2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jimmy Fitzpatrick

M. Karagianis

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Tri-Cities Predators hockey team win

S. Robinson

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

World Autism Awareness Day

Michelle Stilwell

Oolichan history in northwest B.C.

D. Donaldson

Contributions of MaryAnne Arcand

M. Morris

Search for Adam Moore in Prince Rupert

J. Rice

Wesbild operations in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain area

D. Horne

Newspaper industry and Multi-Material B.C. recycling program implementation

L. Popham

Oral Questions

Investigation into Burns Lake mill explosion and call for public inquiry

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

Child poverty and income assistance policy on child support payments

M. Mungall

Hon. D. McRae

C. James

Use of provincial coat of arms by former MLA

S. Robinson

Hon. T. Stone

Post-secondary education funding and government support for students

D. Eby

Hon. A. Virk

Petitions

M. Karagianis

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Water Sustainability Act (continued)

J. Martin

G. Holman

S. Hamilton

D. Donaldson

D. Barnett

A. Weaver

V. Huntington

R. Fleming

C. Trevena

Hon. M. Polak

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

R. Austin

Hon. R. Coleman

D. Donaldson

A. Weaver

V. Huntington

S. Simpson

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014

Hon. S. Anton

S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

M. Elmore

Hon. T. Stone

G. Heyman

J. Darcy

S. Robinson

D. Donaldson

G. Holman

R. Austin

C. Trevena

[ Page 2691 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: Today is a special day in this House. It is my pleasure to introduce to our Legislature a delightful man, a father of nine, an inspirational speaker, an opera star and a hockey goalie, the man who made the Vancouver Canucks famous, albeit not yet champions. Please welcome, live from the Leg., Mr. O Canada , Mark Donnelly. Please stand.

[ O Canada was sung.]

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce Wendy Booth, who is an area director from the Columbia Valley. She's here as a member of the UBCM executive. I ask the House to join me in making her welcome.

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce some 30-plus members of Advocis, the Financial Advisors Association of Canada. Advocis is Canada's largest and oldest association of financial advisers and planners in Canada, representing 11,000 members in 40 chapters from coast to coast.

Today Advocis met with members from both sides of the House and also had a lunch reception to discuss the work that Advocis does, their impact on the lives of Canadians, so that Canadians can make sound, secure financial decisions.

As I have the pleasure and honour of introducing the folks from Advocis, I'm going to take this opportunity to introduce two of my constituents. Rob Bauml and Carolyn Radics, from Vernon, are here. Folks, welcome, and thank you very much for your contribution.

Tributes

JIMMY FITZPATRICK

M. Karagianis: I have some sad news today.

I rise today to pay tribute to Jimmy Fitzpatrick, one of the great labour leaders in my community. Jimmy was, in the words of Jonathan Whitworth, the CEO of Seaspan, a kind and generous man who was able to move mountains with a firm commitment, a wry smile and a good story.

Jimmy Fitzpatrick lost his battle with cancer on Saturday. He will be profoundly missed by his brothers and sisters at the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Lodge 191. Brother Fitzpatrick served on the executive board for 20 years and was elected the business manager six years ago. Jimmy's legacy runs deep in my community for the many ways he made life better for working men and women.

He was a friend of mine. He had a Scottish accent that was as thick as honey and a great sense of humour. My condolences to his family and his friends at this difficult time.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: I'd like the House to join with me today to welcome a great constituent, a community builder and a fabulous supporter. I know him only as Mr. Sohi. He is accompanied by Valbir Sidhu, Issur Bains and Rita Bains. Could the House please make these people all welcome.

[1340]

Hon. C. Oakes: It is an honour for me today to have had the opportunity to meet with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities executive. Over lunch hour we had the opportunity to discuss our strong communities throughout our great province.

I'm pleased to introduce Rhona Martin, who is the president of UBCM, and she's from the Columbia-Shuswap; Mary Sjostrom from the community of Quesnel; Sav Dhaliwal from Burnaby; Al Richmond from the Cariboo regional district; Cheryl Shuman from Dawson Creek; Andy Shadrack from the Central Kootenay regional district; Wendy Booth from the East Kootenay regional district; Michael Morden from Maple Ridge; and Murry Krause from Prince George.

House, would you please help me thank these local governments for all that they do for the province of British Columbia and welcome them to the House today.

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming members of Advocis, the financial advisers 40, from across British Columbia. I'd like to recognize the president and CEO, Greg Pollock. He hails from Toronto. We're told not to hold that against him. Greg's boss, Harley Lockhart, a 15-year volunteer from Kelowna, is the national chair of Advocis. As well, David Webb, Jared Webb and Rob Bommel talked to us on both sides of the House today.

We recognize the important contributions financial advisers from across British Columbia bring to families in terms of the value of their financial advice, promoting financial literacy, as well as the economic benefit to our economy — over 9,000 small businesses across British Columbia. We appreciate that.

We heard their message against the experience of legislated fiduciary responsibility in the United Kingdom, so

[ Page 2692 ]

we're advised not to follow down that path.

As well, I appreciate the positive recommendations to adopt a professions model that looks to fill the existing gap in regulations, or between regulating financial products, and the need for this model to address the relationship of trust between financial advisers and their clients.

I look forward to working more on this issue in the future, and I ask everyone to please make them welcome.

Michelle Stilwell: On behalf of my colleague from Fraser-Nicola, who has a case of laryngitis today, I am pleased to introduce Kleo Landucci from the Ashcroft Terminal. Kleo has been working closely with the village of Ashcroft to ensure the development of an inland port, which will bring jobs and diversity to the village and the surrounding area.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Kleo to the House.

G. Holman: It's my pleasure today to introduce Joseph Boutilier, a young 23-year-old man who is going to be unicycling from Victoria to Ottawa over the next few months to promote unity for climate action. The ride will culminate in Ottawa after rallies, events and meetings in dozens of communities along the way. He'll hopefully be meeting with Prime Minister Harper. Joseph is calling on the Canadian government to take rapid, strategic and collaborative action to tackle the climate change crisis.

Welcome to the House, Joseph.

N. Letnick: Today is the inaugural meeting of the Premier's women's economic advisory council. In the gallery tonight we have Renee Wasylyk from the Kelowna area. Renee is principal and founder of Troika Developments and past chair of our local Urban Development Institute and economic development commission.

I know all the members of this House work really hard on expanding economic opportunities throughout British Columbia so that we have the resources necessary to support our strong social programs. Renee is one of those people. She took her construction company out of the 2008 crisis and has actually built it up over that time in the last five years by 300 percent or $40 million — just an amazing story. I'm sure she'll be sharing some of her extraordinary passion and ideas with all British Columbians to help make sure that we have a very strong economic climate for women and men throughout British Columbia.

Please help me make her welcome.

R. Chouhan: I have to make two introductions today. First, I am very pleased to introduce Sav Dhaliwal, the city councillor from Burnaby, and he's the vice-president of UBCM.

[1345]

Sav Dhaliwal was also the president of the NDP. He served in that capacity so well, and he is still sought after by so many people to help. He's a very active councillor in the city of Burnaby. Please join me to welcome Sav Dhaliwal to the precinct.

Secondly, I also want to talk about some seniors who came today, this morning, 65 seniors from the Taiwanese, Japanese and Chinese communities. They are biking from Burnaby to San Jose. The youngest person in that is 73 years old, and the oldest is 93. It gave me a great moment of pride this morning when we received them in front of the Legislature. I wish them all the best and all success.

Hon. T. Wat: Interprovincial and international trade are a vital source for economic growth and job creation in British Columbia. Our government has strongly advocated for trade liberalization initiatives such as TILMA and the new west partnership, and B.C. has been a vocal advocate for concluding the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union and the South Korea–Canada free trade agreement.

All of these successes have been made possible by the hard work and dedication of our trade policy staff, who are joining us in the gallery this afternoon. I would like to introduce Sarah Wempe, Janna Jessee, Monica Gervais, Linda Jakubowski, Josh Smith, Trevor Paul, Jimmy Li and Executive Director Don White. It is through their tireless work that we have ensured that British Columbia's interests are well represented during these important trade negotiations.

Would the House please join me in thanking Don White and his professional team for all their hard and great work and welcome them to the House.

C. Trevena: I'd like to join the member for Fraser-Nicola in welcoming Kleo Landucci, the CEO of Ashcroft Terminal, to the House. She's doing fine work in Ashcroft, and I had a very good conversation with her this morning about a strategy for moving goods through the Lower Mainland.

I'd also like the House to join me in welcoming a number of guests — Tammy Sampson, from the B.C. Flagging Association; Kathie Haidon, the traffic manager of the city of Surrey; and James Shaw from RoadSafe B.C. We've been discussing questions of road safety and the safety of flaggers in construction zones and the need to be looking at whether we can double the fines in those construction zones.

I hope the House would make these guests very welcome.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I introduce a group from Douglas College that's here with us today. They've been in meetings all day on behalf of Douglas College, a fine institution with campuses both in my riding as well as in New Westminster. Here today is Dr. Scott

[ Page 2693 ]

McAlpine, the president; Shelley Williams, the board chair; and Gerry Shinkewski, the board vice-chair. May the House make them truly welcome.

M. Mungall: I'm very pleased to hear that Andy Shadrack is here in the House today. As mentioned, he is the area D representative for the regional district of Central Kootenay. Andy is a long-time resident of the Kootenays, and he's always been a passionate voice for the issues that matter most to the residents at the north end of Kootenay Lake and, of course, all residents in the Kootenays. May the House please give him a very extra-special welcome.

M. Dalton: I have a couple of introductions to make. First of all, from Mission we have Gregory Ould, also with his daughter Emma and son Benjamin.

While walking out of a movie theatre in downtown Vancouver on a chilly October night a number of years ago, Gregory noticed a man lying in an alcove on the side of the building. He went up to the man, whose appearance looked weathered and rough, and he asked him if there was anything that he could do. His response wasn't what he expected, and it blew him away. He'd expected him to ask for money, cigarettes or coffee, but what he said, was: "I could use a blanket so I can survive the night."

Greg went out and bought the blanket. That one act has actually spurred on other actions. He started Blanket B.C. Their first drive was 67 blankets, and now they've distributed about 100,000 blankets. There are a couple of hundred volunteers.

[1350]

Would the House please make them welcome and express our appreciation.

J. Rice: I've had three visitors in the last few weeks. I'm really ecstatic to welcome Simon Schopman, who is a constituent of mine from Bella Coola. Simon today was assuring me that the challenging journey to get to Victoria did not include any transportation on the Nimpkish , which would have been quite stressful. Simon, like many folks in the Bella Coola Valley, relies or depends on multiple jobs to make ends meet and live a semi-subsistence living.

