2011 Legislative Session: Third 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)

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Allan Williams

J. McIntyre

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Frankie Bones

M. Karagianis

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M215 — Senate Nominee Election Act

J. Les

Bill M216 — Poverty Reduction Act, 2011

S. Simpson

Bill M217 — Workplace Bullying Prevention Act

R. Chouhan

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Brain injury awareness

C. James

Western Canada Summer Games in Kamloops

K. Krueger

Elder abuse awareness

K. Conroy

Contributions of volunteers

D. Hayer

Community response to fire in Burnaby-Edmonds area

R. Chouhan

Graduates from schools in Burnaby North area

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Cost of government information on harmonized sales tax

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

Process for referendum on harmonized sales tax

B. Ralston

Hon. C. Clark

Payment of legal fees in B.C. Rail court case and indemnity policy review

J. Kwan

Hon. B. Penner

H. Lali

Ministerial Statements

B.C. representation in House of Commons

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2010

Multiculturalism report, 2009-10

Petitions

S. Hammell

Motions Without Notice

Terms of reference for special and select standing committees

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act (continued)

B. Simpson

Hon. M. Polak

S. Fraser

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

L. Krog

Hon. D. McRae

Hon. B. Penner

C. Trevena

Hon. M. McNeil

Hon. T. Lake

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4)

H. Lali

Hon. I. Chong

B. Ralston

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2011-2012

Hon. K. Falcon

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2011-2012

Hon. K. Falcon

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2011-2012

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2011-2012

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011

Bill 4 — Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act

Bill 5 — New West Partnership Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Bill 6 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 7 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 8 — International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act

Bill 9 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 10 — Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act

Bill 12 — Police (Independent Investigations Office) Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

Bill 14 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011

Bill 15 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4)

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2011-2012

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

N. Simons

Estimates: Legislation

Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

[ Page 7849 ]

THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: We have 22 grade 5 students joining us today in the gallery. They're from Sir James Douglas School, a school in my riding, and they're in the French immersion program. They're here with their teacher, Ms. Claire King, and four parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Tributes

ALLAN WILLIAMS

J. McIntyre: With the session ending, I thought we would be remiss in not acknowledging the passing of one of our distinguished former members. Allan Williams, QC, passed away February 28, 2011, at the age of 88 years. He's survived by his wife Marjorie and three children.

In 1950 he earned a law degree from UBC, and in the five decades of his career he combined a successful legal practice with an exceptional career in public service. Amongst a variety of elected positions, I want to highlight his service to the Legislative Assembly of B.C. where he served 17 years as MLA for West Vancouver–Howe Sound after being first elected in 1966.

He served as a Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs and was appointed Attorney General in 1979 where he served in that post until 1983 when he retired from provincial politics and returned to private practice at Davis and Co.

Additionally, he served on several commissions and boards including the Whistler Land Corp. After a full career, he was then lured back into local politics, serving three terms on West Vancouver council until he retired in 2002 at the age of 80.

I understand the Speaker's office is arranging to make a donation to the Alzheimer's society at the request of the family — thank you, Mr. Speaker — but I'd like all members of the House to take time today to acknowledge the past accomplishments and contributions to British Columbia from a man clearly devoted to his profession and his community.

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: Carmen Gustafson is joining us here today. For anybody who has taught, this is one of those special students that come along. When she was a student, she represented B.C. schools in Washington, D.C., at a conference. She went on to run for the Green Party federally. She was a member of Golden council — I think the youngest councillor ever elected — and she's just finished an environmental law degree. I just want to ask the House to join me in welcoming her to Victoria.

Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted today to offer an introduction for a constituent of mine in Vancouver–Point Grey. Dr. Peter Wong is joining us today. He and his family have made a lifetime of contributions to British Columbians in hundreds of different ways. One of them, of course, is a huge contribution to Vancouver's Chinatown and the Asian community across British Columbia. I hope the House will please welcome my constituent, Dr. Peter Wong.

A. Dix: I want to introduce today the love of my life — my wife, Renée Saklikar, is in the galleries today — and to say to everybody in the House, especially on my side, I am not counting this as a date. In fact, hopefully, we'll be doing that later. Renée has assured me she is not doing any primary research today on the harmonized sales tax. Nonetheless, I'd like everyone in the House to wish her welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: Joining us in the House today are two very hard-working people with government communications and public engagement in my ministry. Jeremy Uppenborn is a junior public affairs officer, and Bronwyn Lawrie is a co-op student from the University of Victoria who has just joined us for the summer. They do great work, and I'm very fortunate to have them. So would everybody please make them feel welcome.

B. Routley: I have with me today in the Legislature Bill and Shirley Parks. Bill is quite a mountain of a guy. He ran the vertical resaw at the Youbou sawmill. I still remember when I first met him back in the 1970s doing that job. We had a wonderful tour and a nice lunch, and we indulged in a piece of pie. With that, I would ask this House to join me in welcoming Bill and Shirley Parks.

M. Coell: I have a constituent visiting us today, Mona Brash. She is accompanied by 24 officers from the Canadian Armed Forces from army, navy and air force. They come from greater Victoria and all across Canada to study a set of university courses, the officer professional military education program. They're actually studying Canadian federal and provincial politics at this time. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

V. Huntington: I would like to introduce a constituent of mine, Mr. Eric Amlin, an engineer and technical transportation consultant, and Mr. Rod Fru. Both gentlemen

[ Page 7850 ]

are here on behalf of Wolf Trailer, which happens to be in the riding of our colleague from Vernon-Monashee. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

R. Howard: I have a guest in the House today. Mark Rogers is the vice-president of a great British Columbian group of companies. The Surespan Group built many assets across this great province, including almost 5,000, I think, resource bridges. Just as a note, Mark's father once occupied your chair, Mr. Speaker — the Hon. Stephen Rogers. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to introduce a couple of guests in the gallery today. One of them is a good friend from my constituency and a member of my constituency association. Tom Longman is here in the gallery with us.

I want to join the member for Saanich North in welcoming the students, the officers from the Royal Military College division of continuing studies, to the House.

One of them is a friend of mine, who is here as a student. Scott McGregor has served overseas and studied firsthand and served our country in areas where political conflicts are a reality. He's now studying B.C. politics. He may find some similarities between the two in his experiences. Would the House make him feel welcome today here in the Legislature.

J. Thornthwaite: In the gallery I'd like to greet my constituent Carmina Gooch and her partner, Terry Roberge, who came to visit the Minister of Agriculture with me today. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. D. McRae: A constituent from the Comox Valley is visiting us today. Would the Legislature please welcome Jim Harris to these chambers.

D. Routley: I have two guests today, my friend Wayne Dunn and his son Kabore Dunn. Wayne is a consultant in corporate social responsibility and has been since before the term was ever coined. His wife, Gifty, is a native of Ghana. He works on social licensing projects. You'll find Wayne in that intersection between corporate, government, social and environmental project development.

One of his projects was the first private sector project to win the World Bank Development Innovation Award. His wife, Gifty, and he met while they were on the board of an international development organization in Ottawa.

His son Kabore is a former teammate and friend of my stepson Matthew — a very good hockey player. Kabore was the last cut from the B.C. team last year, one of the youngest players in the camp.

I'd like the House to help make my friend Wayne and his son Kabore welcome to our House.

M. Dalton: A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of introducing my grade 4 teacher to the Legislature. I'm on a roll, the members will be pleased to know. I've reconnected with my grade 5 teacher.

Interjections.

M. Dalton: Yes, grade 5. We're on a roll.

I haven't seen her for 40 years, and yes, she is in the House. I knew her then as Miss DeIure. She was my teacher in the Canadian Forces Station Holberg, which now is only trees. There's nothing remaining there, but there are trees. It's beautiful.

She was a great teacher. She put me on a group called the Fast Four in math. She built up my self-confidence and wrote nice things in the report card. I do have those report cards still. Some people have said nice things about me, yes.

It's amazing that I haven't reconnected because she is, in fact, married to Gordon Campbell. I tell you the truth. She is married to Gordon Campbell. Gordon served alongside the RCAF in World War II and later became a teacher. Joanne and Gordon Campbell — that's her married name now — live in Sidney, and I look forward to having lunch with them after question period. I'm just happy they're here.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1345]

Hon. M. Polak: We are joined in the gallery today by a very distinguished guest, Chief Robert Hope. He is here to watch the rest of our discussion on committee stage of the Yale First Nation final agreement and to witness the historic vote that will take place later this afternoon.

D. Donaldson: Today visiting the precinct is the Hazelton Secondary School's girls soccer team. They are amazing young women, great role models. They won the zones and are here in Victoria participating in the single-A provincial championships. After a 1,200-kilometre bus ride yesterday, they're playing two games today. I would like to ask the House to welcome the team, the parents who came down and their teacher sponsor Stacey Brown.

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the gallery today is Mr. John Hanuse. John has worked with us in the east annex and been of great help to our MLAs. He's completing his contract here and will be returning to Cortes Island. Let's all wish him well for his great assistance and wish him well in his future endeavours.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is Petty Officer First Class Chris McCrea, who's the husband of Jennifer McCrea, who works and works ably in the Ministry of Education. Chris is here, as others have noted, with his classmates and their instructor, Mona Brash, for a course that fascinatingly is entitled "The Canadian Forces and Modern Society: Civics, Politics and International Relations."

[ Page 7851 ]

I understand that they have come here specifically to see our question period to provide a model of civility, moderation and thoughtfulness. Would the House please make them all welcome.

R. Sultan: In the gallery today we have a very poised and capable young lady, Emily Driedger, a grade 11 student at Lambrick Park Secondary School in Gordon Head. Would you please make her welcome.

D. Hayer: Joining us in the precinct today are 22 grade 7 students and 20 grade 5 students who are visiting from the Ellendale Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They are joined by their teacher and trustee from New Westminster school board Michael Ewen as well as parents and volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to come over here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today of welcoming to the world Isabella Catherine Ramsell, daughter of my niece and her husband, David. This is the babe that makes my sister into a grandmother, so it's remarkable for our family. I'd ask you all to make her very welcome.

