2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 7, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Mario Gutierrez

Hon. R. Coleman

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Keli Anderson

Hon. M. McNeil

Introductions by Members

Statements

Prostate cancer awareness

Hon. M. de Jong

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 51 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Bill 50 — Athletic Commissioner Act

Hon. I. Chong

Bill 48 — Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 49 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. T. Lake

Bill 44 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Act

Hon. S. Bond

Bill 52 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Prostate cancer awareness

G. Hogg

S. Hammell

Child and youth mental health

J. Thornthwaite

Child and youth mental health and youth suicide prevention

C. Trevena

Bluey Day fundraising campaign in Fort St. John

P. Pimm

Cystic fibrosis awareness

S. Simpson

Oral Questions

Recovery home registration and regulation

A. Dix

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Hammell

M. Farnworth

Payment of legal fees in B.C. Rail court case

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

B. Ralston

International students and closing of overseas visa offices

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

Seismic safety of St. Paul's Hospital

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. M. de Jong

Ferry safety and role of chief engineers

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Government apology for Japanese Canadian internment during World War II

Hon. N. Yamamoto

A. Dix

Second Reading of Bills

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

S. Simpson

N. Macdonald

B. Bennett

S. Chandra Herbert

J. Brar

Hon. S. Bond

Bill 46 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

K. Corrigan

C. Trevena

H. Lali

J. Horgan

N. Macdonald

R. Fleming

V. Huntington

M. Mungall

S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

J. Brar

Hon. G. Abbott

M. Elmore

R. Fleming

C. Trevena

D. Thorne

H. Bains

S. Chandra Herbert

B. Routley

B. Simpson

J. Horgan

[ Page 11567 ]

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

MARIO GUTIERREZ

Hon. R. Coleman: On Sunday I had the honour to be at a reception at Hastings Park, where a group of people had gathered with about another 8,000 people to watch the Kentucky Derby. The reason we were watching the Kentucky Derby as a group was because a young man from Mexico named Mario Gutierrez was going to be riding a horse named I'll Have Another out of the 19th hole, which is the 19th spot in the race.

Now, I've had the responsibility for gaming for most of the last 12 years — probably about seven of those years. I met Mario Gutierrez when he first came to British Columbia and was taken under the wing of an owner at Hastings Park named Glenn Todd. Glenn pushed Mario to reach his talent, pushed him to go actually race this winter in California and worked with agents to get him on rides so he could show his talent.

So on Sunday, from way back — about six or seven lengths back on the homestretch — Mario rode a horse to win the Kentucky Derby. One of the first things he said as he was riding down…. With the reporter he said, "I want to thank my family in Canada," because he has been the leading jockey for three or four times in the last five years at Hastings Park, and this is where he, in British Columbia, honed his craft.

[1335]

On behalf of the House, I would like to ask the House to congratulate Mario, who has come from very meagre beginnings in Mexico — to congratulate him on this plus the fact that this young man has never forgotten his family, has always sent money home to help his family and will continue to do so.

As of today, he probably won't be back at Hastings Park because he's now a superstar in horseracing in the world. But to Mario and Glenn and the team of people that worked with him over the years, congratulations on behalf of this House.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have several guests to introduce today. The Japanese consul general, Hideki Ito, is in the gallery.

Mr. Dick Nakamura, who was interned in southern Alberta during the Second World War is in the gallery. Dr. Midge Ayukawa was interned in Lemon Creek and Ms. Aiko Sutherland in Lemon Creek. Mike Abe is the president of Victoria Nikkei Cultural Society. His father was interned in Lemon Creek and his mother in New Denver. Dr. Henry Shimizu was interned in New Denver and his wife, Mrs. Joan Shimizu.

Tosh and Amy Suzuki — Tosh was relocated to Manitoba, and Amy was relocated to Lemon Creek. Mr. Eiji Tsukijima was relocated to Alberta and Ms. Vivian Wakabayashi to Shuswap. Mr. Roy Katsuyama was relocated to Grand Forks and eventually Ontario. Tsugio Kurushima — his parents were interned — is here with his wife, Mrs. Susan Kurushima. And my father, Dr. Mas Yamamoto, and his family were interned in Lemon Creek.

I also have two of my constituency assistants with me here today, Erin Rennie and Matthew Naylor. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: Members will know that May is Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month here in the country. We have a number of people joining us in the gallery from Cystic Fibrosis Canada, who are going to be meeting with members and involved. I'd just like to introduce a number of them: Dr. Mark Chilvers, Leona Pinsky, Robert Rée, Gerry Underhill, Steven Way, Ken Chan, Martina Meckova, Karen Kellett and Kelly Gorman. Please make them welcome.

Tributes

KELI ANDERSON

Hon. M. McNeil: Amongst this House today you see a sea of blue, but you also see a few of us that are wearing this green ribbon pin today in recognition of Child and Youth Mental Health Day here in B.C. I'd like to formally acknowledge Keli Anderson, the executive director of FORCE Society for Kids Mental Health. She has been instrumental in creating awareness and change regarding children's mental health here in this province, and I'm extremely grateful to have her as one of our partners.

I was also so pleased to join her yesterday at the opening of her child and youth mental health conference in Vancouver, featuring mental health experts from around the world. Keli was one of the key organizers of this three-day conference. Would the House please join me in thanking Keli Anderson.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today — and I'm glad the previous member mentioned the blue ties and scarves that are being worn in this chamber today — we're being joined by members of Prostate Canada, who are here to raise awareness about prostate cancer and to spread the news on the work that's being done in terms of educa-

[ Page 11568 ]

tion and treatments and research into prostate cancer in Canada and British Columbia.

There are a number of them here today in the gallery. I will be mentioning some of them, and my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers also has others to mention. Would the House please welcome Heather Gardiner, Susan Graham Walker, Len Gross, Eric Huffey, Leah Lariviere, Robb Lucy, Maureen McGrath, Donald McInnes, and Brian MacPherson, whom, I might add, I went to junior high school with in 1972 and '74 in Port Coquitlam. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the House we have two guests here to witness an introduction of a bill that I will be bringing in shortly. Firstly, Stan "The Steamer" Peterec has an extensive background in competitive boxing, kickboxing and karate, earning several titles.

[1340]

He was the Canadian super welterweight kickboxing champion in 1986 and the World Kickboxing Association World Junior Middleweight Champion in 1987-88. In addition, he has coached and trained hundreds of boxers and kickboxers and coached Team Canada in a trip to China.

He has coached participants, including professional world champions such as boxer Donny Lalonde and kickboxer Lindsay Ball.

As well, we have in the gallery Darren Owen. Darren, along with his business partner Jason Heit, is the owner of Armageddon Fighting Championship, a mixed martial arts league established in 2007 here in Victoria.

I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

C. Trevena: I'd like to join my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings in welcoming the delegation from Cystic Fibrosis to the gallery. Among them is Chris Black and her husband Bill. Chris is an ardent and articulate advocate for cystic fibrosis. She's from Campbell River. Their daughter Kim has cystic fibrosis, and I think many members in the House will recognize Kim from cystic fibrosis promotion materials, to tell people about it. I know that Chris and Bill are very pleased to be here and to further the cause on cystic fibrosis. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

J. Rustad: We as MLAs often spend a lot of time away from our loved ones, and that's especially true when you come from rural B.C. Through that, you often miss a lot of your significant dates, but I'm very pleased today to have the love of my life, my wife, Kim Royle, here with me. We celebrated our 17th wedding anniversary this weekend, and she's also celebrating her 49th birthday today. So if I could ask the House to please make Kim welcome.

S. Hammell: I'd like to add names to the greetings from the member for Port Coquitlam to those people in the gallery who are raising awareness of prostate cancer. I'd like to add greetings from all of us to Pat and Don Pederson; Jim Perrin; Maureen and Malcolm Reville; Larry Shaw, who is from Surrey; Joycelyn Taitt; Rebecca von Goetz; Leno Zecchel; and Winston Stokes. Would the House please make them all welcome.

J. McIntyre: I would like to add my voice, and our voices from this side of the House, to welcome those from the cystic fibrosis association who are with us today. We are co-hosting a reception this evening. We look forward to that.

I want to add special welcome to Robert Ray, who is a constituent of mine and whose family deals with this very issue on a day-to-day basis.

Will the House make them feel extra welcome today.

Hon. I. Chong: While I know that the Minister of Advanced Education has already acknowledged him, I would like to extend an additional welcome to Mr. Toshio Suzuki. I don't know if he will recall that our paths crossed many, many years ago while I worked as a junior bookkeeper, struggling new accountant at a winery here in Victoria, Mt. St. Michael Wines, in Saanich.

If he's the same Toshio Suzuki, which I'm sure he is, I want to ask the House to please extend an extra-special welcome to him.

D. Hayer: On this very special day, on Prostate Awareness Day, we have many guests here. I also have a very special guest today. He's a community leader. He's a very successful businessman. His name is Ted Carlson, president of Mainland Sand and Gravel. His business is based in my constituency and creates a lot of jobs. Would the House please make him very welcome.

D. Donaldson: I would like the House to acknowledge Ed John from the First Nations Summit. He was just appointed chair of the UN permanent forum on indigenous issues. He's the first North American to receive that honour, and he was born in Tachie on Stuart Lake.

Would the members of the Legislature please acknowledge Ed John for the amazing role he's going to play.

[1345]

Statements

PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS

Hon. M. de Jong: Each year 3,500 men will receive the diagnosis that they don't want to hear, and members gathered earlier today to pay tribute to the work of Prostate Canada. It is a collaboration that dates back many years between the government of British Columbia and those who dedicate themselves to researching and

[ Page 11569 ]

eradicating prostate cancer and now to various attempts at early detection — to give those diagnosed with prostate cancer a better chance at success.

I know all members of the House are grateful, and they have already been thanked by my colleague the opposition Health critic. I'm also obliged to the member for Parksville-Qualicum for his attendance at the event that was held and want to bid welcome to all those who are gathered here today reminding us of the important work left to be done around prostate cancer.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — SOUTH COAST

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. B. Lekstrom presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012.

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Bill 51 amends the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act and provides consequential amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act. This bill includes governance amendments to address concerns raised by the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation and the public. These changes aim to strengthen the role of local government in TransLink planning and decision-making processes and ensuring that TransLink is running effectively and efficiently.

Amendments include adding seats to the TransLink board for the Mayors Council chair and vice-chair; periodic performance audits of TransLink; extending the submission date for TransLink's annual base plans from August 1 to November 1, allowing for more consultation between TransLink, the Mayors Council and the public; adding the director of electoral area A to the Mayors Council, enabling people living at UBC, the University Endowment Lands and the rest of the electoral area A to have their elected representative voting at the Mayors Council table.

