2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 6

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Steve Jobs

Hon. P. Bell

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Homelessness

S. Simpson

Fundraising climb for Alzheimer's disease

J. van Dongen

National Family Week

M. Elmore

Police Officer of the Year Awards in Surrey

D. Hayer

150 th anniversary of Barkerville

B. Simpson

Contributions of immigrants

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Community living services for children in transition to adulthood

A. Dix

Hon. S. Cadieux

J. Kwan

M. Karagianis

Funding for groups participating in missing women inquiry

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Bond

C. James

Public consultation on oil and gas industry health and safety issues

B. Simpson

Hon. M. de Jong

Smart metering program

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act (continued)

J. McIntyre

G. Gentner

Hon. N. Yamamoto

C. Trevena

B. Penner

H. Lali

Hon. S. Thomson

Bill 3 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

D. Routley

[ Page 8041 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

STEVE JOBS

Hon. P. Bell: Yesterday, when Steve Jobs passed away, the world lost one of its greatest innovators. He was only 56. He was adopted, and he leaves behind a widow and four children. In addition to being a visionary and an exceptional business leader, he was also very, very human. He often said that he lived every day of his life as if it were his last.

In 1976, at the age of 21, he and a couple of partners started Apple Computer and introduced families to the Macintosh computer, the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone and finally to our own very favourite iPad.

Under his leadership at Apple, he challenged us to "think different." He had the talent to design technology that inspired innovation and creativity, and he recognized that applications needed to be both intuitive and simple to operate. In doing so, he helped transform and lead the world into the technological age, where the vast resources of the Internet can be harnessed in just the palm of our hand.

[1335]

He didn't limit his creativity to the computer industry. In 1986 he bought the animation studios known as Pixar, producing Toy Story , A Bug's Life , Finding Nemo , WALL-E and several other movies, bringing joy and wonderment to countless families.

In 2007 he shared a Wayne Gretzky quote that he loved: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." We're very saddened by Steve Jobs's passing, but at the same time, we're grateful that he was around long enough to show us how technology can change how we see this world.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. McNeil: In British Columbia today there are about 3,300 families providing one of the most valuable services you can imagine, and they're doing it largely unseen and unrecognized. Government has proclaimed October as Foster Family Month, and today we had a special event to say a very sincere thank-you to all of these families who are helping vulnerable children and youth at one of the most difficult times in their lives.

In the gallery today and all across the top there are Heather Bayes, chair, and Jayne Wilson, executive director, of the B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Associations; and Gary Mavis and a group of foster parents and children from the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents. We also have Raven Wright, a former youth in care who spoke to us earlier today.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome and saying a very sincere thank-you for all that they do.

S. Simpson: I'm really pleased today. Joining us for a visit to the Legislature is Lisa Hartley, a photographer who lives in my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings. She's here with her daughter Lucy Jiwa. The most important thing about their visit, of course, is that Lucy is the granddaughter of and Lisa the daughter of Bill Hartley, who was a member in this place for 12 years, the member for Yale-Lillooet, and the Minister of Public Works. So make Lisa and Lucy happy as they come back to visit the place where grandpa did his work.

Hon. T. Lake: It's with a bit of sadness today that I say goodbye to Celyne Hodges, who has been administrative coordinator in our office. Celyne has been a valued member of our team and, in fact, has served five different ministers. Hopefully, the last one didn't drive her out of the buildings. She has been just a tremendous asset to the public service here in the buildings and now is moving on to another segment of the public service. I hope the House will join me in saying a very great thank-you to Celyne Hodges for great service.

M. Dalton: In the House today we're honoured to have in attendance the ambassador to Canada from Armenia, Mr. Armen Yeganian. He is visiting British Columbia for the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Armenian independence from the Soviet Union. He just became the ambassador to Canada in September, and he's crossing the country and visiting the Armenian community. It's about 100,000 strong in the country.

Also in attendance are Vahi Agopian, Jack Daragopian and Vahe "Vic" Andonian, a constituent of mine and a representative of the Armenian National Committee of Canada. It was a privilege to have lunch with them, along with the member for Abbotsford-Mission.

In 2006 the members on both sides of the Legislature officially recognized April 24 as a day of remembrance for the more than one million men, women and children who were systematically massacred in what is called the Armenian Genocide. I know they're very appreciative to this Legislature for that act. Would the House please make them feel welcomed.

A. Dix: I wanted to just join in the comments of my friend from Maple Ridge–Mission. It was really, I think, a very important moment for our Legislature when we joined together. I know the Government House Leader

[ Page 8042 ]

of the day, now the Minister of Health, played a role in that. I know that the member for Abbotsford-Mission played a role in that.

[1340]

I introduced the motion, but the House came together. It wasn't my motion. It was our motion — to recognize the Armenian Genocide, to recognize April 24. I want to thank them and welcome our guests to the House.

M. Karagianis: I have some constituents visiting the House today. I believe it's their first time here. Would we please welcome Caroline Mavridis and her sons Neil and Scott and bid them welcome today for their first visit to question period.

Hon. H. Bloy: It's my pleasure to introduce visitors from China who are considering an investment in British Columbia. Mrs. Hongjie Wang is the chairman of the board of Shandong Sunwell Green Food of Shandong. Mr. James Tian is president of the Sitoi Development Group of Shanghai. They are joined by Mr. William Wang of Coquitlam. Also in the gallery is Ravi Panwar, who has accompanied this delegation. I ask the House to please join me in welcoming them today.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome shortly — I know they're in traffic — to this House Ryan Clayton and Kaitlin Burnett. They are two activists who've been working very hard to ensure that every British Columbia school is safe for lesbian, gay, bi and transgender British Columbians. Will this House please welcome them to this precinct.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOMELESSNESS

S. Simpson: I want to speak today about Homelessness Week, which will be recognized next week in B.C. We all know the challenge and reality that homelessness presents for many of the most vulnerable citizens in every corner of British Columbia, and we know that both local governments and the province have worked to address this issue.

However, we also know that for all these efforts, the challenge still exists. In Metro Vancouver we have seen overall homelessness numbers grow from about 1,200 people in 2002 to just over 2,600 in 2011. We know this is not exclusive to Metro Vancouver. Thousands of British Columbians in Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Nanaimo, Victoria, the Kootenays and every other community in B.C. are homeless.

A key area of concern is the growth in youth homelessness. For those under the age of 25, we have seen a 29 percent increase since 2008. We know, too, that many of the homeless in our province face challenges of addiction and mental health issues, challenges that make meeting their needs even more complex. These are challenges that mean any solutions require additional supports and resources if they're to succeed.

While homelessness is one of our most public housing challenges, it is not alone. Increasingly, community groups, academics and others are speaking out about core housing need. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada has identified 220,000 households in B.C. living in core housing need. That is some 550,000 British Columbians who are uncertain about the security of housing for themselves and their families.

I know that members on both sides of this House regularly hear these concerns in their communities, and I believe every MLA recognizes that until all our neighbours have a safe and affordable place to call home, Homelessness Week will remain as an uncomfortable reminder of the unfinished business that is in front of us.

FUNDRAISING CLIMB

FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

J. van Dongen: As I speak in this Legislature today, nine British Columbians have been climbing Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, as part of the Ascent for Alzheimer's to raise money and awareness for Alzheimer's disease. All of the people climbing were climbing for a loved one or friend who is suffering from this horrible disease.

This year alone more than 15,000 British Columbians will be diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and this will add to the more than 70,000 people living with Alzheimer's in British Columbia today. Alzheimer's symptoms include loss of memory, judgment and reasoning as well as mood and behaviour changes, altering a person's life significantly, from the things they do to the way they act and the way they think.

[1345]

Though it is thought to be a seniors disease, early symptoms have been detected in people in their 30s and 40s.

The 2011 Ascent for Alzheimer's team includes Dan Levitt from Abbotsford as well as Alice Savage, Anjulie Latta, Jean Grant, Joan Porter, Marian Lowery, Murray Williamson, Neil McDonnell and Sandra Wilson.

The climb took place between December 26 and October 5, and the climbers have been on the mountain for seven days — five days to reach the summit and two days to descend. So they're on their way home.

I ask the House to please join me in congratulating these outstanding British Columbians on their hard work and dedication in raising awareness and funds to help find a cure for Alzheimer's disease.

[ Page 8043 ]

NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK

Families are recognized as the building blocks of society. The vision for National Family Week is to build a Canada that cares for its children, its families and communities.

The definition of a family has changed over time. A family is a combination of two or more people bound together over time by ties of mutual consent, either birth, adoption or placement, and who share in the physical maintenance and care of group members, raising children and are, of course, bound together by love. An inclusive definition recognizes the reality of the family as people live it and includes different ethnocultural groups, aboriginal status, sexual orientation, etc.

National Family Week has many partners, such as ABC Canada Literacy, working to increase literacy skills, support for early education for children and access to affordable post-secondary education. Other partners include the Canadian Child Care Federation, which underlines the need for affordable, accessible and quality child care, and the B.C. Council for Families, which champions family diversity.

There is a connection between family life and the larger social, cultural, economic and political context, and special attention must be paid to resources available to families and government policies and programs that have a direct and indirect impact on them.

Today B.C. has the highest rate of child poverty, which demonstrates a low quality of life for these families and calls for the need for a poverty reduction plan. We must do more to support families struggling in poverty and particularly for children unable to access post-secondary education so that all British Columbians have the opportunity to live a fully engaged life and participate fully in celebrating National Family Week.

POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR

AWARDS IN SURREY

D. Hayer: It is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to the brave men and women who serve and protect us in Surrey. Today I recognize the worthy recipients of the Police Officer of the Year Awards presented by the Surrey Board of Trade, started when I was the president of the Surrey Board of Trade, then called the Surrey Chamber of Commerce.

This year is the 15th anniversary of these awards. They recognize the valuable contributions of law enforcement officers and community partners to fight crime in Surrey. While these awards recognize the performance of individuals, the entire Surrey RCMP detachment deserves praise for the excellent work they do for us in Surrey, for protecting our communities and providing services to Surrey for over 60 years.

I would like to recognize the winners of the 15th annual Police Officer of the Year awards: Consts. Thor Forseth and Trevor Nakashima, winners of the Arnold Silzer community policing initiative award; the street enforcement team, winner of the Police Team Award; the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association, winner of the Police and Business Partnership Award; Sandy Campbell, the municipal employee of the year; Charlie Gregor, the Volunteer of the Year; Const. Bonnie Mellor, Auxiliary Constable of the Year; Sgt. Vince Arsenault, Police Officer of the Year, Nominated by Peers; and Staff Sgt. Robert McCloy, Police Officer of the Year, Nominated by Community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating all the nominees, finalists and winners for their outstanding service and contributions they provide to public safety in Surrey.

