2013 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Monday, February 18, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Statements

Messages of appreciation and welcome

A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Aurelio Cinel

Hon. T. Lake

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Bill M201 — Government Advertising Act, 2013

A. Dix

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Clyde Hertzman

L. Reid

Youth voting initiative at Alberni District Secondary School

S. Fraser

Lunar new year celebrations

R. Lee

Royal Westminster Regiment

D. Black

Homelessness and housing initiative in Nanaimo

R. Cantelon

Black History Month

R. Chouhan

Oral Questions

Integrated case management system

A. Dix

Hon. S. Cadieux

C. James

C. Trevena

BC e SIS information management system

R. Austin

Hon. D. McRae

JUSTIN information management system

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

Electricity rates and purchase of power by natural gas companies

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Reports from Committees

Special Committee on Timber Supply, Growing Fibre, Growing Value

J. Rustad

N. Macdonald

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2011-2012

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Tla'amin Final Agreement Act

Hon. I. Chong

S. Fraser

N. Simons

Hon. I. Chong

Bill 6 — Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013

Hon. B. Bennett

H. Lali

Hon. B. Bennett

Bill 3 — Destination BC Corp. Act

Hon. P. Bell

S. Chandra Herbert

K. Krueger

C. Trevena

M. Mungall

J. McIntyre

D. Donaldson

C. James

Hon. P. Bell

Bill 5 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013

Hon. T. Lake

R. Fleming

J. Rustad

D. Donaldson

C. Trevena

M. Sather

Hon. T. Lake

[ Page 12841 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2013

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

MESSAGES OF

APPRECIATION AND WELCOME

A. Dix: On behalf of people on the opposition side, I wanted to say in what high regard we take the words and the statement made by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie yesterday. It's always a difficult thing, maybe the most difficult thing, to leave this place and to leave all the things you're working on.

It seemed to me, having engaged with him on Thursday, that he was in very fine fettle politically.

Interjection.

A. Dix: We'll be ready. That's not an inconvenient fact at all.

I just wanted to say, on behalf of all members of the House, how much we've appreciated continuing to work with him, and I know we will continue to do so in the future.

I also wanted to note the return to the Legislature for today of our dear friend from Cowichan Valley. [Applause.]

He's been a voice, I'm sure, that everybody in the Legislature has missed so far this session — a voice that is a profound and extraordinary voice for working people everywhere in B.C. It's wonderful to see him back.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased today to introduce someone who once was a member of this Legislative Assembly. I know that he served with vigour and intensity, and everyone would probably already be able to guess who I'm speaking about. We're delighted to have in the Speaker's gallery today Rick Thorpe. As everyone knows, he was here for a very long time and left a legacy. We are certainly glad to have him here.

He is a volunteer director of the Canadian Snowbirds. I know that all members of the House will want to know that Rick is happy in his new life. I think he's leading it with a lot less intensity than he did when he was here in question period. So please join me in welcoming former MLA Rick Thorpe.

R. Austin: It's not often that I get to introduce somebody from so far away as Skeena. But it's my great pleasure today to introduce Chief Don Roberts of the Kitsumkalum band, who is accompanied today by Terry Bennett, the economic development manager. Please, would everybody join me in welcoming them both down to Victoria.

D. Barnett: Today I am excited and honoured to welcome to this Legislature a member of my community who has been a volunteer auxiliary RCMP for 17 years and a huge part of the community of 100 Mile House, and his daughter who now lives in Victoria, who is going to the university here and has for two years. Would the House please welcome Steve Pellizzari and his daughter Brianna. Welcome.

[1340]

D. Routley: In my ongoing introduction of the many generations of the Wade family…. It was the grandparents and mother last week. This week it's Nicholas Wade, a dear friend of mine who I have known…. I'm embarrassed to say, since he's 6 foot 1 or so and just completing his university degree, that I've known him since he was days old. This is Nicholas Wade, who's now working with the NDP on election preparation, and his friend Jodi Burkholder. Can the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd like the House to make welcome a guest today from our great riding of Kelowna-Mission. With us today is John Wagner. John is a professor of anthropology from UBC Okanagan. He is passionate about water and does a lot of work with the Okanagan Basin Water Board. He's also the landlord of a good friend of mine, and I understand he's a very good landlord. So I'd like the House to make him welcome here today.

S. Fraser: We've got, I think, 24 or 25 amazing grade 11 students from Alberni District Secondary School with us in the gallery. Anne Ostwald's class is very interested in democracy and the proceedings in this House, as we'll hear later in the two-minute statements. I'd like the rest of the House to please help me make them feel very, very welcome.

Tributes

AURELIO CINEL

Hon. T. Lake: Kamloops lost an icon of the Italian community this past week. Aurelio Cinel grew up under the shadow of the Second World War as the third of five children in a hard-working and self-reliant family. As a boy of 12 he began his training in a factory as a shoemaker, and in 1954 he had already been working for ten years when he left Italy to set down roots in a new country and pursue a job with the Canadian National Railway.

[ Page 12842 ]

For over 43 years Aurelio at the Centre Shoe Re-Nu was a downtown fixture, where he would enjoy the company of many friends and customers before retiring at the age of 72. Aurelio had the heart of an artist and the mind of an engineer. From the handmade fountains in his garden to the ingenious solutions he found to construction problems, he was a man who could build or fix nearly anything.

On a warm summer evening his back deck would be a place where friends and family would gather over a fine glass of wine — his own wine, Mr. Speaker — and enjoy the simple pleasures of friendships celebrated in a setting of a well-tended garden.

At the onset of ALS, Aurelio applied the same determination he put towards every challenge he faced. Always thinking ahead, he personally installed handles and mobility aids throughout his house and even crafted his own special cutlery that he knew he would need in time. His planning left him to fulfil his last wish of staying in the home he built until his final day, surrounded by the family he loved. It was a life very well lived.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I just wanted to say that perhaps the House will join with me and celebrate my 29th wedding anniversary, because I won't be doing it again this year with my spouse Ellie. I'll be doing stuff here and in other places.

Ellie, if you're watching — I'm sure you are — happy anniversary.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — EMERGENCY AND HEALTH

SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. M. MacDiarmid presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, be introduced and read now for a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This legislation will allow for coordination of emergency health services to be enhanced in British Columbia. The Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, follows amendments from the spring of 2010. At that time, the process of integrating ambulance and emergency health services in B.C. more closely with the broader health care system was started. The Emergency and Health Services Commission will continue as British Columbia Emergency Health Services. It will be fully aligned with the Provincial Health Services Authority family of programs and services and will continue with its core mandate of providing provincial ambulance and emergency health services.

[1345]

The legislation allows for closer cooperation between B.C. emergency health services and health authorities in improving patient safety and quality of care. It also recognizes the role played by paramedics and first responders in overall patient care, and it reinforces the fact that ambulance services are often the first point of contact in a coordinated continuum of patient care.

With this legislation, we will complete a commitment from 2010 to integrate emergency health services. As a consequence, patients and taxpayers will benefit from a more effective and efficient system overall.

I move that the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M201 — GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2013

A. Dix presented a bill intituled Government Advertising Act, 2013.

A. Dix: I move that a bill intituled Government Advertising Act, 2013, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Dix: The Government Advertising Act requires the Auditor General to review all proposed government advertising against clearly defined criteria. These criteria forbid advertising that promotes the partisan interests of the governing party or attempts to foster a positive impression of the governing party or a negative impression of a person or organization that's critical of the government. That includes the name, voice or image of the Premier, executive council or members of this assembly.

In addition, government advertising must present information factually and objectively. These rules are designed to make sure government advertising serves the broader public good rather than the narrow political needs of the governing party. No matter what the medium, only advertising approved by the Auditor General will be allowed to run.

In addition, this bill requires, or a force that requires,

[ Page 12843 ]

all government advertising to cease four months before the fixed general election date, following a policy previously put in place by former Premier Gordon Campbell.

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

Bill M201, Government Advertising Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CLYDE HERTZMAN

L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Clyde Hertzman. When I had ministerial responsibility for early childhood development and child care, Dr. Hertzman and I travelled the province extensively, meeting with those most keen to further opportunities for young learners. As you know, he was fierce in his passion for young learners as an area of study and was also an amazing mentor to his students and colleagues.

I wanted government to go forward from the basis of the best possible science, and Clyde led the human early learning partnership with aplomb. I learned much. He truly believed that data belonged to the communities from which it originated, and he and I spent eight years on the road, taking the EDI data home to communities across B.C.

One particular journey saw us on Haida Gwaii early one morning on the beach with the Chief and council. A family of eagles was sitting on a log just down from us, and Clyde included them in the discussion on family development. It was a wonderful moment.

His mentorship of the Provincial Child Care Council was a joy to behold. We are truly indebted to Clyde for his vision and humanity. Dana Brynelsen was our provincial adviser on infant development in those years. These are her words:

"Children in British Columbia have lost a champion. We have all lost a visionary leader in the field of human development when Clyde Hertzman died, and his loss is felt around the world. Clyde's work brought solid science-based evidence to our belief that early years are important and that a child's experience in family and community life impacts brain development in powerful ways across the life span. Clyde's work, in partnership with colleagues from multiple disciplines, demonstrates that societies that provide well for young children and their families are societies that prosper.

"Although his loss is huge to his field and to those who knew him and loved him, he has left us a legacy of knowledge and innovative partnership across diverse scientific communities and set directions for us to take to improve outcomes for future generations of children. Our task is to ensure that this legacy continues."

Thank you, Clyde, and thank you to your family. Yours was a life well lived, but far too short.

YOUTH VOTING INITIATIVE AT

ALBERNI DISTRICT SECONDARY SCHOOL

S. Fraser: As elected members of this Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, we know well the issues and problems of voter apathy, disenfranchisement and poor turnouts at the polls on election day. Statistics, I'm afraid, speak for themselves. Unfortunately, young voters — those aged 18 to 25 — are part of that grim statistic.

[1350]

But fear not, hon. Speaker. Taking this issue head-on is a fantastic group of grade 11 students from ADSS, Alberni District Secondary School. Anne Ostwald's civic studies class 11 takes this issue very, very seriously. Students are working to raise awareness of the importance of the vote and hope to raise voter participation in this upcoming election.

The class has contacted superintendents of school districts to forward a challenge letter to other social studies and civic studies 11 classes to get them involved. This is democracy, after all. Letters have gone out to city councillors suggesting that free busing be provided on election day. Statistics are being supplied on the percentage of voter participation in each district. Even milk companies have been contacted with a suggested logo, "Missing: your vote." The kids are putting together a website to share the importance of voting.