The bill also includes amendments that will deter people from cheating Metro Vancouver's transit system. People who have been stealing from the transit in Metro Vancouver have been put on notice: the free ride will be over. While most people pay their fares, those that are caught without fares and ticketed will face serious consequences if they do not pay. TransLink will have the authority to set fine amounts, collect the fines and keep the revenues. The Mayors Council will be responsible for making changes to the bylaw as the transit system evolves, including new fare evasion rules to accommodate fare gates and Smartcards.

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

Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 50 — ATHLETIC COMMISSIONER ACT

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Athletic Commissioner Act.

Hon. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 50 be read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: This bill would provide for the establishment of a provincial athletic commissioner to regulate and supervise professional boxing, kickboxing and other similar sporting events, including mixed martial arts. Once established, the commissioner's primary focus would be to ensure consistent application of safety rules for participants in professional contests. This approach will replace local government commissions that currently require and regulate these types of events with a centralized regulatory body ensuring consistency across the province.

This legislation would not apply to amateur sporting contests. The duties of the commissioner would be to ensure a consistent standard of qualifications and safety protocols for all participants and officials through a uniform licensing and permitting framework. It would ensure compliance with the proposed act and its regulations through the use of suspension or cancellation of licences and event permits as well as administrative penalties.

The benefit of having a provincial athletic commissioner would be that every professional boxing, kickboxing and mixed martial arts or similar event would be subject to the same rules and regulations whether it's being held in Vancouver, Nanaimo, Vernon or anywhere else in the province.

[1350]

Since sports such as kickboxing and mixed martial arts are very popular and are taking place without a consist-

[ Page 11570 ]

ent regulatory framework, it makes sense to be proactive about creating this position to increase the safety of athletes and officials as well as to provide certainty for communities and the industry.

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

Bill 50, Athletic Commissioner Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 48 — EMERGENCY AND

HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 48 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: This bill will allow for the enhanced coordination of emergency health services in B.C. Bill 48 follows legislative amendments that were passed in the spring of 2010. At that time, the process of integrating ambulance and emergency health services in B.C. more closely with the broader health care system was started.

The Emergency and Health Services Commission will continue in B.C. as British Columbia emergency health services. It will, by virtue of this legislation, be aligned with the Provincial Health Services Authority and will continue with its core mandate of providing provincial ambulance and emergency health services. This will, as I've mentioned, happen with the support of the PHSA.

The legislation allows for closer cooperation between BCEHS and the health authorities in improving patient safety and quality of care. It also recognizes the role played by paramedics and first responders in overall patient care. It reinforces the fact that ambulance services are often the first point of contact.

I move that Bill 48 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48, Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 49 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. T. Lake presented a message from his honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: This bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. The majority of these amendments implement previous government commitments made through land use planning processes, including the Haida Gwaii and Atlin–Taku River planning areas. The provisions in this bill will establish ten new conservancies and make additions to Atlin Park, all of which begin the implementation of the Atlin-Taku land use plan.

These amendments will add more than 413,000 hectares to the province's protected areas system. Further, the provisions in this bill include additions of marine foreshore areas totalling more than 166,000 hectares to nine existing conservancies on Haida Gwaii; additions totalling 611 hectares of land to five existing conservancies on Haida Gwaii; addition of land to existing class A parks around the province; and boundary modifications to two class A parks, which will remove land totalling 14.36 hectares, and to two conservancies, which will remove land totalling 62.236 hectares.

I expect two of the boundary modifications to rightfully attract special interest. Specifically, 2.36 hectares are being removed from Stawamus Chief Park. If the Legislature approves this amendment, it is proposed that the lands removed from the park be established as Stawamus Chief protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act. This will allow for the application of a park use permit for facility development associated with the gondola development through what is now the park.

Also, as a result of consultation, a consultation process ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, approximately 62 hectares are being removed from the Dzawadi–Upper Klinaklini River conservancy, enabling an environmental assessment to proceed for a proposed hydroelectric project.

Finally, the bill contains a change of name to two existing class A parks to incorporate a First Nation name alongside the existing names.

[1355]

On an administrative note, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to all members that the Office of the Clerk will be provided with copies of the official plans — that's the map boundaries — for their review that depict the boundaries of the new conservancies and most of the

[ Page 11571 ]

amended parks and conservancies.

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

Bill 49, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 44 — CIVIL RESOLUTION

TRIBUNAL ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 44 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased to introduce the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. This bill sets out the authority to establish a new civil resolution tribunal. The tribunal's job will be to offer an alternative to the courts in resolving strata property disputes and small claims matters.

This bill will allow strata cases and, on a voluntary basis, civil matters to be moved out of traditional adversarial litigation and into the hands of experts who are trained to resolve cases early and collaboratively. This is particularly important for strata disputes, where early resolution is critical to preserving and possibly rebuilding the relationships of people who live in strata communities.

This bill will assist in moving forward our justice reform initiative by taking more cases out of the courts and freeing up judge and court time. This builds capacity into our court system and will allow our system to work more efficiently.

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

Bill 44, Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 52 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 52 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm pleased to introduce amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that will support our justice reform agenda and will result in significant justice sector efficiencies.

Bill 52 supports the October 3, 2011, throne speech commitment to bring forward legislation to create a streamlined process for traffic-fine violations that resolves disputes and frees up court time. This bill reduces the administrative burdens experienced by members of the public who are issued a driving sanction under the Motor Vehicle Act by allowing them to pay or dispute the matter on line.

The current court-based system for traffic ticket disputes is overburdened, with an estimated backlog of 50,000 ticket disputes. Currently it takes seven to 12 months to resolve a dispute. These lengthy delays undermine the deterrence effect of tickets.

These amendments will create an administrative review process that provides efficient and proportional access to justice for drivers. These amendments also allow for electronic ticketing, which will reduce errors and allow information to be shared accurately between justice sector partners.

The challenges of the current court system include slow, inefficient access and costly court processes. It is time for a new approach.

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

Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS

G. Hogg: Today is Prostate Cancer Awareness Day in Canada, and today we wear these distinctive scarves and ties to draw attention to the day. Today we thank Prostate Cancer Canada, their staff and many volunteers for raising awareness of prostate cancer here at the Legislature, across B.C. and across our great country.

One in three British Columbians will develop some sort of cancer during their lifetime. One in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. Our colleagues Wally Oppal and Stan Hagen were so diagnosed.

[1400]

[ Page 11572 ]

Of all new cancers diagnosed in men, 30 percent will be prostate cancer. There is a 90 percent survival rate with early detection and treatment.

Some time ago I had the honour of spending time with the founding director of Vancouver Prostate Centre and the driving force behind the Men's Health Initiative, the inimitable Larry Goldenberg. I saw his vision, I heard his plan, and I felt his drive, determination and commitment to defeat prostate cancer and to support the work of Prostate Cancer Canada.

Prostate Cancer Canada reminds men to know their numbers. Know your blood pressure, know your weight, know your cholesterol, and know your PSA. Prostate Cancer Canada, its staff and volunteers have led a national campaign to raise awareness of prostate cancer. Larry Goldenberg, in sync with their vision, said, "By advancing and sustaining our research…we are ensuring that important patient gains in prevention, diagnosis, screening, treatment and survivorship are being made," and that all Canadians will benefit.

I ask this Legislature to recognize, support and praise the work of Prostate Cancer Canada and of so many Canadians who raise our awareness of prostate cancer and raise our prospects for a cancer-free future.

S. Hammell: I have risen in this House before on the topic of prostate cancer, as the disease has presented in two of the men closest to me, my husband and my stepson. The disease in my husband was addressed with brachytherapy, and he is currently cancer-free.

My stepson has not been so lucky. At the age of 47 a very aggressive form of the disease attacked and within a year had escaped from the prostate capsule to 38 locations in his bones. He has, with great support from the medical profession and his partner, kept the disease at bay and lives every moment of his life with gusto and bravery.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer to afflict Canadian men. One in six or seven men will be diagnosed with the disease. Over 90 percent of prostate cancers are curable if detected and treated in their earliest stages. Early detection is key.

Prostate cancer is a far greater threat for those with a family history. Members, if your father, grandfather or brother had prostate cancer, ensure that your family is aware of this.

Once thought of as an old man's disease, prostate cancer is turning up frequently in men in their 40s. So if you're over the age of 40, talk to your doctor about your prostate cancer risk. Ask about the PSA testing, a simple blood test which is the best early detection tool there is.

Prostate Cancer Canada is the only national foundation dedicated to the elimination of the disease through research, education, support and awareness. The striped tie is a symbol for the fight against the disease, and it is hoped that everyone who wears the tie or the scarf will tell at least one person so that we will educate our population about prostate cancer.

CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today in recognition of Child and Youth Mental Health Day, a time to raise awareness of this very serious and far-reaching issue and to recognize the vital importance of supporting children, youth and families who need help with mental health challenges.

Just yesterday I attended the Child and Youth Mental Health Matters conference in Vancouver, organized by my constituent Keli Anderson, the founding director of the Institute of Families for Child and Youth Mental Health.

It is essential to the health and well-being of our youngest citizens that we speak openly about this issue and that we work together to create an environment that is supportive, open and compassionate, where children, youth and their families are comfortable asking for help and have early access to appropriate mental health supports and services.

Dr. Ian Manion, who spoke passionately yesterday about his personal and professional experiences with youth mental health, said: "Talking about this stuff is hard. Not talking about it is a lost opportunity to promote change."

When parents, teachers and other adults involved in the lives of children and youth talk openly about mental health and listen to and support our young people, they contribute significantly to their positive mental health and to development of healthy coping skills. Meaningful, engaged and supported families equal better outcomes.

[1405]

The government recognizes the importance of mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention as an investment in our future. That's why the province released a comprehensive ten-year plan to address mental health and substance abuse across the life span in B.C. called Healthy Minds, Healthy People. The plan places a strong emphasis on identifying challenges early and intervening appropriately to support healthy development and set the stage for a fulfilling and productive life.

I ask all British Columbians to recognize Child and Youth Mental Health Day and the importance of supporting those with mental health challenges in their families, their schools, their neighbourhoods and their communities.

CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

AND YOUTH SUICIDE PREVENTION

C. Trevena: A teen suicide rocks a community — the family, the friends, the school, the town. The desperation that young person must have felt must have been appal-

[ Page 11573 ]

ling, and everyone immediately asks: "What could we have done to prevent it?"

