal hire their own consultant to try to clean it up.

Th en when the government came back and took a look, they realized that no, the biologist said that the company's ac- tion was inadequate and — wait a second — oh, that we'd waited so long that nothing could be done to actually col- lect the evidence to properly repair that stream, properly bring back the turtles, because the evidence had washed further down the creek and into the lake. If the Liberals can't even properly manage a coal spill or a gas spill, how are we ever going to trust them to man- age an oil spill?

British Columbia Debates4200 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 Hon. M. Polak: One of the unfortunate realities for the opposition is that they are unable to take a clear position with respect to how they are going to address resource development in this province. On this side of the House we have taken action with respect to our fi ve conditions, with respect to land-based spills response, not just including hazardous materials like oil but also in the matter of materials like coal. It is our government that has led on polluter-pay.

It is this Ministry of Environment that has worked with rail com- panies, with the federal government, to ensure that the land-based spills response policy intentions paper re- fl ects the best available science and response that we can produce in North America. CONSULTATION ON CHANGES TO AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE N. Simons: Th e new Minister of Agriculture says that consultation on removing protections from farmland means that he'll read all the e-mails sent to him.

Now he tells the people who write to him that consultation will take place with industry, local government and other stakeholders on the regulations aft er the bill has passed. Well, last fall the Minister for Core Review said con- sultation would happen before legislation was tabled because "eff ective public and stakeholder communica- tions will be an important element of our approach." Th e Parliamentary Secretary for Core Review and the MLA for Penticton also said that there will be plenty of oppor- tunity to provide input. Last month the minister again promised provincewide consultation.

Th ese three promises, plus the pre-election commit- ment not to do any of the things that they are planning to, make one wonder and question the veracity of this government's intentions. To the minister: why should anyone believe your gov- ernment? Hon. N. Letnick: Th ank you to the member opposite for that question. It's key to remind all members in this House that our approach, the government's approach, to agriculture is to continue to grow agriculture. [1050] We're looking at trying to achieve $14 billion in sales by 2017. We're just around $11½ billion right now.

We will continue to work with our industry partners to make sure that we achieve $14 billion by 2017. We're doing that in many ways. We're doing that by continuing to support the Buy Local program. We're doing that by continuing to in- vest money into the replant program, which we've done. We put that into our mandate letter as well to continue to work with our agricultural partners in that area. We continue to provide food and veggie programs to schools. Th e milk program has expanded. We have the meat in- spection system, which we have taken over from CFIA. Anyway, the list can go on and on.

I'd just like to say that it's great to work with people like the B.C. Ag Council, the leadership in the ALC, and others to make sure we have a viable, strong, supportable agricultur- al sector not only for the people in the sector but also for people all throughout British Columbia that eat our products and drink our products. [End of question period.] Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 24 Hon. M. de Jong: Y esterday I rose and advised the House in presenting a motion that agreement had been achieved around the timely disposition of the estimates and fi nal supply, and I indicated I would advise the House with respect to Bill 24, which is the remaining piece of legislation being considered by the House.

I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2), re- grettably, to advise the House that a similar agreement has not been reached, and therefore to propose the fol- lowing motion: [Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2), all remaining stages re- lated to Bill (No. 24) intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014 , including any proposed amendments on notice standing in the Minister's name on the Order Paper shall be completed and disposed of on or before 5:30 p.m., Th ursday, May 29, 2014.

At 5:15 p.m. on the date mentioned, all necessary questions shall be put forthwith for the disposal of the remaining stages of Bill (No. 24) without amendment or debate. Divisions called on sec- tions of Bill (No. 24) shall be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any divisions called or second or third reading of Bill (No. 24) may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16 and all other divisions will be covered by Practice Recommendation No. 1.

Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provi- sions of Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days of the sittings of the House.] I have provided copies of the motion in advance to the Opposition House Leader, and, I believe, to both in- dependent members of the House. I so move. Madame Speaker: Hon. members will know that this motion is not debatable. [1055] Motion approved on the following division: YEAS — 44 Horne Sturdy Bing Hogg McRae Stone Fassbender Oakes Wat Th omson Virk Wilkinson

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 27, 2014 4201 Yamamoto Sultan Hamilton Reimer Ashton Morris Hunt Sullivan Cadieux Polak de Jong Coleman Anton Bond Bennett Letnick Barnett Y ap Th ornthwaite Dalton Plecas Lee Kyllo Tegart Michelle Stilwell Th roness Larson Foster Bernier Martin Gibson Moira Stilwell NAYS — 31 Hammell Simpson Farnworth Ralston James Corrigan Popham Fleming Kwan Conroy Austin Chandra Herbert Huntington Macdonald Karagianis Eby Bains Elmore Shin Heyman Darcy Robinson Krog D. Routley Simons Fraser Weaver Chouhan Rice Holman B. Routley R. Fleming: I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Madame Speaker: Proceed. Petitions R. Fleming: I have with me today 2,500 signatures that are gathered on the provincial government, calling upon them to preserve environmental education as a core ele- ment in the revised science and social studies curricula, from kindergarten through grade 9. Proposed changes in grades 4 to 7 remove the study of the natural world, and the petitioners ask the Ministry of Education that that mistake be undone. S. Robinson: I've got a petition as well.

It's 632 signa- tures petitioning this government to continue the cur- rent funding to the Burquitlam Lions Care Centre and to maintain the 76 care beds in this facility. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 24. In sections A and C, Committee of Supply. In

section A, the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and in

Section C, the estimates of the Ministry of Justice. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 (continued) On the amendment (continued). M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to stand and continue the debate on the motion to refer Bill 24 to a committee to allow for consultation. Refl ecting on the similarities of Bill 24 and the pro- posed changes to the agricultural land reserve, it struck me that there were some similarities in a bill from the previous session. What do they share in common?