He told me this morning he had nine jobs. Right now I can only remember seven of them, which are: he's the marketing director for Bella Coola Valley Tourism — again, he has many concerns around ferry cuts; he's a drug and alcohol facilitator; he also works at the career centre; he writes for the central Coast Mountain News ; he does property management for many albeit now-closing lodges in the Bella Coola Valley; and he has a landscaping business. Would the House please make Simon feel welcome.

D. Barnett: Today in the House we have Stewart Muir, who's the executive director of Resource Works, and Lynn Angelin, chairman of the Resource Works Society's advisory council. Resource Work's slogan is "Jobs for B.C., innovation for the world: coming together around natural resources, because in B.C. it's who we are and what we do." Please welcome them to the House today.

S. Robinson: I, too, would like to welcome Greg and his children to the House. I remember when Greg collected those first few blankets. He was actually living in the Tri-Cities area. He and I met because I was a fundraiser in the community and he wanted some advice. I'm glad to see that he took it, and he's certainly made great strides with Blanket B.C. I want to congratulate him and his family.

Tributes

TRI-CITIES PREDATORS

HOCKEY TEAM WIN

S. Robinson: I also wanted to offer congratulations. Earlier this week a number of my colleagues were congratulating some hockey teams in their communities, so I thought I wanted to congratulate the Tri-Cities Predators juvenile female ice hockey team because they took gold in their tournament in Everett, Washington, last weekend because they play like girls.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: I'd be remiss not to introduce a councillor and local businessman from Maple Ridge, Mike Morden. You can make him feel welcome.

G. Hogg: I'd like to introduce to this House a gentleman from Kamloops who is being mentored by the Reverend Tim Schindel and is only picking up the very positive parts of that mentorship that Tim has to offer. Would the House please welcome Jonathan Weins.

Secondly, if I may, I'd also like to introduce Mark Donnelly's son, Francis Donnelly, who is with us today. If we would please welcome him. I'd like to add as a postscript that the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove commented to me earlier today that he was very surprised to learn that Mark Donnelly knows, actually, all of the words to O Canada . Please welcome Francis.

R. Lee: I would like to introduce Eva Sun, who is in the House today. I've known Eva for over 30 years. She's the president of The Rice People, a very successful business as well. She's also a member of the Premier's Women's Economic Council. Would the House please make her welcome.

[ Page 2694 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY

Michelle Stilwell: Today is World Autism Awareness Day, an opportunity to reflect on the struggles and celebrate the successes of people living with autism spectrum disorder. There is no cure for autism, and its causes are not yet fully understood. Successful treatment of ASD often hinges on early diagnosis and intervention.

[1355]

I'm proud that B.C. is considered a leader in providing autism services. Ours is the only province in Canada that has a no-wait-list policy for families to access autism funding after a confirmed diagnosis. Among the many supports offered by our government, the Ministry of Children and Families provides funding to more than 8,500 children and youth with autism spectrum disorder.

Of course, government doesn't work alone. Strong community partnerships with organizations such as the Autism Society of British Columbia and Autism Community Training provide exceptional support and advocacy. Their services are in greater demand than ever. Autism now affects one in 68 children. That's a 30 percent increase in diagnosis in just six years. That number is startling, even scary, but it's just a number. It tells us how many people live with ASD but not who they are.

It's likely that everyone in this chamber knows somebody with ASD. If you're lucky, it could be my son Kai. I say you would be lucky to know a child like my son because you know that while autism is a challenging and sometimes heartbreaking disorder, it's not who he is; it's simply a challenge that he faces.

We continue to learn more every day about the best ways to support people with ASD. Together we're all making a difference. It's my hope and belief that we will continue to raise awareness about autism spectrum disorder and continue to build an inclusive society that allows people with ASD to thrive.

Would you please join me in celebrating World Autism Awareness Day.

OOLICHAN HISTORY IN NORTHWEST B.C.

D. Donaldson: There's oil flowing across the northwest, and the people of Stikine are happy to get in on the action. I'm talking oolichan oil, of course — a sustainable product providing jobs, making life more affordable for many and supplying part of a local diet that reduces health care system dependency.

The oolichan run has returned to the Skeena and Nass. The oil has been rendered in a time-honoured process along the banks of those mighty rivers, and the final product transported to Hazelton and further into the Interior. That is something that could have been said every year for the last 10,000 years. Trading in oolichan oil was the basis of a thriving community between the Gitxsan and coastal First Nations.

The oil is solid at room temperature, with a consistency of butter. It was packed in cedar boxes along well-worn paths that were termed "grease trails" by early European explorers. Alexander Mackenzie's famous overland trip through the coastal mountains to the Pacific Ocean followed an ancient grease trail.

Up to 15 percent of the body weight of these sardine-like fish is fat, and the oil is high in vitamins. They're so oily that they're also known as candlefish because, when dried, they could be fitted with a wick and burned like a candle. These small fish not only play an extremely role in the northwest ecosystem, but the trade is a demonstration of the economic component of aboriginal rights and title, and the trails reinforce First Nations' authority and jurisdiction on the land base.

Some rivers no longer have a run. The Haisla point to pollution from the Eurocan pulp mill as a culprit in the loss of a teeming run of oolichan in the Kitimat River. The mill is now closed and gone. So are the oolichan. It's something we need to reflect on when considering fossil fuel–related development at the mouth of the Skeena River, where the estuary is an important area for oolichan as they transition between fresh water and salt water. Oolichan oil is part of living healthy in the northwest, part of who we are and part of living well in our communities.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF MARYANNE ARCAND

M. Morris: Last week my colleague the hon. member for Prince George–Valemount stood in this house to acknowledged the passing of MaryAnne Arcand. Today I want to recognize MaryAnne for the contributions she made to the province, to the Prince George community and to the logging operations across British Columbia.

MaryAnne Arcand made history in 2009, becoming the first woman to manage a B.C. logging organization, the Central Interior Logging Association. She served on the B.C. Forest Safety Council as director of Forestry TruckSafe and northern initiatives. She also chaired the Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative of British Columbia.

[1400]

A tireless advocate for workers' safety, she was not afraid to go looking for answers, as she did when she travelled the Mackenzie resource road network after two serious logging truck crashes in 2006. MaryAnne was instrumental in reducing the number of logging truck deaths in this province and travelled almost 100,000 kilometres around the province in her own truck, delivering her message on how to improve worker safety.

A valuable member of the Prince George community, MaryAnne sat on a number of boards. She was, amongst

[ Page 2695 ]

other things, a past director of the Prince George Railway and Forestry Museum and president of the Prince George Rotary Club. MaryAnne received numerous awards, including Business Person of the Year by the Prince George Chamber of Commerce in 2012.

MaryAnne passed away on March 17. She is survived by her parents, Ditty and Bill DeWitt; her husband, George; their four children, Harald, Willy, Tina and Melanie; and ten grandchildren.

I ask that this House join me in recognizing a woman who was proactive in her community and worked tirelessly to ensure logging truck drivers came home safely every night.

SEARCH FOR ADAM MOORE

IN PRINCE RUPERT

J. Rice: This past winter was a particularly hard one for the community of Prince Rupert. Several lives were lost in a spate of crashes on Highway 16 over the span of a few short weeks, giving new meaning to the term Highway of Tears. One of those lost was 26-year-old Adam Moore.

Adam went missing in the early hours of December 29, seemingly vanishing without a trace. He was a beloved son, a brother, a cousin and a friend to so many. His disappearance rallied our community into action, as hundreds of volunteers joined the search, desperate to bring him home. Prince Rupert waited, holding out hope that Adam would be found alive and well. Sadly, the search came to a tragic end on January 8 when his vehicle was discovered submerged in the ocean.

As a community, we mourned his passing. Yet even in the darkness of this tragedy, there was light. Prince Rupert came together in a way that is rarely seen in this day and age. From the searchers out combing the ditches on a 140-kilometre stretch of highway on foot, to the drivers who kept a constant watch as they drove their normal commute, to the emergency response organizations who searched tirelessly, to the people who cooked and baked and opened their homes and their hearts to the searchers, Prince Rupert was united in a quest to find Adam.

Perhaps most profoundly, Adam's disappearance highlighted the very real need for a land-based search and rescue organization in our community. Realizing this, a group of passionate, dedicated community members are currently in the process of bringing such an organization to fruition. Sadly, none of this will bring Adam back, but hopefully it will help spare another family from the devastating loss of a loved one.

WESBILD OPERATIONS IN

COQUITLAM–BURKE MOUNTAIN AREA

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure today that I rise and celebrate the continued growth and vibrancy of my riding, Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and a key player in the wonderful community I represent, Wesbild. Wesbild has owned, planned and developed property in Coquitlam since 1989, where they were the developer of what I call home, Westwood Plateau. As well, more recently they've developed the wonderful community of Predator Ridge near Vernon.

Wesbild has also been a key player in the development of Burke Mountain to date, which commenced with their ownership in 2002. Recently it was announced, and I am very pleased, that Wesbild purchased 370 acres of land from the province of British Columbia on Burke Mountain, which is a natural extension of their Foothills development. It is great news for our community.

Not only will this result in a thoughtfully designed place to bring people together and for families to call home, including all of the amenities, but a solid, sustainable community that Wesbild, taking the lead for many of B.C.'s best builders and their partners — great builders like Foxridge, Mission Group, Noura, Polygon, Silver Star, Wallmark and others — will contribute to.

Wesbild is committed to developing exceptional places for families and is very dedicated to our community. Yet another example of their dedication lies within the recent deal for the property on Burke Mountain. Included in the agreement for the purchase and sale is a provision that ensures two school sites located within the area available for purchase by the school board at prices frozen at 2014 market value for ten years. Wesbild will also provide such services as sanitary and sewer, as well as other services to the site, to the school district at no cost.

I know that Wesbild will work closely with the city of Coquitlam to make this a reality and will continue to engage residents to ensure that the new neighbourhoods meld seamlessly into the old areas that have been home for so many families for so many years.

I would be remiss not to commend Wesbild's great leadership. Hassan Khosrowshahi, Wesbild's founder and chairman, affectionately known as Mr. K, who is a great visionary and a remarkable leader, has built more than one successful business here in British Columbia. Kevin Layden, Wesbild's president and CEO, continues to work tirelessly to see other great communities emerge.

[1405]

I wish to thank Wesbild and all of their partners for their considerable contribution to making Coquitlam and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain one of the best places to call home in the world.

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY AND

MULTI-MATERIAL B.C.

RECYCLING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

L. Popham: Today I rise in this House to highlight an amazing industry in our province, our newspaper industry. Newspapers are pioneers of recycling. In fact, they

[ Page 2696 ]

were instrumental in establishing the blue box system.