Every individual will ask themselves whether they could have done more, but in many instances suicide, the worst outcome for a young person with mental health problems, is a sad combination of a series of often slight failures. Young people fall through the cracks, and sadly, there are many cracks.

While everyone knows how important early intervention is on so many issues, child and youth mental health is no less than the others. That too often is not a possibility. Young people living in rural communities often don't have access to mental health supports offered either by the often overstretched teams of the Ministry of Children and Family Development or through the health care system.

How many times have we heard the stories from distraught parents? There wasn't help locally. Their child is in hospital. Their child gets admitted to Ledger House at Queen Alexandra hospital — assessment, support, then back to the community, where they're once again effectively alone. We hear of the desperate cycle. We hear of the suicides.

How many times have we heard from those who work with kids with addictions, the children and youth who are living on the edge, who are street-entrenched, who need a safe place to go — a place where funding is not granted on a year-to-year basis, a place they can count on to be there for them?

This is Child and Youth Mental Health Day. That, of course, means the pronouncements — and we've heard them — but words are not enough. This is a day on which we should recommit ourselves to all our children, all our young people. We should remind ourselves that children and young people are vulnerable. Action is vital everywhere in the province.

BLUEY DAY FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

IN FORT ST. JOHN

P. Pimm: I thought today would be a great day to talk about Bluey Day. "Be brave and shave." I'm not sure if anybody has noticed that I've been a little tattered around the edges lately, but that's partly due to the fact that this year I've decided to be part of Bluey Day to support cancer patients in Fort St. John.

This year will be the 13th annual Bluey Day event in Fort St. John, and during that time they've raised over $1 million. Bluey Day is the time when participants have their heads shaved to show their support for cancer patients and raise money for equipment and research.

This year Northern Health is using the money that they raise through the fundraising event to purchase a digital mammography machine to be installed in the new Fort St. John Hospital, and their goal is to achieve $100,000 towards their purchase.

Cancer touches us all at one time or another, in one way or another. This year I lost a very dear friend to cancer. I also had some family members that had to go through some very stressful time dealing with cancer of our own.

When someone close to you gets cancer, you're never quite sure what to do or how you're supposed to act. That's why I decided to be part of Bluey Day this year. By shaving my hair, I'm advocating for local patients with cancer. By fundraising, I'm raising awareness in our community. By participating, I'm giving hope to local patients and families who are dealing with cancer.

I want to challenge my community and my colleagues to be part of Bluey Day and donate to this very worthwhile cause and come out and watch me lose my hair, my very precious hair, on May 26 this year.

CYSTIC FIBROSIS AWARENESS

S. Simpson: I have stood in this House in previous years and spoken about my nephew Liam, who suffers from cystic fibrosis. Liam is joined by over 4,000 Canadians who live with this disease.

[1410]

Cystic fibrosis is the most common fatal genetic disease affecting Canadian children and young adults. It is a disease that attacks the lungs, and ultimately, most deaths that are attributed to CF are related to lung disease and failure.

Thankfully, across Canada people are fighting back against CF. Scientists, researchers, families and advocates are working hard to find a cure and to ensure that these young people have a long and healthy life. Public awareness is particularly high in May, which is Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month.

Cystic Fibrosis Canada is a national health charity with 51 volunteer chapters. The organization's mandate is to find a cure and to help people and families affected by CF to cope with their daily fight. Since 1960 Cystic Fibrosis Canada has invested more than $140 million in research and care, resulting in one of the world's highest survival rates. Today nearly 60 percent of Canadians with CF are over the age of 18.

Sadly, despite progress, there is no cure, and each week in Canada two children are diagnosed and one person dies from this disease. Only half of all Canadians living with CF are expected to live into their 40s and beyond.

I know from the experience of my sister and her family that CF takes a heavy toll on the individuals affected and on their families. Canadians with CF spend the equivalent of four months of full-time work doing life-sustaining treatments every year.

During May, Cystic Fibrosis Canada and its local chapters are organizing many activities and events to raise awareness and funds to support CF research and care — like the Great Strides walk here in B.C. on May 27. I

[ Page 11574 ]

ask all members of this House to join me, Liam and the thousands of Canadians fighting this devastating disease by learning more about CF, by donating and by raising awareness at the grass-roots level.

Oral Questions

RECOVERY HOME

REGISTRATION AND REGULATION

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health. Media reports this weekend made allegations of a methadone kickback scheme at a Surrey drug recovery home. Residents are alleging that they are being threatened with eviction from the house if they don't get their methadone from the pharmacy owned by the recovery house operator.

Now these allegations need to be investigated after the fact, in part because the government doesn't regulate many drug recovery homes in the province. Can the Health Minister bring the House up to date as to the government's effort to register and regulate currently unregulated drug recovery homes?

Hon. M. de Jong: The allegations are very troubling. They are allegations that, in one form or another, we have seen in the past, which is why a number of things have taken place.

With respect to pharmacists and pharmacies which are implicated in these allegations, investigative work has been taking place. The college has been involved in terms of the ethical requirements of pharmacists, and of course, there is legislation before the House now that would create additional enforcement mechanisms beyond the contractual relationship that exists as part of the PharmaCare program with pharmacists.

Beyond that, of course, there is the work taking place between the two ministries as it relates to the recovery homes and the homes themselves and the need and the desire to have effective registration of those facilities so that these kinds of matters can be identified and pursued.

I rather suspect the opposition leader will have a supplementary question about the second part of my answer.

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

A. Dix: The events related to the pharmacy aspect of this are troubling. The events related to the drug recovery house part of this are also troubling.

The minister will know that in 2006 the previous minister promised action within months on this question. The minister will know that that was repeated in 2009. The minister previous to the previous minister, the now Minister of Education, again promised specifically that there would be action within months, and then no action was taken.

These are significant issues in communities. The minister will know what has happened in Abbotsford in the past. It was calls from communities like Abbotsford and Surrey that prompted these non-action responses from the government. It has been six years since they promised action within months. When are they going to get on with it? When are we going to see changes with respect to drug recovery houses in British Columbia?

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the Leader of the Opposition does not doubt the seriousness with which the government takes the issue and also has taken steps, and continues to take steps, to ensure that we strike the right balance in working with municipalities, in working between ministries and in working with those agencies that actually apply themselves diligently and professionally to providing the kind of care and support that people with addictions require. That said, the work is ongoing.

The intent is to have a registry up, operating and functioning very, very soon. Coupled with the other legislation that is before the House, we believe that we will have the proper structure in place to prevent the kind of behaviour that is being alleged in these most recent media reports.

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

A. Dix: Well, it was "very, very soon" in 2006, and nothing happened. It was "very, very soon" in 2009, and nothing happened. Can the minister possibly explain…?

Just so we understand what's occurred here, I'll just quote from a note that was given to the former Minister of Health, the now Minister of Finance, in 2009. That advice-to-minister note said: "The media and the opposition may argue that the government is ignoring the people seeking and needing treatment. They may point out that in February and March 2009 and previously in 2006 the former Health Minister, now the Minister of Education, publicly committed that registration would commence in several months."

That's what the government itself said three years ago. Why has it taken six years for the government to act in this important area?

Hon. M. de Jong: In case I wasn't clear enough in one of my previous answers, I want to say clearly that kickbacks and/or incentives of the sort being alleged or suggested in these media reports are wrong and will not be tolerated.

The work that is taking place in a concerted and focused way is designed to ensure that we have a registration of supportive recovery homes up, functioning and operating. It will be the product of collaborative work

[ Page 11575 ]

with municipalities, will be interministerial and involve the contributions and the input of those dedicated and professional agencies that work in the communities across British Columbia to provide the kind of support that people with addictions require.

S. Hammell: We're aware of at least one death at a Surrey recovery home in late April, and we're aware the Coroners Service is investigating. These kinds of incidents, when combined with a lack of regulation, threaten to sully the vast majority of good recovery homes.

The lack of oversight is a problem. One of the first things this government did in 2001 was to strip away any regulation from drug recovery homes. Will the minister admit that was a serious mistake and commit to bring back regulations to these drug recovery homes?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the hon. member, I agree with most of what she said in the

preamble to her question. I do hasten, however, to point out that facilities are fully licensed by the government where they are providing intensive addiction treatment or detoxification services. So whether that involves storing and dispensing medications, management of cash or other resources, professional counselling or nursing care, there is a continuum.

[1420]

With respect to the other type of facility that I believe she is asking about, that work is taking place. As I've mentioned in my earlier responses, the intention is to strike the right balance to ensure that we have facilities in place across British Columbia that communities can have confidence in and that patients and their families can have confidence in.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The houses that provide health services are not the ones we're talking about.

It's Mental Health Week in Canada this week, and addiction services are a key component of mental health services. It should be a time for the government to think seriously about ensuring that the men and women who need these services get adequate treatment. By stripping away regulations and dragging their feet on reinstating them, government has abandoned recovery home residents. Why won't the government simply admit that deregulating recovery homes was a mistake and one that it'll fix immediately?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am oddly obliged to the member for her reference to mental health and addictions work in British Columbia, because when I attended an interprovincial conference not too long ago in Winnipeg, almost without exception provincial officials from across the country pointed to British Columbia and our ten-year plan as leading the way with respect to the treatment and the facilities.

I have not in any way endeavoured to suggest that there is not important work that remains to be done. That work is ongoing. I am anxious to see it completed and, on behalf of the government and my colleague, commit to having that work completed as quickly as possible.

M. Farnworth: Well, the minister says that the government is anxious. Given the flow of legislation being introduced in the House this past week, they don't appear to be too anxious to deal with this issue. We've got legislation dealing with mixed martial arts and regulating that. But for more than six years we have been waiting for regulations to deal with an issue that local government has been raising year after year at the UBCM — something that the government says that they themselves acknowledged.

In 2009 the former Minister of Health, now the Minister of Education, said that registration will commence in several months. It's a lot more than several months that's gone by. The Minister of Social Development says that it's in its final stages. That was last year. Again, we're still waiting.

Now the Minister of Health stands up and says basically: "Just trust us. We're working on it." Well, people are fed up with trusting this government. They want to know why, after six years and countless excuses, we're not getting legislation to deal with the regulation of unregulated group homes in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. critic's colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, began this line of questioning by pointing to stories that are in the media, pointing to the fact that there were allegations of kickbacks and incentives being offered by not just recovery homes but by pharmacies.

There is legislation before the House that addresses that issue specifically. We are continuing to work and hope to bring to resolution very, very quickly the task of creating the registry that we believe will strike the appropriate balance and, more importantly than what we believe, will enjoy the support and validation from the partners we work with in communities across British Columbia — the communities themselves, those responsible agencies that provide recovery services.