Th ere was a broken election promise. [1100] We had the election promise that the Liberals would not make changes, that they would continue to support the agricultural land reserve. Th ey said one thing during the election, and now we have another decision to break that promise, as well, with no consultation. What was that similar bill previously that I think British Columbians are very familiar with, certainly all of us here? Th at's the HST. Th e HST — well, we had one thing during the election and a broken promise aft er- wards, characterizing the lack of consultation as well.

We had the debate on both sides, the benefi ts and the disadvantages of the HST. Th at was ongoing. What real- ly galled the public and really generated that opposition was the lack of consultation, the broken promise during the election to say one thing and do another. Th at reson- ated with British Columbians. I think that there is a very strong parallel, a similar phenomenon that we're seeing here with Bill 24 looking to undermine and dismantle the agriculture land reserve.

Th is is certainly what we're seeing come forward in terms of from constituents, from stakeholders, from farmers, from concerned citizens who have concerns about these proposed changes. On the one hand, the broken promise during the election not to make changes and the exact opposite aft er the election; and the lack of consultation, the lack of opportunity for individuals to have their say, despite having been promised the oppor- tunity for consultation but having that denied.

I think there's a strong message for the government to heed that and to learn those lessons — the hard lesson that was learned over the HST fi asco and debacle and what we are seeing and experiencing now, today, with Bill 24 and these proposed changes to the agricultural land reserve. I think it would be very timely for the govern- ment to refl ect on that and to support the decision to al- low the public to have consultation and input on this bill and the issues that are really stirring and are of concern to British Columbians. This weekend I attended the 12th annual South

British Columbia Debates4202 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 Vancouver neighbourhood festival, had a table there talk- ing to folks, constituents, about their concerns. Th is is an issue that was raised around the future of the agricultural land reserve, about the changes that were being proposed in Bill 24 and, really, the lack of opportunity to raise ques- tions, to have input and to be part of the process. Th is is really a slap in the face and a disservice to cit- izens in British Columbia.

It is an insult to our insti- tution of the principles that our Legislature is based on, is founded on, and it is an insult, as well, to British Columbians — this farce of a bill and the promise of consultation, the complete abandonment, the repeated promises and the repeated broken promises for the op- portunity for consultation. What is the government afraid of?

If the government has full confi dence in the bill and stands behind the bill, then certainly, they can also allow the public to have a chance to have input — to engage constituents and for them to come forward, to have the opportunity to bring their concerns forward to the Minister of Agriculture and to the government, to bring forward their concerns. What are they afraid of, and what are they scared of? I've had numerous e-mails come to my offi ce, talked to scores of individuals at farmers markets and business- es impacted, and my message is that this is wrong.

We need to go to a process of consultation to allow British Columbians to have input and express their concerns with this bill. [1105] My message is that the government should listen and should allow that opportunity and that British Columbians should not be denied their basic rights, as British Columbians, to have input into public policy issues that are important. British Columbians value the agricultural land reserve that was struck with great vi- sion over four decades ago.

It has allowed our agricul- tural sector to thrive and really develop a robust and unique economy and infrastructure with respect to our vibrant farmers markets, our food-to-table businesses and has allowed the expansion and success that's unique to British Columbia.

Th e decision for Bill 24 being introduced and rammed down the throats here in the Legislature, invoking clos- ure, cutting off debate in the Legislature and not allowing British Columbians to have the opportunity to express their concerns — and stakeholders and folks who are concerned about food security, supporting our agricul- ture in British Columbia and looking at the future, where we want to go and how we want to share that as British Columbians…. It's a disservice here in British Columbia, and it's a shame. I feel very passionate about this issue.

I've met with folks who have been involved, engaged, talking to the public, sponsoring petitions, going out and talking about the issues of food security, the concerns around climate change — how that's going to impact our agriculture here not just today. We are seeing the manifestations of that in terms of the drought in California, the rising food costs, the concerns for our long-term security when British Columbia is also tackling these issues. Th ese are key concerns. Th ey're important.

Th ey're of concern not only for today but going into the future and looking at our long-term direction of how, as British Columbians, we're going to secure food security, support our local economy, support our farmers and address these challenges into the future. It's shortsighted. It's just a disappointing process that we're faced with today here. I'm in support of the motion to go to committee and to allow the public to have input. It was a sham of a pro- cess. Promises for consultation.

First there was the mys- tery press release that came out, advising the public they had the opportunity to make consultations to the Select Standing Committee on Finance. It was a sham. Th e Chair of the Finance Committee didn't even know about it. I was on the committee. We were surprised when we had delegations coming. It was given a debate in terms of how that information was going to come forward. Th e public has been shut down. It's been an insult in terms of…. British Columbians, who have legitimate concerns and want to have their voices heard, have been insulted, I think, by this government.

Th ere is a reck- oning. Th e government should take heed and learn the lessons from the HST where British Columbians were denied the opportunity to have input. We know the re- sults of the HST. My message to the government: I hope that they will support the motion to go to committee. My message to British Columbians is to not accept this heavy-handed, disgraceful example of a bill, Bill 24, which will under- mine our agricultural land reserve.

My message to British Columbians is to bring forward their concerns to their MLAs, to the government, to continue to organize and express opposition to this bill and defeat it. S. Simpson: I'm pleased to stand to speak to the amendment to Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014.