[1350]

150 th ANNIVERSARY OF BARKERVILLE

B. Simpson: Unlike many gold rush towns from the 1800s which have become ghost towns, Barkerville remains a thriving heritage community today. The townsite has over 100 heritage structures that still stand on the spots they were built on. Its Chinatown is the largest collection of pre-railway Chinese buildings in North America and hosts one of the largest Chinese archival collections in Canada. Thanks to the hard work of the Barkerville Heritage Trust, Barkerville's rich past is brought to life every summer to the delight of tourists from all over the world.

In 2012 Barkerville will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Billy Barker's Richfield gold strike, which gave birth to the town. The district of Wells and members of the Barkerville Heritage Trust have been lobbying the Premier and members of her cabinet to join them in Barkerville next year and to consider holding a cabinet meeting there.

I hope the Premier takes them up on this offer to celebrate British Columbia's past and, while there, also takes the opportunity to celebrate B.C.'s present-day gold rush by meeting with the Cariboo Mining Association and the many large-scale goldmine operations that are active in the region today.

There's been a dramatic increase in the number of active goldmine operations in the Cariboo due to the price of gold. International Wayside Gold Mines, Devlin's Bench, Williams Creek Goldfields, Rogers Gold, Wingdam, Richfield Ventures and Blackwater gold project have all brought millions of dollars of new investment to Cariboo communities because of that gold price.

[ Page 8044 ]

I've suggested that the Barkerville Heritage Trust consider adding this new gold rush to their celebrations next year by hosting an event to bring together these present-day goldminers on the site of B.C.'s largest historic gold rush. I hope the government will recognize this opportunity, as well, and assist Barkerville to celebrate both the past and the present gold rush in B.C. when they celebrate Barkerville's 150th anniversary next year.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF IMMIGRANTS

R. Lee: It's my pleasure to rise today to mark WelcomeBC Day. WelcomeBC Day was proclaimed by this government to honour immigrants past and present who have enriched our province and who continue to enrich our province.

When my grandfather came to British Columbia 98 years ago, immigrants were much less welcome than they are today. Over the years the contributions of immigrants have become more valued. Now British Columbia is amazingly diverse and dynamic. I'm happy to see this recognition of the social, cultural, academic, intellectual and economic contributions that immigrants make to our great province.

One reason that immigrants can make the contribution they do is because of the uncommon openness of the people of British Columbia. Indeed, I feel that British Columbia has a great deal to share with the world when it comes to helping immigrants feel welcome, when it comes to helping immigrants feel included and when it comes to helping immigrants to connect within their new communities and contribute fully to them.

We should all feel very proud of this generosity of spirit. We must also make sure that we continue to display this generosity and openness to those who come here to make a new life. Our past and our present teach us that our society is at its richest, at its best and at its most just when we open our hearts and our minds to new immigrants.

So today let's, in this House, resolve to continue saying: "Welcome to B.C."

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES

FOR CHILDREN IN TRANSITION

TO ADULTHOOD

A. Dix: My question is to the minister responsible for Community Living B.C. The minister will know that the current system at CLBC regularly fails young adults who are aging out of the child and youth system and joining the community living system. In far too many cases when individuals turn 19, as the minister will know, they lose the supports they need to continue on and to continue living their lives.

Kathleen Moore's daughter Danielle has a complex medical history, with her neurodevelopment disorder which requires 24-7 care. In Danielle's case she risks, right now, losing her home care giver because she's going to lose access to the funding that she had.

So will the minister order an investigation today, a review today, of these services for youth transitioning, who are aging out of their system and joining the community living system and losing the supports they need to continue to live their lives?

[1355]

Hon. S. Cadieux: For anyone, a life transition such as high school graduation is stressful, and it's not surprising that it's a stressful time, a challenging time for people with disabilities and their families.

As it should, CLBC's priority is the health and safety of the people it supports. CLBC is committed to ensuring that transition is as smooth as possible for every individual that is coming forward to receive services from them. That is why they work very cooperatively with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the individual and their family from as early as age 15 to plan for that transition.

Priority, of course, is given to addressing those most in need first and the most high-priority needs first, as it should.

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

A. Dix: In this case Kathleen is a single working mom. She's been trying the last seven months to resolve this question with CLBC, to ensure that her daughter doesn't lose the home support they need.

As the minister will know, this isn't a new problem. These transition issues have always plagued the system. It certainly did when the Premier was minister. It certainly did in the reports done by the child and youth officer, Ms. Morley, and by the current Representative for Children and Youth.

There were significant issues in the Fahlman case as well. There are other issues in the Fahlman case. The significant issue is the fact that in that case Neil Fahlman was going, essentially, from $65,000 in supports to nothing, from being 18 years old in 364 days to 19.

What we're talking about is a chronic failing of the system, but in this case Kathleen and Danielle are living that change now. What I'm asking the minister to do is to conduct an independent review of CLBC to address these serious problems of people who are aging out of the child and youth system but losing the very supports they need to continue on and to live their lives.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, I would just like to say that while I appreciate the concerns raised about individ-

[ Page 8045 ]

uals specifically, privacy laws would preclude me from speaking about individuals directly in this House. I am happy to address those concerns in my office.

However, that said, I also want to remind this House that no one who is eligible for CLBC services receives no services from government at all. There is a myriad of services that people receive from government, and CLBC is one provider of those services.

I would also like to assure the member that I have had my first meeting with CLBC, and I will continue to have meetings with CLBC. I'm going to address with them the concerns that I've been hearing in the community, the concerns that I've been hearing in this House, and I will continue to work with them, because a priority of this government is the health and safety and well-being of the people that we serve.

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

A. Dix: I appreciate the minister's and the government's problems, but in the case of Kathleen and Danielle the real problem here is that they're losing thousands of dollars in funding. Really, their services and their need for service hasn't changed from one day to another, but the reality of their services changed dramatically. They've been trying, in fact, to get the attention of CLBC on this question for seven months.

Kathleen's only alternative in the real world, in the practical world, is to quit her job, to go on income assistance and to become the full-time caregiver for her daughter. That's her only alternative, because her daughter went from 18 years old in 364 days to 19 years old.

This is a challenge that's chronic to the system, one we all have to work on to fix. Surely now is the time, because while the minister may not want to comment on individual cases, the fact of the matter is that this case, I think, represents hundreds of other cases that are happening right now before the minister.

Isn't it time now for an independent review to deal with many people in the system who are losing simply thousands of dollars of support because from one day to another they went from 18 to 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I've said, I won't address individual cases in the House, but I do appreciate that the member is bringing forward the concerns that he's hearing. It's important that we have dialogue and that we investigate and look into concerns when they arise.

[1400]

But let's remember that CLBC serves over 13,000 people, with a budget of over $710 million a year. Last year 766 people came to CLBC for the first time and received service. There were a thousand more services delivered that were services that were added to existing clients with CLBC who were requiring additional services.

I will be working with CLBC to ensure that if conversations are not occurring with families as they should, those conversations will occur.

J. Kwan: The problem is not just about having conversations. Kathleen had been working on a transition plan, and what's happened with that transition plan is that it's been thrown out in the garbage can. The Premier's family-first policy has left Danielle's family last. That's the reality.

Just because a person turns 19 it does not mean that all of a sudden the supports they have been needing and been receiving evaporate. Danielle's needs remain the same. Yesterday CLBC told Kathleen that her funding support for Danielle will be cut by more than half. That doesn't even cover the minimum costs, minimum wages, for Danielle's care aide.

This is a sad reality for many families with youth who are transitioning into adulthood, who face these problems. Families are at wits' end trying to cope. Surely the minister would agree that this is not acceptable. So my question to the minister is this. Why is this government doing that? Why won't she order an independent review now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, as I will state again, I'm not going to address individual cases in this House for reasons of privacy. However, if individual members have cases that they would like to bring forward to my attention, I encourage them to do so in my office.

CLBC and the Ministry of Children and Families work very hard to ensure that conversations happen with individuals and families that are going to be transitioning from the child system to the adult system well in advance of that transition occurring so that we can prepare to provide the best supports for the people that we serve. The supports we provide are individualized and focused on the individual needs of the clients. Again, priority is given to ensuring that all health and safety needs are met first.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: There is a crisis in CLBC right now, a crisis of confidence. What the minister says, that health and safety would be taken care of, is simply not happening. To deny Danielle the funding support she requires would compromise her health and safety. Kathleen does not want to quit her job and go on income assistance. She wants to be gainfully employed to support herself and to provide additional care to her daughter.

Last year Kathleen invested more than $20,000 of her income on Danielle's medical bills alone. To force her to quit her job makes no sense. It makes no sense for Danielle. It makes no sense for Kathleen, and frankly, it makes no sense for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[ Page 8046 ]

Just because a person turns 19 does not mean that the level of care they require is diminished in any way. Again, I ask the minister not necessarily to address this specific case but to address the entire crisis in this system and order an independent review now.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, again, as I've stated, CLBC serves more than 13,600 people every year with a budget of $710 million, a budget that's been increasing every year since that organization has been in existence. It's a system that was put in place to focus on individual needs, provide more options, more choice, and to encourage full inclusion in our communities. I support that vision.

[1405]

M. Karagianis: There are thousands of families who are experiencing children who are aging out. Earlier I introduced a family that's here in the chamber today. Scott and Neil Mavridis are twins who live in my community. They were born with Down syndrome.

When Scott and Neil turned 18, all of their services disappeared from community living except for respite care. As a result, their mother, Caroline, is unable to work outside of their home. When they turn 19, even the respite care will be gone. This family faces uncertainty and worry about what will happen from that point on. It's another example of a family that is not being put first in British Columbia by the B.C. Liberals.

I raised this case in the House in June, and nothing has been done for this family, not a call, not an e-mail — nothing. So again to the minister. We have raised case after case in this House, and I would like to ask the minister: when is this government going to stop giving hollow assurances to the families? Because they know better. We need a government to solve the issue now. When is the minister going to take action on this?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I've said, I'm not going to address individual cases in this House, and I welcome the member, if they are concerned about individual cases, to contact my office so that I can look into them for them.

The budget for CLBC has grown every year since its inception. The demand continues to grow as well, and CLBC will continue to work with families and individuals to find innovative solutions to supporting the individual needs, and they'll do that in a fiscally and socially responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: These families are doing everything they can, everything they possibly can do to care for their children who are aging out, and yet this B.C. Liberal government remains absolutely indifferent to the circumstances these families are facing. British Columbians want a government that cares for the most vulnerable in our society, and this B.C. Liberal government has failed these families repeatedly.