[1425]

The objective remains the same — to provide a safe environment that communities can have confidence in and patients, residents and their families can have confidence will provide the kind of support necessary.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: We're talking about unregulated recovery houses, which are sprouting up all across the province because of the lack of regulation. Local government has identified this as a key issue that needs to be

[ Page 11576 ]

addressed. The government, in its own wisdom, apparently thinks it's so important to be addressed that they've been working on it since 2006. It doesn't take six years to find balance, unless you're a government that's clearly not balanced.

Will the minister commit to this House a time, a date, anything as to when we can expect to see the regulations that they say they have been so diligently working on for the last six years?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I want to ensure that the House and those watching understand that the impression that is, I think, in jeopardy of being created here — that addiction treatment and detox services of the intensive variety are continuing to be provided unregulated — is simply not the case. In the case of the transition homes that the member is, I think, referring to, there is ongoing work.

Yes, it has taken longer than I would have liked. But yes, it is also involving our partners to ensure that we strike a balance that will meet the needs of the communities within which these recovery homes are located and the patients and the families who avail themselves of the services provided there. That has been the objective, remains the objective and will, I believe, result in a registry and regulations that meet the standard very, very quickly.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

L. Krog: In an e-mail to the Vancouver Sun over the weekend the Ministry of Justice said that the order to forgive the $6 million in legal fees for the B.C. Rail corruption trial was made before political insiders Basi and Virk pled guilty and thus was never actually a debt. This suggests there was a deal to modify the indemnity prior to that guilty plea.

Can the Minister of Justice explain to B.C. taxpayers exactly how this arrangement came together prior to the guilty plea and tell us who brought the two sides together to broker this deal?

Hon. S. Bond: At the risk of repeating the same answer, which I know may not be attractive to some, the fact of the matter is that we have canvassed this extensively. We need to be very clear. As I have said on numerous occasions in this House, the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy of Finance made the decision to vary the indemnity. That's exactly what happened. That statement was made public on October 20 by the then Deputy Attorney General. Those are the facts, and they've been clearly laid out.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: The Liberals wrote off $6 million in legal fees for Basi and Virk contrary to the government's own policy — policy that should have prevented the payout. Now the Ministry of Justice is saying that the agreement to remove the repayment conditions was made before Basi and Virk pled guilty. This raises serious questions around how the government handled this deal.

To the minister: if the sign-off on the decision to forgo the $6 million in legal fees was made before the guilty plea was entered, wasn't that in fact an inducement to plead guilty?

[1430]

Hon. S. Bond: Let's take it from the top of the member opposite's comments. In fact, it was not the B.C. Liberals that made the decision. That is incorrect. The member is wrong.

I will repeat once again. In a public statement made by the Deputy Attorney General, he made it perfectly clear — perfectly clear — that "no one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge of this or any involvement."

The member is wrong. The facts have clearly been laid out by the Deputy Attorney General, and I have repeated them on numerous occasions in this House, because that is the story.

B. Ralston: There used to be a radio host who used to talk about "the rest of the story," and I think that's what the people of British Columbia are waiting for. The former Liberal Attorney General, Geoff Plant, claimed recently that there was no inducement in the B.C. Rail deal because the two deals, the plea bargain and the indemnity variation, were not connected in law. He said: "The waiver of recovery of fees was not and could not be an inducement to plead guilty."

We know clearly a decision was made to forgive Basi and Virk's legal fees prior to their guilty pleas being entered in court. If the minister agrees with Mr. Plant, will she explain why?

Hon. S. Bond: The case was considered by the Deputy Attorney General. The decision to make the variance to the indemnity…. The advice was then provided to the deputy of Finance. The Deputy Attorney General advised the deputy of Finance, and the decision was made.

It is clearly outlined in the statement of facts from the Deputy Attorney General that there were a number of things considered. The legal services branch referred the matter to me — and it is quoted in his statement — and to the Deputy Minister of Finance. A number of factors were considered. The decision was made on the advice of the Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: No one believes that the accused agreed to plead guilty before they were certain they weren't going

[ Page 11577 ]

to be stuck with $6 million in legal fees. Does the minister agree that Mr. Plant is wrong? Clearly, the waiver of the recovery of the $6 million induced the guilty pleas.

Hon. S. Bond: As we speak, the Auditor General of British Columbia is reviewing all of the information, all of the documents, and will in due course outline his view of what occurred during this particular set of circumstances.

I can simply repeat that the Deputy Attorney General considered all of the factors that were presented by legal services and made the decision to advise the deputy of Finance about varying the indemnity. That information has been laid out in his statement. In fact, the Auditor General is currently doing the review, and that information and his perspective will be made public when that work is done.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND

CLOSING OF OVERSEAS VISA OFFICES

M. Mungall: Well, everywhere you turn these days, the Liberals' cozy relationship with the Harper Conservatives is costing B.C. Now the federal government is closing visa offices overseas, and B.C. is about to lose millions of dollars when international students go to Australia simply because they cannot get a visa at a Canadian office in their country.

[1435]

Randall Martin, executive director of the B.C. Council for International Education, says this: "Each closure represents huge economic loss to B.C. and to Canada." To the Minister of Advanced Education, given the Liberals' big rhetoric and grand plans for increasing the number of international students here in B.C., what is she doing to get Mr. Harper to reverse his decision to close visa offices overseas?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: International education is very important to B.C. and Canada. International students contribute greatly to our economy but probably just as significantly to the cultural diversity of our province, our campuses and our communities. We will be working closely with our federal counterparts to ensure that any potential issues with respect to these closures do not negatively impact our international students.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: One of the offices that is being closed is in Japan, despite the fact that Japanese students represent the third-largest number of international students here in B.C. As Mr. Martin notes, when it comes to international education, "Canada realizes more export revenue from Japan alone than it hopes to 'save'…by shutting these offices."

The question is: what is the minister doing? Specifics, Minister. We want specifics. Why hasn't she spoken out against the closure of these visa offices?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I appreciate that the members opposite also appreciate the great contribution that international students bring to B.C. and Canada. We have a call in to our federal counterparts with respect to this issue, and we will definitely address the concerns that we have with the closures of these offices.

SEISMIC SAFETY OF

ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL

S. Chandra Herbert: In the last two weeks we've had eight earthquakes off of our coast. We know B.C. stands a 1-in-4 chance that a major earthquake will strike our province in the next few decades. When asked how St. Paul's Hospital would do in an earthquake, Bonnie Maples, director of capital assets at Providence Health Care and the previous president of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, said: "This building is only at 10 to 20 percent of current seismic standards. And that's according to the Ministry of Health's own report."

Can the minister tell the people of Vancouver when the Liberals are finally going to act to make our hospital safe?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I'm happy to. But the member could have saved himself the trouble, because he's met with me about St. Paul's, and he could tell people himself what I said. We are.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We attach great importance to the redevelopment of the St. Paul's campus. It is an expensive project. In the meantime, though, we have spent tens of millions of dollars ensuring that St. Paul's has the necessary infrastructure to carry them through to that ultimate transition — electrical upgrades that are being worked on right now, other infrastructure upgrades.

If the member wants to come and see me again…. When he does, however, I would urge him to bring along his colleagues who are advocating for the replacement and renewal of the Royal Columbian campus and all of his colleagues who have various projects that they want to see advanced.

We've spent $7 billion — the single largest infrastructure improvement project in the history of British Columbia. So here's the difference. Not only do we get these projects done when we say we're going to do them; we do them. They come in on time, and they come in on budget.

[1440]

[ Page 11578 ]

FERRY SAFETY AND

ROLE OF CHIEF ENGINEERS

G. Coons: In 2010 B.C. Ferries was given a timeline allowing them to exclude chief engineers from the ferry workers union and placing them under a contract that would restrict them from publicly raising concerns about significant safety issues related to the fleet. As a result of those concerns for safety, nearly half of the engineers have opted out of the excluded status.

Chief engineers are in a unique position to be able to identify significant safety concerns regarding their fleet. Previously chief engineers were allowed to make important safety decisions while sailing, free of influence from the corporations. Engineers have opted out, and the shortage has already resulted in many delayed and missed sailings.

B.C. management has even resorted to watering down Transport Canada regs for certification, as well as their own regulations, to make room for the inexperienced excluded engineers. It used to be 120 working days as a first engineer to qualify as a chief engineer. Now it is none.

To the Transportation Minister responsible for B.C. Ferries: what are the Liberals doing to ensure there are enough qualified engineers on our ferries so that our ferries are sailing safely? And does the minister support the lowering of qualifications of those at the helm of our ferries?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Let me assure the member, as well as all British Columbians and the travelling public, that safety is the primary concern for B.C. Ferries and everybody — not only on this side of the House but, I would hope, on the other side of the House as well. It is never compromised by the men and women that work and do their work for B.C. Ferries.

I think what the member is referring to is an

article a couple weeks ago in the Tyee that talked about delays and so on. But let me point out something that's very important. The delays that you refer to, Member…. I'm going to encourage you to go back and do some checking. Since the senior officers were moved out of the union, there's been one 20-minute delay in 250,000 sailings, Member — not bad.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: The orders of the day this afternoon will include a motion by the Minister of Advanced Education, responded to by the Leader of the Opposition. We will stay in the House until…. We will actually charge Committee A after the debate of that motion.

In this House, following that, we will then do second reading of Bill 41, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2); followed by second reading of Bill 46, intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act; and then second reading of the Bill 43, intituled FNCIDA Implementation Act. If we get time, we would then get to Bill 45, intituled the Income Tax Amendment Act.

In

Section A, when we charge the

section shortly, we will continue the estimates of the Minister of Education.

Motions Without Notice

GOVERNMENT APOLOGY FOR

JAPANESE CANADIAN INTERNMENT

DURING WORLD WAR II

Hon. N. Yamamoto: By leave, I move:

[Be it resolved that this House apologizes for the events during the Second World War, when under the authority of the federal War Measures Act, 21,000 Japanese Canadians were incarcerated in internment camps in the interior of British Columbia and had their property seized. The House deeply regrets that these Canadians were discriminated against simply because they were of Japanese descent and believes that all Canadians regardless of their origins should be welcomed and respected.]

Leave granted.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In the Canada of today we are blessed to live in an open, inclusive and multicultural society. In 1941 this was not the case for my father, Mas, a Canadian citizen. While attending Point Grey junior secondary at the age of 14, he loved school and he loved being a cadet. But one day in December of that year Mas was called to the principal's office, along with some of his Japanese-Canadian school buddies who were cadets as well.

