2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 40, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jim Unger

Hon. I. Chong

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Tom Galimberti

R. Fleming

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M215 — Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Control Act, 2012

A. Dix

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

M. Coell

Delta kite-flying event for clean air awareness

G. Gentner

Surrey Board of Trade Top 25 Under 25 Award recipients

D. Hayer

Farmers markets in Coquitlam-Maillardville area

D. Thorne

Parliamentary democracy program for teachers

M. Stilwell

Role of MLA s and protection of agricultural land in Fraser Valley

V. Huntington

Oral Questions

Training tax credits for Seaspan Marine Corp.

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

Integrated case management system

C. Trevena

Hon. M. McNeil

C. James

Granting of indemnities in B.C. Rail court case

J. van Dongen

Hon. S. Bond

Government response to changes to immigrant settlement services

M. Elmore

Hon. P. Bell

Process for transport of diseased salmon to Port Alberni

S. Fraser

Hon. D. McRae

Musqueam First Nation and Marpole midden site

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. M. Polak

Coastal response plan for Japanese tsunami debris

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Tributes

Public safety lifeline volunteer award recipients

Hon. S. Bond

Petitions

Hon. M. Polak

J. Brar

V. Huntington

Standing Order 81.1

Adoption of government business

schedule

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 47 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012 (continued)

D. Routley

B. Routley

L. Krog

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

R. Fleming

M. Sather

C. Trevena

Bill 50 — Athletic Commissioner Act

G. Gentner

Bill 56 — New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act

J. Horgan

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

R. Chouhan

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2011

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2011

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 53 — Family Day Act

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

B. Simpson

J. van Dongen

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 53 — Family Day Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 44 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Act

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 44 — Civil Resolution Tribunal Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 46 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 46 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012

Committee of the Whole House

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

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Bond

Reporting of Bills

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

Committee of the Whole House

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

Hon. B. Lekstrom

H. Bains

J. Trasolini

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 54 — Provincial Sales Tax Act (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Donaldson

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Chandra Herbert

C. Trevena

J. Kwan

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

[ Page 12505 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Les: In the visitors' gallery today we're honoured to have Mr. Komgrit Varakamin, the newly appointed consul general of the Kingdom of Thailand in Vancouver. The consul general comes to our province from his recent posting at the Thai embassy in Hanoi, Vietnam.

He is joining us here in Victoria today to conduct his official courtesy meetings with provincial officials. I look forward to the opportunity to meet with him later this afternoon and discuss how our two jurisdictions can further enhance the positive relationship that already exists between Thailand and British Columbia.

Would the House please join me in making the consul general feel very welcome.

C. Trevena: I'm begging indulgence of the House to welcome two people who are in the virtual gallery. They assiduously watch this place, thanks to the Hansard webcasts, and they watch it from England. They are, no doubt, my most loyal and long-term supporters. They're the people who gave me the values that still guide me and also the belief that I could do whatever I wanted in my life.

I would hope that the House would give a very warm welcome to my parents, who regularly watch this place, Billy and Mary Trevena.

[1335]

R. Sultan: In the gallery today is Midshipman Darlene Thornhill of the Navy League of Canada, a passionate advocate for the Royal Canadian Navy and authoress of Bell Bottom Blues: Arctic Sovereignty , describing Canada's geopolitical neglect of our Arctic lands and oceans. Accompanying her is Lt. Ken Kwan, also of the Navy League, who commands a detachment of 70 naval cadets at HMCS Discovery on Deadman Island at the entrance to Stanley Park. Would you please make them welcome.

D. Routley: Can the House help me welcome an extraordinary young man from Nanaimo. Tali Campbell is a student at John Barsby high school in my constituency. He was the publisher of the school paper when I met him. Since then he's gone on to other pursuits. Currently he's organizing an effort called Youth Sticking Together. It's an effort to break the Guinness world record for a street hockey game. He'll have 40 participants going for 105 hours to support local charities.

He also hosts a current affairs program on university radio, CHLY radio in Nanaimo. He is also working in the community relations office of Nanaimo Timbermen lacrosse club. I think we should all be inspired by a young person like Tali who becomes so involved in his community and gives such great service to all of us. Thank you, Tali, and welcome to the House.

Hon. J. Yap: In the gallery today, visiting for the second time in a year, is a good friend, constituent and supporter. Would the House please join me in welcoming Peter Boddy back to the Legislature.

V. Huntington: I'm very pleased to say that both my constituency assistants and my research officers are in the gallery today. As all members know, we couldn't do the work either in our ridings or in this House without the competency and good cheer of these men and women. Would the House please join me in welcoming Bernadette Kudzin, Brad Densmore, Yvonne Parenteau and Shawn Courtney to this place.

D. Hayer: Joining us today in the House are two very special guests of mine. They are outstanding volunteers and perform excellent work at my constituency office. They look after my constituents' concerns and issues. Please welcome my constituency assistant Manuel Santos, who continues to be an exemplary and dedicated worker in my constituency office since 2007. Manuel also commits countless volunteer hours to benefit our community. I've also had the distinct pleasure of having him as my campaign manager for the 2009 election.

My other special guest is Paul Keenleyside. Paul is my part-time constituency assistant. He not only fills in for Manuel when Manuel is at a meeting; he also looks after our communications and research. Paul has been helping our office since 2000. He also has the distinction of volunteering in 62 municipal, provincial and federal elections. He also voluntarily provides emergency and public safety amateur radio communications at many events, including the Celebration of Light, the Hyack Parade, the Vancouver Marathon, Vancouver Sun Run and many other places. Would the House please make them both welcome here.

M. Sather: Joining us in the gallery today is Alexandra Morton. Alexandra is a salmon researcher and an indefatigable supporter and defender of wild salmon. She is here with some friends, watching the progress of legislation in the House. Will members please join me in welcoming her.

J. Slater: Joining us in the gallery today is Wayne Roznowsky, who's the manager of public affairs Canada

[ Page 12506 ]

for Weyerhaeuser. Would the House please make him very welcome.

R. Fleming: Joining us today is Andrew Stinson, who's a young man who is active in the Oak Bay–Gordon Head Constituency Association as the Young New Democrat representative. He's here to watch question period. This is his very first time in the Legislative Assembly. I would ask the House to please make Andrew feel very welcome.

[1340]

Hon. T. Lake: In the precinct today we have a constituent of mine, Lyn Arikado, and her husband, Brian. I know that the Minister of Justice will introduce all the recipients of the public safety lifeline volunteers award a little bit later, but I wanted to pay special respects to Lyn, who is the co-director of the Kamloops emergency support services and was the recipient of that award here today.

I understand that Lyn has a beautiful cat named Tess, whom she entered in the Iams most lovable pet contest. I would hope that the House will make Lyn and Brian — but, unfortunately, not Tess here today — very welcome.

Tributes

JIM UNGER

Hon. I. Chong: It is with some sadness that I rise to introduce a former constituent. Jim Unger was the offbeat mind behind the cartoon Herman and was a resident of Saanich for the past decade. Herman , with its wry observations of the world and distinctive drawing style, ran in 600 newspapers in 25 countries and continues in syndication in some U.S. newspapers. Its witty captions commented on the way we live now.

He was born in London, England, and immigrated in 1968 to Canada where his cartooning career began at the Mississauga Times . Herman became the first newspaper cartoon syndicated in communist East Germany in 1990. Mr. Unger twice won the best syndicated panel award from the U.S. National Cartoonists Society.

After 20 years of cartooning and more than 6,000 original comics to his credit, Mr. Unger retired to the Bahamas in 1992. But after five years in retirement, the Herman comics returned in syndication in 1997. Mr. Jim Unger moved to Saanich more than ten years ago in order to be close to his brother and sister, Robert and Deborah.

Sadly, though, on Monday Mr. Unger passed away in his sleep at the age of 75 in his Saanich home. I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, that all members here acknowledge this great citizen and have our thoughts go out to his friends and family at this difficult time.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: In the House today for the first time is a very lovely lady. It's my niece, Aubryn Howe. She's attending Camosun College, taking a Bachelor of Arts degree. She's originally from Edmonton, Alberta, and I'm glad she's moved down here to experience the Island life and to study. With her are two other lovely ladies, here for the first time in two weeks: my wife, Marlene, and my daughter Hannah. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Coell: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce the secretary of the Victoria

chapter of the ALS Society to this House, Joan Axford. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: I rise on a very happy note today. I have joined the exclusive league that Mr. Speaker, of course, is a member of. The member for Chilliwack has been able to get up on this type of occasion, I think, 16 or 18 times now, if I'm not mistaken. And my good friend the House Leader on many occasions….

Hon. R. Coleman: Three.

Hon. P. Bell: On three occasions — we call them Coleman country occasions. My friend the member from Prince George–Valemount, and many others….

On the 19th of May my daughter Donna and her husband, Matt, had a grandchild, presented a grandchild to my wife, Brenda, and me. The baby was 7 pounds, 11 ounces, and baby, mom and dad are doing extremely well. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has a new constituent, and we hope that that constituent will be voting Liberal. The baby's name, of course, is Joey Matthew Hobbs.

Tributes

TOM GALIMBERTI

R. Fleming: I wanted to bring to the attention of the House the sudden passing of Tom Galimberti, who was a former civil servant and an entrepreneur. He owned a local arts club at 1410 Broad Street in downtown Victoria. It was a sudden passing. It left his family and friends and former colleagues shocked that he's no longer with us.

Members of this House will know Tom by his long and distinguished career, working for the governments of both Saskatchewan and British Columbia. It was in the 1990s, when he was at the Ministry of Environment, that Tom took on some extremely difficult assignments.

[1345]

One of them was to clean up Howe Sound and the pulp and paper industry and the effluent that was in the environment. It was something that Tom took on and accomplished. He was also one of the individuals who brought B.C. to the product stewardship system, which

[ Page 12507 ]

made British Columbia a North American leader on recyclables and waste diversion. Those were difficult assignments that Tom performed in an exemplary fashion. There are many other accomplishments that Tom had on behalf of citizens of British Columbia.

It's a sad occasion, and there was a wonderful ceremony in downtown Victoria just over a week ago. He's survived by his three sons and his grandchildren. I would ask the House to thank Tom and his friends and the survivors in his family for what he has done for the province.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M215 — COSMETIC USE OF

PESTICIDES CONTROL ACT, 2012

A. Dix presented a bill intituled Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Control Act, 2012.

A. Dix: I move that the Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Control Act, 2012, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Dix: This bill will protect public health, safety and the environment in British Columbia by regulating, restricting and prohibiting the use and sale of pesticides for residential and cosmetic use, and by regulating the use of pesticides around children.

This is the fourth occasion that New Democrats have introduced a bill into the Legislature to ban the use of cosmetic pesticides. It's supported by numerous organizations, including the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and Toxic Free Canada, among many others. It also follows the advice of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization.

As we saw from the submissions to the special committee, this legislation is favoured by the overwhelming majority of British Columbians. The vast majority of submissions supported a ban. We've waited long enough; the time for action is surely now.