So I would ask: will the government today ensure that families have security when their children age out and turn 19? We would like an independent review of CLBC, and we would ask the minister to call for that today.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I do find it somewhat personally offensive for the member opposite to insinuate that I don't care. I care greatly about these people, and I understand very well the challenges of living with a disability, the challenges of living with a disability of any type.

I am not surprised that the transition from the child care system to the adult system is a challenging time for families. Change is difficult, and things do change. But we are committed to working with the families. We are committed to having ongoing discussions about how best to manage these challenges, and I recommit to that today.

FUNDING FOR GROUPS PARTICIPATING

IN MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

S. Fraser: The missing women inquiry begins on Tuesday, and 17 families of victims and 20 women's community and aboriginal groups sent a letter to the Premier last week in a desperate attempt to ensure that the inquiry achieves justice. They advised the Premier that if this commission is allowed to fail, the result will be to not only aggravate old wounds but to open new ones. The Premier has offered no response to that letter, and today another three groups have withdrawn from the inquiry. There is very little time left to save this process from failing completely.

[1410]

Will the Attorney General take steps to prevent the unthinkable — that this vital inquiry could fail? Will she comply with her commissioner's recommendations and fully fund the legal representation of all the groups with standing?

Hon. S. Bond: Just for the member's information, a response has been sent. I think it was yesterday, in fact. It's been sent by fax in some cases and by mail in others. So those groups will be hearing back, and that letter was sent.

Any time that participants are choosing not to be a part of a process is a concern to us. We are making a very serious effort to get to the bottom of a set of circumstances that were tragic and that we certainly do not want to be repeated in British Columbia.

I have been assured that commission counsel, in a statement as recently as just two or three weeks ago, said that they believe that with the current configuration they can meet the mandate that is expected of the Missing Women Commission.

[ Page 8047 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: This Liberal government is sponsoring three levels of government, and they're refusing to fund the groups that have the most vital information and probably with the least resources. That's what's happening.

I have a letter from the Prichard-Wilson chair of law and public policy at the University of Toronto, and it says: "We can identify no other case in Canada where a government, having appointed a commission of inquiry, then in effect overturns a commissioner's decision on standing by refusing funding for participation."

Again to the Attorney General: will she take immediate action to ensure that every group given standing at the inquiry has access to the legal representation and the funding for that?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this government has been very clear about its priorities. Those groups and individuals most personally impacted are being provided funding — that is, the families of the missing and murdered women. Indeed, taxpayers in British Columbia and this government to date have invested more than $2 million in this process.

As recently as just several weeks ago the commissioner actually added an additional four lawyers, two of those independent and two who are providing pro bono service to provide support to exactly the groups that the member opposite is referring to.

C. James: I would remind the Attorney General today that the missing women inquiry would not have happened without the groups and organizations this government is cutting out of the very process. Those are the voices that are critical to this inquiry.

The Native Women's Association of Canada, Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, Carrier-Sekani Family Services, Pivot Legal, the Frank Paul Society, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — all groups and organizations who are supporting the women and families and who need to have their voices heard at this inquiry. Why won't the Attorney General commit to that funding today?

Hon. S. Bond: Those are precisely the groups for which the commission has added additional lawyers. There are four additional lawyers that have been added over the last several months, two of whom are independent, two of whom are providing pro bono services.

In this House it's important to recognize that the success of the commission and the important recommendations that will be received are not dependent on the numbers of lawyers that are involved in the process. Those individuals and groups that the member opposite has cited in this House have been invited to participate, and an additional complement of lawyers has been added to meet their needs in this commission of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I would say to the Attorney General that the success of the missing women inquiry will be that the families, the groups and the organizations feel trust in the process. They do not trust the process. Nor does the commissioner himself, who recommended more support for these women, groups and organizations.

[1415]

A quote from Diane Wood, member of the Women's Memorial March:

"We have essentially been shut out of this inquiry that is supposed to be about us and our experiences. It's vital to this inquiry that the voices of women in the community be front and centre when determining its recommendations. Without a commitment to the participation of women and groups and organizations…the inquiry is not legitimate and has no credibility."

Well, when the Premier travelled through Smithers, she was asked about the Highway of Tears and the inquiry. She said the answers will eventually have to come from the First Nations women themselves. Well, my question is to the Attorney General. If the Premier believes the answers must come from the First Nations women themselves, then why is the government shutting those groups and organizations out of this process?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I'm actually a woman that does live in northern British Columbia. In fact, when the commissioner came to government and asked for an expansion of the mandate of the commission to include a broader study inquiry, this government said yes. And in fact, that's why the commission travelled across northern British Columbia in a much less adversarial atmosphere than a courtroom to hear the story of aboriginal women right across northern British Columbia. That's what the government did — actually responded to the commissioner, expanded the scope of the inquiry to include a much less intimidating process than a courtroom.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON

OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES

B. Simpson: The Premier's jobs strategy has a rapid expansion of the oil and gas sector as a part of that strategy, and yet the Premier has an outstanding promise to the people of the Peace region that a full public inquiry would be conducted into the current state of the oil and gas industry with respect to health and safety.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. The throne speech talks about the people's right to know what its government is doing, the people's right to a voice in what government is doing. My question is: when will the first meeting be held — the place and time of the first meeting for the public health inquiry into the current state of the health impacts of the oil and gas industry?

[ Page 8048 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. It's a timely question. The undertaking that was given was to commission a review and examination, so I want to distinguish between that and a formal public inquiry of the sort that is taking place elsewhere.

We anticipate a three-stage process. The first stage is about to begin, where we will be consulting with people in the Peace to solicit their views on the specific issues that they want covered. We anticipate that to take about six weeks.

Then we'll move to the second stage of the process, which will be to gather and compile the data around the specific health effects that are to be reviewed and measured. Then we anticipate, out of that, a series of recommendations. A timely question, and we're looking forward to the matter proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The question is timely, because the people in the Peace region believed that this particular minister promised them a full public health inquiry under

section 86 of the Public Health Act, which is a transparent series of meetings in the Peace that the public can engage in.

Mr. Speaker, pardon the public for their cynicism, but the Minister of Energy in this House in June promised extensive public consultation before two pipelines would be approved in the Peace to withdraw water from the Williston reservoir. Now there are approvals and pipelines in place to withdraw 7.3 billion litres of fresh water from the Williston reservoir for fracking despite the Minister of Energy's contention on CBC radio that we don't use fresh water to frack in British Columbia.

[1420]

So my question to the Minister of Health, since he's the one answering this, is…. The minister promised, and it's in the transcripts of an interview he did, that he would adhere to the request by the people of the Peace. The request by the people of the Peace was for a public health inquiry under the Health Act, not a backroom exploration of some of the problems that are going on up there.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I can assure him and every member of the House that what is intended here is an entirely public process, one that will consult with the residents and interested parties of the Peace, that will tap into their expertise, that will address their concerns around air quality, around groundwater quality.

Out of that exercise will arise a product that can answer some of the questions related to those issues, and an industry that is very much tied to not just the economic well-being of the region but the overall economic well-being of the province, and our jobs strategy can proceed with people having the certainty that it is proceeding in a safe and healthy manner.

SMART METERING PROGRAM

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Thousands and thousands of B.C. Hydro ratepayers have expressed significant concerns about the implementation of the smart meter program.

Last week at the Union of B.C. Municipalities the Premier stood and addressed the convention and said she was prepared to listen and work with communities right across B.C. At that same convention, members voted 55 percent in favour of suspending the smart meter program until a review could be done.

I would urge the minister to follow the lead of the former minister, the member for Peace River South. Take this package. Send it to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Correct the problems that you created in the last session. Allow the folks to have some confidence that the government will listen to them when they express concerns and that they will not spend a billion dollars frivolously.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the first question I would have for the member opposite is: do you support smart metering and a smart grid or not? Because I have numerous quotes of the member opposite specifically saying that he does.

I think, at the same time, we should recognize that we need to do upgrades to our system. The system that we have today is old and aging. We need to be able to replace our meters…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …and get a smart grid. We need to know where our load loss is. We need to know, if there's a windstorm on Vancouver Island, where we can send our people safely with the right equipment to the right spot to fix the power lines because it's part of a smart grid, not just a smart meter.

We need to know, also, that we can actually have meters that will last us for the next generation of power as we modernize the system to make for clean energy and to have the outcomes we need in British Columbia for power, and we can do that with this program. Almost 120,000 meters are now installed in British Columbia, with less than 0.015 percent of people having a concern about them.

A lot of the information out there is incorrect. They are not a health concern. You can ask the chief medical health officer. You can ask the World Health Organization. They will tell you that these are safe.

In actual fact, ironically, at the convention the members that had a concern about it, UBCM, when they voted on it, in the Wi-Fi and the electronic stuff in the hotels they were in for the four or five days, they would

[ Page 8049 ]

have got 1,500 years of smart meter technology in just those four days.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The minister will forgive me for pointing out that this might not have been the day to talk about throwing quotes back and forth across the floor of the Legislature. On behalf of all of the good people that work in the basement, on behalf of the New Democrat caucus, maybe you might want to do your research before you make statements like that.

But my question is, again, to see if there is any continuity in B.C. Liberal energy policy. We have had five Ministers of Energy in the past two or three years, so it's difficult to follow the bouncing ball.

One minister assured me unequivocally, categorically, that yes, the Utilities Commission will review a billion-dollar expenditure. What jurisdiction in the world would allow a monopoly to spend a billion dollars without checking where the money is going?

[1425]

With respect to another statement by the former minister, with respect to time-of-use pricing, which is supported by the team implementing the smart meter program at B.C. Hydro, the former minister said: "It looks as though, once we have sufficient mass of these meters installed, we will look at time of use to implement that, so we're thinking about the middle of 2011 or in that range."

Again, forgive me if I don't believe what you're saying, Mr. Minister, but we were going to go to the Utilities Commission, and now we're not. We were going to go to time-of-use pricing, and now we're not. Why don't you put it all on the table, and let the public know what the heck is going on with a billion dollars of their money?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's substantially under the number that the member is quoting. It's actually under budget today. We've already saved over $70 million as a result of the smart meters we've put in place. About a 2 percent increase would have to go to your members. I know you'd like to shut it down. You'd love to shut it down. You believe in it, but you'd like to shut it down because you'd love to put another 10 percent increase on the ratepayers of British Columbia in order to pay for what has already been invested in the system today, but I get that.

I will go through some quotes, hon. Member, except from my source it's pretty impeccable, unless you don't believe that Hansard is actually a source that we can go quote from. So, on April 26, 2007, the member opposite: "I'm really excited about smart metering."

