2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 20, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Action on gang violence in Delta and Surrey

M. Hunt

Essay about anxiety by Hannah Trombley

D. Donaldson

Essays for playground fundraising at Burnsview Secondary School

S. Hamilton

Broadway Youth Resource Centre

J. Kwan

Accomplishments of North Shore students at gymnastics competition

J. Thornthwaite

Times Colonist Book Sale

R. Fleming

Oral Questions

Government action on gun violence in Delta and Surrey

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Anton

Freedom-of-information process and access to records

J. Rice

Hon. A. Virk

C. James

D. Routley

Consultation with Tsilhqot’in Nation on grizzly bear hunting regulations

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Thomson

Use of agricultural land for carbon offsets

L. Popham

Hon. N. Letnick

Class size and composition

R. Fleming

Hon. P. Fassbender

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, B.C. Adoption Update, April 2015

Ministry of Finance briefing document regarding the report of guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued by the province for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010

Petitions

E. Foster

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Fish and Seafood Act

G. Holman

Hon. N. Letnick

V. Huntington

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 21 — Fish and Seafood Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Fish and Seafood Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

K. Conroy

Hon. B. Bennett

A. Dix

[ Page 7375 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

P. Pimm: I have the great honour today of introducing to the House the mayor of Fort St. John, Lori Ackerman, her councillors, Gord Klassen and Bruce Christensen, and the city manager, Dianne Hunter.

As you know, the Peace country is fairly busy. Last year Fort St. John grew at about 5 percent. These folks are down trying to educate some of the ministers on what they’re looking forward to with the coming of Site C and the coming of LNG projects.

Would the House please give me a helpful hand in welcoming them to this precinct.

Would the House please welcome them.

[1335]

L. Throness: We have some special First Nations visitors who are here for meetings today.

I want to introduce Dalton Silver, who is Chief of the Sumas First Nation; and, from my own riding, Clarence Pennier, Grand Chief of the Stó:lō Nation; Doug Kelly, Grand Chief of the Stó:lō Tribal Council; and Chief Clem Seymour, who is Chief of Seabird Island First Nation.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to add my personal welcome to Grand Chief Doug Kelly, who is also chair of the First Nations Health Council, and acknowledge his tremendous leadership on that file. He’s leading the Beefy Chiefs challenge once again to encourage increased exercise and thinking about our health for all of us. We look forward to the Times Colonist 10K run next week, when a lot of us will be setting that example and, hopefully, surviving 10Ks on the streets of Victoria.

Welcome to Grand Chief Doug Kelly.

J. Horgan: Of course, you’ll recall that last week I made a statement about Women’s Sevens rugby in Langford. It was spectacular. My colleague from Kelowna across the way and I had a wonderful time in the sunshine, watching some of the best women’s rugby you’ll see anywhere.

It’s appropriate that today I acknowledge in the gallery the retirement of George Jones, QC, a great rugby player himself, a coach of some renown and also the parent of seven children, one of which has the I’m going to say good fortune of being married to the member for Vancouver-Hastings. That’s Cate Jones, the hilarious Cate Jones.

George was called to the bar the year I was born. That was some considerable time ago. He’s a great British Columbian, a great Victorian and a great sportsman. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

D. Bing: I have some visitors from my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows today: Mayor John Becker from the city of Pitt Meadows; Katzie First Nation Chief Susan Miller; and the treaty negotiator, Debbie Miller.

Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Popham: It was such a pleasure today to have lunch with George Jones and a friend of mine, Dave Ward. Dave Ward worked at the Saanich fire department for 35 years, seven of those as chief, and just retired as the chief of the Esquimalt fire department. I’ve known him for years. He built my house. It’s nice to see him in the chamber today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ACTION ON GANG VIOLENCE

IN DELTA AND SURREY

M. Hunt: This weekend a young life was ended because of gang violence. Unfortunately, this is something that happens far too frequently, and it shows that the lure of gangs to many of our youth is very strong. In the past six weeks there have been 23 shootings in Surrey and Delta. It’s a miracle that there have not been more deaths.

Most of these shootings are linked to gang violence and the drug trade. Gang violence remains a serious issue in our province, especially in parts of the Lower Mainland, including my city of Surrey.

What’s the solution? Is it tougher sentences? Is it more anti-drug and anti-gang initiatives or resources? Well, maybe these are all part of it, but often the solution starts with individuals. There are those who know who these offenders are. They or their friends and family need to come forward so other families need not grieve the loss of a child, a brother, a sister, a cousin or other loved one. Gangs do not want the public to come forward. They operate through intimidation. Let’s, instead, remove their veils, and gangs become vulnerable.

Tomorrow a meeting will take place at Tamanawis Secondary School in Surrey. I hope this meeting is packed with residents who are not afraid, who want to end the influx and influence of crimes and the violence that’s associated with them and who want to find solutions. This weekend’s tragedy is a terrible reminder that we have work to do together.

[ Page 7376 ]

ESSAY ABOUT ANXIETY

BY HANNAH TROMBLEY

D. Donaldson: “My anxiety has affected me largely at school. It has ruined relationships with my friends, and it has made me afraid to try new things, to commit, to trust.” Those are some of the words of grade 12 Hazelton Secondary student Hannah Trombley from her winning essay in the Score One for Mental Wellness contest run by our Stikine MLA offices. The theme this year for the contest, where we’ve partnered with Smithers’s Dan Hamhuis from the Canucks, was how teens address their and others’ mental health needs.

[1340]

“The turning point of my anxiety was when I finally talked to my mom and friends,” wrote Hannah. “I’d come to the conclusion and understanding I do, in fact, suffer from anxiety. I first thought having this mental illness defined me as crazy, that I have ‘lost it.’ I have learned I am not the only person who struggles with anxiety. My anxiety is a companion every day, and I have come up with coping methods for it not to control my life.”

Hannah’s coping methods include continuing to talk about her anxiety and ensuring physical activity — in her case, dance — brings balance to her life. You can read Hannah’s brilliant, heartfelt essay in full on my MLA website.

Hannah won a trip for two to Vancouver to see the Canucks beat Edmonton at the end of the season. Now they just have to take care of that other team from Alberta. She took her dad, who hadn’t been to a Canucks game in 20 years.

It was a fitting prize. Hannah’s grandfather is Ken Trombley, as in the Ken Trombley Memorial Ice Arena in Hazelton. The 44-year-old facility was closed last month due to structural issues. The community has raised almost $4 million and is looking for matching funds from the province to replace the structure, in large part because it provides the critical outlet for that physical balance Hannah describes as necessary for all those working on mental wellness.

Thanks to Dan Hamhuis and our sponsors for once again supporting this contest, and congratulations to Hannah for her courage. She deserves the final word: “Once you start loving yourself exactly for who you are and want to be, the world becomes a much more beautiful and enjoyable place to live in. Impress yourself, not others.”

ESSAYS FOR PLAYGROUND FUNDRAISING

AT BURNSVIEW SECONDARY SCHOOL

S. Hamilton: On the heels of a very serious and concerning statement by the member for Surrey-Panorama, I stand before this House to share a story about an inspirational group of grades 11 and 12 students at Burnsview Secondary School in my riding of Delta North.

With the firm belief that every child deserves the time to play regardless of the difficult experiences they may experience during the early years of their lives, this group of students started forward on their mission to raise money for a playground at a second-stage transition house in Surrey. With the help of their teachers and armed with the power of the pen, these students wrote a collective narrative of essays describing some of the personal adversity that they have faced and overcome.

These students dedicated three months to put this book together, with the plan of sharing it with the community. The essays were printed in a book entitled Enriching Times . So far, through the sales of their book they have raised $9,500 towards the construction of this playground, which is slated to begin June 12, with the help and continued generosity of donors. I’m so very proud of these students, who have proven, without a doubt, that it does not matter how old you are and that through determination and hard work you can truly make a difference in your community.

Will the House please join me in thanking the students, as well as their great teachers, who have enriched the lives of so many in our community.

BROADWAY YOUTH RESOURCE CENTRE

J. Kwan: Supporting youth at risk requires a vision and a plan. It means concrete action and a community that is equipped with the resources to meet a need. It means finding ways to give young people the support they need to do more than just survive but to thrive, and to have the chance that every young person deserves to meet their full individual potential. That’s why Broadway Youth Resource Centre in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is so important. As an integrated resource centre, it gives voice to young people and nurtures their strength.

I was at the official opening of the Broadway Youth Resource Centre in 1999. I was proud to be part of a government that recognized why practical resources for young people at risk are such an important priority for our community.

The Broadway Youth Resource Centre provides a wide range of social, health, education, employment and life skills services to homeless and at-risk youth between ages 12 and 24. It works to address the social and economic determinants of health, it supports young people in care as they transition to adulthood, and it acts as a safe place for young people to be themselves.

Now the expanded Broadway Youth Resource Centre has reopened in the new Kwayatsut Building, which will also provide a home for 30 young people. Kwayatsut is from the Coast Salish language. The word means to seek one’s power, and the building was named by Squamish Chief Ian Campbell.

Many thanks to the continued work and the involvement of the Pacific Community Resources Society and its partners in the Broadway Youth Resource Centre — LOVE: Leave Out Violence every time; the Urban Native

[ Page 7377 ]

Youth Association; as well as the Vancouver Native Housing Society; and the Streetohome Foundation — for their roles in creating the youth housing at this new site. I also want to thank the centre’s youth volunteers and youth advisory committee, whose involvement is key in giving voice to the experiences of young people.

[1345]

If we as elected officials commit to hearing the young people who know what they need and make the commitment to meeting those needs, then wouldn’t that truly be supporting young people in seeking their power and achieving their full potential?

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF NORTH SHORE

STUDENTS AT GYMNASTICS COMPETITION

J. Thornthwaite: It’s with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to talk about the great success North Shore athletes had at a recent provincewide competition. Last month two North Shore high schools took the podium’s top spots at the 2015 B.C. secondary school gymnastics championships, where more than 250 athletes from 50 schools across B.C. competed in five different skill levels.

North Shore athletes dominated many events, including vault, pommel and parallel bars. Windsor Secondary came out on top, winning the overall team title, while Argyle Secondary finished second. Windsor Secondary’s Claire Bent finished third in the level 5 all-around and came in second on the vault and parallel bars.

Argyle’s Michael Sibley, who recently competed with Team B.C. at the Canada Winter Games, won the level 5 all-around title and finished first in five out of six events. I was able to meet Michael at this month’s Artistic Gymnastics Championships at Capilano University, where he and the rest of Team B.C. were honoured for their nine-medal finish at the Winter Games in Prince George.

Also finishing on the podium were Greg Burns, Jacob Piccolo, Sabrina Perera, Olivia Terretta and Braden Massullo of Windsor Secondary; Douglas Forrest, Michael Mitruk, Micah Barrass, Mieka Halliday-Gunn, Marco Misceo, Jacqueline Hollstedt and Tea Ham of Sutherland Secondary; Matthew Dander of Seacove; and Lelia Kostiuk of Argyle.