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

Bill M215, Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Control Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

M. Coell: Today I rise to speak on an important issue that affects the lives of thousands of people across the province. June is ALS Awareness Month in British Columbia, a time for us to work together to help find a cure for ALS.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, is a rapidly progressive neuromuscular disease. It impacts a person's ability to walk, to talk, to swallow and, ultimately, to breathe. ALS is a fatal disease, with no effective treatment and no cure. Unfortunately, 80 percent of the people who have ALS die within two to five years of diagnosis — some people within months.

The ALS Society of B.C. works tirelessly to raise funds and support those living with the disease. This upcoming Saturday, June 2, is the society's annual ALS Flower Day. Throughout June people can buy a cornflower, and all moneys raised will go towards finding a cause and a cure for ALS. I hope that all members of the House will join me in celebrating the hard work the ALS Society does to fight the disease in British Columbia.

I want to say a special thank you to the ALS Society for all the work they do. This June I encourage all members of the House to participate in ALS Awareness Month and help find a cure for this devastating disease.

I would like to end by quoting Lou Gehrig. On July 4, 1959, in Yankee Stadium at a ceremony in his honour, he said: "Today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth. I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful lot to live for."

DELTA KITE-FLYING EVENT

FOR CLEAN AIR AWARENESS

G. Gentner: Members, think back to when as a child you ran along a grassy knoll against the wind, let go and gazed with amazement at the kite that left your hands, guiding and pulling the line and staring into the sky, wondering if it might actually hit the clouds.

We live in such a beautiful part of the world, but I think we sometimes take our air for granted. Pollution, more traffic and potential incineration threatens the Lower Mainland's airshed, our environment and our health. Incidents of asthma, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer and pulmonary diseases are on the rise.

[1350]

What better way to symbolize our appreciation for good, clean air than by flying a kite? On June 3, 2012, North Delta will be celebrating Canada's Environment Week by inviting families to come fly a kite to commemorate Clean Air Day, which falls on June 6 this year, at Delview Park in North Delta from 12 o'clock noon to

[ Page 12508 ]

2:30 p.m. My office is sponsoring a kite-building workshop, where children can learn to design, build and then fly their own kites.

Along with a kite-building workshop there will be face-painting; bird demonstrations by Orphaned Wildlife; and interactive displays with groups that include the Burns Bog Conservation Society, B.C. Lung Association, the Delta Naturalists, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Recycling Council of B.C. and the FarmFolk/CityFolk.

This is a fun way for children and their families to learn about clean air and our environment because, as we know, our children will inherit the stewardship of the Lower Mainland's airshed. Let's capture the nation's imagination. Stand up for clean air, and come fly a kite. On June 3 kites — big kites, small kites, box kites — of all shapes and sizes will soar and dot the skies in North Delta.

As Winston Churchill once said: "Kites rise highest against the wind." In North Delta the wind will be strong in the airshed that will remain clean, resilient and pristine.

J. Rustad: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure today to have a group from the W.L. Mcleod Elementary School in Vanderhoof that have come down to the Legislature to visit. This is a group of students that I got an opportunity to meet with. We have 24 students from grade 7, with a number of adults that have been accompanying them.

Of course, it's a long way to come down here to be able to visit, and I'm just so pleased to have had the chance to meet them. As well, I'd like to thank the organizer, Mrs. Maggie Fraser, for her efforts in bringing them down here. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SURREY BOARD OF TRADE

TOP 25 UNDER 25 AWARD RECIPIENTS

D. Hayer: On Tuesday, 25 young people who have excelled and may soon be our future leaders were honoured by the Surrey Board of Trade during their second annual Surrey Top 25 Under 25 Awards. The winners, all 25 years of age or less, were chosen based on very subjective analysis of their business or community achievement, their leadership abilities, community involvement and uniqueness of their business or community project.

These talented and skilled young people of Surrey — five of them still teenagers, ranging in age from just 16 years old to a maximum of 25 years — embody the entrepreneurial spirit that makes British Columbia great today and ensures that the province's success lasts long into the future. Because of their exceptional skills and contributions to the community and to the economy, I would like this House to recognize all 25 of them.

Mr. Speaker, there's Afraj Gill, Alisa Zukanovich, Andrea Danyluk, Brendan Graham, Brock Courneya, Daryl Dela Cruz, Gurkiran Mann, Ivneet Bains, Jaspreet S. Lehal, Joyce Loksum Mak, Julian DeSchutter, Kasandra Linklater, Kelsey Filion, Kunal Sharma, Megan Carey, Michael Cheng, Michelle Chen, Quinn Spicker, Ravi Muti, Saif Eshaq, Stevie Vu, Sukhi Sangha, Tyler Spence and William Luong.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating Surrey's top 25 outstanding young entrepreneurs, innovators and community-spirited individuals who one day will be our top leaders — either MLAs or Premiers or MPs or Prime Minister or councillors or mayors.

FARMERS MARKETS IN

COQUITLAM-MAILLARDVILLE AREA

D. Thorne: "Make, bake or grow" is the motto for the Coquitlam Farmers Market, which is one of my favourite places on Sunday mornings. The Poirier Street market, which is only blocks from my house, opened Mother's Day and runs through October 28. I was there on opening day buying my fresh tomatoes and cucumbers, organic fish and chicken, spring plants and, of course, kettle corn and cookies.

One of the joys of the farmers market is the fun of running into people that you've known for years. I see friends of my sons who are now pushing baby carriages, women from my book club and people from my riding — who, of course, always take the opportunity to tell me their concerns.

[1355]

I'm pleased to report that the Coquitlam Farmers Market has expanded to two other sites, the Spirit Square and SFU. The Spirit Square Farmers Market, which is across from city hall, will be on Fridays beginning June 15 and running through September 14 from 3 till 7 p.m. The SFU Pocket Farmers Market is up and running on Wednesdays, now until October 31, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Cornerstone Square on University High Street.

As well as the vendors, volunteers are the heart of the market. They set up and tear down the market every week, they help both the vendors and visitors, they distribute the monthly newsletter, and they help with crafts and with special events.

I love the festive atmosphere at the market with local buskers performing. Of course, they are also volunteers, with their only pay coming from their donations. I've seen some wonderful young people getting their very first taste of fame at the market.

Farmers markets date back to a time before the indus-

[ Page 12509 ]

trial age — before grocery stores, even. It is a wonderful tradition that I am very happy to support. And, Mr. Speaker, the cinnamon buns aren't too bad either.

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY PROGRAM

FOR TEACHERS

M. Stilwell: Earlier this month I had the pleasure of meeting with students from St. Anthony of Padua School in Vancouver. Their teacher, Mr. Mayer, recently took

part in the British Columbia Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. The program is offered by the Legislative Assembly as a professional development course for teachers looking to enhance their knowledge and understanding of B.C.'s political system.

The program brings teachers to the Legislature where they attend question period, meet Legislative Assembly staff and learn about the parliamentary process. The hope is that teachers who take

part in the program will develop classroom activities based on their experience at the Legislature and inspire a discussion on parliamentary democracy among their students.

After the program Mr. Mayer developed lessons for his class. One assignment saw the class write bills that they would like to table in the Legislature. Among the legislation they drafted was a bill to establish a 100 percent tax on all chocolate sales, which I'm not so sure about; a bill to make it mandatory for all cars to contain electric motors by 2020; and a bill to require all children in B.C. to eat at least one serving of vegetables per meal.

This type of activity engages students and promotes an understanding and awareness of the legislative process and how the work we do in this House affects people's daily lives. The ultimate goal is to champion effective citizenship among youth. By introducing them to politics at an early age, we can encourage lifelong political participation.

ROLE OF MLA s AND PROTECTION OF

AGRICULTURAL LAND IN FRASER VALLEY

V. Huntington: Houston, Delta has a problem. In fact, agricultural land throughout the Fraser Valley has a problem.

As members of this assembly, we are chosen by the people to represent them to government. No election to this place is a public choice for a single point of view or a single set of values. The society we represent is a consortium of values, and the wisest here know that their obligation is to find balance. It is not to represent a monolithic point of view. It is not to advocate for a single value. It is not to represent only the ministerial interests one leads.

Our obligation is to understand what makes our society whole, to understand what gives our cultures their essence and to carefully weave our way through values that define who we are and what we hold dear. When those whom we represent say, "Stop, you've gone too far," our obligation is to listen. When they say, "Stop, let's find another way," our obligation is to talk. When they say, "Look, you are ignoring values that are part of our lives and our social order," our obligation is to step back and ponder the wisdom of our decisions.

How dare we decide a community can be sacrificed to business, that pavement is more important than farming the best soil in the land? How dare we decide that industry is more important than an internationally designated important bird area of hemispheric proportions? Have we the wisdom to search for that balance, to know that we cannot ignore one value to promote another, to know that we cannot balance society's values by refusing to properly weigh its values?

Mr. Speaker, I implore the members of this assembly to insist that we preserve the life-giving values of the agricultural land on the mighty Fraser River's delta.

[1400]

Oral Questions

TRAINING TAX CREDITS FOR

SEASPAN MARINE CORP.

A. Dix: Recently some doubt has been cast on the government's commitment to training tax credits to Seaspan under the federal shipbuilding contract. As we all know, $35 million in credits was trumpeted by the Premier and others as an important component of Seaspan's ability to win and, most importantly, deliver on the $8 billion contract.

My question to the Premier is fairly simple: does she stand by her commitment to the $35 million in training tax credits?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, indeed, we do.

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

A. Dix: I'm delighted to get that answer from the Premier. Just to be clear, that means the government will be providing $35 million in training tax credits.

Hon. C. Clark: We are negotiating with them right now, and we are working through those negotiations. I'm not going to negotiate it in the public, but we are working hard with the company, just as we have from the very beginning.

Remember that the government component and the work that the government put into making sure we landed this contract for British Columbia was crucial to ensuring that those thousands of jobs, the biggest federal non-wartime procurement in history for British Columbia, actually came to our province and created

[ Page 12510 ]

jobs right here at home.

Mr. Speaker, 59,000 net new jobs in the last year, almost 29,000 in the month of April alone. We have a plan. It's called Canada Starts Here. We are delivering on that plan and making sure that British Columbians go to work.

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

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, $35 million at the photo op, $35 million on the answer to the first question. Then the answer to the second question: they're negotiating. I wanted to be clear, because the Premier didn't answer the question the second time around. Will the value of the training tax credits be $35 million?

Hon. C. Clark: We intend to honour our agreement with Seaspan — full stop. We are negotiating with them about some of the details of what that's going to look like.

Remember this: there were two contracts that Seaspan was pursuing — one for very large ships and one for smaller ships. In fact, many people say that the contract for the smaller ships was the better one for British Columbia because upwards of 80 or 90 percent of the product will actually be produced right here in British Columbia.