I know to ask the questions is difficult for the member opposite because we share many of the views that will make the smart grid work for British Columbia, have it be safer for our workers, be more important for our citizens to help us conserve energy, to actually make this system work better, to actually find the places in the system we can improve on, because that's what this investment is about. It's an investment about keeping rates down for British Columbians, and I don't think the members opposite are opposed to that.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading, continued, on Bill 2, intituled the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act.

Mr. Speaker: If members could hurry off to their other business so we can get on with the debate.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Flathead Watershed Area

Conservation Act

(continued)

J. McIntyre: It's a hard act to follow after question period today, but I'm pleased to rise in the House today for debate, after several months back in our constituencies, to support Bill 2, the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act. It's been a lively and passionate debate we've had today, so I'm glad to take my place.

I think most of the members here in the House know…. But maybe for viewers' background, on February 10, 2011, the province announced that it would introduce legislation to support the memorandum of understanding that was signed by British Columbia and Montana in 2010 on environmental protection, climate action and energy. A key provision of this MOU was an agreement to remove mineral, oil, gas and coal exploration and development as permissible land uses in the transboundary Flathead Watershed.

[1430]

As a result, this bill, in short, will (1) prevent registration of new mineral claims and applications for coal tenures by establishing both coal and mineral reserves, (2) prohibit Crown land dispositions for mining purposes, (3) prohibit issuance of Mines Act permits, (4) prohibit issuance of Oil and Gas Activities Act permits for oil and gas exploration and development and (5) prohibit disposition of Crown reserves under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. This is on nearly 400,000 acres, or 160,000 hectares.

Some members of the House and viewers at home may wonder why a member from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky is speaking to this bill that protects land in the Kootenay district — wild, pristine land. Let me proceed to explain why.

[ Page 8050 ]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

First, on a more local basis, we have a lengthy history of land protection in Sea to Sky region. We have about 18 provincial parks by some counts, including one of the most widely used — the jewel in the system — Garibaldi Provincial Park. We also have Cypress Provincial Park, near my home, one of the 2010 games host venue sites.

We have been beneficiaries of millions of dollars of local park upgrades over the last few years.

We have on Bowen Island, for example, a very interesting process going on right now, where the municipality is in negotiations with the federal government to be granted national park status. There's extensive public consultation going on because it involves, of course, significant portions of the island.

We also have in the recent past, after many years of stakeholder negotiations, signed the Sea to Sky land resource management plan. That, of course, sets out a high-level agreement and consensus on land use plans in our region.

It also included a layering-on of First Nations interests and development of land conservancies or Wild Spirit Places. I think many of us in this House know and respect the First Nations views on land use and protection. We could all take a lesson from.

There's also a very strong contingent of environmentalists in our region, exemplified by the strong showing of the Green Party in the last two general elections, so I have all confidence that many of my constituents have very strong environmental values.

I think, contrary to some of what we've been hearing from the NDP today, B.C. has a stellar track record in land preservation. We're a leader in Canada in establishing parks and protected areas, and I hope that most members of this House understand that this is a record to be proud of as we celebrate our centenary — the 100th birthday of the B.C. Parks system this year.

This legislation that we're debating today builds on our government's commitment to protecting the environment.

Let me review some of these accomplishments, in brief. We have today more than 13 million hectares of our province as protected. That's more than 14 percent of the province — as big as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. combined. That's a significant amount more than the 12 percent that the NDP aimed for many years ago.

Since 2001 our government has established 65 — that's 65 — new parks, 144 conservancies, two ecological reserves and nine protected areas. That is a significant achievement.

It has also expanded more than 60 parks, some of them in my constituency, and it has expanded six of the ecological reserves, protecting more than 1.9 million hectares of additional land. We have also made more than $107 million in capital investments in the past five years, improving our park infrastructures and acquiring more park land — again, I think, something to celebrate in this 100th anniversary.

Why does the Flathead watershed area need protection? Why is it so special, especially from the perspective of a member of this House who wholeheartedly supports mining and oil and gas exploration and the importance of it to our economy?

I think you have to go back to that memorandum of understanding in 2010 that the province and the state of Montana signed. It was the result of a lengthy cross-border process that I was privileged to play just a small role in during my role as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations from 2008 to '09.

This was not just B.C. and Montana. I recall that the issue was drawn to the attention of both the Canadian and U.S. federal governments at the highest levels, and then it was also drawn to the attention of then candidate for President Barack Obama during his campaign.

Additionally, the Flathead watershed, which is neighbouring to Waterton Glacier International Peace Park, received global attention when it was listed by UNESCO as a world heritage site and biosphere reserve. I think it's fair to say that sustaining the environmental values in the Flathead became, and is still today, of intense interest both internationally and locally.

[1435]

This act will enable us to continue our excellent management of this wild area that according to the Nature Conservancy of Canada supports an amazing abundance of life — I know that my colleague from Kootenay East talked about that — the largest population of grizzly bears, 16 different species of carnivores and, of course, a great diversity of plants.

The B.C. side of the valley, I understand, is largely undeveloped and is still home to the same variety of species that existed 400 years ago.

With this legislation, we'll be committed to ensure that this ecosystem will be maintained in a manner consistent with current recreation, forestry, guide-outfitting and trapping uses and is consistent with the values, as I understand, of the local Ktunaxa First Nations. It parallels legislation in the U.S. Senate that is affecting the Montana North Fork Flathead basin.

This legislation is

an act, I hope, that all British Columbians, including those in my constituency, will be proud of for many years to come. It's surely

an act where we can find common ground with the NDP.

Let me conclude with a quote from Richard Cannings, who is a biologist and member of the Nature Conservancy of Canada's B.C. regional board, when he was, I assume, commenting on the B.C.-Montana agreement.

"There is no other large watershed in North America like the Flathead — the richness of its waters, the abundance of its carnivores. It is a truly wild river in southern

[ Page 8051 ]

Canada. This agreement will ensure that the Flathead will stay wild and pure for generations to come."

With that, I take my place, and I will be supporting this legislation.

G. Gentner: Before I get started, I'd like to recognize in the precinct the students of a school in my constituency — Seaquam Secondary School. It is a school of excellence. Could the House please give them a warm welcome.

First of all, regarding Bill 2, I want to say that the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act…. I think a lot of recognition has got to go towards the Parks and Wilderness Society, Wildsight, the Sierra Club and many of the locals in the area, not only, of course, in the East Kootenays but all the Kootenays.

They share the various watersheds there, and they know what it means relative to the industrial component of their constituencies and, of course, the importance of recreation and the stewardship of ecologically sensitive areas.

The legislation's main focus here is to prohibit mining and oil and gas extraction in the watershed area of Flathead. This legislation meets the commitment made back in 2010, a memorandum of understanding signed by the state of Montana on environmental protection, climate action and energy. But let's call it what it is. It is a first step, a first step only, towards what we're hopeful will be much more protection in that area.

There is a missing piece here for a continuation of — hopefully, one day perhaps — park status shared with Waterton Glacier on both sides of the Continental Divide, shared by Montana and on the other side, of course, Alberta.

This act prohibits Crown land dispositions of mining purposes, prohibits issuance of Mines Act permits, prohibits issuance of Oil and Gas Activities Act permits for oil and gas exploration and development and prohibits disposition of Crown reserves under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

We've known how this has come about. United Nations scientists recommended a moratorium on mining in the valley some time ago when they visited this part of the world, in particular that of UNESCO. But we've seen also for quite some time, over the last four or five years, a kind of flip-flop by the government opposite on the policy to permit mining.

On one side, they are saying they are certainly for preservation, but on the other side, we are seeing even the talk of extracting coal bed methane in the Flathead Valley.

[1440]

This may be the first step, but it doesn't go far enough. The legislation does not protect the Flathead from logging in a proposed national park, trophy-hunting, new road access and quarrying. I believe that most of the groups are still going to continue to lobby on this behalf.

In many ways it's quite puzzling. I'm quoting here from spokesperson Chloe O'Loughlin from CPAWS B.C., who stated they're quite puzzled that the B.C. government states in its press release that the Flathead is a world heritage site and UNESCO biosphere reserve. Again, they're giving a lukewarm endorsation of the group; however, it doesn't go far enough.

I spent some time in the Flathead. I went and visited it. I spent some time in Montana, and I spent some time with members of the governor's staff to talk about where the state of Montana was going with this.

I have to tell you, it was an incredible ecological jewel on both sides of the border. I remember it well. Having spent some time with the state officials, I went up through the American side, along the Flathead Valley, and came to the Canadian border. If you are looking at a customs agency, it's quite deplorable. It's like a sign that said: "Closed." Yet on the American side it was quite pristine in their values and how they are able to keep that area in check.

I have to tell you, too, hon. Speaker, that it was pristine. The air and the water were clear. Incredible flora and fauna. It was quite spectacular, quite frankly. I've been to many parts in British Columbia. It's a wide valley, next to the continental ridge, the height of the land and our continent in an area that's without question one of the richest in wildlife resources.

The Flathead is a river that supports a rich biota. Certainly, the bull trout and cutthroat trout populations are considerable, and they are particularly vulnerable to the kinds of disturbances that could have occurred through mining. The wildlife issues, particularly with regards to the grizzly population area, have always been of great concern.

Regarding the grizzlies, it's definitely a unique community of carnivore species that reside in the transboundary flatland region that really is in many ways outmatched in the continental centre of North America, with the valley bottom lands, the densities of the species which are rare. It's really quite an interesting and wonderful place. Not only are there grizzly bears but black bears, wolves, mountain lions, within that area.

[ Page 8052 ]

During my time there I spent a good day on the American side. I went back across the border and came back through, of course, Fernie. When I was walking through some of the logging roads and looked in the valley, I was quite impressed with not only the glaciated peaks and the untouched riparian valley, the mountain lakes, the prairie grassland, aspen stands, coniferous forests; it was the terrestrial wildlife that really impressed me. I'm hopeful that with this new bill we'll go on to the next stage.

I have to tell you a little bit about the process and the process of why we are getting here. We are not getting here, I think, because the government opposite has the heart and the inspiration to save the flatland. They have sort of been forced in it through international pressure.

There were several meetings at Glacier, Waterton Lakes and Fernie. In Fernie UNESCO met up with NGOs. B.C. would only allow one half-hour with the NGOs and the various delegations. In Montana, when the delegation for UNESCO appeared, they gave them quite the time of day. The delegation seemed to be given a sort of an aloofness by the B.C. government.

[1445]

U.S. and Canadian governments were supposed to take the lead, however. But Canada really dumped it onto British Columbia. And you know, Montana has never really insisted on a park. It's not their job. But they are concerned, primarily, about the water. This is what this bill is really all about. It's about a treaty. It's about water. It's about international relationships with our good cousin south of the border.