Sport has the power to bring communities together, and it’s one of the many aspects that make the North Shore such a great place to live. We are known for our commitment to health and fitness and our dedication to athletic development.

On behalf of the community, I want to congratulate all of our winners and wish them well as they continue to refine their skills and work towards representing the province and the country in future events.

TIMES COLONIST BOOK SALE

R. Fleming: This past weekend hundreds of people dropped by the Victoria Curling Club with bags, wagons or trunks full of used books to donate to the 18th annual Times Colonist Book Sale. Over the next few weeks a great group of dedicated volunteers will sort through this bibliophile’s cornucopia and arrange them into categories like fiction, political biography and fiction, history, gardening, travel, culinary, mystery, biography, children, and the like.

The Times Colonist Book Sale began in 1998 to raise funds for family literacy programs on Vancouver Island. Since that time it has raised over $2 million to support organizations like READ Society, Literacy Victoria and the Pacific Centre Family Services organization.

Early literacy is crucial to lifelong success, yet studies by the TD Bank, among others, show that up to 35 percent of British Columbians do not have the literacy skills they need to thrive. Organizations in my community such as Literacy Victoria and the READ Society help individuals improve essential skills like reading and writing, giving them the confidence and tools needed to succeed.

This year the Times Colonist Book Sale is scheduled to take place on May 2 and May 3 at the Victoria Curling Club, again. I want to thank all of the volunteers and sponsors who make this momentous event a great success every year. The proceeds raised provide invaluable support to literacy initiatives on Vancouver Island.

I encourage everyone to stop by the book sale. With over 250,000 titles donated this year, there is surely something there for every reader.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GUN VIOLENCE

IN DELTA AND SURREY

J. Horgan: This past weekend I was in Surrey to celebrate Vaisakhi with hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians. To participate in a day of joy, optimism and harmony was a truly a real privilege to be part of. Yet 12 hours after that wonderful celebration, the 23rd gun violence incident took place in Surrey, Delta and a life was lost. A community is beyond concerned, and a family, of course, is devastated. Twenty-three gun violence incidents in less than six weeks.

[1350]

My question to the Attorney General is very straightforward and in the interest of non-partisanship. Could the Minister of Justice advise this House and the people of Surrey what steps she plans to take to ensure that we can stem this violence and get back on to the track that Vaisakhi represents of harmony, peace and joy for all?

Hon. S. Anton: The events in Surrey and Delta have been a terrible concern to the community and have now resulted in a tragedy, a death. These events are obviously of great concern to me, as minister responsible for public safety. They are a concern to the RCMP, and they are

[ Page 7378 ]

an extreme concern to the communities of Surrey and Delta — the mayors, the councils and the people who live in those communities and who are affected by these kinds of incidents.

These are extremely dangerous incidents. Shootings are dangerous. They’re dangerous for everybody involved, and they’re dangerous for bystanders. There are very significant resources which have been deployed. The RCMP is fully engaged, along with the Delta police department, Surrey RCMP. The CFSEU — the anti-gang unit — is very significantly engaged, as is IHIT, the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team.

There is a missing piece, though. That is a piece that has been referred to by both the police and by the mayors in their speaking to the community. That is that the families, the loved ones, need to be involved as well. Every one of these gang members, every one of these people involved in these incidents, is surrounded by family and friends who love them. They, too, can help. They can help by coming forward with information. They can phone 911. They can phone the tip line. They can contact the police. They can do it anonymously.

The police are devoting extremely significant resources, and the community as well can help. I, along with the mayors, along with the RCMP, encourage them to come forward. This is a tragedy. The young man who died was surrounded by a loving family, and it is a tragedy for them, and it’s a tragedy for their community.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that response. Tomorrow night the Surrey RCMP, the city of Surrey, the Surrey school district as well as the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit are holding a community forum. That’s going to be an opportunity for those agencies to give the public a sense of what steps they’ll be taking in the days and weeks ahead to stem the violence.

It’s also, in my view, an opportunity to demonstrate leadership from the provincial level and to demonstrate leadership for of all of us in this place. I plan to attend the meeting with my colleagues from Surrey. I know that members from Surrey on both sides of the House feel very, very concerned about the turn of events we’ve seen over the past number of weeks.

I pose the question to the Minister of Justice: will she join me — standing together, lockstep — demonstrating to the community that the province of British Columbia stands with them to thwart this violence from increasing? Will the minister agree to do that?

Hon. S. Anton: I have been in very close contact with the mayor of Surrey — in fact, with the previous mayor, because there have been concerns leading up to this. I’ve spoken in-depth to the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, and there’s no question that there is very grave concern.

I know that there’s a meeting tomorrow night, and I will make sure that we have people there to attend the meeting. But again I would encourage those families around these young men to step forward, to phone 911. There is a new tip line, which is at 604-915-6566, and there’s a very good website called endganglife.ca that families can turn to. Gang members can turn to that website. There are resources there for people who want their family members out of gangs. There are resources there for people who are in gangs and recognize that they need to get out.

As I said a moment ago, there are very, very significant resources being devoted to this. It seems like a situation which looks like it may be escalating, and it needs to de-escalate. The community needs to feel safe. I think it’s a joint effort, as I said, by everyone involved, and as I said, there are very significant resources involved. I know that we all are determined to bring an end to this.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION PROCESS

AND ACCESS TO RECORDS

Does the minister stand by this statement?

[1355]

Hon. A. Virk: British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is widely recognized across Canada as having the broadest of coverage. It’s very clear from the act what information can be released. It’s also very clear in the act what information cannot be released. There are some 10,000 requests under that legislation, and they’re handled by trusted public servants whose decisions and actions are indeed guided by the act. They will endeavour to provide the information to the public that’s permitted within the act.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: On February 24 we asked the Minister of Citizens’ Services about the apparent disappearance of records, minutes and notes from government meetings about Highway 16. First ministry staff had told the opposition they had meeting notes but they needed time to have them transcribed. But then in official correspondence the ministry claimed that there were no records, that those notes never existed.

Can the minister explain why government would claim that important government records do not exist?

Hon. A. Virk: First of all, as I said, government responded to approximately 10,000 requests in the last fis-

[ Page 7379 ]

cal year. The privacy act is very clear in the manner in which a request is received, in the manner the requested information goes out.

Trusted public servants indeed work with the individual that requests information to help them define their request. As they define the request, they ensure the information they put out is as defined by the request, is as succinct as possible. They’re going to continue to try to be as succinct as possible, depending on the request that’s received.

C. James: This government is no longer simply skirting FOI rules or failing to hand over the occasional document. It’s now adopted a widespread practice of claiming that important government records don’t even exist. Last fall we requested copies of any briefing notes — very succinctly we asked this, as the minister said — prepared for the Minister of Finance which outlined the guarantees and indemnities authorized by the province for the past three fiscal years. Last December the ministry sent us an official response saying no such documents exist.

Could the Minister of Citizens’ Services, the minister who is responsible for freedom of information, explain why government would say these records didn’t exist?

Hon. A. Virk: As I said, some 10,000 requests of continuing complexity. Many of those requests result in documents in the thousands of pages long that have to be appropriately redacted based upon the different provisions of the act. I can’t speak of a particular request or a particular one request, whether it’s a year ago or two years ago. The public servants that we have in British Columbia are very well trained. They apply the act. They decide which information is released, not politicians.

If I may, you’ve certainly a new-found respect for requests for information. If I recall, there was an individual who had the gall to suggest: “If I had won the battle in cabinet, we wouldn’t have freedom of information.” Perhaps I’ll leave a little bit of suspense as to who would have said that and had the gall to suggest that we shouldn’t have freedom of information. Perhaps it came from somebody from this side.

C. James: I know we’ve used a lot of words to describe responses in question period, but I have no idea what the minister just said — not any idea.

[1400]

On August 20, 2010, two executive directors in the Ministry of Finance prepared a briefing note that outlined, just as we’d previously asked, the guarantees and indemnities authorized by the province that year. We have the document, and I will table a copy of that report at the end of question period.

This is not a transitory document. It’s not a casual e-mail or a text. It’s a very important government record that explains the extent of the government’s financial exposure to legal claims to the Minister of Finance. For the sake of accuracy, as the minister raised earlier, we FOI’d this exact document. In fact, we FOI’d the exact title of this exact document.

Could the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain why the government claimed that this document did not exist?

Hon. A. Virk: Let me finish a theme here. First of all, if the member opposite suggests that there’s political interference in what is released, what’s not released…. Public servants apply the act. They apply the act judiciously. They apply the act in time, and they release what they can release. Let me finish a theme. The quote was: “If I had won the battle in cabinet, I wouldn’t have freedom of information.”

There are a number of present leaders and future leaders and top five and bottom five sitting in the front row here, but the speaker of these words was none other than the former mentor and the former leader of that party — the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

D. Routley: There is a pattern here. Government is now routinely returning “no records” responses to FOI requests in an effort to avoid public scrutiny. To prove our point, we filed an FOI for all documents, all e-mails sent by the Minister of Citizens’ Services top political adviser, Nick Facey, during a 12-day period last June. We received a “no records” response.

During the period that the Minister of Citizens’ Services was embroiled in the Mingay review of Kwantlen Polytechnic, his chief of staff didn’t send a single e-mail to anybody. Can the minister explain why his chief of staff sent no e-mails during this rather important period in the minister’s recent history?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the member is clearly trying to make the top five. Perhaps he’s going to be moving up the ladder.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members will come to order.

Hon. A. Virk: The ability to send FOIs and send them widely across government is an increasing phenomenon. Blanketing all of government and asking requests from a variety of different governments is an increasing phenomenon. Applicants now can file cross-government searches, regardless of the fact that there may or may not be slim chances.

If the records exist, the trusted public servants that administer FOI will ensure that — with the appropriate safeguards that are built into FOI — they will continue to provide information that’s available.

[ Page 7380 ]

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: Unfortunately, the claim that Mr. Facey sent no e-mails during that period is simply not true. We filed a similar request for e-mails received by the minister during the same time frame — and surprise, surprise. The minister received 41 pages of e-mails from Mr. Facey.

Can the minister tell the House whether it was his chief of staff that made false claims about his e-mail records, or is he going to blame ministry staff for claiming the records did not exist?

[1405]

Hon. A. Virk: The FOI staff, as I said, are trusted public servants. They receive requests. They seek information from a variety of different ministries. They respond to those requests based upon the information. If the information is available, they respond.

They apply the act, and they apply the act on its various different statutes. They apply the privacy side of the act, and public servants release the information that they have. They have released it. They will continue to release it and they will continue to apply — as public servants, not politicians…. Public servants will continue to apply and enforce the act.

Madame Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a further supplemental.