It's a pleasure to get an opportun- ity to speak to the amendment. [1110] Just to refresh memories about the piece of legisla- tion that we're debating here, which the amendment is proposed to, these dramatic and radical changes to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission do a number of things. Generally, they do two things that are pretty fundamental. Th e fi rst one is to create the two zones.

As we know from the debate that we've heard here, the creation of these two zones creates a situation where about 90 per- cent of the actual acreage — and we'll debate about pro- ductivity on the land — falls into zone 2, a zone that allows much more opportunity for land to be extracted from the land reserve and to be used for other purposes.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 27, 2014 4203 As has been interestingly noted, much of that is in areas where oil and gas development is expected to take place. So that's a dramatic change — to take such a signifi - cant portion of the land that currently sits in the reserve and radically change its status. Th at's one of the things Bill 24 does that's pretty fundamental. Th e other one is to change to go to six regional pan- els that will in fact make decisions about land use in six regions of the province.

We know that this experiment was tried before and essentially was set aside by the land commission as not very functional, not very work- able. Th ey went back to what was largely a commission- driven process for decision-making. Now that's going to fall by the wayside if Bill 24 passes, and you're going to have these panels. So we have this situation where we have these chan- ges in front of us. It's been a hearty debate in this House, and the debate will continue until we see closure at the end of this week, I suspect — when the government in- vokes closure to pass this bill without a proper resolution.

Th e result of these changes is a signifi cant erosion of the agricultural land reserve and a signifi cant diminish- ing of the powers of the Agricultural Land Commission. Th e response to that from people in the public has been pretty dramatic. We have heard from large numbers of groups across the province. We've heard from munici- palities. Most of the municipal agencies, the authorities — what would be the regional districts — have passed resolutions saying: "Stop what you're doing, and talk to us, at least." We've heard that from the agricultural council.

Th e cattlemen's association has clearly said: "Stop what you're doing and talk to us before you take this any further." Th e National Farmers Union has raised issues, and we'll talk a little about their recent correspondence. Other groups like the B.C. Food Systems Network have raised concerns. Letters from academics and scientists have been written to the government saying that this is a big mistake. "Y ou shouldn't be doing this. At least talk to us. At least have a consultation." Th at's been much of the debate. The Agricultural Land Commission's chair, Mr.

Bullock, has raised serious concerns about how this is all unfolding. So to that, the opposition has moved the amendment that essentially says to send this to a com- mittee, that says that we need to talk about this more, that says with something that has for 40 years been a pretty fundamental piece of what we do, how we do business in this province when it comes to food security, to farm- ing, to agricultural opportunity…. Th e Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve have been the cornerstone and the foundation of that for 40 years.

What people in the province have been saying — and we've heard it over and over — is: "Talk to us about what you're doing before you make these changes." Many of those groups, the stakeholders, the people on the ground who actually do this work — whether it's the member- ship of the Agriculture Council or the cattlemen's asso- ciation or the National Farmers Union or any number of other groups who are hands-on, front-line in this work — have said that much of what you've proposed here is ill-conceived, and you haven't spoken to us about this.

It's simply not good enough when the minister says: "We'll talk to you aft er we pass the law." Th at's not very good practice by anybody's terms. So we have this situa- tion where we don't have any meaningful consultation. [1115] What has been proposed here in the amendment that we're debating now is to, in fact, refer this to a commit- tee, to send it to the committee, to ask that committee to go and do the consultation that has been omitted from this process.

It particularly becomes concerning because I think there was a little bit of hope when the new Minister of Agriculture fi rst received his appointment, which was in the middle of the process of Bill 24. He stood up on the fi rst day and said: "I'm hearing from lots of people, and I'm going to consult. I'm going to talk to people, and everything is on the table. We'll look at signifi cant amendments. We'll look at the viability of the bill in its entirety.

We're prepared to put it all on the table and look at that." Th at lasted something less than 24 hours, till he was corrected by the Minister for Core Review and of Energy, who said: "Talk to whoever you want, but you're not changing anything." Th at, essentially, then became the Minister of Agriculture's view. Th e Minister of Agriculture stood up in this House then and all of the sudden wasn't talking about a signifi - cant consultation before the bill becomes law but instead said he was reading his mail. Th at's a good thing. Th e minister should read his mail.

But he essentially said he's going to read his mail. Now, it would be interesting to know — and when he closes debate on this, if he takes a role in here, maybe he can tell us — about how many pieces of correspondence he's received and how many thousands and thousands of those were telling him to stop what he's doing, to stop Bill 24, to stop this process. My guess is that volume of mail that's sitting on the Agriculture Minister's desk…. The pile that says this is a bad idea is a heck of a lot bigger than the pile that says this is a good idea.

I suspect it's from some pretty thoughtful people and people with signifi cant expertise in the fi eld or people who make their livelihood out of farming and out of agriculture who are saying: "Th is is a bad idea." What we have said in this resolution, in this amend- ment, is: take it out and do consultation. It's a practice that we should probably be adopting for a whole lot of what we do here. Th e reality is this. Even if you believe in Bill 24, even if you support Bill 24, there is nothing pressing about that

British Columbia Debates4204 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 piece of legislation being passed at the end of this week that wouldn't be just as appropriate in the fall, if you went there. And you would allow a committee, if you would accept this amendment and put a legislative committee in place…. Put a committee in place and give them the man- date to go out around this province and talk to British Columbians, to seek the advice of experts and of stake- holders, to talk to people in local communities in dif- ferent places in this province that will be aff ected. Talk to local governments.