Finally, the students from ADSS will be hosting an all-candidates meeting and holding a student vote as well. If this doesn't empower young people to become voters in the future, I don't know what will.

Oh, but I forget. Ms. Ostwald's stellar students have developed a slogan for this great endeavour: "If voting doesn't matter to you, then clothes shouldn't either." Now, that should get some attention, hon. Speaker. Hats off to the students from ADSS.

LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Lee: Today is the ninth day of the lunar new year, and many committees and associations in our province are still in a mood of celebration. Yesterday the annual spring festival celebration parade in Vancouver's Chinatown attracted tens of thousands of participants and spectators.

I was pleased to see the Burnaby North Vikings marching band was leading the parade — with many dignitaries, including the Lieutenant-Governor, the Premier, many Members of Parliament, members of this House, mayors, civic councillors, members of the boards of education and many community leaders.

Thanks to the Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver; Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Vancouver; Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association; SUCCESS; Chinese Freemasons, Vancouver Branch; and Shon Yee Benevolent Association of Canada

[ Page 12844 ]

for organizing this parade and to the many volunteers for a job well done.

Yesterday I also attended the opening of the Temple Fair at Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Garden, the opening of the Vancouver Year of the Snake spring artists meet at the International Arts Gallery, the spring festival gala dinner, the Henan spring festival reception and the Extraordinary Martial Artists of the World banquet. Congratulations to all the diamond jubilee medal recipients who received their medals at the Chinese Cultural Centre.

In Burnaby many activities took place to celebrate the lunar new year, including those in Crystal Mall, in Brentwood mall, at the Confederation seniors centre organized by North Burnaby Retired Society, as well as along Hastings Street with a lion dance organized by the Heights Merchants Association.

The celebration of the spring festival this year was also enhanced by the inaugural B.C. Family Day public holiday on the second day of the lunar new year. To everyone, happy new year.

Xin nian kuai le. Gung hay fat choy.

ROYAL WESTMINSTER REGIMENT

D. Black: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Westminster Regiment is a primary reserve infantry regiment of the Canadian Forces. It's based in the city of New Westminster at the historic armoury built there in 1895. The Royal Westminster Regiment is the oldest active military unit in British Columbia.

On November 20, 1863, James Douglas, the governor of the colony of British Columbia, authorized the establishment of the New Westminster Rifle Company, No. 1, the predecessor to the current Royal Westminster Regiment. As a fighting force, the regiment has been involved in every major conflict of the post-Victorian era. Members have served in the Boer War, World War I, World War II and numerous United Nations and NATO missions, including Korea, Bosnia and Croatia, Cyprus, the Golan Heights and Sierra Leone.

In addition, the unit has a long history of community involvement and service. It provided a relief centre during New Westminster's great fire of 1898 and assisted during the Fraser River floods of 1948. More recently the regiment helped fight the 2003 Okanagan wildfires and provided support to the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[1355]

The Westies, as they're commonly known, were also deployed from 2007 to 2011 to serve in the war in Afghanistan.

This year the regiment will celebrate its distinguished 150-year history with a series of events and legacy projects, including a pictorial history book.

I invite all members of this House to join me in offering congratulations to all past and present members of the Royal Westminster Regiment and to thank them for their service to our province and to our country.

HOMELESSNESS AND

HOUSING INITIATIVE IN NANAIMO

R. Cantelon: The plight of homeless people living on the street is of great concern, I know, to members on both sides of this House.

The city where I live, Nanaimo, has entered into an agreement — a memorandum of understanding — to provide up to $36 million of capital funding to create five multifamily residences to get people off the street and to provide them homes.

They recently opened up the Salish Lelum, providing 18 apartments for supportive housing for aboriginal youth and elders in Nanaimo. The second of these five buildings was on Wesley Street, which provides 36 units for people on the street.

Now, we gathered at these openings recently — and the member opposite was there as well — and politicians and other dignitaries offer what are fairly bland platitudes endorsing these well-meaning and well-intentioned and very effective measures to relieve the plight of homeless people. But we were upstaged entirely by a man named Gavin McMullen, who indeed lived on the street and was allowed to speak at this opening.

Here's what he had to say. Here's what it meant to him, if I may, in Gavin's own words:

Nowhere to sleep. Nowhere to go.

Maybe a graveyard, row after row.

Look at us now. Back in the race.

Safe and secure in our own little place.

We can cook our own food and shower each day.

We can look to the future and have our own say.

Let us be proud and forge ahead.

Let's do it now, before we're all dead.

Take pride in ourselves and the place that we dwell.

We'll see it's okay. We'll find it's just swell.

Those are the words of Gavin McMullen. Let's endorse him and all of the other people and celebrate their continued opportunity in these new homes for them. Let's join together in saluting his words.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

R. Chouhan: Since 1995, February is observed as Black History Month in Canada. Black people have lived in Canada for over 400 years. According to the National Archives, the first reported person of African heritage was Mathieu Da Costa, who arrived in Canada in 1607.

Slavery in Canada has existed from 1628 to 1793. In 1807 the Act for the Abolition of Slave Trade was passed and became law throughout the British Empire. Between 1800 and 1865 approximately 20,000 black people escaped to Canada via the Underground Railway.

[ Page 12845 ]

During the last 400 years black people in Canada have made enormous contributions in all sectors of Canadian society, including Canadian politics. One of the prominent black politicians was Rosemary Brown. She was first elected to the B.C. Legislature in 1972 and served until she retired in 1986. During this time she also proudly represented Burnaby-Edmonds.

She also served as the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission from 1993 to 1996. Rosemary was the founding member of the Vancouver Status of Women Council and the Canadian Women's Foundation.

Similarly, there are so many other successful stories of black Canadians throughout the history of Canada. In Burnaby-Edmonds we have very vibrant, very successful communities from Sudan, from Ethiopia. They are participating in their fullest to make sure that our community continues to be very successful.

One of my friends….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Chouhan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

[1400]

Oral Questions

INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Citizens' Services. An independent report on integrated case management across ministry computer systems, meant to improve services to vulnerable British Columbians, states that the system may never be fixed. A system that cost over $200 million may have to be thrown out because of mismanagement.

The report says that in the bidding phases for this technology, the ministries in question were in chaos, going through so-called transformation, with a revolving door of ministers. The children's representative has said: "This report speaks to incompetent stewardship."

With such damning comments, and a lack of faith that the system can be fixed, can the minister explain what went wrong and when the government will take responsibility for this mess?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Have we had challenges? Yes, and we have taken action to address them. We've hired more than 100 additional staff to assist the Ministry of Children and Families — social workers — while we're implementing the system. We've enhanced the training. We have implemented a number of system enhancements already that make it easier to produce child protection reports and enter data and find information quickly.

The system changes and enhancements that are being made are being made on staff feedback that we're gathering, and we're committed to ensuring that the system works well for all of the ministries involved.

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

A. Dix: Well, we're talking about a system in which one of the former ministers involved, the former Minister of Social Development, the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, said it was initially intended to cost $107 million. We're on $212 million now. We're talking about an additional $12 million to try and fix the $212 million. But what the report indicates is that the bidding process — and why the question went to the Minister of Citizens' Services, but whichever minister the government deems appropriate to answer is fine, of course — was a failure.

So what I'd like to ask the minister is: when is the government finally going to take responsibility for what is something that is profoundly troubling, which is a system designed, after all, to protect vulnerable citizens, that is not working? My question to the minister is simple. When are they finally going to take responsibility for this failure?

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, the government says it works. That's contrary to the view of the child representative and contrary to the government's own report. So I guess "it works" is a notional idea that people who work in the system might not agree with.

My question is fairly simple to the minister. When is the government finally going to take responsibility and acknowledge the criticism of the child representative and do something to address, fundamentally, this question which isn't working for people in the system?

Hon. S. Cadieux: First off, the member is wrong. The budget for the ICM project, which is a cross-ministry project, is $182 million, and it remains unchanged.

We need this system. We need it for a number of reasons. There have been repeated calls by independent authorities, including the Hughes report in 2006 that explained why government needs to implement a system of appropriate information-sharing to better protect vulnerable citizens.

ICM replaces many outdated information systems that are used to deliver critical social services in multiple ministries. These systems are significantly challenged now in quality assurance, because they are outdated and increasingly vulnerable and unable to be adapted to changing needs.

We are addressing the challenges that have been presented by implementing a new system of this size, and we're committed to making sure that the system is working properly for the people that use it.

[ Page 12846 ]

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

[1405]

A. Dix: This reflects a broader problem the government has with key parts of its information technology strategy. We know the fundamental failure of BCeSIS, which not even the Deputy Premier, I think, could deny. We know the problems in the system.

The child representative….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, whether it's in the Deputy Premier's district — and I look forward to his response — or anywhere else, if he wants to go in to public schools, to anyone who works with BCeSIS in the system, and defend those decisions, I wish him well with that effort.

Hon. Speaker, $18 million awarded to Oracle for the software and $182 million budgeted, right? So when the minister says it's on budget at $182 million, that includes that $18 million, now $12 million more, and more to come to try and fix a fundamental problem.

The child representative said in response to the fix: "With all due respect, I think that's patently ridiculous. I cannot see that. That does not make sense to me. They don't have the money to do it."

Given what's at stake here for everybody in the system, will the government finally acknowledge that they've gone down the wrong road here, that there were problems in the bidding system, and finally acknowledge their responsibility for a fundamental failure of governance?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, let me be clear that nothing is more important to me than the safety of the children and families that we serve in the ministry.

In response to criticisms, we have put extraordinary monitoring measures in place to ensure that absolutely no child is at risk because of the implementation of a new system. Clearly, a new system is required. It is required because the old systems are obsolete. We need to better organize the way we share data across the ministries and across programs because it is clearly inefficient to have 50 different systems serving the same families.

The new system is providing information in a more timely and efficient manner. It replaces an obsolete system. It provides enhanced privacy protection, because we take privacy extremely seriously in this government. And it's going to provide for better integration of services across MCFD, the Ministry of Social Development and potentially other ministries, because we need to make sure that the people in this province have the services and support they require.

C. James: The minister admitted there were challenges with this computer system, but she left out a very important fact. The challenges with this computer system are because of this government's mismanagement of this computer system. That's why there are problems.

In 2011 the government said the cost of this system would be $107 million. The cost now is exceeding $200 million, and the system still doesn't work. The independent report that the government commissioned themselves on this technology said that there was no overall plan in place for this project. The report also said that there was insufficient experience to manage this project.