D. Routley: The government likes to claim that e-mail records are transitory and unimportant. They just can’t do that in this case. In fact, most of the 41 pages of e-mails that the minister received from Mr. Facey were redacted under claims that they contained cabinet confidences and policy advice.

First, Mr. Facey claimed that he had sent no e-mails. Then we discovered that Mr. Facey sent 41 pages of e-mails to the minister but destroyed them. Then, when the minister’s office was caught out, they claimed that the records were advice to cabinet — which, if true, means that Mr. Facey destroyed records of policy advice he gave to the minister and cabinet. That is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

If the minister’s own office can’t abide by the act, how can he uphold B.C.’s freedom-of-information laws across the entire government?

Hon. A. Virk: I’d be very willing to provide a copy of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the member opposite.

Part 4 and…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. A. Virk: …part 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are very clear, and they lay out the powers of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. They lay out the recourse and reviews by the commissioner. The member certainly knows that, if he would read the act. There are remedies available if they believe that the FOI Act has not been appropriately administered.

CONSULTATION WITH

TSILHQOT’IN NATION ON GRIZZLY

BEAR HUNTING REGULATIONS

S. Fraser: The Tsilhqot’in spent more than two decades in the courts in order to get a historic judgment that recognized aboriginal title over a significant portion of their traditional territory. I want to remind this House that the Supreme Court said: “The nature of aboriginal title is that it confers on the group that holds it the exclusive right to decide how the land is used and the right to benefit from those uses.”

Now we find that the B.C. Liberals blindsided the Tsilhqot’in by increasing the number, significantly, of grizzly bear hunting licences in the area that includes their title lands without consent and without indiscriminate science being done.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Is this how the B.C. Liberal government shows they are committed to reconciliation with First Nations — by ignoring their hard-fought rights?

Hon. S. Thomson: The decision to reopen grizzly bear hunts in the Cariboo and the Kootenays last year is based on the best available science. That’s what informs the regulations around the grizzly bear management and the grizzly bear hunting regulations. All wildlife harvested in B.C. follows those principles.

Consultation with First Nations on wildlife management issues is conducted. It was conducted on the proposed regulations in 2014 for the Cariboo, including the grizzly bear hunt. So consultation does take place.

On the title lands that are in reference, as the member opposite knows now, hunting is not taking place on those lands by resident hunters. It’s part of the respect of the title land. They have provided provisions, on a conditional basis, for guide-outfitter licences to continue in the current year while the longer-term arrangements with the Tsilhqot’in are worked through in terms of the ongoing management of wildlife in the title lands.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: It’s curious, because the minister’s own wildlife biologist, Pat Dielman — 2013 December — said: “The problem is no one ever updates anything in this min-

[ Page 7381 ]

istry. We draw an arbitrary line based on our best guess, and it remains fixed for 30 years.” That’s the best science this minister has?

Chief Joe Alphonse, tribal chair of the Tl’etinqox-t’in national government, said: “I don’t care if the hunt is on or off title lands or east or west of the Chilko River. The Supreme Court victory proved that the government has a duty to consult with us.” Xeni Gwet’in Chief Roger William says: “There has been no proper consultation.”

Just weeks ago the Premier blindsided treaty nations and their federal partners by musing about blowing up the treaty process. Now they are trampling over the Tl’etinqox-t’in’s hard-won aboriginal title and rights. How is this getting us any closer to reconciliation with aboriginal people and First Nations in this province?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the supplemental question. As I stated, consultation did take place on the amendments to the grizzly bear hunting regulations in that area. Consultation with First Nations did take place. The decisions were made on the best available science in terms of conservation first, and on First Nations principles and First Nations needs around culture and food for wildlife in the area.

As I said, the title areas are closed to hunting for resident hunters. They have provided conditional licencing or conditional agreement for guide-outfitters to continue hunts in that area.

We continue to consult on a going-forward basis with the Tl’etinqox-t’in around wildlife management in their title lands and their traditional areas. That work continues as part of the ongoing engagement with the Tl’etinqox-t’in following the Supreme Court decision.

USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

FOR CARBON OFFSETS

L. Popham: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week he told the media that he had asked the Agricultural Land Commission and his ministry to find out how much of the province’s prime food-producing lands have been acquired for conversion as carbon sinks. The minister has had time to talk to his staff. Can he tell us how much farmland is being used this way?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We canvassed this in estimates, but I’m happy to express the same answer here in the House.

There are approximately 2,000 hectares of B.C. agricultural land that’ve been used for carbon credits. About 1,500 of those are in ALR land. The other 500 are not. Given the information that I’ve received over the last few months by MLAs locally in the area that that might actually be a higher number, I’ve asked staff to go back and reverify those numbers. I look forward to hearing from staff on that matter.

Madame Speaker: The member for Saanich South on a supplemental.

L. Popham: Last week the ALC’s chief tribunal officer told the media that he had no idea whether companies seeking carbon credits would have to apply to the ALC for a covenant before gaining access to those carbon credits. It appears that the ALC is wrestling with a new issue.

My question is to the minister — whether he supports the practice of converting food-producing lands in the ALR into forests for carbon offset schemes.

Hon. N. Letnick: The ALC is not wrestling with a new issue. In November of 2011 this government provided a change to the Agricultural Land Commission Act which said that, basically, if you’re going to put a covenant on a piece of land, you must go in front of the ALC to get permission to use that covenant.

If you are going to go for carbon credits, you need to have a covenant if you’re going to tie up the land for 100 years. Therefore, any piece of land that would have a covenant to that extent would have to go in front of the Agricultural Land Commission.

[1415]

What is new here is the NDP policy statement that the critic made — I imagine on behalf of all of the members on the other side of the House, including the small-c conservative co-chair of the agricultural committee on their side of the House — which is that we should restrict foreign ownership of land in British Columbia.

Brand-new for this side of the House to hear that policy statement, but I look forward to hearing more on that idea as she introduces her private member’s bill that she said she would in the Globe and Mail .

CLASS SIZE AND COMPOSITION

R. Fleming: A ministry report released on Friday shows the Premier has broken her promise to improve class size and composition in B.C. classrooms. The results show class composition is the same now as it was in 2014, which was the worst year on record in our province.

Before the longest shutdown of schools in B.C. history, this government continues to download tens of millions of dollars in unfunded cost pressures to school boards, resulting in cuts and teacher layoffs. This is even before the government imposes a $54 million cutback for so-called administrative savings.

Will the Minister of Education acknowledge his ministry’s own findings that show his government has failed to deliver on the Premier’s promise to parents and kids to make class composition the number one priority of this government?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I appreciate the question. The reality here is that this government is indeed living

[ Page 7382 ]

up to its commitments.

We also acknowledge that teachers work very hard in very complex situations in classrooms, and we realize the contribution that they make to every special needs child in this province. But the facts speak for themselves. The six-year completion rate for students with special needs in this province has increased by 86.2 percent. That is 62.2 percent higher than it was in 2001.

In addition, to live up to our commitments, school districts already receive supplementary funding, ranging anywhere from $9,500 to $37,700 in the 2015-2016 budget year, to provide the supports in classrooms that are necessary.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: This government and the Premier will say anything when the cameras are rolling, and they never, ever do the follow-up.

In April 2013 the Premier looked the camera in the face and told kids and parents that her number one priority was fixing seismic schools in danger of failure during an earthquake, and then she did something else. She said it’s going to take ten more years to do the work than the promise she made.

In December this minister signed an MOU promising to respect, consult and work with school boards, and what we got in this legislative session was a bill giving him new powers to fire school boards at his whim. When this government promised the teachers’ settlement would be fully funded, instead what we got was a budget that gives with one hand and takes with the other.

To the minister, will he live up just for once to his word so the learning conditions of B.C. students can finally improve?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, again, the member opposite needs a little bit of an education in facts.

[1420]

Let me say this. The historic five-year collective agreement that this government negotiated with the BCTF commits an additional $125 million over the next five years for the learning improvement fund. Let me give the member some facts again. That will hire 300 new full-time teachers in classrooms to deal with class composition, and it will hire almost 350 new support staff because the Premier and this government are committed to living up to the commitment to deal with class composition in the interests of every single student in our province.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Representative for Children and Youth: B.C. Adoption Update, April 2015 , a follow-up to Finding Forever Families: A Review of the Provincial Adoption System .

C. James: I seek leave to table a document.

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

C. James: I table the Ministry of Finance briefing document, as I referred to in question period — April 1, 2010.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I assumed that was a petition. It was a document, so we do need to ask leave.

Leave granted.

Petitions

E. Foster: I have a petition to present on behalf of 332 residents, respectfully requesting the provincial government repeal the changes to the wildlife harvest and allocation policy announced December 10, ’14 by the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and limit the non-resident hunters and Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. members to the wildlife allocation specified in the 2007 wildlife policy.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 21, Fish and Seafood Act, to be followed thereafter by committee stage debate on Bill 19.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:24 p.m.

M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are a significant number of students and teachers from Archbishop Carney School in my riding. They are here to observe the proceedings in our chamber and tour the Legislature. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

[ Page 7383 ]

Debate Continued

The Chair: Now that we’ve completed the introduction, perhaps we’ll recess for a moment because I don’t believe we’re actually ready to proceed.

The committee recessed from 2:25 p.m. to 2:26 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Holman: I wanted to thank the minister and his staff for the briefing that he gave us a few days ago. Some of these questions will be repetitive, and I do expect some of my colleagues to weigh in on certain sections.

With respect to

section 2, can you just explain a little more clearly the matters of jurisdiction here? Does this act — or how does it — apply to matters of federal jurisdiction? And also how does it apply to First Nations activities? A brief explanation of that would be quite helpful.

Hon. N. Letnick: If I may, first I’d like to introduce the staff that are with me, deputy minister Derek Sturko, Mr. Gavin Last and Ms. Linda Bates. And again, thank you to the member opposite for participating in the technical briefing and to all the members who did.

Because of the importance of this question, I’m going to read a longer answer than just paraphrasing, if that’s okay, just to make sure it gets into the record. On the first question, as to roles and responsibilities of governments regarding the fisheries, fish and seafood. Canada and B.C. share responsibilities related to fish and fisheries in B.C.

The federal government has exclusive responsibility for the management of fisheries. Canada regulates commercial harvesting of fish and the licensing of aquaculture operations. Harvesting of aquatic plants is an exception. It is a provincial responsibility because the species of commercial interest are almost always within provincial waters and attached to the solum or surface soil of provincial lands under the water.

B.C. is responsible for fish and seafood when it is a commodity. When the fish becomes a food product, however, subject to various processing activities that may lead to being distributed to the public for consumption, it becomes provincial responsibility.

Within the province, the legislation deals with processing of fish and seafood commodity — the one that’s in front of us now. Most fish and seafood travels along the food processing chain until it reaches a food premise and is offered for sale to the public. At that point it becomes the responsibility of the Minister of Health to ensure the safety of that seafood product. Interprovincial and international commerce of seafood is a federal responsibility.