Take the advice that we're given, and prepare some advice for the minister and for the Legislature about how, in fact, this bill either could be improved or dismissed entirely, if that was the view of the committee. It would be extremely valuable to do that. Th ere's noth- ing that's going to happen between now and October or November that is so pressing that this legislation has to be passed this week.

It would create the opportunity for that discussion to happen, for a report to come back to the Legislature before the bill is fi nalized, for a discus- sion before the bill is fi nalized and for real input from those on the outside.

While that process was going on with a committee of the Legislature over the next number of months with the mandate to come back in the fall with some kind of re- port for this Legislature, based on the results of their fi nd- ings, it would also provide the Minister of Agriculture some more time to not just read his mail. [1120] It would provide the Minister of Agriculture some sig- nifi cant time to be able to consult, himself, and many of those groups, those stakeholders, those individuals, those communities, those local governments who have a con- cern about Bill 24 — concern that it is undermining and compromising food security and the agricultural indus- try in this province — to sit down with him and have a meaningful conversation, to sit down with the minis- ter and talk about the issues that are important to them, and to do it in a way where the clock isn't simply ticking hours.

It would provide some days, some weeks, some months to get at this properly. Th ere are signifi cant questions that are raised by many of these groups. We talked about the academics and soil scientists and the questions they've raised. Th ere has been the discussion about what is going on in California right now around their industries, which we rely on for food security, that are now being compromised because of drought and other issues in California that are changing that availability and price.

We haven't had those discussions, and there's no evi- dence that the government had looked at those questions in any way, shape or form before bringing forward Bill 24. Th ere has been no assessment or analysis in any way, shape or form of what that means. We know and we've heard oft en about issues related to climate change. What we hear about British Columbia when we discuss climate change is that we might actual- ly be, in the short term, a jurisdiction that in some ways benefi ts.

Because of slight changes in climate, we could create growing areas in this province that we hadn't en- visioned before or expand the possibilities in growing areas for variety. Th at's a possibility. We may fi nd that some of those areas have been essen- tially dismissed by the Minister for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture as not that valuable — i.e., the zone 2 areas.

Well, we don't know what the value of those areas is going to be, moving forward, and we've seen nothing from the government, nothing from this min- ister, that suggests there has been any assessment done, any analysis done, of what the potential is in those areas. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to have consultation that al- lowed us to better understand that, to have a committee of the Legislature that could invite the kind of expertise, whether it be from within the ministry or external exper- tise, and ask for that advice and that direction about what the potential is ten, 20, 30, 40 years out?

What are they projecting? But we don't have that information. Instead, we've got a fairly shortsighted approach being taken by the government here in regard to this. We know that it's a signifi cant problem. I understand the Premier at the end of April received a letter from the National Farmers Union. It says: "Th e National Farmers Union opposes the amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission being proposed in Bill 24." I want to talk a little about some of their advice. Th ey're a pretty thought- ful bunch, and they sent a six-page letter to the Premier that lays out their concerns.

At their recent convention in 2013, the resolution that was passed was: "Whereas the agricultural land reserve was set up to protect viable farmland in B.C., and

whereas the current provincial government has initiated a process to dismantle or weaken the ALR and allow agricultural land to be further developed and mined…be it resolved that the National Farmers Union publicly acknowledge the agricultural land reserve is a model that should be replicated across Canada and maintained and strength- ened in B.C." Here they've said, as one of the groups that should be part of this consultation and part of this discussion, that it, in fact, should get more attention and more support. Th ey raise that for a number of reasons.

Th ey certainly have the concern that they've raised about the notion of splitting up the province into two zones and, also, the panel structure. [1125] To give you an indication of the kind of discussion that you would see in a consultation, I suspect, I just want to give you a quote from their letter around this. "Th e NFU opposes the creation of zones and the permanent- panel structure. All farmland in B.C. is important and needs to be protected, regardless of location or the type of development pressure placed upon it. Th e ALR was set up as an institution for

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 27, 2014 4205 the benefi t of the whole province, and thus, the overall farmland protection values need to be refl ected in decision-making, regard- less of location. "By delegating the Agricultural Land Commission's full jurisdic- tion to the small regional panels — some as few as two individuals who reside within the region — there is clear danger that local de- velopment pressures could infl uence the panel members and that the overall vision of the commission would be diluted and/or frag- mented over time.

Local interests need to be balanced by broader interests, and there's a high risk of losing that balance when the full power of the commission can be exercised by so few people." Th at's what they said. Th e other thing that they said that is particularly important to this discussion we're having today — around the amendment that calls for sending this to a committee — is when they talk about the process that we've undergone. I'd like to quote what they've said about that. "Th e National Farmers Union would also draw attention to the undemocratic manner in which this bill has been brought forward.

Th e ALR is a longstanding institution in B.C., one that helps defi ne the province's character as well as its land use and economy. "Any change to such an important element calls out for a com- prehensive and inclusive public process. Farmers should be at the forefront of any discussion about the future of farmland, since without land it is not possible to farm. Y et there have been no public consultations.

B.C. farmers and other B.C. residents have not had a proper opportunity to be involved in a full public debate on this matter of vital interest." Th ese comments, made by the Farmers Union in a let- ter to the Premier on April 30, have been echoed time and time again by British Columbians, whether it be by British Columbians who work directly in the indus- try or by British Columbians who simply are concerned about food security issues and are concerned about how that unfolds. Th ey see us compromising an institution.

At a time when we look at the issues of climate, when we look at the issues of the changing climate and the eff ect that it will have on us long term, the last thing that we should be doing is taking away what have been very eff ective and fundamental tools that allow us to be able to address those issues. Th e agricultural land reserve was clearly one of those tools that ensured that we in fact protected the land that we need for farming moving forward — some- thing that's had broad support. We know that there just hasn't been much discussion on this. We'll go back.