At a time when vulnerable children aren't receiving the services and the care that they need, when youth and adults with disabilities are crying out for services, this government has thrown away hundreds of millions of dollars on a failed computer system.

My question is to the minister. When will this government stand up and take responsibility for their mismanagement and waste of taxpayer dollars?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I stated before, and I'll state it again, the budget for the ICM project is $182 million. It remains unchanged, and we remain within that budget. It is a multiphased project over a number of ministries, over a number of years, and we do have flexibility within that to make adjustments as we roll through the implementation.

We have had challenges in implementation. The project, however, is working well overall. The work that we've done to address the challenges in the ministry and to make over 90 enhancements is improving things as we speak.

[1410]

There are continued improvements to be made as we move forward and as we make sure that we're serving our vulnerable populations with the best service we can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: If there was ever an example of the reason that the public doesn't trust this government and doesn't believe that this government is listening to them, it was the response from this minister.

The children's representative has stood up and spoken. The representative for freedom of information has stood up and spoken. The workers on the front lines have stood up and spoken. The clients have stood up and spoken. The system does not work, and they need the government to fix it.

These computer systems are highly sensitive. They are related to child protection work. They are related to the identity of witnesses in court cases, support for people on income assistance. The public expects this government to manage systems and their tax dollars well, but it's very clear that the government did neither.

With a budget tomorrow where the Finance Minister is warning of fiscal challenges, the need for restraint, this

[ Page 12847 ]

mess stands out as another example of wasted dollars and complete disregard for the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, just think of what $200 million could have been spent on: support for seniors for home care, children with mental health needs, funding for social workers for vulnerable children. How can the B.C. Liberals justify this waste of taxpayer dollars?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Clearly, the member opposite does not understand that independent reports and advice from as far back as the Gove inquiry have recommended the need for government to move forward with integrating their information systems.

I would also like to mention that although the opposition would like to disregard some of the facts, the fact is that we did commission an independent report looking at what we could have done differently in moving forward with the ICM project in our ministry.

I'm pleased that that report actually recognizes that we're on the correct track with the actions we have taken to date, that the 19 recommendations made in that report build on and strengthen the steps we have already taken. We have already accepted all of the recommendations in the report and are moving forward on implementing every single one of them.

C. Trevena: There are 19,000 case files in this system that are now being reviewed for potential errors — 19,000. Only now is the ministry looking at what other jurisdictions use for child welfare. Any person in business would have done that first, not after spending $200 million.

The independent report said there was a significant underestimation of the budget needed to introduce this system, and this is for a system that is supposed to keep kids safe. So will the minister tell the House how much more it's going to cost the people of B.C. to try and get this disaster back on track and doing its proper job?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, the budget for the ICM system is $182 million. We are still on track on that budget. It is a large multi-year implementation with a lot of flexibility built in, in order to make sure we can address the challenges as we move forward. We have put extraordinary monitoring measures in place because there were concerns raised by our front-line workers about the safety of the information.

[1415]

There's nothing more important to me than the safety of the children and families that we serve, and so I did direct that every single file entered into the system between April and December of 2012 be reviewed by our staff. That is increased monitoring on top of the regular monitoring that goes on in regular review of practice. This is absolutely a priority.

The system is working, and the adjustments we are making to this system for the pieces that we determined were not working the way they should for the front-line social workers are being addressed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I don't know where the minister is living, but if she actually talked to any social workers or anybody working the front line, she'd find out that the system isn't working and hasn't been working since May, since it was first introduced.

She says that there is nothing more important than children's safety, and I think that we all in the House would agree that there is nothing more important than children's safety. So if I might ask the minister to explain a little bit more of that, because this system, this $200 million system, has meant for social workers time and money taken away from that real purpose of their job, which is keeping vulnerable kids safe. That's what we're about here — kids.

Ten days ago the Representative for Children and Youth released a shocking report about an 11-year-old who was tasered two years ago. He was in ministry care through much of his life and had been neglected and abused. The representative said….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just stop for a second.

Members, I'm having a difficult time hearing the question.

Continue.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The representative said: "The ministry ignored child welfare practice standards" and "His basic civil and human rights were disregarded." There is still no plan in place for this child.

Can the minister explain, for this boy, why it is better to waste $200 million and untold staff hours on a failed computer system rather than addressing his and thousands of other children's needs across this province?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I've acknowledged, we have had challenges in implementation, which is not surprising for a system implementation of this size. It is unprecedented across government to do something of this size. To address the needs of the front-line social workers, who absolutely need to ensure that they can spend their time working with their clients as they need, we hired more than 100 additional staff to support them.

What the members opposite clearly do not choose to understand is twofold. Firstly, that the budget for the ICM project remains at $182 million, and we are still well within that. As well, they seem to completely miss or lack understanding of the fact of repeated calls by in-

[ Page 12848 ]

dependent authorities for an integrated information system to better protect vulnerable citizens. It was necessary. The more than 30 outdated computer systems that were being used across the two ministries were increasingly vulnerable. In fact, we were unable to make any adjustments to them going forward because their technology is so outdated.

This system is vital in how we deliver social service programs. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it works the way it should for our front-line social workers and, most importantly, to protect the privacy and the security of our clients.

BC e SIS INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

R. Austin: It's not just in the child welfare system that this mismanagement has occurred but also in education. We know that this government spent almost $100 million on their electronic data system. What we don't know is how much was also spent by school boards on training, implementation and licensing costs.

[1420]

Communities and taxpayers should not have to pay the costs of Liberal mismanagement on these colossal computer projects. Can the Minister of Education tell this House how much, in total, was spent by districts and the government on this failed computer program?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm so pleased to have a question today in the House, for several reasons. The first one is that my colleague across the way, the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, introduced students from Alberni District Secondary School. The 24 or 25 students who showed up today are the proud beneficiaries of a brand-new school that I had the pleasure of opening on December 7. The over $50 million investment provided an opportunity for an auditorium for community benefit. It has First Nation resource areas and an all-weather field so the community can enjoy the school not just today but for generations to come.

Now in regard to BCeSIS, I think I am one of the few members of the Legislature who actually had the opportunity to use BCeSIS as a teacher. One of the things that I'm very pleased to say is that we are underway in terms of trying to replace BCeSIS with a far better management system for the students, the teachers and the administrators of British Columbia.

In fact, learning from the efforts of BCeSIS 1, we're making sure that we're bringing in, basically, consultants who work in education — teachers, administrators, board office and administrative assistants — who know that when we replace it in the coming years, it'll be a better system that'll better serve the students and the education system of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: I guess I should ask this minister whether he wrote a letter to the Premier when he was a teacher, complaining about the BCeSIS system — like that wonderful letter he wrote complaining about the learning conditions and the teaching conditions in the province of B.C. under the B.C. Liberals.

This BCeSIS system was originally supposed to cost $16 million. Instead, it costs six times that amount — nearly $100 million, not including lost time, training, implementation and licensing costs at the school district level. This minister is still unwilling or unable to admit what the total cost of the BCeSIS system is.

So to the minister, can he explain what due diligence was done before this government locked our education system into this expensive and failed software?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm glad to address the issue of the letter I wrote in 2008. One of the things I not only teach my students but I also endeavour to teach my family is — you know what? — when you don't like something, you can improve it.

One of the things that this B.C. Liberal government has done is…. We're looking to constantly improve the education system of British Columbia. Now, an example that we could use, perhaps — I don't want to steal the proprietary rights from my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie — is uncomfortable facts, if you may.

I believe, though I don't know for sure because they're not my uncomfortable facts; they're theirs…. Let's look at the numbers. In 2005-06, the district I am from, Comox Valley, which by the way, I am very proud to represent…. It had — I will admit; I'm not proud of this — 155 classes over 30 in the district, which is perhaps a little too high.

However, Bill 22…. You might remember that bill, the one we introduced last year. Well, in Comox Valley, let's see, how many classes do we have under 30? Oh, 15 are over 30 this year, sir. And the majority of them are things like fine arts classes and rugby classes, which require over 30 students.

Now I don't want to pause yet, because I haven't got to the LIFT fund. Again, I'm really proud that the fact is that we have invested $195 million over three years.

I will hope for more questions, Mr. Speaker.

[1425]

JUSTIN INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, I'm just thrilled to think that the taxpayers of British Columbia who are watching here today are seeing how much amusement the government draws from laughing about spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars when people are desperate for services in this province.

[ Page 12849 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: It's not just children in care. It's not just in education. This spreads into the Ministry of Attorney General. It's in the justice system. JUSTIN, the justice system's case management database, contains some of the most sensitive information in government, including witness "will say" statements and victim contact information.

A report by the Auditor General has identified very serious failures in that system. Indeed, he compared it to "a public library, since it was easily breached and not equipped to determine whether it had even been breached."

It's very simple. The same problem existed with the CORNET management system, the Corrections case management system. A report in 2008 identified those issues. "The failure to apply recommendations from the CORNET audit to systems like JUSTIN leads me to question the ability of IT leadership and governance around criminal justice information." That's the Auditor General of British Columbia. That's the independent Office of the Auditor General.

I'd like the minister to stand in this House today and explain how and why this government failed to fix this vulnerable system in the last five years.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. The JUSTIN system is absolutely essential as we work through justice issues in British Columbia. In fact, it was implemented in 2001. It was one of the first integrated case management systems that actually existed in North America, so one would expect that as we move through a new technological world, absolutely, there are changes and corrections that need to be made.

Let me be perfectly clear. The minute the Auditor General of British Columbia came to me and said, "There are issues with this system," I immediately directed that the recommendations that the Auditor General brought forward be implemented and, in fact, went to the Auditor General and said: "We need to make sure that, if possible, there's some additional time for us to put those recommendations in place so we protect the privacy of individuals in the system." He agreed. We worked constructively together, and that's exactly what's taken place.

ELECTRICITY RATES AND PURCHASE

OF POWER BY NATURAL GAS COMPANIES

J. Horgan: So we have a ministry with $200 million down the tube, we've got a minister with $100 million down the tube, and we've got a justice system for data entry that has failed as well.

I want to pose my question to the minister responsible for contractual obligations, which he will know have gone up by 300 percent over the past six years. As you will know, hon. Speaker, $96 billion in contractual obligations over the past six years — $59 billion of them at B.C. Hydro.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. He is well aware that B.C. Hydro will have a surplus of energy this year, next year and for the following decade, costing approximately $350 million a year to B.C. Hydro ratepayers — over the course of the next mandate, $1 billion in costs to B.C. Hydro ratepayers. I know the minister is going to say the LNG companies are going to buy it. I want him to name me one LNG company in 2013 that's going to pay $60 more than market rate for electricity. Name me one in 2013.