You know, when UNESCO came here, the B.C. scientists' presentation, I've been told by many, was extremely poor. When they talked about the hydrology, they were asked about water, and B.C. danced all about it. They were really hesitant. They were not really on board to try and preserve this area.

My sources tell me that when they were asked to speculate how mining would affect water, the delegation for British Columbia said they didn't really know and didn't have much of a comment. There seemed to have been a gag order in that whole process.

I remember well. The then Premier was talking. He said the main reason Montana is concerned about the Flathead is because the rest of the state has already been industrialized, often with exactly the same kind of projects B.C. was looking for.

Well, it was really a mud-in-the-eye type of relationship that the provincial B.C. Liberal government had with the state of Montana. It was kind of this cowboy attitude that seemed to predominate those relationships. They seemed to be on board more with the directions of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, rather than our own so-called environmental standards.

I have to talk about the previous minister. I'll give you an example of what those relationships were about. The previous Minister of Environment — I'm quoting him. When he started talking about Montana, trying to get something done in the good spirit of good relationships, his comments were quite clear. He said: "I hardly think that we'll be in a position to take too many lectures from the conduct of officials south of the border."

I mean, here we were. We're moving into an Olympics mode. We're trying to develop relationships, but really it was a stick in the eye by this government. I really think the government took a cheap shot rather than try and negotiate this at all. The government ridiculed the Americans for their declining grizzly bear populations as a pretense for our own grizzlies starving because of a mismanaged fish supply, which this government helped create.

I do want to talk a little bit about the relationship itself and what really happened and why we are here today. It's about water. It's about downstream rights. And we do have the unfortunate, I suppose, situation that we're mostly upstream in British Columbia to everything that happens downstream. So what we do on this side of the 49th can detrimentally affect the water regime, the hydrology, the farming, the industry, the cities south of the line.

We talk about the Columbia River treaty. We know that went through immense negotiations. They're still going on today — a huge diversification of water. But there was a good relationship back then in how we worked with our friends south of the river. We're talking about a remarkable transboundary watershed here, in that part of the province, and we've got to work together to maintain it.

What Montana was asking for I don't think was really quite out of the ordinary. The watershed there contains eight blue-listed aquatic and terrestrial species in British Columbia and seven species listed as endangered or threatened in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. So the Americans had to act. They had to insist. They had to work with UNESCO to resolve this.

I think that when you talk at the…. The area there that had the major conflict over a proposed mine at Cabin Creek some time ago let Canada and the United States refer the matter to the International Joint Commission, the IJC, for a study and recommendations. That happened some time ago. There was at least some working order happening there.

[1450]

Under international trade law we can start looking at…. I'm a little reluctant to go here. I'm not one who's always going to support NAFTA, but under the North American agreement, there is also a subsection on North American agreement on environmental cooperation. It is to increase cooperation between the parties to better conserve, protect and enhance the environment.

In passing the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, the United States and Mexico also agreed to a North American agreement on environmental

[ Page 8053 ]

cooperation. So this government is compelled to save the upstream and its effects on what goes south of the 49th.

Now, under the boundary waters treaty…. The United States and United Kingdom created and signed the boundary water treaties in 1909 when Canada was still a dominion in the United Kingdom. The treaty remains in force today between the United States and Canada. Its signatories intended the treaty to be a means of preventing "disputes regarding the use of boundary waters."

Goodwill was established well over 100 years ago. The treaty defines boundary waters as the waters of "lakes and rivers and connecting waterways or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the United States and the Dominion of Canada passes."

Appropriate for the pressing matters of the era, the treaty largely addresses obstructions or diversions, dams and canals of the boundary waters. However, precipitously, it also contains a provision that "boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other."

Amazing. They were using the word "pollution" way over 100 years ago. There's a mechanism put in place about the effects of destroying upstream water and its effects that can affect the downstream effects, of course, on the waters of the Flathead south of the 49th.

Again, we can give all the great accolades and say how wonderful this bill is, but we are compelled, and through international law we would pay deeply had we not negotiated Bill 2.

Now,

article 8 of the treaty extends mandatory jurisdiction to the International Joint Committee over cases involving the use, obstruction or diversion of waters, and we've been seeing that process in place for some time.

You know, from Montana's perspective, it would be ideal to have the International Joint Committee review the dispute and make the recommendations. There seems to have been a real reluctance up until a few years ago when there was a decision made — of course, by the IJC.

Regarding general practice accepted as law, customary international law is the binding law that emerges from regularities but not necessarily uniformities of state behaviour.

A number of important matters, treaties and conventions have recognized the principle of sustainable development and ecosystem management. Sustainable development, the principle of "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs," first became well known with the publication of the Brundtland report of 1987.

Now 20 years after the Stockholm conference the Rio declaration in 1992 expressly announced that sustainable development was a guiding principle of global significance. Today there is universal recognition of the application of the overarching objective of sustainable development.

Again, we are bound, I think, by international law to save the Flathead. Similarly, ecosystem management has been widely recognized in the international convention treaties. In 1966 the Helsinki rules on the uses of the waters of international rivers designated the river drainage basin as the appropriate unit for analysis regarding transboundary watercourses.

The ecosystem management principle gained recent expression in the United Nations convention on the law of non-navigable uses of international watercourses.

[1455]

Article 20 of the convention provides that "watercourse states shall individually and, where appropriate, jointly protect and preserve the ecosystems of international watercourses." The near-unanimous 104-3 vote in the United Nations approving the convention indicated the broad international support of its principles.

Again, I reiterate. We are compelled under international statute and obligations to save the Flathead, and heaven help us if we didn't.

The body of the decisions of the IJC regarding water use between Canada and the United States most validates the application of sustainable development, ecosystem management principles and transboundary water issues between the two countries.

Now, the prevention principle — the prevention principle that no nation may undertake activities within its borders that will cause significant injury to another nation — is widely considered a basic tenet in customary international law.

A brief elaboration of the history of this principle reveals ample support for this conclusion. It is further significant because the development of the principle is closely linked to the development of U.S.-Canadian relations regarding transboundary environmental issues. The international arbitral panel, convened to settle the old Trail smelter arbitration, a transboundary dispute between Canada and the United States, set the precedent. It was done.

A review of the 20th century international law reveals that international courts and arbitral panels have reaffirmed the principle that no nation may act in its territory in a way that significantly harms another country, and nations and international bodies have included this principle in treaties and conventions.

Now, following the Trail smelter in the International Court of Justice, the ICJ, decided the Corfu Channel case, stating the general and well-recognized principle that is "every state's obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of another state."

You go into the Flathead, to the American side, and you'll see these beautiful farms. They had a right to be

[ Page 8054 ]

concerned about how we were going to perhaps destroy the watershed on the Canadian side of the Flathead.

"In addition to the aforementioned arbitral panels in the ICJ, numerous international declarations and conventions regarding transboundary waterways uphold the principle that one waterway state may not use the waters in its jurisdiction in a way that will harm other states in the river basin. This is significant because such accords may be a source of customary international law 'when they are intended for adherence by states generally and are, in fact, widely accepted.'

"Three important international instruments affirm the obligation of states" — namely, Canada, British Columbia within the Flathead — "not to use their resources in a way that causes significant harm to others. First, principle 21 of the Stockholm declaration stated that while states have the 'sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies,' states also have 'the responsibility to ensure the activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.'

"Twenty years later, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development…repeated the same language in principle 2 of the Rio declaration, echoing this limitation on exploitation of resources within national boundaries. Finally, in 1997 the international watercourses convention reaffirmed that 'watercourse states shall, in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse states.'"

I guess I can go on more about international law and why we have got to, I would say, walk on eggs on this sort of issue. But be cognizant that the liabilities and the repercussions of destroying another nation's water systems, all in aid — I hate to say it — of some greedy aspirations…. You've got to look at the whole enchilada. You've got to look at the whole implications here.

[1500]

You just can't go ahead and go to Foisey Creek and decide to create slag. Regardless of how good you may think your environmental assessment is, you have to not only compromise, but you've got to work in conjunction with the Americans. You know, the effects of a valley at Foisey Creek, if localized to the immediate stream segment, would not violate, necessarily, the prevention principle. There would be no cross-border harm and, if that is the case, we get away with it. But obviously the Americans made a big case, and the international community agreed.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to isolate the headwaters of the North Fork with its downstream waters. This is the case, for example, for migratory fish species that travel to upper reaches of the Flathead to spawn.

Coal mining activities in Foisey Creek would likely destroy spawning grounds for protected and valuable migratory fish species such as bull trout. In the Cabin Creek referral the IJC recognized that the combined efforts of the proposed coal mine to the headwaters of the Flathead would "cause a loss to a fishery, a loss which is felt on the other side of the boundary."

The Americans did their homework. There's no question that they did their homework. I don't think the same could necessarily be said with the B.C. Liberal government, relative to how it's handled this file.

Now, like the substantive principles of sustainable development and the ecosystem management, a procedural requirement for an environmental assessment for transboundary harm is not foreign to international environment law. The watercourses convention in '97 requires an environmental assessment before a nation may proceed with a project which may have significant adverse effect upon other watercourse states. Clearly, Montana and the United States of America do not believe that the environmental assessment standards, I believe, in British Columbia were up to snuff.

British Columbia and Canada are unwilling to take steps to analyze the potential cross-border harm that could result from coal mining at Foisey Creek. The United States would require that an international arbitral panel address the question under customary international law. Now, I raise this because, I say again, all the lofty accolades and discussion about how wonderful this government is relative to the bill…. We support it in principle, and we think it is the first step. But let's not forget what or how the pressures came.

It didn't come from the good will of the government. Not at all. It came from the good pressures from those in the region, those who fought hard. They found the ear of the United Nations, and of course we have cousins south of the 49th, who I dare say have a big stick. They don't use it. They certainly were willing to do their due diligence and show that the detrimental effects within the course in the Flathead area would be detrimental to the environment, the socioeconomic development of a state.

I had to get that on the record. I think it's very important that we understand how this game was played. We have to understand that this is a complex situation. We also have to appreciate that Alberta has established itself with an internationally recognized national-provincial park system, and the same thing with Montana. We are missing that piece, that piece on the British Columbian side, to make it complete.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my place in the House and thank you for the opportunity to speak relative to Bill 2.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: It's my pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to Bill 2, the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act. I'd like to start first by congratulating our government, the minister responsible and staff involved for moving ahead with this great piece of legislation to enhance the protection of B.C.'s pristine Flathead Valley and following through on our government's commitment.

This legislation will permanently prohibit mining, as well as exploration and development of oil, gas and

[ Page 8055 ]

mineral resources, on nearly 400,000 acres — 400,000 breathtaking acres of wilderness in the Flathead Valley.

[1505]

In 2009, when I was first appointed to cabinet as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, I was introduced to the complex issues surrounding the Flathead Valley. Unfortunately, the first thing I had to ask was: where is the Flathead Valley?