We are very proud of the work that our government did in making sure that this contract was awarded to British Columbians, to put British Columbian workers to work at high-paying, high-skilled jobs. We remain very proud of that.

We remain committed to the commitments that we made to Seaspan. We are continuing to negotiate on some of the details of that, but we are standing by that commitment 100 percent.

INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

C. Trevena: The government has been phasing in a $182 million integrated case management system in the Ministries of Social Development and Children and Families. It's supposed to improve services, but feedback from social workers using it shows the opposite.

Social workers are talking about some very serious concerns. They say it's cumbersome and can result in dangerous mistakes being made. In the Ministry of Children and Families they can't get the information they need about children at risk quickly, and that often results in a crisis.

What is the Minister of Children and Family Development doing to make sure this computer system is not going to hamper the work of child protection officers?

[1405]

Hon. M. McNeil: The integrated case management system that is in its phase 2 has, as with every new technology, some challenges when it first begins. But I have to tell you that this integrated case management system for our ministry alone is replacing 64 individual technologies.

I think what it's going to be able to do is to allow our social workers and our front-line workers, once they get fully trained and fully up to speed on the actual system, to be able to communicate with each other so that communication between the various entities will ensure that children and youth in this province are well served.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I think that the minister's answer is very troubling. The minister is talking about when social workers are fully trained and up to speed, but this system is operating right now, and social workers are working on it. They've documented some very, very serious concerns. We're talking about child welfare. For one, they say that the after-hours notification system is "in complete disarray."

Just one example to show that we are not exaggerating the seriousness of this, and I hope that the minister isn't underplaying it. A newborn baby was not to be sent home with its parents because of safety concerns. The notification about that was not found, and the child went home.

When things go wrong in the child protection system, the results can be tragic. Social workers and staff have to have confidence in the system, and that is disappearing.

I'd like to know from this minister what she is doing to ensure that kids are kept safe.

Hon. M. McNeil: As I said early, this integrated case management system is a long-overdue technical upgrade. Some of the systems we've been using are up to 30 years old, and it is time that we modernize the information system.

This integrated case management system did not come about because we just simply thought it would be a good thing to do. This is the result of many different reports, some written by the Representative for Children and Youth, that feel we needed to ensure that our technology system keeps up with all of the thousands of people that are out there.

Each and every year Ministry of Children and Family alone deals with 127,000 children and youth. We have to make sure that our technology systems keep up so that the services we can give to these children and youth are as effective as they can be.

C. James: I heard the minister say that there are many reports and that this came after a great deal of study. Well, I would have hoped that the government and the minister would have ensured the technology was working first before it was implemented. That would have been

[ Page 12511 ]

important.

These are not simply a few comments. These are many comments from social workers trying to manage the system and expressing their frustration.

One says: "I'm a very experienced computer user. I've done data entry for a very long period of time. But with this new ICM system, we're not getting appropriate training. It's a nightmare. Our case managers spend far more time entering stuff into ICM than they do providing client service. It's extremely hard on them to be forced into a situation where good service is not possible."

A lack of service means chaos — more chaos for vulnerable children, their families and the workers who support them. My question is to the minister. How will she specifically address these concerns so that the work is spent on vulnerable children and not on a computer system with flaws?

Hon. M. McNeil: I want to assure the member opposite that staff are working incredibly hard to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible. But this is a replacement system of over 64 different databases. There are workers that have used some of these systems for an awfully long time, and transitions like this are going to be challenging. They are working as hard as they can, and we appreciate all of the efforts from the staff.

I have to say that shortly after the launch of the second phase, I had the opportunity to go out in Car 86 with one of the members of the Vancouver police department and one of our workers from After Hours.

[1410]

They were talking about the transition and the challenge it was. The police officer was very correct in saying, "You know what? We had the same issues when we moved to PRIME," which is the system integrating all of the police forces. That was a challenge as well, but he said: "I couldn't do my job without it."

After we get things moving along, it's going to be the same story that we're going to hear from our own workers.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I'd say to the minister that the concern is: what will happen in the meantime? What will happen in the meantime to a system that is already stressed, a system that already has social workers managing much too large caseloads, trying to cope, and now trying to cope with a new system that has flaws?

Under the old system, intake for children and youth with special needs used to take 30 minutes. Under the new supposedly improved system, it's taking two hours plus, which often means multiple appointments for families. No one knows what's happening with autism funding. Social workers are duplicating their data entry with e-mails.

I hope that this $182 million system doesn't end up like the BCeSiS system that was used in education. That was a $90 million system that was spent for a colossal failure. We heard things were just fine with the BCeSIS system as well.

Again, my question is to the minister. Will she commit to sitting down with the social workers, the people on the front line using the system, and fix this mess before it, too, gets out of hand?

Hon. M. McNeil: It's always concerning to me when members opposite try and spread some things around that aren't necessarily fully truthful. I'm concerned about that, because there is a transition to a new system. There are always challenges….

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, just take your seat for a second.

I just want to advise members that I am paying attention to what's going on. I would advise the member to just be very careful in the choice of words that she uses.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned when there are things that…. We have to make sure that we are absolutely giving the full story here. Mr. Speaker, I want to read to you an e-mail that we got from one of our social workers. She said:

"I thought you'd like to hear a happy ICM story that we've had. ICM saved the day yesterday. After Hours had removed a young boy from his mother after the boy was abandoned with a stranger at a SkyTrain station. We had only the first names of the mom and child — no other identifying information except that the boy was around three."

She continues to say:

"In ICM, I was able to do a search with query assistant and find the child the same age as this boy connected to a mom with the same name that was given in the report. I couldn't have done this with MIS, which is the old system. Someone had called a number of agencies in the community to put the word out, needing to identify these two people."

But you know, Mr. Speaker, ICM was faster.

GRANTING OF INDEMNITIES

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

J. van Dongen: On May 2, I asked the Attorney General which

section of the Financial Administration Act legally authorized the Deputy Minister of Finance to forgive and extinguish Basi and Virk's $6 million legal fees liability, given the specific limitations imposed by

section 18. The Attorney General did not answer my question.

Two days later an unattributed e-mail was sent by the Ministry of Justice to the media "on background only." Contrary to the October 2010 public statement by Deputy Attorney General Loukidelis, the Justice Ministry e-mail claimed there was no legal liability prior to the guilty pleas. The e-mail goes on to state: "Section 72 pro-

[ Page 12512 ]

vided the legal authority to modify the Basi and Virk indemnities by removing the repayment conditions."

My question is to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General confirm to this House that

section 72 of the Financial Administration Act did in fact provide the legal authority to remove the repayment obligations that were originally agreed to in the Basi-Virk indemnity agreements?

[1415]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

There is a simple way for the Attorney General to earn the public trust on the issue of statutory authority. Rather than sending an anonymous e-mail, will the Attorney General release today the written legal opinion that persuaded her that

section 72 legally provided the authority to remove the obligations that Basi and Virk repay their $6 million of legal fees?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CHANGES

TO IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT SERVICES

M. Elmore: B.C. is a major international entry point for immigrants to the nation. In April I asked this government about the B.C. Liberals' failure to stand up to the federal government's decision to centralize B.C.'s immigration settlement services in Calgary. The response from the Jobs Minister was that they are working with the federal government and that this issue might end up being a good-news story.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case, as we learn more bad news for immigrants coming to B.C. The Victoria office of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, only a few blocks from the Legislature, is closing its doors in two days.

To the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation: can he explain how this is good news?

Hon. P. Bell: We continue to work with the federal government on the immigration and settlement services. In fact, the agreement that we have with the federal government provides for a 24-month notice period of any changes. That continues to be a point of discussion between this government and the federal government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Offices in Victoria, Nanaimo, Prince George and Kelowna will close their doors to people applying for temporary and permanent residency, landed immigrant status and permanent residency cards. There were five offices, and now there will be one — none on Vancouver Island and none in rural B.C.

Again to minister: how exactly does he see this as a good-news story?

Hon. P. Bell: The federal government is making changes not just to settlement services, which is what I responded to, to the member opposite's question, when I originally said that there was, I think, an opportunity for B.C. to find itself in a better position, as we make changes and as the federal government makes changes to its settlement services.

The member opposite should know, actually, that B.C. is overrepresented in terms of its total settlement. The federal government has indicated they intend to fund settlement services on the basis of a proportion of settlement services provided across the country. That, therefore, provides us with an opportunity, I think, to negotiate a good agreement.

The member opposite is actually referring to something completely different that was announced recently by the federal government. I'd suggest that the member opposite actually refer to her federal members to ask that question in that House.

[1420]

I'd also be interested, while the member opposite is standing, to ask if they support federal NDP leader Mulcair in his endeavour to start splitting and creating wedges in this country and not allowing western Canada to fully achieve its economic objectives. We haven't yet heard from the Leader of the Opposition what his position is on Mulcair's comments, and I'd be very interested in knowing that.

PROCESS FOR TRANSPORT OF

DISEASED SALMON TO PORT ALBERNI

S. Fraser: Let's see if we can bring question period back down to earth, hon. Speaker. Atlantic salmon in

[ Page 12513 ]

open-net fish farms in B.C. waters have been testing positive for the IHN virus. And 600,000 diseased fish from the Dixon Bay farm in Clayoquot Sound were brought to Port Alberni docks without any warning, without any consultation with the Tseshaht First Nation, with the Hupacasath First Nation nor with the city of Port Alberni — no advising them of the quarantine procedures that would be followed to ensure that infected materials would not be contaminating the waters.

Can the Agriculture Minister please tell us why the Liberal government didn't work with all parties to ensure that there was acceptable biosecurity procedures in place before bringing infected salmon to the Port Alberni dock?

Hon. D. McRae: The member is talking about IHN, otherwise known as infectious hematopoeitic necrosis, a word I've practised a couple of times because I was waiting for this question. The member opposite is correct. It is a federally reportable disease. When it is a federally reportable disease, it falls under the authority of CFIA, otherwise known as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Now, some things I'd like to clarify, if I may, for the general public who watches on TV. First of all, IHN is not a risk to human health. Also, IHN has existed in nature, as far as we know, for hundreds of years. Pacific salmon, herring and trout, both freshwater and salt, actually carry the disease. Because of that, they've built up a natural immunity over generations of salmon.

If these salmon transfer the disease to wild salmon, there is a problem. Atlantic salmon do not have the actual natural immunities. We have seen IHN break out on the coast before. We saw IHN break out in 1992, 1995 and 2001. Now, there are some differences between what happened then as compared to this outbreak.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: We're seeing a government that just abdicates its responsibility to protect the public interest. That's for sure.

Andy Olsen, a biologist and fisheries manager for the Tseshaht First Nation, was at the dock when the diseased fish were being unloaded, as were Tseshaht First Nations councillor Les Sam;chief councillor for the Hupacasath, Steven Tatoosh; and the mayor of Port Alberni, John Douglas. Fortunately, independent observers were there to alert them.