We can all agree in this House that recycling is a virtue. However, very few in this province agree with the overhaul of B.C.'s residential recycling system that will take effect in just 46 days. In fact, MMBC has businesses across B.C. screaming blue murder. MMBC is hitting business with approximately $100 million in annual obligatory fees. One of the sectors that will be hardest hit is the newspaper industry. This is outrageous, because the sector already recycles 85 percent of the newsprint it uses.

MMBC is currently demanding $10 million in annual fees from the newspaper sector to pay for the recycling that is already happening. As well, MMBC is insisting on an additional $3 million worth of advertising to promote itself.

Madame Speaker: Member.

L. Popham: Yes?

Madame Speaker: Content of statements in the afternoon should be aligned with Standing Order 25. I would ask you to bring your remarks in line.

L. Popham: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

John Hinds, president and CEO of Newspapers Canada, does not mince his words. This morning he told me himself:

"If this is not stopped, MMBC could bring our industry to its knees. Newspapers operate on a razor-thin margin right now. Raising the cost for consumers is a non-starter, and that leads to lower circulation and a vicious downward cycle.

"The only way we could pay for this would be to cut 300 to 500 jobs in every small community and to close down small community newspapers. We can all agree that recycling is worthwhile, and in principle, it makes sense to require those who make the waste to pay for the cost of recycling it, but this is not the issue."

Madame Speaker: Member.

L. Popham: Yes?

Madame Speaker: A reminder that your statement must comply.

L. Popham: Yes, Madame Speaker.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO BURNS LAKE

MILL EXPLOSION AND

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

A. Dix: A question to the Premier. Wood dust was identified as a significant factor in causing the Babine Forest Products mill explosion in January 2012. Wood dust was also identified as a major combustion hazard by WorkSafe at least two years before this catastrophe.

In 2010 John Astad, an expert from the Combustible Dust Policy Institute in Texas, was brought to B.C. for a meeting with WorkSafe safety officials, officers and management. Issues included, in a day-long meeting, combustible dust ignition and explosion factors.

Will the Premier explain to this House and the families and workers of Burns Lake and other communities why WorkSafe did not actually apply the information it had two years before?

Hon. C. Clark: As we work all together to grow this economy for the future, we have to make sure that in doing that we grow it responsibly, that as we create jobs in every corner of the province, we make sure that the people who go to those jobs have a real assurance, along with their families, that they are going to come home safe every day.

After the explosion in Burns Lake at the Babine sawmill, we took quick action. We made sure that we worked with the community in the immediate aftermath of the disaster to support those who were hurt and injured.

Second, we made sure that we connected those who were without work with work and, where necessary, social assistance.

Third, we worked to make sure that that mill was reopened — the economic backbone of that community — so that they could have certainty for the future.

[1410]

Last, government, through the auspices of WorkSafe B.C., undertook an investigation. No charges were forwarded as a result of that investigation. We disagreed with that result. We're unhappy about it, deeply disappointed, and know that families in those communities expected different.

So we are going to work to make sure — we are doing it now — that WorkSafe doesn't ever make that same mistake again and that workers in sawmills across this province know they'll get home safe when they go to work in the morning.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: The Premier went up to Burns Lake in January 2012 and promised families accountability and justice, and that was botched. It was fundamentally botched.

Now we know that this was a discussion at WorkSafe years before. In other words, an accident that was identified as a preventable accident ought to have been prevented. This case, where you have different government agencies blaming one another and where you have Hampton, the company, not taking any responsibility and WorkSafe pointing fingers at Hampton, is a classic case of why we need a public inquiry. That's what the families are calling for from Burns Lake, and that's what this government needs to deliver.

[ Page 2697 ]

Given that WorkSafe ignored information brought to its own attention, "vital information necessary in identifying, evaluating and controlling combustible dust hazards in the workplace," isn't this just one more reason why the Premier should say yes to a public inquiry asked for by the families, by the First Nations Summit and by people all over B.C.?

Hon. C. Clark: What happened at Burns Lake was a terrible, terrible tragedy, not just for the individuals who lost their lives or for those who were injured — people scarred forever, many of them; it was a tragedy for the entire community and for our whole province.

Clearly, things were not done right at WorkSafe B.C. The member knows, and British Columbians know, more detail about what happened because I ordered a review to establish the fact pattern of what went wrong very shortly after the Crown announced that it would not be proceeding with charges. This is an incredibly serious matter.

In the course of that review, we asked one of the most senior lawyers in this country for his legal opinion about whether or not we would get a different result if we pursued an independent inquiry. His very clear answer to that was no.

So we are instead going and working with WorkSafe B.C. to establish exactly what needs to be done to make sure that this problem does not happen again. That is our responsibility to the workers of British Columbia. Despite the fact that the Crown decided not to press charges, I will say this. We will make sure we do everything we can to find justice for families in the future, to ensure that no family experiences what those families did in Burns Lake.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The Premier surely knows that Mr. Doust's opinion does not exclude a public inquiry in any way, shape or form. I'll note the opinion by a very distinguished lawyer in Vancouver, David Crossin, who said, simply put, "The opinion of Mr. Doust does not foreclose the establishment of a commission of inquiry in order to address the proposed terms of reference," which is an analysis of both the performance of WorkSafe and what could have been prevented. I mean, the Premier seems to use Mr. Doust's opinion, which reflects on the government's incompetence in managing the investigation, as the sole issue here.

The issue here is that two people died and 19 were seriously injured. That's the issue here, and that action that could have been taken — because WorkSafe itself determined the accident was preventable — was not taken.

[1415]

The people of B.C. and, most importantly, the people in Burns Lake and the people at Lakeland, as well, deserve answers to these questions, not internal investigations by government. Not government investigating itself — an independent, public inquiry to find out what happened, why it happened and why it shouldn't happen in the future. Why won't the Premier order one?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is correct in this. Mr. Doust did not say there could not be a public inquiry. What Mr. Doust very clearly said…. I'll quote for the member because he may not have seen this. He confirmed that a decision of Crown counsel to approve or not approve charges is not a proper subject for review in a public inquiry. In other words, a public inquiry would not come to a different conclusion. A public inquiry would not change the outcome of what government could do.

What we can do, though, is we can go and make sure that WorkSafe B.C. changes its practices, changes its policies. We can make sure that with Mr. Doust's oversight, WorkSafe B.C. acknowledges that something went wrong and identifies what it was.

Families across this province deserve to know that when their daughters and sons and husbands and wives and brothers and sisters go to work, in industrial workplaces most of all, they will come home safe and organizations like WorkSafe B.C. are there to ensure that that happens every single day that they get out of bed, get in their trucks and start work.

H. Bains: The Premier and ministers after ministers have been talking about half-measures. That will not fix the fundamental problems that exist at WorkSafe B.C. right now. What the Babine victims and their families want, what British Columbians deserve, is to know that WorkSafe B.C. is living up to its mandate of keeping workers safe. That's why families want an inquiry, so that tens of thousands of workers who work in hazardous situations every day can come home at the end of their shift in the same shape that they went in.

The Babine victims and their families have helped develop terms of reference for a public inquiry that would find out what went wrong and come up with solutions. When will the Premier meet with the families at Burns Lake to review the terms of reference for a full, independent inquiry? That's how we can get to the bottom of this situation. That's how we can find some solutions for all the thousands of workers that are in the forest industry right now.

Hon. S. Bond: As the Premier has said, there is not a person in this room or in the province of British Columbia that doesn't want to see changes made. What we actually want to do is make sure that it's broader than just WorkSafe. It is important that WorkSafe make changes.

You know, just the other day I heard the member op-

[ Page 2698 ]

posite mock a meeting that was brought together with industry, with labour, with government. To criticize the fact…. In fact, I think the member opposite called it a photo op.

Well, I want the member opposite to know that, in fact, that group came together to find consensus about how we ensure that there is ongoing, sustainable compliance, not just changes at WorkSafe but with mill owners across British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition is wrong. There were steps taken immediately after the mill explosion. There have been a series of inspections across this province, and I can assure the member opposite that they will continue, they will be more rigorous, and we are going to work…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …to sustainable, continuous compliance.

[1420]

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair needs to hear the answers and the questions.

H. Bains: Two men lost their lives at the Babine tragedy in January 2012. That was two years after WorkSafe B.C. ignored the warning of dangerous sawdust combustion — two years after that. The families of Carl Charlie and Robert Luggi and injured workers are demanding justice.

Madame Speaker, 142 workers died at the workplace in 2012. There's been no accountability in any of those tragedies. And 1,350 workers have died at the workplace in the past ten years. No accountability, no justice, no assurance of safety in the workplace. The Babine victims and families are trying to get to the bottom of this because they want to keep other workers safe. Yet this government continues to stonewall.

The question to the Premier is this. Will she immediately call for a public inquiry into the tragedy so that the workers will finally have a system that they can trust that they are safe at workplaces from here on?

Hon. S. Bond: I am painfully aware of the deaths of individuals not just in Babine, at the Babine circumstance, but in my own community. It is incumbent on all of us — whether it is WorkSafe B.C., whether it is the Steelworkers, whether it is government or whether it is industry — to ensure that we are rigorous and relentless.

The member opposite needs to look at all of the facts, not simply talk about what happened on Friday. Let's talk about what's taken place. The first round of inspections started in April of 2012. The second round of inspections was expanded in July of 2012. The third phase of inspections…. I know that the member opposite knows this. The largest and most complicated inspection system that has ever taken place at WorkSafe was from November 2013 to January 31.

When the outcomes were not good enough, I called together and met individually with industry, with labour. After a significant amount of work had been done, it still is not good enough. In fact, on Friday we brought all of those parties together and came to consensus. We need to be paying attention. This needs to be sustainable, and changes will be made.

CHILD POVERTY

AND INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY

ON CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

M. Mungall: Sheila Joseph, a single mom in Kamloops, has three children. Her seven-year-old receives child support from her father. But because Sheila receives income support, the little girl never sees the help her father sends to pay for school clothes, books and healthy food. Sheila wants to know why the ministry went through all the trouble of getting child support for her daughter only to take it away from her every month.

Can the Minister of Social Development explain to this little girl and her mother why he is taking away the money her father has put aside for her?

Hon. D. McRae: As members in the House know, I'm the father of two young children, and I recognize this is a very challenging issue, one that this ministry and I do not take lightly. The ministry and this government look at income assistance as a payment of last resort. It is not designated to be a long-term solution.

I've met with individuals, and I've met with organizations in regards to this issue, and I thank them for their passion and advocacy for this vulnerable segment of our society.

Just so members know, people who receive family maintenance payments may receive income assistance top-up if their maintenance payment does not exceed monthly income assistance amounts.

We as a ministry continue to meet with families, with organizations, even with businesses, to evolve and improve income and disability assistance in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

[1425]

M. Mungall: Well, B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty for ten years. We know that. We know that half of single mothers and their children live in poverty right now in this province. We also know that child clients of food banks have increased to 30 percent.