The principal informed them that they would have to choose between typing class and basketball as a replacement for cadet training because they were no longer permitted to participate in cadets. My dad was stunned when the principal said: "We are at war with your people, and precautions must be taken." My dad suddenly realized that the word "we" did not include him and that "your people" meant the Japanese. He thought to himself: "The Japanese aren't our people. Our people are Canadians."

[1445]

They left the principal's office numb. His mother had just sent him to school to buy war stamps to support Canada's war efforts.

A few months later he was one of more than 21,000 Canadians of Japanese descent who were uprooted from B.C.'s west coast and sent to internment camps throughout the province. Like my dad and his brothers and sisters, 14,000 of those interned were born in Canada.

[ Page 11579 ]

The Canadian federal government had issued the internment order under the provisions of the War Measures Act. This order had support from the B.C. government of the day. In fact, a delegation from the B.C. government — including the B.C. Minister of Labour, the Provincial Secretary and the provincial police commissioner — travelled to Ottawa to make the case for internment.

These delegates pledged publicly to press for the suspension of Japanese-Canadian fishing licences, the sale of Japanese-Canadian fishing vessels to non-Japanese and the internment of all male Japanese Canadians of military age. The RCMP and senior officials within Canada's military opposed these recommendations and argued that Japanese Canadians did not pose a threat to national security.

In spite of this, the B.C. delegation insisted upon the removal of all Japanese Canadians from the Pacific coast and threatened non-cooperation if the federal government did not heed their demands.

Baseless allegations of sabotage and espionage triumphed, and on March 24, 1942, my dad, his brothers and sisters and their mother — my grandmother — had just 24 hours to pack up their belongings before being relocated. My dad's father had died in 1939, leaving my grandmother with six children to raise on her own.

This is a historical injustice for which our provincial government of the time was directly responsible. The scope of this betrayal of our core values is illustrated by the experience of the Japanese Canadians. The Canadian government assured the Japanese Canadians that their homes, fishing boats and other assets would be returned upon their release. Instead, they were sold off at auction for cents on the dollar.

Unlike prisoners of war, who are protected by the Geneva Convention, Japanese Canadians had to pay for their own internment in this way. Their movements were restricted, and their mail was censored. Men were separated from their families and forced into work crews, building roads, railroads and harvesting sugar beets. Women and children and seniors were sent inland to internment camps in small towns such as Greenwood, Sandon, Rosebery, New Denver and Slocan in the Kootenays.

My dad's family was interned in Lemon Creek until the end of the war. Now, Lemon Creek is a beautiful part of the province, but the conditions in the camps at the time were very harsh.

During their internment parents lobbied for education for their children, and shacks were converted into classrooms. In New Denver, where my mother's family was detained, the United Church generously set up a high school. Many children walked miles from other internment camps to New Denver just to go to school.

The war ended in 1945, and the abuses continued. Canadians of Japanese descent were ordered to move east of the Rockies or shipped to war-torn Japan. There was a concerted effort to permanently remove all Japanese Canadians from British Columbia.

My dad's family actually managed to stay in the Okanagan. Oyama, then a small Okanagan village, became home for a while. It wasn't until 1949 when Japanese Canadians were legally permitted to return to B.C.'s west coast.

My dad was 22 in 1949, without a high school education, but the year is significant. In 1949 Canadians of Japanese descent gained their right to vote. And 60 years later, in 2009, I was honoured to become the first Canadian of Japanese descent to be elected to B.C.'s Legislative Assembly.

Now, this House has heard me tell the story of the barriers that my dad overcame to complete his high school education by correspondence. He eventually earned a PhD in pharmacology at UBC about 20 years after the end of the war. He did that working full-time and raising kids. He's in the House today at a different time in our history.

This is a story of one small family. The scope and breadth of what was done to so many Canadians by virtue of their ethnicity is difficult to contemplate through the lens of today.

In 1988 the federal government offered a formal apology and a compensation package, which included funding to create the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Although the federal government was ultimately responsible for the actions that took place, they acted on the urgings of many British Columbians.

Some of the interned citizens were decorated veterans from the First World War who had been recognized for their bravery and sacrifice for Canada just a couple of decades earlier. Not a single Japanese Canadian was ever charged with

an act of disloyalty.

[1450]

Despite these injustices, hardships and acts of discrimination, most of the interned chose not to be bitter. Instead, they rolled up their sleeves and rebuilt their lives and their communities once they were allowed to return home. The painful details of these times are generally not shared with their children until many years later because there was too much work to be done.

"We should always remember, wherever we came from," my dad says. But I hope that someday people will forget about being Indo-Canadian, German-Canadian or Japanese-Canadian. There's a time when we have to say: "Above all, we are Canadians."

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the internment, so it is fitting for us to take time to reflect on this moment in our province's history and commit to ensuring that nothing like this ever happens again. I would urge both sides of the House to support this motion, a formal apology to the Japanese-Canadian community, as a reaffirmation of our commitment to be a welcoming society free of discrimination in any form. There are people in this gallery today who deserve this. [Applause.]

A. Dix: Thank you to the minister for her powerful story, her powerful words. I think it is an important occasion

[ Page 11580 ]

and one for us to reflect on our past — which we often do with pride — with some realism.

The policies in question with respect to the internment were disconnected from reality. They were amoral and immoral, and they reflected very much on our province. It's impossible to argue that British Columbia wasn't the most responsible as a province for what occurred, when compared to other jurisdictions in Canada and neighbouring jurisdictions in the United States.

Twenty-one thousand people interned, families initially separated, people sent to barns at Hastings Park and then distributed and sent all over the province and all over the country in fact reflects, I think, a stain on our history — one that our actions, the actions in 1988 of Canada to apologize and the redress that came from that, and the extraordinary efforts and extraordinary story of so many people who fought for that redress at that time may in some ways mitigate but not remove.

I wanted to speak in support of the motion of the minister today and say, as she has noted, that these actions are not disconnected, either, from actions that took place after the war. As the minister has noted, there was significant action in British Columbia after 1945, when people were not allowed to return home — in fact, not allowed to return home, if you can believe it, until April 1, 1949.

It was the law in British Columbia that Japanese Canadians could not go near a hundred miles of the coast until 1949 — by the way, four years after the United States allowed just such a thing.

So 15,000 Japanese Canadians in British Columbia in 1945; 6,000 in 1949; 4,000 sent to Japan, most of them citizens of our country — 1,900 of those children, citizens of our country.

I think one can only appreciate with wonder what people have done subsequent to that — the grace they've shown. And it is grace.

I wanted to pay tribute from our side of the House to Dr. Yamamoto and all of the people — I had the opportunity to meet Tosh and Amy Suzuki today, who had a similar path — who were stuck for a long time on the Prairies, farming sugar beets as children 48 weeks of the year, long after the war was over.

So I think the apology is apt 70 years after the internment started. I think it allows us to reflect on our own history and what has been lost and what has been achieved over that time.

[1455]

The final thing I'd say is that it is, I think, a message to all of us that human rights are something that all of us have an obligation to defend. There were no political parties in this Legislature in 1941 that have any honour in this — none. This was a stain on this place that we are addressing today, one that I think is important to address. It's one that was a long time coming.

In 1908 — all of us know this — measures were taken to target Japanese Canadians and other Canadians under immigration laws in our country, laws that were on the books until 1967. In 1936 Japanese Canadians from British Columbia went to Ottawa to fight for the franchise, the right to vote, which they did not have.

So this is, in the context of our history, something that we need to ensure remains current, because there are always challenges. There are always people to be targeted. There are always people to blame. We have to stand firm for human rights.

So yes, we apologize. Yes, we apologize. Yes, we honour, because honour is deserved. Yes, we recognize that in the redressment here, all of us benefit. Yes, we know that there may not be a Charter of Rights and Freedoms if it wasn't for the advocacy of Japanese Canadians. Yes, we know that the War Measures Act would never have been changed had it not been for the advocacy of Japanese Canadians.

We say, "We apologize," but we also say: "Thank you for all of your contributions." [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the motion is:

"Be it resolved that this House apologizes for the events during the Second World War, when under the authority of the federal War Measures Act, 21,000 Japanese Canadians were incarcerated in internment camps in the interior of British Columbia and had their property seized. The House deeply regrets that these Canadians were discriminated against simply because they were of Japanese descent and believes that all Canadians regardless of their origins should be welcome and respected."

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is carried unanimously.

Hon. R. Coleman: In my orders of the day I mentioned that after this vote we'd be moving into the second readings in this House. So we'll start with second reading of Bill 41, then 46, then 43 and then 45. We will move into committee stage in the little House for the Ministry of Education's debates.

Mr. Speaker: Could members hurry off to their other duties so we can get started.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2012

(continued)

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to come back and continue debate on Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. As members will recall, this is a piece of legislation that affects a wide range of legislation.

[1500]

When we adjourned debate the last time we were here, I had just finished discussing one particular

section of this, which was in regard to changes to the Election Act

[ Page 11581 ]

and the gag law that in fact is being proposed here, which would put in place a 40-day restriction on third-party advertising.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As we all know and as members will recall, it had originally been planned to be 120 days, and the courts overturned that. Then it was going to be 60 days, and the courts overturned that. We now have this exercise of 40 days. Now, I'm essentially pretty close to finished with that section, but I have a couple of other things I want to speak about before I do leave that matter.

When I was making my comments last week, I had made the suggestion at that time that what should happen with this particular

section before the legislation is passed is that it should be sent to the courts for their consideration and their comment. I know there were members on the other side who, in their chatter back and forth across the House, suggested that that was not a doable thing and that we couldn't in fact do that.

I was curious as to where the accuracy with that was. We did have some conversation about that with some legal counsel, and it would be our case that cabinet may, by order-in-council under the Constitutional Question Act, refer or make a reference to the Supreme Court of B.C. for its opinion on whether these new provisions in fact meet the test that has been set by the court already.

Section 1 of the act says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may refer any matter by order-in-council to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court of B.C. for hearing and consideration, and either court must hear and consider it and give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council its opinion on the matter referred, with reasons, in the manner of a judgment in an ordinary action.

It doesn't say that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may refer all or part of

an act. It says "any matter." The argument that I would make is that in fact it would be quite appropriate for the government to refer this

section to the courts where the ruling has originally been made and allow the courts to tell us whether in fact this meets their test.

We have the ability to do that, I believe, under the Constitutional Question Act and could do this. That would make much more sense to me than going ahead and passing this legislation and then having to refer the matter post-that and potentially be coming back to go through this exercise again. With that, I'll leave this section.