Th e Minister for Core Review said to me in estimates, in his estimates the other day, that the government had looked at tens of thousands of pages of documents that Mr. Bullock…. When he prepared his report, which was a fairly comprehensive report on the state of the ALR, he made a series of recommendations that are not at all consistent with Bill 24. Th e suggestion somehow from the Minister for Core Review was that all of that had been considered. Of course we then learned aft erwards that that wasn't in fact the case, that in fact those documents and all of those documents that Mr.

Bullock had put together hadn't been considered. Th ere was some suggestion that ministry staff had been following Mr. Bullock around, taking their own notes, and that those notes had been considered. It sounds much like a bit of grasping at straws, about making claims that there wasn't the substance to back up. Th at's what it seems to me. Th e bottom line with all of this, of course, is that we don't know and the government doesn't know. Th e gov- ernment doesn't know because in fact it hasn't done the work. It hasn't done the consultation.

If the minister, the Premier, the Minister for Core Review, the minister for LNG, the rest of this cabinet and this government is so confi dent about Bill 24…. If the rest of the cabinet, this cabinet and this B.C. Liberal government is so confi dent that this is the right thing to do, that this is the right thing for public policy, that it's the right thing for farming and agriculture, that it's the right thing for food security…. [1130] If the government and the cabinet and the B.C.

Liberals truly believe that, then you should be enthusiastic about going out and engaging in a meaningful consultation and discussion with the people who deliver this industry day in and day out — and with the local communities that will be the most directly impacted or aff ected by deci- sions that are made around changes in the ALR. Th ere should be a discussion. Th ere should be oppor- tunities at the upcoming UBCM to have a discussion about the substance of this bill before it's passed, not aft er it's passed.

Th ere should be an opportunity to go into those six regions that are being identifi ed in this bill for panels and have discussions in those regions and have discussions about the potential impact of regional panels. Are they a good idea, or are they a bad idea? Th at's not go- ing to happen. Th ose panels are going to get put in place.

Th ere should be a discussion with academics, with soil scientists, with agrologists, with those people who understand this very, very well about what the potential impacts of these decisions are on production of food and what the projections are, moving forward, as to what our needs will be and what our opportunities are in the dif- ferent parts of the province. How do we ensure that we're able to exercise those options and opportunities? None of that's going to happen. All of it is going to come post Bill 24. Th e bill will be passed. Th e regula- tions will be written. Th e appointments will be made.

Th e people will be in place. Th e action will be going for- ward, and then there will be a public relations exercise — maybe, maybe not — to talk to people about something aft er it's done. Th is is this old story about closing the barn door aft er the horse is gone. Th is is truly what we're talking about here, and it doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense.

If the government truly believes this is in the best interests of British Columbians, if they truly believe they have an argument to make that British Columbians will embrace across this province, to say that this is the right way to go, then they should engage British Columbians in the discussion about that.

British Columbia Debates4206 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 Th ere are folks out there who might be in agreement with some of this, but what you hear from them is: "I have lots of questions, and I have no answers." Doesn't the minister, doesn't the Premier, doesn't the government feel some obligation to hear those questions, to respond to them, to answer them — if the government doesn't have the answers — to take it upon itself to go and fi nd answers that are substantive and credible and put those answers forward. Isn't the government prepared to do that? Th at's really what has to happen here.

I would say this is a bad piece of legislation that shouldn't go forward. I would say that it doesn't make sense in terms of food security. I would say it doesn't make sense in terms of climate. I would say it doesn't make sense in terms of the agricultural industry.

I should be obliged to go and hear from people who might disagree with me, and that should be part of that process — me, or members on this side who share that view, who could sit on that legislative committee, along with the members on the government side, of course, and go out and hear that debate and engage thoughtful, informed members of the public in that discussion and that debate.

Th en come back, as committees oft en do, and sit down and do the work to prepare some thoughtful recommen- dations, amendments, suggestions, whatever, for the minister and for government, and be prepared to submit that in the fall to this Legislature, to tell this Legislature what they heard, to tell this Legislature what they as- sessed or deemed from what they heard, to say what sci- ence is out there, what questions haven't been answered that need answering. [1135] We may well fi nd that. Legislative committees can do some work, but they're not research centres. We may well fi nd….

I suspect there is a good possibility that what we would fi nd are some very real questions about thought- fulness and about the need to look forward and the need to do more assessment and more analysis, the need to look at the bigger picture moving forward. If that advice comes from sources that bring credibility and legitimacy to those questions, why wouldn't the gov- ernment, why wouldn't the Ministry of Agriculture, say: "Th at makes sense, and we're going to do that, because we want to get this right"? Th at's important.

Part of the challenge we have — and part of this is the track record of the government — is far too oft en taking decisions that haven't been thoughtfully considered and then having to back-pedal out of them later on. It would be very unfortunate to pass Bill 24, which I think is one of those times when not a lot of thought has gone into this. Th ere's a bit of a myopic view moving forward about where all the cards lay in this game now for the govern- ment, and that anything that has to be done to facilitate that should be done. What we need to do is get a little bit past that. Th is is too important.

When we talk about food, when we talk about food security, when we talk about an industry that still is critical to this province and critical to the country, we should be more thoughtful. We should be more care- ful about how we make those decisions. Th e amendment that's here that we're debating today would give us, give this Legislature, the opportunity to do that. It doesn't say to the government: "Y ou have to change this bill today." What it says to the government is: "Y ou have to go listen to British Columbians. Y ou have to create the vehicle, through this Legislature, to go talk to British Columbians.