[ Page 2699 ]

Meanwhile, what this government is actually doing…. The minister described it in a very nice way, but what they're actually doing is they're clawing back every cent of child support from single parents and their children, simply because the parents are on income assistance. It's absolutely unjust.

My question is again to the Minister of Social Development. How does he justify taking money from B.C.'s poorest kids?

Hon. D. McRae: Through income assistance, through disability assistance, we support about 175,000 people in British Columbia. While we believe our income assistance program is one of the best in Canada, we all will recognize there's room for improvement.

But I also want to make sure that people in this room and in the general public realize there are many other programs that we do to assist families and individuals in need. I'd like to highlight a couple of them, if I may.

We've increased earning exemptions for people receiving income assistance. We've also increased school start-up supplements. There's a bus pass program which is recognized as one of the best in Canada. The income tax system provides single parents access to approximately $385 a month in benefits. There are supports for child care. Starting in 2015 children under six and their families will have access to a $55 a month B.C. early childhood tax benefit.

While I know those programs are supporting families and individuals across British Columbia, there's always more we can do. That's why we continue to engage with families, with individuals and with organizations to come together with solutions and ideas to help to make sure that B.C. is there and inclusive for all British Columbians.

C. James: I'd like to say to the minister that child poverty isn't simply an issue on paper. Child poverty means that children are not getting enough healthy food, that children are not living in safe and healthy housing. That's exactly the case for hundreds of children who don't see a dime of child support because this government claws back every penny of that support. This policy isn't just cruel. It's also shortsighted. Poverty can set children back for the rest of their lives.

My question is to the minister. How can the minister continue to take money that was set aside for B.C.'s poorest children?

Hon. D. McRae: I said in my earlier answers that we can always do more. We can't always do more immediately.

One of the things we do in this government is that if you look at income assistance, whether it's for persons with disabilities or families or individuals, we spend well over $1 billion a year supporting these people.

We also want to make sure there is an opportunity to continue to support them in other ways. One of the things people often forget to recognize in regards to supporting individuals and families is that this government does not believe it's right to tax individuals who make less than $19,000 a year. We want to make sure those families, in British Columbia income tax, retain those dollars.

We want to make sure MSP premiums are not being paid by the people who are most in need. That's why over 800,000 British Columbians — those are individuals; those are children — do not pay MSP premiums. As well, when it comes to PharmaCare, over a quarter-million British Columbians, many of them children, do not pay premiums with their PharmaCare.

That being said, I'm also proud…. As the member opposite knows, I used to be Minister of Education, a job I thoroughly enjoyed. I know that many, many schools — almost every school in British Columbia — receive not just the fruit and vegetable program support, which helps families as well; as Minister of Agriculture, we made sure there are supports for farmers markets as well.

We understand that there's more we can do. We're working hard for British Columbians, and I thank the members opposite for their questions.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: One piece that I agree with the minister on is that the government could do more, and they could do more by ending the clawback of child support right now.

[1430]

When families live in poverty, every dollar counts. Just ask any parent who's struggling to make ends meet. First Call's November report showed that B.C. has the highest level of child poverty in Canada, and it shows that the B.C. Liberals' child support clawbacks take back $17 million a year out of the hands of the poorest children.

We also know that the B.C. Liberal government spent last year $17 million, as well, on partisan pre-election advertising.

My question is to the minister. Does he really think the money that parents set aside to help B.C.'s poorest children is better spent on ads promoting the B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. D. McRae: There are many challenges when it comes to raising children. I know that, and I thank my wife, who is living in Courtenay right now, when I'm here trying to help the province of British Columbia and citizens of British Columbia do better.

One of the most important things this government can do is grow the economy of British Columbia, because children have parents, and when parents have an opportunity to have jobs, this allows them to have a better quality of life.

It is never easy, I know, to have a job and be a parent.

[ Page 2700 ]

That's why we are working with child tax benefits to help children in their early childhood. There are opportunities with StrongStart, neighbourhoods of learning. We want to make sure that there is a foundation for children. Our school system is the best in Canada. We work so hard to make sure there are opportunities for our children.

As we go forward, the best thing we can do is make sure that these parents and their children go forward with hope. The economy is growing in British Columbia. There are opportunities for British Columbians for decades to come, and I'm proud to be a member of this government, which is making sure that our children will benefit from those opportunities.

USE OF PROVINCIAL COAT OF ARMS

BY FORMER MLA

S. Robinson: Former Liberal MLA Harry Bloy is promoting his business with letterhead that sports his MLA photo, and underneath it reads, "Harry Bloy, MLA, member for Burnaby-Lougheed," and in small type, "2001 to 2013." In the left-hand corner is our provincial crest.

According to the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, this crest may not be used by a "person other than the Lieutenant Governor, a member of the Executive Council, a member of the Legislative Assembly or a judge of the Supreme Court, a County Court or the Provincial Court" — that is, unless they get permission from the Premier.

My question is to the Premier. I understand Mr. Bloy is the only B.C. Liberal MLA who supported her leadership bid, but did she give him permission to use the coat of arms of British Columbia to promote his business?

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows well, there are very clear rules in this province with respect to the use of provincial emblems. The moment that this matter was brought to our attention, the office of protocol as well as legal services were immediately on it. They were in immediate contact with the individual, and I understand that immediately following being contacted, the individual in question removed the material from his website and has also provided assurances that he will no longer use the provincial emblem on any other material.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

AND GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS

D. Eby: We've heard a lot of remarkable things lately from the Minister of Advanced Education. One of the most remarkable is his insistence that cutting millions of dollars from the post-secondary budget would not harm students. Yet over the last week we've seen university after university announcing tuition fee hikes, program cuts and faculty layoffs. Students are paying more and getting less.

My question to the minister is this. How can he still claim that students paying more and getting less for it doesn't hurt them?

[1435]

Hon. A. Virk: This is a government that prides itself on accountability, clearly something the opposition doesn't understand. It's a government that prides itself in being financially responsible with the hard-paying money of the taxpayers.

This government funds post-secondary education to the tune of $5 million every single day. This education system is one of the most renowned in the world. That's why 106,000 international students want to come and study in British Columbia. We're also committed to re-engineering post-secondary education to make sure it aligns from the learner to the earner.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: We've heard a lot about the minister's engineering while he was on the board of Kwantlen University. I'm sure that B.C. is in no mood for any more of that engineering.

In fact, under the minister's watch, UNBC in Prince George is eliminating ten full-time faculty and staff positions and increasing tuition by 2 percent. They've scrapped plans for a new engineering school. Okanagan College in Kelowna is cutting five staff and increasing tuition by 2 percent for domestic students and 8 percent for international students. Many other schools are preparing similar layoffs and tuition hikes.

Now, I know the minister is very concerned about executive compensation. But does he care at all about B.C. students and the impact his budget is having on them?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the member opposite may certainly be interested in hearing some of the facts. British Columbia has had the fourth-lowest tuition for seven years running. Tuition rates are indeed capped at 2 percent, and that's considerably less than the national average. The cost of tuition in British Columbia pays for one-third of the cost of education. It's the hard-working taxpayer of British Columbia that covers the rest of the cost of education in this province.

There are other ways to make education affordable. This province is also a leader in using technology. The open textbook project is a leader in Canada.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Karagianis: I rise to present a couple of petitions. The first petition I have has 70 signatures asking the government to implement a publicly funded full-school-day

[ Page 2701 ]

kindergarten for five-year-olds and expanded drop-in StrongStart centres across the province of B.C.

The second petition I have here is asking the government to tackle poverty here in the province of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the main chamber here I call continued second reading of Bill 18, Water Sustainability Act, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will continue with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure estimates.

[1440]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — WATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT

(continued)

[D. Horne in the chair.]

J. Martin: I'm pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack to speak to Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act — promises made, promises kept. We campaigned very vigorously, and one of the key points in that campaign was to modernize the Water Act and to pass it in 2014, and that's what we're doing.

Chilliwack has a long and rich agricultural history, and many of our residents make a living from agriculture in one way or another. Chilliwack depends on access to clean, fresh water not only for consumption but for our all-important agricultural industry too.

The new Water Sustainability Act will replace the existing Water Act, which dates all the way back to 1909. That Water Act is no longer adequate to address the challenges we face today — challenges including population growth, urbanization and intensive resource development.

Water is a crucial, essential resource for all of us. The new Water Sustainability Act will position our province as a leader in water stewardship. Just as this government has engaged in extensive, unprecedented consultation with the public regarding the disability white paper, liquor reform, the traffic safety review and many other files, over the last four years there has been a very, very intense process of consultation.

In fact, we received a total of 45 submissions, and this included very detailed, exhaustive input from First Nations, from industry groups, from environmental organizations and from various local governments. The high level of public interest is reflected in the fact that groundwater is the main source of drinking water for about 25 percent of British Columbians.

Water is a critical economic resource too. It is a necessary element for business to operate and for industry to flourish. Throughout the new act we are going to improve our current water management system.

Until now the treatment of groundwater was treated differently from surface water. Groundwater, which draws from underwater aquifers, did not require any authorization for use or payment of fees. However, surface water has always required fees. Consequently, this act will level the playing field and provide better water security for generations to come.

In fact, B.C. is the last remaining province in Canada that does not regulate the extraction and use of groundwater. The new legislation will change all that. The new act will regulate and protect groundwater use in B.C., and, more importantly, it will secure rights for water users — communities, industries and more.

For Chilliwack this new legislation will also secure water for our agricultural sector. The proposed act makes improvements in seven specific, key areas. It will better protect stream health and aquatic environments. Water will be considered in land use decisions. Groundwater will now be regulated and protected. Water use will be regulated during times of scarcity. It will improve security, water use efficiency and conservation. It will measure and report large-scale water use, and it will provide for a range of governance approaches.

[1445]

During our consultations the public made it very clear that they consider water to be a precious resource that requires protection and regulation. We in this province are blessed with an abundant supply of fresh water. In fact, British Columbians pay some of the lowest water rates in the developed world, but we have to make sure that British Columbians are the primary beneficiaries under this system.

Under the Water Sustainability Act all non-domestic users of groundwater will be required to pay annual rentals in the same way that surface water users do today. Use of groundwater — except for domestic purposes, of course — will require a water licence and will be required to pay water fees and rentals.

Through our intense consultations we learned that the public wants non-domestic users to pay rates that better reflect the value of water to the economy. The new act will require, among other things, measuring and reporting of water use, implementing water use efficiency measures and developing groundwater resources. There will be no changes for small well owners.

We will be further engaging with British Columbians this month about approaches to water pricing, specifically. Feedback on water pricing will help set new water fees and rentals. Users will have flexibility in determining how they can undertake water measuring in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

In replacing

an act that is more than a century old, it was decided that the new act should be a flexible tool for water management, since it is difficult to accurate-

[ Page 2702 ]

ly predict future needs. Most importantly, the Water Sustainability Act looks to accomplish three key outcomes with this modernization.

