2011
Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2011
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Tributes
MEL COUVELIER
M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with sadness to inform the House of the passing of our colleague and friend Mel Couvelier. Mel was MLA for Saanich North and the Islands from 1986 to 1991 and was Minister of Finance during those years.
Mel had many successes in both private and elected life. He was an alderman and mayor of Saanich. He was the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, president of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities and president of the Liberal Party of B.C.
He was committed to community service his entire life and still sat on the board of the Horticultural Centre of the Pacific, which he helped found in the 1980s, at the time of his death.
Mel leaves behind his much-loved wife, Millie; their sons, Rod and Rick; daughter, Melissa; and their families. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you, on behalf of all members of this House, send condolences to Mel's family.
Hon. C. Clark: I also rise today to mark the passing of Mel Couvelier. He was a distinguished member of this Legislature and a distinguished citizen as well as a distinguished Finance Minister.
Provincial politics was one stop in a lifetime, though, for Mel Couvelier of political and public service. He was on the municipality of Saanich. He was a longtime mayor. He did countless good works until his passing. Most importantly, all of his life he demonstrated the value of public engagement. He demonstrated that you can bring people together in a noble way.
Mel Couvelier was a gentleman. I had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Couvelier a month after I became Premier. He came to visit me in my office here. He told me he was honoured to come meet with me when, in fact, it was me who was honoured to meet with him. He generously spent that time with me a few weeks ago, offering me the three best pieces of advice I've gotten since I became Premier.
I will miss his advice. I believe all British Columbians will miss his contributions. He was a great British Columbian. He cared deeply about this province, and he gave us all we could ever have asked of him.
A. Dix: I'd just like to join, on behalf of the official opposition, in the remarks made by the Premier. Mel Couvelier was a remarkable guy. He was a great spirit in our province. I think it reflects how much he meant, in the sort of partisan nature of B.C. politics, that he was appointed, in fact, by the NDP government to important posts after he left the provincial cabinet with the Social Credit Party. He was respected all over British Columbia, and all of us will miss him.
Introductions by Members
J. Yap: I have one introduction to make. A dear friend and constituent is here visiting Victoria, first time in the Legislature of British Columbia. We had lunch with him today in the legislative dining room. He's an old crony of an officer of the Legislature, a former RCMP colleague of our Sergeant-at-Arms, so it was wonderful to sit in and listen. They were regaling me as an observer with some past stories of their time together in the RCMP.
Now he's here. Peter Boddy is here visiting us from Richmond-Steveston. He's a great friend, and professionally, he's moved on from the RCMP and currently is employed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. Would the House please give a warm welcome to Peter Boddy.
D. Routley: Isn't the best part of our job to welcome school groups here? I know that it is the best part of my experience here. You get to speak with these young people about what happens here, and I always tell them what Mr. MacMinn told a high school student that I brought. He said: "We teach you in school to work cooperatively and productively. This isn't that kind of place." And he says: "There's anger and passion in this chamber for a good reason, so that there isn't riot in our streets." So I remind them of that and then ask them to forgive what they're about to witness in question period.
That being said, I'd like the House to help me welcome the students from Ecole Davis Road in Ladysmith, along with their teacher and some parents.
I have one other introduction. Yesterday I had the pleasure of introducing my CAs. Our constituency assistants do their work most productively by building relationships. They do it within government and throughout the province. They even do it with tourists in the building.
Yesterday my constituency assistant Patty McNamara met Diane and Ricardo Bembella. They're visiting us from Santa Barbara. Diane is a nurse, and Ricardo is an accountant. They were impressed by the building and the difference in our systems. I'd like the House to help us welcome our visitors from Santa Barbara, the Bembellas.
Hon. I. Chong: I am pleased to, first and foremost, welcome a former colleague of ours back to the Legislature. She's on the floor of the House here. Olga Ilich served as MLA for Richmond Centre from 2005 to 2009. She served, as well, as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts and Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. I know from time to time she does come back and visit. Being that this is our last week here, I think she wanted to observe how question period has changed for the better since her departure.
During her time in retirement, though, she has continued to contribute to her community while still engaged in business life. I understand she has volunteered on a number of boards, and those that she is most passionate about are in the arts and culture field. I would ask the House to please make her very welcome.
V. Huntington: It is a pleasure to introduce today a good, longtime friend of mine and one of Victoria's and indeed Canada's distinguished authors, poets and educators. Will the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Doug Beardsley to this place.
R. Sultan: In the galleries today we have Colin Smith, professional engineer. Recently Colin was awarded the meritorious service award among all the engineering organizations in Canada — Engineers Canada. On a long and distinguished resumé he can note he was president of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., president of Engineers Canada, former head of Forest Renewal B.C., former head of Crown Lands, an ADM of forestry under Claude Richmond, involved as an engineer on the Millennium Line as well as the convention centre, currently serving on the Victoria Airport Authority.
He's a distinguished engineer. He's a distinguished former civil servant, and he's a distinguished British Columbian. Would the House please welcome Colin Smith.
S. Chandra Herbert: I would like the House to welcome Kelly Newhook and John Cooke from Victoria's Together Against Poverty Society. Please thank them for their work for our society's most vulnerable, and please make them very welcome to this House.
Hon. D. McRae: This morning I met with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. They were ably represented by Judy Guichon, Ron Buchanan, Mark Grafton, John Kochel and Kevin Boon, and they are here joining us today. So let the House please make them welcome.
L. Popham: I have two visitors in the House today from Saanich South, Greta Wappett and Jean Kapel. Please make them welcome.
P. Pimm: I had the great opportunity this morning of meeting with a delegation from the Canadian Kailuan Dehua Mines Co. Ltd. I would like the House to help me welcome Hua Pei, Nie Baozhong, Vincent Yang and Judy Matkaluk. I apologize for the way I've pronounced those names. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Horgan: It's one of those rare opportunities to gaze up at the gallery and see a familiar face, someone who was in this place working for the former member for Nelson-Creston, the irrepressible Corky Evans. Joining us in the gallery is Anne Fraser. Why in the world she came back is a mystery, but welcome.
J. van Dongen: I am very pleased to introduce Miss Geneviève Tellier. She's a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, and she's here visiting, doing interviews on the functioning of one of our legislative committees. I ask the House to please make her very welcome.
B. Simpson: I have the distinct pleasure of introducing Walker Morrow, a 19-year-old political blogger and political columnist for the Vancouver Examiner. He hails from the Cowichan Valley, and he's down here today to find out how the press gallery works — or doesn't. My hope is that they don't corrupt him too much.
He just tweeted thanks to my office, because he showed up in attire that wasn't befitting standing in a scrum, and he thanked my staff for making sure that he was suitably attired. Welcome, Walker, to the gallery.
D. Hayer: I have four special guests, and one sad announcement to make. First, the four special guests. Gurdev Singh Sidhu is the IAS officer and Deputy Minister of Punjab. He's the Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayats in Punjab, India. He is a past deputy commissioner of Ferozepur.
He's with his wife Harbrinder Kaur Sidhu. He's also with his brother, our community leader, Dharam Sidhu, chief engineer at the Vancouver Renaissance Hotel, who holds two professional engineering degrees and helps the community with many events. He's also hosted with my wife Isabelle Hayer.
Tributes
RAMINDER SINGH THIND
D. Hayer: The sad news is that one of the Punjabi journalists, Raminder Singh Thind, passed away on May 29, 2011, due to a heart attack. He was editor of the Vancouver edition of the Parvasi newspaper, a Punjabi newspaper published from Toronto. Raminder had also worked as a host on B.C. radio programs, and he was a great singer and stage player and helped the community.
His funeral service will be held on Sunday, June 5 at 12:30 at the Five Rivers Funeral Home in Delta. I would ask the House to send a letter of condolences on behalf of all the MLAs. Also, if any MLAs are able, please attend the funeral services.
Introductions by Members
M. Mungall: I also want to extend a warm welcome to Kelly Newhook. She is a dear friend of both my fiancé and me, and I look forward to celebrating our wedding with her this summer.
J. Rustad: June was declared Aboriginal History Month by parliament in 2009, and National Aboriginal Day is marked annually on June 21. The Assembly of First Nations Chief Shawn Atleo today launched an initiative to make June 2011 a month of First Nations advocacy, awareness and action, with the goal being greater understanding between First Nations and all Canadians. I would ask all MLAs to join me in recognizing this here today.
Tributes
RAMINDER SINGH THIND
H. Bains: I would also like to join with my colleague from Surrey-Tynehead to offer our condolences and sympathy to the family of Raminder Thind. He was a very respected journalist. He was a great activist in the community, a good friend, and he will be missed. I would also ask all of the members of the House to please join with me to offer our condolences and sympathy to the family of Raminder Singh Thind.
Introductions by Members
Hon. P. Bell: It's not often I get to welcome people here from the beautiful riding of Prince George–Mackenzie, but I'm very pleased today to be able to welcome two friends, Mark and Laura Grafton, who are ranchers. They manage the Bar K Ranch just outside of Prince George, and Laura is a faithful Scrabble partner of my wife. Welcome to Mark and Laura.
S. Hammell: I'd like the House to welcome Larry Shaw. He's a member from my constituency and an outstanding member of the Surrey prostate cancer support group that operates out of Surrey Memorial Hospital. They do amazing work in supporting individuals with this cancer, and I'd like the House to make him welcome.
L. Reid: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Tracy Harper. Not only does she take wonderful care of us here in these buildings, but she's also a glorious photographer — It's You Photography. I know the member for Nanaimo and I will both look wondrous once she has completed her photographs.
Hon. I. Chong: I make the following introduction with some trepidation and caution because I don't want it to be perceived as a personal bias, but today I would like to acknowledge one of our local news stations, CHEK news, which celebrated the recognition and perseverance of the hard work of all the employees who managed to keep this station alive. Today they celebrated at noon.
I was joined by my colleagues the MLAs for Victoria–Beacon Hill and Esquimalt–Royal Roads to say that their hard work has really paid off. They've now purchased their building. It means they will be a viable operation here in greater Victoria. So I just wanted, on behalf of everyone here, to send out congratulations to all the employees who are also owners of their own news studio.
D. Donaldson: Visiting the precinct today as part of the Beef Day celebrations that we just enjoyed is an old friend of mine, Harold Aljam, president of the First Nations Agricultural Association. I'd ask the members to welcome him here today.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes — again.
J. Rustad: I can't resist, Mr. Speaker, with the great beef that we've had.
A couple of people have come down from Nechako Lakes, as well, who haven't been introduced yet. Along with John Kotchel, his good wife came down, Karen Kotchel, as well as Larry Garnet. I'd like the House to please make them welcome as well.
Mr. Speaker: If by chance your MLA failed to introduce you, welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
Bill M211 — Species at Risk
Protection Act, 2011
R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Species at Risk Protection Act, 2011.
R. Fleming: I move that the act be read for a first time now.
Motion approved.
R. Fleming: Introduction of this bill enables British Columbia to join eight provinces in Canada that currently have stand-alone legislation protecting the critical habitat for endangered species at risk of extinction.
B.C. has far and away most of Canada's biodiversity. We are host to 76 percent of Canada's bird species, 70 percent of freshwater fish species and 60 percent of conifer species. Yet currently our province lacks an explicit legislative framework that ensures B.C.'s unique and rich habitat is not lost forever from human impacts, including climate change, that can be better managed and adapted to.
According to the B.C. government's own data, some 1,600 species of plants and animals in our province are in decline and may be lost because so few have recovery strategies in place. Only 4 percent of B.C.'s species at risk currently are protected by B.C. law and policy. The provincial government is aware from recent reports that the level of endangerment for wildlife includes orca whales.
This bill will fill some of the huge gaps in the narrow jurisdictional protections offered by the federal Species at Risk Act. It will enable independent scientists from respected bodies like the Royal Society of Canada to identify species and recovery plans. The legislation will promote voluntary stewardship activities, and in determining and implementing necessary actions, government will benefit from the best scientific knowledge available and be able to balance long-term protective measures with economic and social considerations.
To create a sustainable B.C., this legislation intends to strengthen the conservation agreements we already have in place, to help our ecosystems adapt to climate change, and to recover and restore the health of species from decline and extirpation.
Our province hosts some of the most varied and intact ecosystems remaining in the world. We need legislative tools to guide our action. This bill offers our province a means to protect species at risk and the rich biodiversity of our province for future generations to come.
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 M211, Species at Risk Protection Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Mr. Speaker: I remind members that when introducing bills, it's two minutes.
Bill M212 — Access to Prostate
Screening Act, 2011
S. Hammell presented a bill intituled Access to Prostate Screening Act, 2011.
S. Hammell: I move that the bill be read a first time now.
Motion approved.
S. Hammell: The effects of prostate cancer have a significant negative impact on British Columbians. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. This year alone 3,100 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in British Columbia, and 570 will die from it.
In recognition that early detection is a primary element in the fight against prostate cancer, this act aims to promote prostate cancer screening in British Columbia. With early detection and treatment, many lives can be saved.
It is the consensus of medical experts that prescreening should be available for asymptomatic men of a particular age group, accompanied by active surveillance. This act will ensure that the prescreening exams for asymptomatic men in this age group will be covered by the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia. The primary goal of this act is to implement preventative health care in an area that has been severely lacking.
Hon. Speaker, 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 M212, Access to Prostate Screening Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
COMMUNITY OF SILVERDALE
M. Dalton: I'm pleased today to talk about a little-known jewel in British Columbia, the community of Silverdale situated by the scenic Silvermere Lake. Silverdale is part of the district of Mission. It was largely settled by Italian families in the 1870s, and some of the pioneering families still reside in the community today. Families like the Donatellis, Gaglardis, Manzers, Horns and Charlongs have seen Silverdale develop from a small fishing, farming and logging community to a growing suburb of the Fraser Valley.
Perhaps one of Silverdale's biggest claims to fame is that it was the site of Canada's first train robbery. On September 10, 1904, 60-year-old Bill Miner, the Gentleman Bandit, led two accomplices in the holdup of CPR No. 1 train. They stole nearly $7,000 worth of gold dust, $914 in cash and a $50,000 bond. It was on this train that Miner is believed to have been the first to use the phrase "Hands up." Also, in keeping with this Gentleman Bandit persona, when leaving the scene of the crime, he was purported to have said: "Good night, boys. Sorry to have troubled you."
Over the years the community has produced some people of note. Eden Donatelli, Olympic and World Cup medalist in speed skating, calls Silverdale home. So, too, did Flying Phil Gaglardi, the Minister of Highways under W.A.C. Bennett and recipient of more than a few speeding tickets.
A few weeks ago Mike Scudder, Mission councillor and president of Silverdale Community Centre, invited me to the 60th anniversary of the building. It was a pleasure talking with many of its longtime residents. I'd like to encourage everyone to come and visit and experience firsthand the beauty of Silverdale.
HIV/AIDS AND DR. PETER CENTRE
S. Chandra Herbert: This Sunday, June 5, marks 30 years after the first reported cases of what is now known as HIV/AIDS. The early years of this horrible disease tested our province, tested our communities and tested British Columbians. It was a time of leadership by example where citizens stepped forward where governments would not. They put their lives on the line as the need was so great and the resources so few.
In the 30 years since, British Columbians have become leaders in the global fight to take on HIV/AIDS with cutting-edge research, treatment, care and support. I stand here to honour one of those leaders, Dr. Peter, and to note the tremendous work of the Dr. Peter Centre in my constituency of Vancouver–West End. It's an organization that leads by example in the fight against HIV/AIDS and for the comfort of those afflicted with it.
The centre is, of course, the legacy of Dr. Peter Jepson-Young, a gay physician who was diagnosed with the disease in 1986. He died in 1992, just four years before the advent of life-saving drug therapies, but his legacy lives on.