Y ou have to give people a fair hearing. Y ou have to be prepared to engage and defend your position if you truly believe this is good for British Columbia, good for the agricultural industry, good for the farmers in this province, good for local governments, good for communities, good for people who are con- cerned about environmental questions that are also im- pacted by decisions here." Th ere has to be some obligation from somebody at that cabinet table to go out and talk to people. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be the case. Unfortunately, it appears that these decisions were taken….

As is oft en the wont with governments — it certainly is the wont with this government — decisions are taken that the government knows cannot be supported by any kind of thoughtful debate. Th ey sit on a base of sand. Th ey will move. Th ey will shift . Th ey are but another agenda. Rather than go and defend them, you just railroad them through. We as the opposition have spent time, and will con- tinue until the end of this session to spend time, to give people out in the community more opportunity to put pressure on this government.

But sadly, this is a govern- ment that, when it knows it's wrong but has an agenda anyway, will ram that agenda through. Th at's probably what we're dealing with today. I do wish the government would do the right thing, would engage British Columbians in the discussion about this 40-year-old jewel, in terms of legislative and programmic policy in this province, but that's probably not going to happen. Instead, we will get closure forced upon us on Th ursday. We will move forward from there. I would assure the members on the other side this de- bate will not end on Th ursday.

Th e people in this com- munity concerned about agriculture will not stop their voices. Th is side will not stop raising its voice. We will be talking about this for an awfully long time to come and holding the government accountable for ramming this through without talking to British Columbians, for ramming it through and ignoring all of the evidence and all of the experts who say this government is just terribly, terribly wrong in this decision.

It's a failed piece of legislation that will hurt this prov- ince for decades and generations to come, but I don't think the government or the minister really cares that much about that.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 27, 2014 4207 C. James: I, too, am pleased to stand and speak to the motion to refer that we have in front of us on Bill 24. A motion to refer — I just want to take a minute to talk a little bit about why we would take a look at a motion to refer on a bill like this. [1140] A referral motion calls for the referral of a subject of the matter of a bill to a select standing committee of the House for the purpose of obtaining an opinion or ob- servations. Th at comes from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. Obtaining an opinion or observations — I'll come back to that.

I think it's important just to lay that out, but I'll come back to that when I speak about how important it is to take a look at this referral motion and how in fact it is an opportunity for the government to correct a wrong — correct something that wasn't done and that should have been done. I'm certain that if members on the other side took a minute to think about it, they would recognize how important it is to have those discussions. I believe that there are some basic steps that are critical when you're bringing forward legislation. I spoke a little bit about those in my fi rst discussion on this bill.

If you're looking at good government, if you're looking at bring- ing forward legislation, it's fundamental that you take a look at a couple of questions. One of those, I think anybody would imagine, is: what's the purpose of the bill? Why are we bringing for- ward this bill? What is it looking to fi x, and what is it looking to improve or strengthen? I think those are very fundamental to any kind of legislation. We'll come back to the importance of referral on those questions when it relates to this bill.

As I've noted and as other speakers on this side have noted, Bill 24 certainly doesn't come forward to improve support for agriculture. If you're looking at the purpose of this bill, you certainly don't see the purpose of this bill improving support for agriculture. In fact, it's just the op- posite. We'll have an opportunity to talk about that. But it certainly doesn't come forward to improve agriculture in British Columbia — something that the public and that people have strongly stood up for, for many, many years. What does it look to fi x, then?

Again, if you look at this bill and take a look at the legislation, it certainly doesn't appear to fi x a problem. Th e public that I talk to say, "Y es, there are areas where we could strengthen agriculture, and there are areas where we could improve things for agriculture in our province," but this bill doesn't do any of those. Th is bill doesn't look to fi x a challenge that's there.

If it doesn't do any of those things, then let's take a look at what I believe is fundamental to public policy — fun- damental to not simply bringing forward legislation but in fact fundamental to any kind of discussion that any politician at any level needs to have — and that's public consultation, engagement of the public. If you take a look at some of the public out there and the lack of support we see for politics and politicians and democracy, oft en what you hear from the public — the comment coming back — is that they don't feel that they have an opportunity to make a diff erence.

Th ey don't feel that they have an opportunity to engage. Th e public oft en says: "Well, I feel like the decision is already made. I feel like those in charge have already decided, so why would I get out and engage in something? I'm busy; I have a busy life. I want to feel like I can make a diff erence." Th e sad statement that Bill 24 brings forward and that we're trying to fi x with the amendment to refer…. Th e sad reality is that this kind of behaviour from the gov- ernment in fact reinforces that view for the public.

It re- inforces the view that we're bringing forward something that we didn't talk to you about, that we didn't have a discussion with you on. In fact, we're not going to dis- cuss with you. We're just going to bring it forward and push through. Th at does exactly what the public feels is done too oft en in politics, which is that it doesn't give the opportun- ity for people who are impacted to be able to have a say.

Surely all of us in this chamber, who have been elected by our communities, should understand that we have an obligation to go back and talk to our communities about the decisions that are being made.

We have an obliga- tion, a serious obligation, to have that kind of conversa- tion and have that discussion, and you don't see it with this bill coming forward. [1145] Y ou would expect that this government, having now been in place for a number of years, would understand the importance of that public debate, particularly with something so historic as the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. Th is is

an act that has survived diff erent governments of diff erent political stripes. Th at is unusual in our democracy — to know that

an act, whether the government has changed stripes or not, has continued on. Th e reason it's done that is because the public sup- ports it, because the public had an opportunity for a voice. Th ey were able to speak out. Th ey said loud and clear: "We support the agricultural land reserve, we sup- port the Agricultural Land Commission, and we support protecting our farmland in British Columbia." Y ou would imagine that this government would have seen the opportunity for consultation — the exact con- sultation that now, through this amendment, we're try- ing to fi x and give an opportunity for the public to have.