On the First Nations question, management of the fisheries is exclusively, as I said, the responsibility of the federal government. Enforcing federal laws that regulate fisheries, including First Nations fisheries, is also a responsibility of the federal government. Regulating the harvest of wild aquatic plants is a provincial responsibility. It would be licensed under this act.

[1430]

We are engaged in discussions with other government ministries regarding licensing of First Nations and the impact of recent court decisions. The discussion will continue through the development of future regs setting out the new licensing system, and First Nations, of course, will be engaged during those discussions.

If First Nations are conducting an activity that is prescribed in a regulation and requires a licence, such as processing of fish or seafood to be offered to the public for human consumption, then this legislation will apply to them as well. Treaty First Nations laws are subject to provincial law where public health and safety are concerned. It is our understanding that the new act would apply equally to treaty First Nations as all others in that respect. We sent letters to all treaty First Nations engaged in further discussion with those who requested it.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Holman: On this

section there is a question regarding whether the province has any responsibility as an entity that licenses, for example, fish farms, or as an entity that regulates sewage treatment, municipal or otherwise. Does the province have any responsibility under this

section to ensure that fisheries, fish products, are not being contaminated?

Hon. N. Letnick: I believe I got two questions from that. One is: who’s responsible for sewage treatment coming from fish farms? I need a little more clarity to identify exactly what the concern is so I can point the member in the right direction — federal versus provincial versus municipal.

The other question was about fish products not being contaminated. Yes, this

section — as well, of course, the overlying purpose of the bill — was to make sure that people have safe fish products to consume. There is a general duty applied to everyone involved. The province is involved both in terms of the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Ministry of Health. At some point we hand off the responsibility to the Ministry of Health, and then, of course, all of those who are involved in the industry have a duty, a responsibility, to make sure that the food is safe.

If you wouldn’t mind clarifying the question on fish farms, I’d be happy to canvass that.

[ Page 7384 ]

G. Holman: Well, fish farms do deposit deleterious substances into the ocean environment, which may affect a species that is subsequently harvested and sold for public consumption. The province is responsible for tenuring fish farms, where they are located.

[1435]

In terms of the sewage treatment, there are a number of intertidal species, aquatic plants and aquatic animals that are affected by possible contamination from on-land sewage treatment. Again, the province establishes rules for those.

Really, what it comes down to is that the harvesting, growing, processing, the purveyors of fisheries products…. They have to take responsibility for safe food. The province, which is responsible for some activities that may affect that food safety, I take it, is off the hook, certainly in terms of this legislation.

It’s really up to the licensed activity, the person actually harvesting, growing and selling fish. They’re the ones that are responsible, regardless of the fact that the province may be establishing rules that result in the contamination of fisheries products in the first place.

Hon. N. Letnick: Fish farms. If the member is talking about food that is not consumed by the fish and falls below the farms, there is a small amount that still does that. Or if they’re talking about what fish do in the water and following down below them as well, that would be covered by the federal government, not by the provincial government.

On-land farms. The member has brought up the issue of sewage treatment. Sewage is actually human waste. Technically, it’s a human waste. It’s not considered a fish waste. Perhaps the member meant to say “effluents.” The effluent from fish farms on land would be subject to provincial regulation under the Environment Management Act, and that would come under the Ministry of Environment.

G. Holman: I’m clumsy in posing these questions, but what I’m trying to get at is that there are provincially regulated activities that do result in the contamination of aquatic plants, animals and fisheries.

[1440]

Perhaps this is not the piece of legislation where those responsibilities are determined or outlined, but that’s what I’m trying to get at. There are activities that the province regulates very clearly, very explicitly, that do result in contamination. Yet it seems like it’s up to the licensees. As defined under this legislation, it’s going to be their problem. They have to deal with that problem, and that’s a point that perhaps I don’t need to beat to death.

section 3(2) there is a reference in terms of “products that may be consumed by humans, the person must ensure that all applicable prescribed standards are met and all applicable prescribed measures are taken to ensure the safety and quality of the fish.” Does that just refer to standards that would presumably be laid out in more detail under this act? Does it refer to standards — this is what I was getting at with the earlier question — under a federal jurisdiction as well, or simply standards that would be defined under regulations in this act?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. The answer this time will be a little shorter than my previous answers. By all means, this is not something that most members of this Legislature deal with on a day-to-day basis, so let’s move through these questions in any way you want, as long as we’re able to accommodate your needs.

All “applicable prescribed standards” are those standards that would be through our regulation, a companion to this act.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could provide us with examples or an understanding of what the phrase “or exempted from being licensed” would refer to. When does he think and where does he think that exemption might be exercised?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for Delta South for also participating in the briefing and coming today with some very good questions.

Some examples: food premises regulated by the Public Health Act — grocery stores, restaurants. Those types of premises are good examples for you.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

V. Huntington: I’d like to go back to the issue of illegal food fishery sales. Does the province retain any authority if it is a non-native that’s transporting, distributing, selling illegally caught fish?

[1445]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. As you can tell from the time that we took, there are federal implications and provincial implications, and I wanted to make sure that we got that clear for you.

A person may not possess fish or aquatic plants that they know or have reason to believe were “possessed, reared, grown, harvested, processed, stored, transported or distributed” in contravention of the act. The intent is to limit the possession, distribution and sale of fish that is the subject of an unlawful activity so that no one can profit from wrongdoing.

[ Page 7385 ]

I think the key here is the profit piece. And when you say “non–native,” I assume you mean non–First Nations, because you can be from Germany — right? — that kind of thing. Okay, so non–First Nations. If you are going to use the fish for your own consumption, the legality of that matter would be federal.

If you, however, are going to be trying to profit from the use of that fish, then clearly that issue comes under our act, and we would make sure that there’s a duty of care.

V. Huntington: Could I just briefly comment that I think this is going to be a complicated little piece of enforcement to administer.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

G. Holman: There’s this reference to “restricted fish or aquatic plants,” and there are references to prohibitions or restricted “under an enactment of Canada or an international agreement.” Will this list of restricted species be published in the regulations?

[1450]

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes.

A. Weaver: Could the minister please expand on what basis this list will be determined?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to, I believe, the member opposite for the question. I’m not too sure. We’re going to have to get an explanation of that in a minute, I’m sure.

The restricted fish and aquatic plants are those that, under two categories, (

a) are subject to national or international prohibitions or restrictions on harvesting and (

b) may be subject to harvesting practices that are inhumane or unsustainable.

A. Weaver: That was an opening for me. I recognize it’s very hard to take me seriously when I look like Beak Man here. There’s always a teachable moment in everything that we do in our lives, and the teachable moment that I have here is that one should not text and walk. We hear a lot about texting and driving and the dangers of texting and driving, but let me tell you, hon. Chair, also texting and walking can be very dangerous, particularly if you’re jogging downstairs quickly while texting and not looking where you’re going.

With that, if I could continue on this. Does this mean that if an organization called the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, through their red list, were to deem a particular species to be protected and subject to international restrictions, this law would then apply in the province of British Columbia to those on the IUCN red list?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thanks to the member opposite for the question and the teachable moment.

I’ve always thought, because I am one of those who is guilty of texting and reading messages while I’m walking, that someone should create an app so that while you are doing your thing, you can actually have a proximity indicator. If you are about to bump into something, it would flash at you to look up — or if not, at least maybe a little part of the screen with a camera in the front so that you can see before you bump into that pane of glass or whatever else it is that caused that unfortunate accident on your face.

I wish you the speediest of recoveries, hon. Member. I honestly do. That must have hurt.

Back to the question. The answer is: if the prohibition is part of an international agreement which Canada is a party of, then yes, it could be.

The Chair: Member, perhaps we should keep the discussion and discourse to Bill 21. It would probably be in the best interest of all members.

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I will do that, but let me please point out that in British Columbia we have an incredible health care system too. I had a very luxurious time in the Royal Jubilee Hospital here on Friday last week, and I do compliment the staff there. On that note….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I had a nurse-to-patient ratio of four nurses to one patient, too, and that was pretty impressive.

Anyway, back to the question. That is actually quite exciting. What’s interesting there is….

[1455]

You will recall that during the session last time, I raised a number of questions with respect to banning the sale, trade and distribution of a variety of shark fin products. In fact, there are a number of sharks that are actually protected on the red list of the IUCN, to which Canada is a party.

My question, then, following this up would be: to what extent will these laws be enforced, and what penalties will be put in place? And how is the province going to enforce this legislation?

For example, if some people were to go in and purchase a product and have it genetically analyzed, and that product was then determined to contain hammerhead sharks, for example, which we know are on the IUCN red list, would the province then step in and ban the sale, trade and distribution of this? How would this be enforced?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, including his support for our health care system.

First of all, as I said before, this would be subject to Canada and the other parties being part of an international agreement. That’s one. Then we could have this

[ Page 7386 ]

provision take effect. There would have to be genetic testing to make sure that the species is on the list. That would usually happen, I’m informed, at the point of purchase. It could be restaurants or at a fish store or something like that. The Ministry of Health would be involved.

If there’s an issue, an offence, then the maximum penalties are dealt with in

section 57 of the act. We’ll canvass that, I’m sure, in a few minutes. Specific penalties, subordinate to the maximum penalties, will be described in regulations.

A. Weaver: My final question on this

section is with respect to 6(1)(

b) where it talks about harvesting practices that are “inhumane.”

My question on that is…. Inhumane is a value judgment. Who is making the value judgment as to what is or is not defined as inhumane?

[1500]

Hon. N. Letnick: It would be defined in regulation. It’s not defined in the

definitions of the act. And, of course, it would be applied by our inspectors, who would use their judgment in making that call.

V. Huntington:

Section 6(1)(a). During our briefing we were advised that Canada’s Species at Risk Act could or could not apply. It might be a contravention. It might become part of the enforcement, but it wasn’t required to be. Yet I would suggest that 6(1)(

a) definitely suggests that species at risk would be part and parcel of the enforcement and consideration given this act.

Could the minister confirm whether that’s the case?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for clarifying an important point, obviously.

We will prescribe which ones in our own regulations, which species are covered under this. Some from the Canadian Species at Risk Act may fall into our regulations. Some may not. We will also use other sources, international sources, when we compile our list that will go into the regulations.

It’s not going to be just copy the Canadian Species at Risk Act into our regulations. We’ll take more attention to it than just that.

V. Huntington: I don’t wish to belabour this section, but it goes hand in hand with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and his series of questions.

During the briefing we were told a species listed for conservation…. The act may or may not be binding on those.

Section 6(1)(

a) suggests that they are “subject to prohibitions or restrictions on harvesting under an enactment of Canada.” Yet the minister is suggesting that B.C. will pick and choose which species may be considered restricted and put those in the regulations.

The act appears more specific than that general attitude towards what species might be restricted. Could the minister confirm, again, whether or not the Species at Risk Act of Canada falls under 6(1)(a)?