Tributes

Frankie Bones

M. Karagianis: A young foster child with multiple challenges has reached a very successful pinnacle. I'd like the House to congratulate Frankie Bones, who is graduating this weekend. He has an extraordinary music talent, and he has overcome many challenges to achieve an extraordinary goal in his life. I hope the House will offer great congratulations to Frankie Bones.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M215 — Senate Nominee

Election Act

J. Les presented a bill intituled Senate Nominee Election Act.

J. Les: I move that the act be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Les: The purpose of the bill is to modernize the Canadian Senate in a way that reflects the values of British Columbians and best represents British Columbia in the Senate of Canada. It is clear that the new federal government is open to Senate reform and hearing from provinces on best practices, and we are happy to engage with our federal counterparts to renew the Senate and find a mutually beneficial agreement to reimburse our government for the expenses incurred in conducting the elections prescribed in this act.

Thanks to advocates like Sen. Bert Brown from Alberta, who is himself an elected senator, these are conversations of value enabling us to talk about real change for British Columbians. The Senate Nominee Election Act provides a legal framework for the election of senatorial nominees to represent British Columbia in the Senate of Canada.

Our Premier has made a commitment to support open government, and this act provides another tangible example of following through on that commitment. At our recent convention B.C. Liberal members called for a framework for electing senators. Following through on that commitment to engage with British Columbians, I am pleased to introduce this legislation.

[1350]

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

Bill M215, Senate Nominee Election Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M216 — POVERTY

REDUCTION ACT, 2011

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction Act, 2011.

S. Simpson: I move this bill be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Simpson: This bill is intended to put in place a legislated poverty reduction strategy for British Columbia. This legislation will establish a minister accountable for poverty reduction in our province and will mandate that minister, following a comprehensive consultation process, to report to the Legislature with accompanying legislation to put a comprehensive plan in place that includes identified targets and timelines for poverty reduction.

This legislation will also require that a representative advisory committee be established to support this poverty reduction strategy and that the minister report annually to the House on the progress that is being made on this plan.

This is a critical and overdue initiative for British Columbia. As a province we continue to have the worst levels of child poverty and overall poverty in Canada. Over 500,000 people in British Columbia live in poverty,

[ Page 7852 ]

and 120,000 of those are children, more than 11 percent of our total population. As a result, British Columbia has over the past decade become the most unequal province in our nation. This inequality must end, and this Poverty Reduction Act is a step in that direction.

Seven other provinces of all political stripes have moved forward with similar strategies, yet B.C. has steadfastly refused to either provide meaningful supports or be held accountable for helping the poor.

Poverty reduction is not an easy thing to do. It is not without costs, but in a civilized society, in a society as wealthy as ours in British Columbia, it is imperative that we do all we can to break this cycle of poverty and, in particular, do all we can to make sure that our children have real opportunity.

This is about families. It is about children, seniors and the disabled. It is about women escaping violence. It is about aboriginal people in our communities. It is about our brothers and sisters, our parents and our neighbours.

It is about strategies in the areas of income, housing, child care, education, training and health. It is about the government being the catalyst to help build the partnerships with the non-profit sector, business, academia, social justice groups and other levels of government.

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

Bill M216, Poverty Reduction Act, 2011, 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.

R. Chouhan: I seek leave to table a bill.

Leave granted.

BILL M217 — WORKPLACE BULLYING

PREVENTION ACT

R. Chouhan presented a bill intituled Workplace Bullying Prevention Act.

R. Chouhan: I move that the bill be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Chouhan: We all know the negative impact of bullying on people. Victims of bullying have suffered severe trauma caused by harassment, and in some cases it has led people to commit suicide. Bullying does not stop on the playground. It can carry on to the workplace.

Harassment causes psychological and physical harm. It includes wilful acts, patterns of behaviour, ignoring and isolating people. It is

an act to humiliate and intimidate people.

In a workplace victims of bullying are unable to work to their full capacity. This not only impacts individuals but also the business. Productivity is affected, and it becomes a financial loss for the business owners.

This bill carefully defines "harassment" and provides measures and procedures for workers to report incidental workplace harassment. It provides sound policy for investigating incidents and making workers accountable for acts of harassment.

Other provinces such as Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba also have brought in similar laws.

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

Bill M217, Workplace Bullying Prevention Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BRAIN INJURY AWARENESS

C. James: When someone breaks a leg, the injury is plain to see. But when someone suffers a brain injury, the damage can be completely hidden from view, yet the effects can be devastating and life-changing.

Every year in British Columbia there are about 14,000 new brain injuries. The result of such injuries can be temporary, or they can be lifelong and may cause partial or total functional disability.

Survivors of acquired brain injuries face monumental challenges. They need a tremendous amount of support to cope, to recover, to be active members of our society. Their families and friends need support, too, and time to learn and to understand.

Around our province there are some amazing organizations dedicated to making a difference. They include the Victoria Brain Injury Society right here in Victoria–Beacon Hill, which runs on the people power of more than 55 dedicated volunteers. Their goal is to help citizens living with a brain injury to become self-reliant, confident and productive and to overcome the risks of homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, and crime. The society provides a supportive and safe environment that emphasizes the abilities, not disabilities, of each individual.

By using the experience of volunteers who have experienced an acquired brain injury themselves, the society's peer support program has proven to be a successful way to help survivors deal with the devastating repercussions. Volunteering can help the survivors, as well, and increase their ability to cope and rehabilitate themselves.

[ Page 7853 ]

June is Brain Injury Awareness Month. I hope that all members will join with me in thanking the individuals and organizations across B.C. that have dedicated themselves to helping those working to recover and cope with brain injuries. The injury might be invisible, but not the generosity and care of those who take on this important work. It makes a huge difference in communities every day.

WESTERN CANADA SUMMER GAMES

IN KAMLOOPS

K. Krueger: I'm pleased to rise and share the invitation and the enthusiasm of the people of Kamloops and the Thompson valleys for the Western Canada Summer Games, which get underway 64 days from today. I ask the members opposite and all members of the House to please mark your calendars.

August 5 to 14, come to Kamloops. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson and his staff will help you find rooms. We'd like to welcome some 2,300 athletes, and you along with them, and many more visitors — from Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and of course British Columbia.

These athletes, the best in their age groups, bring a high level of competition to the games. B.C.'s athletes will be aiming to win the tenth consecutive Western Canada Games trophy as the top-performing province or territory in the games.

Kamloops, of course, is the tournament capital of Canada — it may well soon be the tournament capital of the world — with extensive experience in hosting successful top-notch tournament and sporting events. It's a community that achieves excellence every time out, and it's the ideal host for these games.

We're anticipating a $7 million economic impact from hosting these games, and they will leave a legacy of sport development, trained volunteers, community infrastructure and pride. The games are a massive undertaking — 12 different venues; up to 2,500 volunteers; ten days packed with sports, arts, culture, entertainment and community spirit. It's indeed a very big job to pull all of this off, but the people of Kamloops and the host society are certainly up to the task. We're proud of our track record for hosting games in the tournament capital of Canada.

I'd really like you all to come to them. Join us in the Thompson valleys in August for the best-ever Western Canada Summer Games.

ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS

K. Conroy: As one ages, one is faced with all kinds of experiences, some wonderful and some not so wonderful.

One of the worst problems, which is often a painful secret, is that of elder abuse. June 15 marks World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Elder advocates from around the world promote awareness in an attempt to prevent elder abuse. The slogan is "My world, your world, our world — free of elder abuse."

Elder abuse comes in many forms — physical, emotional, neglect, financial and denial of rights. Often assets are taken, health is adversely affected, family and friends can become alienated, and the victim is often threatened and intimidated by the perpetrator of the abuse.

Elder abuse is surprisingly common. One in 12 seniors in B.C. is abused. More often than not the abuser of the elder is a family member, close friend or caregiver. The abused senior may be embarrassed and not willing to reveal the abuse or neglect.

The good news is that there are a number of organizations in B.C. that are helping seniors to deal with abuse. The B.C. Centre for Elder Advocacy and Support is a provincial organization that educates and raises awareness about elder abuse issues.

[1400]

Locally, in my own constituency, the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Seniors, or SPCS, was formed after the tragic case of the Albos, who were separated and subsequently died away from each other. The group's commitment is to make sure elderly couples are not split up but in fact can live with the dignity they deserve. They continue to be advocates in our region, ensuring seniors and their families have the support they need when dealing with difficult situations.

Here on the south Island there are a number of groups, including the Saanich Peninsula Health Association and the Old Age Pensioners Organization, Branch 191, Greater Victoria group. Both of these groups have been advocating for a public inquiry into the suspicious death of a local senior, Kathleen Palamarek. In this case the suspected abuse was due to overmedication, and the family needs answers.

As elected representatives we need to work together to ensure elder abuse is not tolerated and is, in fact, eradicated, and that seniors alive today don't have to suffer the same tragedies as the Albos and Kathleen Palamarek and their families.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS

D. Hayer: What truly makes a community are the people who contribute to it, the ones who help bring us all together, the ones who generate pride and ensure inclusiveness for all. Without volunteers, elders would not be as well cared for, pioneers would not be remembered, heroes would not be honoured. For that matter, many of us in this House may not have been elected had it not been for the hard work of many volunteers. The assistance provided to British Columbians by those volunteers is priceless.

The value of directors, executives, volunteers and members of non-profit societies is worth more than

[ Page 7854 ]

gold. I doubt our economy could ever generate the funding to adequately pay for the services that volunteers give from their hearts. I am proud to regularly meet with many of the groups who are driven by contributions of volunteerism.

We are fortunate to have dozens and dozens of those great volunteer organizations in my community. Some of the volunteer groups in my community include Fraser Heights Community Association, Port Kells Community Association, Tynehead Community Association, Guildford Community Partners Society, Fleetwood Community Association, Rotary Club of Surrey Fraser Heights, Rotary Club of Surrey-Guildford, Rotary Club of Cloverdale, North Surrey Lions Club, Guildford Lions Club, Royal Canadian Legions of Whalley and Cloverdale, Indian Ex-Servicemen Society of B.C. and Dogwood Anti-Poverty Society.