I have two other sections that I want to speak briefly to, and then I will take my seat. The first is in relation to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act changes. This is a good change that I think makes sense. What this change essentially does is it provides the catering industry with a much broader capacity to be able to move beverages, liquor, if they're doing work, and to be able to set up, with certain conditions and rules, a bar at an event that they are catering and to operate within a set of rules around that.

It makes good sense, I think. When we talk about updating the legislation around liquor and licensing, this in fact is exactly the kind of thing that we should be talking about doing — sections like this. The other thing that it does, and I think quite rightly so, is it does put some limitations around the rules and the parameters of what caterers can do.

It provides approvals, prohibitions or restrictions on games and entertainment at the site where alcohol is available and being sold. It sets conditions around reporting and recordkeeping, around signage, and specifies requirements for service of food and non-alcoholic beverages as well as limiting the ability to sell or serve liquor at an event if the number of persons in attendance exceeds the approved number.

[1505]

Those are all very similar rules that we would expect at other events. I'd like to congratulate the government for making this change. I think it is a change that makes sense and a change that should go forward.

The last

section that I want to speak briefly on is this. We know that the government has also made a change under the Local Government Act, as proposed here in this legislation. The government's press release said at the time: "These amendments to the Local Government Act clarify government's authority to incorporate a mountain resort municipality whether or not there are residents in the area at the time of incorporation."

I do find it a bit much to suggest that you can legislate and incorporate a mountain resort municipality where there are no people and then essentially give the authority to create and, presumably by this, have the government be able to appoint directors, who would be able to influence a regional district's decisions as it might affect there.

Those are questions that I think are quite rightly very concerning. They raise questions about democratic process. I would suggest this is a

section that really is problematic at this time.

What we know or what we certainly anticipate is that this is a decision that has been made to try to move forward the Jumbo Glacier development. As we know, there is a lot of opposition to that in the region from people who do not feel that the Jumbo development in any way is beneficial or supportive there. This particular change to the Local Government Act potentially will make it

[ Page 11582 ]

more challenging for people who have very legitimate concerns, including local governments in the area, to be able to take action.

Hon. Speaker, there are a lot of things in this bill, and I'm sure that other members will speak to other aspects of this. To recap a little bit, on the question of the Elections Act this continues a gag order — in my view, a gag order that is not warranted. It's not warranted to be able to shut down people outside the writ period from being able to make comments. If the government truly wanted to make the kinds of changes that would remove those influences, then we would make changes around union and corporate donations to political parties — make those changes instead and limit funding.

As I had said the other day and will repeat today, and I've referenced this in my conversation around the Constitutional Questions Act, I would hope the government would take this section, refer this

section to the courts before it is adopted here and allow the courts to give the government their opinion on whether in fact this meets the test that is reflected in the decisions of the court to throw out the original legislation here.

On the other two matters, again to close, congratulations to the government on the changes around the Liquor Control and Licensing Act as it affects the catering industry. It is an industry. It makes sense, and I think it is a pretty logical decision by the government to allow caterers to in fact do that piece of business — and believe me, everybody who hires a caterer wants them to do it — and to be able to set a regulatory framework for that that will ensure it will done in a proper and responsible manner.

Then on the last point again, the Local Government Act, I find it a bit challenging to suggest that we are going to be incorporating mountain resort municipalities where there are no people. We're going to give the bears and the wildlife a vote, I suppose.

With that, I will take my place and enjoy the rest of the debate.

N. Macdonald: It's my privilege to stand and speak to Bill 41, which is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. In most sessions we have one or two of these miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. What they do, of course, is they go to existing legislation, and they make changes.

[1510]

While the language is often something that would lead one to believe that it lacks significance, very often some of the most egregious legislation that we see coming from this House goes through in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. Often the government will try to sneak something through using that.

One of the early experiences that I had…. I think it was back in 2006. We had a fairly innocuous-looking piece of legislation, but most activists that dealt with the private power diversion projects would remember the miscellaneous statutes amendment act that included the Ashlu bill.

I just think it's important for people to remember what that did. It was a purposeful removal of regional districts from making decisions on the privatization of rivers. It was because there was a decision, based on what was happening in the Ashlu river, by the regional district in that area to not allow a privatization to take place on their river.

The government put in place…. I think it was just a sentence or two in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. They tried to sneak it through. When they didn't, of course, they used their majority and pushed it through. What we've seen subsequent to that…. Despite the fact that the regional district represented people in the area and their interests, that was overridden. The Ashlu river was privatized. There was a river diverted, like I say, over local objections.

Some of the things that people said at the time proved to be correct. There were a whole number of fish that the government said didn't live there that were killed off because, of course, that river diversion was not subjected to any sort of enforcement by the government in any rigorous way. The government asserted that fish that locals knew were there weren't there. The government asserted that fish wouldn't be killed off, but they were. When they were killed off, of course, what the locals knew to be true was proven by the fish that were killed.

What we saw earlier on was when we had a piece of legislation that removed some of that private river diversion initiative…. The piece of legislation recently that dealt with the sustainability piece…. Of course, we remember that that whole private river diversion cost over a billion dollars over the past four years — something that was pointed out again and again at the time that we actually debated this bill.

That's the history of miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. That's why they're important. That's why you have to look in detail to make sure that something is not being slid through.

There are a couple of interesting pieces that we're going to go through in committee stage. There are changes to the Forest Act. There are changes to the Wildfire Act, and then a further change to the Forest Act,

section 73, that looks interesting. We will use the committee stage to get information from the minister and to try to understand exactly the implications of those changes.

There are also changes to the Election Act.

Now, I think that courts here in B.C. spend more time throwing out B.C. Liberal laws than any other jurisdiction in Canada. I think in this session alone it's not only here that we are fixing a piece of legislation that was ruled by, I think, the B.C. Court of Appeal…. It ruled that an existing piece of legislation…. The gag law that the government tried to put in place before the last election was ruled as improper and illegal.

I think, earlier on, Bill 22, which was an education bill

[ Page 11583 ]

dealing with another piece of B.C. Liberal legislation that the courts ruled was illegal. Of course, later on we have Bill 46, which also went to the courts, and the courts said it was flawed.

That is one session's work. It deals with three pieces of legislation that were thrown out by the courts, so it speaks to an ineptitude and a sloppiness — that's for sure.

The idea is that we make laws that are constitutional. That's the idea. If we can't do it, and in one session we're dealing with three laws that have been thrown out because they're unconstitutional, it speaks to ineptitude.

[1515]

Here's what speaks to arrogance, with Bill 22 and with this bill. They change a little bit, and with the same bill — pretty well exactly the same — they throw it back out there for the courts to deal with. But the courts will deal with it in years to come. Maybe they're getting them through another election, and that's with this Election Act. Maybe it's the same thing. It got them through 2009 before the courts could deal with it. Maybe before 2013, a very cynical government will attempt to do the same thing with this.

That is an area that I think many of the people who will speak to this legislation will focus on, and it's one that I'll return to if I have the time to do it. There's a

section in here, in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, that deals more particularly with the area that I represent, the area that is also represented in part by the member for Nelson-Creston. That is

section

Section 14 in Bill 41 subverts local government. It subverts local government with changes to the Local Government Act.

As with many members here, I served as a councillor in local government. I served as a mayor, and I represented a part of British Columbia that's well removed from the seat of power here in Victoria. It takes, if I'm flying, approximately eight hours to get here from home. If I was driving, it would take much more time.

People feel disconnected to begin with and feel, quite correctly, that it is often difficult at a distance from Victoria to understand what is going on in an area of the province that is so disconnected. There is an importance in rural areas, in particular, to be represented by people that we feel connected to. So councils, mayors and regional districts play a heightened role in rural areas, such as the communities in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Fundamentally, I come to this place believing that the ability of those that I represent to make good decisions on a whole host of issues, including land use, is there. I believe that they understand the land and understand the balance that needs to be found between finding employment on our public lands and looking after wildlife, looking after the health of the forest. I think that ability to make those decisions sits in our communities.

I also know that as rural British Columbians, we need to protect our rights to have our voices heard on the public lands and with our rivers and streams.

I can tell you that when the Ashlu bill was introduced, people in my area very successfully and vigorously fought to make sure that our voice was heard on those issues — and, I would say, successfully. It's not the first or the last land use issue where people in the Kootenays have fought to make sure that the local knowledge is respected, that the priorities and things that are important to us are considered when land use decisions are made.

Let's just look at

section 14 and understand what it does. It is a particularly ridiculous piece of legislation, and it would be kind of humorous if it were not so destructive. But it is destructive.

What

section 14 does is allow a minister to impose an instant municipality in an area with no local support. It's not something that people in the area get to vote for. It's not something that they have any voice in at all. It is imposed by the provincial government, whether the regional district wants it or not, whether the municipalities in the area want it or not, whether the people in the area want it or not. That's the first piece that

section 14 imposes, but it goes further than that.

In Bill 41,

section 14, it allows the minister to impose an instant municipality even if nobody lives there. It even goes further, even if there is no infrastructure that would hint at a prospective community. All of those things are simply imposed.

[1520]

Then it goes further.

Section 14 allows a minister to appoint a mayor to run this nonexistent community and to appoint a council and to have an election. But in this law it specifically says to have an election whenever, or not at all.

You have permanently put in place a structure for a municipality where nobody lives, and you appoint a mayor and a council for this place with nobody. It is set up there with no election on the horizon until the minister decides when they want to have this election. So it's all pretty ridiculous.

The defence the government will have is: "Well, we've done this for communities before." That's what they'll say. "We did it for Sparwood, and we did it for" — maybe — "Tumbler Ridge."

But the difference is that here it is specifically for a resort municipality, and the communities that they will use as examples are mining towns, where there's an ore body that is known. How long it can be mined is pretty well known, and you are setting up a community for the next 50 to 60 years. You know that there will be residents. You know that people are going to be there, so it is a completely different situation than you would have with setting up a resort municipality. It's a completely different situation. It would be ridiculous as a piece of legislation if it were not so destructive.

Now, just as we would refer to the 2006 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that dealt with the privatization

[ Page 11584 ]

of rivers…. It was often called the Ashlu bill. This could pretty well be called the Jumbo bill, because it is aimed at the proposed Jumbo Glacier resort proposal, which is essentially a real estate giveaway that has been consistently opposed over the past 20 years by residents for some very, very good reasons.

Let's just take a bit of time so that this House again is clear on exactly what the background of the Jumbo Glacier resort proposal is. It is talked about in media circles and by this government as a $900 million real estate development about 50 kilometres west of Invermere.