[1505]

Hon. N. Letnick: This conversation is important. The semantics are important, obviously. When you look at

section 6(1), it says that in this

section “‘restricted fish or aquatic plants’ means prescribed fish,” prescribed in our regulations, which may come from the enactment of Canada — not necessarily must come from the enactment of Canada or fully adopting a list that comes from the act in Canada.

It does give us the flexibility to put into our list, through regulation, a different list than the act would be from the Canadian government.

V. Huntington: I beg to differ; 1(

a) says “‘restricted fish or aquatic plants’ means prescribed fish or aquatic plants that are subject to prohibitions or restrictions…under an enactment of Canada.” The “may” provision is pursuant to the “inhumane or unsustainable” practices for harvesting.

Hon. N. Letnick: Maybe by adding a couple of words in the first

section just as an example, I think we might get clarity for all of us. Again, 6(1) — it says: “In this section, ‘restricted fish or aquatic fish’ means prescribed fish or aquatic plants that” and then (

a) and (b).

If you put the words “if we” in between “means” and “prescribed,” it makes more sense. So it’ll read that “In this section, ‘restricted fish or aquatic fish’” means if we prescribed the fish or aquatic plants that are subject to prohibitions.

V. Huntington: Well, I won’t pursue it, except to say that’s not my reading of this language. If you’ve had legal opinion that it is more general than those fish that are subject to prohibition or restrictions in an enactment of Canada, then I’d sure be interested in seeing it. Not that I would get it, but I just feel that there is no discretion under this section, except 6(1)(b).

However, to follow, just one other question. It’s again an issue of semantics from my perspective.

Section 6(3): “A licensing officer may issue a permit, with or without terms or conditions, for the purposes of subsection (2) (b).” The purposes of subsection 2(

b) is a permit issued by a licensing officer.

When I was reading this, just as an issue of semantics, “for the purposes of subsection (2) (b)” struck me as an awkward phrase. I wondered if the minister wouldn’t

[ Page 7387 ]

agree that language such as “pursuant to” or “under section (2) (b)” wouldn’t make it clearer.

[1510]

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer to the previous question is yes. We do have a legal opinion regarding 6(1). The way it is written is the way that our legislative counsel suggested — which is, by the way, also the answer to the current question. Legislative counsel has suggested that this is the correct wording.

G. Holman: If the language in here is as the minister and staff suggest — where, in fact, there is discretion about what appears on a prescribed list under this legislation — that does mean, then, that it could be legal to harvest, possess, etc., and sell fish that are designated as species at risk under federal legislation.

You’re suggesting that the province has the discretion. So there could be species at risk that, in fact, are okay to be in possession of and to be sold. That’s a comment, if the minister wishes to comment.

I had a question about 6(1)(b), which talks about “harvesting practices that are inhumane or unsustainable.” We did have some discussion of that during the briefing, around the issue of sustainability. Just simply put, and for the record, who determines that? Is it the ministry that determines that, or are there other provincial ministries that determine that? And how do you determine that — the question of sustainability?

Hon. N. Letnick: For clarity on the question of “unsustainable,” we would make the decision as to which are unsustainable after consulting with other governments — not only our own provincial government, federal governments, but other governments as well — and then we would include in our regulations the list of our work as to which species are unsustainable.

[1515]

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

G. Holman: Just on this question of sustainability,

section 7 is all about issuing licences. I do have a couple of questions here. The first one. I’m looking at

section 7(2)(e), which permits a licensing officer to reject an application for a licence. Is sustainability one of those reasons?

In the previous

section you’re not allowed to possess a fish that may be deemed by the ministry as unsustainably harvested. Perhaps there is a contradiction here. Maybe I’m trying to square a circle, but can a licence be rejected due to concerns about sustainability?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite. As the member knows, some licences are provided through the federal government, and some licences are provided through the provincial government. In particular, marine plants would come under our jurisdiction. So the short answer is yes. Any time someone would apply for a licence that would contravene the act, the decision-maker would most likely reject the application.

G. Holman: Thank you for that. There are a whole number of activities covered by this act and the licensing of such activities. Some concerns have been expressed to us by a non-government organization about all of the persons, all of the activities, that the act applies to — having to apply for a licence.

There is a concern that the staffing, the resources, the capacity are there to do that in a timely fashion, particularly since, at least in the act itself — and perhaps this is spelled out in the regulations — there’s no kind of time deadline, no turnaround. It’s kind of unclear what the process is. There has been concern expressed to us about the number of activities being licensed and the capacity of the ministry or its designates to issue licences in a timely way.

[1520]

Hon. N. Letnick: As we see throughout this bill, the general approach of the bill is to set up the framework and then consult with industry to set up the regulations. It’s a much better way of doing it than putting everything in legislation and then having to wait ten, 20, 30 years again before you can go in and make changes.

Having said that, most of the licensing that the provincial government will be involved with is through the processing plants that we have. So those service standards that we might incorporate in the regulations? Those will only occur, if they are to occur, after we consult with the industry as to what they should be, if this act is passed.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

G. Holman: A question here. This

section refers to food offered directly to the public, which involves commercial fishers, among others. I guess my simple question is: are these the same rules that apply now, that exist now, that have just been put into this particular act? Is there anything new here that commercial fishers need to be concerned about in terms of new standards, new licensing requirements?

[1525]

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer is yes. There is something new here. Currently the way the act is written, they would apply — for instance, take an example of a fish-processing plant — for a licence without much information other than it’s a fish-processing plant. Here we’re asking for more information so that we can help them

[ Page 7388 ]

through the process faster.

For example, if they’re going to have a little bit of a retail

section in that fish-processing plant to serve customers, then part of that might have to be referred to the Ministry of Health for a licence through them. This is a higher level of information that we would require than what’s currently being asked for today, again to help them get through the process better.

G. Holman: To be clear, I was referring to persons who intend to distribute fish or aquatic plants directly — not a fish processing plant but a fisher. Does the same answer essentially apply to fishers — that there’s a somewhat higher standard applicable here? The minister is nodding, so I think that’s fine.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

G. Holman: This is a specific

section around protection of marine beds, which seems to me a good thing. One question that I raised in the briefing as well, again with respect to, say, fish farms, around which there certainly is controversy…. I think it’s fair to say there certainly are concerns about the environmental impacts of fish farms, not just on resources under provincial jurisdiction but under federal jurisdiction as well.

I guess my question is: did the minister, did government, consider a similar provision affecting fish farms and the potential deleterious effects it might have even on provincial areas of jurisdiction? For example, if there are fish farms located in areas where the province owns the seabed or if there are species under provincial jurisdiction that might be directly affected by fish farms, did government consider a similar

section with respect to that particular activity?

Hon. N. Letnick: As the member knows, it’s the federal government that regulates and licenses fish farms. Through our Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, we have the ability to issue tenures for the land. This is meant to cover those areas of jurisdiction that the province does have, which is, quite frankly, one of the big driving forces of bringing this whole legislation in, in the first place, where we had conflicting pieces before the court case decided that the federal government would be the one for licensing of fish farms.

For example, if we wanted to harvest kelp, which would totally come under our jurisdiction, and we found out that the harvest was doing some damage and we wanted to stop the harvest for a little while, that’s where this piece of legislation would kick in.

V. Huntington: I want to explore a couple of the issues that arose during the briefing session.

[1530]

One of the problems that I had and that I know my colleagues also noted is that the ministry would be providing licences to harvest aquatic plants. However, we could find no answer to the issue of baseline data for the harvesting of wild aquatic plants.

When I first read this section, I thought, “Oh, they must mean farmed aquatic plants,” but they didn’t. It means also wild aquatic plants. How does the ministry intend to know how “to protect, or to prevent, reduce or address any adverse effect on, all or part of a bed on which aquatic plants grow”? If we have no baseline data before these fisheries are licensed, then how can we possibly be expected to know whether an adverse effect is taking place?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for highlighting this question before today so I can get a comprehensive answer for her and our colleagues.

Ensuring sustainability of commercial wild plant harvesting is an important part of licensing decisions. Unlike forestry, we do not allow taking of the whole plant. The member might know this, but the public does not. Only portions of a plant may be taken, and only 20 percent of any plants in a bed may be harvested. We’re talking about taking a portion of a plant and, again, only 20 percent of the plants in a bed.

This is much like pruning a garden. Actually, future growth of the plant is not impaired and, in many cases, improves the growth of the plant. This is not a resource extraction so much as it is a reaping the benefits of resource while ensuring its sustainability for future uses.

Baseline studies and field experiments in the ’70s and ’80s allowed us to develop an inventory of marine plants in many areas of the coast. Field experiments allowed us to determine on a species-by-species basis how and what portions of plants can be pruned without impairing future growth. For example, we do not allow mechanical harvesting. Plants must be harvested by hand using a sharp cutting instrument that cleanly severs the blades or fronds, leaving the bulk of the plant, including its roots, intact. This ensures renewed growth after the harvest is done.

Other field experiments allowed us to study fish populations and other animals that use kelp beds for habitat and the effects harvesting may have on them. Many of these studies were done in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and a number of joint papers were published. DFO is satisfied that our measures and conditions of harvest licences do not impair fish or fish habitat.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much. That is indeed extremely informative, and I am pleased that the information was made available. However, I would like to know whether the ministry, the minister, intends to put

[ Page 7389 ]

in regulation that the licensing officer must conduct a study of any particular aquatic plant marine bed prior to issuing the licence so that the knowledge is up to date on the quantity that can be harvested.

[1535]

Hon. N. Letnick: If this legislation passes, we will be consulting with industry, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to see what level of data would be necessary before a licence is issued. I don’t believe it’s necessary to look at doing a total prohibition on issuing licences subject to a study being done on an aquatic marine bed, again, prior to issuing a licence. There probably are lots of cases where we can, based on the best information that we have through DFO or through industry or other organizations, provide the information necessary to the licensing approving officer before they make that decision.

I don’t want to give you a blanket yes. I’m not giving you a blanket yes.

V. Huntington: In not giving a blanket yes, I hope you don’t allow these beds to be harvested in an unsustainable manner.

I would like to just…. Two other questions, actually, on this area. Obviously, there are times when these aquatic plant marine beds should be off-limits to harvest. Will you be working with DFO in that regard to determine when harvesting can and cannot take place — i.e., kelp beds and eelgrass beds, herring spawn and smelt spawn? Will you be working with DFO, hand in hand, to determine the allowable harvesting periods?

Hon. N. Letnick: That is the current practice, and yes, we will continue to exercise that practice.

V. Huntington: It’s always good to gets things on the record here.

Just one last question, then. This provision of varying or suspending or altering a licence appears only to apply to aquatic plants. If the province were to become concerned, whether or not it’s a federally regulated fishery in normal…. But if the province were to become concerned about the health or productivity or the need to protect a fish species, a class of fish, where in the act can the licensing officer specifically move in and vary or suspend the licence on a class of fish?