All were very concerned about what appears to be lax standards for the disposal of the fish at the Port Alberni dock. There were no booms in place. Infected blood was seen dripping at the site. There was no oversight from government.

Can the minister explain why the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations, who have relied on the Alberni Inlet for millennia, and the city of Port Alberni were not consulted before diseased fish were brought to the Port Alberni dock?

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, as well, which helps to answer this question. Like I stated earlier in my first answer, this is a federally reportable disease. CFIA takes the lead on this particular instance.

[1425]

However, the answer to my question, which I posed before I was asked to sit down earlier, was: what's the difference between 1992, '95 and 2001 outbreaks and today? Well, the difference today is there is a viral management plan that exists between the companies and government to make sure we can actually deal with the issue very quickly and coherently.

I'm very pleased to say that in a short-term manner…. When the company found out about the disease, what did they do? They informed CFIA. Then they made sure the test was a positive. Then what did they do? They quarantined the animals. They culled the animals. They disposed of the animals through composting.

This has allowed the opportunity to make sure that we have the best possible opportunities to ensure that the disease did not spread. As we are speaking, over 50 salmon farms are currently testing for this disease, and I'm proud to say right now the latest numbers I've heard…. This was only yesterday, I'm sorry…. Thirty farms have come back with no IHN in them at all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

MUSQUEAM FIRST NATION

AND MARPOLE MIDDEN SITE

S. Chandra Herbert: Nearly three weeks ago elders, chiefs and members of the Musqueam First Nation travelled to Victoria to press this government to protect the Marpole midden site known as c̍ǝsnaʔǝm. The site is recognized as a national historic site yet is threatened because this Liberal government approved permits which have led to a proposed condo development on the site.

Three weeks ago the Minister of Forests and Lands promised British Columbians that he would seek "a long-term, workable solution" to protect this site. Now we're told that the government has said to the Musqueam that they're on their own. Can the minister explain how having the government walk away from the process could possibly lead to a long-term, workable solution?

[ Page 12514 ]

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, let me say that it would be difficult to overstate the importance of this particular site to the Musqueam, and we certainly recognize this.

We are still engaged with the parties. We have had a facilitator at the table. A number of different proposals have come forward that would bring us to a resolution for the three parties. I should make it clear to the House that we are talking about currently private land, which complicates the matter further. It's not Crown land under the responsibility of the province of British Columbia.

However, since the discovery of new remains on the site I am advised that the statutory decision–maker is reviewing one of the permits. In addition to that, we will continue to be in discussion with all three parties, in the hopes of finding a resolution that works to protect the site and also to advance the interests of the city and the developer such that no one is left in a difficult position.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: If walking away from the table and saying to the Musqueam that they were on their own is working with the Musqueam, I would hate to see what not working with the Musqueam looked like.

Despite the fact that this is a national historic site, it took the developer unearthing two intact infant skeletons to get this government's attention. The Musqueam have proposed a solution to protect this site, and the government has not responded.

The minister said on May 10 that a solution would require cooperation of all parties. Can the minister explain how having the facilitators say there's nothing more that they could do is working together with all parties?

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, the member is wrong. The province of British Columbia — working with respect to our Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and also with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — has not said that the Musqueam are on their own. We recognize the significance of the site.

The member seems to be promoting the notion that the province is responsible in areas where we are dealing with private land, a private developer and land that is within the bounds of the city of Vancouver. This is not Crown land. It is, nevertheless, a role that we proudly play to help facilitate between the three parties, and I'm quite confident that at the end of the day, we will find that resolution for all three that protects the site.

[1430]

COASTAL RESPONSE PLAN

FOR JAPANESE TSUNAMI DEBRIS

R. Fleming: B.C. communities want clarity and communication about the province's plan to deal with tsunami debris that is already washing up on our shores. The state and federal agencies in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California have already directly communicated with coastal residents and communities with specific safe guidelines for handling tsunami debris, while B.C. has yet to complete its protocol.

B.C. is clearly behind the U.S. in response planning. I would ask the minister: can he tell this House when the government is going to activate a plan that will protect our coastline and the public while addressing the sensitive issues arising from the tragedy in Japan?

Hon. T. Lake: This problem that we face is one that we have acknowledged in this House on past occasions. We are co-chairs of a joint tsunami debris coordinating committee with the federal government. We also work collaboratively with our partners in Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska.

We had a joint cabinet meeting with our counterparts in Washington in which the Premier and the governor discussed this problem. We are working in coordination with the Department of Ecology in Washington State and working with our counterparts at the federal government too.

We are coordinating the efforts to make sure that the debris is handled in a way that is sensitive to the people of Japan, who have lost very valuable items, I'm sure. We also want to make sure that any of the material that may be considered dangerous in any way is handled in a way that keeps the residents of British Columbia safe. We will continue that work in a coordinated and collaborative fashion.

[End of question period.]

Hon. S. Bond: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Tributes

PUBLIC SAFETY LIFELINE VOLUNTEER

AWARD RECIPIENTS

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, it is our privilege as members in the House today to introduce some very special British Columbians who are exemplary at supporting our communities in their darkest hours. They are volunteers with decades of dedication as part of the 13,000-strong lifeline volunteers across our province.

Those who are with us today are this year's recipients of emergency management B.C. public safety lifeline volunteer awards. I know my colleagues would like to welcome Jim Forsyth of Prince George. He is the emergency management B.C. emergency radio communications volunteer of the year. Dan and Louise Shynuk of Cranbrook are the provincial emergency program air volunteers of

[ Page 12515 ]

the year, as a couple. Walter Bucher of Smithers is the search and rescue volunteer of the year. Lyn Arikado of Kamloops, announced earlier by my colleague, is emergency social services volunteer of the year. Reg Gustafson of Nakusp is road rescue volunteer of the year.

I'd like to acknowledge one colleague of theirs who unfortunately passed away before he received this award, and that is Joe Mandur of Terrace. He's represented today by his wife, Theresa, and his son Joe. He has been awarded the emergency management B.C. lifetime achievement award. He sadly passed away very recently from cancer.

I know that every member will join me in congratulating these exceptional public safety volunteers who are joining us in the gallery today.

B. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: Today we have a group of grade 11 students from the Shawnigan Lake School and their teacher Paul Klassen here in the precinct. I ask the members to please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

Hon. M. Polak: I present a petition on the topic of medicinal marijuana.

J. Brar: I rise to table a petition handed over to me by the B.C. Bottle Depot Association. This petition is signed by 9,070 people requesting that all milk containers should be immediately included in the British Columbia used beverage container deposit system.

[1435]

V. Huntington: I stand to present a petition. I have the rare privilege of presenting over 2,000 signatures in the first wave of a petition requesting that the government condemn the industrialization of farmland and commit to preserving the agricultural land reserve.

Standing Order 81.1

ADOPTION OF

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. R. Coleman: I move:

[Pursuant to standing order 81.1 (2), effective immediately, all remaining stages of the following Bills shall be completed and disposed of in the order prescribed and for the duration indicated:

Second reading of Bill (No. 47) intituled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012 (30 minutes);

Second reading of Bill (No. 49) intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012 (30 minutes);

Second reading of Bill (No. 56) intituled New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act (30 minutes);

Second reading of Bill (No. 50) intituled Athletic Commissioner Act (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading on Bill (No. 14) intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2011 (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 53) intituled Family Day Act (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 44) intituled Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 46) intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012 (60 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 52) intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012 (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 30) intituled Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012 (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 38) intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 51) intituled South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012 (60 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 47) intituled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012 (45 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 49) intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012 (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 50) intituled Athletic Commissioner Act (30 minutes);

Committee and Third Reading of Bill (No. 56) intituled New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act (45 minutes).

And further, Committee on Bill (No. 54) intituled Provincial Sales Tax Act shall be completed and disposed of by 4:00 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012.

At the conclusion of these times indicated, but no later than 4:00 pm on Thursday, May 31, 2012, the Speaker and any Presiding Officer will forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of any remaining stages of the said Bills without amendment, apart from Government amendment, or debate. Divisions called on sections of the said Bills shall be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any divisions called on second or third reading of said Bills may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16 and all other divisions will be covered by Practice Recommendation No. 1.

Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to the times and days of the sitting of the House.]

[1440]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 45

Rustad

McIntyre

Reid

Thomson

Lekstrom

Yap

Yamamoto

McNeil

Chong

Lake

MacDiarmid

McRae

Stilwell

Letnick

Barnett

Lee

Sultan

Dalton

[ Page 12517 ]

Hawes

Coell

Krueger

Heed

Cadieux

Polak

Bell

Coleman

Clark

Falcon

Bond

de Jong

Abbott

Hansen

Les

Hayer

Bloy

Cantelon

Bennett

Pimm

Hogg

Howard

Thornthwaite

Stewart

Foster

Horne

Slater

NAYS — 38

James

S. Simpson

Corrigan

Horgan

Dix

Farnworth

Ralston

Kwan

Fleming

Lali

Popham

Austin

Conroy

Brar

Donaldson

D. Routley

Huntington

Hammell

Trevena

Elmore

Bains

Mungall

Karagianis

Chandra Herbert

Krog

Trasolini

Chouhan

O'Mahony

Fraser

B. Routley

Macdonald

Coons

B. Simpson

van Dongen

Black

Thorne

Gentner

Sather

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this chamber this afternoon we will start with second reading of Bill 47, intituled the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, followed by second reading of Bill 49, intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, and second reading of Bill 56, intituled New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act, and second reading of Bill 50, intituled the Athletic Commissioner Act. By agreement with the Opposition House Leader…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: …we will be reversing the order for second reading of Bill 50 and 56. Bill 50 will come first and be followed by Bill 56. We will then move into the committee stages of Bills 14, 53 and 44. Until close we would follow the order.

[1445]

In

Section A in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will continue with committee stage of Bill 54, intituled the Provincial Sales Tax Act in that House.

In

Section C in the Birch Committee Room, we will continue with the estimates of the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Housing. Following that we would begin the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 47 — COASTAL FERRY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

D. Routley: I rise to speak to second reading of Bill 47.

Before I start, I should say that I've prepared for 30 minutes of speaking. Having spent a long time preparing for that 30 minutes, I now see that, given the time allocation and the number of speakers left, I'll have ten minutes or less.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

That's just the beginning of an absolute failure to defend the democratic process in this House, and it's par for the course of the B.C. Liberal government that we should have bills rammed through with this type of brutal procedure. I think it's a sad day in the province of British Columbia — another sad day in the reign of the B.C. Liberals.

We will make do with what we're granted here by the all-powerful B.C. Liberal government, which must have its way. In fact, that's what got us into the trouble we're in, in this province, be it the HST, be it Bill 29, be it the Coastal Ferry Act. It's all the same. B.C. Liberals ram through legislation that's poorly thought-out, and then have to go back and try to fix it.

That's what we're doing here, really, with Bill 47. Bill 47 is

an act which will amend the Coastal Ferry Act, which will try to deal with some of the failures of the original vision that was brought to this province for a re-engineering of its ferry service.