[1430]

Hon. R. Coleman: Every once in a while we get a glimpse into the policies of the NDP on the opposite side of the House. First of all, they've got a crystal ball, and they can actually predict Hydro rates going out into the future and actually decide what contracts should be and should not be. What a load of bollocks that is.

But you know what we're talking about? We're talking about green energy. You're opposed to green energy. Look at this: bioenergy, using wood waste in smaller communities to replace diesel. Wind energy — opposed to wind energy in communities across B.C. because they don't actually want to see how you can aggregate this into having an environmental system for clean energy in the province of British Columbia.

I'm not going to go back to Raiwind. I'm not going to go back to the 1990s. I'm going to give you a quick quote and close my question — from the 1960s — because this is how the NDP is so good at predicting power. "The opposition leader Robert Strachan claimed Friday that the B.C. government policy to develop both the Peace and Columbia River simultaneous is a political hoax because of insufficient power." This member doesn't get it. He can't predict power in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s or into the 2200s.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Reports from Committees

J. Rustad: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee on Timber Supply — Growing Fibre, Growing Value — for the fourth session of the 39th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[ Page 12850 ]

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

J. Rustad: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so I'd like to make some brief comments.

The special committee unanimous report, entitled Growing Fibre, Growing Value , makes 22 recommendations to increase the supply and value of mid-term timber and to strengthen future forest management in the central Interior of our province.

On October 9, 2012, the government issued a response to the committee's report announcing its support for the committee's recommendations and proposing an action plan to increase mid-term timber supply. The committee went through a very exhaustive approach. The situation we're facing with the mountain pine beetle epidemic is very serious.

I just want to take this opportunity to recognize the members of the committee: the Deputy Chair from Columbia River–Revelstoke, the members from Vernon-Monashee, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Westside-Kelowna, Cowichan Valley and Surrey-Newton. In a short period of time we did a tremendous amount of work during that time, and I really want to thank the members for all of the work and effort that they put in.

In addition, we had two special advisers on the committee, former chief foresters Larry Pedersen and Jim Snetsinger, who travelled with us, who put in just a tremendous amount of effort to make the report become a reality. I really want to thank them for their efforts.

On top of that, Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, who was the executive lead, forest sector initiatives from the ministry, put in a tremendous amount of effort, and the entire team behind the Ministry of Forests. You've got to remember this was a report that was done in a short period of time. A tremendous amount of information was brought forward, and they really stepped up and made an enormous effort.

I would also like to thank the Clerk's office — Kate Ryan-Lloyd as well as the others in the Clerk's office — and Hansard. The amount of travel time and commitment that was required was phenomenal, and they really stepped up and did above and beyond duty to make sure we could actually get through the process.

Finally, I would also, of course, like to thank all British Columbians. We received a tremendous amount of input. We went through and had a lot of public meetings. There was a tremendous amount of written input that came in, which really helped to shape the recommendations we brought forward, which I believe will make an improvement to our forest industry in the coming futures.

With that, I'd like to turn it over, and I welcome any other comments.

N. Macdonald: I just want to join the MLA for Nechako Lakes and the Chair of the Special Committee on Timber Supply in expressing our appreciation from the opposition side to those who supported the work on the committee.

[1435]

The technical advisers, two former chief foresters — Larry Pedersen and Jim Snetsinger — were exceptional resources. The Clerk's office, Hansard staff and ministry staff, both here in the capital as well as on the field, impressed all of us on the committee with both their knowledge and, even more importantly, their passion for the land.

I also want to thank the 650 individuals and groups who participated in the committee's work and contributed to the report. The recommendations from the Timber Supply Committee call for immediate investments in the land and, again, to allow rural communities a voice in land use decisions. The recommendations call for a dramatic change in direction in forest policy, and we need that change urgently.

I ask members to have a look at the committee. I know that New Democrats are committed to action in sustainably managing our public lands. But I think with these reports, it's important that the Legislature give meaning to the committee's report by acting immediately on the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes closes debate.

J. Rustad: I just want to thank the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. There's no question that the mid-term timber supply is a very significant issue, and it is a current issue. I'm very pleased with the response that our government has put together to meeting those recommendations moving forward, especially on some of the areas around forestry management. I look forward in the future to continuing to work with all members of this House to continue to improve our forest policy.

Mr. Speaker: Want to move the adoption of the report?

J. Rustad: Sorry. And in so doing, I move the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

[ Page 12851 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Islands Trust Act, I have the honour to present the 2011-2012 annual report of the Islands Trust.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: We will have second reading on a number of bills this afternoon: No. 4, intituled the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, followed by Bill 6, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act; Bill 3, Destination BC Corp. Act; and Bill 5, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker, if there is time, we will resume debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker: Members, attend to other duties so that we can continue.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — TLA'AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. I. Chong: It is my great honour to rise in the House today to move second reading of this important piece of legislation, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, Bill 4.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This is the fourth treaty to reach the floor of this House under the made-in-B.C. treaty process, following in the footsteps of Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and Yale treaties.

I think it's worth noting that because the Maa-nulth treaty is an agreement with five First Nations and the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated outside the B.C. treaty process, Tla'amin is actually the ninth First Nation to have a treaty introduced in the British Columbia Legislature.

As we are all aware, the treaty process can be slow, sometimes frustratingly so. But we are seeing true progress. The momentum has been growing steadily, and we are now seeing, increasingly, treaties and other treaty-related measures being completed. I am obviously optimistic that this is a trend and that it will continue.

Now, I would like to take a few minutes to share some of the story of the Tla'amin people and how we came to this significant moment. Much of what I will tell you is available on the Sliammon Treaty Society website, and I encourage all of you to read it when you have time, as that is where it is. However, today I would like to provide a small capsule of what you will learn when you go to that website.

[1440]

Most of us know Tla'amin — or Sliammon, as it came to be known following European contact — as a small community north of Powell River located on the northernmost reaches of the Sunshine Coast.

For thousands of years the Tla'amin people lived by traditional forms of governance that covered environmental, social and political relations through a sophisticated system of laws. As some of you may know, archaeologists have conducted extensive research in the region, and archaeological evidence for Tla'amin occupation in the area dates back more than 4,000 years.

Their social, economic, political and spiritual lives have always been based on their relationship with the land. Natural resources in the region have always been plentiful, and trading thrived with neighbouring First Nations. Ancestors of today's Tla'amin members traded with First Nations residing on the Lower Mainland, in the Interior and on Vancouver Island for food and provisions they couldn't get in their own area.

Among them were the Lil'wat, who came from Mount Currie, Pemberton area, trading fibres for twine, deer hides and dried roots. From Shishalh farther down on the Sunshine Coast came smelt and sturgeon, and from the Nuu-chah-nulth along the west coast of Vancouver Island came white grass for the making of baskets, something at which the Tla'amin people excelled.

These are just a few of the neighbouring First Nations with whom the Tla'amin people traded. On their part, the Tla'amin traded surplus quantities of smoked dried salmon, herring, tree bark and shells with these other First Nations. Like other northern Coast Salish peoples, Tla'amin ancestors came together at winter village sites during the cold months but dispersed to separate sites when the winter warmed, sometimes joining other Tla'amin families and even members of other tribes.

Many British Columbians may not be aware of how sophisticated and well managed First Nations resources were. Some harvested resources varied in abundance and availability, just as they do now. So it required planning and management to increase productivity. Several management strategies were used.

Some of the strategies were social. Others required controlling access to the resource, organizing and managing the labour force or simply moving to another area when resources started to dwindle. Other strategies required the intervention of technology such as fishing apparatuses and management of the resource itself, including selective harvesting.

In the 1780s outbreaks of smallpox, measles, tuberculosis and Spanish flu began to appear on the northwest coast as a result of trade with other First Nations, who had been exposed to infected Europeans. These waves of epidemics devastated aboriginal populations wherever they came into contact with Europeans. As a result, it is estimated that by 1915 the Coast Salish population had plummeted from some 12,000 people in 1835 to just more than 4,000.

Throughout the late 1800s First Nations suffered from

[ Page 12852 ]

the effects of colonialism, and their lands were given away or sold to white settlers or expropriated for commercial enterprises. Potlatches and other culturally and spiritually important ceremonies were banned, and proselytizing missionaries became a part of the local culture.

In 1871 B.C. entered Confederation, and in 1876 the federal Indian Act was passed, making First Nations people wards of the Crown.

Well, today the Indian Act continues to oversee the reserve system, the band governance and the designation of native identity under the Indian register. It also oversees the federal government's obligations in broad areas of housing, education and financing.

The Indian Act has left First Nations people with little control over their lands and resources. Under the Indian Act, municipalities, utilities and companies could expropriate reserve lands for roads, railways and other public works. With few exceptions, land title is held by the Crown. It can neither be borrowed against nor be inherited. As a result, simple things that many Canadians take for granted are out of reach for most First Nations people living on reserves, such as acquiring a mortgage to purchase a home.

[1445]

Madam Speaker, treaties are a way for First Nations to get out from under the burden of the Indian Act and to once again govern themselves. Implementation legislation covering the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act — or FNCIDA, the acronym — which was passed earlier this year, also supports First Nations moving toward treaty by easing the way for businesses to operate on reserve.

Why negotiate treaties? Throughout most of Canada historic treaties between colonial governments and indigenous groups set out the rights of aboriginal people with respect to land, hunting and fishing, but early treaty work in British Columbia was never completed. The Douglas treaties cover less than 1 percent of the colony and left the rights and title of the overwhelming majority of native groups unaddressed.

After treaty 8, which the federal government alone negotiated with northern aboriginal groups in 1899, there would be no more treaties in British Columbia until the modern day.

In 2000 the first of B.C.'s modern treaties, the Nisga'a treaty, came into effect. However, it was negotiated outside of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, which was only established in 1992. Since the Nisga'a treaty took effect, the Nisga'a Lisims Government has enacted 180 laws to establish everything from a government member's code of conduct to standards of financial administration, to transparency and accountability in its day-to-day operations.

During the last decade, after a slow start, the B.C. Treaty Commission process has been building momentum. The Tsawwassen First Nation treaty took effect April 3, 2009. The Tsawwassen treaty is the first modern urban treaty and the first treaty completed under the B.C. Treaty Commission.

Since its treaty was implemented, the Tsawwassen legislature has enacted dozens of laws. The treaty also provided the First Nation with tools necessary for it to participate in the local economy. As we approach the four-year mark of the treaty's implementation, we are seeing the many signs of success as the Tsawwassen First Nation moves forward on a number of economic development projects that have now broken ground. Tsawwassen authorities participate in regional government and provide their people with a democratic and accountable government.