The list of organizations and individuals who help others as devoted volunteers is almost endless in my community. I am certain that in every region of this province the worth of volunteerism is boundless. I ask the House to join me in offering a heartfelt thanks to the hundreds and thousands of British Columbians who so generously volunteer their time and skills to help and support other British Columbians.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO FIRE

IN BURNABY-EDMONDS AREA

R. Chouhan: I am pleased to talk about the spirit of cooperation in my constituency, Burnaby-Edmonds. About a month ago an apartment fire left over a dozen families homeless. Many of these families were new immigrants, low-income with young children. Some of these people did not have any relatives or friends to depend on, but they were lucky to live in a community which is known for its generosity and compassion. Without delay, they were helped by a network of dedicated service providers, volunteers and all levels of government to provide them with housing and other forms of assistance.

I am proud to have such dedicated community members and organizations in my constituency and would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts. They were: Doreen George, Edmonds Community School coordinator; Maggie Marquardt, outreach worker; Sara Shaw, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House; Brian Cousineau, city of Burnaby; Cheryl Stogren, Progressive Housing; Wanda Mulholland, task force on homelessness; Burnaby Fire Fighters Charitable Society; Peter Julian, MP; SACHI Foundation; Deer Lake community church; Salvation Army; Helping Families in Need; Ministry of Social Development; B.C. Housing; and Minister Responsible for Housing.

Also many thanks to Laarni de los Reyes, my constituency assistant, for her hard work on this file. She went above and beyond her duties to ensure that families received all the help they needed.

Once again, my sincere thanks to everyone I have mentioned here and many more for their dedication and hard work for making our community a very welcome place for everyone.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members to make sure their cell phones are turned off.

[1405]

GRADUATES FROM SCHOOLS

IN BURNABY NORTH AREA

R. Lee: Summer is here, and students all across B.C. are completing another year of studies. Last week I had the honour to attend three graduation ceremonies for three schools in my constituency: Burnaby Central, Burnaby North and Alpha Secondary.

I was also privileged to present scholarship awards to three students, one from each school, making their departure from high school just a little bit sweeter. These students are a great example of what academic excellence means. They have demonstrated good citizenship in the school and the community, and participated in community services and volunteer work. They are also interested in public administration.

I'm sure Karen Chan, Eric Xu and Hannah Lin will continue to exceed expectations well beyond Burnaby Central, Burnaby North and Alpha Secondary.

I'm also impressed by the drive of students like Trevor de Zeeuw from Burnaby Central, one of the 18 teens from around the world chosen to participate in the Students On Ice educational expedition to the Arctic; Kevin Hua, the Governor General gold-medal recipient from Alpha; and Paula and Peggy Hsien, twin sisters from Burnaby North who have won numerous awards in table tennis and who have excelled academically.

It's very inspiring to be able to meet and honour these students. With young people like this, B.C. is truly facing a bright future. I encourage all members to join me in acknowledging the impressive achievements of these students. All the best to every student who is graduating this year. This will be a memorable year.

Go, Canucks, go!

Oral Questions

COST OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

A. Dix: Yesterday the Minister of Finance finally acknowledged that his $5 million Stickman campaign was a one-sided, partisan affair. He claimed that the government wouldn't offer any arguments in favour of the PST-GST system because — and I'm quoting him precisely: "There isn't any positive to the PST. There just isn't."

[ Page 7855 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just wait a second.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Will the Premier finally acknowledge what her Minister of Finance acknowledged yesterday — that the B.C. Liberal Party is using public funds to sell its HST to the public?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm glad the question came very clearly at the end, because the Minister of Finance and I were engaged in a little argument about which of us was going to get to answer this HST question today. We have been looking forward to the opposition raising the HST in this Legislature for a long time. And why?

We've been looking forward to the chance to be able to debate whether or not we will have a 12 percent tax, which, of course, is what they will support, or whether we will have a 10 percent tax in British Columbia; whether or not we will be fairer to families or whether or not we will be unfair to families, which is what they are arguing for; whether or not we will rebalance the taxation between business and individuals; whether or not we are going to make it easier for families to get ahead or whether we're going to follow that age-old NDP recipe and keep making it harder and harder for the working people of British Columbia to get ahead.

I'm delighted the NDP have finally found the courage to raise this question in the Legislature, and I'll look forward to a couple more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

It's going to be one of those days.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[1410]

A. Dix: You know, there are some Liberals who can bring balance to this debate. For example, former Finance Minister Carole Taylor said: "This particular tax takes the tax off business. It takes $1.8 billion off of business, and it puts it on consumers."

Then there's the B.C. Liberal Party itself.

Interjections.

A. Dix: Oh, you know they want to shout that stuff down.

Interjections.

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

Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Well, I think I'll read that again.

Former Finance Minister Carole Taylor, a B.C. Liberal Finance Minister, when she was describing what the Premier used to describe as the sneaky tactics of all of her colleagues, said: "This particular tax takes the tax off of business. It takes $1.8 billion off of business, and it puts it on consumers."

It did it last year. It's going to do it this year. It's a $3.6 billion tax increase on families. That's what the former Minister of Finance says — a $3.6 billion tax increase on families.

What did the B.C. Liberal Party themselves say? What did they say? They said the HST "would extend the PST tax base to a broader range of goods and services…. This is a major concern." It's major because it means a huge number of items go from zero percent — that's zero percent — to 7 percent, and those are paid by B.C. families.

If the Premier is so confident in her position, why doesn't she stop her political party, the B.C. Liberal Party, from using public funds to make their case with an ad campaign that's unacceptable to British Columbians?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the opposition's coming up with a whole new argument in favour of their 12 percent tax. I'm delighted. I'm delighted to see these arguments — finally, on the last day of the Legislature — come to the House. I'm delighted they're finally raising the HST in the Legislature. It gives us a chance to talk about whether or not British Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Premier.

Hon. C. Clark: It gives us a chance to talk about whether or not…. Who in this House is in favour of a 12 percent tax, or a 2 percent tax reduction on everything? Who is it in this House that's in favour of a 12 percent tax?

Who is it in this House that doesn't care about fairness for families, who isn't interested in helping families get a little bit ahead — although we all know that families are increasingly feeling like they're struggling? Who is it in this House that doesn't want to address the issues of the independent panel report?

Who is it in this House that wants to ignore the views of the 300,000 British Columbians that we talked to in the course of this HST consultation, the largest public consultation in British Columbia's history?

Of course, it's the New Democrats. It's the New Democrats who have their ears closed. While they want a 12 percent tax, the people on this side of the House and British Columbians are saying it's time to shelve the 12.

Interjections.

[ Page 7856 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, a $3 billion tax increase on families. Who would believe that's good for families? Perhaps the Premier.

[1415]

Perhaps it's the Premier who complains that we're not debating HST in the House and then brings in closure to stop the debate. I thought the Premier might have learned in Vancouver–Point Grey that it's a good idea to show up for the debate. I guess there's no debate when you hire an animated Stickman to put forward your position.

Will the minister finally cancel that ad campaign and ensure that that money goes where it belongs — to B.C. classrooms, to B.C. hospitals, to people with developmental disabilities? Will she shelve the campaign now?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know why the NDP is so scared of information. They've been complaining there hasn't been enough all these many months, and now all they complain about is that there's too much information getting out there.

I don't say we shelve the campaign. I say we shelve the 12, which I think is what British Columbians will also support.

We need to be fair to families. We need to make sure that we're rebalancing the tax burden, and we need to make sure it's a little bit easier for people to try and get ahead in an economy where it's been really tough for a lot of people to get ahead.

I don't think British Columbians are going to buy NDP math. He stands up, and he talks about the billions of dollars. Will they believe the math from an opposition leader who produced eight deficit budgets in a row? Will they believe an opposition leader who was there in the Premier's office when they raised taxes to the highest in Canada?

It is no surprise that the NDP want higher taxes. They don't want to have a lower 10 percent tax. They want to have a higher 12 percent tax. It's no surprise when it's the same group of people that burdened families across British Columbia with the highest income taxes not just in Canada but anywhere across this great continent.

Now, this is my last chance to answer a question on this topic from the leader. I do hope the next questioner gets up and gives the Minister of Finance the courtesy of asking him a question about whether or not, indeed, we should shelve the 12.

C. James: This Premier has proven once again why the public doesn't believe anything the B.C. Liberals say, especially on the HST. It's now very clear to everyone in the public that this Premier has spent her time coming up with new slogans instead of standing up for families.

Let's take a look at the campaign on the referendum itself. Allowing the pro-HST side to run a campaign with no spending limits, with no disclosure requirements, isn't fair or unbiased. This is the people of British Columbia's referendum, not the B.C. Liberals' referendum. Shifting the goalposts to give one side the advantage shows complete disrespect for the voters of this province.

My question is to the Premier: why won't you impose spending limits and disclosure requirements right now, today.

[1420]

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, one thing you never hear from the NDP opposite is.... They're not pointing out that there are any errors in those facts, in that information campaign.

All you hear is that they are uncomfortable with those facts, and I can understand why they are uncomfortable with those facts. The entire time we've been in session, I have been waiting, sitting and waiting, listening to all of their impassioned speeches about why they don't like the HST, but I have yet to hear a single argument about why it makes sense to go back to a 12 percent PST plus GST — not a single cogent argument out of that side.

Perhaps it is because nine of the ten fastest-growing economies in the world — including China, India, Taiwan and Singapore — all have value-added taxes like the HST. But I note with interest that the one country that doesn't, the one country that they're always fond of quoting, which still has a retail sales tax today, is Cuba.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

C. James: Let's look at the B.C. Liberals' campaign for this referendum. No spending limits. A referendum ballot in the summer. And $5 million of taxpayer money spent on biased advertising — no disclosure. This is unprecedented.