For those of you who are not familiar with this area, though I'm sure you are now, it's an extraordinary region located in the Kootenays. It's in the southeastern corner of British Columbia and within the Ktunaxa territory. The Flathead Valley extends through to Montana to the south, and the nearest towns are Cranbrook, Elkford, Fernie and Sparwood. The Flathead watershed neighbours the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park, and it's listed by UNESCO as a world heritage site and biosphere reserve.

Sustaining environmental values in the Flathead is of intense interest, both internationally and amongst local residents, as we have heard today. Now, the National Geographic Magazine calls this area "one of the most diverse and ecologically intact natural ecosystems in the temperate zones of the world." They also refer to the Flathead Valley as the crown of the continent.

According to the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Flathead watershed supports an amazing abundance of life, such as 16 different species of carnivores, a great diversity of plants and a large population of grizzly bears. In fact, there are more grizzlies here than anywhere else in the interior of North America. It's also home to many species that are threatened elsewhere: lynx, badgers, wolverines and bull trout. They compare the Flathead Valley to Africa's Serengeti for its diverse plant species. There are more than 1,000 wildflower species just in the Flathead Valley.

"The B.C. side of the valley is largely undeveloped and is still home to the same variety of species that existed 400 years ago."

The water in the Flathead River is so pure that it's used as a benchmark to measure water quality in rivers around the world. The Flathead River is a transboundary river. That means that it flows from B.C. into Montana. As an avid freshwater fisherman — or fisher, I should say — I'm particularly passionate about the crystal-clear waters that are home to a healthy population of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, sculpin and mountain whitefish. In fact, I'd like to remind my colleague the member for Kootenay East of his offer to take me fly-fishing in the Flathead Valley.

Now, some of you in this chamber may be familiar with what I'm going the talk about next, and I apologize for that. But I can't let this opportunity go by without relaying some of the important milestones that led to the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, which we call Bill 2. In my previous role as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, I had the honour of working to protect this particular part of British Columbia while balancing the needs and the interests of the residents of the Kootenays and the Ktunaxa First Nations.

It was clear to me that residents of the Kootenays and the First Nations wanted continued historical access to the back country of the Flathead Valley for fishing, guiding, hiking, canoeing, snowmobiling and camping.

In my former role as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, I had the pleasure of working to fulfil a February 2010 throne speech commitment to work on a new partnership with the state of Montana to sustain the environmental values in the Flathead River basin in a manner consistent with current forestry, recreation, guide-outfitting and trapping uses. What we were able to establish was a memorandum of understanding and cooperation on environmental protection, climate action and energy between British Columbia and Montana.

I would be remiss if I didn't recognize Bryant Fairley for all the work he's done on the Flathead file. Bryant is with Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat. He is the executive director of U.S. relations and partnerships, and he and I worked many hours on this file.

I was honoured to emcee the historic agreement that was signed during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver in February, and I have as a prized possession, hanging in my office, a framed picture of the agreement and the photos of the signing. The agreement was signed by former B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and Montana's governor, Brian Schweitzer.

Members should be aware that the agreement signed brought to a conclusion a 25-year dispute over the future of the watershed that lies both in British Columbia and Montana, in Canada and the United States. This was a proud day and a huge accomplishment for both our regions.

[1510]

Here are some of the comments that we heard that day: "I think the provincial government has taken a great step for the Flathead. Everyone who cares about wildlife, fish, water and a healthy ecosystem has to applaud the government's actions." That was said by the environmentalist John Bergenske, who's the executive director of Wildsight

Bill 2 enhances that work and fulfils the commitment this government made to introduce legislation. Today we are introducing that legislation that will protect this unique area from resource development. This act will demonstrate that British Columbia is leading the way when it comes to land conservation.

The Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act will prevent registration of new mineral claims and application for coal tenures by establishing coal and mineral reserves. It will prohibit Crown land dispositions for mining purposes. It will prohibit issuance of Mines Act permits. It will prohibit issuance of Oil and Gas Activities Act permits for oil and gas exploration and development,

[ Page 8056 ]

and it will prohibit disposition of Crown reserves under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

At the same time, the act will enable us to continue our excellent management of the Flathead, which has maintained the diverse and healthy ecosystem that exists today. Parallel legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate to similarly remove mining, oil and gas as permissible land uses in the Montana North Fork Flathead Basin.

The act will also put in place a framework for future cooperation, involving not just B.C. and Montana but also federal governments, First Nations, American tribes and non-governmental organizations. Again — I think it's worth repeating — it will still allow us to continue to maintain this unique area in a manner consistent with current recreation, forestry, guide-outfitting and trapping uses. This legislation builds on British Columbia's commitment to protecting the environment.

I listened this morning to the member for Victoria–Swan Lake's lukewarm support for this bill, but I must take exception with the comment he made that B.C. doesn't have a conservation plan. I can tell you that on that point, Madam Speaker, he's absolutely wrong.

B.C. has a conservation framework. It identifies plants and species at risk. We have a conservation data centre that collects information to identify, again, those species at risk. We've established 65 new parks, 144 conservancies, two ecological reserves and nine protected areas since 2001.

We've also expanded more than 60 parks and six ecological reserves. We've protected more than 1.9 million hectares, an area almost three times the size of Prince Edward Island. Today over 14 percent — and that's more than 13.5 million hectares — of B.C. is protected, more than any other province in Canada. That's an area equal to the size of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I.

This act is being welcomed across the province and beyond. John Lounds, who's the president and CEO of Nature Conservancy of Canada, says: "This is a remarkable commitment to conservation." Richard Cannings, a biologist and member of the Nature Conservancy of Canada's B.C. regional board, says: "There is no other large watershed in North America like the Flathead — the richness of its waters, the abundance of its carnivores. It's a truly wild river in southern Canada. This agreement will ensure that the Flathead will stay wild and pure for generations to come."

Beyond the environmental benefits for this area, important relationships were built between B.C. and Montana, Canada and the United States. In a letter from U.S. Senators Max Baucus and John Tester, they write: "The resources of the north fork of the Flathead River are unmatched. Canadians and Americans are forever linked in our effort to preserve this treasure for future generations, both north and south of the border."

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill 2. It's a long time coming and a very, very good thing to do.

C. Trevena: I would agree with the Minister of Advanced Education on her closing note on Bill 2, the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, that it is a long time coming. A lot of people have been working very, very hard to ensure that the Flathead is protected.

[1515]

On this side of the House, while we welcome the move, we are very aware that this is just a small step. It's a start. It has been fought for, for many years for our volunteers, environmentalists, many people who cherish the Flathead and are very concerned about it.

It wasn't until 2010 that we actually got a commitment, a memorandum of understanding with Montana, on environmental protection, climate action and energy, which this actually enacts. This has been asked for, for many years, and when the minister was talking before, you have to really say, well, it's not surprising that people have been longing for this.

The Flathead is described as equal to the Serengeti. It's described as having thousands of species of wildflowers. It's got this clear, clear water. It's got so many grizzly bears. So we should be protecting it. It makes a lot of sense to be protecting it where we can. The fact that we actually are now discussing a watershed area conservation act which will restrict mining and oil and gas activity in the Flathead is very important.

Our reservations on this are that it is a very limited act. It doesn't really go far enough. The Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act does actually say the bill restricts mining and oil and gas activity in the Flathead watershed area, prohibits the disposition of Crown land in the area, designates coal land in that area as a coal land reserve and establishes a mineral reserve on that area.

While that is likely to please some people, it will also open a lot of questions, when we get to the committee stage, about just how much protection there is. There have been moves over the years to ensure that protection can take place and activity can take place.

We look at the Great Bear, where we have a vast area of rain forest that is protected, but we have agreements with First Nations, agreements with logging companies, agreements with others about how we can actually conserve, protect and use that area. What we would be hoping for is that in any further conservation in any area across B.C. that we're doing this very realistically, that we are doing a complete protection and not just looking at two areas where we are putting in prohibitions.

Here we're putting the prohibition on coal and mining and oil and gas extraction, but we still have the possibility of logging, of quarrying, of building the roads that you need to do both logging and quarrying. I represent an area that has logging as its prime resource

[ Page 8057 ]

still. Well, we hope it still has. Not much secondary resource, but definitely a prime resource. Roads get built when you are logging. There's no question about that. Similarly when you are quarrying, and quarrying can be very destructive.

So when we are looking at having a protected area, a conservation area, we're really going to have to make sure that we are looking at it in its widest sense.

It's going to still allow some trophy hunting. That is going to cause a lot of consternation. Again, I have no problem with hunting for food, but we're just hunting trophies in an area that is so well respected, so — I'm trying to find the word — praised. The Minister of Advanced Education ran through all of the gamut of its accolades, its recognition from UNESCO, right the way through. It leaves me questioning why we are just leaving it at this stage.

One of the requests that has been made for some time is that we do move towards a feasibility study, to whether we want to extend the parks that there are in the United States, the Waterton Glacier Park across the border, whether we want to extend the park into the Flathead.

We're not asking that we actually do extend it. I know there is a lot of controversy about when you start asking for parks to be there. But have a study. Let's start looking at this. Let's start seeing whether we are going to really put ourselves where….

[1520]

We talk about this as a wonderful place. We've got UNESCO's endorsement of it. We have the fact that, as I say, it is Canada's Serengeti. It's got this wonderful water. It's got thousands of plant species. It's got 16 species of hoofed animals, according to some information — which is actually from the Sierra Club — 16 species of carnivores. It is an astounding place, and it is a UNESCO heritage site.

Why don't we just look through it a bit further and be very cognizant when we are talking about conservation? What does conservation mean? Conservation doesn't just mean stopping mining and stopping oil and gas exploration. Conservation does mean a lot more.

I would hope that this is just a start. It is a welcome start, as I say. We have to be pleased that the legislation is here. It has taken a long while to get from discussion, from MOUs, from the signing of agreements to the fact that we actually have a three-page bill in front of us in the Legislature.

As I say, I think it would be very welcome to recognize the world treasures, particularly as we're all very cognizant of climate change. We're all very cognizant of how fragile our ecosystem is. We know that we have a resource-based economy. We know that we have communities that depend very much on resources.

Again, I cite my own constituency, where we are very dependent on that. But we also are very aware that we have to ensure that those fragile ecosystems, those wonderful places that we have in our communities and in our province, are there as part of our lands, our heritage and our legacy for future generations. These are not ours just to do with as we want.

We cannot just go in and exploit these resources. We cannot just say: "Okay, we're not going to mine. We're not going to have oil or gas." We need to be more comprehensive. We really need to start thinking of the bigger picture. We need to think beyond our own generation. We need to think beyond our kids' generation. We need to start thinking of those generations ahead — those seven generations ahead.