Now, the part that's missing is the $900 million — right? There actually is not an investor. What there is, is a proposal. So when the government talks about a $900 million proposal, it still doesn't have the $900 million investor.

I remember that on the websites the government used to have at that time, it was $450 million. They used to put it on the government website as a sign of progress, but it was all, of course, fictitious, just as the community that

section 14 proposes to create. There was no money, and there still isn't. Nevertheless, we are talking about legislation that would allow the creation of this fictional municipality, even before we have any money to actually make it happen.

Now, this is an area that is wild. It is about 55 kilometres west of Invermere, and it does have a long history. As members will say in this House, it was proposed 20 years ago. There's no question that people living at a distance thought: "Hey, that sounds like a pretty good idea."

The minister, when I ask him, will talk about Premier Harcourt suggesting it was a great idea. I do know that Premier Glen Clark thought it was a great idea. But what has been consistent is that there have always been local objections. What I can tell people is that there were objections for very good reasons, reasons best known to those that live there.

[1525]

Regardless of the political party, from a distance it is often difficult to understand what the objections are. But when you live there, it is much easier to understand, which is why you have to listen to the people that actually live in the area. And you have to listen to those that represent them.

My predecessors. Jim Doyle, who represented the NDP, stood against the project. Ms. Wendy McMahon, who represented the area, was very careful. She never said whether she was for it or against it, but she knew in her community — and she was from, I believe, Fairmont, in the area — that there was strong local objection and would have made that clear to Premier Campbell.

I just want to step back and contrast what happens if there is good, strong local support for a project. There will be strong local support if the project makes sense economically, environmentally and if it makes sense socially. The example of a project that works and that actually makes sense would be Kicking Horse.

In Kicking Horse you had the same developer, Oberto Oberti. He came to the community when I was mayor, and he had a proposal for a development, going forward. Now, what we did in our community is we looked at the proposal. We thought that there was merit to the Kicking Horse proposal. We knew that in Invermere there were problems with the Jumbo resort proposal, but we said: "We think this is a project that people will be interested in." This was back in 1996-97.

So we informed the public, mayor, council, the regional district, the MLA. At that time it was a gentleman, Duane Crandall, who was a former Social Credit MLA. We put it to the community, and regardless of the political background that we came from — whether it was a former Social Credit MLA, an NDP MLA or myself as mayor — everyone agreed that the first thing that had to happen was we had to get the assent of those that would be impacted.

So we held a referendum, and in the referendum we had a high turnout, and people voted — over 90 percent — to go forward with the project. With that and with a financial backer, the project went ahead in a couple of years. It was still a complicated process. There were still First Nations obligations to fulfil, but it went ahead, and it was successful. That's an example of what happens when a project has merit.

Secondly, you have the example of Revelstoke Mountain Resort. There again, there was public support. There was no need to go and simply impose a project on a community. They went through a public process. It was clear if you were in that community that people had, basically, support for the development of Revelstoke Mountain Resort. That was absolutely clear. With that, you had, within three years, a successful project.

Now, even with all of those things in place — strong public support, the money behind it — these projects are still exceedingly difficult to push forward. Before you give away Crown land for a proposal, you need to make sure that all the ducks are in a row. In the case of Jumbo Glacier resort, where the government intends to impose a project on an area, you have none of those things in place.

You know, for Kicking Horse Mountain Resort, it was money that came from the company that built the Confederation Bridge. For tax reasons, they had to invest their profits in Canada, and they were looking to invest in tourism projects. They had made a decision that they wanted to broaden the type of business they do. This was the Dutch company Ballast Nedam. That money was money that they were looking to invest. They had to invest it in Canada. They'd made a business decision to invest it in tourism, and so they looked to this project. Even then it was a difficult thing to push forward.

With Jumbo resort you have had 20 years, not because it has been held up by processes that others didn't have to follow. Other companies, other businesses had to go

[ Page 11585 ]

through environmental assessment. The rules were the same for everyone. What has been consistent in the Jumbo Glacier setup is that there has never been the public support.

[1530]

So not only does it not have the money behind it; it doesn't have the people in the area that are supportive. As the MLA, I know that's the case.

We have had meeting after meeting, and there are a handful of individuals that will come, and they'll say that there's a silent majority. I say: "Well, write. Just write to me, or organize a meeting, or show me in some way that there is more than this handful of people." I can almost name them for you. They are the same people that come, again and again.

I compare that to the vast majority of people in the area that are opposed to it. There is just no comparison. There was a referendum held in area F — area F includes Jumbo resort — and 73 percent of the people voted against it. So there's been a referendum.

There has been the environmental assessment process, where 90 percent of the people were against it. There have been petitions and e-mails. There is just not support. That's a fact, and that should be respected.

Instead of that, the government comes in with this bill to impose a municipality with no people where they'll appoint a mayor. They will appoint a council. They will, or maybe, in the future…. They don't have to ever have an election.

It's all pretty ridiculous, because what people in the area will know is that there are economic concerns. Those are well documented. There are environmental concerns. Those are well documented.

There are First Nations concerns, and I just want to speak for a minute about the Ktunaxa and Kathryn Teneese. They have come to the Legislature. They've come twice.

I had the opportunity recently of listening to her speak at a welcome she gave to Scott Niedermayer in Cranbrook. Scott was there speaking, and Kathryn Teneese introduced Scott. Just what she said from the Ktunaxa perspective about why it is important to show respect to the area where this real estate development is proposed — it was very moving. I don't want to even paraphrase what she said, because she was able to say it in such a clear, articulate and powerful way.

So you have all of those concerns that have always been there, and now, on top of this, you have democratic concerns. I mean, the idea that the people in the Kootenays are going to sit by and go along with what the B.C. Liberals are doing in the dying days of their regime is simply dreaming. If the B.C. Liberals think that's going to happen…. The people of our area are not just going to sit by and have this imposed on them.

We fought back on the HST successfully. We fought back on IPPs, for the most part successfully, and we are going to fight back on this successfully. This is not going to happen without the assent, the approval, of people who live in the area. I can guarantee you that. It will not happen.

It is wrong environmentally, and it's not just local groups that are saying that, like Jumbo Wild and other community groups and local regional groups. It's the B.C. Wildlife Federation. It's provincial groups. It is people who know the area well.

The fact is that

section 14 would be a joke if it weren't so destructive. Essentially, what it's doing is the B.C. Liberals are putting in place a process that is going to be used to avoid the public process on land use planning.

It's Crown land. Even private land gets zoned, but this will be set up so that even the Crown land, as it's being given away, is going to essentially be zoned by the developer.

The regional district's primary function is rural planning. That's the fact of it. That the regional district is removed from this is a farce.

[1535]

Now I know that the member for Kootenay East — he's busy writing notes — is going to be up next. He's going to talk about the regional district and how they voted to send this to the province. Well, have a vote there again, after the last election. Have a vote there at the regional district now, and see what the people say in the regional district now.

I mean, the member did wonderfully good backroom work getting members in the Elk Valley to vote to impose a resort in the Columbia Valley, but let's not be fooled for a minute that that was anything in any way democratic or a proud moment for the regional district. I would say that if the minister that's responsible for this intends to impose it, take it to the regional district again and see what they say.

You have, then, this

section 14. This fake municipality with a fake mayor and a fake council would, presumably, get a seat on the regional district and a vote and would, presumably, be able to borrow from the Municipal Finance Authority instead of having to pay for it like a proponent normally would. Everything about it, as I said, would be a joke if it weren't so destructive.

What I said this morning — and what I would say again with this — is that an election cannot come soon enough. This is a train wreck of a government that imposes one bad decision after another. In a part of this province that is special in so many ways, the government is again showing disrespect to the people of the area and showing disrespect to the people that I represent.

Now, because we've had this discussion so many times — the member for Kootenay East and myself — there's nothing that I have said and nothing that he says that will surprise either of us. We have been talking about this for a long time. I do not fully understand his interest in something that sits far away from him. Nevertheless, he

[ Page 11586 ]

seems to be willing to use a tremendous amount of his political capital to deal with the issue.

I would say, though, that when we had a debate here on the Flathead, the member for Kootenay East laid out a set of principles around the ability for people in a local region to make a decision. If those same rules were applied to this decision, that would be a good thing.

We have to, in rural areas, have the ability to control the area that surrounds us. I can say, even coming from Golden, that to think of imposing something on the community of Invermere feels wrong.

I know that when we made a decision on land use in our area, we consulted with the community. We had a referendum. It was only when it was clear that the people of Golden wanted Kicking Horse to go ahead that we proceeded.

It would not have been appropriate, in my mind, to have people from Revelstoke or even from Invermere having strong opinions on this or changing what we wanted to do. Certainly, we need to show the same respect for the people of Invermere.

There's a lot in this bill that's problematic, but for me, in my area, the most egregious part of it is

section 14. I know what lies ahead. I've been here seven years. I know that it will be imposed, but I can promise you that in the Kootenays we have been given these sorts of things before — like I say, with the HST or with IPPs — and we have been successful. On this, we will be successful again.

B. Bennett: I'm going to limit my remarks on the miscellaneous statutes bill to the portion of the bill that deals with mountain resort municipalities, which is what the previous speaker spoke about.

I am going to respond to some of the things that the previous speaker said. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is certainly correct that we have each stood in the House and spoken about this project and about the process around the project many times.

[1540]

We obviously don't see it the same way, which is fine. It's a democratic society that we live in. This is the best place, probably, for us to debate this, so I'm happy to take my place here and tell the House what my perspective is on this.

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke questioned: why am I interested in this? What am I doing standing up in the House? This is not in my riding.

I think the member knows better than that. I think the member knows that all of us have interests around the province that we're passionate about. We don't limit our interests and our passion to the boundaries of our provincial ridings. We become interested in all sorts of things in all parts of the province.

I was very interested, as a private member, in the transmission line in the northwest. That's a long ways from my riding, but I recognized what it was going to do for the province if we could get it built — in terms of good jobs and helping the people that live in the northwest.

I think that if I was going to boil it down and tell the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke why I am interested in this particular project and why I speak about it here and why I involve myself in it outside of this House, it would be on the basis of my belief that a democratically elected government has a responsibility to have a process in place that the public can rely upon.

It seems to me that it's one of the worst offences for government in general to put in place a process and invite proponents into the process and to say: "If you do this, this, this and this, it might take you a few years and it might cost you a few million dollars or more than that, but ultimately, if you provide all the information that you're supposed to and you jump through all of these hoops, you will ultimately get your permit to do what it is that you want to do." Or government says no.