Hon. N. Letnick: I just want to clarify the question. Are you suggesting that if an aquatic species is licensed by the federal government, the provincial government should be permitted to step in and change the conditions or put on hold a licence issued by the federal government? Is that the question?

V. Huntington: Well, I guess it is. Really, the licences here are to distribute, transport, etc., food fish and aquatic plants in a food-safe manner.

You have a

section in the act that enables the licensing officer to vary or suspend an aquatic plant harvest licence. You have nothing that I can find in the act that enables him to vary or suspend a class of fish harvest and distribution if the province were to feel that a class of fish were under some threat, whether or not the federal government felt there was a threat and whether or not the federal government was moving on that consideration.

If the province felt that it needed to step in and protect a fish on the British Columbian coast from sale and distribution — so to provide less pressure on the fish — could the province do it under this act? I see no

section that enables that to occur.

[1540]

Hon. N. Letnick: The intent, of course, is…. The feds have their jurisdiction as to what they provide licences on, and we have ours. We could vary or suspend the licence for a class of fish — for the distribution, for example. However, given our relationship with the federal government, I find that happening very infrequently, if at all.

Let’s use an example of cod. The federal government issues a licence for a cod fishery. We determine that, at some point, we don’t want the cod to be sold or distributed in the province. Technically, we could work to impact that, but in practice, we work very collaboratively with the federal government to come up with the best science and then move forward together.

Again, the legislation gives us the authority, but in practice, I would say that that would be a very difficult practice.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could point me to which

section of the act does give the province that authority.

Hon. N. Letnick: I would refer back to

section 10(1). It says: “In this section, ‘administrative action’ means to vary, suspend or cancel an operator’s licence.” Then refer to a

section we haven’t talked about yet, which is

section 12(1), which says: “In this

section and

section 13…‘decision’ means a decision of a licensing officer to…(

c) vary, suspend or cancel a licence.”

[1545]

V. Huntington: Quickly glancing at 10, could the minister perhaps be a little more specific and point to which clause of

section 10 would enable a licensing officer to suspend or vary a licence on a class of fish that is in danger of becoming an unsustainable product?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m going to first repeat my comment before that this is really a cooperative matter between us and the federal government. While the act gives us the authority to take care of the issue, if a class of fish is in

[ Page 7390 ]

danger of becoming unsustainable, we could unilaterally do something. I’ll point the member to that in a moment. Again, I just want to reiterate that we would be working closely with DFO.

I’m going to move from

section 10 and move her to

section 59 of the act. Under

section 59 of the act it says, respecting regulation powers: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (

a) prescribing species of fish or aquatic plants to which this Act does not apply.”

[1550]

What would happen is, if someone was caught with a class of fish that was deemed by the government as unsustainable, we could go in and prescribe that that species of fish does not apply in the licence and thereby take it out.

V. Huntington: Just to understand completely, if, in the opinion of the province, at some point the sale of a class of fish could be detrimental to the sustainability of that class of fish, we would have to go through the regulatory amendment structure in order to prescribe that class of fish in an effort to suspend or vary the licence. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Letnick: I want to repeat that we’ll be working cooperatively with the federal government. This is a big issue to go unilaterally and say to the federal government: “We disagree with your conclusion on a particular fishery, and we want to stop the fishery from proceeding, notwithstanding that you, the feds, might disagree with us.” That’s really when this would kick in.

That kind of decision would have to be taken all the way up to the cabinet table, the Lieutenant-Governor. The short answer is yes, it would need a change in the regulation, which is not as difficult to get as changing the legislation might be.

So the short answer is yes, it would require a change in the reg.

V. Huntington: My last comment on it. So that then removes the idea that

section 10 or 12 would apply.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

G. Holman: I do have a question on

section 15 which speaks to reasonable practices of fish or aquatic plant processing, I guess kind of a two-part question. One is that I’m assuming that under existing legislation, there are such practices that are laid out. In general, would similar legal requirements around such practices apply in this legislation? In general, is there a kind of a raising the standard, raising the bar?

The second question is in terms of reasonable practices. Why not best practices?

[1555]

Hon. N. Letnick: The first question was: are we raising the bar on the standards? The way the act is written now, it’s basically if the act passes, the standards continue to be the same as they are currently. However, through the consultation with the industry, our goal is to try to raise that standard higher up.

We give guidance through the different subsections of that section, so (

a) applying disinfection and decontamination measures, (

b) using a type of equipment, (

c) meeting any standard or taking any measures set out in the regs and (

d) taking any measure required by an inspector in an order made under this act.

We will work with the industry to try to accommodate what we all want, which is a raising of the standards for the health and safety of our consumers.

G. Holman: Thank you for that answer. And the question about best practices versus reasonable practices.

Hon. N. Letnick: I thought the member would ask me that. Actually, that’s where we spent most of the discussion here, trying to come up with the correct answer for the member.

This is a new

section in the act. It’s not something that we’ve taken from the other acts. Trying to give some flexibility as we do the consultation with the industry, to put in language such as best practice would really change the focus of the consultation with the industry.

[1600]

We want to come up with the industry to raise the bar — on a voluntary basis, working with the industry — to a standard that is reasonable in the whole but also higher on each individual area.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

To put the words “best practice” in here would imply that for each item we’re trying to raise the bar on, it would have to achieve world standards or best practices, which might or might not be appropriate for what we’re trying to achieve. “Reasonable” is the word that we’re using instead of the words the member has proposed.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

G. Holman: A question here regarding the fact that seafood, of course, is perishable. Again coming back to the concern about the capacity to deal with such matters expediently, in a timely way, given that seafood is a perishable product, how many inspection officers are available in the province, either direct ministry employees or designates?

Hon. N. Letnick: In the briefing, I’ve been told, all the members were told three direct. We now have four, so a

[ Page 7391 ]

33 percent improvement in just a few days — four direct.

[1605]

G. Holman: Just a quick comment. It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of capacity. It’s a large province, a large number of activities that you’re overseeing. It doesn’t seem to be a great deal of capacity, although the increase from three to four is an encouraging sign. Big government.

V. Huntington:

Section 18 is very specific to an operator’s duty to report that unsafe food may have been distributed. Where in the act does it enable the ministry to take note if an employee or any other person reports that unsafe food may have been distributed, and is that person protected under this act in any way?

Hon. N. Letnick: If I understood the question correctly, the hon. member is asking: where in the legislation would it facilitate an individual to blow the whistle on an unsafe practice, and does the government have any provision in this act to safeguard that person if he or she does so? The member is shaking her head up and down.

There is no provision directly in the act that covers that. Under

section 56 of the act, it does say: “If a corporation commits an offence under this Act, an employee, officer, director or agent of the corporation who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the offence commits the offence whether or not the corporation is convicted.”

That puts the onus also on the individual as well as the corporation. But it doesn’t directly cover the question that the member asked, except for my answer, which is there’s nothing in the act that I know of that covers the issue of an employee or a member of the public who wishes to blow the whistle on somebody else.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I can turn the question around, then. Given that

section 18 so specifically refers to an operator, is there anything in the act that would prevent the ministry from looking at comments or reports from an employee or any other person in this province with regard to the distribution of unsafe food?

I’m just a little concerned that the ministry is tying its hands here. If the operator doesn’t say anything, then how on earth are you going to know whether the corporation has, unless, I guess, an inspector has inspected and determined that? But I see no opportunity for anybody other than the operator to come forward. I’m just worried that the ministry won’t have to pay attention.

[1610]

Hon. N. Letnick: No, there’s nothing in the act that prohibits someone from identifying an unsafe practice and reporting it to one of our inspectors if they have reason to believe that a fish or aquatic plant the operator has distributed may be unsafe food — nothing at all.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

G. Holman: A question on

section 20 that also applies to

section 19 about the traceable systems language in the act, which, in itself, seems to me to be a good thing. There are analogous programs for land-based agriculture, and it is a good thing to be able to trace food back to its origins.

There has been a concern expressed, though, about the implications of 19 and 24 — existing non-profit NGO programs around certification. This was raised during the briefing process.

The language in

section 20 suggests that “a person must not hold himself or herself out as being certified unless the person is certified in accordance with the regulations.” It does seem to suggest that there’s a ministerial kind of discretion here around certification programs, and there is a concern that that discretion might be used to favour, say, industry-based programs versus those developed by NGOs who perhaps have a more environmental bent, for example. That’s the current concern.

Can the minister explain…? Just what authority does the minister have over NGO-type certification programs? If the minister does not agree to an NGO program, is there any kind of right of appeal or process around that?

[1615]

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll take a stab at it. If I don’t get the correct answer to the question, I’m sure the member will ask me again, maybe in a different way.

In the act, I was looking feverishly for NGO type. I couldn’t find it, but we did find community organizations. So if that’s what the member is referring to, then what will happen is voluntary associations…. I think maybe that’s what the member is referring to, because there is nothing in here about NGOs specifically that I could see.

If the act passes, we’ll do our consultation not only with industry but with those community and voluntary organizations as to what should go into the regulations for qualification. Then that will determine, through the regulations, what the criteria are. As far as appeal process, there is no appeal process. Once the decision is made by the minister, that is the end of the line on that one.

G. Holman: If there’s an existing traceability program, which I’ve kind of referred to as certification as well, I guess I’m not clear on what, if any, authority the minister has to say: “Yes, this is a certified program as far as I’m concerned, or it’s not.”

[ Page 7392 ]

Just the other comment I wanted to make…. And this applies more generally. I’m pleased to hear the minister suggest that community groups would be consulted with respect to this section. We have discussed other sections, as well — for example, issues around species at risk and sustainability — that do involve environmental concerns. It was one issue we did raise during the briefing. I may misunderstand this, but it’s our understanding, based on the list of groups that were consulted by the ministry, that environmental groups were not included at this point.

I’m pleased to hear the minister suggesting that community groups — which presumably could include environmental groups, NGOs — would be consulted with respect to this section. I’m hoping that would also apply to the act in general. It wouldn’t just be industry groups that would be consulted — and, of course, also First Nations, although First Nations were already, at least some First Nations groups, consulted with.

[1620]

Hon. N. Letnick: The act has no impact on existing certification schemes. I just want to make sure that we understand that.

As far as the consultation on the regs, it is our intent to consult with relevant stakeholders. We’re not going to do a wide-open, “Here are all the regs that we’re planning on doing associated with the act,” and then consult with everybody on the whole thing. We will seek input from groups that are directly stakeholders for a particular section.

In this particular case, we’re talking about traceability systems. The member opposite has brought to our attention some community groups that might be interested in providing input. If they had traceability systems in place, we would be able to consult with them on that.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

G. Holman: Just a quick question on inspection powers. Are these powers more detailed, more specific, further reaching than existing powers under existing legislation? Are there things that inspectors can do that they’re not allowed to do now under current rules?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, there are some more specific powers that are contemplated.