One of the province's greatest challenges is, of course, getting HIV treatment to our most vulnerable citizens, whose HIV/AIDS is often on top of longstanding issues of mental illness, addiction, poverty and homelessness. The Dr. Peter Centre takes on this challenge head-on, providing care and support to over 350 British Columbians and providing 24-hour nursing care to over 50 individuals annually.
I particularly commend Dr. Peter Centre's work in getting a supervised injection site set up there in their centre 18 months, believe it or not, before Insite even opened. They've shown that it saves lives. They've shown it's good health care.
As Dr. Peter affirmed in his personal affirmation, and the centre demonstrates to this day: "From these elements I have come and to these elements I shall return, but the energy that is me will not be lost."
Dr. Peter, your energy has not been lost. Thank you very much.
WORLD PARTNERSHIP WALK
D. Horne: This past Sunday I joined thousands of others for the 27th annual World Partnership Walk in Stanley Park. The World Partnership Walk, which was founded in British Columbia, has raised more than $60 million since its inception. Now more than 40,000 people participate in walks in ten cities across Canada each year.
The walk is in support of the Aga Khan Foundation's support to eliminate global poverty. Their global projects focus on improvements of core values that recognize and bring real tangible meaning to the saying: give a person a fish, and you feed them for a day; teach a person to fish, and you feed them for a lifetime.
And 100 percent of the funds raised from the walk go directly to international projects that focus on infrastructure, skill development, literacy and entrepreneurship. Special attention is also given to women and girls to ensure that they can succeed and the traditional barriers are lowered, and hopefully, eventually removed.
It takes a huge team of volunteers to organize and deliver such a large annual event, so a special thank you for the tireless efforts of Karim Salemohamed, convener of the Vancouver walk, and Shellina Lakhdir, the regional campaign manager for the British Columbia Aga Khan Foundation. I would also be remiss not to mention Dave Macfarlane, who is one of the walk's key organizers and someone who I've known since my time at McGee in high school.
I invite the rest of the members of the House to join me in applauding their great work.
BELLA BELLA COMMUNITY FESTIVAL
AND ENVIRONMENT
G. Coons: This past May long weekend I was invited to spend my holiday in Bella Bella, a beautiful and remote community in the constituency I represent. Bella Bella is situated on Denny Island, which is in the Great Bear rain forest. The primary reason for spending my time here was to attend a festival hosted by engaged youth in the area.
During my visit I participated in the Gathering Coastal Voices Festival, an event hosted by the Bella Bella Community School and many other partners. The purpose of the festival was to celebrate the beauty and integrity of the region and to create a space where First Nations can discuss their values and perspectives around ocean resources.
The weekend hosted a variety of creative events, such as a film festival, a prayer flag march and musical performances by Phillip and Matt Gallant. Perhaps one of the most impressive performances was by ten-year-old Ta'Kaiya Blaney from the Sliammon First Nation in the Vancouver area. Ta'Kaiya sang her song Shallow Waters, a song written to raise awareness about a proposed oil pipeline planned between the Alberta tar sands and Kitimat.
The screening of SPOIL, a film produced by EP Films and the International League of Conservation Photographers was another event that stirred up discussion amongst attendees. The film tells a story of threats facing the Great Bear rain forest and the efforts of First Nation communities and conservation groups to preserve it.
The Great Bear rain forest remains the world's largest remaining intact coastal temperate rain forest. The forest is not only home to the spirit bear and a host of other diverse creatures but also home to several First Nations communities. There are 27 First Nations whose traditional territory can be found within the Great Bear. Most of these communities are inaccessible by road, and their economy and way of life depends heavily on the region's resources.
I was proud to spend a weekend with the people who live in this region and are generous enough to share their incredible home with myself and others in the province.
ARMY ENGINEERS
R. Sultan: I recently attended the 100th anniversary of the 6 Engineer Squadron, Canadian army, in North Vancouver. Organized by J.P. Fell, these lads marched to war in 1914. Of over 3,600 engineers sent by this unit to France, 210 stayed there in their graves. During World War II, members also died on Juno Beach. They've served in Egypt, Israel, Germany, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Croatia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and even against the Soviets in Siberia.
Army engineers are called sappers. They built the Rideau Canal, thwarting American plans to seize Canada. They built the Cariboo Trail, extending our sovereign reach into territory overrun by American gold seekers. They operated from barracks in Sapperton in New Westminster.
Two weeks ago I watched about 100 of these army engineers march past, rifles ready, preceded by the J.P. Fell Pipe Band. They were smartly followed by army, air force and navy cadets, vintage Bren-gun carriers and artillery tractors.
Army engineers build bridges, clear away obstructions and defuse dangers, man-made or natural. Sounds like what's needed in the aftermath of an earthquake or tsunami. Should their services be needed, this squadron stands ready, but our closest Canadian army base of regulars is in Edmonton.
The Canadian army doesn't have a permanent base in B.C. How did this happen? It seems a previous Premier did not much care for things military and acquiesced when the folks in Ottawa shut down Chilliwack.
Should emergencies arise, let us hope that our new government in Ottawa will understand British Columbia's vulnerabilities and our need for permanent field-engineering units right here, both in war and in peace.
We salute the 6 Engineer Squadron for their 100th birthday.
DAN HAMHUIS AND
HOCKEY IN RURAL B.C.
D. Donaldson: Long drives in the dark in blowing snow, hoping you don't run into a moose, just to get your son or daughter to a game in a neighbouring town that, if you're lucky, is only an hour or two away. Kids playing hockey in some rinks where it's colder inside the building than outside — that'd be Hazelton — and young players dreaming of starring in an NHL Stanley Cup. That's not some stereotype from the TV ad on Tim Hortons. That's real life in rural B.C. in the minor hockey world.
The bit about young players dreaming of starring in an NHL Stanley Cup final — well, that's real life too, because Dan Hamhuis will be there when the puck drops tonight in game 1. He's the only B.C.-born player starring for the Vancouver Canucks against the Boston Bruins, born in Smithers in my constituency of Stikine where his parents still live.
Dan's father, Marty, says they were always on the road travelling to games. Late in his Smithers Storm minor hockey days, Hamhuis was injured. His dad says it was a turning point because he missed the major junior hockey draft event as he recovered. Dan persevered. Undrafted, he was listed by the Prince George Cougars of the Western Hockey League, made the team and began playing for them at 15 — so a true product of the B.C. hockey system from minor days through to his major junior career.
Our Stikine MLA offices ran an awareness contest for teens called Don't Let Gangs Score. Dan partnered with us so that his fame as an NHL star could be used to improve life for young people in rural communities. That speaks volumes about his character.
These are intangible future benefits of having ice arenas in small towns, and this is why people in Smithers and Hazelton are working hard to see new facilities built in each of those communities.
To the Hammer, as he was known in his younger days, who spent a bit of time on outdoor rinks in Smithers: good luck tonight. You've made a difference.
Go, Canucks, go!
Mr. Speaker: I was just checking to see whether the Minister of Transportation had said that. [Laughter.]
D. Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Introductions by Members
D. Barnett: I am very privileged today to have a class from one of the great schools in the community of Williams Lake, Kwaleen Elementary. I have 26 students; their teacher, Mr. Wilson, who has come for four years with students from this school; and eight chaperones. Will the House please help me welcome these students and teachers here today.
Oral Questions
SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS
A. Dix: My question's to the Premier. Seven years ago, during her brief but eventful tenure as Minister of Children and Family Development, she introduced legislation creating Community Living B.C. She said it will give "British Columbians with developmental disabilities and their families better options and more opportunities in their communities. They'll be able to look forward to a safer, healthier and better quality of life."
However, the government has achieved the opposite and is now proposing $22 million in cuts to the services for people with developmental disabilities. So the question to the Premier is: those families — are they included in her families-first agenda?
Hon. C. Clark: First, I should note, because although I had the privilege of introducing that legislation as Minister for Children and Families in 2004, it was the hard work with the community that represents families who have a member who may be living with a disability....
It was the member for Surrey–White Rock who spent hours and hours and hours bringing this legislation to life so that people who are living with a disability or who are living with a disability in their family network have support and are able to make many of those decisions themselves. I think he deserves the honour for having introduced CLBC, which has been a dramatic and necessary change in how we deal with, how we connect with and engage with people who are struggling with a disability.
You know, since then the budget for that area of the ministry has gone up every single year. The budget is now $701 million. It went up from last year almost $9 million. It's taken on more clients this year than last, and the budget has continued to increase.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.
A. Dix: The Premier was talking to those families. She knows that they believe hope is fading away. This government, since last fall, has closed 55 group homes in British Columbia — 55. That has an impact on people, surely. Per-client funding has been cut by almost $6,000 since 2006.
My question to the Premier is: is she going to do anything about that? Is she going to address the issues that the groups involved and the families involved are expressing every single day? Do they have any place in her families-first agenda?
Hon. C. Clark: I was talking to some folks outside today as we were all enjoying the gifts of the farm families that were provided to us, and someone stopped me and said that he was delighted that for the first time in decades he hears people in government talking about families. It wasn't something that the New Democrats talked about all through the 1990s, because it wasn't something, apparently, that they valued.
I recognize that it is an incredible challenge for any family to have a member that lives with a disability. It's an incredibly challenging place to be, and our government does our best to try and support them. We don't always get it perfectly right, and we need to make sure that we are doing, always, the best that we can.
We will continue to work with the families who face challenges. Part of that is making sure that we're continuing to grow the budget for this area of the ministry. Those needs continue to grow as the client population continues to age and the numbers of people who need help are signed on to the programs.
We need to make sure we're there for those families, and we will make sure we're there for those families.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.
A. Dix: While the Premier talks about families, the actual families involved are seeing their services cut off. While the Premier talks about families, she and her government are closing 55 group homes in British Columbia. While she talks about families, she's cutting per-family funding.
So the question is — it's a very straightforward question: will she put a stop to the closing of group homes, and will she...?
Interjection.
A. Dix: Oh, I know the Minister of Finance is very interested in this.
Will she end, for example, the government's HST advertising and use some of that money to keep group homes open?
Hon. C. Clark: We are continuing to add new clients...
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. Clark: ...to the rolls of people who are helped at CLBC. We're continuing to add almost $9 million to the budget for that area of the ministry, and we're working with those families.
There is a substantial difference, though, in the way that our government approaches the provision of services and the way that their government approached it. We believe that the only way you can continue to provide services for the people who need them in British Columbia — and we've continued to grow these budgets for services that families depend on — is if you grow the economy, if you make sure that there are jobs, that there is economic growth and there is revenue growth.
If the Leader of the Opposition had his way, we would go back to a province where 50,000 people had to leave because they couldn't find jobs — 50,000 people who didn't pay taxes and 50,000 people whose taxes weren't going to support the incredibly important services that people with disabilities depend on us to provide.
I think that our recipe on this side of the House for prosperity is the way that we can make sure that families are looked after in the long term.
M. Karagianis: Colleen Matthews has been trying to get orthotics for her adult daughter Melissa. I'm sure the Premier is familiar with this story. It's been in the press.
Ministry staff, who are struggling without adequate resources, have told her that they cannot provide these for Melissa. In fact, a staff member called Colleen to say: "I'm at a loss. The ministry cannot afford to pay unless Melissa has open sores on her feet." Their advice to Colleen was to reapply and make sure that her physician stated on the form that there's a risk of amputation.
Now, Colleen is a very honest woman and is stunned by this message that she should be dishonest in filling out this form. So I'd like to ask the Premier, under families first, if this is an appropriate way to treat a family with a need like this.
Hon. C. Clark: We are putting families first in this government. We are putting families first. We are focusing on job creation, and we are focusing on opening up government and listening to people. So if the member wants to know if we are interested in listening to people, absolutely we are.
I think the thing that we all need to remember in challenging economic times is that if we want to be able to continue the high levels of service and improved service that we provide for people who rely on government, as we should, then we need to make sure we're continuing to grow our economy.
We need to make sure that we are fulfilling both sides of our obligation, growing the economy, growing the amount of revenue to government and, therefore, being able to continue to grow budgets for ministries, as we have done for areas of ministries like CLBC, which has grown by almost $9 million this year over last.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
M. Karagianis: Well, I'm sure Colleen Matthews will be really happy to hear you're listening. She'd actually like you to take action, though.
Caroline Mavridis is another constituent of mine who has two boys, twins, who suffer from Down syndrome. Their services have been cut to the point where she can no longer work outside the house to provide support for them. She knows that in two years when they graduate from school, they will receive a mere 12 hours a week in services. This does not allow her to go out and support her family, and in fact, her boys will be at risk.
Again, to the Premier: I'd like to know how, under her families-first agenda, she addresses the needs of either one of these two constituents of mine.
Hon. C. Clark: We have a deep commitment on this side of the House to doing the absolute best we can for families that depend on government to provide services, and that's why we've seen the budgets from almost all of the service provision ministries grow so much since 2001.
You've certainly seen the Health Ministry budget grow. We have seen the Education budget grow. We have seen the budget for CLBC grow as well, and the member comes up with all of these questions about how we will do these things.
My answer, I guess, should be: how would they do any of these things? How is it that the NDP would manage to be able to provide services for the people in British Columbia who so desperately need them when their plan is to shrink the economy, when their plan is to put people all across the province out of work, when their plan is to reduce the amount of revenue that's available to government to pay for these services? Because if that's their plan, I don't think that's the plan British Columbians want.
I think British Columbians want to know we'll grow revenue and be able to continue to provide those very necessary services.
WAIT TIMES FOR
RESIDENTIAL CARE BEDS
K. Conroy: A Williams Lake family has been told that they can expect up to a three-year wait for residential care for their father. John Tuerlings has been in Kamloops Hospital since last October, over three hours away from his family. In March he was designated as a long-term-care patient. They were told in April that he would be moved and again in May that he would be moved, and now probably not until the fall. In reality, there could be up to a three-year wait for a long-term-care bed need for him.
Mr. Tuerling is the unfortunate victim of the B.C. Liberal government that has abandoned its commitment to seniors. This is what happens when a government closes residential beds at a time when needs are growing and does not adequately replace them. What happened to the B.C. Liberals' commitment to ensure seniors were treated with dignity?
Hon. M. de Jong: As always, I am interested in pursuing individual cases to ascertain what the particular circumstances are. But in general — and the member knows this from the lengthy conversation we engaged in just a few days ago in the estimates debate — the average wait time for seniors obtaining residential care in this province over the last ten years has been reduced dramatically. That is as a result of the construction of thousands upon thousands of new beds, new homes, new facilities to care properly for seniors so that they can have a dignified end-of-life situation where they live.
There has been a tremendous amount of work done. There is more work taking place. But as always, I am happy to take information from the member and explore whether an individual case requires additional attention.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
K. Conroy: In fact, Mr. Tuerlings' daughter Kimberley has been pleading with anyone who will listen to get service for her father. She's been sending letters to the Minister of Health, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the member for Cariboo North, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, the member from Kamloops North and hasn't been getting anything. She's trying to figure out how the government could be so callous.
In fact, Kim writes: "I'm sharing this story to encourage the government to make the changes necessary so that other families do not have to feel the disappointment that our family has experienced with the current health care crisis."
My question is simple. When will the Health Minister ensure people like Mr. Tuerlings get the services they deserve and need?
Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I want to emphasize to the member, to the House and to British Columbians generally that the importance that the government attaches to ensuring that there are proper, comfortable facilities available for seniors as they move towards their end of life is reflected in the fact that there are over 6,000 new beds that have been constructed and a total of over 12,500 that have been refurbished. In an aging demographic, this is obviously an important need that communities across British Columbia have. We have addressed that need in a significant and a dramatic way.
There are, I am advised, additional factors that the member hasn't disclosed in this question. But I'm happy to look at the situation, as always, to ensure that the needs of all families and all individuals are properly addressed.
Mr. Speaker: I remind members to keep your questions to the point and answers to the point.