My question, again, is to the Premier. When will the Premier and the B.C. Liberals wake up, recognize this is the public's referendum and stop playing games with the public?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just for once could the NDP do their homework and get their story straight? They were just telling us a while back that they wanted to move the referendum forward. The Premier followed through on that commitment and moved the referendum date forward.

Now, if they had done their homework, they would have known that moving it forward required moving it over to the Referendum Act to ensure that we could actually have an early referendum. If they read the

[ Page 7857 ]

Referendum Act, they would understand what the rules are around the Referendum Act.

The fact of the matter is that this Premier has kept the commitment to move the date forward. We have kept our commitment to make sure that the public has factual information to ensure they can make an informed choice.

They are upset because the facts are uncomfortable. They are trying to argue that instead of a 10 percent HST with an efficient tax system used by 140 countries around the world, they want to go back to an inefficient, dual-tax system at 12 percent, with a GST and PST. That makes no sense to anybody.

PROCESS FOR

REFERENDUM ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

B. Ralston: No surprise that the Finance Minister would choose the example of China. The minister is on record as being an admirer of Chinese democracy for some time.

The minister talked about the referendum and the Premier's commitment on the provincial referendum. When she was running for the leadership….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

[1425]

B. Ralston: When the Premier was running as a leadership candidate for the leadership of her party, she promised, in connection with the referendum, that it would be conducted in the same manner as a provincial election. When she was in a position to make that decision, she promptly went back on her word.

Unlike a provincial election, there are no spending limits for HST proponents, nor are there any disclosure requirements. Perhaps a little bit more of that Chinese example that the Minister of Finance was speaking of.

It is the public's referendum, not a B.C. Liberal donors' referendum. Can the Premier explain why she's adding to the already high level of distrust of the B.C. Liberal government by conducting the referendum in this way?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to get up and speak to the opposition again on this issue. As I've said a number of times, we want to make sure that the HST is fair for British Columbians. We want to make sure that we're rebalancing the taxation burden between business and families.

The independent panel told us that it wasn't fair the way it was. They told us that families would be, on average, $350 behind, so we're fixing that. We're going to a 10 percent tax, which will mean that every single family will be ahead when it comes to this tax than they would have been under the system that the NDP is advocating.

We do need to make sure that taxes are fair for families. I know that that isn't an issue you will find at the heart of NDP platform documents. I know that fairness for families isn't part of a record that includes the highest income taxes of anywhere across this continent. I know that fairness for families isn't part of a government that had a record of raising small business taxes by 80 percent.

I know that's not the kind of fairness for families that they're talking about, but we truly are talking about fairness for families. It is interesting, as the Finance Minister pointed out, that every time they do have the temerity to get up and talk about the HST in the Legislature, they never talk about the reality of the tax.

I hope that the critic will get up and offer us next his defence for why he wants so badly to go back to the PST-GST.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The Premier would rather do anything than talk about her broken promise. She promised not to sell B.C. Rail in the year 2000. She promised….

Interjections.

B. Ralston: A very clear commitment.

She promised to conduct this referendum in the same manner as a provincial election. Why doesn't she address the reason why she broke those promises and tell the public why they should trust her ever again?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, when the critic goes back that far, he is tempting fate. He is tempting fate because…. And here's the thing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Premier.

Hon. C. Clark: Here is the fate that he is tempting. When he asks a question like that, it's entirely possible that the Minister of Education might not be able to stay in his seat and might have to get up and talk about something like the fast ferries. But we'll stay away from that today.

I'll do my best to answer the question. We are doing what we can to try and make sure that the HST is fairer for families. That's been my commitment all along. We want to make sure in this referendum that British Columbians have the information that they need to be able to make a

[ Page 7858 ]

good decision, a well-informed decision. Whatever decision that is, we will accept their verdict.

[1430]

But for my part — and I am unashamed to say this; I've been saying this for over a year now — I will be voting in favour of the HST.

The new, improved HST is going to be much fairer for families. Every family in British Columbia, with a 2 percent tax cut, is going to be further ahead than they would be under the tax that the NDP is advocating — a 12 percent PST-GST. I don't think British Columbians want to go back to it, but we'll see what happens as a result of the referendum.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

AND INDEMNITY POLICY REVIEW

J. Kwan: In October of last year the Premier said, on the Liberal B.C. Rail corruption scandal: "There are outstanding questions the government must answer. For heaven's sake, the public has the right to know what those answers are." But just a few months later the Premier did another one of her classic flip-flops. The $6 million B.C. Rail plea bargain is "not something I intend to reconsider." She further says: "It's a decision that was made, and it's not something that I'll be revisiting."

Funny how that is. She was curious about the plea bargain when she was a talk-show host, but now that she's Premier and has the power to do something about it — poof! — that curiosity is gone.

My question to the Premier: was her quest for the truth just empty words, just like the promise not to buy votes on the HST?

Hon. B. Penner: Well, this issue has been canvassed thoroughly, more than four hours….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. B. Penner: This issue has been canvassed thoroughly, for at least four hours, maybe more, during the estimates debate of the Ministry of Attorney General and another hour and a half or so during estimates debate for the Minister of Finance. I understand that it's also been canvassed during estimates debate for the Premier. This is how the opposition chooses to spend their time, and that's fine.

We have made it clear that we have concerns with what happened. We want to make sure that taxpayers' interests are better protected in the future. That is why we have retained the services of Mr. Stephen Toope at the University of British Columbia to conduct a review of the indemnity policy to see how it is that it expanded from civil proceedings to criminal matters in the 1990s and beyond. We want to see what the results of that review are, and we're looking forward to that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The current indemnity review does not provide Dr. Toope the mandate to investigate the corruption scandal. Dr. Toope has not been directed to investigate the $6 million payoff, and the Premier knows it. The Premier was in cabinet when the B.C. Rail went down. She likes to hear herself talk, so let me just quote her, from the year 2000.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: She said: "We're not going to sell B.C. Rail." She was in government when the B.C. Liberals went back on their election promise to not sell B.C. Rail, and she was very, very close to the scandal corruption case — very close. If she expects British Columbians to have faith in her ability to govern and to have a clean record on the B.C. Rail corruption deal, will she direct Dr. Stephen Toope in writing to investigate the $6 million payout as part of her review? If not, why not?

Hon. B. Penner: We can't turn the date back and put a different stamp on the decision that was made. The Leader of the Opposition might choose to do that, but that's not our choice.

[1435]

We do want to find out if there's a way we can better shape the policy for the future. To quote from the terms of reference, which are publicly available but apparently have not been read by the member asking the question, Mr. Toope is asked to do the following: "This review is to consider the rationale for the policy, the history of the development of the policy, how it has been applied in the past and the need for indemnity arrangements from a public administration perspective."

I suggest the member take the time to find the terms of reference, which are available publicly on the Ministry of Attorney General website for all to see.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

H. Lali: One minute two accused Liberal insiders are saying that the B.C. Liberal corruption scandal goes much higher into the upper echelons of the Liberal government. The next minute they plead guilty and take the

[ Page 7859 ]

fall because the Liberals threw $6 million of hush money at them to end their trial just before Gary Collins, a former Liberal minister, was to take the stand.

It stinks, hon. Speaker. Everybody knows it stinks, and the Premier knows it stinks. Even the Premier knows it stinks, and that's why she herself had asked: "Why did the Crown offer the plea deal in the first place, and why did they feel that they needed to throw in the $6 million indemnity in order to get the accused to sign it?"

To the Premier: why are you refusing to seek the truth about the B.C. Liberal corruption scandal and the $6 million payout? Is it because you're afraid that other B.C. Liberals will be implicated in this Liberal corruption scandal?

Hon. B. Penner: As has become evident, reading skills are not a strong suit for the opposition, for if they were, they might have read the following

article in the Globe and Mail , February 17, 2011, with the headline: "Files Exonerate Elected Liberals in B.C. Rail Scandal."

The first paragraph: "An exhaustive police investigation into political corruption surrounding the sale of B.C. Rail found no evidence of wrongdoing by former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister" — now the Premier — "or any other elected official, according to documents obtained by the Globe and Mail ."

Perhaps it's time for the opposition to offer an unqualified apology to all the people whose reputations they besmirched within the safety of this legislative chamber. If they have allegations to make and they're so confident in what they're doing, take it into the hallway and take your chances with the results.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

B.C. REPRESENTATION

IN HOUSE OF COMMONS

Hon. C. Clark: I rise to inform the House that I've sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and I'll read it, if I can, into the record now.

"Dear Prime Minister Harper,

"I recognize that this was a commitment your government made in the last election, and I'm pleased to see that you and your government intend to move this initiative forward in order that the new seats can be in place for the 2015 election.

"I look forward to working with your government and the Hon. Tim Uppal, the Minister of State, Democratic Reform, as you move forward with this important initiative.

[1440]

"On behalf of all British Columbians, thank you for taking these steps to make the House of Commons more democratically representative of Canada's regions."

I'll also just add — that's my letter to the Prime Minister; I'll table it when I sit down — an appeal to the members of the opposition as well. The members of their party in Ottawa may not be so excited about B.C. getting its fair share in the House of Commons. Indeed, their federal leader hasn't expressed unqualified support. In fact, if anything, he's been unsupportive of British Columbia receiving its fair share in the House of Commons.

So I would ask the members of the opposition to do all that they can to lobby their brothers and sisters in Ottawa. I know the Leader of the Opposition speaks French. It will be useful in approaching his many Quebec colleagues in Ottawa to make sure that British Columbia gets its fair share.

The federal government wants to do this. I hope that the opposition, this opposition, can find a way to persuade their colleagues and the opposition in the House of Commons to vote…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It's a ministerial statement.

Hon. C. Clark: …in favour of this legislation, should it be introduced.

I'd like to table this letter now.

Mr. Speaker: Just to remind members, it's a ministerial statement. The Leader of the Opposition has time to respond.

A. Dix: We all know that when very serious letters like this are sent to the Prime Minister, letters whose first sentence is "media reports suggest" and second sentence begins "if accurate," those ones he takes particularly seriously.