G. Holman: Could the minister provide one or two key examples of those additional powers.

Hon. N. Letnick: So more specific but not additional. If you look at 23(1), it actually gives us some examples. For instance: “(

a) pass through a place to reach a vehicle or place that is to be the subject of the inspection; (

b) be accompanied or assisted by an analyst or a person who has special, expert or professional knowledge of a matter relevant to the inspection.” Anyway, the list goes on and on. So it’s more specific direction.

[1625]

Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

A. Weaver: Before I start, I want to reiterate that I’m very pleased that this legislation was brought forward. It represents a fine bill.

I do have one question on

section 28(4). Now, my concerns here and the thread of comments will be, if I could frame it to the minister: why here are we being rather punitive to those who as…? Reading through 28(4): “A person has no right of action as a result of an action referred to in subsection (1)….” That is, the rights of an individual who will have seafood taken away as a consequence of some…. So unable to claim damages.

This is not consistent with similar legislation that exists within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency where, if I could read as an example here: “For animals ordered destroyed, the CFIA bases compensation amounts on the animal’s market value.”

My question to the minister is: why is there no compensation in the form of market value for product destroyed being contemplated here to protect somebody involved in this industry?

[1630]

Hon. N. Letnick: Two examples, I guess, are best for this one. One is if you are found to be distributing unsafe food, we wouldn’t want to have the taxpayer be responsible for providing compensation to the person or organization that was breaking the law.

The other one is a matter of scale. As the member understands, not too long ago, just at the end of last year, we had quite an incident in the Fraser Valley with chickens, I think close to 250,000 birds — so large scale, serious implications. When we’re talking here, we’re talking very small scale, small amounts of aquatic animals or marine products. We currently do not have any provision in the current acts that are in law for compensating, and we moved them over to this piece of legislation as well.

A. Weaver: I thank the minister for bringing up the example of the avian influenza, which I was going to refer to.

As the minister pointed out, we did have a very serious issue in British Columbia. In the case when the Canadian Food Inspection Agency stepped in with the outbreak of avian influenza on the two farms in the Fraser Valley, they did compensate farmers, according to the Health of Animals Act, up to a maximum level.

Why I think that that’s fair and why I raise this in this case is let’s suppose we turn now to Vancouver Island’s

[ Page 7393 ]

shellfish industry, an industry that’s critical for some small communities on the coast here. If, say, an example like red tide were to come in and were to affect stocks there…. They’re already struggling with the effects of ocean acidification and having a difficult time to actually make ends meet now.

The analogy, I would argue, is direct to the analogy with the Fraser Valley chicken farmers. If there were to be a case where the federal government, in the CFIA example, or the provincial government here were to step in to deal with a product that is deemed unsafe, as it was with the chicken influenza, avian flu, wiping out an entire stock, it can have detrimental effects on a struggling industry.

My question then, again is: is the minister contemplating any means at all for helping or protecting those struggling industries — say, the shellfish industry or other similar examples — that could be overly affected by stepping in and essentially seizing product that would otherwise make them end up going bankrupt?

[1635]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. When I heard the question, I was thinking my own analogy was just apples and oranges. The two issues are really related. In a sense, they’re both spiracle but a completely different taste.

The chickens, in the case of the spring-winter or fall-winter issue, was a disease beyond the control of the farmers. Probably, in large part, a lot of the animals that were put down were not infected.

I can understand why the government, provincial and federal, would want to help farmers to accommodate for that loss, in particular — not only for them, because it was a serious one for the farmers that lost the birds, but also to encourage them to come forward with information that would help us stop the spread of the disease.

The compensation package was part of the paradigm which helped us stop the disease rather quickly compared to in the early 2000s, when the disease really decimated the industry.

The shellfish example is a federal matter, because it would go in front of federal processing stations, for example. I’m informed by my staff here — who have way more knowledge on shellfish than I do, of course — that one option is for the shellfish owners to keep the shellfish in the water, and over time, that particular problem would move away.

The purpose of the legislation is to find people and organizations that knowingly are trying to sell products that are harmful for human consumption. If you are caught doing such a thing, then you should pay the penalties. The last thing I want taxpayers to do is have to refund the costs of their apples or oranges, in this case.

G. Holman: This line of questioning does remind me of an earlier question that I’d asked around provincial liability. Of course, if someone is knowingly selling contaminated product, that is one scenario. I understand the minister’s logic for stating that the liability for that should rest on the person who’s knowingly doing that. It is possible that operators, individuals could be selling product unknowingly contaminated. Furthermore, it could be contaminated as a result of provincial regulation in another sphere.

For example, it talked about sewage treatment facilities or coliforms running down a stream, contaminating a beach. Some contaminated sites actually involve more toxic materials, all of which are managed by the province. Yet here the operator would be forced to pay for contaminated product, knowingly or unknowingly, for which the root cause rested with the province.

I guess that’s a comment, not necessarily a question.

[1640]

Sections 28 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

G. Holman: Just a quick question here. There is reference here to designating inspector duties, responsibilities, to officials under the Canadian Fish Inspection Act and also fishery officers and fishery guardians under the Fisheries Act of Canada.

Just a simple question. I would assume that that happens now under current regulations — that the province utilizes those officials from the federal government to do inspections right now. The minister is nodding yes, so that’s my question, and there’s the answer.

Sections 41 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

G. Holman: Just a quick question. There’s a reference here to personal information, so the question is: has the Privacy Commissioner already reviewed this legislation, or is this done as a matter of course when you’re going out with regulations? I’m probably asking a question that I should know, but there it is.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d like to thank the member opposite for a very astute question, so astute that I’m proposing a House amendment to

section 46.

Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 46 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 46 , by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Power to collect or disclose information

(1) The minister may collect or disclose information under this Act , or disclose information collected in the course of administering this Act , for one or more of the following purposes:

(

a) to administer this Act or another enactment, or a program administered by the minister ;

(a.1) to administer or to assist with the administration of an enactment or a government program, of Canada or any

[ Page 7394 ]

jurisdiction in Canada, that has as one of its purposes the protection or promotion of human or animal health;

(

b) to disclose, in accordance with the regulations, prescribed information contained in a traceability system;

(

c) to disclose prescribed information in respect of an order made under this Act;

(c.1) to publish or disclose statistical information for economic, educational, scientific or research purposes in relation to fish or aquatic plants;

(

d) to publish or disclose information if, in the opinion of the minister, it would be in the public interest to publish or disclose that information.

(2) For greater certainty, information that may be collected or disclosed under subsection (1) (

a) to (

c) and (

d) includes personal information.]

On the amendment.

Hon. N. Letnick: This amendment is proposed to address the concern raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. At the commissioner’s request, we have narrowed the language in

section 46 to clarify that authority for collection and disclosure of information is more focused on the purposes of Bill 21.

Amendment approved.

Section 46 as amended approved.

section 47.

V. Huntington: This goes hand in hand, really, with

section 44, where: “The minister may delegate, in writing, to a person or class of persons any of the minister’s powers or duties….” Do the minister and his ministry contemplate ever providing this delegation to a company?

Hon. N. Letnick: No, not to a company. Perhaps to other government agencies, but not to a company.

[1645]

Sections 47 and 48 approved.

section 49.

V. Huntington: I’m curious about subsection 49(1), wherein a “copy of a document issued under this Act by an inspector or the minister, and certified by the inspector or minister as a true copy….” Would you not normally need the certification by somebody other than the individual? Or I guess not. I guess you could certify that it was a copy.

There was something that bothered me about this in the beginning, and I wondered why exactly the issue is described as necessarily being certified by the inspector. Is the minister suggesting that any document, then, can be used as evidence as long as it is certified?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s not certified. It’s being certified as a true copy, and then, yes, it could be used in that purpose.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

section 51.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could explain 51(3)(c), where it’s agreeing in writing to paying a reduced administrative penalty. Why has the ministry chosen these options? If there’s an agreement in writing that they could pay a reduced administrative penalty, could the minister please describe the purpose of this

section a little more fully?

Hon. N. Letnick: This would require that a person must pay an administrative penalty within a certain time frame unless they wish to dispute it, as permitted in a regulation that is yet to come. It also allows a person to pay a lesser penalty if they enter into an agreement to do other things that would bring them into compliance with the act.

Sections 51 to 66 inclusive approved.

section 67.

G. Holman: Just for my education and probably no one else’s in the House. I’m assuming that 67(

a) through (e), all of these pieces of legislation and the specific parts of them that are referred to here, are all now part of this particular bill. Essentially, all these pieces of legislation and bits of legislation, or at least the parts that government wants to be included, are included in this act now.

Hon. N. Letnick: Different things apply to different parts, so I’ll just read the detail as to what’s going on. For (

a) and (b), the Fish and Seafood Act replaces the Fisheries Act and the Fish Inspection Act. In (

c) section 27 of the Food Safety Act, if it had ever been enacted, would have repealed certain parts of the Fisheries Act in favour of conducting all licensing under the Food Safety Act. With the creation of the Fish and Seafood Act, this unused provision is redundant.

[1650]

For (d),

section 26 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999, enabled licence application to be made by e-mail. This

section has never been acted upon and is now redundant. Then the last one, sections 11 and 12, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2000, would, if they had ever been enacted, have created an aquaculture research and development trust fund. These sections should be repealed because they were never acted on, and the aquaculture is no longer a provincial responsibility.

Section 67 approved.

section 68.

[ Page 7395 ]

G. Holman: A general question with respect to 68 and the subsequent sections. I really don’t have any questions. These are all additional amendments to other existing legislation. If the minister could just quickly describe kind of the general intent here. There are certainly a number of references to fish farming in here. If the minister could provide for these subsequent sections a kind of a general notion of why these amendments are being made.

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s not one-size-fish-fits-all in these, so I’ll just communicate the rationale quickly for each one of these for the member’s edification.

For 68, the consequential amendment, the purpose here is to amend the act so that it includes fish, thus allowing for future regulations governing labelling and grading. For 69, we are changing a reference from the Fisheries Act to Fish and Seafood Act, so it is just a minor piece.

For 70, this amendment enables existing protection from nuisance lawsuits and injunctions to be maintained for aquaculture. For 71, this amendment enables existing protection from nuisance lawsuits. Again, 72 — amendment to regulation-making authorities — this is consequential to the amendment in

section 70 and 71.

I don’t know how far you want me to go. I’ll just keep going until you say: “Enough.” So 73 eliminates the reference to the Fish Inspection Act; 74 amends the consequential

section 70 to revise the definition of “farming area”; 75 is commencement. That’s the end of the act.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that. With respect to the so-called nuisance litigation around fish farming, are there additional provisions being enacted here other than already exist? My understanding was that, for example, salmon farms were already included under the farm practices act. At least, part of the intent was to ensure normal farm practices wouldn’t be subject to nuisance litigation.

Is there something else happening here? Or are there additional protections being enacted, for example, for the salmon-farming industry?