I think it's important for us to consider what British Columbians expect from their ferry service. We expect a transportation system that puts the public interest first. We expect a transportation system that keeps costs as low as possible and, in the original vision of W.A.C. Bennett, who formed B.C. Ferries, that becomes a tool in developing the economy of this province, rather than an obstacle to that development — and that's what it has become.

The original vision was that what was a Crown corporation would operate in the public interest and take best advantage of the many splendours of this province to provide a thriving economy.

Well, the first ferry act had six principles. The first one was financial sustainability. The second was to adopt a commercial approach. The third was to seek alternative service providers to privatize some routes. The fourth to minimize expenses. The fifth to end cross-subsidization, which allowed the more profitable routes to support

[ Page 12517 ]

those that were less profitable and, therefore, guarantee service to some of our smaller communities. The sixth was to create a greater reliance on user-pay.

Well, it's been an abject failure. Ridership is down many millions of passengers per year. The financial sustainability is an absolute mess. That first principle has been a complete failure. The move to adopt a more commercial approach might be actually something that's been achieved if you consider a commercial enterprise in bankruptcy.

Seek alternative service providers to privatize some routes. Well, that wasn't doable because no one could make a profit on small routes that only were supported through the cross-subsidization and support of the major routes, which were profitable. So that was a failure.

Minimize expenses. Well, we've seen salaries and bonuses for B.C. Ferries executives skyrocket, and we've seen costs to this corporation increase beyond the inflation rate. So that has been an absolute failure.

[1450]

The end of cross-subsidization meant, essentially, that the profit-and-loss centres were split out into a flotilla of loss. The main routes remain profitable, but all the minor routes are in a loss position and are facing service decline or cancellation.

A greater reliance on user-pay. Well, that was a success. Fares have gone through the roof — 40 to 45 percent on the major routes; 80 percent on the minor routes. If you look at the multifare packages that most travellers on the minor routes use, up to 115 percent increases. In my constituency, the Nanaimo-Gabriola run, for multiple-fare purchasers, they've seen over a 100 percent increase.

This has been an abject failure, an abject failure to defend the public interest, an abject failure to take advantage of the B.C. Ferries fleet and what it offers to British Columbians as a potential tool of economic development.

What we've seen is the ramming of legislation without consultation. We've seen ideological priorities defended at the expense of public interest, and the collateral damage to that is the communities up and down the coast and the small businesses that depend on an affordable ferry service.

Although this bill fails to address those problems in general, it does take very small steps in some of the right directions, but it's far from the vision that's needed to take Ferries where it needs to go. It does nothing to address the issue of affordability. The $79.5 million that this bill will inject into the system is dwarfed simply by the interest payments that B.C. Ferries must pay, and those are increased because of its loss of Crown corporation status so that now the interest rates alone per year will be $50 million.

Over the term of this $79.5 million injection, four years, $200 million will be paid out in interest payments. That will more than eat up the injected cash and, therefore, do nothing to address the affordability of fares.

Ridership. This government was warned, and warned repeatedly, by people who use the ferries, by our excellent ferries critic and even by the Commissioner of Ferries that increased fares would lead to price elasticity. In other words, the increasing of fares would result in a lower uptake of service, lower ridership. It was estimated that a 10 percent increase in fares would result in a 7 percent decline in ridership and, indeed, those estimations have proved correct. They have been on the low side. We've seen a loss of ridership, and that loss of ridership means a loss of business in our small communities up and down the coast.

In the constituency that I represent with seven ferry terminals, only one of them a major route, the people I represent are quite deeply impacted, and it goes well beyond an economic impact. It is actually an impact on their right to participate in community. The people of Penelakut Island, who I represent, a First Nations community — those folks commonly have to collect bottles in order to travel back and forth.

When I brought stories — one particular story of an elder, a woman who had to collect bottles, couldn't come up with enough cash and handed the change she did collect to the ferry deckhand, who told her that he couldn't take the cash — the other side laughed. She cried as she told me this story of finally making it to her home on Penelakut by the gifts of people in the ferry lineup paying her fare. She made it home, but she left a good portion of her dignity in Chemainus, on the other side.

Those are the collateral outcomes of the B.C. Ferries model that the British Columbia Liberal Party has brought to this province. It's a tragedy. It's a tragedy because the people of B.C. expect that this province, and especially this House, will work for them, not against them.

[1455]

What we have seen repeatedly, and proven again with the approach to B.C. Ferries, is that, in fact, this government is prepared to allow the province and this House to work against the people of B.C. That is a tragedy. In this case, and in repeated examples in my experience in this House, it's done through these mechanisms of closure.

We expected it. Four months and almost no legislation, and then at the end of the session, bill upon bill delivered in the space of two days — ten bills. Now with only days left to debate and 23 bills left in various stages of completion, this is what we end up with. It's a disaster. It's a shame on the province.

We expect it when we see this happening. We know these bills are coming, and we know there's no time to debate them. But when you actually sit here and see the government willing to take these steps to get their way, to ram through legislation to get their ideological agenda, it's actually sickening. It's a physically jarring experience.

With that and not enough time to debate this bill and others, I'll take my seat in the debate. Thank you to the government.

[ Page 12518 ]

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I'm pleased to welcome 23 students from my constituency of Surrey-Fleetwood. They come from Cornerstone Montessori, and they are accompanied by Tessa Hansen and seven other volunteers. I would ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Routley: I rise to debate Bill 47. I, too, prepared a full 30 minutes for this, and I'm disappointed that we're not going to have the opportunity to more thoroughly discuss an important bill that affects constituents in the Cowichan Valley. Many constituents in the Cowichan Valley have come into my office and talked about how, as a result of escalating costs, it's limited their ability to see family and friends and even do tourism events and that kind of thing, as a result of this government's incompetence.

Really, Bill 47 is kind of an escape hatch for this government to try to get out of the way of their incompetence and hand it over to a commissioner. The commissioner will deal with this political hot potato in many areas.

There's no question that when you look back at this government's original vision for the province of British Columbia…. This act talks about taking time to go around and have a vision and there was originally a vision. I'm going to talk about the original vision back in 2003 when this was introduced by the minister. But I want to give you a short version of the Liberal vision on what they were going to do with the ferry system, and you couldn't imagine a worse plan for the people of British Columbia.

Old W.A.C. Bennett had it right when he talked about the ferry system as part of our highway system. It is an outrage that this government has so mismanaged the ferry system and cost the people of B.C., our constituents. Families all over British Columbia and, for that matter, throughout the world who travel to this beautiful province have a limited experience as a result of this government's incompetence.

Their Liberal vision could essentially be boiled down to it was going to be the "less service for more money" plan. That's the plan — less service for more. So less for more cost. Less service, more cost — that is the Liberal plan. There's no question about it. That's what their decisions have led to.

Now with this bill we're going to have a lot less service with a lot more pain for communities throughout British Columbia. Island communities are going to suffer. If you were living on a small island, whether it be Saltspring, Quadra Island, Cortes — you name them — all up and down Vancouver Island in various regions, those island communities are going to be trembling with the thought that some commissioner can be ordered to shut down service and limit service and just do it.

[1500]

Sure, there'll be some kind of public process. This bill talks about a public process, but at the end of the day, that commissioner can ignore the public just as this Liberal government has done over and over again.

When I look back at the history — and I think it is worthwhile, because it led us to this day — how did we get there? The Transportation Minister at the time, Judith Reid, in second reading on March 24, 2003, said: "Firstly, this legislation sets out the terms of the corporate restructuring." This was all about selling off. If this was a wagon train they'd be selling off the wheels of the wagon.

That's how these guys think. They are thinking about selling everything off. They sold off B.C. Rail. They're now talking about selling off the liquor distribution. You name it. Anything that's not nailed down — they're going to think of a way to try to get rid of it. It's sad for the people of British Columbia that the commons, the issues that ought to be protected by the government of British Columbia for the people of British Columbia are so sadly managed in this way.

Carrying on here, it says: "This act recognizes the new company intends a conversion" — get this — "of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation from a Crown corporation to a new, regulated, independent" — independent, hon. Speaker — "commercial operating company, under

an act, that will be renamed the B.C. Ferry Services. The act underpins…." Here it is, the vision. It underpins the vision, and this was from a government release, March 24, 2003. "The act underpins the vision for the new company as an integrator of services charged with planning and coordinating the delivery of services and activities of the coastal ferry system."

The plan was to head towards privatization, no doubt about it. That was the plan at the end of the day. You look in 2003, with a 77-to-2 majority. They rammed through, just like today. We are getting the government ramming it through — no democracy, ten minutes left to speak about something that's important to our communities, democracy undermined. They've rammed through this legislation.

On June 10…. Actually, I want to talk about September. In 2003 the Crown corporation was quasi-privatized, and in 2009 there was a report out, and get this. Gordon Campbell, Premier at the time, announced that they were going to cut the rates by 33 percent in an attempt to stimulate traffic. Do you know what? Let the record show that that actually worked. That actually worked. At the end of the day, the conclusion of the group that looked at what had happened after Gordon Campbell reduced rates substantially is that there was no doubt that as a result of

[ Page 12519 ]

this, more people travelled. Well, I guess so.

You think about it. If there was suddenly a $50 charge to get across the bridge outside Kelowna…. The folks from Kelowna, if they were told, "Well, it's going to be a whole yearly pass, but you're going to pay 50 bucks to get across that bridge, because you know what? You're using it every day. A lot of folks from Vancouver Island, they're not using that bridge, so maybe it should be a user pay…."

That's how these guys think. If you live on Vancouver Island, oh, well, you should have to pay through the nose time and time again to use that ferry system. Well, they wouldn't think about doing that. They wouldn't think about a $50 surcharge for the good folks in Kelowna, and nor should they. It's a part of the highway system, and the ferries are every bit part of that.

Sure, there should be some charge. I'm not suggesting it should be free. But the outrageous highway robbery that we're suffering today that has kept families apart, kept tourism opportunities away, have impacted…. Even the chamber of commerce folks have said to me: "We've got to keep these ferry systems — the Mill Bay ferry, for example." The chamber of commerce, the CVRD, all the municipal directors are unanimous in saying that we have to keep control of that ferry system and have it.

Now with this commissioner, who knows? We could have at the end of the day…. Now we've got this "less service for more cost" plan again being polished up and shined up as a new bill.

[1505]

What have we seen? We've seen the Million-Dollar Man, so they had to bring in legislation. "Oh, what do we do?" We've got the Million-Dollar Man running around spending the taxpayers' money indirectly, and so it was an embarrassment for government.

They had skyrocketing fares, declining ridership. It really equals a Liberal ferry failure fiasco, and this government had to act at the end of the day. They have now moved in a direction to try to actually consult the people of British Columbia.

Well, they should have done that in the first place — go around talking to the people of British Columbia. Now it seems a little too late, after they've already made such a mess of the situation and created a situation where you're a resort community and you've had all kinds of tourism opportunities lost, in a place like Saltspring Island. This Bill 47 will potentially cut off the dependent communities from their marine highway.