DIVERSION OF WATER
FROM WILLISTON RESERVOIR
B. Simpson: I am uncertain as to which minister to direct this question to. Would the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations or the Minister of Energy please inform this House if approval has been given to Talisman Energy and Canbriam Energy for the diversion and pipeline removal of 7.3 billion litres of water out of the Williston reservoir behind the W.A.C. Bennett dam.
Hon. R. Coleman: I'll take the question on notice, and I'll get back to the member.
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON
WILLISTON RESERVOIR WATER DIVERSION
B. Simpson: That withdrawal is actually up on webpages. It is the worst-kept secret in the South Peace. The question from that region is: what is the public consultation process for a water withdrawal of that magnitude? Both First Nations and the general public would like to know, from whatever minister that's appropriate for this: what is the process that the public can be engaged in, in the diversion and pipeline withdrawal of 7.3 billion litres per annum from the Williston reservoir behind the W.A.C. Bennett dam?
An Hon. Member: Bring in the Stickman.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to, first of all, assure the House, hon. Speaker, that I charged no royalties for my modelling for the Stickman.
There will be an extensive process of public consultation, discussion and negotiations with First Nations before anything would go ahead.
OVERSIGHT OF OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY IMPACT ON WATER RESOURCES
V. Huntington: I'd like to say that hundreds and hundreds of temporary water licences have been issued in the Peace region by the Oil and Gas Commission with no First Nation consultation, and still more large water-volume licences are today being issued — again, with no public consultation.
Has any ministry conducted a baseline assessment of groundwater and surface water in the Peace region, and does any ministry track the cumulative withdrawal of water from all sources and for all reasons?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Coleman: I am advised that there are some studies ongoing that are going to deal with the volumes of water.
I know that the member and I actually had a debate on radio — or she spoke, she had a visit, and I had a radio shortly after her — on Sunday. We are looking at the water extraction, and I can tell the member that the reusing of water is way more substantial than the member, actually, has said publicly that it is — the recycling of the water.
Actually, the management of waste at all our well sites is quite remarkable. In actual fact, hon. Member, if we could take some of the scientific application of how we handle waste and water recycling at well sites, we could use it domestically in other places in British Columbia for the environment as well.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
V. Huntington: The fact is that the wastewater is being recycled to some extent, but the bulk of it ends up on the surface, and there is no water treatment being handled at this point.
The simple fact is that the government does not have baseline data for water in this region, and no one agency tracks cumulative water demand, let alone reports out on this critical resource.
Similarly, the government does not have data for the total toxic wastewater created by the industry, the greenhouse gas implications of shale gas development or the cumulative health and safety impacts of oil and gas development.
I would like to ask the Premier if she will commit today to doing what other jurisdictions have done and take a comprehensive look at the development of this resource by striking a special committee of this Legislature.
Hon. R. Coleman: In British Columbia about ten years ago we had about ten years' supply of natural gas. Today we have over a hundred-year supply of natural gas to help feed our economy — create investment, create jobs, create dollars for health care and education — because of the innovation and the environmentally very friendly and very disciplined work done by our oil and gas sector in British Columbia for the future of the province of British Columbia. I'm actually very proud of the fact that we may be the only jurisdiction that actually understands shale gas at the level we do and the job that we do with it and how we do it environmentally friendly.
As we go forward, we will continue to investigate and to learn more to make sure that we protect the environment while actually at the same time develop a very significant resource for the people of the province of British Columbia.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
WILDFIRE PREVENTION
N. Macdonald: In Golden and other B.C. border communities there are fundraisers to help families displaced by the recent firestorm in Slave Lake, Alberta. As the wildfire season in British Columbia gets underway, we are reminded of how vulnerable our communities are. In early 2004 recommendations on interface fuel management were made to reduce the risk of wildfire to our communities.
To the minister responsible: is it acceptable to the minister that after seven years only 2 percent of the interface area identified for fuel management has been treated?
Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. It does provide me the opportunity, firstly, to recognize the great work of our firefighters, the men and women of our firefighting service. Over 600 of our firefighters are working in Alberta, working in rotation. We've also just deployed a crew into the Yukon and Alaska to help out our neighbours. This is great work being done by our firefighter service.
We take the issue of wildfire threat very, very seriously. That's why I was very pleased recently to be able to announce $25 million additional support for the community wildfire mitigation program. That's $25 million over two years for communities in British Columbia, in partnership through UBCM.
We'll continue to work very closely with local governments and with First Nations in addressing the wildfire threat to our communities.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
N. Macdonald: Just so members of the House understand, $50 million was spent over seven years to get 2 percent of the work done, and I think all members would understand that an additional $25 million is not going to complete the job.
These are serious issues. We saw similar devastation from wildfire in Kelowna. That was eight years ago. At that time Gary Filmon was requested by the government to promptly provide a report with recommendations intended to mitigate risks to communities.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
N. Macdonald: The government promised that these recommendations would be implemented immediately. The government has a responsibility to protect communities at risk from wildfire. Treatment that has been done to date has not even begun to protect those communities.
To the minister: will he commit to a new strategy and a new sense of urgency to deal with fuel management in the interface forest?
Hon. S. Thomson: Under the community wildfire management program, as the member opposite referenced, $37 million to communities, in partnership with communities. That's leveraged investment in the communities. Mr. Speaker, 240 communities and First Nations have got plans that are in place or are being implemented, with the additional funding, $25 million over two years, working in partnership with local communities, with First Nations. We will continue to work with them in the wildfire management program.
In addition, our wildfire management branch works with communities in terms of training. We provided support through the job opportunities fund in partnership with the federal government in terms of providing additional training and support. We provided support for purchase of infrastructure protection devices. We'll continue to work very closely with local governments as we protect families and First Nation communities in British Columbia.
STAFFING LEVELS FOR SHERIFFS
K. Corrigan: We already know that there is a critical shortage of judges, prosecutors and sheriffs in our justice system, yet this past Friday the B.C. Liberal government cut 28 full-time auxiliary sheriffs. An additional 24 deputy sheriffs have had their hours cut down to 75 percent, for a net loss of 34 full-time positions. This is despite warnings by judges that they cannot operate potentially dangerous and volatile courtrooms without security. We know the result will be more cases thrown out of court and that more accused will get off.
My question to the Attorney General: why on earth are dozens of sheriffs being cut from a court system which is already dangerously understaffed?
Hon. B. Penner: The member is referring to auxiliary sheriffs. It's true: a number of changes were announced last week in terms of our staffing complement. Our number one priority remains the safety and security of our courtrooms and our court facilities, but we are also living within a budget, something that might be a novel concept to the members of the opposition, certainly based on my experience when I was here and saw how they operated in the 1990s.
Every single day of the week these members stand up and say: "Just spend more money." It doesn't matter what the issue is; just spend more money. Then they turn around and say they're campaigning to go back to a 12 percent PST-GST, which will not only be worse for consumers but will deprive government revenues of $3 billion in the next couple of years.
Tell me, Mr. Speaker, how they would fund additional services of every kind that they always mention with $3 billion less to spend.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
The member has a supplemental.
K. Corrigan: Well, they were auxiliary sheriffs as well as deputy sheriffs. They were both. Most of those auxiliary sheriffs were hired in January. They received weeks of training, paid for by the taxpayers. Now, after a few short months, that training is completely wasted.
Thirty-four less sheriffs and trials being thrown out. Two courtrooms in Kelowna were shut down because no sheriff was able to provide security or escort prisoners. Another eight families that were waiting to seek access to their children had to wait for court delays because of sheriff shortages.
To the Attorney General: how do these cuts aid our ailing judicial system?
Hon. B. Penner: I dispute the member's characterization that training and education is a waste. I think that's completely inappropriate. What we have informed those staff that the member refers to, and it's a number of them, is that they will not be getting as much work in the future as they were most recently. We will still utilize them when we're able to.
The member hasn't answered the question, which is how would you hire more sheriffs, spend more on health care, more on education, more on roads, reduce ferry fares, reduce camping fees and do anything else in the public service with $3 billion less to spend, which is what they're campaigning for right now. Right now that's what they're campaigning for, a 12 percent PST and GST, while on this side of the House we want a 10 percent single HST.
[End of question period.]
Petitions
G. Hogg: I rise to present a petition signed by 630 residents of Surrey seeking remedies for the severe overcrowding in some of the schools in Surrey.
Tabling Documents
Hon. K. Falcon: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2009-10.
Proclamation
Beef Day
Hon. D. McRae: In honour of the ranchers present with us today, it is my pleasure to read the following proclamation:
"Whereas B.C.'s grasslands produce some of the world's highest quality cattle; and whereas B.C.'s beef producers are renowned for the way in which their cattle are raised in a healthy environment and ecologically sustainable manner; and whereas B.C. cattle are part of an integrated Canadian beef production system that is the third-largest exporter of beef worldwide and well respected for having a high-quality finished product; and whereas ranching in B.C. has the advantage of proximity to markets and the drive to move ahead in a competitive world; and whereas the ranching industry supports B.C.'s economy through more than $250 million in cattle sales and more than 8,700 jobs; and whereas the Ranching Task Force has a goal to increase the profile of ranching in British Columbia to the public and government; and whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased…to proclaim and declare that June 1, 2011, shall be known as Beef Day in the province of British Columbia."
L. Popham: On behalf of our side of the House, I would like to join the Minister of Agriculture in congratulating our B.C. ranchers on B.C. Beef Day.
The history of this industry is a large part of our B.C. history. The challenges have been great, but as with many sectors in agriculture, our B.C. ranchers are resilient and as tough as nails.
We're encouraged by the initiatives ranchers are taking with programs like FRISP, a program designed to help provincial agriculture producers to protect and enhance water quality, to protect and enhance riparian vegetation, and to prevent and mitigate agricultural impacts on streams and lakes.
Initiatives like this help to maintain and strengthen the sustainability of the B.C. beef industry, and we thank you for that.
Tabling Documents
Hon. I. Chong: I am here to table a report, the 2010 annual service plan report for B.C. Assessment.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, as a courtesy, I wish to inform the House that tomorrow morning at approximately 10:05 there will be a small, 15-minute addition to the courtesy House business schedule I circulated yesterday. This brief insertion in the schedule will be to discuss Motion 15.
In the House this afternoon we will be doing second reading of Bill 13. We will be doing committee stage of Bill 2, second reading of Bill 15, committee stage of Bill 14 and committee stage of Bill 11, according to the schedule I circulated yesterday.
In section A in the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will be doing the estimates this afternoon for the Office of the Premier, followed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and, from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., the conclusion of the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Attorney General, Social Development, and Transportation and Infrastructure.
Point of Order
J. Horgan: I heard the Government House Leader say "courtesy calendar." As I view the Votes and Proceedings from Tuesday, May 31, it has Standing Order 81.1 amending our standing orders and a schedule attached. Nowhere does it say it's a courtesy schedule. In fact, we have been in lockstep with this as a result of the motion passed arbitrarily by the Government House Leader yesterday.
I'm wondering, hon. Chair, if you could clarify for us if this is a calendar that we must follow or one that can be changed at the whim of any member of the Legislature, or just the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I'll take it under advisement.
This House stands in recess for five minutes.
The House recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
M. Farnworth: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. Farnworth: I know that during introductions my colleague the Education Minister and myself noticed a mutual acquaintance who has since left the gallery, but I would like the House to recognize the presence of Mr. Angus Hereford, who's been in the precincts today observing the proceedings.
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011
Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, now be read a second time. Bill 13 amends a number of statutes. I summarized this very briefly in first reading. I'll elaborate just a bit more now in second reading.
Minor amendments to the Milk Industry Act will allow for changes to the milk industry standards regulation to facilitate interprovincial and international trade. These amendments will update definitions to current industry standards and amend regulation-making powers to enable assignment of certain responsibilities.
Amendments to the Law and Equity Act will protect the interest that many strata property owners have in their parking spaces and storage lockers. In some strata developments the allocation of parking and storage spaces is based on long-term lease arrangements that could be subject to attack under the common-law rule of certainty. This amendment will exempt leases from that rule, validating the lease arrangements, resolving uncertainty and avoiding costly litigation. The amendment will be retroactive to exempt agreements already in existence and to validate the expectations of the parties who entered into them.
Amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act will allow the courts to transfer the permanent legal custody of a vulnerable child who is living with a trusted family member or friend to that person. This creates an alternative to bringing children into foster care and will provide continuity and permanency for both children and their caregivers. The amendment also includes safeguards to ensure that permanent transfers only occur when they are in the best interests of the child while ensuring that due process is in place before parental rights are severed.
Amendments to the Clean Energy Act will extend the legislated deadline for the submission of B.C. Hydro's first integrated resource plan by one year to 30 months. The panel reviewing B.C. Hydro and the impact of hydro rate increases on British Columbia families will present its recommendations by June 30. This amendment ensures that B.C. Hydro has the time and flexibility to include any new direction from the review in their integrated resource plan. It will also give B.C. Hydro adequate time to consult with industry stakeholders, communities, First Nations and families across the province.
Amendments to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act will expand the types of housing initiatives for which the earnings of the housing endowment fund may be used. This will allow the province to invest in a wider range of affordable-housing solutions for people in greatest need. Earnings from the housing endowment fund will contribute to new supportive housing, including those that are currently being developed in eight communities across the province. The fund has already contributed $25 million to 52 projects across B.C., bringing unique housing solutions to low-income seniors, working families, youth and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
Changes to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will amend the boundary description of Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to remove 10.5 hectares to allow for the construction of a segment of the northwest transmission line. The western route of the northwest transmission line requires the use of lands in Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park. The Nisga'a Lisims Government supports the western route and has consented to amending the boundary of the park to facilitate construction of the northwest transmission line. For the purposes of section 103 of chapter 3 of the Nisga'a final agreement, this represents British Columbia's agreement to not continue the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to the extent of the amendment.
A minor amendment to the Environment and Land Use Act will better reflect current practices of appointing non-cabinet MLAs to sit as members on the environment and land use committee.
This bill also makes a number of amendments to the Forest Act. First, the Forest Act is amended to make large tenure holders ineligible to apply for or hold a woodlot licence. Woodlot licence opportunities are intended for individuals, First Nations and small companies that want to participate in small-scale forestry. The amendment will help maintain the intent of the woodlot licence program as it is expanded.
Further amendments to the Forest Act will provide that a non-lumber producer can only transfer a receiving licence to another non-lumber producer. This will help support the bioenergy, pulp and paper, and value-added industries by providing security of supply for lower-quality fibre needed by the non-lumber sector.
Amendments are made to the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, and the Ministry of Forests and Range Act to replace references to decision-makers such as "regional manager or district manager" with "minister." This will enable the minister to delegate powers and duties to officials in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations as needed to optimize decision-making and improve efficiency.
Amendments to the Medicare Protection Act will create authority to require adult British Columbians to re-enrol in the province's Medical Services Plan by updating proof of their identity to a higher level of assurance. These amendments will support the introduction of a more secure photo card, which would replace the current CareCard.
Amendments to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act will provide for the continued authority of the Speaker under that act between the time a general election is called to when a subsequent parliament elects a new Speaker. This eliminates the need for additional legislation to continue the Speaker through that period.
Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will provide that golf carts and certain industrial utility vehicles no longer require registration, licensing or insurance through ICBC to operate in parking lots or for incidental highway use in specific situations, such as crossing a public roadway between two areas of a golf course.
Further amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are made in compliance with the North American Free Trade Agreement. These amendments will establish a designation code for use on the drivers' licences of commercial drivers who are ineligible to drive in the U.S. owing to specific medical conditions, such as epilepsy, insulin-dependent diabetes or certain hearing deficiencies. Other changes to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow holders of foreign drivers' licences to keep their existing licence so that they can practise before taking a B.C. road test. Previously foreign licence holders had to surrender their driver's licence when applying for a B.C. driver's licence.
Finally, this bill contains a number of confirming, validating, housekeeping and consequential amendments.