For years I have advocated for B.C. to get its fair share of representation in the House of Commons — for years I have. I say it's about time, and even this proposal doesn't bring us to that level. B.C. should have its full share of representation in the House of Commons, and we should have our full share of representation in the Upper House.

Currently, as the members of the House know…. I'm not going to waste the time of this House with silly partisan statements like the one made by the Premier of the province. I think we in British Columbia should argue — when we have one senator for every 700,000 citizens and other provinces have one senator for every 30,000 citizens — to see the abolition of the Senate and fair representation for British Columbia in the House of Commons. That's what we advocate on this side of the House — serious positions on serious issues.

The issue of representation in the House of Commons is a fundamental one. We in B.C. over time and because of circumstances have been shortchanged, and that has

[ Page 7860 ]

to change. I find it wrong. I just find it wrong that the Premier of British Columbia, rather than trying to speak for British Columbia, would attempt to make this a vicious, nasty little partisan issue.

I think what British Columbia wants is a Premier who will speak for British Columbia, who will speak for our representation in the House of Commons, who will speak for our representation in the Upper House, who will defend the interests of British Columbia — who will do this and lead British Columbia to a better future. That's what they want, and that's what they're going to get soon.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: I respectfully present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act's

section 72(8).

Hon. H. Bloy: I have the honour to present the multiculturalism report for 2009-10.

[1445]

S. Hammell: Mr. Speaker, dare I rise?

Petitions

S. Hammell: I rise to present a petition from citizens who are…

Mr. Speaker: I think you've got to worry about your own Whip on the cell phone. [Laughter.]

S. Hammell: …opposed to the imposition of the wireless smart meters.

Hon. R. Coleman: With leave, I rise to table the terms of reference for some of the select standing committees of the Legislature.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

TERMS OF REFERENCE for special

and SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. R. Coleman: I've given my colleague the opposition House Leader a copy of these motions in advance. These motions are the direction and terms of reference for the following committees: the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Select Standing Committee on Health, a Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth and a Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides.

I move that those motions be dealt with now.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, and in particular to:

1. Be the committee that receives and reviews the annual service plan from the Representative for Children and Youth (the "Representative") that includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal year;

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical injury or death of a child; and

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans delivered by the Representative to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered:

1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:

(

a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;

(

b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2011 on the results of those consultations; and

2. (

a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers:

(

i) Auditor General

(ii) Chief Electoral Officer

(iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner

(iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner

(

v) Merit Commissioner

(vi) Ombudsperson

(vii) Police Complaint Commissioner

(viii) Representative for Children and Youth; and

[ Page 7861 ]

(

b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed in 2 (

a) above.

3. The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services shall be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General Act and that the performance report in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as shall be referred to them by this House or pursuant to the Recall and Initiative Act , as the case may be, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers, and records, as the Committee requires.]

[1. That the reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the Third Session of the thirty-ninth parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report referred to in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act which is referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act .

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That the Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered to:

1. Examine the projected impact on the provincial health care system of demographic trends to the year 2036 on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians.

2. Outline potential alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the baby boomers on the provincial health system, and

3. Identify current public levels of acceptance toward the alternative strategies.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Health, the Committee shall be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That a Special Committee be appointed to unanimously recommend to the House the appointment of a Representative for Children and Youth, pursuant to

section 2 of the Representative for Children and Youth Act , and that the said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[That a Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides be appointed to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the elimination of the unnecessary use of pesticides in British Columbia and to conduct consultations on this issue with the public and key stakeholders, by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider, the Special Committee shall specifically consider:

1. The scope of any ban on the sale and use of pesticides, including those used solely for cosmetic purposes; and

2. Any appropriate exemptions and restrictions on the sale and use, which may apply.

The Special Committee shall provide recommendations to the Legislative Assembly with respect to the development and implementation of legislative provisions regarding the unnecessary use of pesticides.

The Special Committee so appointed shall have all the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case

[ Page 7862 ]

may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motions approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will start out with committee stage of Bill 11, Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, followed by committee stage of Bill 8, the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, then followed by Bill 13, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, and Bill 15, intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), all of which are in committee stage this afternoon.

In the little House, in Committee A, we will be finishing the estimates of the Office of the Premier, and then we will go into the Ministry of Energy and Mines' housing portion of debates.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation

Final Agreement Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

section 2 (continued) .

B. Simpson: I would like to recognize the presence of Chief Robert Hope and any other members of the Yale First Nation that are present. I do want to again restate my desire to be understood in my questions of the Yale treaty as process questions, not the question of Yale's right to that treaty. I hope that they will be taken in that spirit.

[1450]

With respect to questions of process, there are three issues that I'm canvassing here. First, of course, is whether or not we have enabled a B.C. Treaty Commission process, whether it's defaulting to a first-past-the-post system because of resource issues, because of preferred tables and so on and whether or not we need to rethink that.

Secondly, is it time for British Columbia, now that we've got three treaties under our belt and this one proceeding, to really examine the best positioning of overlapping claims? Do we want to force litigation post-treaty, or do we want to look at reconstituting the B.C. Treaty Commission, giving it a renewed mandate, renewed resources, so that overlapping claims issues can be done in advance of treaty like other jurisdictions do?

Then finally, we're going to go to page 21 just now,

section 2 of a bill that's before us that's 495 pages long. This treaty is getting caught up in the pathos of this House, as we saw today — probably the worst demonstration that even this House has experienced of how imbecilic debate is becoming. It's little wonder that voters walk away from us when they see this kind of nonsense go on.

Here we are, because of that kind of stuff, truncated into page 21 of 495 pages with 35 minutes left for debate. Again, I argue that I think there's a more reasonable way to do this.

I wish to read a statement into the record. There's a bit of length to the statement, but there's a reason for reading it in, because it best captures my conversations with the Stó:lô. I do give my apologies to Chief Robert Hope that I have not had similar conversations with Yale. It just has not happened.

This is a statement by Hugh Brody, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Aboriginal Studies at the University of the Fraser Valley, is an associate at the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge and author of Maps and Dreams and The Other Side of Eden .

He states:

"The trouble with the Yale agreement is that it both does and does not pay due attention to the history. The rights of a First Nation to its resources is, of course, a reading in history and is built on detailed accounts of how the land and river were known and used in the past. But many of the people who know and use that set of fishing sites have been dispersed.

"Guided by ideas about farming as the right way to live, government forced families to move from the rugged lands of the canyon to the wide alluvial valley downstream. Many Stó:lô were resettled in the agriculture region of the Fraser Valley around Chilliwack. But the people who moved away from the fishery to live still went to the canyon to fish, to learn, to pray and, in some cases, to be buried.

"Attachments to those sites did not just fade away. The resource did not simply slide into the hands of those who lived near to it. Every fishing season, families go back to their sites to catch the food they need and find the heritage they identify with.

"At the moment it looks as though the Yale agreement will entrench the rights of the people who live in or near Yale and deny or reduce the rights of those who live outside that community. This is to create or to aggravate tension and hostilities in the wider area. It is to consolidate and worsen a historical wrong that came from the implementation of the Indian Act, the splitting of peoples into small bands on scattered reserves and the relocation of people to places that governments thought would be right for them.

"It is also to launch argument and legal actions that would drain resources and even further erode relations within and between First Nations of the area.

"Historical damage has come from measures that failed to acknowledge deep needs for heritage or links to land and resources. By pressing ahead with this agreement, the government could yet again be proceeding without due regard to those needs and links without addressing the painful results of history. This would make things worse, not better, for the Stó:lô community as a whole."

As Mr. Brody and others point out, including the Stó:lô, this final agreement will lead to litigation. This final agreement will lead to potentially active protests in an area that has already been in dispute and suffered from active protests.

[ Page 7863 ]

My question to the minister is on clause 2, and it's a desire to understand what proceeds now on

section 2.4.7, "Indemnities."

[1455]

It indicates that the Yale First Nation must indemnify Canada and British Columbia from "any and all damages, costs excluding fees and disbursements of solicitors," etc., for any action or omission by Canada before the effective date.

Then 2.4.8: "A Party who is the subject of a suit, action, claim, proceeding or demand that may give rise to a requirement…." It talks about payment to that party pursuant to indemnity.

I'm not clear. Again, as the opposition critic had indicated before, this is legal language that I'm not clear about, because I do understand we may be looking at a decade-long legal battle that may take the issue of title to the court. Taking the issue of title to the court is the explicit reason why treaties are entered into and why we have a B.C. Treaty Commission process.

Could the minister please explain if it is the Yale First Nation that has to bear the brunt of any claims against this treaty? If not, how does that process work, and who is it that the Stó:lô would lay claim against?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll deal with a couple of the earlier parts of the member's question before I get to the specific question on hand.

First of all, I want to reiterate. The BCTC process is not a first-past-the-post system. The treaty contains in it, as do other treaties, contemplation of future treaties that may impact on Yale. So there are ample provisions made, and in fact, there is the assumption made that there will be future treaties and that there will be interaction between those treaties and Yale.

We are certainly having greater success in recent years in reaching treaty agreements, and we appreciate the work of the B.C. Treaty Commission. By all accounts, it is working well. Certainly, we're always open to suggestions to try and improve any process, but I have to say that recent evidence — that being the signing of modern day treaties and progress for other First Nations toward treaty — is, I think, strong evidence that the B.C. Treaty Commission process is working very well.

It's also important, again, to emphasize that contrary to the assertions of the Stó:lô, this treaty does nothing to damage the

section 35 rights of the Stó:lô, and in case of any disagreement with respect to that or a finding that there is some infringement, we have the non-derogation clause which protects against that.

With respect to the learned gentleman's opinion that was shared by the member opposite, I did note that in the description of the treaty, the person writing it seems to have forgotten that the current status of reserve land is that it is completely under the unilateral control of the Chief of the Yale First Nation. There are trespass laws that can be enforced such that if the Yale First Nation did not wish to have people accessing that reserve land, they can certainly have that enforced. In fact, in the treaty, there are access provisions that ensure that both the public and the Stó:lô have reasonable access through a system or agreement that will be developed at a later date.