Water management will be sustainable. That's efficient and effective. Rights for water users, including communities and industries, will be secure, and it will be transparent. B.C.'s water and aquatic ecosystems will be healthy and will be protected.

We all know that water is our most precious resource. At the end of the day, the water we drink, the air we breathe — nothing is more important. In Chilliwack, residents also know the importance of healthy, safe water for the purposes of agriculture and local industry.

The proposed Water Sustainability Act will help ensure that our supply of clean, fresh water is sustainable to meet our needs for generations and generations to come. Once again, promises made, promises kept.

G. Holman: As other colleagues have noted, the updating of water legislation that is over 100 years old is a positive step. I also commend the government on the lengthy and comprehensive public consultation on this bill — certainly, much more extensive than for some of the other pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this session.

For example, regulation of groundwater, enabling of new local governance mechanisms and the promise of better protection of environmental flows are all positive steps forward and are important to my constituents. However, we should consider strengthening and clarifying this bill to address some key concerns and questions. The devil is always in the details.

The monitoring of groundwater use mandated by the bill is a good thing. However, if we are not adequately evaluating groundwater supplies, short and long term, will this simply amount to thoroughly documenting a dwindling resource over time? Consider how we've managed our fisheries resources — good data on harvest volumes, much poorer data on fishery stocks and a poor understanding of the key factors affecting these stocks and how to manage these factors.

With climate change, evaluation of water supplies and their key determining factors will become even more difficult. One of the most serious concerns about water in the province is the use of surface and groundwater supplies in natural gas fracking. What will this legislation do to prevent the permanent contamination of fresh water by fracking? Simply attaching a minimal price for water use will not be a sufficient incentive to conserve or recycle fresh water.

Enabling of governance structures to allow for greater local involvement in the management of ground- and surface water is a good thing, but does this simply mean that the province off-loads responsibility for management of water supply and quality without providing any additional resources to effectively undertake these responsibilities?

[1450]

With respect to my constituency, while the Saanich Peninsula is fortunate to be supplied by a drinking watershed that is fully protected by the capital regional district, probably over half of the southern Gulf Islands residents depend on uncertain and vulnerable groundwater supplies.

As I noted before, simply documenting groundwater use does very little to ensure sustainable future supplies, particularly with climate change. What measures are provided in this bill to ensure not just adequate supplies of ground and surface water but the quality of this water?

For example, half of the residents of the southern Gulf Islands depend on surface water supplies that are subject to threats such as nutrient loading. This causes algal blooms, which can and have turned toxic. Will this act better protect the quality of the surface water supplies? Or will we simply leave it up to small local treatment facilities to deal with the quality problem at great cost to local ratepayers?

Strengthening the protection for environmental flows is a good thing. But how strong is this commitment in a bill when language such as "consider the environmental flow" is used? For example, is there an environmental bottom line to protect fisheries, or not?

With respect to water pricing, the government has stated that this will be covered by regulations and that the policies governing these regulations will be subject to further public consultation. However, the principles governing these pricing policies could be clarified in the legislation. On this matter, I'd like to respond to some of the statements made by members opposite.

The core principle of this legislation appears to be that groundwater and surface water should be priced similarly on a per-unit basis. While equity between water users should be one guiding principle, surely if prices are to reflect the actual costs of managing water resources, then prices should also reflect such cost differences.

For example, while the costs of monitoring use might be similar between ground and surface water, the costs of evaluating short- and long-term groundwater supplies and their key determining factors will be much more complicated and expensive than for surface water. If groundwater requires no treatment to make it potable, should the users of this public resource pay a price that reflects these avoided costs? Certainly, the users of surface water typically have to pay such costs.

In

summary, this bill is a positive step forward, but it could be strengthened in a way that still meets the objectives of government, the interests of users and the principles of fairness. As stated by our Environment critic, members on this side of the House are prepared to make constructive suggestions to make this legislation even better.

In the past few weeks, a number of such reasonable

[ Page 2703 ]

amendments proposed by the opposition have been voted down by the government side, who at the same time accuse us of being naysayers with no positive suggestions.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask the member…. It is actually out of order to reflect on a previous vote.

G. Holman: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. With this legislation, I hope we can change this channel.

S. Hamilton: I'm pleased to stand and take

part in second reading debate of this bill. Here in our beautiful province of British Columbia we have riches in our goldmines, in our silver mines, in our copper mines. But when you stop and consider things, water is indeed our most precious resource. Water sustains life, quite literally.

The proposed Water Sustainability Act before us today helps ensure that our supply of fresh, clean water is sustainable to meet the needs for now and for many, many generations to come. The development of the new Water Sustainability Act is an achievement of some importance for British Columbia, and it's an important piece of legislation I'm proud to support.

Our current Water Act was introduced more than 100 years ago, in 1909. It brought together a single set of water allocation rules. As the House will know, modernizing the Water Act was a key commitment in our election platform, and we have delivered with the introduction of this Bill 18.

The Water Sustainability Act is a large and complex law that took a number of years of policy development, consultation and legislative drafting. The public told us they were keenly interested in being consulted on the development of legislation to modernize the Water Act, so we have spent the last four years engaging widely with British Columbians. That's an important point. We've also consulted with First Nations, industry groups, environmental groups and local government over the past four years.

[1455]

Members may recall the Living Water Smart blog the government launched in 2009. If I'm not mistaken, that particular blog was one of the first instances where the British Columbia government used a blog to converse with the public and interested stakeholders. It was certainly one of the first efforts by the provincial government at public engagement, in the sense that the term has come to be known these days.

After our water blog was launched to a fair degree of success, we held more discussions and consultations in 2010. Our initial plan at the time was to introduce legislation in 2012. The complexities in drafts resulted in delays, which brings us right up to date to the introduction last month of the Water Sustainability Act.

Why the delay? Simply put, we wanted to make sure that we got this piece of legislation right. As I said a moment ago, it's important legislation, but it's also a complex area of public policy. In addition to the consultations and conversations we undertook in 2009 and 2010, we also held a third round of negotiations in the fall of last year, 2013.

Industry, First Nations and the public were interested in beginning consultation on the development of this legislation. We've listened, and we thank them for their contributions to this effort.

It almost goes without saying that a 105-year-old law doesn't adequately address today's water issues arising from population growth, urbanization, climate change, as well as resource development around our province. I cannot think of a single person, group or community that wouldn't have a keen interest in what their provincial government aimed to achieve when it set out to work with the public and stakeholder groups to modernize our legislation.

That's what the Water Sustainability Act is all about — new water stewardship and management legislation that's essential to protect our environment for future generations. Most notably, the new act will bring groundwater into the licensing system and will expand government's ability to protect fish and aquatic environments.

Others have touched on this, but I feel it's important to place a little more detail and emphasis on the record during debate here today.

The new legislation will regulate and protect groundwater in B.C.; collect information to better understand B.C.'s aquifers to make informed water use decisions in the future; ensure environmental flow needs are considered in allocation decisions to protect our streams, rivers and aquifers; secure rights for water users, communities and industries, especially for groundwater; secure water for agricultural production, agricultural water reserves; allow for wider participation in decisions and water governance, water sustainability plans and water objectives; entrench household use and aquatic ecosystems and priorities in times of drought and scarcity.

What does all of this mean? Well, historically, access to groundwater was not a concern in this province. However, since about 1960, groundwater use for a range of purposes has intensified, due in large part to changes in technology that made it easier to get at our groundwater resources.

Here's a statistic many will be surprised to learn. Did you know that at the present time about one-quarter of British Columbians rely on groundwater as their primary source of drinking water? That's a lot of people. While the primary legislation governing drinking water in B.C. is the Drinking Water Protection Act, the Water Sustainability Act will complement that act in ensuring safe and secure supplies of drinking water.

Specific provisions of the Water Sustainability Act will help protect drinking water and associated watersheds;

[ Page 2704 ]

the protection of environment flows; the protection of water, both surface and ground, from the introduction of foreign matter; the establishment of water objectives; and the ability to undertake water sustainability plans.

Groundwater is also vital to B.C.'s economy, providing water for businesses and industry. The House will be interested to hear that B.C. is the only province in Canada that does not regulate the extraction and use of groundwater.

What exactly do we mean when we use the term "groundwater" in these debates? Well, groundwater means "water naturally occurring below the surface of the ground." Surface water, on the other hand, is water on the surface — streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands, ocean. They are, by definition, two separate things, yet groundwater and surface water are interconnected. They are one resource, and they need to be managed as such.

Population growth, resource development and climate change are putting more pressure on water resources. This will result in more conflicts over water. To that I would add that in many cases water from aquifers flows into streams contributing to sustained stream flow, especially during droughts, and the protection of fish and aquatic ecosystems rely on this base flow.

[1500]

Without the ability to regulate extraction of water from aquifers, we cannot use tools like temporary protection orders to keep ecosystems functioning through droughts.

Regulation of groundwater also corrects the inequality in our current water management system. Until now, use of groundwater has not required an authorization or payment of fees and rentals,

whereas surface water used for the same purpose has. Under this legislation, regulation of groundwater will level the playing field, especially for large users, and will provide water security for British Columbians who rely on it.

Under this act, we are looking to accomplish three key goals. We want water management that is sustainable, efficient and effective. We want rights for water users, communities and industries that are secure and transparent. And finally, we want B.C.'s water and aquatic ecosystems to be healthy and protected. The Water Sustainability Act will be brought into effect in spring 2015, once the supporting regulations are developed and finalized.

This legislation has support from the B.C. Ground Water Association and Clean Energy B.C., to name just two groups who have worked with the government to help modernize B.C.'s water legislation. The Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia also welcomes this act, calling it a step forward and noting it will improve our ability to better manage and care for our rivers, aquifers and water resources.

In my time remaining, I want to talk a little bit about this legislation with regards to agriculture, an important industry in my area in British Columbia and a key sector in the B.C. jobs plan. The agrifoods sector provides more than 61,000 jobs and generates over $10.9 billion a year in provincial revenues. I'm proud that B.C. has the most diverse agrifoods industry in Canada, and we have the potential to become a $14 billion powerhouse by 2017.

Much of this potential can be realized in Asia's markets, where there is a growing demand for B.C. agrifoods. Our Premier has already led three trade missions to gain access to these key and emerging markets.

This government recognizes the importance the agricultural sector plays in Delta and in urban and rural communities across the province. Working to ensure water is a sustainable resource is crucial to many people in my area of B.C., many of whom earn their living and support their families growing food we eat, processing the goods we bring to market and selling those wonderful, delicious products stamped "Grown in B.C." to overseas markets.

I'd like to conclude my remarks by saying I support this legislation and look forward to its passage into law.