The Maa-nulth treaty took effect on April 1, 2011. There are five First Nations that are part of the Maa-nulth treaty. I will apologize to those listening if I should mispronounce, as I have been learning over the past number of months. The five nations that are part of the Maa-nulth treaty are the Huu-ay-aht, the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h', the Toquaht, the Yuu-tluth-aht — formerly the Ucluelet — and the Uchucklesaht. Again, I hope I have done that justice, and I thank the critic for giving me the nod.

As with Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth First Nations now have the tools to participate in the local economy. These First Nations already are acting on the opportunities available to them. Two from the Maa-nulth treaty, the Yuu-tluth-aht and the Huu-ay-aht, now sit as members of the Alberni-Clayoquot local regional district.

Yale First Nation has a final agreement that is waiting to be ratified by Canada. Tla'amin is the next final agreement. Following this, there are other treaties in the making, in the final stages of negotiations, and many more still that are close to having some type of incremental treaty agreement or reconciliation agreement that will provide First Nation members with some of the benefits of treaty ahead of the effective date — benefits such as more certainty on the land and the ability to take advantage of economic opportunities.

Today some people still wonder why we negotiate treaties in British Columbia. The reasons that compel us to negotiate treaties are social, economic, constitutional and legal. But taken together, we make treaties because it is the right thing to do.

We have inherited uncertainty because of our predecessors' refusals to address reconciliation of aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests. Treaties are our main instrument for recognizing and reconciling the rights and interests of First Nations with those of the Crown. Therefore, treaties are always our first priority. We think they are the best and most complete solution not just for land and title issues but for resource-sharing issues.

[1450]

Treaties are the resolution for examining the gamut of issues that surround closing the gap between aboriginal

[ Page 12853 ]

people and other British Columbians on social and economic matters. The social requirement is obvious and pressing. Aboriginal people must enjoy the same quality of life as other British Columbians. Yet at this point many do not. Living under the restrictions of the Indian Act, they do not enjoy the freedom of other citizens.

The economic argument for a treaty is not mere self-interest. It's true the implications of not addressing our outstanding land question affect B.C.'s economy and discourage investment, in some cases, but uncertainty over ownership of land impedes the development of aboriginal communities and economies as well. All our social and economic destinies are inextricably wrapped together.

The B.C. government is committed to negotiating treaties with First Nations in order to bring certainty to land and resource ownership, prosperity to aboriginal communities and recognition of First Nations rights. Treaty is a complete package providing tools for economic and social development, taking First Nations out of the Indian Act and providing governance authority. But the end result of all the work we do is self-determination for aboriginal people across B.C. That includes their choice of how they get there and what tools they choose to use on their journey.

The provincial government has developed a toolbox of flexible options for moving forward that includes revenue-sharing and collaborative management. These types of agreements are building blocks to a fuller reconciliation. For some First Nations communities those building blocks are enough. Others, such as Tla'amin, choose to pursue a treaty final agreement.

However reconciliation occurs, it is one of the foundations of this government's relationship with First Nations, along with respect and recognition. We can never right the wrongs of the past. We are committed, though, as a government to advancing the principles of the new relationship. Since 2005 the provincial government and First Nations together have achieved agreements that touch every corner of the province and range from the symbolic yet powerful recognition of First Nations names to practical, on-the-ground agreements that increase economic and legal certainty for resource and land use.

For the Tla'amin First Nation, the treaty contains tools for realizing economic benefits, building improved infrastructure for members and creating jobs and business opportunities. As important to Tla'amin members are the benefits and opportunities that a treaty will provide to the youth and the children of their community. Under treaty, their children will grow up with the advantages treaty provides, both socially and economically. The Tla'amin people are entrepreneurial in spirit and look forward to the many potential opportunities the treaty will bring, such as access to investment properties, forestry and opportunities for independent power projects.

Tla'amin First Nation already has a respectful, friendly relationship with its neighbours in the city of Powell River and the Powell River regional district. Through the final agreement, Tla'amin becomes a member of the regional hospital district on the effective date of the treaty, and it is possible for this First Nation to become a member of the regional district in the future, when it is ready. It allows Tla'amin the chance to negotiate with its members to secure mutually beneficial arrangements, including service agreements.

The biggest change will be to the mental and bureaucratic hurdles that have long separated Tla'amin and its neighbours. Though they have been neighbours for more than a century, this final agreement will mean a greater reliance on one another and a more equitable government-to-government relationship. Tla'amin will be able to operate from a new position with its business neighbours as well — a position of influence and of strength.

I would like to extend my personal congratulations and those of the British Columbian government to the negotiators for Tla'amin First Nation and to the provincial and federal teams who have worked together for more than 17 years to build the treaty that is before us today. Obviously, we are grateful to you for your dedication and your determination.

[1455]

Of course, when speaking about Tla'amin First Nation, hon. Speaker, I must recognize Chief Clint Williams and the members of the Sliammon Treaty Society. Chief Williams joined us in the chamber just last week on February 14 when this legislation was introduced. He added: "We aim to re-establish our cultural identity that was taken from us." Strong words from that chief.

This government is proud to have a role to play in achieving that worthy goal. Never before in the history of our province have we seen the commitment and tangible successes we are seeing through the relationships that have been built between the British Columbia government and First Nations in recent years. With the Tla'amin treaty we add to those successes. We are witnesses to a remarkable period in history.

For more than 120 years the wall that was placed around First Nations by the reserve system has effectively locked them out of much of the progress others in B.C. have benefited from. Today we take a significant

section out of that wall. Through this legislation, under the leadership of Chief Williams, the Tla'amin First Nation can realize its dreams, whatever Tla'amin decide those may be.

I am honoured to be here as we enter into debate on this legislation to reconcile the injustices of the past and move forward to a more just and inclusive future for our province.

As some of you may know, in 1918 a fire ripped through the area and destroyed all of the original Tla'amin village sites and a great deal of the forest surrounding them. The people of Tla'amin are made of strong stuff. They are sur-

[ Page 12854 ]

vivors, they are rebuilders, and they possess a capable and committed membership who will take their nation to the next step in their ongoing journey. I do hope that I speak for everyone in this House when I say we wish them all very well.

With that, I would invite others to offer their second reading comments.

S. Fraser: I'm honoured today to stand as the official opposition critic for Aboriginal Relations to take

part in the second reading debate of Bill 4, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act. I must say it's always an honour and a privilege. This is the fourth treaty under the treaty process of five, including Nisga'a, that I've been present for in these chambers as an MLA and as the critic also. To be able to witness chiefs and respected elders standing at the Bar addressing all of us on the floor is a powerful thing, I think.

I'm in support of the treaty, as others might have surmised. Certainly, from the applause that Chief Williams received from all sides of the House last week here in the Legislature, I think that was quite clear.

The presentation, I think, is important because the recognition and the respect shown for a leader, or respected elder in some cases, addressing us here, from First Nations, as a nation-to-nation gesture, if you will, in this place is more than symbolic and more than symbolism. It's a real signal of a relationship.

Following on some of the minister's comments, I am not a fan of the Indian Act. I think it's the last race-based piece of legislation left in the world, and it has a dubious past. I know when apartheid was being considered and designed in South Africa, they certainly looked at some of the pieces of our Indian Act and the reservation system to try to implement apartheid — which has long since gone away, thankfully.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

But we still have an Indian Act, and treaty is certainly the main way to get out from under the yoke of the Indian Act. I believe that was the term that Chief Williams used also, and I think it's accurate. I applaud all the nations — and Tla'amin in particular here, as this is before us with the bill — that have been able to achieve a level of autonomy and freedom and coming out from under the Indian Act.

[1500]

That follows other leaders in this House. As Chief Williams was here the other day, I recalled when we were here for Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth, Yale, and one from my constituency, Hereditary Chief Bert Mack from the Toquaht First Nation, one of the five Maa-nulth nations that the minister referred to so eloquently, I must say. Tough words. The Nuu-chah-nulth language is difficult sometimes.

Bert Mack was a friend of mine. I knew him from the '90s. I was on the Clayoquot Sound central region board with him and learned much from him as an elder. He had been a strong advocate for reconciliation and justice for his whole life. It was heartening to see him actually take his place on the floor here. I know he was thrilled to death to see a fruition to some of his significant efforts to bring about change through the B.C. treaty process. That strikes a chord with me because Bert Mack is no longer with us. We lost him last year, and he's dearly missed by all.

It is a patterning in the treaty process, if you will. I know the minister has spoken about the length of time it does take. The treaty process has been with us for two decades, and this is the fourth treaty that's coming to fruition. It still has to go through this House, of course, and then, of course, the federal parliament following that. But we are losing elders, many of the elder statesmen from the First Nations communities that have been involved in the process for so long. I know I share sentiments with members from all sides of the House and the minister that the process does take a long, long time, and we are losing respected elders along the way.

It's nice to see the changes too — Chief Clint Williams, a much younger leader, well-respected just the same but younger — another generation coming forward and they, too, seeking reconciliation.

I must say, the ceremony that happened here last week, prior to us doing first reading here and the addressing of this House by Chief Williams…. At the ceremony that took place near the rotunda in the meeting area prior to this event at lunch time that day, there were two speakers that were brought forward from Tla'amin. They were young men; they were teenagers.

Their words were so powerful and so emotion-filled. I actually don't think there was a dry eye in the House throughout their words, because they are the future, hon. Speaker. They are another generation. They are growing up now, witnessing being freed from coming out from under the Indian Act. There is potential with treaty to do that.

I would note, and with respect to all nations in the province, that we are discussing Bill 4 here, a significant treaty getting through the Legislature in second reading in British Columbia. But the majority of the 203 nations in the province are not actually engaged in the treaty process. So I would acknowledge — and the minister also cited this — that not all are seeing the B.C. treaty process as the way through to reconciliation. I respect — I think I speak for all members — all nations and leaders, whether they are working for reconciliation through the treaty process or through other mechanisms.

[1505]

I'm an optimist. I would like to see the treaty process addressing some of the problems that are preventing other nations from coming forward. There is the feel-

[ Page 12855 ]

ing by many nations that there's a requirement for extinguishment of unidentified rights, sometimes unspecified rights, to come into the treaty process. I know that hinders many from entering the process.

I would also note that the treaty process spans the House. The first treaty under Nisga'a, as the minister rightly stated, was prior to the B.C. treaty process, which was created in '92, actually. That process spans both governments, the NDP and now Liberal. They take a long time.