This does not have to lead to litigation. In fact, it's our expectation that it will lead to further negotiation. We have continued to actively engage with Stó:lô. We will continue to do that. It is our expectation that we will be able to negotiate a resolution to the issues that have caused them concern.

[1500]

With respect to protests. I have grown up in the Fraser Valley. There have been active protests for decades with respect to these issues. There continue to be active protests. Those are not the result of the treaty and will not be the result of the treaty.

To the specific question. The member references

section 2.4.7 and

section 2.4.8. This is standard language that's included in any treaty. It's not unique to Yale.

The member is misreading the section. It does not apply, does not reference and is not related to litigation that may be brought by Stó:lô. This is Yale indemnifying the parties in the case that a Yale member may decide to pursue litigation with respect to Yale treaty rights.

B. Simpson: Because of a shortage of time…. We have canvassed back and forth as a fundamental disagreement in terms of the minister's

interpretation of current Yale rights versus what the treaty does and what Stó:lô understand. Again, because there isn't a Stó:lô representative in the House and because we haven't taken this to committee and because committee hasn't taken the final agreement out and heard witness from Stó:lô, then I have no discomfort in attempting to bring Stó:lô into this House.

This is the only time for public debate on this very extensive treaty. I appreciate the minister's clarification of what is meant by "indemnify." The minister has referred to, and I know the opposition critics canvassed this somewhat, 2.12, on page 25 — the other aboriginal people.

The question here, of course…. As the minister has indicated, the access for Stó:lô now will be by permit, what the Stó:lô call gatekeeper, and again, there's the Fraser itself. There's the Frozen Lakes area. There are Kuthlalth areas that are contentious. Chief Joseph Hall has indicated to me that he is in agreement with 90 percent of this treaty. They would like some language that gives them some clarity and surety around access here.

The minister has pointed a number of times to 2.12 as the way that this will be addressed in the future. Could the minister clarify — we've had a very brief touch on this — what the legal definition of "best efforts" are and who or what entity determines if best efforts have actually been achieved?

[1505]

[ Page 7864 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I'll walk through a few of the things that have been raised in this question — first, with respect to the idea that a committee would take the treaty around. Just as in the case of government negotiating collective agreements with parties, one wouldn't then take the collective agreement that had been bargained in good faith around the province with a committee and then have the public comment on whether or not government should sign it.

Part of bargaining in good faith means that you have a set mandate that you are empowered to bargain with. We do that with treaties as well. And so not only has there never been a treaty that has been taken around the province in such a manner, but it is unlikely that any government ever would, because of the principles of bargaining that are employed.

Let me hit on a few of the other points that were raised with respect to the member's contention that somehow it is a foregone conclusion that the Yale will have to apply for permits. We canvassed this yesterday, and I outlined to the member the fact that permitting is mentioned, as well as other means. It is contemplated that it is likely that Stó:lô would enter into some type of agreement, whether that be with the Stó:lô Nation as a whole or the Stó:lô families who currently have a relationship with Yale and are continuing with their fishing rights on their land.

But there is nothing in the treaty that stipulates that the Stó:lô would have to go through a permit process. That is simply one of the methods listed as a means by which individuals might access that land, reasonably requested.

Kuthlalth. Really, I'm not sure why the member would say that this is contentious. It remains with Stó:lô, and we've canvassed that as well.

Frozen Lakes is not the same in terms of any kind of permitting or gatekeeping or permission sought, as the member seems to think. In fact, Frozen Lakes is treated differently. There is free public access. There is no need for an agreement in order for Stó:lô to be able to access that land.

With respect to best efforts, again, this is within the non-derogation clause — standard language in every treaty. The best efforts don't refer to best efforts to stop the infringement of rights. In fact, the best efforts refer to making best efforts to construct something that would replace a clause that had been found to be infringing.

In the case where there is a clause that is found to be infringing on the

section 35 rights of another First Nation, insofar as that clause was causing an infringement, that aspect of the clause would no longer be in effect, and it would be up to the parties to make their "best efforts" — which is a term well-defined in law — to reach an alteration to the clause such that it could be reconstructed.

B. Simpson: So to the minister's statements before my question, again, it's not the member per se. I'm raising the questions in the House. I have the documentation that Stó:lô has provided to us — the documentation with respect to the Kuthlalth. They state that Kuthlalth "is a national treasure. It contains a unique archaeological site, the likes of which does not exist anywhere else in B.C. It is a Stó:lô site and does not belong to the YFN." Again, the contention is from the Stó:lô.

[1510]

I'm sure that the minister and her staff have been apprised of this in the ongoing dialogue. This is a Stó:lô contention: "It is objectionable that this treaty proposes to hand Kuthlalth over to Yale." I'm just saying that that is the Stó:lô's contention.

The minister may have a different

interpretation of that, but the

interpretation of this, then, becomes a legal matter because it's legal language. I don't want to get into an argument with the minister over her

interpretation. I'm representing the Stó:lô's

interpretation.

With respect to Frozen Lakes, again, the minister has indicated that the three points of contention that I've raised forward are somehow out of my own imagination. Here is the Stó:lô's language on Frozen Lakes: "The Stó:lô have used Frozen Lakes area since time immemorial for their spiritual, cultural and gathering places. This clause only contemplates recreational purposes and hunting and fishing. It must be expanded to include other traditional activities." Again, the Stó:lô are contending that those are the three areas that they believe are contentious, need remedy, and they have proposed language to address that.

With respect to the minister's comments about a committee on aboriginal relations, I never said that it would tour the province. I never said that it would open up for debate. However, a committee taking a bill, as in other jurisdictions, can actually do a bill, if it was designed as such, in a manner that's fundamentally different from here. Rather than having the minister filter her staff's comments, a committee can actually have direct access to staff to answer the questions directly.

A committee can also call witnesses. Again, I would not have to then attempt to represent Stó:lô in this House. We would be able to call Stó:lô to represent themselves. That's the difference in a committee. The government can still maintain the final agreement is a final agreement. But doing legislation by committee or doing estimates by committee is a standard practice in most Westminster….

The minister is saying no. It's how Ottawa does it. Ottawa does it all by committee. In the case of a treaty, that may be a different situation, but again, that doesn't stop this Legislature from doing it that way — not with the intent of opening the final agreement up but with the intent of allowing legislators to understand what they're saying yes or no to. Quite frankly, at this juncture, as one of the MLAs in this House, I don't know what I'm being

[ Page 7865 ]

asked to say yes or no to. It's 495 pages, and because this government is truncating debate, we're at page 21.

The minister has said on a number of occasions: "Further negotiation with Stó:lô to resolve this." The minister has said on a number of occasions that amendments are possible. The minister has said on a number of occasions that their hope is that Yale will not be in a permitting situation with respect to Stó:lô but will have some other agreement.

I wonder if the minister could state, for the public record, what the exact process is that will be embarked on now as we move from the passage of this bill to its implementation. What is the exact process that Stó:lô can bank on, from this government, to have their particular concerns redressed as a result of this final agreement? And please be as precise as possible.

Hon. M. Polak: First of all, with respect to Frozen Lakes, I'll read the passage, because it is written to be inclusive of the activities that the Stó:lô would wish to engage in. I'm sure the member will appreciate that from the language.

[1515]

Section 14.7.1 reads: "Yale First Nation will allow reasonable public access to Frozen Lakes Land for temporary recreational and non-commercial purposes, including reasonable opportunities for the public to hunt and fish." There is nothing in that that would restrict in any way the Stó:lô's activities on the land with respect to their traditional rights and activities.

When it comes to the process that will unfold now in dealing with the concerns that have been raised by the Stó:lô with respect to the Yale treaty, we have already been in consultation with Chief Hope, with Chief Joe Hall. We have discussions that are being facilitated by the B.C. Treaty Commission, and we will continue to consult and negotiate in that manner, as we have with respect to overlap issues in other areas.

I do have to say, though, Madam Chair, that with respect to the time allotted for debate, we have had four hours laid out for debate of this treaty. With respect to how far we've gotten in the debate, it truly is up to the member to manage the time for what questions the member wishes to ask.

I'm happy to stay with questions that relate to one particular aspect of the treaty, but that's really up to the member. I'm here to answer the questions that the member puts.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Fraser: We've moved into the governance section,

chapter 3 of the Yale treaty, Bill 11. I must say, probably the most moving part of any treaty is the governance section. I would note in this particular case with the Yale First Nation, 17 years, since 1994, in the treaty process — a long haul, to say the least. Finally to get to this point where we see the actual meat of a treaty where a First Nation can get out from under the yoke of the Indian Act is a big, big deal. It's something that I applaud.

I am not a fan of the Indian Act. It is — I have mentioned it before — I think, the only race-based piece of legislation left in the world, and it's not something to be proud of. It has been the basis for segregation, and it has been used, I think, in a very inappropriate way in this country. It's not a proud part of our history. So it is a big deal to see self-governance coming about for any nation, and I applaud the Yale First Nation and Chief Hope for the work they did — and his father before him. It is a big deal.

I disagree with the minister profoundly that somehow the time has been sufficient to cover these 70 sections just in the bill. Several hours is…. When there has been no involvement — indeed, not even any notice that the bill was coming forward, for anybody in this House — I would suggest to your own members, the government members, that it is problematic.

I was out of the House, I would note, for a moment getting some information when the minister…. I thank her for acknowledging my request to raise with the Premier the important issue, I think, of bringing about, empowering the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to help deal with some of these issues — as we get through this Legislative Assembly, maybe inadequately for our needs, to pursue all of the issues within this treaty and to scrutinize for the public.

That being said, I still think it's necessary to involve all sides of the House — this is not a partisan thing — so that the people of British Columbia can know that this is being done in an apolitical way and that all British Columbians have the ability to celebrate.

This

section 3, I'm assuming, is pretty much standard, based on what we saw in Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen. I'm getting a nod, so I'm going to go with that.