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to take my place in the second reading debate of Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act. It's a chance to have a general discussion around the bill and some of the aspects of the bill. Again, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill, because it is quite complex, and we can get into really minute detail at the committee stage.

I have to first say that there are some good things in this bill, and I commend the minister for putting the effort into updating a very, very old act, the Water Act. There are some aspects of it, I think, that are definitely an improvement over what we have in place right now. But there are gaping holes, and I'm going to talk about a couple of them in the time I have at this second reading debate — gaping holes, holes you could drive a truck through.

The first I want to talk about is the relaxation of the rules around water for fracking. That aspect is of major concern to the people of the province and the people who live in the northeast. This bill will give new power of the government to issue repeat short-term authorizations to use water to the same person for the same purpose in respect of the same place. In other words, we believe that it's being done to facilitate hydraulic fracturing, which is a method used to extract natural gas from deep below the earth's surface in the northeast.

There are major concerns about these short-term authorizations. They are issued, first of all, by the Oil and Gas Commission. I would question why a quasi-judicial agency like the Oil and Gas Commission is issuing water licences for this purpose when we know that within a government ministry, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, there's a consolidation of issuing of licences by this government.

[1505]

It would seem that that ministry has the experts to assess and understand and know about water use and

[ Page 2705 ]

water licensing, so I would think that a positive suggestion would be to have these short-term authorizations for water use for the purpose of hydraulic fracturing be issued by that ministry and not under the Oil and Gas Commission.

Right now the Oil and Gas Commission can grant short-term approvals for water use for fracking, and they last up to 24 months. If oil and gas companies take longer than 24 months to frack, the commission has been issuing repeat authorizations to the same companies. That has been a source of contention. What this bill does is apparently clarify that that authorization process is now legal. There's no ability to really see the transparency behind these short-term, 24-month approvals.

When we assess about water usage in the hydraulic fracturing part of the industry in natural gas production, there are long-term authorizations. We have a lot more ability through public disclosure by this government of what those entail and the amounts they entail. But the short-term licences, the short-term approvals, are far less transparent. Under this bill, now they'll be made legal in a much less transparent way.

I want to give a bit of an example of how that's an issue. The Fort Nelson First Nation has done an analysis of what the potential impact could be of this government's LNG strategy in their traditional territories that are under treaty. If, potentially, we get the number of LNG export facilities that this government is promoting on our coast, the raw product comes from the northeast.

In fact, what the Fort Nelson First Nation has discovered is that 10 to 25 percent of the gas produced to supply the proposed LNG facilities on the coast will come from their territory. What they've calculated is that that would create three to ten times greater the 2012 levels of activity in natural gas development than they actually see on the territory right now, on their treaty territories.

They say that some of the impacts that this will result in is massive water withdrawals for fracking. They're concerned about this — not only the groundwater aspect, which this act relaxes the rules around, but for surface water as well. We're talking billions of litres.

I've been to the northeast, I've toured the northeast, and I've watched the water trucks line up for the surface water in the Peace River. I've seen in the back country standpipes on almost every stream and every farmer's field that has a pond on it. It really is a bit of a Wild West attitude when it comes to water usage within the industry, and I don't see anything in this bill that gives me confidence that that will be brought under a little bit more of a regulatory control.

In fact, what we do see, from the groundwater short-term authorization aspect, is a lessening of rules. I think that's an issue. I would be very interested in the minister's response to that kind of issue at the end of this second-stage debate and when we get into the committee stage.

It's definitely not what the people expected when this government said they are going to modernize the Water Act. People expected more rigorous oversight of groundwater usage when it comes to short-term authorizations for the extraction of water. The only short-term thing about it is the term. It used to be 24 months, and now it seems to be a perpetual rollover. There's nothing short-term about the amount of water being taken out in these permits.

The second area I'm going to address as a gaping hole in this legislation is in connection to something called FITFIR.

[1510]

I know that government and perhaps government MLAs and perhaps even opposition MLAs get into the bad habit of talking in acronyms. For those who aren't totally into this document or have been following the Water Act, FITFIR is an acronym that stands for "first-in-time, first-in-right."

The concern around FITFIR is that the first-in-time, first-in-right aspects of this bill could undermine environmental flows. FITFIR means older licences, which were issued perhaps 100 years ago when environmental flows were not considered as they are today — obviously, a lot has changed over the last 100 years, not only in allocation and how much water demand there is, but in climate — as well as licences that will be issued for existing groundwater uses, will continue to trump environmental flows. It's only for new licences or amendments to licences that environmental flows will be considered.

So the FITFIR aspect of the bill, I guess for lack of a better description, grandfathers the water usage that's existed under the last hundred years and that would overlook the environmental flow considerations that have grown on us in the last hundred years.

We can't ignore what's happened in the last hundred years, and the bill does that by grandfathering the FITFIR aspect — the first-in-time, first-in-right for water allocation. I grant it that this government has decided to look at FITFIR for here on, but I think it's a major oversight not to look at the water usage that was grandfathered under this and that's grandfathered under the bill. That's another area that I think is an oversight and a gaping hole in the proposed legislation.

Perhaps — and this is from my critic-area perspective — the largest lack of focus in this bill has to do with First Nations. Under this bill we see the assumption that FITFIR — first-in-time, first-in-right — does not take into account the assertion of First Nation priority rights. In other words, over the last hundred years under the Water Act, we've had people who apply to the government for use of surface water and groundwater, and the legacy of the last 30 years of court cases on First Nations rights and titles that we've seen is not being considered under the legislation that's been proposed.

I can tell you, if we had that body of work — over 100 decisions just in the last eight years or nine years on First

[ Page 2706 ]

Nations rights and title — before the Water Act, then we would see a totally different situation than we do today. The government has ignored that, in putting this bill forward.

My serious concern is that it will lead to further confrontation. We had the Halalt First Nation versus the district of North Cowichan only a couple of years ago. That was over water allocation and a water-rights issue. I'm talking about conflict in the courts. We know that developing relationships and reconciliation…. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations has told me in budget estimates that that's the priority he has. Well, by not having the wording in this document around First Nations priority rights regarding FITFIR, we're setting ourselves up for some major legal battles, and that's apparent.

When the government said that they consulted with First Nations…. I just wanted to talk a little bit about that. If you want to have serious consultation, I think you have to discuss serious resources to do that. It was a matter of not too many years ago, during the previous Premier Gordon Campbell's days, when the First Nations Leadership Council was established. That's consisting of the head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the head of the First Nations Summit.

[1515]

When the First Nations Leadership Council was established under the new relationship, $1 million went to those three organizations — over $300,000 each — in order to respond to government initiatives such as Bill 18, the Water Sustainability Act. That was money well spent.

I think the demands, not only because of legal cases but of the need for government to consult with First Nations, have only increased since those days. Yet the budget overall now for those three organizations has been cut by 66 percent, down to $300,000. Each of those organizations used to get over $300,000 to conduct the proper consultation required with government on things like this bill. Now they each receive $100,000. Yet the demand has increased for that kind of consultation.

I believe that might be one case as to why, under Bill 18, we see the government basically ignoring the issue of FITFIR when it comes to First Nations. The First Nations Fisheries Council was able to put together some response to the original proposal, and they pointed out that provincial water allocation is still premised on a first-in-time, first-in-right system that does not recognize First Nations rights to water or First Nations priority in time.

If you're talking about first-in-time, you have to go back a little bit and consider who was here before the current water users that are mostly non–First Nations on the system. So that was their policy consideration when responding to government.

I don't see that reflected in the bill at all, and I'm worried about that, because I think the courts are not the best way to solve jurisdictional issues between B.C. and First Nations. I think it leads to a breakdown in trust. So I'm concerned that not including recognized First Nations rights to water or First Nations priority in time in the legislation is going to lead to many more problems if we continue down this road.

The First Nations Fisheries Council also pointed out that First Nations–specific rights are not recognized in the bill and that in some areas of the province, streams are already overallocated. You might have a situation where surface water or a stream has already been, in the last 100 years, overallocated without any consideration of First Nations priority rights to that water, effectively shutting them out. I truly believe that the body of legal decisions in the last 30 years demonstrates that that's not going to fly. It's just not going to fly.

I'm going to just wrap up my comments in this second reading debate by saying there are some good things in this bill. I commend the government for taking a stab at improving a very old act, but there are some gaping holes that I think are going to be a major issue. The relaxation of rules around water for fracking when it comes to the short-term authorizations, the issue of whether first-in-time, first-in-rights could undermine environmental flows and the major issue of not taking into account the assertion of First Nation priority rights when it comes to first-in-time, first-in-rights on water.

I look forward to the minister's response on those and to continuing this on a much more specific basis in the committee stage.

D. Barnett: I am pleased today to have the honour and the opportunity to stand here to support Bill 18 and commend the Minister of Environment for bringing this bill forward. It has been many, many, many years in the making. Coming from local government back in the '80s and having discussions about the Water Act in British Columbia, I know how important it is to each and every one of us in this building. I know how important water is to each and every citizen of the province of British Columbia.

[1520]

You know, we look at history, and we learn from history. We learn not so much from mistakes but how business was done back then and how we must progress today.

The timing of this legislation is so important, as we have all heard from time to time…. And my colleague across the floor talks continuously about climate change. I had the opportunity of sitting on the past Premier's committee on climate change with my colleague from across the floor. Many discussions were had at those meetings about water.

Groundwater and surface water are where much of our drinking water comes from. Over the years as populations grow and the need for water happens, we have to have better consideration for how we supply this water and who takes it.

[ Page 2707 ]

Many subdivisions in rural British Columbia have been built over the past 40, 50 years. Subdivisions are built, and they're built well, but did we do water tests back then to see what the aquifer was? No, we did not. Now we take a look as the world changes and climate changes. There may be some of these subdivisions that are going to have serious problems with water, but this act will protect any new subdivisions being built in rural British Columbia and in urban B.C.

Users of groundwater are ranchers. I will say that the Ministry of Environment was up in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and went out to a ranch, a big ranch in my riding, and had a great discussion with a rancher about this Water Act. He was very concerned. Not just concerned; he was scared. He thought that this act was going to come along and tell him he could no longer have water for his ranch. Nor would he have the ability to afford it, because somehow in the whole process he figured this minister was going to come along and cut off his water supply, but if he paid enough money, he might get water back.

Well, I commend the minister, because she was there for two or three hours. When she left, this ranching family, which is a family, was satisfied at the answers that they had been assured of by the minister. I felt very comfortable, too, because I have a huge ranching community, and this act is so important to them. I am very grateful that my community and my ranchers had the opportunity to talk to the minister and understand what this act will do for their industry.

We talk about consultation. There has been lots of consultation over this act. First Nations consultation — if you look at the information that is provided, there has been much, much engagement. Our First Nation communities are so important to engage with, as we all know. There has been so much that has been done by the ministry, and there is ongoing consultation.