It would be really wonderful to find a way to move the treaty process through a lot quicker so that those nations, even those within the treaty process that sort of…. Many have given up, because it seems like the resources are not allowing for those lower down in the treaty process to actually move forward with any kind of speed.

Then there is the issue of the debt that is incurred by the nations — all the nations, those who achieve treaty and those that are sort of stuck or mired somewhere in the treaty process, not moving quickly. There is still a federal debt that is incurred by those nations. I think in some cases it's punitive, and it's contrary to moving nations forward through that reconciliation process.

Because we see a limited number of these treaties, it makes them stand out more, I think. We take notice of them more because they are important to all nations.

Seeing another one achieving reconciliation is certainly heartening again, and hearing the words from the young people of the nation is a powerful thing. They can see a light at the end of the tunnel, a future where they are an autonomous nation within their own right, and that is important. It is about justice. It is about reconciliation, and it is about respect. So seeing that process coming to fruition in this House is an honour.

The process that led us to this bill being read today…. Just for those watching, this is second reading of Bill 4, so this treaty will go through a committee stage — the bill itself. We'll have an opportunity to ask questions for clarifications about the treaty and how it's meant and what it's meant to mean. There are

definitions that we will go through and that I will ask the minister to clarify for those that are watching.

The pattern that we've seen through the other three treaties — we can follow that to some extent as we peruse the document itself, Bill 4, and see how the Tla'amin Final Agreement actually matches with the other three agreements that we've seen. Of course, it's following the same pattern.

In this particular treaty, we're seeing that the Tla'amin First Nation, which has just over 1,000 population, the membership…. Its main community is on the Indian Reserve No. 1 north of Powell River. My colleague for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the MLA, is with us in the House today and, of course, helped introduce the other members to the Chief and some of the elders that were there at the ceremony.

It is a process that the Tla'amin have been through since 1994, almost as long as the treaty process itself has been in place. I would also maybe make a comment. I'm going to assume…. I don't want to speak for the minister or the negotiators on behalf of the ministry, but there is a hope that this will move through the federal system with some speed.

There has been some criticism, certainly, from members of the Tla'amin First Nation and from others involved in the process that the federal process is a bit of a problem. It is a bottleneck that needs to be opened up. We're hoping, as we get through this House, that it's not just going to run into a logjam in Ottawa.

[1510]

I mean that with no disrespect to Ottawa, but there have been issues, fisheries issues and others, where the mandate is unclear in the federal government. I know there is a hope that this will make it through this limited session that we have, through this Legislature, so that the Tla'amin treaty can move forward to the federal level and then on to actual implementation of the treaty, which may take a while, considering some of the record at the federal level.

There's a land agreement here — 8,322 hectares of land — and a cash settlement of almost $30 million. That would be over ten years. Plus there's an economic development fund of almost $7 million and a smaller fund dealing with fishing vessels, a fund for that within the nation as part of the agreement, Bill 4, that we're seeing today.

For those that know the treaty, there was work done in advance of the treaty, certainly. The Tla'amin have received $100,000 in pre-treaty funding, actually for restoring an important river restoration project. So there was a revenue-sharing agreement that happened in that, that predated this treaty, but was indeed part of the treaty process and negotiation, if you will.

Some treaty nations are embarked on incremental treaty, and we are seeing some of the resources of treaty actually coming to bear prior to the actual signing of final treaty. We have a sort of mixed bag, as I think the minister was referring to, of different ways of addressing reconciliation in the province.

Some of these means and mechanisms work for some nations, and some do not. I have respect for those nations that take advantage of revenue-sharing agreements and such. There are many nations that, without being in the treaty process, are still getting some level of recognition and reconciliation because of that.

With that in mind, I'm standing today as the opposition critic, as we're on second reading of Bill 4, Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, supporting the Tla'amin people and their bid for reconciliation through the treaty process. We do support that bid. It's been nearly two decades, so I applaud Chief Williams, the chiefs before him, the negotiators for the nation and the negotiators for

[ Page 12856 ]

the province to get it this far — and the federal negotiators, too — and applaud them for the patience they have shown and for opening a door for the next generation, those young people that we saw in the Legislature last week. I think they said it all.

With that, hon. Speaker, I shall take my seat.

N. Simons: I would like to join the minister and my colleague in congratulating the Tla'amin First Nation on their successful tabling of the legislation, Bill 4, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act.

Last week, indeed, was an important day for Tla'amin, and it was a wonderful opportunity to connect with some of the folks from the Powell River region who I see fairly regularly. To have them here in the House was particularly enjoyable.

During the minister's comments prior to the announcement of the tabling of the legislation it was mentioned that this treaty was controversial. It was interesting that that was incorporated within the actual words of introduction. You know, I think whenever we have an agreement of this scope there will be some controversy.

Now, as we all know, the vote itself was very close. We know that after 19 years, after hundreds of documents were reviewed and countless traditional-use studies were undertaken — research of a magnitude that is difficult to comprehend — this agreement came about, contrary to the wishes of just a large number of the First Nations people in Tla'amin. I have to just say that it troubles me. It bothers me that, in fact, there is that division. It's not a criticism of division, and it's not a criticism of the fact that there are differing opinions on something as important as treaty.

[1515]

What troubles me is that the process itself wasn't capable of addressing some of the early controversies. I have the greatest respect for Chief Williams, and we work well together. I've worked well with Chief Paul and Chief Harry. I think I'm upfront with them about issues, as I am with other people about issues, and I think it was recognized that this is partly a difficult challenge that needs to be overcome.

I think, when we have a division in the community over a policy issue of significance, over the policy issue of treaty, we have to make sure that we can put into place mechanisms that will allow the community to heal. And I was so pleased to hear Chief Williams talk about the need for healing. Other people might call it a bringing together of people to understand and to work towards the beneficial aspects of this particular treaty.

The treaty is, in fact, the end of a process, the end of a treaty process, and the beginning of a potentially new kind of relationship, and that in itself is important. But really, ultimately, the changes that will be impacted or that will be felt by the community are the changes that we hope come in terms of….

Will the children be nurtured to the extent…? Will they have the ability to provide for the children as other children in this province are provided for? Will their education system be that which is similar or equal to or better than the education systems that we in non-aboriginal communities have for our children? Will the child protection system be one that nurtures strengths in the family and promotes resilience? Will job opportunities be accessible to the Tla'amin youth? Will opportunities for economic development truly be capitalized upon by the people of that community?

Treaty in itself is an important, significant event, but ultimately, what we are looking for is a better quality of life for the people of Tla'amin. My hope is that with vigilance from all parties involved, from all corners and all opinions in the communities, we find a way of making things work well for the people who we are neighbours with and who we join with in recreation activities and in economic opportunities and who are our neighbours and our friends and our brothers and sisters.

I think we need to think of this treaty as more than just a statement of future relationships. We need to work on those relationships and make sure that in fact the hopes of the people of Tla'amin are achieved with or without the treaty. I respect the fact that the community had a vigorous debate. In some situations it's very important that people on different sides of an issue can speak freely about the concerns that they've had.

I would have liked to have seen a system wherein the parties could have benefited from as much assistance as possible to overcome those challenges. At the end of the day the process that we have allows for the 50 percent plus one to carry the treaty day or not. I would say that it's too bad that people were still not able to at least come to some understanding that the treaty itself would be beneficial to everyone.

My sincere hope, as a representative of the area in the provincial Legislature, is that we will be able to achieve the economic goals together, that we will be able to show those who are concerned that in fact the lives of their children and their children's children and the future generations will be better.

[1520]

What it comes down to is that you have two parties negotiating, essentially, an agreement that will guide the relationships for generations to come, and when we look at it objectively, we see the Crown and the First Nations coming together not exactly on equal footing. We have the federal and provincial governments that have the financial resources to, essentially, meet all of their needs. And you have a community that, because of a series of policies from a series of governments through decades and decades, is put in a position where their financial capacity to be seen as having the same tools at their disposal as the Crown…. I think that inequality is a problem in and of itself.

[ Page 12857 ]

We still have opportunities to work towards improving conditions of First Nations people, with or without the treaty. I happen to represent, now, a constituency with two First Nations — one, the Sechelt First Nation, which was the first in Canada to have self-government in 1986. Under a Social Credit government the Sechelt First Nation achieved self-government. They have the authority under the Sechelt Self-Government Act, to administer child protection programs, social development programs — administer the vast majority of programs that have been funded by provincial and federal government.

Now the Tla'amin First Nation, which is soon to have a treaty defining the relationship with government.

So I have two very distinct, very different situations with respect to the First Nations in our community. But what they share is that they have been on this land, the Sunshine Coast, what some people call the Gulf Coast Riviera….

Interjection.

N. Simons: It's before your time. Don't worry.

They've been on that land since time immemorial — village sites dating as far back, they estimate, as 8,000 or 9,000 years.

So the future for the Tla'amin First Nation is never going to be easily predictable. But what we do hope is that through good policy and through respectful, honourable negotiation, the tools that the Tla'amin people need and desire are at their disposal.

Of course, the treaty itself isn't without controversial points, but who am I to comment on whether it's a good or not-good treaty? The Crown has negotiated with the people of Tla'amin. The process that has been put in place has resulted in this agreement being affirmed in a vote in 2011.

There was concern about the length of time the federal government took to agree. We're hoping that the federal government doesn't stall too much in the next process.

I have comments about the whole treaty process that I think have very little to do specifically with the Tla'amin First Nation's treaty but, I think, need to be addressed eventually if, in fact, treaties can do something to bring communities together.

While I think that the current situation…. The First Nations people in the communities that I've visited are very capable of managing the disagreements that exist, and any community has disagreements. This is just one on an issue that's fairly significant. My hope is that through good dialogue, good planning, open dialogue, the differences will be eliminated and, in fact, that people will go into the future comfortable that the decisions made by the leadership are going to be beneficial.

[1525]

I would be remiss not to mention that the elders of the Tla'amin First Nation, who have guided the leadership, were an important

part in this treaty-making. The young people who came here to Victoria spoke with great passion about what they believe treaty means for them. I'm hoping that their anticipation of good things to come in the future is shared by even those who haven't been supportive of this treaty, because ultimately, what we're hoping for is a better quality of life, a reduction in inequality and hope for the future.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity and join the minister in wishing the Tla'amin people all the best.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call on the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

Hon. I. Chong: Before I move the motion, I want to take this opportunity to thank the critic, the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, for offering his remarks on behalf of the official opposition in terms of their support for the legislation. Certainly, that's necessary as we move forward. I appreciate him indicating the kinds of questions we can anticipate in the committee stage, which is really to go through a number of areas of definition.