But it didn't happen. In fact, exactly the opposite hap- pened. Exactly the opposite happened where no discus- sion took place. Y ou might say that in fact this motion is saving gov- ernment from itself. Th is is an opportunity for govern- ment to recognize that they did something wrong, that they forgot a fundamental step when it comes to public

British Columbia Debates4208 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 policy, which is consulting and having a discussion. Th is referral motion in fact corrects a mistake, a step that the government didn't do. Here's an opportunity. I think that the government should look at this as an opportunity — not a motion that's coming forward to say that everything the govern- ment is doing is wrong. It in fact gives the opportunity for government to say: "Y ou're right.

We forgot a funda- mental step, which is giving the public a voice, and we will give that opportunity to the public." It's not as though this government hasn't had other opportunities to be reminded of that. It's not as though this government is learning for the fi rst time that they should have consulted and that perhaps things might go better if they did. In fact, this government has had many, many, many opportunities to learn about that. I just want to look at a couple of those, because I think, again, it em- phasizes the importance of the referral motion and why government needs to take a look at that motion.

Th e fi rst one, of course, was when this government came into power back in 2001 and decided that they were going to rip up contracts for employees in this province. Sadly, we're still in that debate with the teachers right now. But teachers, health care workers — this govern- ment decided that it didn't matter, that they didn't need to have a public consultation, that they didn't need to talk to people about this. Th ey were just going to rip up contracts that were legal negotiated, legally in place, and ignore them. What ended up happening because of that?

What ended up happening was that millions of taxpayer dol- lars were spent on legal cases that the government lost. Th e government was shown that they didn't act consti- tutionally, that it was illegal what they'd done and that they hadn't had any consultation or discussion around those contracts. Well, that's exactly the reason that a referral motion is sitting right here, because the refer- ral motion gives an opportunity for government not to repeat that mistake again, for the government not to in fact move ahead with things without any kind of public consultation.

We're seeing it right now with the discussion around the youth custody centre here on Vancouver Island. Again, just as we're talking about with this legislation, just as we're talking about with this referral motion, the minister, the government, admitted that no, they're not going to consult. Th ey've made the decision already, and too bad for anyone who wants to have a say. What kind of direction is that? What kind of direction is that for a government to take?

What kind of respect is that for the public? [1150] An issue where people who are impacted — just as this bill is, just as the referral motion talks about — by a decision get no opportunity to be able to have a say; no opportunity to be heard; no opportunity to raise their voices; no opportunity to talk about the successes, the challenges or resolve some of the problems. Instead, the government says, "Y ou don't count. We're going to make a decision anyway," just as they're doing with this bill and just as we're trying to fi x with a referral motion.

We saw it a few weeks ago with the example of a regu- lation that the government decided to bring in around natural gas and have no discussion with First Nations about that. "We'll talk to them about it aft erwards." Well, if government needed a current example, that's another one for them to take a look at — where they didn't con- sult, didn't have discussions, didn't go out and talk to any- one and ended up pulling back that regulation. It's also not unique for government to change their mind and say: "Y ou're right. We should have consulted. In fact, why didn't we consult the people who were im- pacted?

Let's pull that regulation back." I give credit to government for doing that. Th ey shouldn't have brought in the regulation in the fi rst place. Th at would have been the smarter thing to do — to consult fi rst. But once they realized the mistake, they pulled that regulation back and said: "Y ou're right. We need to go out and consult with the people impacted." Well, that's an example we have right here, where the government can correct their mistake just as they did with that regulation and say: "Y ou're right. We should have consulted.

We should pull that back." Of course, there's the example that I think all of us are all too familiar with, which is the example of the HST. If ever there was an example to be studied in British Columbia, it's the example of the HST and the fact that the government did absolutely no consultation on that issue. Th ink of all the time, energy and resources that were wasted on that. I think that's part of the frustration that you're cer- tainly hearing from this side of the House.

Y ou can save those resources, and you can save that frustration by do- ing the right thing in the fi rst place, which is talking to the people who are impacted. Y et we don't see that. We don't see that happen. We see the government decide, as they're doing with this bill: "Let's go ahead. Let's not con- sult. Let's move forward." Well, there's a missed opportunity here, a missed op- portunity to actually make a better decision, a missed opportunity to actually hear from the people who are im- pacted by this bill and to do the right thing.

Th e public that I talk to ask a pretty basic question, which is: what is government afraid of? Why would this government be afraid to listen to people? Why would this government be afraid to let the public have their say? If the government believes in this bill, if the govern- ment believes it's the right direction to go, why on earth wouldn't they allow that? [Madame Speaker in the chair.]

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 27, 2014 4209 Noting the time, I will move adjournment of the de- bate and reserve my right to speak when the House comes back. C. James moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. D. McRae moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Madame Speaker: Th is House, at its rising, stands ad- journed until 1:30 this aft ernoon. Th e House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH (continued) Th e House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair. Th e committee met at 11:06 a.m. On Vote 28: ministry operations, $16,788,820,000 (continued). The Chair: Do you have any opening remarks, Minister? Hon. T. Lake: I wanted to take a minute to refer back to yesterday's debate and wanted to just make a correc- tion for the record. I don't think the hon. member was necessarily trying to mislead the committee. I wanted to correct in terms of timelines. I think it's important.