Section 43.1 suggests that the commissioner will have the right to simply shut down ferries for those kinds of island communities. They're held hostage to a government, and now they're putting it off to the commissioner. The commissioner can make those unilateral decisions. I guess he's supposed to just have thick skin and be able to take it on the chin for the government.

There's no long-term vision in this plan, and the commissioner pointed that out. This government has no long-term vision for ferries for the people of British Columbia.

The service is so important. It is critical. The people of British Columbia expect the government to run the services. If every single thing that government did was supposed to be on a profit-making basis, how is that going to work? How are you going to make profit when you have wildfire? How are you going to make profit with so many things? The health care services….

We know that the people of B.C. expect those kinds of services. We pay our general taxes, and people believe that they ought to have the right to a fair transportation system to get on and off the Island. It's only the right thing to do — to allow, particularly, families and seniors to be able to connect.

Certainly, tourists…. I believe the people of British Columbia are missing out on tourism opportunities here in British Columbia as a result of the spiralling costs. Whether you're an American visitor…. I actually ran into an American visitor who said to me that she would come here a lot more often if there was the opportunity to do it in a cost-effective way.

I guess with the time constraints, I'm going to take my place, but I do want to say that we definitely feel that this has been a disaster. Democracy is being undermined with the shortness of the time you've given us here today.

L. Krog: William Andrew Cecil Bennett, Dave Barrett, William Richards Bennett, Bill Vander Zalm, Rita Johnston, Mike Harcourt, Glen Clark, Dan Miller, Ujjal Dosanjh. Nine Premiers, the better part of four decades, builders of a ferry fleet each and every one of them, until we get to the Gordon Campbell B.C. Liberal era, which has seen the destruction of one of the prime economic tools that this government had at its disposal. The same with B.C. Rail — sold down the river.

What are we doing here today? We're dealing with second reading, in a limited way, of the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act.

Now, you may recall when this Legislature passed something that was called the Apology Act. That's where you get to apologize without it having any legal liability. We might as well entitle the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012, the B.C. apology act.

"We're sorry. We're very, very sorry for messing up the B.C. Ferry corporation. We're very sorry to the 800,000 people who live on Vancouver Island and the tens of thousands of people who live on the Gulf Islands and rely on the B.C. Ferry service in order to move their goods, to attend social events, to visit family, to visit doctors and specialists in Vancouver — to do everything that is appropriate when you live in an isolated area or you live on Vancouver Island."

[1510]

The reason we're here today debating this bill is very simple. This government, in

an act of incredible ignorance, driven by its ideological bent, decided to pretend

[ Page 12520 ]

that you could create the B.C. Ferry corporation with a single shareholder, put it out at arm's length and say: "Boys and girls, you're sailing the boats on your own now. You're an independent corporation. You have nothing to do with government, and we're not responsible for you anymore."

It's not like the baby Moses being shoved into the Nile to sail down the river into some future that was somewhat more promising. They shoved this ferry fleet out there and said: "Do the best you can, and here are the strictures on your performance and how you operate."

What do we have after 11 years of B.C. Liberal government? The Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, basically acknowledging, almost as directly as this government can ever do when it comes to informing taxpayers — directly acknowledging — what a failure it has been.

After decades of building up B.C. Ferries, of recognizing its significant contribution to the economy of British Columbia, particularly here on the coast, this government has arrived at a situation where they have to acknowledge that their experiment with taxpayers' money, with British Columbians' lives has been in large measure a failure — a failure.

It's no better summarized as a failure than by what the Ferry Commissioner himself said in his report, in his recommendation 6. "The province should work collaboratively with B.C. Ferries to develop a long-term vision of coastal ferry services…. A draft discussion paper should go out for public consultation."

No vision. The Million-Dollar Man and his highly paid executive team, paid way more than the previous managers of the B.C. ferry system. What did they have after 11 years? They couldn't even turn to the Ferry Commissioner and say, "We have a long-term vision," because this government had no long-term vision for B.C. Ferries, other than tossing it out.

Now we're going to give some more power to the Ferry Commissioner. Hopefully, he'll be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat, metaphorically speaking. He'll be able to save B.C. Ferries. Oh, we're going to give him the opportunity and the power under

section 43.1, as proposed.

"Without limiting the commissioner's powers under

section 42 or 43 to authorize or direct a ferry operator to reduce service on a designated ferry route, the commissioner may at any time direct a ferry operator to permanently reduce service on a designated ferry route in a manner and to a level that are consistent with the applicable Coastal Ferry Services Contract."

We're going to let the Ferry Commissioner shut down routes in the province of British Columbia. Well, I'm sure that possibility and that legislative power is really, really going to encourage investment. So let's just say I'm a tourist operator on Vancouver Island, and I'm contemplating a multi-million-dollar hotel or resort. The Ferry Commissioner is there with the power to permanently reduce a route? Am I going to do it on the Gulf Islands? Am I going to take that risk? Am I going to create jobs in the province of British Columbia? Not a hope.

The fact is what this bill says to investors and to the users of the ferry system is: "You can't rely on us anymore." You will not enjoy the confidence you did in previous governments of any political stripe — both under previous Social Credit governments and previous NDP governments. You will not be able to enjoy the confidence that the B.C. Ferries will be a jewel in the crown of the province of British Columbia.

What you'll be able to rely on is this. There will be no long-term vision. There will not be a commitment to ensure that service continues for all British Columbians or for tourists or for businesses.

Those of us who live on Vancouver Island are fairly conscious of one thing. All the experts tell us we have approximately three days' supply of food on Vancouver Island. Much of that food is delivered to Vancouver Island through B.C. Ferries. We rely on it in so many ways.

We have a ferry act amendment, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, that will do nothing to encourage the confidence that British Columbians need in that ferry system. We are in fact seeing, for the first time in the history of B.C. Ferries, a drop in ridership. The population of the province is increasing, and the ridership on B.C. Ferries is dropping? What does that tell you, hon. Speaker? What does that tell you?

It tells you, like everything else that the Liberals have turned their hand to, they have mismanaged this. They have mismanaged it.

[1515]

They came into government promising good management, and for 11 years they have delivered anything but. We saw it earlier today — the questions around the computer system that doesn't work. We see them spilling $180 million of taxpayers' money over the dams for B.C. Hydro because they messed up the private power projects. Now we see it with B.C. Ferries — dropping ridership, dropping revenue, further losses, a lack of confidence in the system, public distrust, outrage from tourist operators, a lack of investment, a lack of security.

Hon. Speaker, this government should stand up and offer to amend the act as I suggested. We'll call it the coastal ferry apology amendment act.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We're going to apologize to the people of British Columbia, particularly those on the coast and Vancouver Island for the mess we've made of this.I just hope that the ferry corporation lasts long enough so that a decent government in this province can restore it to its former prestige, restore its former position in the economic development of this province.

I've got to tell you that as a native-born Islander…. Perhaps some of those folks on the other side who don't have to rely on B.C. Ferries don't understand its im-

[ Page 12521 ]

portance or the role it plays in the life of coastal British Columbians. There is nothing more important to us than a ferry service that is reliable, that is available, that is accessible and that is affordable — affordable.

Second reading of Bill 47 approved on division.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: At this time I would move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered in accordance with the time allocation motion passed this day.

Bill 47, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered in accordance with the time allocation motion passed earlier this day.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate of Bill 49, intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 49 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. T. Lake: Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be read a second time.

R. Fleming: I rise to respond to this bill. But I think I must begin by pointing out the absurdity of the bill with elements that are certainly good news, including the 550,000 hectares of additions to lands that are protected and conserved in British Columbia, with the backdrop of a 30-minute debate allocation on Bill 49.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There are a number of sections in this bill, there are a number of additions, deletions and removals from class A park status in British Columbia in every region of the province that deserve proper scrutiny — both at second reading and, of course, at committee stage of the bill. But the situation we're in is that debate is being limited and cut off. So I will only be able to very briefly raise a few points in debate this afternoon, given the actions of the government to constrain debate on this bill.

I will confine most of my comments to a couple of sections of the bill that amend the protected areas legislation of British Columbia. I think that the most controversial aspect of this bill — and it will be dealt with by two of my colleagues who are also on strict time limits during this debate — is around the Klinaklini River deletion from the Great Bear rain forest conservation area.

This potentially enables, through that removal of land, a significant addition of an independent power production hydroelectric facility in an area and on a river system that is unique and one deserving of protection. It's one of British Columbia's wildest rivers. It spans almost 1.5 million hectares, and it passes through some of the best remaining wilderness in southern British Columbia. Its clean waters nurture a wide range of species, including bull trout and salmon, grizzly bear and moose.

[1520]

The river itself wends its way through 14 biogeoclimatic zones. There is incredible abundance and biological diversity and ecological value to the Klinaklini River.

This is exactly why government, when it was tested previously on this issue…. The previous Minister of Environment, Barry Penner, was forced to make a recommendation or reject an application that was potentially going to be included in a B.C. Hydro Clean Power Call. He took action on behalf of the government to decline the application to remove the land that is now contemplated in Bill 49 to be removed today. That was two years ago.

Government said no. Government said the nature values of this river, the importance to the fisheries and the wildlife that are sustained by an undisturbed Klinaklini River, were more important and were deserving of protection, as was originally enabled in the Great Bear rain forest conservation agreement. Government actually upheld an agreement that it had previously signed — and did the right thing, quite frankly. This bill this afternoon undoes that.

Now, undoubtedly the government is going to say they are responding to remedies that were recommended by the Supreme Court, because this has been the subject of litigation. Having read the reasons for judgment, that is not the case. Government did have options in what the justice had written about how the dispute might be resolved. Rather than pursue those opportunities, we're back at square one and the government is contemplating something that it rejected only two years ago.

That is the most controversial aspect of what we will be debating this afternoon, and it is why Bill 49 deserves proper and fulsome debate in this Legislature. The government intended to do it in the first instance, and it was persuaded not to shortly thereafter. That is an opportunity that is being denied to the members of the Legislature and members of the public, through their representatives and through other means of having this debate over Bill 49. There is no opportunity to have debate that could persuade government to do the right thing.

That was critically important two years ago, to bring certainty to the Great Bear rain forest conservation agreement and the intact borders of that conservancy, which is being undone, potentially, today with the swift passage and use of closure on Bill 49. I can't think of a better example of why British Columbians are being failed by these last two days of this legislative sitting than that aspect of Bill 49.

The debate deserves to be informed by other things that are happening simultaneously in the House of

[ Page 12522 ]

Commons today. What government will argue it is doing is simply allowing the claims by the power corporation to go forward to an environmental assessment, an environmental review process. Well, that review process is more than likely going to happen after the federal government passes its omnibus Bill C-38.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will be completely different. The Fisheries Act of Canada will be rolled back 40 years and will completely lower the bar on what fish and fish habitat standards and protections are in law in Canada today.