What is going to be left if we allow quarrying or logging in a watershed that is fragile, in an area that is so well recognized already? We know what we should be protecting. We should be going that next stage and starting to examine how we can ensure that we get those balances right, that we aren't exploiting, that we aren't damaging that ecosystem.

We have in my own constituency the still very controversial issue within a national park — having a mine there — the Myra Falls mine. Actually, the Myra Falls mine is physically in my colleague the Minister of Agriculture's constituency, but most of the people who work there, I think, live in both our constituencies, and we have, I think, a sense of joint ownership over it. But it's also right there in the centre part of the first provincial park of B.C. — Strathcona Provincial Park.

That caused huge consternation and still does cause some concerns. It is a mine there, it is working, and it creates a number of jobs. It is a matter of being very cautious about how we do look at conservation, how we do look at our special areas.

While, as I say, I think that this really is a good start — it is a way of saying that we recognize that there are very important areas that we need to be protecting; we recognize that there are water issues there; we recognize there are other issues there — I don't think it goes far enough. I think it could have been a braver act. It could have said more. It could have supported other international organizations who have come out very firmly and said this is an amazing area and it should be protected.

I think that we really need to start ensuring that when we are looking at our special places in the world, we are looking at them in a broader area.

[1525]

There has been pressure from our friends across the border, from the United States, to expand the Waterton Glacier Park into the Flathead. All we are calling for is that we look more broadly than just stopping mining, stopping oil and gas extraction. Let's start talking about the other things that are happening there. Let's start talking about the other opportunities, because not all opportunities are ones that use our resources. Some of our opportunities are to ensure that we do protect those wonderful areas.

[ Page 8058 ]

Yes, we have many areas in B.C. that are under parks. We have many areas in B.C. that are conservation areas. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognize what we have and make sure that we are looking after it in the best way possible, making sure that we are looking after it for those future generations and not risking what is a treasure, what is the Serengeti of Canada and what is a very special place.

B. Penner: It is a pleasure for me to stand and indicate my intention to vote in favour of second reading of the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, Bill 2.

It doesn't seem like that long ago, but I believe it was just over two years ago that I accepted an invitation from the MLA representing the area of southeastern British Columbia, the member for Kootenay East, to come and tour the Flathead River basin on the Canadian side of the border.

I had been in that area sometime previous — when I was a few pounds lighter and my hair was a few shades greyer — when I went hiking with a former partner of mine at B.C. Parks where we worked together as park rangers. He took me to the Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park area, and we climbed up the mountains that overlook the origins of the Flathead River in British Columbia.

That park is right in the southeast corner of British Columbia. To the immediate east is Waterton National Park in Alberta, and to the south, Glacier National Park in Montana. So it is a spectacular area, and it certainly gives you a unique vantage point, being on top of the mountains, looking down to the west from the top of Akamina-Kishinena Provincial Park.

Two years ago I was pleased to accept the invitation to make a return visit. The trip in wasn't as arduous this time. We used a helicopter and covered the ground a bit more quickly than I did when I was travelling by foot. But the area remains spectacular, and that's something that I think members on both sides of the House agree on.

That's notwithstanding the fact that, as the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke correctly noted earlier today, there have been forestry operations in that area for a long time, quarrying opportunities being taken advantage of and a number of other activities, including drilling for oil and natural gas in more recent times.

I'm told that one of the earliest oil derricks in British Columbia was actually set up in the Flathead River basin in an attempt to try and find recoverable quantities of oil. I'm not sure if oil was found, but if it was, it wasn't in sufficient quantities, I don't think, to make it economic.

However, upon my visit there two years ago, I could see that there had been areas that have been subject to forestry operations. I believe Tembec, a local employer in the area, has that within its cutting area. Of course, there is reforestation that's required. So there are multiple stages of forest.

Notwithstanding that, I think all parties agree that it's home to an abundant array of wildlife. I'm told the fishing is pretty good as well. So I think that does suggest that the current activities that have been taking place are sustainable in the sense that, notwithstanding at least 50 years — some people told me maybe 75 years — of human activity in that area, much of it economic and some of it recreational, that area continues to support a very healthy and diverse array of wildlife and habitat.

I want to, perhaps, flatter the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke a little bit by quoting from his remarks this morning, courtesy of Hansard , but quoting in agreement with what the member had to say. Now I'm making reference to his remarks this morning: "Now, logging, hunting, hiking, camping will all continue, but these have been ongoing activities. It is a spectacular area not only in its setting but also in its flora and in its wildlife. It is not pristine. Few areas, actually, in B.C., especially in the southern part, are pristine, but it is wild."

[1530]

[D. Black in the chair.]

He goes on to note that the bill represents a compromise, and I suppose you could say that that's true in that there's broad support for what's being proposed in this bill and what has taken place already.

I should just pause here to note that it was about six or seven months after my visit there with the member for Kootenay East that I signed a ministerial order prohibiting further oil and gas and mining activities in that area but leaving an exception. It was worded in such a way that local quarry operators could continue their work.

I was led to believe that there's a person that operates in the Cranbrook area that obtains what's commonly referred to as lava rock for landscaping purposes, and it's sold in the local market. So it's a significant business for the individual and, I'm sure, for the people that that business supplies. But in the grand scheme of things, it's not a large mining operation.

In any event, I concurred with the advice of the member for Kootenay East that it would be appropriate to add extra protection to that area, to make it clear that things like coal bed methane and coal mine and other activities like that were not going to be part of the future of the Canadian side of the Flathead River Valley. Lots of discussions took place internally in government following that. Former Premier Gordon Campbell was actively involved in the file. I had many conversations with him, as well as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations at the time and other members of caucus, about the proposal.

It finally culminated in that agreement that the previous speaker from the government side, the Minister of Advanced Education, was referring to a few minutes

[ Page 8059 ]

ago, which was an announcement just on the eve of the 2010 Winter Olympics that we had, in fact, taken a move to sign the ministerial order under…. I think it was the Environmental Management Act, if I remember correctly. I could be mistaken, however. A number of other moves were taken internally within government to dedicate that area in a way that would preserve it in its current form with the current type of activities that are now taking place and have been taking place for a considerable period of time.

There was, however, discussion about, at some later date, bringing forward a statute so that it wouldn't just be in a ministerial order or some other document, but it would actually be put here before the floor of the Legislature, and so it would be more transparent and there would be more certainty for people who are interested observers about what the future would hold for that area. That's what brings us to this debate today.

So pardon me for the segue, but that's a bit of my personal experience in this issue.

Again, I just want to cite with approval the remarks of the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke where he says that "Tembec is an important employer, and that needed to be considered." Those kinds of factors were taken into consideration. We know that the economy is always subject to vacillations or the vicissitudes of the international marketplace, so you don't want to make decisions without considering the consequences for the local economy and the people that live there.

We did pay attention to those issues. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke goes on later to say, "People in the area go in there for their hunting. They go in there for their recreational activity," and a sentence later: "It's where parents go with their children to make those sorts of memories." That's true, from what I understand from talking to people in that area, from the fish and game clubs as well as from the member for Kootenay East. That is an important recreational area for the people in that area. They consider hunting to be part of their recreation.

While I agree with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I disagree with the opposition Environment critic and the last member — who just spoke a few moments ago, from North Coast — suggesting that, in fact, hunting should not be permitted. It appears to me that we have a bit of a division in the opposition caucus again on this bill and this particular issue.

[1535]

While the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke correctly points out that the current activities have been taking place for a long time and yet there is still a healthy and abundant source of wildlife in that area and it's providing an important recreational opportunity for people to take their children there and create lasting memories, other members of the caucus not from the Kootenays but from Vancouver Island are suggesting that they know better and that they would impose some kind of change on that area. That is not broadly supported.

In the words of the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke to the bill that we have on the floor of the House today to which I'm now speaking — and which still permits hunting and some forestry operations and some ATV access so people can recreate — "…people in that area broadly support this compromise."

So we have one member of the opposition caucus saying that it's got broad public support, that he supports it, that those activities are important to families, for the economy, for children and still allows for sustainable wildlife population and a clean and vibrant environment. But other members of his caucus are saying it doesn't go far enough, that there need to be more restrictions.

I think that is why the member for Kootenay East was quite delighted to hear what the member for Victoria–Swan Lake had to say, the opposition Environment critic, because the member for Kootenay East knows that in his area, the public is not going to support the NDP if they think that the NDP will take away their opportunity to recreate in the Flathead Valley like they have done for 50 or 75 years, and in a way that's been sustainable — demonstrably sustainable, so much so that everyone agrees that the wildlife there is just tremendous in its variety and abundance.

A couple of other remarks I'd just like to point out. Again, the opposition Environment critic said in his remarks this morning — I found this somewhat surprising — "This government has no comprehensive conservation strategy for lands that are significant in B.C." He's seemingly oblivious to the fact that since 2001 the amount of land in British Columbia subject to protection — either through conservancies, class A provincial parks or ecological reserves — has grown by more than 16 percent. It's gone from 11.6 million hectares to now 13.5 million hectares.

By my calculations, that's a more than 16 percent increase in the total land area in the province that's been protected in the last, oh, ten and a few years. That's a fairly significant increase.

It's broken down in the following ways: 65 new class A provincial parks; 144 conservancies, which is a whole new category of protected areas that I had the pleasure of working on and introducing during my five-year tenure as Environment Minister in British Columbia and which was really the offspring of the Central and North Coast land use planning process, better known as the Great Bear rain forest. I think it was recognized with world acclaim — that that was a major contribution to conservation of habitat and wildlife. It's been recognized internationally, and that took place here in British Columbia and was put into legislation in the last few years.

So again, by any measure, pretty significant steps, notwithstanding the disagreement from the NDP's Environment critic on that point.

[ Page 8060 ]

The last thing, though, that caused me some surprise in his remarks was when he expressed what appears to be disapproval for the provincial government utilizing funds provided from outside of British Columbia to help pay for the extinguishment of any claims that may arise as a result of the decision of government to restrict what kind of mining or oil and gas activity can take place in the Flathead.

Apparently, the NDP position is that taxpayers in British Columbia should have to pay more. The question you have to ask yourself is: just which other program would the NDP Environment critic prefer to see cut so that those claims can be paid without utilizing funds that have been made available to us through international negotiations with the state of Montana and various environmental groups?

Would it be preferential to take that money out of the health care budget? Out of the education budget? Out of the environment budget? Out of the Attorney General's budget? The Solicitor General's budget?