C. Trevena: I am speaking to Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.
I'm going to be talking about the section which deals with the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, but I'd like to preface my remarks by talking about the absurd situation which we're in, which is with the calendar that was introduced and that we learned earlier this afternoon was there as a courtesy. It wasn't a change to the standing orders; it is just a courtesy.
It's supposed to close this debate in about one minute, when there are a number of speakers on this side of the House, because this bill affects a number of areas which we are trying to find answers to and to try and ensure that government is acting appropriately. We are really having to watch the clock, which is an absurd situation in a democratic House, in a place where we are, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, supposed to scrutinize, talk about and discuss matters of legislation.
I think we are being forced, really, into a pretty farcical situation where we are watching the clock rather than having the ability to talk as we would like to talk, which is for a full half-hour on our different subject areas. I want to talk about the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the amendments to it, the things that I think are very positive in it and my cautions. I know I have colleagues who want to talk about the forestry bill, and we have people who would want to talk about other parts of this bill — the Clean Energy Act, which is an amendment to something that was closed by guillotine.
Madam Speaker, I do know that we are, in this nice way, working. We're having a courtesy extra 15 minutes, which is…. I don't know how that's going to affect other bills later on when we are working to such a tight time frame because democracy has been shut down in this place yet again.
However, I would like to address my remarks to the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. On the whole, this side of the House does support the amendment. From our discussions with the people who are involved in child and family services, people who work with the ministry and people who watch the ministry, there is a sense that it does make sense to have this amendment.
Ultimately, people don't want to see children go into the care of the ministry. Hopefully, if this amendment is used appropriately, it will keep the court system out of play and allow families to keep looking after children without having to bring in the courts.
It will create the least disturbance. I think that is why it has been welcomed. It's been welcomed by a number of people. It has been welcomed by the Representative for Children and Youth, who has said that it is a positive move. It's been welcomed by the Federation of Community Social Services. People do see that there is a positive to this.
The way that this amendment works is that, as I understand it.... I'm hoping that if we manage to have courtesy extensions to time allocation, we can have a longer discussion about this in the committee stage. I believe we've given an hour for the whole Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which is very full. It just covers a number of ministries.
We have found in previous miscellaneous bills, when we do go through the committee stage, things that we have missed just in reading it and missed in discussions with people. We actually pick up some very salient points that are very controversial and very worrying.
So we would hope that we get a lot of time to be able to go through this bill, literally for each ministry, and have a full discussion with the various ministers and their staff to ensure that what we are passing here in this House is done with due consideration and with the thought that should go into creating, discussing, debating and passing legislation — that we are not working against the clock.
Unfortunately, I fear that we are stuck with this very tight time frame. As of five o'clock tomorrow afternoon we are going to be asked to vacate these premises until goodness knows when. It's been — what? — four weeks in the last year. Maybe we'll get a bit longer next year, but I'm not very hopeful, if this government is still in place. I'm more hopeful that we will not have this government in place. Then we can get on with the business of running B.C. in the interests of the people of B.C.
On Bill 13 and its amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. As I say, we are pretty supportive of it. The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who I think everybody in this province has huge respect for because of her work, has actually said that she is pleased with it and is quoted as saying: "It begins to really pin down our desire to have children not come into care but...be in safe relationships and strong, good placements."
I think that is really what everybody wants — that children can be in very supportive placements with family wherever possible and have that nurturing.
I know, Madam Speaker, you're very, very concerned yourself about our young people and children and would really welcome any way that we can ensure that they are kept safe in nurturing environments.
I have a few cautions about this. I think that the amendment, which is very fulsome and does add a large section to the Child, Family and Community Service Act and changes the Family Relations Act also.... I do hope that we will have that time to discuss fully in the committee stage what those changes are going to be.
I have a few cautions that I will be raising then and that I'd like to highlight now. One is the extended family program and the government's shift from Child in the Home of a Relative to the extended family program.
There is still screening for the extended family program. There is money available for families who are involved in it. But there are, I think, some real concerns about the way it's working and about the way it's not working.
One of the questions that keep coming up is that there are at the moment just 350 children in the extended family program, and there are several thousand in the Child in the Home of a Relative program. There is concern about what is happening to those children, whether they're aging out, whether the families have moved on — just what is happening.
There is the sense, without anybody saying it…. Are children falling through the gaps? Are families falling through the gaps? I hope this bill doesn't allow that to happen and that there is a close watch and a close continuum.
The other concern that is there — and I think is always there when we're looking at families and how we look after vulnerable families and vulnerable children — is the financial support.
There is no question that the best way for children to be looked after is in a supportive, nurturing family. So in many cases what we see is a grandparent taking over the responsibility for the child, has all the love, all the willingness to look after that child or maybe one or two, maybe the siblings, wants to do the best and, therefore, instead of keeping the ministry involved, decides to have guardianship so they have the full responsibility themselves.
Unfortunately, when that happens, the grandparents lose any financial support. We have a vast range of ages of grandparents. I think we've seen in this House the number of people who stand up and say: "We're now grandparents."
Grandparents can start young, but they can also get to be quite old. They are often at an age where they are ready to retire, and they're finding that they're going to have to carry on working to look after their grandchildren, or they are still working themselves, but they have their own financial pressures. Not everybody can afford to continue looking after a second generation, and I think this is very troubling because it does add to the pressures on the families.
The other thing that…. In taking the courts out of the system…. I think people, on the whole, really welcomed this — the fact that the courts will be out of the system — but I think we have to recognize as well that there are times when it's good to have that third eye, the checks and balances and the scrutiny of a judge to ensure that nobody's being overzealous, that everything is working appropriately, and that while the child's rights are being protected and we are looking after the child and doing everything in the best interests of the child, we are also working in the best interests of the parent.
Madam Speaker, I'm going to end my remarks there. I could speak a great deal longer about this. I know other colleagues also want to speak about the bill.
As I say, it talks about many different government ministries. There are many areas that I think we have concern about, and we really would like a courtesy extension of our debate beyond the extra 15 minutes we've had. However, I have the sense that we're not going to get that in this House, which I think sadly…. Unfortunately, there are no children here to watch democracy die in B.C.
N. Macdonald: Just to speak for the short time that's available on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2). Bill 13 has a number of provisions, almost 70, related to forestry. In my capacity as the critic, along with my co-critic from the Cowichan Valley, we need to be looking at this piece of legislation to make sure that these are what the minister has indicated that they are for the most part, which is housekeeping of existing bills.
I think it's important to remember that in my time here since 2005, one of the most controversial measures was hidden in a miscellaneous statutes act, and that's related to IPPs and the removal of local control, as members will know — section 55, Bill 33, the Ashlu river section.
It's important to be able to go through even pieces of legislation that are described as innocuous to make sure they are. The term the member from Cowichan Valley always uses is "jiggery-pokery," which means, of course, looking for things nefarious or misleading in descriptions. This act, however, does seem certainly to be innocuous, and with regard to the forestry sections, it does seem to be pretty clearly, housekeeping for the most part.
I just want to thank the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and his staff for setting up a briefing for members of the opposition.
Most of the sections, from section 35 to 107, change specific titles to a minister delegation model. The ministry has been significantly reorganized, and the language seems to be changed to match the reality of that reorganization.
There's also a section which clarifies that a tenure holder cannot go after the woodlot tenures. There's also a section clarifying restricted forest licences.
The amendments certainly seem innocuous and largely housekeeping, but my co-critic and I will put on record the explanations from the minister responsible for the proposed changes during the committee stage, which we should get to either later today or tomorrow.
With that, I'll turn it over to the other critics that deal with this bill.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I'm conscious of the fact that we will get a whole hour tomorrow to deal with committee stage in this bill — a whole hour. Today we have had basically a little over 15 minutes for the opposition to actually speak in second reading.
There's a line from Shakespeare: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." If there was ever a farce, it is the suggestion that the amount of time allocated to this bill — or, indeed, many of the pieces of legislation — in this House is adequate. It's truly farcical. That line comes from As You Like It. I can assure the members opposite that this is anything but something that the opposition likes.
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has a job to do within our parliamentary system, and that job is to criticize. It is to question, to advocate and to speak on behalf of British Columbians. It is not to speak on behalf of the government. It is to hold the government to account. To hold its feet to the fire is the cliché most commonly used.
We have a bill before us of 38 pages, nine parts and 137 sections — nine parts reflecting the fact that these all relate to different ministries. It is inconceivable that one could say, even if they had the brains of an Einstein, within such a short period of time, anything intelligent about the importance of this legislation or its impact, nor to raise issues that one would hope would bring attention to what the government is trying to do with this bill.
If what we do in this place has any meaning whatsoever and Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), is to receive the scrutiny it should, then you can't do it in the time allotted. It is a shocking example of a government that has claimed to be open and transparent, to be listening, to care about what British Columbians think.
Indeed, we have listened to the Minister of Finance, on more than one occasion in the last few days, talk about the wonderful consultation process around the HST. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians consulted by telephone, apparently. Well, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians don't have an opportunity to speak in this place. Only 85 members do.
Only 85 members, and the majority of those are on the other side, and they're not speaking to this bill. They don't care. Their Whip tells them what to do. They get up; they come in; they vote; they go out.
It's the job of the opposition to be critical. It's the job of the opposition to raise issues. It's the job of the opposition to ask the kinds of questions that give voice to the people.
It is impossible for us to do it, hon. Speaker. I see I've received the nod. I will take my place with great reluctance in these circumstances, protesting as well as I possibly can the farce that is this process.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the time is now allocated.
Second reading of Bill 13 approved on division.
Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 13 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.
Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, 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. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 2, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011.
Committee of the Whole House
BIll 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2011
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 3:17 p.m.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
B. Ralston: This is the substantive section amending the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. It proposes an amendment adding a new subsection.
Can the minister explain the purpose of this section? I gather that there has been, and have noted, a major reorganization of government ministries, and some ministries, such as that of the Minister of State for Climate Action, seem to have been subsumed in other ministries. I assume that this is related to those changes in ministerial structure, but could the minister please explain the purpose of the amendment?
Hon. K. Falcon: This amendment, Member, is there to enhance ministerial accountability by ensuring the expected effects of any reallocations that are made under Vote 44, which is the capital funding appropriation. Where you have more than one minister that may be responsible within that vote and some reallocation is being done of capital dollars, there is an ability to reallocate in a manner that ensures that you're still going to have appropriate accountabilities with respect to the individual ministers under the BBMAA act.
B. Ralston: The proposed amendment refers to "the minister." I take it, just for clarity, that that's the minister who is assuming responsibility for the subsumed department. In other words, if there's a merger, the minister who takes over is obliged to make public this statement that's required under this proposed amendment. Is that correct?
Hon. K. Falcon: That refers to the minister responsible for the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act — in other words, the Minister of Finance.
B. Ralston: Can the minister advise which government ministries or secretaries or ministers of state will be affected by this proposed amendment?
Hon. K. Falcon: It is the ministers with responsibilities under Vote 44, capital funding, which includes the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance.
B. Ralston: The reference here is a reallocation of spending authority, which occurs during a fiscal year. That means that the main estimates have not been altered, but that there's simply an alteration in the responsibility for the main estimates, which are unchanged. Is that correct?
Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct, Member. It does not change the actual vote. It is just allowing for reallocations within the vote.
B. Ralston: Is there any different application to supplementary estimates? Or is that simply a timing issue, where ordinarily these changes might be made, reported out, and the supplementary estimates would be dealt with by the minister responsible for the reconfigured ministry?
Hon. K. Falcon: No, it does not have anything to do with supplementary estimates. This is specific to votes that contain multiministerial responsibilities as, for example, Vote 44 in the capital funding side.
B. Ralston: The legislation or the act itself, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, refers to, in part, in section 4, "achieving collective responsibilities," and then, in section 5, "achieving individual responsibilities."
Given that this reallocation recognizes that the configuration of ministries may change and that, indeed, ministers who may have been assigned what this act deems individual responsibilities may disappear or re-emerge in a reconfigured ministry, can the minister advise how this amendment would work in tandem with, particularly, section 5 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act?
Hon. K. Falcon: This section, I'm advised, has nothing to do with the reorganization. This is a section that applies uniquely to Vote 44 which, as I say, contains multiministerial responsibilities that allow, within the vote, to have some moving around within the vote to ensure that we can still have ministerial accountability even if there's shifting of dollars within the vote.
With respect to the larger question, I'm advised that with the reorganization that takes place in government, wherever the different pieces of the reorganization go, the obligation follows. In other words, the obligations under the BBMA will follow whichever minister inherits whichever portion of a previous portfolio that would have had accountabilities alongside it.
B. Ralston: Just following up on the minister's response. If there are multiple ministries responsible for Vote 44, and there's a change in the spending by each responsible minister, what...? Given that the intent of the legislation, presumably, is to encourage accountability, how does one ensure accountability if the numbers can be moved?
One could imagine a situation — although I'm not suggesting that this happened or has happened — where accountability might be shifted in order to save a minister who might be in danger of running over the allocated estimates and therefore incurring some responsibility under this act. Of course, there is resort to legislation, and notoriously the government has resorted to separate legislation under the Ministerial Accountability Bases Act to fix up any overruns each year. But in theory, that might arise. So I'm just wondering how this legislation works to prevent such a reallocation.
Hon. K. Falcon: The changes that we're talking about would be changes that would have to be done ahead of time under the direction of Treasury Board. Treasury Board would have to have a plan that's brought to Treasury Board to say: "We want to reallocate or make changes within the vote with respect to the capital spend." It would be Treasury Board that would be making that decision, and then the accountability would follow.
So however Treasury Board decided to make a decision based on a predetermined plan, then the accountabilities would still follow. It would not be something where after the fact, which I think is really what the member is getting at, you would try and move things around in the vote to cover off somebody on the capital spending side.
It would have to be something that would be a plan brought forward to Treasury Board and considered by Treasury Board. Treasury Board direction would then follow, which would result in the capital moving within the vote and the accountabilities following the movements that take place within the vote.
B. Ralston: I understand the minister's explanation. That's quite clear. However, the language of the proposed amendment doesn't limit it to something in advance of the fiscal year. It says: "If a reallocation of spending authority in relation to operating expenses occurs during a fiscal year...." So there's no limit. It could occur in the first month of the fiscal year or the 11th month of the fiscal year, given the wording that's there.
Again, I appreciate that this may be a hypothesis, but would the minister not agree that despite what he said, there's nothing in the wording of this amendment that would prohibit that sort of step being taken very late in the fiscal year?
Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's legal background, actually. It gives him the capability of pointing out these kinds of issues, and correctly. Theoretically, yes, the member would be correct, but I think, practically speaking, that wouldn't be the case.
As chair of Treasury Board, I can certainly assure you that if there is going to be a change within the vote, it will be as a result of a plan being brought forward to Treasury Board. And as chair of Treasury Board, working to ensure that's a plan Treasury Board signs off on, with then subsequent direction being provided to ministers.... It is not the intent, nor will it be the practice, to treat the movement of dollars and the accountabilities within this vote in any other way.
B. Ralston: The proposed amendment also refers to a statement of information in relation to the fiscal year. Where would that be filed? Would that be tabled here in the House, or would that be pursuant to some other statutory reporting mechanism? If one were interested in following this, where would an interested member of the public find it?
Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. It would be tabled in the House. If the House isn't sitting, it would be tabled with the Clerk. It would also be made available on the Ministry of Finance website.
B. Ralston: Maybe the minister can advise us prospectively. Is it proposed to file such a statement of information, assuming this amendment passes, which I would say is highly likely, for the current fiscal year?
Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that in fiscal 2010-2011 there was one filed already. I understand that that reallocation was done in September, which was a reallocation from Finance to Education in a schedule F, No. 2, which is the ministerial accountability schedule. It was filed with the Clerk and added to the ministry website.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
B. Ralston: We're now dealing with the Carbon Tax Act, and there's a proposed amendment to add some new definitions, one of biomethane and biomethane credit. Section 3 of the bill that's before us says an amendment proposed to subsection 1(1)....