This is not a bill that the minister has put forward. She will continue to consult on issues surrounding this bill. We all know that, because this is one commodity…. When I was young I used to look around and think: "Boy, whoever has the most oil at the end of the day will be the richest person there is." But really and truly, it's water. Whoever has the most water at the end of the day, good, clean water, will be the successor — we all know that — in the world we live in.

Metering water is something that…. Who knows where it'll go? Who knows what it will look like for local communities? Most local governments nowadays go to metered water. I don't think that anybody that's concerned that their water may be metered because of this here bill…. I don't think they need to worry about it. Talk to your local governments, because I've had some feedback from people that somehow have got some concern about meters. I don't know why. This bill will not hurt any of that.

The costs. I don't see any great costs that have been mentioned here. We all know that water costs. Everything costs.

[1525]

I personally believe — and this is my personal opinion, not my caucus's — that we don't pay enough for water. But that's my personal opinion.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: That's good water.

While the primary legislation governing drinking water in B.C. is the Drinking Water Protection Act — we also have that in place — the Water Sustainability Act will complement that act in ensuring safe and secure supplies of drinking water.

I could go on and on about the great things within this act. But I will take my place in the House today and thank the minister once again and thank this side of the House for coming forward with

an act that is long overdue in the province of British Columbia. I look forward to working continuously with the minister on the pieces that will be put into this act over the next few years.

A. Weaver: I would like to start my speech the exact same way that the member left off her previous speech, which is offering my congratulations to the minister for tabling what I believe is a historic bill for the province of British Columbia.

We've been blessed here in British Columbia with some of the best access to fresh water compared to any other jurisdiction in the world. Our abundance of clean, fresh water has meant that the pressures to monitor and regulate its usage have taken much longer to manifest themselves. We've not felt the immediate pressures that some jurisdictions have, in which failure to regulate water usage meant the difference between life and death.

Yet what is clear is that from an economic, social, environmental and cultural perspective, how we manage our water will have significant impacts on the current generation as well as future generations, particularly in light of the climate change as outlined in the recently released working group 2 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

To quote the West Coast Environmental Law: "Water, and how we treat our water, is one of those fundamental issues that touches on so much of who we are, what we do and how we build our economy." Our failure to better regulate our water usage today will have ripple effects and potentially significant consequences for future generations — if not across our province, certainly in

[ Page 2708 ]

specific regions.

After more than 100 years I think we can all agree in this House that updated legislation is long overdue. The original Water Act from 1909 was written for a different time with different issues facing our water resources. It is ill-suited for the current area of climate change pressures, rising competition over usage and increasing importance of managing our water supplies in such a way that ensures opportunity and sustainability for future generations.

The new Water Sustainability Act represents an important step forward to meet many of these challenges, and I'm pleased to say that I find much to support in the many innovative environmental measures proposed to manage our water resources.

In particular, the incorporation of the long-promised regulation of groundwater is an important addition. The inclusion of a system for licensing and regulating groundwater users helps to fill a glaring policy gap that was allowing a number of industries to profit from our Crown resources, with no system to ensure the sustainability of their use. In addition, British Columbia did not receive adequate compensation for the use of this resource.

I'm also encouraged that the government chose to include a number of ecological considerations in the decision-making process about water use. Specifically, innovative components that include the water sustainability plans, water objectives, the protection of sensitive streams, environmental flow needs and mitigation measures are all very positive.

I look forward to examining exactly how these provisions will operate in greater detail at the committee stage. Here I want to note my support for the fact that they were not only considered but included in the bill.

[1530]

I also think the government's decision to sever the water pricing discussion from this act is a very good one. As the ministry has no doubt seen, there are a great variety of positions on water pricing, and a separate engagement process will allow all interested stakeholders to provide the ministry and the minister with their perspectives.

My own view is that the province should seriously look at differential pricing for water based, in part, on how that water is being used. Some guidance could be taken from the bill before us today, particularly in regards to ensuring the beneficial use and aligning the differential pricing with the "water objectives" of a given region. In general, I'm supportive of the process the government has initiated to solicit feedback on water pricing, and I look forward to discussing this aspect at a later date.

As population grows and the direct impact of climate change on local weather is felt with increasing frequency and intensity, the sustainable management of our water resources will become even more important.

Without a doubt, there are many positive aspects in this bill pertaining to the determination of "critical environmental flow thresholds." However, it remains unclear to me whether government possesses the level of in-house scientific understanding required to properly manage our water resources, particularly our groundwater supplies.

As we've seen recently in California, climate change can have massive impacts on water supply. For example, we can expect precipitation to increasingly fall in the form of rain instead of snow, leading to changes in snowpack and water availability throughout the year. This is not an issue of water availability but of water storage for our surface water access. This, in turn, could have significant impacts on groundwater recharge and needs to be accounted for in the regulations that will govern groundwater withdrawal.

I'm also uncertain about the merits of continuing with the first-in-time, first-in-right priority for waters rights, as mentioned by the member for Stikine. My view is that this system is also outdated and needs updating and is potentially contradictory to many of the sustainability provisions that this bill puts in place. I look forward to unpacking the reasoning behind the continuing use of this system further at committee stage.

Finally, my main concern with regards to this bill concerns the government's ability to effectively implement it. I'm left wondering if the government currently possesses and will continue to possess the necessary resources and internal capacity to enforce many of the provisions in this bill.

The overall downsizing of the public service is starting to cause alarm bells to go off in certain areas, especially with regards to available scientific expertise and enforcement. Cuts in the scientific capacity of government will have a negative effect on its ability to manage its natural resources. This comes at a time when the stresses that are placed on our resources have never been more diverse and more complicated. I hope that we can include a discussion on this important topic as the bill moves through committee stage.

In

summary, Bill 18 provides a broad framework for a new water management system in British Columbia. However, many of the details are left to regulations that have yet to be written, and so, ultimately, the overall success of this bill will be judged once these regulations become public. I believe it's essential for the government to continue to offer British Columbians an opportunity to provide feedback as the regulations are developed.

Finally, as I began, I'd like to finish by congratulating the minister for tabling this historic bill. I very much look forward to working with her going forward to make sure that this bill lives up to its full potential.

V. Huntington: Let me say I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to what has been called an historic bill, the Water Sustainability Act. I think most of us are

[ Page 2709 ]

very grateful for the work that's been done by the ministry officials and the NGOs across the province in the long years it has taken to bring this bill forward.

I don't think anybody in the House could argue the fact that we're entering a transitional stage on this earth and that water, as so many have said in this room, will become perhaps the most valuable resource we have.

In my general response to the act, I would suggest that perhaps the great weakness in it is that it doesn't discuss and open the door to a much broader, deeper understanding of those sustainability issues within the province and the long-term impact that the availability of water in this province is going to have for our future food security and, also, for our future economic strength.

[1535]

I think one day water will lead to a magnificent growth in our agricultural industries, and as the globe goes through this transition of climate change, we're going to see British Columbia, I believe, land at one of the top tiers of opportunity in the world. I do believe, however, that this bill is a reasonable starting point for updating our antiquated laws governing the province's most vital resource.

The real question we must all ask as legislators, however, is whether this bill goes far enough to ensure B.C.'s freshwater resources will be managed sustainably for future generations. Does this proposed legislation and its parallel consultation process on water pricing address the many serious and complex questions that surround sustainable water management in British Columbia?

While the bill makes some long-overdue changes to how we manage surface and groundwater in B.C., it does not, in my opinion, go far enough to create the laws and regulations that will truly protect B.C.'s freshwater resources.

The government states that it recognizes the fundamental importance of water and that the Water Sustainability Act represents its best efforts to protect fresh water. Yet the act is not courageous enough to truly achieve this vital goal.

According to the government's background material on this bill, the government attempts to address seven areas of water management: protecting stream health and aquatic environments; including water considerations in land use planning; regulating and protecting groundwater; the ability to regulate water use during times of scarcity; improving water security, efficiency and conservation; measuring and reporting on large-scale water use; and providing a range of governance mechanisms. On the surface, all of these areas represent good improvements to the 1909 Water Act that this bill replaces. But as always, the devil is in the details.

As we look at the large loopholes in the protection of stream health and aquatic environments, I'd like to use, as one example, IPPs — the independent power producers. The Water Sustainability Act does not cover water used for hydro generation. It's an unfortunate omission, as the government's own investigation into independent power projects in 2011 found that 90 percent of these projects had negative consequences for aquatic environments, stream flows, water temperatures and fish habitat.

That same report pointed out that the Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Ministry did not have sufficient staff to monitor and enforce compliance of the existing laws designed to minimize the impacts of IPPs on B.C.'s freshwater systems. Water for hydro use will continue to have a major impact on B.C.'s freshwater resources and its vital agricultural lands. If the government is truly serious about ensuring the sustainability of this resource, then it must improve the laws and regulations governing this use and improve compliance and enforcement measures.

This critical problem illustrates the importance of improving staffing resources for compliance and enforcement of environmental protection, including water. The new Water Sustainability Act doesn't seem to come with those additional resources in the budgets of either the Ministry of Environment or Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.

Watershed mapping is also a critical component of stream health and aquatic environments. As the owner of Nestlé Canada has publicly pointed out, the province has minimal data on its resources and watersheds. I understand this act hopes that that will shortly improve, but without sufficient data and research on watersheds, water quality and water volume, protecting stream health and aquatic environments will simply be lovely-sounding rhetoric.

We have been driven by industry in the northeast sector of this province with the NorthEast Water Tool, and we have done the watershed mapping in that sector. We have a good tool that is being used, providing a good opportunity for industry and the Oil and Gas Commission to understand water usage. I think it is one of those mechanisms that has created greater efficiency. But there are so many other more subjective areas in which we have to do research. I think that is the only watershed plan that is in place in British Columbia, and I wonder if the resources have been made available to the Ministry of Environment to create other tools similar to NEWT.

[1540]

In B.C.'s Interior the mountain pine beetle, for example, has dramatically impacted the hydrology of forests and watersheds, yet the government has conducted minimal research into the implications of this infestation on both aquatic ecosystems and the current water licences. This issue must be addressed soon if we truly want to preserve water for future generations.

The consideration of water in land use planning is also a vital obligation if we want to preserve our water resources, and I'm very pleased to see that opportunity in the act. Including water is a key value in project de-

[ Page 2710 ]

velopment and planning. It's a good thing and long overdue. However, on this point, the Water Sustainability Act seems weak and will not guarantee that water gets the high priority it deserves in the planning process.

The Forest and Range Practices Act provides an example of how water-related values can be subservient to the economic considerations, as that act specifically states that timber values trump all other values, including water — something this act, I believe, should have resolved.