I have a question — several. FOI — does FOI apply in treaty? I guess it's a twofold question.

[1520]

Can members of Yale use the Freedom of Information Act to access information, governance, decision-making information in Yale, in the Yale governance structure, or can people from outside Yale use freedom of information as a means to access on governance?

The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for Surrey-Tynehead wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 20 grade 7 students and 20 grade 5 students who are visiting from

[ Page 7866 ]

Ellendale Elementary School, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

Joining them are their two teachers — a school trustee from New Westminster and teacher, whose name is Michael Ewen, and Mrs. Melody McGillivray — as well as many parents and volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to help the students to learn about our government.

These students are future leaders. I was talking to them earlier. They might be our future Premiers or Prime Ministers, MLAs or MPs, or mayors or councillors. I'm happy to see them here. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to freedom of information, they would not be subject to the freedom-of-information legislation in British Columbia because the Yale First Nation will not be a public body. However, if the member would refer to

section 3.11.2, the Yale First Nation government is required in the treaty to create a legal framework through which their members, non-members and others who are receiving services would be able to access information that is in their custody.

S. Fraser: Thanks for the clarification on that. Just a further clarification: the minister said they're not a public body. I would submit that, within Yale, for the Yale people, it is indeed a public body. But again, the question may be answered in that section.

Is the intent of the

section 3.11, which the minister cited, to allow for a structure to be put in place for the Yale people to have something parallel to an FOI process within the Yale First Nation?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the term "public body," that's as the term "public body" is defined by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. So that's the reference made to their not being a public body.

Yes, in fact, the Yale would, in forming their government, be responsible for constructing a legal system that reflects the government of their lands and their community, and a framework through which people could access information. As you say, a parallel type of system to a FOIPPA system would be developed by the Yale First Nation government.

S. Fraser: Just to finish that issue off: for clarification, would that just be used within Yale, or would other First Nations and non–First Nations individuals be able to access that process when it's in place?

Hon. M. Polak: What the Yale are required to do is to create legislation that would allow for access to information by Yale First Nation members, by non-members and by persons who do receive services and programs through any Yale First Nation institution.

[1525]

That, however, doesn't prevent the Yale from making additional provisions or additional laws, but they are at minimum required to make laws that would allow for access for these groups of people listed.

S. Fraser: I'm afraid that every time I ask a question on this, I have more, but I don't think I can spend any more time on that.

Just on the wording within the bill. Yale First Nation Final Agreement, 3(1): "The Yale First Nation Final Agreement is approved, given effect and declared valid and has the force of law.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person or body (

a) has the powers, rights, privileges and benefits conferred…."

I get that. This is what I don't get: "(

b) must perform the duties and is subject to the liabilities imposed on the person or body by the Yale First Nation Final Agreement."

I'm not saying I disagree with it. I don't understand it. What is "subject to the liabilities"? Is there an example of liabilities? What are we talking about here?

Hon. M. Polak: Essentially, this is the two sides to treaty, as it is the two sides to any agreement. An agreement such as the Yale First Nations treaty confers some benefits, but it also means that there are responsibilities and obligations that the Yale First Nation is taking on. This simply means that they are enforceable by law.

So as with any treaty agreement, there are benefits. There are also obligations, much like those of us who are citizens of Canada or citizens of British Columbia. We have certain rights and benefits that accrue to us as a result, but we also have certain responsibilities and obligations as citizens.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

S. Fraser: Just one question. "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize a member of the Executive Council to sign the Yale First Nation Final Agreement." I'm ignorant here. Does the Lieutenant-Governor — in this case, himself…? Is he a signatory on treaty? I just don't recall.

Hon. M. Polak: This means that cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may authorize a member of cabinet, a member of the executive council.

For example, when the Maa-nulth treaty was due to be implemented, I spent a goodly number of hours in my office initialling all the documents and signing all the appropriate documents.

Section 4 approved.

[ Page 7867 ]

section 5.

S. Fraser: Just one question, please. "The Yale First Nation Final Agreement is binding on, and can be relied on by, all persons." Now, the Stó:lô.... I'm assuming that applies to them. If they have contention here…. We've canvassed this. There are contentions from the Stó:lô on this treaty and some of the aspects of access, certainly for the canyon.

Is this not seen as contentious? It seems like a simply worded piece of this,

section 5, but does the minister see any problem with that regarding neighbouring First Nations claims?

[1530]

Hon. M. Polak: This simply makes the agreement legally binding, gives it the force of law. With respect to the impact or potential infringement on other First Nations claims, this actually puts into force the non-derogation clause and ensures that it is also binding. That ensures the protection of other First Nations in surrounding areas and ensures that their

section 35 rights are not infringed.

Sections 5 to 70 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I ask that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

The Chair: Division has been called.

Hon. Member, we'll report out, and you may call on third reading.

The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1535]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation

Final Agreement Act

Bill 11, Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 78

Rustad

McIntyre

Reid

Thomson

Lekstrom

Bell

Yamamoto

McNeil

Chong

Lake

Polak

McRae

I. Black

Coell

Hawes

Krueger

Letnick

Sultan

Barnett

Lee

Dalton

Heed

Cadieux

Penner

Bloy

Coleman

Clark

Falcon

Bond

de Jong

Abbott

Hansen

MacDiarmid

Yap

Stilwell

Hayer

Cantelon

Les

Pimm

Hogg

Howard

James

S. Simpson

Sather

Horgan

Dix

D. Black

Ralston

Kwan

Fleming

Lali

Austin

Conroy

Brar

Donaldson

D. Routley

Huntington

Stewart

Foster

van Dongen

Hammell

Trevena

Elmore

Bains

Mungall

Karagianis

Chandra Herbert

Krog

Slater

Chouhan

Thorne

Fraser

B. Routley

Macdonald

Coons

Horne

Bennett

Thornthwaite

NAYS — 1

B. Simpson

[1540]

Hon. R. Coleman: I call Bill 8, intituled International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, for committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — International Interests in

Mobile Equipment

(Aircraft Equipment) Act

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

[ Page 7868 ]

B. Ralston: I do have some questions on this bill, which is largely uncontentious. There are a number of

definitions in

section 1. This is

an act which is designed to coincide with a commitment by Canada to join an international convention. There's an aircraft protocol which is referred to and a convention. Could the minister briefly explain what the convention on international interests in mobile equipment is and then, from that, explain what the aircraft protocol is as well?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just before I answer, I want to introduce two of the staff members that have joined me today. One is a policy analyst, Cynthia Callahan-Maureen, and the other is Assistant Deputy Minister Heather Wood.

The title of the act in the act itself refers to two important aviation agreements that Canada has signed and is expected to ratify at any time. The convention on international interests in mobile equipment is a framework treaty of core provisions that may be modified by protocols for mobile equipment in specific industries. This is awfully formal, I'm just realizing as I read this.

[1545]

Essentially, what we're trying to deal with here is that perennial problem that when you've got mobile assets that can fly around the world, there is a challenge in registering interest for lenders on many of these aircraft.

The goal here is, rather than have it be registered in a personal property registry here in every province in Canada, that we have an international registry that will allow lenders and aircraft manufacturers and those that have a financial interest in any types of mobile equipment to be able to register in an international registry and thus ease up the cost of a lot of the financing, etc., which will provide a direct benefit for the aviation industry, including for B.C. companies.

B. Ralston: I think I understand the general principle that's being offered there. Generally in international treaties or international conventions, it's rare that every country in the world is a signatory to it. What's the scope, in broad terms, of the convention?

If the idea is to create a regime where aircraft could be subject to seizure and sale in any jurisdiction, obviously that would be weaker if there were only a certain number of countries that had signed that — again, given the obvious mobility of aircraft globally. What's the scope of the proposed convention? And how would those problems be avoided, or can they be?

Hon. K. Falcon: The aircraft equipment that is covered, for example, would be aircraft with eight or more seats and helicopters with five or more seats. It would include engines.

The U.S. and the EU are both signatories, as are, I am advised, 43 countries that are signatories to the international convention and protocol on aircraft equipment.

B. Ralston: I know there's a

schedule which sets out international interests and the jurisdiction and the choice of law and all that in terms of pursuing under a seizure. I'm just wondering: what are the advantages to entering into this regime for, say, domestic owners of aircraft or domestic companies that operate aircraft? Obviously, there's a purpose for bringing this act about. Can the minister set out for companies that might benefit from this what the benefit to them might be?

Hon. K. Falcon: Canada's major airlines, like Air Canada and WestJet, and aircraft manufacturers — whether it's Bombardier, Pratt and Whitney or others — support the convention and protocol primarily because they expect to see two primary benefits as a result of this.

One is a lower cost of credit. For example, the U.S. Export-Import Bank has reduced its financing rates by one-third for purchases of certain U.S.-manufactured aircraft for buyers in countries that implement the protocol.

The second is a reduction in the costs of determining where to register. I'm advised that apparently lawyers spend a lot of time trying to figure out where an interest should be filed for aircraft financing transactions. The registry provides a single filing location so that you obviate the requirement to have to go and figure out jurisdictions and make sure you're registered in each of those jurisdictions where mobile equipment can often find itself.

B. Ralston: Thank you for that clear explanation.

[1550]

Are there companion pieces of legislation in other provinces? Is this process virtually complete across the country, or are there other provinces that have yet to follow this?

I'm just wondering: in terms of timing, is this something that's…? Obviously, assuming this passes, British Columbia has done its part. But it would seem, in a federal state, that it wouldn't be terribly effective unless you had each province sign on.

Hon. K. Falcon: All provinces except British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have enacted the same implementation act.

B. Ralston: Is there the wish, as there often is in federal-provincial relations, that the remaining provinces enact it, and is there any sense that that's going to take place imminently?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. It is anticipated that all of the provinces will be enacting similar legislative acts to bring the aircraft protocol into full force and effect.