The Chair: Member, one moment, please.
Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add section 2.1. Thank you, by the way, for the forbearance of the critic.
Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add section 2.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day. The amendment clarifies the distinction between the main estimates and revised estimates with respect to the dates that main estimates are required to be presented to the Legislative Assembly.
[SECTION 2.1, by adding the following section:
Budget Transparency and Accountability Act
2.1 Section 6 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 23, is amended by adding the following subsection:
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to a replacement of or revision to the main estimates presented after the dates referred to in those subsections.]
On the amendment.
B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, explain further? I have section 6 of the act before me. Can the minister explain the purpose of the amendment? It proposes to amend subsection (6) of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act by adding the following subsection, which is section 3. If my copy of the legislation, which I took from the legislative website earlier today, is accurate, there is already a section 3, so this is an amendment proposed to section 3. Could the minister explain it?
Hon. K. Falcon: As the member is aware, the main estimates must be presented on the third Tuesday in February. There are exceptions under 6(2) like, for example, a general election. What this allows is flexibility to undertake what we essentially did this year, which is that we introduced revised estimates on May 3. It allows that to take place, because right now there is under the language of the law just that estimates must be presented on the third Tuesday in February.
So this allows for, essentially, what took place this year.
B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, then, this is legislation with retrospective effect. In other words, it's designed to make lawful the changes that took place this year given that there was one set of estimates tabled with the budget on February 15, 2011, and another set of estimates tabled with the budget update, if I can put it that way, on May 3. Is that what this is designed to do?
Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes.
Amendment approved.
On section 3 as amended.
B. Ralston: I've already posed part of my question, but just to recapitulate, this is dealing with the proposed amendment to the Carbon Tax Act, section 1(1), adding two definitions, "biomethane" and "biomethane credit."
Can the minister explain…? I know he dealt with this very briefly in his very summary remarks at second reading, but perhaps he could expand upon the purpose for adding these definitions of "biomethane" and "biomethane credit," and there's a subsequent amendment that also follows upon adding this definition.
So could he explain the purpose of that?
Hon. K. Falcon: As I get my education on biomethane.... The amendments to the definitions are required as part of the clarification of the tax treatment of biomethane. The second part is to allow for the providing of a credit for biomethane purchased under qualifying contracts. These definitions, I understand, I'm advised, are necessary to allow both of those things to take place.
B. Ralston: The definition speaks of "methane produced from biomass" and, I guess, hence biomethane. Can the minister explain the difference, for those who may not understand it, between methane produced from biomass and methane that would, I suppose, be a by-product or a desired product of conventional gas extraction?
Hon. K. Falcon: I'll do my best here. Biomethane is, as I am advised, produced from organic waste, which would be a landfill, agricultural waste — that kind of thing. Conventional natural gas from a conventional natural gas well is considered fossil fuel. Although it is almost completely methane, it is considered a fossil fuel.
I don't know if that helps the member, but that's what I'm advised.
B. Ralston: If I have the right document here…. I've got the definitions section in part 1 of the Carbon Tax Act. Under the definition of "fuel," (c) says: "methane produced by waste in a landfill."
I'm wondering why the necessity to redefine it as biomethane. Is that simply a more current term? The minister did make reference to methane produced by waste in a landfill, so I'm wondering if "produced from biomass" is simply a broader definition than "produced by waste in a landfill." Is that more encompassing or more restrictive? I'm not sure.
Hon. K. Falcon: As I'm advised, apparently the previous description of "methane produced by waste in a landfill" is considered now too narrow. So what we're trying to do is expand that exclusion to include all types of biomethane, not just biomethane that comes from a landfill. As I understand it, biomethane can be produced from other organic wastes, including agricultural waste and others, and we want to make sure that those are captured and that it's not just narrowly defined as waste in a landfill.
B. Ralston: Then defining it as a broader exclusion means in principle that it wouldn't be subject to the tax. Is that right?
Hon. K. Falcon: It would not be taxable unless it was subject to section 13.1. Otherwise it would not be taxable except for the limited exceptions under section 13.1.
B. Ralston: I understand we'll get to section 13.1 as the next proposed amendment.
I had a further question, then. In subparagraph (b) it's repealing paragraph (b) in the definition of "fuel." Paragraph (b) reads "biodiesel and other biofuels" and then reads: "substituting…(b) subject to section 13.1, biomethane." Again, just to understand or attempt to understand — I probably should qualify it — the definition that's being put in place here is that biomethane is a broader definition that includes biodiesel and other biofuels. It's meant to be a more encompassing and, I would assume, clearer definition, subject to the exception that we'll deal with shortly in proposed section 13.1.
Hon. K. Falcon: The Minister of Finance is thinking to himself: why isn't the Minister of Environment answering these questions? Nevertheless, I find myself here dealing with this fascinating subject, and I'm doing my best to keep up.
As best I can understand from the explanation provided me, biomethane means any methane produced from biomass. Now, biodiesel apparently is different. We no longer exempt biodiesel. So biomethane under this definition, meaning methane produced from biomass, is a much broader definition, subject, of course, to section 13.1, with respect to some limited exclusions which will now apply with respect to biomethane.
I hope that was helpful.
B. Ralston: I think I'm a little further ahead with that explanation. Biodiesel, then, the minister said, is being added to the definition of fuel and, therefore, would be, in theory, subject to the tax. That's a substantive amendment that appears to operate by virtue of getting rid of the present subsection (b).
Can the minister explain the reasoning behind that? Why is it being decided or why is it being proposed that biodiesel now be no longer exempt from the definition of fuel and be included and, therefore, subject to the tax? There is a definition of "biodiesel" further up, so I don't think you need to go into that.
Hon. K. Falcon: I understand that the biodiesel change was made in Budget '09, so last January. That change has taken care of biodiesel. This is just strictly dealing with biomethane, which is methane produced from biomass.
B. Ralston: There was a famous expression about parliamentary government which once described it as amateurs advised by professionals, so perhaps that applies in this case to both the minister and myself. But I certainly commend the staff person there for providing some assistance on these definitions.
Then is there in the definition of "fuel," under (a)…? Ethanol and methanol are produced from biomass, but they don't appear to be included in the definition of fuel. So are we dealing with a situation where — I suppose we'll deal with this in 13.1 — there's a blended fuel which contains some biomethane and then some conventional gasoline and therefore — section 13.1 — this new definition is designed to deal with what I think is increasingly a reality in fuel that's conventionally available?
Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that ethanol was dealt with in the budget update in September 2009. So it became taxable, but the carbon tax rate dropped to reflect the renewable fuel content. This section, though, is not dealing with ethanol.
We will, I think in section 13.1, be dealing with the whole issue of the blending of biomethane with other conventional fuels.
Section 3 as amended approved.
On section 4.
B. Ralston: I'll give the minister an opportunity just to continue the response that he was beginning there.
This amendment appears to deal with how the tax is calculated, where there is a mixture of the newly defined biomethane and other fuels. I suppose it would follow the definition of "fuel" set out in the act, obviously.
I'm just wondering the purpose of the section. It appears on first reading that if it can't be discerned what the combined elements are, they are taxed at the same rate as, I suppose, the fuel that contains more carbon. I'm wondering if the minister can explain how this is consistent with the direction of the legislation and what is, I think, increasingly more evident — such mixtures being sold and conventionally available even to ordinary purchasers of gasoline at the gas station.
Hon. K. Falcon: The existing section 13, I am advised, deals with when you know what the blends are. What 13.1 is dealing with is when you're dealing with the unknown blends. You don't know what the blend is between the biomethane and other conventional fuels. In other words, you're not sure what that allocation is.
The new section provides the new rules setting out the application of tax when the fuel and the biomethane are blended but the actual amounts of each are not known. So in a blend of a fuel and a biomethane where the amounts of each are unknown, the biomethane is deemed to be that fuel, and the entire volume is taxable at the tax rate for the fuel. Natural gas and biomethane would be one example.
In a blend of a fuel, natural gas and biomethane, where the amounts of each are unknown, the entire volume is deemed to be natural gas and is taxable at the tax rate for natural gas — for example, gas liquids, natural gas and biomethane.
How's that for an answer?
B. Ralston: Is the purpose of the legislation, then, to discourage retailers or wholesalers from creating such combinations where the respective elements can't be discerned? It would appear that if the biomethane is excluded as a fuel, then it would not be subject to the tax. Yet if it's mixed with natural gas or whatever, then it is subject to the tax.
If you can't discern the difference, is that to discourage people from doing that or to only do it and calculate in a reliable way the respective elements? Is that the purpose of this section?
Hon. K. Falcon: This, I'm advised, is to ensure that we provide certainty to fuel sellers and to purchasers so they know what they're paying tax on. I understand the act was silent on what taxation would apply to unknown blends, so this is to try and alleviate that uncertainty that was out there and to provide some certainty, as I say, to both fuel sellers and purchasers.
B. Ralston: Well, I'm looking at the present section 13. It does explain, "If a mixture or blend is composed of one or both of the following combinations..." and sets out several alternatives. It does explain the method by which the tax is to be calculated. It does say in the concluding.... I'm looking at section 13(1)(b), at the very end: "...by multiplying the rate of tax...under the applicable provision of this Act by the amount of that fuel or combustible in the mixture or blend."
So this amendment… That particular section didn't deal with the situation where the seller doesn't know what the combination is. Therefore, they wouldn't be able to calculate the tax. Is that what it's designed to remedy?
Hon. K. Falcon: You can't do that calculation without knowing the amount, which is why that section, section 13, deals only with known blends, because in that case, of course, they know what the blends are, so they can do that calculation.
[D. Black in the chair.]
The issue we're dealing with here under 13.1 is unknown blends. That's where we're trying to provide some clarity so that sellers and purchasers understand how they are to deal with the issue of unknown blends.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
B. Ralston: This is a slightly more substantive amendment under division 2, "Biomethane Credit." I'm assuming that it follows upon the.... Given the amendment in 13.1, this is a method by which it would be calculated, and the credits would be conveyed to retail dealers. But can the minister just explain the purpose of 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3?
Hon. K. Falcon: Just to recap here, purchases of 100 percent biomethane are exempt from carbon tax because biomethane, which is methane produced from biomass, is a carbon-neutral fuel. The biomethane of a blend where the amount of the biomethane in the blend is known is also exempt because it is a carbon-neutral fuel.
Now, Terasen Gas, which is now FortisBC, has received permission from the B.C. Utilities Commission to offer a biomethane program whereby purchasers who sign up for the program will make a notional purchase of a specified amount of biomethane, which would be as a percentage or as a set amount of the total natural gas received.
The program is based on notional sales of biomethane because once injected into the pipelines, it would not be possible for Terasen to track the actual amount of biomethane any given purchaser would receive.
The credit ensures that purchasers who sign up for this program or a similar program offered by other natural gas retailers do not pay carbon tax on the amount of biomethane that's specified in the contract.
The benefit is structured as a credit rather than an exemption to ensure that the benefit can be properly administered and that the refund FortisBC or other natural gas sellers that may provide a similar program receive is limited to the amount of biomethane they actually inject into the system if they inject less biomethane than they notionally sell under the contracts.
B. Ralston: Thank you for that explanation. Then is the credit calculated on the actual purchase of the biomethane before it's injected into the natural gas distribution system? Is that how it works?
Hon. K. Falcon: The credit is based on what is specified in the contract. If the contract specifies that there is 10 percent biomethane deemed to be part of the contract, then that would invite a 10 percent credit.
B. Ralston: Presumably, this is subject to audit or some form of at least notionally regulatory control in order to make sure that that is followed through on?
Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes, it would be subject to the same kind of auditing that is undertaken on any other types of credit or rebate programs that involve the private sector and utilize the benefit of the tax system.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
B. Ralston: The plain reading of this section would suggest to me it's simply there to authorize the director to refund an amount, and perhaps that authorization…. At least it clearly wasn't there in the legislation before. Is that the purpose of this proposed amendment?
Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that this is to deal with a drafting oversight and to include retail dealers of natural gas. I understand the other fuels are essentially dealt with, with collectors; I believe that's the term they use.
In this case, it is ensuring that retail dealers of natural gas also can benefit from the same principle that applies to collectors. For example, if there's an accounting error that was made, they are able to deal with that. It unintentionally excluded retail dealers of natural gas.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
B. Ralston: I'm assuming, based on a reading of this, that this is perhaps a similar drafting error. It's under section 56, which is entitled "Appeal to minister," and the proposal is to add a refund of tax paid or remitted. One presumably couldn't have an appeal unless there was something of substance to make an appeal about. I'm assuming that's the purpose of this proposed amendment.
Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. It essentially will provide regulatory authority for current administrative practices.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
B. Ralston: This appears to deal with the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, to make regulations, and these are consequential amendments following on the new definition of "biomethane" and "biomethane credits." Is that correct?
Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. You're correct.
Section 10 approved.
Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add section 10.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day. The amendment expands the definitions of "estimates" and "vote" to incorporate the concept of revisions to the main estimates during the period from the day they are initially presented to when the final supply act is put before the House.
[SECTION 10.1, by adding the following section:
Financial Administration Act
10.1 Section 1 of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 138, is amended by repealing the definitions of “estimates” and “vote” and substituting the following:
“estimates” means the estimates of revenue and expenditure for a fiscal year presented to the Legislative Assembly, being
(a) the main estimates presented annually, and
(b) any supplementary estimates for the fiscal year,
and includes any replacement of or revision to the estimates made before passage by the Legislative Assembly of the final Supply Act that relates to those estimates;
“vote” means an appropriation under a Supply Act identified in the estimates as a vote.]
On the amendment.
B. Ralston: I think it's fairly straightforward, but can the minister just confirm that these revisions are proposed to deal with the situation that arose this budget year, where one set of estimates was tabled and a replacement or revised set of estimates was tabled in May this year. So the disparity between what was tabled in February 2011 and what was tabled in May 2011 — this is designed to deal with that?
Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes.
Amendment approved.
Section 10.1 approved.
On section 11.
B. Ralston: I notice one of the member's capable staff people departing. I'm wondering if there's another one about to join him, or are we to continue? Perhaps I'll just wait a minute, then, if I might, Madam Chair.
The Chair: We'll take a two-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.
[D. Black in the chair.]
B. Ralston: The proposed two revisions appear to simply give discretion to the minister to exempt property held by a health authority from taxation. That seems to be the combined effect of the two proposed amendments — give the cabinet the opportunity under section 12, the proposed amendment to section 21(2), "to limit the exemption from property taxation...or to impose conditions on that exemption."
So is that the purpose — just to provide a bit more flexibility given the particular circumstances of any piece of property?
Hon. K. Falcon: Generally, a health authority property is exempt from taxation. So the amendments here are clarifying that health authority property must be used by or on behalf of the regional health board to qualify for a property tax exemption under the act.
Sections 11 and 12 approved.
On section 13.
B. Ralston: This initiates a new section of proposed amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act, and they appear to be dealing in some considerable detail with a relatively narrow situation that I suppose has arisen, thus requiring the amendment. So can the minister just explain the purpose of the proposed section 17?
Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that sometimes homeowner grants are claimed in error. In other words, individuals claim a homeowner grant when they're not entitled to one. So this requires and makes clear, because apparently it was not explicit before, that they must be repaid back to the Minister of Finance and be repaid with interest. So where there was lack of clarity, this makes it explicit.
B. Ralston: I understand the remedial effect that's being intended here, but can the minister advise just how many situations there are where the government has attempted to reclaim a homeowner grant that was paid in error and has not been able to do so?
Hon. K. Falcon: Last year we issued 1,280 notices of disentitlement, which is referring to individuals that have incorrectly claimed the homeowner grant and were not entitled to it.