Hon. N. Letnick: There are no additional protections. We are maintaining the status quo — just in a different language.

Sections 68 to 75 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[1655]

Hon. N. Letnick: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT

Bill 21, Fish and Seafood Act, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT

Bill 21, Fish and Seafood Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 19, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — CIVIL RESOLUTION

TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:59 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined by staff Bob Goldschmid and Richard Rogers from Justice and Doug Page from Housing.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm for the benefit of those who are paying attention that, in fact, we are amending

an act that, in essence, has not been yet proclaimed, correct?

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, the comment is mostly correct. There are sections proclaimed around the appointment of members, but the rest of the act is not yet proclaimed.

[1700]

L. Krog: Just to confirm also that the act we are amending was, in fact, passed with only 30 minutes for committee stage. At that time the then Minister of Justice assured the House that, in fact, it was to be up and running within 18 months. I think that it’s fair to say that none of that speaks well of this particular piece of legis-

[ Page 7396 ]

lation in terms of its usefulness to the people of British Columbia. Moreover, it was promised also that it was to be voluntary after a grace period, and then we might look potentially at making it mandatory.

As it presently stands, we are simply going to move with this bill into a position where, in fact, participation will be mandatory as opposed to voluntary. Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Anton: The civil resolution tribunal will deal with two forms of dispute resolution, one of them relating to small claims and one of them relating to strata. The strata piece of it will be operational later this year. That is the plan. It is mandatory the minute it opens for strata corporations. The small claims piece will be voluntary when it begins, but both of them will become fully mandatory probably by next year.

L. Krog: I well appreciate the Attorney General’s confidence, but of course, the confidence was expressed back in 2012 that within 18 months the act would be up and running.

As I understand it from the Attorney General’s answers, the only thing we have basically done is hire the staff, so to speak. I’m just wondering how long they have actually been on the government payroll with respect to this process — the chair of the tribunal, etc. Perhaps the Attorney General could illuminate the House as to how much money has been spent so far, what work they have, in fact, been doing during that period of time and when they were appointed.

[1705]

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of personnel, we appointed a full-time chair last July. Prior to that we had an acting chair. We have the acting registrar, who is Mr. Rogers, and he was appointed in January of this year.

In terms of managing the project, there are a number of people in justice services who are working on it as part of their job. They do have other duties, but there are about six to eight people in justice services who are managing this, as I said, as part of their portfolio of tasks. We also have a software contractor.

L. Krog: I don’t know if I’m accurate in this, but I believe the gestation period for an elephant is about 18 months. It seems to me we’ve had an awfully long time getting this process up and running, which is supposed to be some reform to deal with issues in the justice system and the inability of people to obtain justice in a timely way, particularly around disputes.

Now, setting aside for a moment the issue of strata disputes, which is a long-standing mess which should have been solved some years ago by providing a fairly accessible and — I won’t say cheap — less expensive method of resolving strata disputes…. Setting that aside for a moment, do we indeed even face the issues in Provincial Court…?

Do the numbers bear it out that we face issues in Provincial Court, small claims division, that merit the continuance of this project? Regardless of whether we all think that a mediated approach is far better, does it, in fact, even make sense anymore? Do the numbers in small claims support this project?

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: The wait for a small claim to be heard from beginning to end can be up to a year in British Columbia, and the goal of the civil resolution tribunal is that the dispute will be resolved in 60 days. That is the target.

Our overall philosophic goal is an access-to-justice goal, which is that anyone in British Columbia will be able to commence a dispute at any time of day simply by logging on and starting the process. So the overall philosophic basis for it is to have greater access to justice in terms of small claims in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Just out of curiosity, the acting chair of the tribunal was appointed prior to the permanent chair, we’ll call it, so to speak, who was appointed last July, if I recall the Attorney General’s remarks correctly. How long were they the acting chair, what was the acting chair paid, and what’s the present chair paid for chairing a tribunal that doesn’t yet exist in practice and doesn’t meet?

It has the ring of the resort town of Jumbo in my mind, where we have a municipality that doesn’t really exist and doesn’t have any citizens. Here we have a tribunal that has no workers essentially.

Hon. S. Anton: The chair of the tribunal…. Her salary is $160,000 a year.

The acting chair divided her time between two tribunals: the Property Assessment Appeal Board and the civil resolution tribunal. She was paid separately and differently between those two. I don’t have the breakdown or the numbers.

L. Krog: So what exactly does the chair do for the $160,000 per annum, which I believe is in excess of what a cabinet minister receives between the cabinet indemnity and their MLA indemnity?

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: The tribunal, of course, is entirely new, so there is a great deal of groundwork that needs to be done.

In terms of the role of the chair, she has been involved in very extensive consultation with stakeholders. She is working with the design team in terms of designing the process. She is building rules around the processes. She’s involved in consideration of who the tribunal members should be.

As I said, it’s a new organization. It’s a new tribunal. It takes a great deal of groundwork to get it up and running.

[ Page 7397 ]

L. Krog: Well, I’m certainly glad to hear that for $160,000 per annum, with no one working for her, the chair is busily engaged in doing good things for the people of British Columbia.

To come back to a fairly practical question, we’re amending

an act, as I say, that hasn’t been proclaimed yet — essentially it is not in force — and the small claims jurisdiction also provided for a mediation process under the existing act, where you’re shuttled off to a settlement conference with a judge or shuttled off to a mediator to see if the matter can be resolved.

Those folks who worked as mediators were fairly successful, as I understand it. Statistically, it indicated that in fact that was a very successful process in many cases and meant that matters didn’t proceed to trial, therefore taking up court clerk time, etc. — or the use of the courthouse, for that matter.

I’m curious to know how many claims were actually mediated, of all of the claims filed in British Columbia in any given year, statistically speaking, in the small claims registry. In other words, did half get mediated? Did a quarter get mediated? What percentage actually got mediated?

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: The mediation currently available in small claims is available in five small claims registries in British Columbia, not all of them. Of course, the purpose of the civil resolution tribunal is to be a much more general application so that everybody who enters the civil resolution tribunal in terms of small claims will go through a facilitated process. Only if that is not successful will they move to adjudication.

L. Krog: I appreciate that, but my question is: if the mediation process, based on the reports I received from people who actually did the work, was working and was successful…. I haven’t heard the Attorney General tell me, for instance, in the five areas where it was available, what the statistics were that would indicate that it wasn’t working that required us or incented us to bring in the whole civil resolution tribunal process.

Wasn’t it working? Was it terribly expensive? Was it not successful in those registries? Presumably, I think it’s fair to say…. I don’t have the Small Claims Act in front of me, but I believe there is a jurisdictional issue in terms of where you’re going to file. In fact was that model successful, or does the Attorney General believe that model was unsuccessful?

I guess what I’m getting at in the bigger picture is: are we driving ahead with a reform that may, in fact, not be required whatsoever, setting aside the strata property issues, when appropriate expansion of the mediation process in small claims would get us to the same essential solution, which is to try and allow people to resolve their disputes fairly early on in a process as opposed to taking up to a year to potentially resolve it?

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: Mediation has been a valid tool, and it has had some success. What the CRT, the civil resolution tribunal, is, is a cost-effective way to expand that facilitated settlement process to everyone with a small claim who fits within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, everyone who fits within that jurisdiction — to expand the mediation or the facilitated settlement to everyone.

L. Krog: I realize I ask windy questions, but if the Attorney General perhaps could give me a more fulsome answer to my windy questions once in a while. It seems to me all I’ve heard here is a statement of the philosophy behind it but nothing practical about how it’s going to be effective. I mean, surely the small claims registry could have been updated in terms of the filing of claims, that kind of approach in terms of simplicity.

The Attorney General has made much today of the concept that people in the middle of the night will be able to file these claims, which is, I suppose, a wonderful thing for those of us who want to work at two or three in the morning, when we’re not in the best frame of mind.

Apart from that reform, which could be easily accomplished in the existing small claims process, why is this necessary, as opposed to simply allowing for an expanded mediation process supported by government in the existing small claims in the Provincial Court structure, coupled also with the same approach to electronic filing?

Hon. S. Anton: What we aim to achieve through the civil resolution tribunal is a quicker process, as I said earlier, the goal being 60 days for resolution; and a low-cost process, with much lower cost to do it this way than to expand the mediation process through the courts. All parties in the civil resolution process will be asked to aim to achieve a facilitated settlement. It will be universally proposed to everyone engaging in the process.

L. Krog: Well, I’d like the Attorney General to be more specific around the issue of the savings that are involved here. Are the savings going to be to the individuals because there will be a lower or a nonexistent filing fee?

[1730]

Is it because it’s anticipated that in the vast majority of claims, which don’t involve lawyers now anyway, they’ll avoid the cost of having a lawyer because you can’t use a lawyer in this process? Are the cost savings going to be in the lack of paper or staffing at some juncture in this process of filing?

In other words, where are the cost-effective savings going to be seen? Is it a cost-effective savings for government or the individuals involved in the dispute process? Is it a combination of both? What’s anticipated?

I mean, we’ve had a chair of the tribunal, at $160,000 a year, and an acting chair before that working on this, so I

[ Page 7398 ]

assume we must have a pretty good idea now of what this process is going to look like in terms of cost. I’m curious to hear exactly what the Attorney General means when she talks about cost savings. Can she be very specific about that?

Hon. S. Anton: We do believe it will be less expensive for both government and for individuals, but the more general goal is access to justice. The general goal is that people around British Columbia have equal access to a tribunal which can help them resolve their small claims matters and can help them resolve their strata matters.

L. Krog: Well, far be it for me to defend the salaries of Provincial Court judges in a jurisdiction which, in my personal view — and I’ve said this many times in this chamber — doesn’t tax high-income earners enough.

At $160,000 a year, the chair of the tribunal is going to make something, I believe, in the range of $70,000 to $80,000 a year less than a Provincial Court judge. Presumably, those working under the chair of the tribunal are going to make considerably less.

Is, in fact, this really about giving us cheaper justice without the benefit of legally trained judges? Is that really what this is about — in other words, having people to chair and operate and provide the justice? Are we moving to what I will call more of a model along the residential tenancy branch but for small claims? It seems to me, in a practical way…. I can only try and relate it to my experience as the system exists now. Is that really what we’re doing here?

[1735]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: I certainly don’t agree with the question and the way it was framed. The goal here, as I’ve said several times already, is access to justice.

There will be two stages on a matter. The first stage will be facilitation. The second stage, if necessary, is adjudication. On the facilitation stage, the persons involved will have expertise in dispute resolution. On the adjudication stage, if necessary, the persons involved, the tribunal members, may be strata experts or lawyers and, it’s possible, other subject-matter experts.

L. Krog: Do I take it, then, from the Attorney General’s remarks, that those who will be dealing with the non-strata aspect of this — in other words, the more traditional things, which will be referred to in

section 3.1, debt or damages, recovering personal property — who will actually adjudicate, may, in fact, not have any legal training?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a question in