[ Page 7869 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that it doesn't require all provinces to enact similar legislative pieces for the federal government to enact and to ratify the agreement. My understanding is that there's every expectation that all provinces will introduce similar legislative pieces and that the federal government is expected to ratify the act at any time.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

B. Ralston: This is what's called a request for declaration, and that is under

article 52 of the convention. First of all, is the minister that's referred to here — I don't think that's in the definition section…? Is it the Minister of Finance that's referred to here as minister?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes.

[1555]

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that Canada will make an initial declaration that states in which provinces and territories the convention and aircraft protocol will apply.

B. Ralston: Subsections 3(1) and 3(2) look, at least at first reading, to be very similar. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the difference is. One says: "…to declare, in accordance with

Article 52…and

Article XXIX…." Then the other one says to ask the government "to make a declaration, in accordance with the Convention or the Aircraft Protocol…." So can the minister explain the difference between those two subsections?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that subsection 3(1) is the request for the feds to have this apply jurisdictionally to include and extend to British Columbia. The second, subsection 3(2), is to make sure that it applies with respect to what are defined as provincial matters.

B. Ralston: I want to now turn to subsection 3(3), looking at

article 57. That appears to just give, if there are changes in the convention or agreement, further powers — to include those — as part of the earlier declaration, I think, in the event of changes. Is that the purpose of that subsection?

[1600]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that we have worked with the federal government and all of the provinces to harmonize our approach in respect of which declarations are made. I'm also advised that it could also be the case that provisions under which declarations have not yet been declared can also subsequently be utilized.

Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved on division.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:01 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — International Interests in

Mobile Equipment

(Aircraft Equipment) Act

Bill 8, International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Bell: I call Bill 13, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 4:05 p.m.

[ Page 7870 ]

section 1.

Hon. B. Penner: Just briefly, this bill obviously covers a number of different topic areas. As we move through it, there will be other ministers and their staff, I believe, available to handle the detailed questions.

The Chair: Minister. Member for Nanaimo.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair. I hope that was — how shall I say? — something that would portend well for the future, prescient.

My question to the minister is quite simply this. The replacement of the definition of "cattle" with the definition of "dairy animal" — what's the impact of that on the industry, and what's the purpose of this?

Hon. D. McRae: We're actually just doing this at the request of the industry to expand the definition of "lactate-producing mammals" — cows, goats, sheep, the ever-popular water buffalo and any prescribed animal in the future. It's just to be more encompassing.

L. Krog: If the minister can confirm, I presume this is to enhance the industry in British Columbia in terms of the animals that are regulated and presumably to allow for an expansion. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. D. McRae: Well, we're not at the stage to predict that the water buffalo milk is going to be expanding rapidly in this province. What we're doing is keeping our options open so that we have the abilities to represent what is actually being produced in this province or what could be produced in this province. Again, it's at the request of the industry and what's being considered right now in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Does the minister know what kind of cheese is produced with water buffalo milk?

Hon. D. McRae: Well, my smirking answer wants to say tasty cheese, but my other answer will be mozzarella.

L. Krog: The minister passed the test. We can move to the next section.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

L. Krog: I don't know if the Attorney needs staff to assist him at this point or not.

Hon. B. Penner: This would be an appropriate time for the Agriculture staff, I guess, to depart and for the Attorney General's staff to enter the chamber.

L. Krog: If the minister could explain the effect of this section, I would much appreciate it, and why it's required.

[1610]

Hon. B. Penner: As I mentioned briefly in second reading remarks, the concern here deals with the common-law rule around the certainty that's required for lease terms in order for those leases to be found to be valid. I believe a 99-year lease term is considered to be valid, but attaching the term of the lease or defining the term of the lease in terms of some other event, such as the dissolution of a strata corporation, could be vulnerable to attack because the duration is uncertain in terms of the number of years.

Many strata developments rely on long-term leases to attribute the use and enjoyment of parking spaces and storage lockers to specific strata unit owners. Some of these leases do not set out a term in a specific number of years. In such cases, the rule of certainty could be invoked by parties seeking to declare the lease void in a court. As a result, the lease could be declared void from the outset, invalidating any allocations of storage lockers and parking spaces to strata unit owners that depended on that lease.

By exempting these leases from the rule of certainty, this amendment aims to protect the interests that strata unit owners have in their parking spaces and storage lockers by shielding the underlying leases from the certainty rule. It will invalidate these arrangements and avoid uncertainty and expensive litigation for a potentially large number of strata developments and their owners.

The amendment will have a retroactive effect, in order to protect existing leases from the certainty rule. Rather than cause controversy, the retroactive protection should serve to validate, instead, the expectations of parties who in good faith paid for and entered into these lease arrangements.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could just confirm, firstly: then this will apply and will be designed to deal strictly with those sorts of leases for strata corporations. I'm looking for an example here, a concrete example — which I can't imagine, which is why I'm asking the question. Will it apply only to those kinds of leases that the minister has mentioned or other strata property?

Have there been any court cases that led to this

section being presented?

The Chair: The member for Port Moody–Coquitlam seeks leave?

I. Black: Yes, I seek leave to make an introduction.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

I. Black: While the Attorney General is contemplating his riveting answer to that question, I wanted to take an

[ Page 7871 ]

opportunity, if I may, to introduce some students, some of whom are still in the gallery, from Cape Horn Elementary School in the thriving metropolis of Coquitlam, with which I know, Madam Chair, you are intimately familiar.

We've got some great parent volunteers. This is the grade 5 graduating class on their way to middle school. I would like to ask the House to join me in wishing them well in their middle school adventure.

I'd also acknowledge Craig Hollinghum, who is a great community volunteer and also, shamelessly, a coach of my son in hockey; Mr. Bill McGovern, the principal of the school; and Mme. Denise Gibson, who is with them as well. Would the House join me in making them feel most welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: The amendment will only apply to common property of a strata corporation, not to any other property within that strata corporation — just to the common property, not to the individual lots within the strata corporation or the strata property.

The other question the member had, I believe, was: is there any litigation that's underway? Not that I'm aware of. I can't say definitively that there isn't, but this has been flagged as a potential risk. Due to the sheer numbers of people that currently reside in residences that are part of a strata corporation, I felt concerned this spring, when this issue was brought to me. I wanted to make sure that it got dealt with this session.

[1615]

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

C. Trevena: I think, again, this would be the time for staff to change, because we're changing to a different ministry.

I wanted a bit of clarification to this

section — it will be sections 12 through to 20 — and then I've got some other questions further on. When I had the briefing from the minister's staff, and I appreciate that, on this bill and its implications, we didn't actually look at this section.

Hon. M. McNeil: Many of these sections — from, as you mentioned, 12 to 20, I believe — are actually just parallel approaches, if you will, to the rest of the act — if that makes sense.

C. Trevena: Actually, it doesn't. I have a sense that it's going to be best explained in

section 16, which is the most substantial one. I might ask if we can have the indulgence of the Chair here, if we can just do a bit of…. If the explanation will be best served on

section 16 rather than trying to explain through each

section what the minister means about parallel….

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

C. Trevena: As I say, I'm not quite sure what the minister means by "parallel." I go to

section 16 because we're talking here about the temporary custody order. The substantial part of the amendments are talking about the extended family program and building in the ability to look after children without having the court involved.

I wondered if the minister could explain how this works in relation to the new

section that's going to be introduced.

Hon. M. McNeil: What, basically,

section 16 does is add

section 44.1, which supports the new

section of 54.01, by ensuring that when there is a plan to seek permanent transfer of custody to the child's care provider, there is sufficient time to meet the residency requirement in the child's best interests. This residency period is intended as a safeguard to the court to determine whether a permanent custody transfer would be appropriate for the child and family.

C. Trevena: At this stage, with this, when the court is still involved…. The court is being taken out of the mix through

section 54, but in the new

section 44.1 the court will still be involved.

[1620]

Hon. M. McNeil: I just wanted to ensure that I have the question right. What you're asking is: is the court still involved? If that is the case, yes.

C. Trevena: So at this point the court is still involved, although

section 54.01, which is the new section, is trying to remove the court's involvement. From the indications I'm getting, I'm getting something confused here. So if the minister could explain again what the two are.

We're talking about temporary custody orders under

section 44.1,

section 44 of the act being "Extension of supervision orders and temporary orders." You've got the permanent transfer of custody planned, which is the new

section 54, but we are still talking in this

section about court involvement, saying in the new

section 44.1(3) that "the court may, in the child's best interests," extend the order. Therefore, the court is still involved.

[ Page 7872 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: I hope I've got this correct.

Section 44.1 allows the court to extend the temporary custody,

whereas 54.01, if I'm correct…. The court has to be involved in both, and it allows it to happen as well.

C. Trevena: I think the minister and I are both a little confused on this one. The minister just said….

Again, the court involvement. At this stage there is court involvement, and it's only at

section 54 where we don't have the court involvement. So under

section 44, and thereby 44.1, we still have court involvement, and it's only withdrawn with the introduction of

section 54.

Hon. M. McNeil: In fact, in 54.01 the court is involved as well. What it does is it actually creates capacity for the court to then create permanent custody.

C. Trevena: That will clarify it and will speed things up.

The addition, therefore, of

section 44.1 is just to, as the note says…. It provides for "the extension of a temporary custody order to meet the residency requirement referred to in

section 54.01(5)(c)," which is if the person "referred to in subsection (3) (

h) under the agreement…or the temporary custody order…."

[1625]

So it's basically putting in that time limit, the six-month residency time limit.

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, it's giving them enough time to meet the residency requirement.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

C. Trevena: Again to the minister. Is this

section again talking about the timing that is involved? The explanatory note saying that it provides that custody of a child transferred under

section 54, that same

section of the act as added to this bill… I wondered if the minister could explain. Is this still an issue of timing?

Hon. M. McNeil: The amendment ensures that a maximum time periods for temporary custody order apply in relation to orders made prior to an order that permanently transfers custody under the new

section 54.01. It's consistent with the treatment of temporary custody orders when custody is permanently transferred or returned to the parent under other CFCSA provisions.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

C. Trevena: Again, I wonder if the minister could explain just what this means. For anybody reading it, they're just going to see lots of numbers and subsections. If the minister could explain how it