[1540]

I wouldn't recommend taking additional dollars out of those ministries, but that seems to be the logical conclusion about what the NDP Environment critic would prefer when he, in his remarks this morning, says that "the funds that will allow the extinguishment of claims that have been established here are mostly raised by our neighbours in a foreign government and by private donors." He says later: "I think that's a dangerous road to travel down."

Well, apparently he didn't find it that dangerous two years ago, when he decided to accept money from a private sector trade union in the United States and an environmental group in the United States through something known as the BlueGreen Alliance — I believe it was founded in 2006 with the United Steelworkers of America — and the Sierra Club, also based in the United States.

Somehow it was okay for the NDP Environment critic to take foreign funds to pay for his travel so he could fly to Europe, but it's not okay to accept those funds as part of an international negotiation that will bring extra protection to the Flathead Valley; help shield British Columbia taxpayers from potential costs arising from extinguishing claims in the Flathead; and also is well received south of the border in Montana and, more broadly, in the United States.

That seems to be a strange double standard, which I hope the member will elaborate on at the next opportunity, because frankly, it doesn't make any sense — why it's okay for him to take money from American-based groups but not for the B.C. government so we do not have to dip into other funds to help work on extinguishing those claims, if in fact it becomes necessary to make any payments in that regard.

On balance, I think the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has it right — that this bill represents a compromise that is broadly supported in the region, by the people that are most closely impacted, that are most knowledgable of the area.

Certainly, from our perspective as a government, it strikes the appropriate balance, allowing some ongoing economic activity that is closely regulated, subject to stringent regulations on the forestry side. It still allows some ATV access for recreation, for people that are getting older and aren't able to hike, perhaps, as I did a number of years ago, to the top of the mountains but still want to get into that area and see what it looks like and enjoy an afternoon with their children or go fishing.

Or, heaven forbid — don't tell the member from Vancouver Island north — people might go hunting there. It's what they've been doing for generations, and I suspect that the people in that area would like to carry on with that traditional lifestyle for years to come.

With that, hon. Speaker, I wholeheartedly recommend this bill to the Legislature. A lot of work has gone into it, and I look forward to the vote.

H. Lali: I rise in the Legislature to take my place in the debate on Bill 2, the Flathead….

Interjections.

H. Lali: Just hang on. Let me finish. The hon. member across the way is envious of my hairstyle, so I'll have to send him the address of my hairstylist there. In any case, let me finish.

I take my place to speak on Bill 2, the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act. It was introduced, brought in, by the government. The legislation's actual main focus is to prohibit mining and oil and gas extraction in the Flathead watershed area.

The introduction of the legislation meets the commitment that the government made in 2010's memorandum of understanding, which was signed with the state of Montana, on environmental protection, climate action and energy. Also, the ban actually followed a petition to the world heritage committee from a number of conservation groups — there were 11 of them — such as Wildsight, Sierra Club B.C. and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Specifically, the act, when passed and brought into force, will secure some of the decisions that were made in 2010 to establish coal and mineral reserves, prohibit Crown land dispositions for mining purposes, prohibit issuance of Mines Act permits, prohibit issuance of Oil and Gas Activities Act permits for oil and gas exploration and development and also prohibit disposition of Crown reserves under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

[1545]

While the legislation actually prohibits mining and oil gas extraction, it does not, however, mention other activities in the watershed, such as logging, trophy hunting, new

[ Page 8061 ]

road access and quarrying. I know the former Minister of Environment and others have stated that the ongoing activity will continue on.

This is quite an area of the province, noted for its diversity of species and the beauty that is there. I just want to point out, on the record, that in January 2010 there was a team of United Nations scientists who recommended a moratorium on mining in the valley, also noting that nearby Glacier National Park in Montana and Waterton International Park in Canada were designated as a World Heritage Site in 1995 because of the outstanding scenery and the abundance of wildlife.

As a result, UNESCO — which is the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — recommended that a portion of the Flathead River Valley become part of the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park in Alberta and Montana. The UN report also says that this is one of the continent's "largest, most pristine, intact and best-protected expanses of natural terrain."

Along with the Waterton and Glacier parks, the valley forms a very critical wildlife corridor for a variety of species unmatched in North America and is home to the endangered bull trout, the wolverine, the lynx and the largest concentration of grizzly bears in the U.S. and Canada.

I just also want to go into the record some of the wonderful things that have been said about the Flathead that makes it a special place. There's a document called "A special place" by Sierra Club of B.C. It has called the Flathead "a modern-day Noah's ark" because of the variety of species that are sort of squeezed into a narrow Rocky Mountain ribbon of green in there. They also state that the Flathead is home to an astounding 16 species of carnivores.

They also refer to it as Canada's Serengeti because of the diversity of plant and animal life that exists there, comparing it to Africa's Serengeti because of the richness of plant species there. For instance, during the spring and summer there are more than a thousand wildflower species that actually make a carpet floor on the region's slopes in the Flathead.

National Geographic has termed it amazing and calls the region the Crown of the Continent — again, referring to the ecosystem there, because water from this transboundary area actually flows to all three oceans surrounding North America.

I know that some of the members across the way have made various statements. Some of them are obviously not correct. The MLA for Abbotsford-Mission, when he was standing up here, was misquoting and misrepresenting some of the statements made by the NDP, saying that we wanted a national park. It's a big difference.

The NDP, as early as 2006, has been calling for the Liberal government to initiate a feasibility study into the extension of the Waterton national park into the Flathead Valley, which is not the same as actually saying we wanted to establish a park. We wanted to establish a feasibility study, and the feasibility study would determine this appropriate revival to establish a national park.

[1550]

The member for Abbotsford-Mission — I wanted to correct him. Hopefully, he wasn't trying to misrepresent. He probably just didn't know the difference between a feasibility study and actually calling for a park.

I know the member also talked about mining. You know, the Liberal position, hon. Speaker, for years, well over a decade, called for mining in parks in British Columbia — very specific. Gordon Campbell, when he was Leader of the Opposition, was very specific in stating it, and his members, some of whom are still in the House today, were calling for mining in parks.

The member also alluded to that, and then he tried to sort of say that most of the mining has gone from surface mining and that it's all gone underground — as if, if it's out of sight, it's out of mind — so they could go ahead and have mining anywhere that they want and that it wouldn't leave any kind of footprint.

It's as if the stuff that comes out from underground, the ore, or even…. Well, I guess, it's the underburden then — some of the rock that is carried out and brought to the surface. Where does it go? Does it disappear?

Are there no roads in the surrounding area of where the entry is for the mine that is underground? Are there no large trucks or no machines? Are there no buildings? Are there no fuel areas or water tanks — everything that is needed — or electrical generation facilities, whether it's a hydro facility, hydro towers or a gas-fired or diesel-fired generator? I mean, it's as if magically all of that disappears because the member says the activity has all gone underground.

So I think that the member — who was a former Minister of Mines, I would say — ought to know better than to sort of try to allude and say that somehow mining just goes totally underground and you can't see it above ground at all.

We have the MLA for Kootenay East a few years ago…. In 2010's throne speech, actually, the Liberal side had banned oil and gas and mining activity in the Flathead, finally bowing to pressure from the state of Montana. As a result, because, you know, hunting and angling and outdoor activities and others were still going to continue, you had environmentalists who began pushing for a national park designation at the time for the lower third of the Flathead Valley, not the upper two-thirds but the lower third, which would actually further and more tightly constrain economic activity.

Well, the member for Kootenay East was prompted to write in a very nasty e-mail. This is from the Globe and Mail of July 22, 2010. He said: "We either stand strong together against the loss of the Flathead Valley to the eco-fascists" — that's what he called them: eco-

[ Page 8062 ]

fascists — "or we will lose the Flathead. I am there if you are there."

I mean, that's hardly a way to refer to folks, whether the MLA agrees with their viewpoint or not. We live in a democratic society where folks who want economic development and folks who want to protect the environment or folks in between who want to have some sort of multi-use or conservation — whatever positions they are….

We live in a democracy where you're free to express your views, but calling names such as eco-fascist because you happen not to agree with them is not the right thing to do. And then he has the gall to stand up here and criticize our Environment critic over some of the statements that he had made.

But I also want to point out the flip-flop on mining in the Flathead that the Liberals have done, hon. Speaker, because their policies on many fronts have been flip-flops. They wanted referendums on aboriginal rights a few years ago when it came to treaty-making, and they flip-flopped over that. They finally saw the light and decided that treaties were the way to go, to sit down at the table with the First Nations and negotiate treaties. But they were opposed, and they flip-flopped on it.

[1555]

The same thing happened here in terms of the Flathead. What they're doing today is actually a flip-flop from the former policy to permit mining in the Flathead Valley. That's what they wanted to do. It was, again, due to pressure from environmental groups, the state governors and the United Nations that the Liberals actually had to abandon their plans to mine coal and extract coal bed methane in the Flathead Valley. You know who they were giving the tenure to? BP Canada. You remember BP, those same guys that kind of had that little oil spill in the…?

K. Conroy: Just a little one.

H. Lali: Just a little one, just a few billion litres or whatever it was — right? The same guys. That's what the Liberals had wanted to do.

On January 22, 2010, the United Nations report recommended a moratorium on mining in — I guess it was a controversial area — the Flathead Valley, because of the competing interests. It wanted a development of a comprehensive transboundary conservation and wildlife management plan to the area.

The throne speech in 2010 announced that, finally, mining, oil and gas development and the coal bed gas extraction will not be permitted in British Columbia's Flathead Valley. This is after they were going to allow mining. They were going to work with BP, have them go in there and do coal bed methane extraction. They finally saw the light.

The Liberals finally saw the light, after so many organizations in the environmental sector, the United Nations, the official opposition, the people of British Columbia forced these Liberals to actually abandon…. Hence their flip-flop on this particular area of our province.

But I just want to also point out that there was a study that was done by some NGOs in June of 2005, one of which was the Yellowstone to Yukon conservation society. It was called the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park: The Economic Implications of Expanding into the Flathead Region of B.C. They do some estimates of some of the benefits that would be resulting from the expansion of the Waterton Park into the Flathead Valley.

They believe that the economic activity would increase in several ways. This would also include increased in-migration of amenity migrants and entrepreneurial activity due to the proximity to the park and one-time investment in capital assets and ongoing spending for parks maintenance by Parks Canada. It's in their study, so if members opposite want to look at it they can do so.

I realize that there's another bill that's coming, so I just want to take this opportunity to put my viewpoints on the table here. Again, it's with a great deal of pressure that this government finally made the decision to bring forward this act here today. So I want to thank you for the opportunity, for allowing me to say a few words here, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close debate.

Hon. S. Thomson: It's a pleasure to get up and take my place in the House to close debate on the second reading of this very, very important bill.

I just wanted to make a few comments on it. Firstly, I'm not able to stand up and give some of the personal anecdotes.