I just want to say, though, that this treaty is modelled after the other three that have been done. The critic, I think, is very familiar with the aspects of that, so it should be a very robust but very productive exchange as well.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would also like to thank the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast for his comments. Clearly, the Tla'amin First Nation is in his area, and I know he has had much interaction with them. It was evident when they were here on Thursday last, the familiarity they had with him and he with them. Certainly, I appreciate that.

The overall comments, though, that I think we would agree with are about ensuring we move the treaty process along. From the very first treaty, the final agreement that was brought into this House, as I recall, with Tsawwassen…. I remember Chief Kim Baird saying that it is important to be able to negotiate and to have a final agreement in place. It may not be perfect, but it will allow us to move forward, because if we were to wait until everything was in place and it were to be perfect, we may never get there and we would lose a generation.

I think the two members who spoke, who were at the ceremony that day, saw the youngest person of the Tla'amin First Nation there, one-month-old Tobin Leblanc. His father and mother were here and wanted him to be here for that historic day and say that this is the first child who will be a part of never knowing what it is like to be under the Indian Act. I found that very heartwarming, very significant and very moving.

Again, I appreciate the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast acknowledging that this particular final agreement brought about some controversy. I guess I

[ Page 12858 ]

prefer to say that there are certainly differences of understanding. People understand what is there; they just have a difference of how they perceive that. That will always happen. But the importance of moving that forward — again, it's incumbent on all of us to do that.

I want to close by just acknowledging, as well, the treaty process. The B.C. Treaty Commission was established in 1992, as I indicated earlier — so 20 years in the process. However, significantly much more movement in the last five or six years. We have a number of First Nations who are currently negotiating final agreements — about four of them; I can tell him that. And 44 First Nations are currently negotiating agreements-in-principle, which is stage 4 of the treaty process. There are six stages to that, a final agreement being stage 5.

But in spite of not being able to get to a final agreement and the long process it takes, I should say that the tools that our government has brought in, the non-treaty-agreement tools we have brought in, have certainly allowed us to move them along. I have heard members of the opposition in the past speak, I would say, favourably on them and would hope that they will continue to be supportive of these as we move forward.

In particular, under our B.C. jobs plan, we made a commitment that we would sign ten non-treaty agreements within four years. When the jobs plan was introduced in 2011, we thought it might take us four years, to 2015. We in fact signed the tenth one in January of 2013, so we were a full two years ahead.

[1530]

I think, again, that speaks well of the negotiators, the people in the ministry, the very professional staff who I take my hat off to each and every day, who are able to use these tools and use them in a very professional, productive way so that First Nations can have more economic certainty and benefits more quickly to them before we get to a final agreement.

With that, I want to again thank the members for their input and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading on Bill 6, intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013.

BILL 6 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. B. Bennett: I move that Bill 6, intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, be read for the second time now.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm pleased to move that the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, be read for the second time. I'm presenting this legislation today in response to a request from local governments generally, and also the city of Vancouver specifically, for legislative amendments.

There are five amendments in total. One of these will amend the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter to allow all local governments to send property taxes electronically. This is considered a commonsense, efficient and environmentally friendly service that local governments can offer taxpayers. This will be at the request of the taxpayer and is voluntary.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

As well, there are four amendments to the Vancouver Charter requested by the city of Vancouver. The legislation will provide authority to provide the option of being able to pay for parking with a credit card or phone, not just cash; close a loophole in relation to tax sales; authorize city council to use up to five years for land assessment averaging to calculate annual property taxes; and regulate and enforce hours of liquor service.

The first amendment relating to parking fees is primarily to update the legislation, bringing the Vancouver Charter in line with the authorities available to all other municipalities in the province.

The tax sale amendment closes a loophole. This amendment ensures that in the event that a tax sale is overturned by council because of a legal or procedural error, an unsuccessful purchaser gets back the amount they initially deposited to the city. It protects the city from being required to pay more money than they received from the unsuccessful purchaser initially.

The land assessment averaging amendment allows the city of Vancouver to use up to five years for land assessment averaging to calculate annual property taxes. Currently they use three years.

While the three-year averaging method is available to all municipalities to determine property taxes, at present no others are using it. They simply use B.C. Assessment's current-year assessed value. However, due to the nature of the Vancouver real estate market, the city has for years used a method of three-year averaging versus looking only at the current year. The city expects that by extending their ability to average from three to five years,

[ Page 12859 ]

they will ensure a more stable and predictable tax system for the city and for residents.

This legislation will not impact assessments. In addition, the city will continue to determine taxation levels for businesses and residents as it does now.

Finally, the last amendment regarding licensed establishments' hours of operation is designed to clarify the city's power to regulate hours of operation for restaurants with liquor licences. Current legislation required clarity because some operators have liquor licences that allow them to serve alcohol longer than the city bylaws allow. Clarification ensures that the city has the right to enforce their acceptable business hours.

All other municipalities under the Community Charter have the authority to establish hours of operation for businesses in their communities and can require licensees to close earlier than the time specified on their provincial liquor licence through their business regulation and licensing powers. This amendment will bring Vancouver's authorities into line with other municipalities and allows the city to promote equity amongst licensed restaurants regarding their hours of operation.

The amendment to allow for electronic delivery of property tax notices has been asked for by all local governments in the province. The Vancouver Charter amendments have been requested by the city of Vancouver. The Union of B.C. Municipalities supports all of the amendments.

I ask that all members lend their support to this piece of legislation.

H. Lali: I take my place on Bill 6, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013. I want to thank the minister for his comments just a few seconds ago and also want to say to the minister that we will be supporting this piece of legislation.

[1535]

There's nothing really of any kind of conflicting nature or controversial nature that is in here. As the minister has pointed out, the changes are being made as a result of requests that were made by municipalities. The UBCM is supportive of that, and also the city of Vancouver.

I'll be just speaking briefly, and then I'll have some questions, obviously, during the committee stage.

The amendments are to the Community Charter and also to the Vancouver Charter. The minister just highlighted that the legislation allows municipalities to be able to send out property tax notices electronically. I know municipalities, mayors and councillors, regional districts have been asking for that for a while now — to be able to do that, as most folks are able to get their utility bills by e-mail, etc. So this sort of brings the municipalities up to speed on that as well.

This is also very, very efficient and supports the environment. We can reduce the amount of paper that goes into recycling, and often a lot of it ends up being in the landfills. It's actually good for the environment to be able to do that.

I just want to also assure, as the minister has, that there is still a choice for those folks who perhaps don't own a computer because they can't afford one, or, in a lot of cases with a lot of elderly folks, you know, they don't have e-mails or computers at home. They still have the choice to be able to receive their notices by the old-fashioned way, Canada Post, or if there's home delivery, door-to-door. So they can still do that, and I'm glad that the choice is available for folks to be able to do that.

As the minister has also pointed out, some of the additional amendments help to actually modernize the Vancouver Charter, make it more efficient. For instance, one of them is, actually, providing the option of being able to pay for parking with a credit card or by phone, not just cash. This is obviously good for a lot of folks, but there have been, in places where that service is available…. It's actually problematic for some folks when the system breaks down and they can't get through — the phone or the system breaks down. Obviously, we'll have some questions on how this is going to be able to work for folks. We'll do that at committee stage.

We are also supportive of the amendment that allows the city's power to regulate the operating hours for licensed restaurants. Obviously, you've got a mishmash of liquor licences allowing certain restaurants extra hours to be open. The amendment to the Vancouver Charter allows the city of Vancouver to be able to have something in place that is uniform. You won't get complaints from the public, and also, at the same time, restaurateurs know what the rules of the game are, rather than having to have a different set of hours because of the liquor licence.

Also, another amendment closes the loophole in relation to the amount of money to be returned to an unsuccessful purchaser in a tax sale so that they get back no more than their original deposit. Obviously, this clears the way so that there's…. It reduces any conflicts or requests from folks who are unsuccessful trying to get extra moneys out of the municipality as a result of being unsuccessful so that there's no conflict or any court cases that may arise from that.

Of course, the final amendment there is allowing the city council to use up to five years for land assessment averaging to calculate annual property taxes. Again, this is also a good thing. It certainly gives a better picture, a clearer picture, over five years compared to three years. It could be that the three years that were used previously…. There was a spike, and then also there's an impending downturn. So over a five-year period it gives you a better average, a clearer picture.

The majority of these changes that the city of Vancouver had requested actually brings the city of Vancouver's authority into line with other B.C. municipalities. I like to joke with my own caucus colleagues that it brings the city of Vancouver up to the standards we use up in rural B.C.

[ Page 12860 ]

So this is something that they're finally getting.

[1540]

I know the press release that was put out by the minister said that all of the amendments here are supported by the city of Vancouver. So far they haven't said that publicly. I'm not questioning whether they're supportive, but I'm just sort of wondering. Publicly, they haven't stated that.

We will have some questions at committee stage, but one of the concerns that I'd like to raise is some of the stuff that's actually not in the bill. I know that while this bill actually comes in response to requests from local government, there are also many other issues that the local governments have requested action on from the province that the province actually is not responding to.

Most notably, I want to bring to the attention of the minister the continued delay on legislation to reform municipal elections, as was promised in 2010 after the report of the Local Government Elections Task Force. The minister has announced that this legislation is not going to be ready until the fall of 2013, which is actually nearly three years after the report was initially presented. That's a long time.

I know all of these changes that are in the act were amongst the changes that were requested by officials in the city of Vancouver, officials in municipalities, UBCM, in order to make elections fair. That was a major concern they'd asked for, and a lot of members of the public, as well, and individuals who had run in elections.

We have concerns that the minister and the government have not included those changes, and here we are, three years later. I know the present minister was also the past minister at the time, and then he was not in this ministry for a while as well. He's back in as minister for this ministry. So he's well aware of the Local Government Elections Task Force that was there and why it should take almost three years. We have to wait until the fall of 2013 to be able to see some of those changes come into place. Well, the minister was able to make that…. Those are some of the concerns.

As I mentioned earlier, we will be supporting this bill, and we'll have some questions at committee stage. I thank the Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to put our caucus concerns on the table.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister for Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I don't have much more to say other than that the city of Vancouver did, in fact, ask for these amendments from the province, so I would assume that the city of Vancouver is pleased and will probably say so soon.

I have to say that it's a great day, and probably a first, when the member for Fraser-Nicola and I can agree on something. I really do think that's worth noting.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I do have to say, however, that his references to the local government elections legislation are somewhat mischievous in the context of what we're supposed to be discussing here, but that's fine. Perhaps the member will choose to ask me a question in question period about that some day.