That means that the environmental review that potentially this power corporation will participate in, if the government has its way and has the removal from the conservancy after passage of this bill, will be different. It will be to a standard that is completely unsatisfactory to the public, and it will not respect the natural values of the Klinaklini River, which I spoke to at the outset of this debate. That's the biggest concern in this bill. There are other concerns as well.

[1525]

I think that while there are certainly merits to the removals and the additions around the Stawamus Chief project on the Sea to Sky corridor — and, again, debate will not adequately cover this — I think it's fair to say that there's some worry about proponents who wish to introduce commercial activities into provincial parks in British Columbia — and I think this is due to government cutbacks and the fact that the B.C. Parks budget is at its historic low. The proponent is now responsible for being the convener of community consultation to find out whether it's a good idea.

So the person or the company in charge of potentially introducing profit-making activity into parks is now responsible for community engagement around those kinds of activities, instead of B.C. Parks, instead of the province looking at its management plans for its own park areas.

I don't specifically have a great deal of concern around what this proponent seeks to introduce. I do have concern about the methods which B.C. Parks — the absolute hands-off approach they have taken to enabling discussions like this to happen in communities…. It sets a bad precedent. There's no question about it, and that's something that should be examined more fully in debate and won't be allowed to be.

The situation in B.C. parks is well known. That's an important backdrop to discussion around Bill 49. One can famously remember the now Premier, when she was an opposition critic, criticizing the NDP government in the '90s, when British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in North America to honour the UN commitment to set aside 12 percent of its lands. She criticized that because the budget for B.C. Parks was not being increased when the number of millions of hectares was being increased.

Well, fair point. But let's remind this government that in 2001, when they became the government, the B.C. Parks budget was $45 million. Today it is less than $30 million. Here we are this afternoon in Bill 49 adding 550,000 more hectares to protected areas. If you go through this bill, many of these are good gestures, and they are the results of community processes that have been ongoing. But the point remains the same — the one that the Premier, who was then an opposition critic, made.

You can't increase the responsibilities and the protected area status in the regions of British Columbia when you have half the park rangers, half the conservation officers and $15 million less of a budget today than you did a decade ago. Something has to give.

The problems in B.C. parks are well known. That's an important point to be making in this debate. The government needs to receive the message loud and clear that it's one thing to protect lands in various statuses of different types of park categories we have in British Columbia. It's another thing to actually do the work and make sure that the B.C. park system is vibrant, robust, enjoyable and serving British Columbians well. That is not the situation today in British Columbia as we debate Bill 49.

M. Sather: I rise to join second reading debate on Bill 49, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012. There are some good parts of this bill which, unfortunately, due to the severe time limitation that we have, I won't be able to address. My colleague has addressed some of those.

I want to go on to the most egregious part of this bill, which is simply the altering of the boundaries of a conservancy to allow a major power project, a development which is the worst independent power project in the province in terms of environmental damage. This is on the Klinaklini River.

The Klinaklini was a significant part of the Great Bear rain forest agreement in 2006 involving First Nations, including the Da'naxda'xw-Awetlala First Nation; resource companies; and conservation groups such as Greenpeace, ForestEthics, the Sierra Club and B.C. Spaces for Nature.

The Great Bear rain forest agreement was to be based on ecosystem-based management that encourages conservation and sustainable land use practices. In 2006 Kleana Power Corp. launched its bid to develop a massive hydroelectric project on the Klinaklini River.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The concept of conservancies as protected areas was brought into being in 2006. The test for issuing park use permits in conservancies explicitly restricts commercial logging, mining or commercial hydroelectricity. In fact, it prohibits those activities.

[1530]

The Dzawadi–Upper Klinaklini River was officially es-

[ Page 12523 ]

tablished as a conservancy under the Park Act in 2008. On April 27, 2010, then Environment Minister Barry Penner said that the conservancy boundary would not be altered to allow the Kleana Power project to proceed. That was under a lot of encouragement from the opposition. I remember the debate at the time.

In June 2010 the project was dropped from B.C. Hydro's clean power call. Kleana Power, with their First Nation partner, Da'naxda'xw–Awetlala, took the government to court over Minister Penner's decision to not allow the boundary of the Dzawadi–Upper Klinaklini conservancy to be changed. That court case was heard from December 2010 to January 2011, with a decision on May 10, 2011, last year. There was some very interesting reading in that court case, which I will unfortunately not be able to cover in my brief time.

I want to go to the remedies that the justice proclaimed under this. He said that the First Nation "seeks an order quashing the minister's decision of April 27, 2010, and declaratory relief directing the minister to recommend to cabinet that the boundaries of the Upper Klinaklini conservancy be amended." That's the important phrase in what was being asked for in this court case. "Alternatively, they seek an order directing the minister to consult in the government-to-government process."

The justice went on to say: "It's rare, however, for the court to become involved in directing a particular form of accommodation" — in this case, directing that the boundary be changed. The justice went on to say: "I do not consider this an appropriate case to direct the minister to make the recommendations sought. However, I have concluded that the First Nation are entitled to the following relief.

(1) An order quashing the minister's decision of April 27, 2010." So the decision the minister made is null and void as a result of this court case.

"A declaration that the minister has a legal duty to consult the First Nation about their request for an amendment to the boundary of the Upper Klinaklini conservancy with a view to considering a reasonable accommodation." So the thing is that the government was told that they had to change the order, and they had to consult with the First Nation.

They've gone one step further. They have changed the boundary. I don't see any order in here. In fact, the justice specifically did not order that the government change the boundary, and yet they've gone ahead and done that on this most egregious of projects.

We're going to have, again, I understand, a meagre 30 minutes to question the minister in committee stage about what took place and why it took place. I hope we get some answers, but it is a most disappointing move that this government has made.

If one looks at the map of the Klinaklini, what they've done is taken out the conservancy along a narrow band on either side of the river and called that part that they're taking out of the conservancy to allow the hydroelectric power project that is not allowed under the Great Bear rain forest agreement…. They're calling that a protected area. I'd like to know just what it is that that area protects after they're done with this project, should it proceed. I hope fervently that it does not.

I want to say a few words about the Klinaklini, because we need to understand just what we're looking at here. The Klinaklini drainage encompasses some of the least fragmented habitat on the Canadian west coast. So we're looking at the heart of wilderness on the B.C. coast. We're looking at a pristine environment that is put at risk by this legislation, put at great risk by this legislation.

[1535]

The Klinaklini River, where this project is proposed, is home to all five species of Pacific salmon — coho, chum, chinook, sockeye and pink — plus, steelhead, cutthroat, Dolly Varden and oolichan.

It just boggles the mind that this project was ever allowed to get any consideration, but that speaks to the complete lack of fair process that this government has not had in place around independent power projects, and why an idea that has merit could have been good if it was done right by this government. But it's been done so wrong, and this is the most outstanding case of how wrong it's been done.

The Kleana Power project is a huge project which would produce up to 700 megawatts of power. We're not talking about a small project. This is a megaproject.

Pristine Power, who's one of the partners in the agreement — was or is, they keep switching hands — quoted annual generating capacity of 2,400 gigawatt hours. That's 50 percent of the expected power from Site C. As we know, that's a very large proposal, were it to be developed.

The river would be diverted over 16½ kilometres — put in a pipe over 16½ kilometres. Only the upper two kilometres are above an impassable barrier for fish. So 14½ kilometres, all five species of Pacific salmon, are going to be impacted if this thing ever goes ahead.

I cannot imagine how the government ever, ever let this get to first base. They have not only let it get to first base, but they've gotten themselves in a position where — and I applaud Barry Penner; I applaud him considerably for what he did in 2010 — unfortunately, they're up against the wall.

It has to be said, though, in reading the court case, that the justice noticed that the minister then, Barry Penner, never did make any petition about the negative environmental impacts of this project.

Having said that, my time is running short. I just want to add a couple more words about the project. If this ever happens, we're going to get the ramping problems. That's the up and down lowering of the river that we've seen at the Ashlu and the Mamquan that's killed fish. I just hope that the government will not proceed, because they don't have to. It has to pass an environmental as-

[ Page 12524 ]

sessment. Hopefully, that's not going to happen, if this ever comes to pass.

Sadly, there is much, much more to be said about this project, but I'll pass it over to my colleague for her comments.

C. Trevena: I was quite astounded not only when we had the time allocation giving us just 30 minutes to debate this bill, but that the Environment Minister, who is putting forward this bill…. Obviously, it's quite a complicated bill. There are a number of sections to it. There are a number of changes, some which are quite controversial, and that's what we're limiting ourselves to speak about.

The Environment Minister didn't justify any of this — did not describe the good parts; did not try to justify the controversial parts. When we have a debate, even though the time is short, the Environment Minister just stood up, moved second reading and sat down.

I think it shows the Environment Minister simply cannot justify anything that is in this bill, nor can he justify what his own government is doing in reducing our time to debate these very important issues. Because that's what we're here to do.

This isn't just an opportunity to rubber-stamp what is there for the government. It's an opportunity to have an honest debate, have an honest discussion and analyze what is good and bad for the people of B.C.

[1540]

We on this side of the House think that some of the decisions in this bill are going to be very bad for B.C. My colleagues have been referring to the decision to remove part of the conservancy for the Upper Klinaklini. The Upper Klinaklini is an important part of….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

R. Fleming: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: We have several guests with us here today. Kim Speers, who is a professor at the Royal Military College, is here with Canadian Forces members who are part of the professional officers program. They've been watching debate in the gallery. They're joined by two policy and analysis students from the University of Victoria. I wish the House to make them welcome.

Debate Continued

C. Trevena: The policy analysts, I think, would learn a lot from how this government allows policy to be analyzed, because it really doesn't happen.

We have no opportunity to discuss or analyze anything that is here, nor get the justification for why we should be withdrawing this from a conservancy and allowing the potential — I know it's not there yet — for a massive power project to be built on the Klinaklini, a power project that is second only in size to Site C.

When the Environment Minister had the opportunity to introduce the second reading of this bill, he could have been thoughtful. He could have explained why he was going to make these decisions.

I raise this because it was during questioning in the estimates debate in May 2010 that I, as the member for North Island, was asking his predecessor, the then Environment Minister, Barry Penner, about the Upper Klinaklini and the plans for the conservancy. I was asking very specifically about whether the land conservancies would be respected in the development of independent power projects.

At that time there was a lot of thought that went into what should and shouldn't happen. His predecessor and very short erstwhile colleague said, after going through the benefits and potential impacts of the proposal, which enhances…. The script was just one paragraph. He went in and enumerated in — one, two, three, four, five — about seven paragraphs why there were many potential negative impacts in the project.

I'd like to read them into the record. The Environment Minister at the time, former B.C. Liberal Environment Minister Mr. Penner concluded that he would not remove this from the conservancy because of the increase in the water elevation of the river in the Upper Klinaklini, because of the number of fish-bearing tributaries that will be backwatered by the proposed construction of the intake structure. Fifty-seven hectares of riparian habitat "could be affected, 65 percent of which, we've been told, would be old-growth forests that would submerged or inundated…."