B. Ralston: And is the minister able to put a dollar value on that and also advise: is it such that, given the state of the legislation, none of those could be reclaimed by the government through any legal process?
Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have a dollar amount for the member, but I understand we can get that amount to the member if the member wishes. The amendments.... There are remedies in place for someone that does not pay back.... If someone is disentitled and they do not pay back that amount to government, then there are remedies that we do have available, and apparently some of these amendments also touch on some of those remedies.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
B. Ralston: I would have perhaps appreciated the minister's offer to provide the dollar amount, if that's easily calculated. I would think it would be.
I only have five minutes remaining to deal with this bill before the guillotine comes down and cuts off debate.
I did want to ask some questions about proposed section 14, amendments to the International Business Activity Act. These appear to follow upon a report prepared by the Vancouver International Financial Sector Steering Committee and made some recommendations about rates of taxation to draw the financial institutions to British Columbia.
Page 11 of that report, the international income tax rate. Just so that I have it clear.... This is, I think, something that was being advocated by the report. There are some comparisons about the international income tax rate after these proposed amendments came into place, and there are some comparators.
If this were a corporation carrying on qualifying international activities from a base in B.C.... It also assumes the preferred tax rate for financial institutions. So in Vancouver it would be 16.2 percent; in Beijing, 25 percent; Hong Kong, 17.5 percent; Seoul, 35 percent; Singapore, 18 percent; and New York, 39.9 percent.
Is that the effective rate of taxation that will be in place for the appropriate qualifying activity, and are those international comparisons accurate?
Hon. K. Falcon: The federal rate is 16.5, as the member knows. That is going down on January 1, 1.5 percent. The other income tax rates shown there are based in 2008. So I am going to presume that they are still the same, but I can't confirm that for the member because those are a few years out of date.
B. Ralston: Then just clarify it for the.... It seems to be the point of the presentation that was made here that in order to attract international financial institutions to British Columbia — and I think it's really the relative figures — it was felt necessary, as a matter of policy, that British Columbia's rate for these types of institutions should be lower than that of Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore and New York.
That was the policy direction that's been recommended, and that's the policy direction that this minister supports. Is that correct?
Hon. K. Falcon: Chair, I actually think that's a very good and relevant question, and as the member would know, I have a motion tabled with the Clerk to allow us to bring this in force by regulation. One of the reasons was I wanted to have an opportunity as a new minister inheriting this program to be able to take a look at and get more up-to-date information on what exactly this means and what incremental benefits I can be certain will result from this.
That includes exactly what the member said, too, about a comparison of what the international income tax rate competitive situation is. Because, for me, it's not just about who has the lowest rate that is going to necessarily attract additional investment. It will also be what incremental additional benefits I can be given some comfort will genuinely accrue as a result of this.
I think it is important to recognize that this program, when it was initially introduced back in the late '80s…. We were in a whole different environment as a country. I'm getting the notice. Anyhow, we can talk off line about that a little more if you want, Member, but all I would say is our tax situation is much different today than it was back in the late '80s and, certainly, something that I am looking at very carefully.
The Chair: Pursuant to the schedule tabled in the House, the committee will now conclude its consideration of Bill 2.
Sections 14 to 33 inclusive approved on division.
Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendments to the commencement table standing in my name on the orders of the day.
Section 34, the amendments provide for the commencement of sections 2.1 and 10.1 at the beginning of this fiscal year and changes the commencement of sections 14 to 22 from a fixed date to implementation by regulation.
[SECTION 34, by adding the following items to the table:
Item Column 1 Provisions of Act Column 2 Commencement 2.1 Section 2.1 April 1, 2011 3.1 Section 10.1 April 1, 2011]
[SECTION 34, by deleting item 5 of the table and substituting the following as indicated:
Item Column 1 Provisions of Act Column 2 Commencement 5 Sections 14 to 22 By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which may be made to bring sections 14 to 22 into force on or after April 1, 2011]
The Chair: Minister, we'll deal with them sequentially.
Section 34, amendment to commencement of sections 2.1 and 10.1 approved on division.
Section 34, amendment to commencement of sections 14 to 22 inclusive approved on division.
Section 34 as amended approved on division.
Title approved.
Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved on division.
The committee rose at 4:34 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
Bill 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2011
Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011, reported complete with amendments.
Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. K. Falcon: With leave, now.
Leave granted.
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2011
Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011, read a third time and passed.
Hon. P. Bell: I call second reading of Bill 15, intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4).
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 15 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING ACT (No. 4)
Hon. I. Chong: It's my pleasure to move Bill 15, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4) to be read a second time now.
I'm presenting this legislation today in response to a request from the elected council of the city of Richmond for legislative amendments. The council has made this direct request to remedy an unusual circumstance affecting commercial property owners in an area known as Brighouse.
A number of commercial properties in the area have experienced sudden steep and sustained increases in assessed land values and taxes since 2005 due to the future development potential of those properties. The dramatic increases in assessed land values have been triggered by recent development in the Brighouse area and changes to the city's official community plan.
These changes will transform this area from warehouses, light industry and other commercial development to intensive mixed residential and retail, and those dramatic increases, some more than 300 percent, persist.
The legislation will provide authority to enable the city of Richmond to provide municipal tax exemptions to eligible commercial properties in the Brighouse area that have experienced extraordinary increases in their land values and corresponding taxes since 2005. It will also provide a provincial school tax flow-through, a partial exemption from provincial taxes up to a specified cap in circumstances where the city has provided a municipal tax exemption.
The province would only provide partial school tax relief if Richmond provides an exemption from municipal taxes, and the proposed tax exemptions would apply for a maximum of five years, as the legislation is intended to provide targeted transitional tax relief to affected properties in the Brighouse area.
The authority in the bill is intended to support targeted commercial business tenants, allowing them to continue to operate and provide jobs, pending redevelopment of the area. Currently business tenants occupying these buildings under leases are most affected by the assessment increases. With this legislation, there is the opportunity to help these businesses stay open and competitive and continue to provide important jobs for families in this area during the transition period.
Ultimately, one of the primary goals is to ensure we support local governments in creating economically sustainable and family-friendly communities with good job opportunities. The legislation we are here to debate today is a reflection of this goal, one I'm sure we all share.
I ask that members lend their support to this piece of legislation and, consequently, move second reading of Bill 15.
H. Lali: I know the member from Richmond, the MLA, has been working closely with these folks and with the minister to try to bring this forward. We just have some cautions from the opposition side.
This situation came in as a result of speculation and assessment values having gone up, and obviously, people who own the properties having to pay large increases in their property taxes as a result of that.
Of course, the caution that we've got is how future speculation is driving these assessments and the values up for properties and then having to raise these taxes. I think government needs to be cautioned on that so that any kind of abuses and that don't take place.
We also worry about…. When does the government decide to actually apply this, and where doesn't it, on a one-off kind of a basis? Where does it stop? I think that is something that needs to be considered by the government and also the abuse that might take place in terms of people actually profiteering as a result of future speculation.
I just want the minister to note that this is something that concerns the official opposition, and this is something that the minister, obviously, and the government needs to watch out for in the future.
Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.
Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for his comments. Perhaps we'll have an opportunity to address some of those at committee stage.
However, at this time I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 15 be placed on orders of the day for committee stage at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 15, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), 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. P. Bell: I call committee stage of Bill 14, intituled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011.
Committee of the Whole House
Bill 14 — Coastal Ferry
Amendment Act, 2011
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; D. Black in the chair.
The committee met at 4:43 p.m.
On section 1.
G. Coons: It's always an honour to get into the Coastal Ferry Act and open the vault and see how we can make it better. In section 1 in this bill, Bill 14, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, in 45.3…. I'd like to talk about that in section 1.
There are a few issues out there, and I think the minister realizes that. It was quite a deal for the commissioner to have this fulsome review of a lot of the issues. I'm just wondering, as far as the minister…. What prompted this review?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think probably the commissioner, who is a new commissioner and a fresh set of eyes, heard the same thing probably that the member heard, certainly that I heard. People were concerned about the rising cost of ferry fares. They didn't believe that it was sustainable to continue at that type of rate on the increases. I think it would be fair to say…. And I can't speak for the commissioner, but it would be my understanding from comments I've read that he actually wanted to have a look and see what was happening there.
So, Member, I would think the commissioner being a British Columbian and obviously hearing from the people and doing the job he's asked to do as an independent commissioner of the ferries took it upon himself to say: "Look, it's time. This act has been in place since 2003. It's time I had a look at it."
G. Coons: It is fairly significant, this review, which opens up the Coastal Ferry Act that leads to this amendment bill. It is somewhat significant, especially since the commissioner, barely in his job for a month and barely knowing where the washrooms are, is calling for a fulsome review of what's happening with B.C. Ferries. A lot of the issues that he's looking at.... The underlying approach is that basically, he had a concern about the financial sustainability and looking at the public interest of ferry users.
I'm just wondering. In section 45.3(2), they look at the weighted average of the tariffs. The minister has declared that the amount is 4.15 above the weighted average of the tariffs. It gives a definition, but I'm wondering how the weighted average is determined.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The weighted average is determined by the amount of traffic on each individual route, the type of traffic, and when I talk about that, it's whether it be passengers, whether it be passenger vehicles, motorcycles and such things. This is dealt with. They receive that information from B.C. Ferries. The commissioner's responsible to determine the weighted average based on the things I've just pointed out.
G. Coons: Yes, and it is a rather complicated process. I've tried to follow it through, and I do believe that the commissioner is going to be looking at how understandable the price-cap calculation model is, the complexity of it and whether it's understandable to ferry users.
I sat down with the previous commissioner. It's very difficult to understand. I do have a meeting with the new commissioner tomorrow, so perhaps we can look at what happened today and look at some of the ideas and suggestions that perhaps the minister and I will throw back and forth. Maybe we can do a long pass and have a breakaway together. I'm not too sure.
But on that note, there was a significant change, a disruption to the process that this bill does in 45.3. It looks at the performance term, and the performance term 3 has been set through legislation as being from April 1, 2012, and ending March 31, 2016 — a four-year performance term.
I guess what happened with this is the preliminary decision by the former commissioner had an 18 percent and 37 percent increase on the major and minor routes over four years, and I think that's where the previous minister was a bit shocked with those amounts. Those within the ferry community, including the minister, were outraged — I'm going to use that word — at the unsustainability of these for people who use the ferries.
I think that when we're looking at the significance of interrupting the performance term.... We've already gone through performance term 1. The first term was five years. The second term was four years, and this term was four years, and it's been interrupted by this legislation.
I'm just wondering. Why did the minister decide to change the performance term to the dates that it is now?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: There was an extension by one year for the commissioner to be able to take on the work that he requested, to have a look at this act and see what was taking place, to see if there were issues and recommendations he could put forward.
The performance term is still from 2012 to 2016. The final price-cap setting has been extended by one year, which will allow the commissioner to engage and look at the ferries act and put his recommendations back to government. If that extension wasn't granted, he wouldn't have been able to meet the time frames that are legislated today. Thus, a result that we're dealing with here is the amendment to that time frame.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for that. Again, this interference of getting in with the price cap, the preliminary price cap that hasn't been determined yet, but the minister.... It was supposed to be 4.18 and, I believe, 8.23 percent for the major and minor routes. This is a significant departure from the hands-off, no political interference that we've said and were promised in the literature that we got back in 2002.
Mind you, it isn't the first time, I guess, that there's been that interference. I guess just before the last election there was a $20 million influx into B.C. Ferries to reduce fares for two months by a third. So when I say that it's a significant departure from the hands-off, I guess it's not really that far away from the breaking of previous commitments that there be no political interference and that it would be left to run as this quasi-independent entity.
Getting back to the 4.15 percent weighted average of the tariffs that are now going to be payable on the routes. Why did the minister get involved with interfering with the 4.15 and using that number?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The question is: why the interference? Actually, this is a response to an independent ferry commissioner who wrote to me. As the Minister of Transportation receiving his letter, what he was asking made a great deal of sense to me. I think it made a great deal of sense to the vast majority of British Columbians, particularly those who use the ferry system on a daily basis.
We responded by saying: "If you're prepared to look at it.... You've put this forward. We concur." Then to settle out on one, we had proposed increases; 4.15 percent is what the number was on the major route, 8.23 percent on the minor and northern routes. We took and put all of the route groups at 4.15 percent based on a sustainability issue.
Although there will be people that will say that's too much, I think we have to be realistic. The original 4.15 and 8.23 percent were questioned by the public. I certainly heard more on the 8.23 percent. I'm not trying to mitigate the 4.15, but it does cost a great deal of money to run the best ferry system in the world, which I think we have agreement on.
While we are waiting for the review by the independent commissioner and the recommendations that will accompany that review, we set the rates at 4.15 percent to try and equalize them across all routes until we see what the commissioner comes back with.
G. Coons: Yes, and I agree with the minister on the concept of sustainability.
A lot of people looking at the fare increases over the last eight years of significant, especially on the minor routes.... The ferry advisory committee chairs have met with the minister, met with myself and talked about the unfairness of their fares — always basically double what the major routes are — and having a situation that they felt was inequitable.
When we look at the 4.15.... The minister talked about the minor routes, where he reduced them from 8.23, I think it is. I usually use 8.25 just to round it off, but it's 8.23. I see the minister acknowledging that.
He acknowledged the concern on the minor routes, and that was significant, especially today. There's a fare increase, I may add — a fuel surcharge, another 2½ percent on the major routes and 5 percent on the minor routes.
Again, the fares just keep going up, even during the review. Right in the middle of the legislation for the review, we've got fares going up today. They went up last April significantly also — 6.71, I believe, for the minor routes.
The minister met with the ferry advisory committee chairs, acknowledged their concerns. This legislation, I'm sure, is coming forth because the commissioner also listened to those concerns. The ferry advisory committee chairs represent all of the minor routes. There are 12 of them, and they've got a good grasp of what's going on.
As far as the 4.15 percent in section 45.3, why didn't the minister freeze that, as the ferry advisory committee chairs — who have, I'm sure, acknowledged and lobbied the minister, talked to him...? He heard it, and they acknowledged he heard it. Why didn't he freeze the fares during the review?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: he is correct. I did meet with the chairs of the ferry advisory committees. They did bring forward the issue that they would like to see a freeze, zero percent. They made that clear to me.
I did in the same meeting, though, I think, if you speak to them…. I thought it was a good meeting. They're very passionate. I made it very clear that zero was not on the table. The preliminary price increases that the ferry commissioner was looking at were 4.15 percent and 8.23 percent to allow the ferry system to operate.
What I did when the commissioner said, "Look, I'm hearing from the public, and I agree…." This is what the commissioner, essentially, said: "I agree. It is time to have a look at this. We have had this act in place since 2003. I would like to have a look." He put that letter forward.
I as the minister concurred on behalf of the Crown — and, I believe, concurred on behalf of the people of British Columbia — that that would be a welcome idea. So we put forward in the legislation today the lower of the 8.23 or 4.15 that will encompass all route groups.
But I do want to go back. I think the meeting I had with the chairs of the ferry advisory committee was very good. I think they are not only passionate about what they bring to the table but very knowledgable. These are men and women that represent the people that use these virtually on a daily basis. But the reality is that 4.15 percent…. We have equalized that across all route groups right now, and I'm looking forward to what the ferry commissioner brings back in his report.
G. Coons: Yeah, I'm starting to see a connection here that the preliminary decision for performance term 3 by the commissioner of 4.15 and 8.23 has a direct tie to what's happening here — the 4.15. Obviously, there's a tie to the preliminary decision.
The preliminary decision was out there, and it came to the minister. What is the final…? The preliminary decision that was supposed to be made public — what was the date when it was supposed to be made public, prior to this legislation coming in?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The preliminary price cap is released March 31. He puts that out. There are then 90 days in which people can put forward their concerns and ideas on the preliminary price cap at that point.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for that. I was in the right ballpark when I was thinking about that, and I was just trying to put it to this legislation. So we're about a month early to actually intervene and set a fare for the first year of the performance term 3. I've got it now.