I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for….

Mr. Speaker: No, you've got to do second reading.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry. I move second reading, hon. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration by the House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for second reading of Bill 3, intituled Destination BC Corp. Act.

BILL 3 — DESTINATION BC CORP. ACT

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 3 be read for a second time now.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. P. Bell: Bill 3 sets out the statutory framework for Destination B.C., which is a brand-new industry-led and provincially organized tourism destination marketing organization.

[1545]

In establishing Destination B.C., we're following through on commitments made by our Premier when she went through her leadership bid, which was reinforced in the Canada Starts Here document, as well as the B.C. jobs plan and the government's tourism strategy, Gaining the Edge.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

As part of the B.C. jobs plan, the government invited

[ Page 12861 ]

the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. to strike a task force, charged with providing options for a new destination marketing organization in the province of British Columbia. The model chosen for Destination B.C. was one of the options presented by the task force.

The legislation sets out a framework for Destination B.C. that will provide greater responsiveness to the tourism industry and increased accountability to the taxpayer. To be more responsive to the industry, this legislation requires that a board of Destination B.C. establish a tourism marketing committee, and that's a unique point of difference.

The tourism marketing committee will be comprised of members representing the six different regions of the tourism industry around the province. The committee will provide advice to the board and chief executive officer on matters related to marketing strategies and the three-year marketing priorities and outcomes and the tourism performance indicators.

For continued accountability to government, the legislation provides government with the final say over who is appointed to the board. The government can also rescind the appointments to the board.

The legislation also provides that beginning March 31 of 2014, funding for the corporation will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. This amount will be equal to the portion of provincial sales tax. Specifics on this funding model will be set out in regulation, and we're still in discussions with the industry on how that should be shaped.

This change does not impact government's fiscal plan. Although Destination B.C. was established under the Business Corporations Act, establishing it as a Crown corporation through statute provides greater transparency and funding certainty for industry stakeholders and for the public.

During the past decade tourism in B.C. grew more rapidly than our economy as a whole. Establishing Destination B.C. as a statutory Crown corporation shows this government's continuing commitment to foster growth in the tourism industry.

I'm very pleased with the nine individuals who were selected to sit on the board. Andrea Shaw has a very, very strong record. She's a founding and managing partner of the Twentyten Group. She's an executive vice-president for Encompass International. Previously, Ms. Shaw was the vice-president of sponsorship sales and marketing for the very successful Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

Susan Doi is general counsel and corporate secretary at Whistler-Blackcomb. She studied law at the University of Ottawa prior to working at Goodmans LLP, then moved in-house as counsel for Telus communications, and later the on-line marketing firm Blast Radius.

Gordon Fitzpatrick is the president of CedarCreek Estate Winery. Previously, Mr. Fitzpatrick served as the chairman of the B.C. Wine Institute. He's currently a director of the Canadian Vintners Association, the British Columbia Estate Winery Association, the Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association and was a member of the Minister's Council on Tourism, although he has now stepped down as a result of his appointment.

Chief Gibby Jacob carries the title of the hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation. Chief Jacob has been elected to council since December of 1981 and has served eight consecutive four-year terms and is a strong advocate for the tourism industry.

Wendy Lisogar-Cocchia is the president of Absolute Spa Group, the executive vice-president of the Century Plaza Hotel and Spa. Wendy currently serves as the immediate past chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Laird Miller is the chief financial officer of London Drugs. He's also the chief financial officer of Sonora Resort, a B.C. luxury wilderness resort, and London Air Services, an executive charter airline.

Loring Phinney is the vice-president of corporate marketing for Bell Canada. Previously, Mr. Phinney was executive vice-president at Cossette Communications Group.

Robert Pratt is the president of Coast Hotels and Resorts. Previously, Mr. Pratt was the chief operating officer for the Westmont Hospitality Group.

Finally, Al Raine is in his second term as mayor at Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Municipality. Mr. Raine has successfully managed a number of different resort property businesses, both at Sun Peaks and at Whistler.

Destination B.C., I think, is the right model for us to have a successful provincial destination marketing organization going forward, because it combines the two elements that I spoke about previously. It is a professional board where members are appointed based on the skill sets that they bring to the board, whether it be around governance or legal or accounting services or marketing services.

[1550]

Then the marketing committee is made up of 18 individuals, three from each of six regions around the province. As someone who comes from a farther-flung part of the province, I find it very comforting to know that there will be three representatives from the region.

This was a proposal that was brought forward by the task force. I thought it was an excellent one. I can claim no ownership over this whatsoever. It was absolutely the idea of the task force, and I think it's an excellent one, because it provides for the joint accountability that is so important for Destination B.C. to be successful.

Destination B.C. needs to be accountable to the industry to make sure that every single dollar that is spent is spent in a way that maximizes the marketing benefit from those expenditures. But it also needs to be accountable to the taxpayer, because the taxpayer wants to know that money is being spent in an open and transparent manner and that it's being spent in a way that would meet the

[ Page 12862 ]

standards of generally accepted accounting principles, as well as standards that are imposed upon government.

I'm very pleased with the model that has been created. I'd like to congratulate Dave Butler, who is the chair of the task force, along with all of the members of the task force. It has been a long project, perhaps longer…. I know that has been, perhaps, one of the criticisms: that it's taken longer than it should. Sometimes good things take a while, and I think in this particular case we've got a very, very good outcome.

With that, I am looking forward to hearing comments from the opposition and from members of the government side.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, let me say yes, it has been a long time coming, and certainly, that has been one of the criticisms. The minister is right.

But I'll start off on a positive note, just to congratulate the minister on bringing the act, finally, to the floor. I know we'd hoped that this could come in the session that was scheduled for the fall, but that, for reasons unclear to me, never happened. I'd like to congratulate the minister for finally bringing this to the floor.

I'd also like to thank the minister for his time as Tourism Minister, as an MLA and as a minister. Of course, I learned yesterday, as did we all, that the minister is going to be retiring after this election, and I just want to say thank you for your service. To the minister: I hope that you have many, many, many more wonderful moments with Brenda in your community of Prince George.

But as the minister knows, he and I like to have fun with each other sometimes. I think my hair is a little bit longer than his, perhaps. I might be a little bit younger, but we've really enjoyed our times working the tourism file. Certainly, if I'm in a community, chances are the minister will be following right behind me, or he'll be there first, and then I'll follow right after. One way or another we end up at all the same parties, the same conferences, working with the same people. I've really enjoyed that process.

Of course, there were a number of other Tourism Ministers before him. I think he's the fourth Tourism Minister that I've had in my short time as an MLA. That speaks, I think….

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: But he lasted the longest, he says — the fourth minister, but he lasted the longest. That is a good thing.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Not done with him yet. No, that is for sure.

But here we are today to talk about the Destination BC Corp. Act, Bill 3. I think it's important that we reflect on how we got here. The minister started to discuss a bit of the history, a rather abbreviated version of the history.

Of course, members in this House will know that back in the 1990s this House voted to establish Tourism B.C., an industry-led, formula-funded tourism marketer for our province. Members on both sides…. A New Democrat government supported this. Many of the Liberal members supported it because they believed that we needed industry leadership and formula funding for tourism.

That organization continued for many years, both under the NDP and under the Liberals, bringing increased visitation to our province, increased dollars into our communities, helping to spread the word that tourism is a great thing for British Columbia's economy. It's something we need to grow. They did incredible studies, research, community plans. They worked very closely with communities. Part of the reason why it worked so well was that it was industry-led, and it was formula-funded so that we had predictability of funding.

Now, we continued. We got close to the Olympics. Of course, you'll remember, right after the 2009 election this current government, the Liberal government, decided to blow up Tourism B.C. It was an industry leader, it won awards all over the world, and it was very successful.

[1555]

For reasons unclear to anybody but themselves, this government decided to get rid of Tourism B.C. as an industry-led and formula-funded entity. The minister at the time argued that it was more efficient for government to be the tourism marketer, that it was more efficient to not have any certainty of funding, which was what the reality was once you got rid of Tourism B.C.'s industry leadership — the firing of the board, the firing of the CEO — and got rid of the Hotel Room Tax Act, which allowed formula funding for Tourism B.C. So that was the argument that the government made at the time.

We, of course, on this side of the House and the NDP said: "No, that doesn't make sense. We need industry leadership. We need formula funding." I believe that I read into this House a number of quotations from Liberals who argued for those exact same principles, only to turn their heads away from their own principles and go with the model that was government-led, inconsistently funded. That's what the Liberals argued. They thought this was the good thing to do right before the Olympics.

Now, we continued — the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., which was then, at the time, known as the Council of Tourism Associations — to argue that no, it did not make sense; that no, we needed industry leadership; that we should listen to the business people and the tourism industry; that it didn't make sense to politicize it. But the government continued.

Now, I was concerned at the time because we'd been building up to the Olympics. We'd been spending mil-

[ Page 12863 ]

lions, billions, to get ready for what turned out to be very successful games. But you know….

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: That's right. It's kind of like Pavlov's dogs. You say Olympics, and the Liberals start to cheer. I guess those memories, the nostalgia for better days…. But so it is. I think there's something to that, but we'll get back to the Olympics in this discussion.

Now, the Auditor General may be a sore point. I don't see the Liberals clapping their hands when we talk about the Auditor General, but that's another thing.

The Auditor General argued very convincingly that tourism would be the great benefactor. They would be the ones that benefited from the Olympics, because we would have an international profile. People would know who we were, and they would want to come here after they saw the incredible locations, the incredible places that we have — that we saw the cultural richness of our province. That was always the argument the Liberals made. They said we would double tourism because of the Olympics.

I believe that the minister at the time, after demolishing Tourism B.C., said that we would still double tourism — by 2015, I believe it was. That didn't go so well. Of course, six months before the games, getting rid of your marketer and disrupting plans might be part of that.

So what else happened? Well, the budget for Tourism B.C. was reduced after the Olympics — another thing that the government said they wouldn't do. They said they would actually maintain strong, stable funding for tourism marketing because you needed to seal the deal.

I remember listening to Rick Antonson talking about how the six months right after the Olympics was the time that you would be able to connect and get those people here. Well, instead of connecting and getting those people here, disruption, chaos and budget reductions were the order of the day from this government.

So we didn't see a giant leap for tourism in 2011 or in 2012 and, so far, in 2013, as we had hoped and as the public was told to expect if we were going to spend so much money on the Olympics. In part, I think, that's because the Liberals decided to get rid of Tourism B.C.

Now, what does that look like? Why is this important? Why is formula funding important?