Y esterday the member opposite said that the offi cial opposition made a request last July for briefi ng notes and backgrounders prepared for the minister for estimates, which we did last summer, and did not receive them until a few days before the estimates were to begin — a few working days. I said that I agreed with the member that that was not acceptable in terms of the timeline. We went back and looked. Just from a high level….

Th e request made by the opposition was received in the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services information access operations group on December 13, 2013, not in July. Th e due date for the request was January 20. Th is was a large volume of information, and there were a number of requests for extensions, all of which were granted by the applicant in this case — the opposition. I just wanted to correct that timeline, but I still agree that it's important to provide this information in a timely manner. I would have thought that the member should have had that material sooner than she did.

I just wanted to correct that the request was made in the middle of December, not last July. J. Darcy: I will certainly double-check on that myself. Apologies if the date was December rather than July. Th e minister apologized yesterday. I think it was appropriate to do so. To receive such a huge volume — 483 pages — two business days before estimates were to proceed…. Whether it's six months or whether the request was nine months before, the issue, I think, still stands. I would also like to put on the record….

I questioned the minister yesterday about medical services premiums and said that MSP premiums had gone up by 100 percent since 2001. Th e minister contradicted me, but in fact, he used 2002 fi gures. Th e fact is that in that fi rst year, when the Liberals took offi ce, there was an increase in MSP premiums of approximately 50 percent. In fact, the fi gures that I was using were accurate. Th e minister is also accurate when he goes from 2002.

But frankly, my assertion regarded 2001, and I don't really think it's appropriate in this room to use spin and to leave out a 50 percent increase from the fi rst year. [1110] Hon. T. Lake: Th is is a bit silly. I used fi gures from 2002 to 2013, and I said those fi gures. I didn't say that the member was wrong. I did not contradict her. I used fi gures from 2002 to 2013. I also said that while MSP pre- miums have doubled since 2001, the health care budget has also more than doubled since 2001.

I would be happy to spend our time together an- swering questions, rather than having this sort of ex- change that I don't feel is very worthwhile in terms of getting information to taxpayers about the way their health care dollars are being spent. J. Darcy: I would like to move on now to the issue of the Ambulance Service of British Columbia, as we had indicated to the minister previously. My fi rst question is with regard to targets for response times for ambulance paramedics. Could the minister please indicate what the national target times for ambulance response times are at the present time?

British Columbia Debates4210 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 [1115] Hon. T. Lake: Th ere are no national response time standards. In British Columbia the response times will vary depending on the location of the situation — wheth- er it's remote, rural or metro. Understandably, in a re- mote area response time is going to be diff erent than it would in a metro area, where there are more ambulance stations, more full-time paramedics, because obviously the need, the demand, is there. In the metro regions of the province our expectation is that the response will be under fi ve minutes 55 percent of the time.

We are looking at specifi c cases or conditions, such as cardiac arrest, in which we would have a specifi c goal — in this case a response time less than nine min- utes 80 percent of the time. We're actually using this as a shadow pay-for-performance model, looking at that tar- get of responding to cardiac arrest in less than nine min- utes 80 percent of the time or greater. In the U.K. they have a goal of an eight-minute re- sponse time in 75 percent of the cases.

Again, there are diff erent standards, and again, that would vary de- pending on the circumstances — the geography, the lo- cation, the remoteness — of the need for the ambulance. J. Darcy: As the minister, of course, is well aware, the B.C. Ambulance Service introduced some major chan- ges to how ambulance calls — 911 calls — are responded to, called the Resource Allocation Plan , on October 31 or November 1 — right around then.

One of the major criticisms of these changes has been that they were intro- duced without any consultation with people on the front lines, whether those were ambulance, paramedics, fi re- fi ghters, municipal governments or whatever. Th e issue of consultation has been raised time and time again in the responses to the Resource Allocation Plan. Dr. Dick, in responding to these on Th e Bill Good Show on April 3, referred to an expert panel that he said was consulted.

But from all of the consultations and the statements that I've seen from the various people who are involved in either fi rst-responder service or ambulance paramedic service say that, in fact, the expert panel was a handpicked one, not one representing those organiza- tions. Dr. Dick is also quoted on the air saying that this was messaged out through UBCM. In other words, he didn't ask them; he told them. It was messaged out through UBCM. Th e Lower Mainland Local Government Association refers to this decision as being a unilateral decision.

Th e fire chiefs across the Lower Mainland, their associa- tion, said there was no consultation. It was a unilateral decision. Th ey asked that the Ambulance Service hold off , and they were refused. Th e chief of the Vancouver fi re department and the council are on record criticiz- ing the lack of consultation. So is the Burnaby fi re chief and council, the New Westminster fi re chief and coun- cil, as are the mayors of Surrey and Coquitlam, and the list goes on.

Does the minister believe that there should have been thorough and complete consultation with all of the above before sweeping changes like this were implemented? Hon. T. Lake: Let me just review the consultations that did take place, and let me also say that this is not the fi rst time that these kinds of changes have been made over the years. It's happened a number of times.

But this is the fi rst time that such a detailed data-driven methodology was utilized to inform the appropriateness of the response. [1120] Th e review determined that too oft en ambulances were responding with lights and sirens when what was medic- ally required was a routine response with no lights and sirens. Th is is important because when you use your re- sources effi ciently, yo

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140527am-Hansard-v14n1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140527am Hansard v14n1
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7b5d307f208b766552d83510e0ad8363deb7419b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).