Now, again, is there a cost to this? What is this going to cost taxpayers for this legislation, for intervening with the preliminary fare caps that the commissioner has put out there for a ruling on?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Right now I know the commissioner is working with B.C. Ferries on that to determine the final cost. What we're talking about, the 4.15, begins next year, April 1 of 2012.
I did say in an interview that I think it would be in the $4 million to $5 million range. Again, that is a minister saying that. I know that the final numbers have to be determined between B.C. Ferries and the commissioner, but when those are known, they will be made available.
G. Coons: Yes, we never want to question what a minister has said when it comes to trying to figure out what the cost is going to be.
But yes, I do recall the minister saying that this was going to cost in the range of $4 million to $5 million. I think that's an interesting amount that this section here, 45.3…. There is a cost to it.
What ended up happening with the preliminary decision is that the commissioner also is asking B.C. Ferries to meet a productivity challenge of $15 million a year, to cut back $15 million a year so that the fares of 4.15 and 8.23 could be met. That productivity challenge was put out by the commissioner to try to encourage B.C. Ferries to cut back on advertising, on executive compensation, on fuel and other methods of trying to meet that challenge.
B.C. Ferries put in a report to the commissioner, telling him that he has no jurisdiction over this. I believe the commissioner sort of took a step back, and that's why we're right here right now. The commissioner says: "I just can't follow the legislation and try to do the job of meeting the interest of ferry users and the financial sustainability of the ferry operators." That's why we're here with Bill 14.
It was then interesting, also, that the commissioner did a report. I'm not too sure if the minister has this or has seen it, but B.C. Ferries said they can't do $15 million. They can't meet that challenge, but they could meet $10 million. So there's a $5 million difference there, and I find that….
I'm trying to process this here. I'm just trying to put the numbers together here, where it's going to cost about $4 million or $5 million, and B.C. Ferries is saying: "Well, we can't meet the $15 million challenge. We can only meet the $10 million challenge." It seems to me about the same amount, so I'm going to have to process that a bit further.
I do find it interesting that there is a correlation between the challenge to B.C. Ferries by the commissioner and the amount that we're hearing here. The commissioner did put together that if he did accept the new challenge of B.C. Ferries of $10 million and not the $15 million that he wanted.... He figured out that the fares would be 4.4 percent for the majors and 8.73 percent for the northern and minor group.
So there have been some calculations on whether or not B.C. Ferries could meet that $5 million difference that they said they couldn't meet. And then we have this $5 million on the table again.
I'm just wondering: in determining the amount for the 4.15 for all routes, were there any communications, verbal or written, with B.C. Ferries on that?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to clarify one thing I said. I said that the commissioner is working with B.C. Ferries on that. Actually, we're working with B.C. Ferries to determine.... I would think the member was going to come back and say: "Minister, what's happening here?" So just to clarify that.
The other one — the difference in the funding. There is no grassy knoll theory here. I'll tell the member that. It reflects the difference between the 4.15 and the 8.23. That's the ballpark number I threw out. It will be finalized, as I said. We're working to figure out what that difference is and what the cost would be to B.C. Ferries on that.
Member, if I could, I was somewhat negligent in not introducing my staff when we started. Joining me, I have Kevin Richter, who is my ADM of Infrastructure. I have Kirk Handrahan, who is the executive director of the marine branch, and I have Kevin Gillese, who is the barrister and solicitor with the AG's ministry, as well.
G. Coons: Again, in 45.3 there's a cost — $4 million to $5 million — and you're working that out with the commissioner. The $5 million goes to whom? To B.C. Ferries? Or you're trying to work out an amount that the government and the commissioner can work on without B.C. Ferries? Are you just working on the information that B.C. Ferries has submitted to the commissioner?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The dollars we're figuring out right now, as I said, whether it's $4 million or $5 million, Member — I know those are big numbers; I agree with that — are the difference.... They are going to be down on revenue, obviously. This is the preliminary price cap that was put forward by the independent commissioner.
So the difference between the 4.15 percent that we have now established under this legislation, should it pass this House, and 8.23 percent.... We are going to replace that revenue to B.C. Ferries, and then what we're waiting for is the independent commissioner's report as he goes through his review to take into account the sustainability issue and the affordability issue of B.C. Ferries.
G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. The $4 million to $5 million — where is that going to come from through the ministry budget?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: We want to be clear. This is next year's budget as well. That's where this money would come from. We're working on that right now to ensure that it is within the ministry budget to be able to allocate that money.
Again, I know I've probably gone down this road. I said it's between $4 million and $5 million. It may be $5.1 million; it may be $3.8 million — just so we have an understanding there. But it would be out of next year's budget, and we will ensure that that cost is covered.
G. Coons: It is interesting that again, here's an amount going to B.C. Ferries. We did the same in this House — well, the government did — when they gave $20 million a couple of years ago. I think there were some service reductions happening, and I think the government put in $1.2 million somewhere along the line in the last year and a half or two. And here we are again.
This percentage, this 4.15 percent above the board for all of them, is fairly significant, because B.C. Ferries, when they talked about their productivity challenge, asserted that the preliminary caps with this productivity challenge posed a significant risk to B.C. Ferries' financial sustainability.
I'm sure we've talked about the finances of B.C. Ferries and the level of money that they're taking in and getting through subsidies from the government and the federal subsidy. When we look at this $5 million resulting from the decrease in the fare caps, it looks like the minister acknowledges that there is an issue and a concern about a significant risk to their financial sustainability if there's any flexibility from what they can raise.
That's why we're here — because the commissioner has an obligation, a direction from Bill 20, the last time we opened up the ferry act, about the ferry users and the interest of the ferry users.
My question is: does the minister feel it's appropriate to give money to B.C. Ferries, or does he think that the independent company at this point in time, after eight years, should be financially sustainable so that they could take a $5 million hit and still move on?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: If I understand the member's question properly.... I know he'll correct me if I don't. It was an interesting question. This is not a stand-alone company in the sense that it pays for itself. We actually put in roughly $170 million of taxpayers' funds, $126 million in direct service fee.
There's an additional $24 million, roughly — the exact numbers are in the budget — that goes to social programs. That would be for, gosh, a vast array of things. The federal government then puts in about $26 million or $27 million as well.
So the idea that we would make up the difference between the 4.15 and the 8.23 percent fits very well with what I know a number of the members I've spoken to from the opposite side of the House, as well as numerous British Columbians, have talked to me about: increasing the service fee. In essence, this is actually helping keep the rate down at 4.15 percent across all routes until the commissioner can do his report and make the recommendations back to myself and government.
G. Coons: I think that at this point in time, when we just saw a 3.8 percent and 6.71 percent increase April 1 and then, today, a 2.5 and a 5 percent, it's just piling on and piling on. Somebody had to throw the flag, I guess, and I guess the commissioner did.
At this point in time I really want to stress the importance of the commitment of the ferry advisory committee chairs and their daily, on-the-ground knowledge of what's going on in their communities as far as the economic impacts and the social impacts.
I think that at this point in time I'd like to make an amendment, if I could.
The Chair: Proceed, Member.
G. Coons: The amendment is in section 1, section 45.3(2). I'll pass a copy over.
[Section 1...Section 45.3 (2) of the Coastal Ferry Act, SBC 2003, c.14...by deleting subsection (2) and substituting (2) "Despite any other provisions of this Division, the price cap applicable to a route group is, for the period beginning April 1, 2012 and ending March 31, 2013, the amount is frozen.".]
That's the amendment.
On the amendment.
G. Coons: As we have indicated and the minister knows, there's been wide-ranging concern for many years, and when the Coastal Ferry Act first came into play, I read the mandate of it and I went: "Jeez, it may not be too bad if we just look at the fare increases based on inflation." Some numbers came out, and they were going to be about 3.1 percent average over the first performance term. I scratched my head, and I said: "Jeez, this may not be too bad."
There are some other issues there, the user pay and the cross-subsidization and finding alternate service providers. But as far as the fare increases, it wasn't too bad, I thought. Then some fuel surcharges came on, and they were piled on and rolled into the fares. Then we started the second performance term, where we've seen fares skyrocketing, and the impacts are horrendous.
At this point in time, as we move forward with this piece of legislation before us, I think it would be prudent to listen to the ferry advisory committee chairs, who look at the faces of the people that travel the routes every day.
On some of the routes we've seen fare increases, as we've said in the House before: on Mill Bay, up 54 percent; Comox–Powell River, 92 percent; Alert Bay, up 101 percent; Skidegate–Alliford Bay up in my area, 125 percent; Denman-Hornby, 128 percent over the last eight years.
Mind you, these fares are prepaid, round trip, two adults in a car. Those are the down-to-earth numbers the people on the ground are using.
So we threw out numbers, saying: "Oh yeah, it's only a cup of coffee." We've heard that with students, and we've heard that with ferry users. The press release that came out from the government in 2002 talked about: "Oh, it's just the price of a cup of coffee." Again, we're still getting that type of mantra.
I believe that at this point in time, as we move forward, we need to sort of have the wheels hit the ground here, or maybe the bow will go through the waves. However you want to look at it, I think it's time that we look and see the commitment from the government to ferry-dependent communities and those in coastal communities and on islands, to say: "Let's take a break from horrendous fares." Especially in the last two months, there has been an increase of, as I said, 6.71 and 5 percent, which is 11.71 percent in two months on those minor routes.
Inflation in the last seven years has been 11 percent, and in two months they're getting hit with inflation, with two fare increases — a fare increase and a fuel surcharge.
I believe that the minister is probably having some very reflective thoughts on this and relating back to his meeting with the ferry advisory committee chairs, who are the heart and soul of their communities, and has met with them and pushed forward the concept of: "Let's take a deep breath and work towards some solutions."
Let the commissioner go through the mandate that he wants to go through with his review. He's going to be looking at everything, especially the finances. This is key to this amendment, I believe.
In estimates the minister and I spent quite a bit of time looking at the finances of B.C. Ferries and wondering whether or not the provincial subsidies were adequate. The ferry advisory committee chairs, as the minister knows, keep saying, even though he may disagree with them….
We look at it, but the provincial subsidy has remained constant for eight years at 91.8. They would stick to that.
They would say that there have been some northern adjustment fees and some other things that really don't help all the minor routes. They've separated themselves from the northern routes that ended up getting an adjustment fee due to incidents with the Queen of the North. The whole concept of user pay came into that, where the government had to step in and give significant amounts to the northern routes because they financially couldn't be sustainable.
That's where we're at with the minor routes. The minor routes are day-to-day.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
You know, they're looking at their tickets, looking at the stubs that they're getting and saying: "It's going up." The last two months it has gone up 11 percent. It's unsustainable. The minister agrees that it's unsustainable. That's why we're in here today looking at this legislation and, hopefully, making it better.
I believe — and I'm sure the minister is getting very good advice from his staff — that perhaps this is an amendment that's supportable. On that, I would like to encourage the minister to have that sober, reflective thought about this and think about the stories he has heard in his short time.
I'm not too sure if the minister has travelled all the ferry routes. I don't think the minister travels too many ferry routes at all. I don't want to blow this out of proportion or whatever, but I know that myself, time-wise…. I have probably seven or eight terminals within the riding I represent, but it's very challenging for me to travel the ferries in my own riding. It's eight hours to Haida Gwaii. It's nine or ten hours down to Klemtu or Bella Bella, and I just can't travel the ferries.
I'm sure the minister needs to do a tour. I did a tour. I travelled to 28 communities on a ferry tour about two years ago. I sat down and listened to the concerns at public meetings. Anywhere from 50, 60, 100 people and more came out. I heard the stories — the impacts on the economy, the impacts on tourism, the impacts on housing prices, the impacts on seniors.
I believe that an amendment that I have put forward would be one that would perhaps show that there is more of a concern from the government than hitting with another fare increase, when people are looking at the devastating impacts, especially on the minor routes.
On that, I think I will let that amendment go. I hope the minister supports that.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: I want to thank you for the work you do, not only as the opposition critic but on behalf of the people you represent. I don't think you would find many people that wouldn't say: "Gosh, I would like to pay no increase, versus 4.15 percent." I couldn't disagree with the member.
But I will speak against the amendment for a number of reasons. I think most British Columbians recognize today that these are financially difficult times. I think the member would concur with that. Any time you're running a province…. This year we run a $41.9 billion budget to deliver the services and programs that British Columbians enjoy and, rightfully, deserve. The downside of that is that we aren't bringing in $41.9 billion today to pay for that. We're in a deficit situation.
In determining the 4.15 percent, I looked at those numbers. I looked at, really, the financial responsibility that we have on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and although zero is a nice number, which means the rates would be frozen, it just was not achievable or responsible.
I think we hear from the member and his colleagues across the way that there are many opportunities to spend more money in this province on additional services, on new services, whatever they may be. But the people I talk to…. I can't speak for the member, the people he speaks to, but probably one of the most important things I'm focused on for the people I represent in this province is getting our budget back to a balanced position.
Every dollar we spend today that we don't have.... We're putting that burden on our children and grandchildren. We may live a very good life today, but I don't think it's fair to our children and grandchildren to pay for that excess today.
So although zero would be nice — freezing the rates, Member, and I wouldn't disagree on that aspect — if I bring in the financial responsibility, which all of us in this chamber have an obligation to look at, I have to stand by 4.15 percent for all of the routes. That's something that I will do. For that reason, I will be voting against your amendment.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 32 |
||
James |
S. Simpson |
Horgan |
Dix |
Farnworth |
Ralston |
Kwan |
Lali |
Austin |
Conroy |
Brar |
Donaldson |
D. Routley |
Huntington |
Hammell |
Trevena |
Elmore |
Bains |
Mungall |
Karagianis |
Chandra Herbert |
Krog |
Simons |
Popham |
Fraser |
B. Routley |
Macdonald |
Coons |
B. Simpson |
D. Black |
Thorne |
|
Sather |
NAYS — 45 |
||
Horne |
Letnick |
McRae |
Stewart |
I. Black |
Coell |
McNeil |
Chong |
Polak |
Yamamoto |
Bell |
Krueger |
Bennett |
Stilwell |
Hawes |
Hogg |
Thornthwaite |
Hayer |
Lee |
Barnett |
Thomson |
Falcon |
Penner |
de Jong |
Clark |
Hansen |
Bond |
MacDiarmid |
Abbott |
Lekstrom |
Coleman |
Yap |
Heed |
Cantelon |
Les |
Sultan |
McIntyre |
Rustad |
Cadieux |
van Dongen |
Howard |
Foster |
Slater |
Dalton |
Pimm |
The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for North Coast has the floor.
Please proceed.
G. Coons: Proceed? Okay, thank you, hon. Chair. The minister is saying one minute.
The Chair: Member for North Coast, please proceed.
G. Coons: Nice to see the minister's staff back.
Again in section 1, I'm still in subsection 45.3(2). It talks about: "...4.15% above the weighted average of the tariffs that are payable as at March 31, 2012 on the designated ferry routes that are included in that route group."
I'm just wondering: what is the definition of "designated ferry routes"?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The designated ferry routes are the ones that are defined in the coastal ferry services contract. They are laid out there.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Are these designated ferry routes part of our provincial public highway system?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: They are part of our transportation network in British Columbia.
G. Coons: I just want to clarify a little more here about the definition of "designated ferry routes" as I see it in 45.3(2) in the bill before us. I think there's a significant difference between being part of the provincial public highway system and being part of.... What is the difference between being part of the provincial public highway system and being part of the transportation network?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: These are not highways. They are not defined as highways.
G. Coons: Yes, and I guess the reason why is.... When the government did the Coastal Ferry Act back in 2003, they physically removed ferries as part of the provincial public highway system. By definition "ferry" means "any vessel (a) by which individuals or goods may be transported over water, and (b) that is part of the provincial highway system, but does not include (c) a ferry to which the Coastal Ferry Act applies."