In the case of this particular project, it's been in process now for going on 22 years. That's too long. That's too long for any project.

Hon. Speaker, I think there's a certain amount of — I don't want to use too strong a word — maybe talking out of both sides of their mouths on the opposition side about the people being opposed to this and: why does the B.C. Liberal government want to approve this project?

Well, the NDP government had ten years to deal with this project, and did they say no, we don't want this project? Is that what they said? No, they didn't say that. The former Premier Mike Harcourt was all over this project saying what a great project it was. He gave a speech in Davos, Switzerland, to potential investors, and said: "This is a great project. We hope you'll come over to B.C. and invest your money in this project."

When former Premier Glen Clark was Minister of Economic Development he gave a speech and talked about, you know, what a great project this was and how this could assist the Columbia Valley in terms of the creation of jobs.

The NDP had their opportunity. If they really felt the way they say they feel now, why didn't they say no? They had ten years. They didn't do that.

So the proponent carried on. He's a very self-reliant, determined individual, and he carried on, and eventually that project was granted an environmental certificate in 2004. Typically, when a project achieves an environmental certificate, it's pretty much tacit approval. Certainly if it's a mine, if it gets its environmental certificate, everyone knows that the project is going to happen. Of course, in this case, the opponents have strengthened over the years and just refused to give up.

Then, subsequent to the environmental certificate, there was a master plan developed that the province agreed to. This is a master plan that's developed in conjunction with the proponent. It's between the proponent and the professional public servants who work for the

[ Page 11587 ]

government of British Columbia.

I didn't negotiate on the master plan. The ministers didn't negotiate on the master plan. It's a document, a plan that's negotiated with the professional public servants, the proponent and all of the experts and agents that work for the proponent — like the engineers and the environmental technicians and so forth.

[1545]

Hon. Speaker, I'm having a little bit of difficulty with my voice, but I want to carry on if you can bear with me.

The hon. member for Columbia River–Revelstoke said one thing that I think summarizes a lot of the opposition to this project and, unfortunately, summarizes to some extent the approach that the opposition takes. He said that the vote of the regional district of East Kootenay board that was taken in 2009, where they said they wanted the province to deal with all land use issues, was undemocratic.

Essentially, what the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is saying is that those 15 directors who sat around that table in 2009 and voted on that resolution either didn't know what they were doing or they were dishonest or…. I'm not sure what all the options are, what all the alternatives are for this.

How could it not be democratic? Fifteen people voted, and they voted to support this resolution. Of course, the province has relied upon that resolution. The NDP didn't get what they wanted. The opponents of this project didn't get what they wanted, but that was a democratic vote. It was taken by 15 people who were duly elected in the regional district of East Kootenay, and I think it's important to say that. I think it's respectful to point that out to those people.

The member has said not just in the House but in other places — and the NDP has said corporately — that there's something weird about this legislation — the creation of a mountain resort municipality not having any people in it, like it's never happened anywhere in British Columbia in our history. That's just wrong, hon. Speaker. The town of Elkford was created in exactly the same way. They created a town where there weren't any people, and they had to appoint an initial council. They had to use legislation very, very similar to this legislation to create that initial council.

The same thing is true and the same process is true of Tumbler Ridge. Tumbler Ridge was the last town created in B.C. using this type of legislation. So this is not weird. This is not like the opposition says: "It's never been used before, and it's never happened before in B.C." Of course it's happened, and I think it's important to point out the distinction between this particular ski resort project and the other ski resort projects that the hon. member referenced in Revelstoke and Golden.

Those are brownfield development sites. There were ski resorts in those areas. There is no ski resort in the Jumbo Valley, and this is what we know, I think, colloquially as a greenfield site.

When you have a greenfield site and there's a proponent that said he or she wants to build a ski resort there and you're trying to figure out what kind of land management and administration you can come up with to guide the development of this project, of course there aren't going to be any people there, because it's a greenfield project. Just like Elkford didn't have any people before the town was created, just like Tumbler Ridge didn't have any people before that municipality was created, Jumbo Glacier resort can be created with this legislation with an appointed council.

Let me diverge for a moment on that point. I don't believe the appointed council should have a seat on the regional district of East Kootenay board until they are elected. Until there is an elected mayor and council, they shouldn't have a seat on the RDEK board. I know that's important to people in the regional districts, so I'm glad I've had this opportunity to say that and get it on the record.

The member — and I'm going to quote him — said this project "has never had public support. A handful of people support it." I think that's wrong. I really think that's wrong. I don't know how many people support it or what the percentage is — whether it's 50-50. When I first got elected, I'm quite sure the majority of people supported the project. I do think it's changed. I don't know what the percentage is.

[1550]

The poll that the member mentioned, 73 percent in a poll that was done by one of the rural electoral area directors, was a self-selecting Internet poll — 73 percent of what? I don't know how many people from that area voted, but I understand that it was a minimal number of people that actually voted.

In any case, I would flat out disagree that there aren't a large number of people in the Columbia Valley, particularly around Invermere and Radium and down to Canal Flats through Fairmont, who want this project to happen. The reason that I say that is because they've come and talked to me. And it isn't three or four people. It's a lot more than that.

When you go into Invermere, and you see some of the shops that are closing up, when you talk to the hotel owners and to the restaurant owners…. You know, I have, and I'm listening to them because, frankly, the NDP has decided that they're going to stand with the opponents to the project. That's fine. That's their political strategy.

But there are a number of people in the Columbia Valley who want this to happen. They want the jobs. They want their kids to be able to stay in the valley. That's what they say to me — the people who run the hardware stores, the people that run the tourism operations that know that they would benefit from the development of this scale of a ski resort. Even the CEO of the closest ski resort, Panorama, supports this project. Why would he, if this was going to be such a bad thing for the ski industry?

[ Page 11588 ]

I'm starting to get that…. I feel like I should be saying "jiggery-pokery" here, the way that my voice is breaking, although I know I couldn't do justice to that phrase like the hon. member from the other side.

I mean, why would the CEO of Panorama Resort support this project if it was going to be such a bad thing for the Columbia Valley and a terrible thing for the ski resort industry? Because he knows that if you bring people who are not currently coming to ski in British Columbia, they're eventually going to ski at his ski resort and golf at his golf course, Greywolf. And they're going to golf in the summer at all the other courses in the area, and eventually they're going make their way to Fernie to the ski resort and to Kimberley to the ski resort. That's the way it works. Tourists, once they come to a jurisdiction, move around.

The member used a phrase that I just had to take note of. He said, you know, before government lets Crown land out in the form of some tenure, "you need to make sure all your ducks are in a row." That's kind of funny, but it's sad at the same time, because we've had 21 years, going on 22 years, to get all of our ducks in a row. The Socreds worked on this. The NDP worked on this. The B.C. Liberals have worked on this. Three different political parties have worked on this, and the member suggests we don't yet have our ducks in a row?

Hon. Speaker, you've got an environmental certificate. I think that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke may be proposing that we just get rid of that. "To the heck with that. It's a legal document but we'll just put that aside." We've got a master plan that's been agreed to between the Crown — not individual ministers, not politicians…. It's a legal agreement that's been entered into between the Crown, the province of British Columbia and the proponent. I think that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is suggesting we should just do away with that as well.

Here's what I would extrapolate from what I've heard, in relation to this project, which I believe tells us something about the NDP: 21 years of process, an environmental certificate, a master plan, a master development plan, and still the ducks are not in a row enough, and we should just say no. Given that that seems to be the way that the NDP approach economic development and new projects struggling to come to life to create jobs for our children in rural British Columbia, I would say that anybody who believes in the future of this province and believes that we need….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Other members would wish to direct their comments through the Chair.

Continue.

[1555]

B. Bennett: I would say that if we care about the future of British Columbia, particularly rural B.C., where we do need jobs for our kids — to give them an opportunity, if they wish, to stay there — and if we care about our reputation internationally and nationally and in this province, if we care about what investors think about B.C, we will watch out for the NDP. Because 21 years…. You still don't have your ducks in a row.

"We should just get rid of all those permits and just say no to the proponent, because we want to." I don't support that, hon. Speaker, and I'm happy to have had the opportunity in my crackly voice today to have expressed myself on it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I know that some people have talked about it as a gag act. Maybe that was why the previous speaker was having a hard time getting his words out. There are provisions in this act which make it quite difficult for people to state political points of view in the run-up, in the 60 days before an election.

This is a concern for me. I remember in the last election, the 2009 election, the Liberals had similar legislation. They were trying to protect themselves from free speech. People might have something they might want to say about the government in an organized fashion, and the Liberals didn't like that, so they brought in a version of what they're bringing in here — a gag act. People said that the government didn't want to hear your voice. Be quiet, or you could face fines; you could face penalties.

I remember in my community at the time people coming up to me quite concerned. They were very concerned that if they put up a poster saying, "Come to an all-candidates debate," or if they put up an advertisement in favour of something that they cared about, which wasn't about the election, they might get fined, and they would have to go through the process of becoming an election advertiser, somebody involved in that process, even though that wasn't their intent.

As we know, that legislation was struck down by the courts, arguing around free speech and people's rights to know and rights to be able to organize politically in their own communities. So rather than going to the courts and saying, "Geez, we made a mistake," the government has produced a different piece of legislation to try and do the same thing that they were ruled out of order for by the courts to begin with.

Now, hon. Speaker, sometimes when you make a mistake you often will go to the person that has shown you the error of your ways and ask how you can fix what you've done, how you can right the wrong, so to speak. Well, the government has the opportunity with this

section of the bill that they've introduced in Bill 41 to go to the courts to say: "Are we doing the right thing? Will this pass muster with you?" Oh yes, it will or no, it won't, and then go from there.

[ Page 11589 ]

Rather than introduce the legislation in this way, ram it through in another 11 days that we've got in this House. Then have people go to the courts after the fact and try and see whether or not it is indeed constitutional. Similar to what happened last election, maybe the government is hoping that's what will happen. They'll go to the courts, and if it's struck down too late, it will be after the election, so they will be unable to actually do their work in the run-up to an election.

Now, maybe we'll find out that the government was indeed wrong. Maybe that will happen before the election. But we'll see. I just think it shows real gall that a government which got elected back in 2001 fighting what they said was a gag law is now such a fan of it. I find that interesting, that a government that was fundamentally opposed — they could never do this — is here in this House trying again.

What they could have done is they could have, if they were so concerned for democracy and ensuring that everybody had an equal stake in an election, brought in legislation that the NDP had proposed, which was to ban corporate and union donations, to say that it's just abou