When we talk about "we've been told," one assumes it's the government and not just that one minister. So this present minister knows the potential damage that could happen with the potential of this power project going ahead.

This is not being done in a little back room. This was information given to the Environment Minister that he had the opportunity to justify in second reading but just decided not to bother, just to go along with his House Leader and say, "That's fine. We're going to give 30 minutes — just basically say goodbye to democracy and rubber-stamp whatever we want."

The other significant issues that the Environment Minister…. Who'd have thought. Here I am, defending the former Environment Minister, Minister Penner, here.

He said that there are a number of conservation data centre red- and blue-listed species with old-growth plant communities. A grizzly bear corridor "exists in the area, which serves an important function of connecting the coast to the Interior." There's evidence of moose in the

[ Page 12525 ]

corridor and concerns about "whether or not impacts to fish habitat could be mitigated, and there's concern that perhaps it could not be."

He concluded, having thoughtfully considered the evidence presented to him…. He thoughtfully considered that "after carefully considering all of the factors that I've enumerated, and probably some that I haven't…." The minister actually listened to advice, took in information and decided to think about the impacts that this could have, the reasons why a conservancy had been placed on this

section of land.

It wasn't done lightly. It's not something where you get out a map and "where are we going to put a conservancy today?" You think about where you're going to put the conservancy.

The then Environment Minister said that "after carefully considering all of the factors that I've enumerated, and probably some that I haven't, I have decided that I will not be recommending that the boundaries of the Upper Klinaklini conservancy be amended in order to facilitate this project."

[1545]

The proponents of the project took this to court, as we heard, but the ruling of the court did not give the government carte blanche to withdraw it from the conservancy. It wasn't just: "Okay, you have no right to have this conservancy there. There is the opportunity here for the independent power project. We're going to ensure that you withdraw this from the conservancy."

What was suggested that the government do was to change the order and consult. Change the order and consult. That is extremely significant, because what this government has done is it has opened up the potential — and I know it isn't a given yet— for a massive and potentially extremely damaging power project in an area that has a huge amount of environmental sensitivity.

We don't talk about these things lightly. I mean, we have grizzlies in other parts of B.C. In B.C. we allow people to hunt grizzlies. We have moose in other areas of B.C., and we have an active moose hunt. We have things that are well utilized in our province. We have resources that are well utilized, and those include animal resources.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What we are seeing here is the opportunity for that to continue to be protected, for the government to consult — like the government could debate in this House. The government could explain its thinking when we get to committee stage.

These are issues that should not be done hurriedly. There was a lot of thought that went in. The government obviously has a lot of information about this particular area. It's part of an area that is very well known for its sensitive ecosystem.

The previous Environment Minister was very clear in his decision. He was very clear that he had that information, unlike the present Environment Minister, who sits idly by, waits and hopes that he'll get it rubber-stamped and everything will be fine and he'll never be challenged. I think that's the worst form of government and the worst form of acting as a minister.

The previous minister said that "the proponent had concluded that the project could not go ahead without an amendment to the conservancy boundary. Otherwise, the proponent's trajectory would have been through an environmental assessment process dealing with the federal government and so forth — the routine process."

What's different about this one is that the project requires, allegedly, change to make it happen — to be clear about that. That's what this government is doing. They're trying to make a legislative change to allow this to happen, something which was not allowed before, something which is really going to hurt the province and which has been done without due consideration.

I thank you very much for this and would hope that the Minister of Environment has some answers to conclude his remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the time allocation motion I now move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 49 approved on division.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, to be considered in accordance with the time allocation motion passed earlier this day.

Bill 49, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered in accordance with the time allocation motion passed earlier this day.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 50, intituled the Athletic Commissioner Act.

BILL 50 — ATHLETIC COMMISSIONER ACT

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 50, intituled the Athletic Commissioner Act, be read for a second time now.

G. Gentner: I had an opportunity, I believe, to speak at great length to this bill. Unfortunately, we don't have the time. Believe or it not, Bill 50 is regarding the Athletic Commissioner Act, to bring forward an athletic commissioner. It has 24 pages, and it's a new frontier, where somehow I would have hoped we would have had more discussion on this.

[ Page 12526 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The time allocation part of this…. I want to give the analogy that basically, if we look at boxing — and we're going to be talking about regulating boxing and MMA, for example — could you imagine in the middle of the Ali-Foreman fight, the Thrilla in Manila or the rope-a-dope, when you had a fighter who has had 15 rounds to figure out his strategy, and in the tenth round it's decided that that's the end of the game, that you couldn't complete the strategy?

[1550]

I find it a little ironic. Here we are talking about regulations for boxing and mixed martial arts, regulations to make it fair, and here we are in this House defying the true notion of democracy, and that's debate, throwing time allocation onto something whereby we are not allowed to discuss. I find it's quite disgusting, but nevertheless, that's how this government works.

I somewhat applaud the government for going here with this bill, simply because in many ways it's necessary. I'll give an example. Last year I went into a pub with a dear MLA friend of mine. We went there to watch the playoffs. The Vancouver Canucks were in the playoffs. We went into the bar, and it was filled with people, quite an enormous amount of people enjoying the hockey game.

To our befuddlement, if you will, there they were, almost everybody in the bar, looking at the TV screens. They weren't watching the playoff hockey game between the Canucks and the Boston Bruins. They were watching ultimate fighting.

This is a phenomenon that's been taking hold in our area of endeavour in sports for quite some time. In fact, it's now moved in the popularity of sports. It has surpassed professional hockey as a leisure sport to watch as a pastime. It's also passed, of all things, NASCAR.

It's something here that of course, without question, should be regulated. I think that perhaps we on this side of the House will be supporting it. But we won't have the opportunity, necessarily, to break it down to see exactly where some of the difficulties and problems are.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

First of all, let's get it straight. Under

section 83 of Canada's Criminal Code it deems prize fighting as illegal. It's illegal in this country. Many provinces have made exceptions to include mixed martial arts under the legal umbrella. Of course, there is the matter of a need to exclude professional amateur boxing cards and some forms of kickboxing. It's an important part of it that we do regulate this, because in the dark, dark days, there were many people getting into trouble.

In fact, I have to tell you that at the age of 15, Tommy Douglas had an amateur career in boxing. He actually fought at the One Big Union hall, in a gym in Winnipeg, and he won the lightweight championship of Manitoba. He was quite an incredible fighter. I think he also was a flyfighter. Of course, he became known as the Greatest Canadian.

In a way, because way back then there weren't any laws dealing with boxing, maybe it can be said that under

section 83 Tommy Douglas was breaking the law. We won't put Tommy in that light.

But that is the need — to sort of legitimize the sport. It is pugilism. Particularly in the mixed martial arts it's more to do with not striking but with grappling, which is something which can be quite vicious — a need to, again, regulate.

Now, it's being endorsed primarily by most municipal governments. Municipal governments understand the difficulty of it and the need to deal with

section 83, which prohibits pugilist sports.

Therefore, you can look at many provinces. In Alberta they have a competitive sports commissioner within Calgary, but it's not provincial. We could look at Edmonton, of course, within Alberta. They have their own athletics commission, a boxing and wrestling commission. In British Columbia we have one in Nanaimo. We have one in the city of Vancouver.

It's time, of course, that we bring in another provincial bylaw. I can go on to the other provinces that are in the same situation. Ontario and Quebec have taken the initiative to create a provincial commissioner, Ontario's athletics commission.

In some ways, that is what's driving this one. I think one of the reasons it's being driven isn't because of necessarily the safety and support of the sport itself, but it may actually be because of the competitiveness by promoters to facilitate sport and the economies in cities. I know that in the province of Ontario the NDP there grudgingly supported it because they understood the capacity and the economy it brought to Toronto, for example.

[1555]

We know that municipal governments are supportive. A city councillor of Vancouver has welcomed it. We don't seem to get too much push-back, nevertheless. There are some cultural issues relative to this sport that's being foisted upon us, and there are some good comments and bad comments. I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about it.

Sen. John McCain said that mixed martial arts…. He equated it to human cockfighting. I don't know if it necessarily cost his defeat in the presidency of the United States, but it stuck with him nevertheless.

I've heard many people describe it. One minute they're boxing. Then, all of a sudden, someone kicks the guy in the neck. Then you'll be rolling around on the ground. There could be different holds called the triangle hold, the guillotine, the rear naked choke. It goes on. Then, of course, there's tapping out, the ability to tap out and admit defeat.

What this bill hopefully will do is regulate those types

[ Page 12527 ]

of rules so that some of those rules are not nefarious or dangerous or harmful to those who participate.

It's not going to go away. When you look at the ratings and look at the popularity of the sport, I suppose it's far better that we do it legally as opposed to having it being performed in a back barnyard somewhere like in the good old days — in the '30s, for example — when boxing really wasn't much regulated. We had nothing but safety and health concerns.

Basically, I want to talk about the statistics. I wish I had more time to bring into exactly what we're looking at today. But I'll give you an example, hon. Speaker. On November 12, 2011, during one fight between Velasquez and dos Santos, there were 8.8 million viewers watching ultimate fighting. It was probably one of the largest participatory viewerships in any sport, particularly with pay-per-view. Perhaps the government is of the position where it may actually find that there are those fights…. They'll come to Vancouver, for example, and watch this sport.

There are about 18.1 million Americans — we don't have the statistics for Canadians — who participate in the mixed martial arts. Of that, 9.4 million are adults. Surprising and concerning is that 5.5 million are teens and 3.2 million are kids. I realize there are different rules in how you fight when you have children, relative to kickboxing. These, hopefully, are going to be addressed.

Again, I want to give the demographics. The household income that seems to enjoy this sport more than any other…. Believe it or not, it's those with an income of over $75,000. It's an interesting demographic. It's a question of whether or not this is just a fad or a fashion that's here and is going to go away. I don't think it is. On this side of the House we believe it's better to regulate some things rather than not.

The question that comes up: is this really

an act of violence? It's interesting. We allow sports people — in particular, hockey players — to get into fights and actually hurt each other. Yet they're not necessarily charged, even though in many areas in our society a similar type of kerfuffle would result in a criminal charge. This is a somewhat violent sport, but it's not necessarily as violent as, shall we say, boxing. If I have a chance, I can talk about that as well.

The question comes up, of course: are we actually sanctioning violence? This is a question that we've got to ask. Many people would say that we are. Probably the majority of younger people who watch the sport and participate say we aren't.

The interesting thing about ultimate fighting is that 43 percent of those are made by decisions. TKOs, technical knockouts, are 31 percent, and 14 percent are actually true-blue knockouts. When you start talking about concussions…. We're talking about concussions. It's a question of whether or not, through the regulation, we will be able to deal with this again.

[1600]

I'm going to stop there.

I've got five more minutes, according to my ringmaster over there, who's making sure that I stay within the confines of t