As the government's own website points out, water is a finite resource essential to life. The vast majority of British Columbians consistently rank water as B.C.'s most valuable natural resource, and as such, the government should strengthen language in the act. The words "give consideration" are not strong enough language to define the value this limited essential resource should have in the planning process.

In short, I do believe that water quality and conservation should be given a higher legal standing in planning processes than this act presently proposes.

The regulation and protection of groundwater usage is also a great step forward, and it is one of the most fundamental changes in this new water act. I compliment the government and commend it for its move to manage surface and groundwater as a single resource.

Knowing our essential aquifers have been uncharted has been disturbing me for many years. But I have to ask: do we have the resources necessary to dedicate to this task, which has generally been regarded as a federal responsibility? Certainly, in the northeast sector the federal government has been the one primarily charting the aquifers in that area and, I understand, throughout other parts of British Columbia. Do we have the resources to be able to manage our aquifers in a goodly and timely manner?

Similarly, as many have pointed out, first-in-time, first-in-right already creates conflicts over water use. It does not respect or account for First Nations rights and titles, and it does not guarantee efficient and effective use of our water resources. I believe our times call for a new regime and a new policy, and I do wish the act had contemplated the same.

Regulating water use during scarcity is also a big step forward in this act. It is an essential change, but as usual, apparently a reactive one. As we have seen for a number of years in the Peace River region and elsewhere, the government must have the tools to step in and protect minimal environmental flows during times of drought. This act does give the government that opportunity. But as they have been in the past, it is most likely these new tools are reactive, not proactive. That is its central weakness.

The Premier was recently down in California, a state that refused to do the research, planning and proactive management of its water resources, despite accumulating evidence that the state's water use was unsustainable. If the government wants to protect B.C.'s limited resources and prevent an eventuality of scarcity here, then it must conduct the watershed research and planning that I previously mentioned. This research should be conducted now with the best available technology and the most current climate change modelling there is.

Without this research, B.C. will, unfortunately, fall into the trap that other jurisdictions now find themselves in. They did too little too late and failed to protect our freshwater resources. If preventative energy and financing was ever needed, now is the time.

[1545]

The act is intended to improve security, water use efficiency and conservation. Again, a laudable goal, and we all support it. But the details of the bill and the government's public comments about its goals for water pricing — that it will only seek to recover costs of licensing and infrastructure — suggest the government may be still unwilling to rationalize and resolve competing demands for water.

Water use for fracking is a classic example of competing demands on water in B.C. and continues to be a highly contentious issue, one which this bill does not address other than to potentially make it easier for the oil and gas industry to not only access water sources but also to continually use short-term licences to access water — not the most effective means to plan for or manage our freshwater resources.

The north has not only an oil and gas future; I believe it is also going to become the agricultural future of British Columbia. Our security and survival depend on our planning now and in the next few years, and the processes through this transitional period of climate change are absolutely essential to engage in.

The part of this bill that makes changes to short-term licensing appears to be a direct response to the current court case against the Oil and Gas Commission, and the proposed changes actually run counter to the province's stated objective of improving water use and conservation.

The government's failure to have an overall strategic water and food production plan that prioritizes water use and forces sectors like oil and gas to truly conserve water through stronger regulations and appropriate pricing threatens the intended outcome of the new Water Sustainability Act. I would hope that during committee we can find out that that is not so, but I am concerned that the act is weak in that regard.

Measuring and reporting of water use is also long overdue. The act, as in other areas, has its good and its bad components. An improvement to B.C.'s water measurement reporting regime is vital.

In 2012 I had a long discussion with the Oil and Gas Commission about these issues during a visit to their offices in Fort St. John. Yet despite the government's own admission that British Columbians are not averse to

[ Page 2711 ]

water pricing in an effort to ensure both the wise and efficient use of water and to help industry minimize its water use, the government has chosen not to mandate examples like water metering and decided to set prices through regulation rather than legislation.

Who is doing the long-term or mid-term thinking on potential scarcities of water and whether or not our aquifers should be protected and when and where they should become off-limits and treated as a reservoir for public necessity? Ultimately, however, we must give serious thought to moving to metering for water use. It would come with retrofitting costs, which is the problem municipalities are facing today. But it must come, and the government could help create a system that results in significantly reduced water use that would help avoid water shortages and make each of us know its true value.

The act also intends to enable a range of governance approaches. One of the problems B.C. has in regulating and managing its water resources is that it did not have a single water manager. This was made clear to me when we met with the OGC and the people in the Peace region. With that in mind, this objective of the act, while sounding reasonable, may simply exacerbate an already bad situation, one that I hope we can review during committee stage.

I agree that government and governance structures must have flexibility to deal with today's rapidly changing natural, social and economic environments. However, when it comes to water, I believe we need an overarching governance framework and structure to ensure we can truly manage this limited and precious resource for the present and our future generations. We do need, perhaps, one water manager and one authority that will conduct research, maintain data, monitor water use, oversee planning processes, maintain minimal environmental flows and manage water use consistently throughout the province.

In conclusion, the government's Water Sustainability Act is a long overdue piece of legislation, and it does indeed update and replace B.C.'s older Water Act. It is a welcome piece of legislation and eagerly looked forward to throughout the province.

[1550]

While this bill makes some important updates and changes to our water laws and regulations, it may be, perhaps, a good starting point, because I do not feel it fully addresses in a courageous way the real challenges we face with respect to our freshwater resources.

Our water, this invaluable resource, will become earth's most valuable commodity. Millions will migrate in the quest for food and water. Sustainable food production will be an impossibility in much of the world, where at a minimum the cost of food will make it a luxury. There will be instability and upheaval.

This province, I feel, has a glorious future, if we manage our resources properly. I wonder whether the government has thought hard enough about that future scenario throughout the globe and the part that B.C. will be playing in it.

R. Fleming: I am pleased to take my place in the debate this afternoon. I think some of the points have been well made by other members on both sides of the House this afternoon at this stage of debate. I think the point that I will repeat that others have made to begin with is that this legislation that's before the House this afternoon is legislation that's long overdue from the perspective of most British Columbians.

I know that to get to this legislative session, we're talking about a five- or six-year journey through the Ministry of Environment, through various consultations that happened many years ago, I think beginning in 2008.

I can recall the Living Water Smart document and some of the initial consultations that were done. At the time I was the party's Environment critic and actually commended government, which is sort of rare in this business, for conducting consultation very well. The stakeholders that needed to be at the table were included. The different regions of the province that demanded and should require input were also included.

It was, I guess, a question mark that was left out of a consultation that was for once of a scope and quality that was worthy of positive comment on: why has it taken so long to get to this point? But we have had some things come and go along the way. I think the HST may have knocked this off the legislative agenda. There may be other reasons that I'm not aware of. We had an election, of course, in between as well.

When you consider that a million groundwater users in the province of British Columbia had very few legal recourses or the ability to be included in the Water Act — although it was there, but today it is much more explicit in this new piece of legislation — I think that in itself, for a quarter of British Columbians, is something to celebrate with the introduction of this act. It has been, indeed, a long, long wait.

This is probably the most significant legislation to do with water that the Legislature has debated for 12 or 13 years. The last time the government looked at making changes was, of course, in the post-Walkerton era, when we had had failures in a province of Canada on protecting the public. People died. Water inspection regimes were called into question. There was rightly a focus on safety around drinking water in this country.

Government at that time — and it was a government of a different political stripe — reacted quickly and introduced that act. It had broad scope. It created layers of responsibility around chief health officers of the province and in the different health regions.

It was amended, after government changed, to improve the act. In the decade since very little has been done around some of the more obvious gaps in B.C.'s

[ Page 2712 ]

water legislation, but many of those, I think, today in this act are answered. That's a positive development. There's no question about it.

We have to take water a lot more seriously, not just in British Columbia or in Canada or in North America but around the world. I think Canadians, and British Columbians in particular, have to take water use seriously. In some cases and in some communities, it has been something that has been taken for granted.

[1555]

We have remarkably well-managed municipal utilities that deliver a plentiful and cheap commodity right into your home, into your faucet, and that is part of the way of life in British Columbia. But it is also why Canadians consume something like 65 percent more water than other people on the planet in just the OECD rich, industrialized countries.

Conservation has to be something that we are mindful of here because, of course, we live in an era of climate change. Right now British Columbia and other jurisdictions around the world are seeing patterns of weather and ways of life on the land base and in the water supply change quite dramatically.

We are living through this right now, and governments need to have much more aggressive adaptation strategies to climate change. They also need to have, of course, more importantly, mitigation strategies to stop climate change from being severe, irreversible and potentially of such a magnitude that it will not support human life in the way that it has been in recent centuries.

We were reminded of this challenge, of course, just on Monday when the United Nations IPCC panel issued a follow-up report, a new report on the pace of climate change. It was a call to action, I think, for humanity and, particularly, for political leaders to respond to the scientific community around the world, which has poured incredible resources and expertise into coming up with the hypothetical models, looking at the real data going back hundreds of years and projecting tens of thousands of years to look at the trends that we are living under around climate change.

Here we are looking at how legislation around water, crucial to support all forms of life, crucial to the regrowth of, for example, the forest industry in B.C…. We have to make sure that this legislation gets it right in terms of giving government the tools to make the tough calls in an era of climate change, where there is drought management and where there are emergencies, but also to plan successfully on adapting to climate change, because it's happening now.

In terms of economic well-being, the connection between water and land use, when you look at the consumption of water by replanted areas — for example, in forestry — supply is critical to that being successful.

Of course, British Columbians have a special responsibility too, to manage water well, because we have some of the greatest rivers in the world. The Fraser River is just one that sustains incredible fish flows and spawning grounds and industries and jobs that come from that — aboriginal rights to that resource. This legislation should remind us and also empower us to manage great rivers like the Fraser and others in British Columbia to the best that we can do as legislators.

Williston Lake, for example, our largest lake in B.C., 1,800 square kilometres — an incredible body of fresh water here in British Columbia that also needs to be managed well. The examples are countless, and members from all 85 constituencies can, I am sure, speak specifically about watersheds and important groundwater sources of water in their communities that need to be managed well.

The test for whether this legislation is good legislation is whether it anticipates these challenges, whether it responds to it with a framework for enforcement, as well as contemplation about some of those challenges and whether it puts the tools in place that are needed. As lawmakers, we have to get that right this afternoon.

There has been a lot of discussion about what is not in this bill and how much of it is left up to regulation by government. Normally, that would cause me quite a lot of concern, because we have seen hollowed-out shells of bills come through this place on a host of topics or intended areas of law that have turned out to be disastrous. Some of them have been rejected by the court — I don't need to get into this — and sent back to this place.

I will say for the record that I am less concerned about that today around the Water Sustainability Act. I understand that there are good reasons to leave much of the development of the Water Sustainability Act, its implementation, to the regulation-making phase, even tho