Does the minister, in his dealings with ferry advisory committee chairs and getting his feet wet in the last two or three or four months of being minister, consider that B.C. ferries are part of our marine highway?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I met with the chairs of the ferry advisory committees. They felt that they were part of the highway system. I again, at that point, had spoken to them, and I think they would reiterate what we spoke about. I talked about it being part of our transportation network, and that's how I feel on this issue.
I know where the member is going with this, and I expected the questions to come. But it is part of our transportation network, an important part of our transportation network in this province and — again, going back, I think, to use the member's words — the best ferry system in the world.
G. Coons: Yes, on the 50th anniversary of B.C. Ferries we're still struggling. But those people in communities that depend on the minor routes are questioning that statement from both of us. When we look at a system that's affordable, reliable and safe, we've got to really ensure that we move forward on that.
I think I'll perhaps go down the road on that one for now, Minister, and look at section 45.3. I believe it's (3)(e) I'm going to be looking at. In here it relates:
"(e) section 40 (4) (b) is deemed to read as follows: '(b) issue the commissioner's final decision on the application to the ferry operator and the government, which decision must set price caps for the period from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016 for all route groups serviced by the ferry operator so that those price caps, when combined with the price caps established for those route groups under section 45.3 (2) for the period from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013, provide in the review performance term the return that the ferry operator is entitled under section 41 to receive in that performance term.'"
What caught my eye in this section here that is basically new…. I think it talks about section 41, in this section 40(4)(b). I'm just wondering what section 41 is.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The section you're referring to deals with the return on equity that ferries is allowed to earn.
G. Coons: Yes, and the new part of this section 40(4)(b).... There's a new section in there from "the government" down, and I'm interested in the workings of this section 41. What is the return on equity that B.C. Ferries is expected to get?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: You asked what the ROE is today. It is established by the commissioner, and the interim is established based on the principles under section 41 that we just spoke about. Today it is 12.73 percent.
G. Coons: I did mention that in this section, 45.3(e), it talks about how "section 40 (4) (b) is deemed to read…." The first couple of lines — "...issue the commissioner's final decision on the application to the ferry operator and the government...." — were there before, and the rest of it is new. I'm just wondering why the rest of that had to be added to subsection 40(4)(b).
Hon. B. Lekstrom: So this section.... We are setting the first year of the price cap at 4.15 percent, Member. We've spoken about that. The commissioner will then set the remaining three years of the four-year price cap. This section is dealing with the issue that then the commissioner will take in all four years in his consideration of setting the ROE. on this. It is a complicated formula, but hopefully, I've done it some justice in explaining it to you.
G. Coons: Yes, minister. I've tried to follow and read through, and I'm looking now at 45.3(3)(f), right underneath the one we were doing, the reference in section 41(6). There is an amendment being made to section 41(6) of the Coastal Ferry Act, which deals with.... The title in the Coastal Ferry Act to 41 is "Principles applicable to price cap review," which involves a whole realm of figuring and return on equity.
We looked at the price caps for a route, and the minister said that it was all types of fares, whether it's drivers, passengers, children, underheight, overheight, buses, motorcycles, motorcycle group rates, motorcycle with sidecar — the minister would appreciate the motorcycle comments — kayak, canoe, bicycle, truck over a certain amount.
Then there are all the prepaid books. Not only that with all of those fares.... I'm under the impression that if bikes went up so much, then passengers could come down a bit. As things go up.... It's sort of like hitting the mouse with their head coming up. When one goes up, some can go down. Nobody can understand it. The commissioner has, in his review, said that we need to make this understandable.
When we look at section 41(6), it also goes to the return on equity. We've talked about this previously, and I do have a couple of questions about 41(6). But as the minister knows, there is an issue with return on equity, and over the years it's somewhere between 12.7 and, say, 13.7 that they've had to maintain. In 2007 they got 17.5; in '08 they got 12.5 percent. In '09 it was 3 percent, and they were supposed to legislate it to get about 13.6. In 2010, 1.1, and the projections are 2.7 and 1.4 percent. So it's pretty concerning return on equity in this.
The question I have in dealing with 41(6): will there be a huge impact on return on equity? Is that the reason why this was what was put into the legislation that we're just talking about — because there was a concern about return on equity?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: This section deals with the fact that the commissioner is only setting the rates for three years of the four-year term. We're setting the first year, but it reflects the fact that he has to take into account all four years when he determines the ROE, which the commissioner does.
G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. As I was reading the legislation and trying to connect the dots along with the real Coastal Ferry Act, I thought that was the answer.
I'd like to look at 45.3(4). It talks about section 42, and we're talking about "no extraordinary price caps" — which, I think, is very interesting, because that's what section 42 deals with. I'm wondering why the minister decided to have section 42 not apply until October 1, 2012.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this does is that it really suspends B.C. Ferries' ability to ask for an extraordinary price cap increase during the time that the commissioner is doing his review. That review is due to be completed by September 30. When you look, October 1, 2012, is the day following that.
G. Coons: Just a question: why did the minister decide to suspend price caps during the time of the review?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I apologize. I would have misled you. I was talking about the report and confusing that with his final price cap. The issue is that the final price cap will be set by September 30, 2012, not the report, as I'd talked about in the previous answer. Sorry about the confusion, Member.
G. Coons: As far as "no extraordinary price caps" until 2012, I guess my question was…. I'm not too sure if he answered that. Why did the minister choose that date, and why is he declaring a suspension of extraordinary price caps during that time?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The one-year extension obviously comes into play here, Member, and during that one-year extension, while the commissioner is doing his review, we wanted some certainty.
We're working with B.C. Ferries in the meantime as this goes on, but while the review is underway, we wanted certainty that the ferry users would know that that 4.15 percent was it, that B.C. Ferries would not come forward with an extraordinary price-cap increase request to the commissioner, and that's the reason it's in the legislation.
G. Coons: Well, the minister missed his big chance at certainty when we could have frozen them. That's what they really wanted: certainty. Jeez, maybe we should revisit that sometime, Minister. Thank you for that.
Again, as far as no extraordinary price caps, under what circumstances would an extraordinary price-cap increase be allowed?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Under the bill that we're debating here before the House, under no circumstances could that take place — any extraordinary price-cap increase.
G. Coons: Thank you for that certainty, Minister.
Moving along, I want to look at subsections 44(2) to 44(11), which is still in 45.3(4). They do not apply until October 1, 2012. And what are subsections 44(2) to 44(11)?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The subsections 44(2) through (11) deal with the discontinuance of service on the routes.
G. Coons: Continuing that, there's some new language. I'm looking at 4(a): "the reference in section 44 (1) to 'the authorization of the commissioner' is deemed to read 'the approval of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.'" Why the change from the commissioner to you, the minister?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we spoke about before, these sections deal with the discontinuance of service on routes. During this review period, we've made it clear that B.C. Ferries could not apply under that to the commissioner. But if some unforeseen circumstances.... If we had a ferry go out of service or something happened unforeseen, and God forbid it did, it would be our ability under my jurisdiction that we could deal with that issue. That's what that section deals with.
But the key issue here is that we talked about no extraordinary price cap increases being allowed under the terms of this while the review is going on. There's also no ability to have a discontinuance of service on the routes.
G. Coons: I find it interesting that the minister is now transformed into the Coastal Ferry Act and has a new power to authorize routes to be discontinued. Is that right? The minister has the power to discontinue a route. The minister talked about the circumstances that he sees where routes may be discontinued. What does the legislation say about routes being discontinued? Under what circumstances could a route be discontinued under current legislation?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will note right off that this is a temporary power that is conferred on me as the Minister of Transportation serving the Crown. This is to deal with if there was some unforeseen circumstance occurring. As I said, God forbid something would happen, but if it did, it confers that power to me as the minister during this review period. That's what this section is about.
G. Coons: But I do find that interesting. It seems that we're at a point of trusting the minister on this because, you know, you either trust the minister or you go to legislation. I think that's a problem that the commissioner had when he.... And the reason we have this review is that the commissioner had a real problem with looking at the interested ferry users and the sustainability of the corporation, and B.C. Ferries sent him a brief saying: "Do your job. You're legislated to do this as commissioner. You're legislated to do this."
Right now the minister is saying, "Oh, well, these are the reasons," but I'm not quite too sure that those reasons the minister is saying are actually in the legislation. Because it says — now I'm on (4)(b):
"section 45 is deemed to read as follows: 'If, under section 43, the commissioner authorizes a reduction in service on a designated ferry route, or, under section 44, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure approves a discontinuance of all or part of a...ferry route, the price cap set for the applicable route group (a) must be reviewed by the commissioner, and (b) adjusted in the manner...."
So I'm not quite too sure. What does section 43 say as far as routes being discontinued?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: There are two distinctions here, Member. Section 43 deals with temporary service reduction, so possibly a mechanical situation — I'm trying to think of something — and the commissioner. These would have to be temporary and extraordinary situations. The commissioner would make that evaluation.
Section 44 is discontinuance. That is the power we talked about just during the last question, Member. That is the temporary power conferred to the minister.
G. Coons: Okay, yeah. So we've got the reference to the two, a reduction and a discontinuance now. Right. So the minister now has the authority to discontinue a route and can reduce service on a route. Is that correct?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: No. The way it works is the commissioner is responsible for any temporary service reduction on that.
G. Coons: Okay. Now, again, when we look at routes that may be discontinuing, does the minister — in what he's done so far in his three or four months — have any routes that may be on the block for being discontinued?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, I certainly don't.
G. Coons: My last question here, hon. Chair, is…. I just wondered: why has the minister — for the first term, I guess, until 2012 — put himself in the position to look at authorizing route discontinuance and/or reduction?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know that we're going a bit back and forth on this. The member made a comment about the service reduction, and I do want to go back to that first before I go into the discontinuance. The temporary service reduction under section 43 remains with the ferries commissioner.
The discontinuance, section 44. Really, the interpretation — I think the member has read this thoroughly and I know does a great deal of work on it — was based on the fact that the ferry corporation could apply for, and I'll give you an example, a discontinuance of a route based on it being uneconomical to run, for instance.
We wanted to make sure that there was certainty during this review period. We've removed that. But we also needed to ensure that if there was some unforeseen reason, outside of it not being economical route — I can think of a number of things, and we can hope they never would occur or become a fact — we needed some form to be able to deal with that unforeseen nature, should it occur. So that temporary power was transferred to the minister, being myself.
Hon. B. Penner: I move that we recess until seven.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 6:30 p.m. to 7:09 p.m.
[D. Black in the chair.]
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
G. Coons: Great to be back for the last 20 or 25 minutes that we've got left here.
On 53.1 in section 2. This deals with "Commissioner to make recommendations." I just have a question to the minister. What process will the commissioner use to review the act and make recommendations?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: Member, the commissioner will set his engagement with the public. I know that he is very interested in hearing from the public. He has, obviously, in the first letter he has written to me requesting the ability to do this review, expressed the fact that he has heard from the people of British Columbia and their concern. I have the utmost confidence in the commissioner that he will certainly have every opportunity and allow every opportunity for full engagement with the public of British Columbia.
G. Coons: Under this legislation before us, is the commissioner required to hold public meetings or consultations or meetings with stakeholders?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: The legislation doesn't cover that, Member, but I believe you've probably seen a copy of the letter. It states in his letter: "The review process will be conducted by the commissioner's office, supported with the expertise of a qualified consulting firm, and will engage with the public and key stakeholders."
I do know he's going to go out and allow for full public engagement. I know the member, in meeting with the commissioner — I believe he said tomorrow — will raise that. I believe the commissioner is turning his mind to that right now.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Previously I've heard concerns with the mandate and the priorities of the B.C. Ferry Commission. It was back in 2006, and the ferry advisory committee asked him if he would hold public meetings on the islands so that people can ask questions. It says: "The commission will not be holding public meetings, but we look forward to invitations from representative groups."
That was five years ago, when the mandate of the commission was going in a certain direction, and they did not feel that they could host public meetings.
I have a concern about that. I'd like to propose an amendment to this bill, and I did give the minister a copy. If somebody could come along and take this….
I'd like to amend section 2 and section 53.1:
[Section 2….Section 53.1 of the Coastal Ferry Act, SBC 2003, c.14…by adding: ", hold public consultations with stakeholders and in ferry dependent communities" after "review this Act".]
On the amendment.
G. Coons: I think it's an important concept that the commissioner — because there's a past history with the commission saying they don't look after the public interest; they're looking after the financial sustainability of the corporation — would appreciate some mandate and some direction to ensure that he has the support of the minister, of the government and of this House to do the job that he needs to do.
I think by requiring him to hold public consultations with stakeholders and in ferry-dependent communities, it will give a breath of relief to a lot of people who might say: "Yeah, we've had opportunities before to try to have some input, and there's been a refusal because it wasn't a part of the mandate of the commission to do that."
I would hope that at this point in time — the Minister is looking very reflective over there and acknowledging the issue and the concern, especially since I pointed out the ferry advisory committee chair's issues in the past years about having concerns about public meetings — that this would be one that would be supported by all of the House.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will rise and speak against the amendment. If the member gives me a moment, I will explain why. I think the intent is laudable, but I do believe that to enshrine this in legislation when we have it in the letter from the independent commissioner that his intent is to engage with the public and key stakeholders….
I guess the concerns I would have…. I have no difference of opinion with the member who raised this and put it forward that his expectation is that the commissioner will travel to communities that are affected. In the finest sense of the terms, when you look at some of the wording, to define a ferry-dependent community, although we may and certainly the member would define that and probably very correctly so…. I think it does put us in somewhat of a position.
If what the member is looking for is whether I as the minister support the commissioner's review and that review encompassing good public engagement, speaking to the communities affected, I think he is going to do that, Member. I understand the intent of the amendment, but I will oppose it.
I do encourage the member in his discussions tomorrow with the ferry commissioner to bring this up. I think he'll probably be more than satisfied with the response. I can't speak for the commissioner, but every indication I've received from him is that he is intending on full public engagement in all areas.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I thought we had a go there, but we'll still work on that one.
Still in section 2, in 53.1 it says that on or before January 24, 2012, the commissioner must review this act.
The Chair: Member, would you take your seat for a moment, please. We didn't vote on the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The Chair: Member for North Coast, I thought you were getting up to speak to the amendment.
G. Coons: Oh no, it was so close.
Still on section 2, 53.1, in the legislation it says that the commissioner must review this act. What parameters does the commissioner have in his review?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think it is summed up what the intent of this is in 53.1, the last sentence: "…the commissioner, when exercising his or her powers and performing his or her duties under this Act, to balance the interests of ferry users with the financial sustainability needs of the ferry operators."
I think this whole exercise came about as a result of not only a new commissioner coming forward on this position but what all of us have heard, Member, whether it be yourself, members of the opposition, members of government, the general population — the concerns expressed by the travelling public about the sustainability and the affordability of the ferry system in British Columbia.
I do think the last part of 53.1 defines quite well what the ferry commissioner will be looking at.
G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I tend to disagree on that.
When we look at the mandate or the priorities of the ferry commissioner, he's listed with six or seven — a priority to be placed on the financial sustainability of the ferry operators, which we're talking about. Then someplace else is just sort of a recommendation, I would say, because it's not under the priorities that he consider the interests of ferry users.
You know, there's a big stretch between the two. That's the problem he's having. I'm just wondering: as far as "the interests of ferry users," is there a definition of that in this legislation?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: There is no definition of interests, Member. We did not want to curtail or tie the hands of the commissioner. I think this will be, certainly, a very worthwhile endeavour. Again, I have a great deal of respect for and confidence in the new commissioner. I didn't get an opportunity, really, to work with the old commissioner in that sense, but this one here….
It's very clear, Member, and I think you would agree. I don't want to put words in your mouth. The public have expressed concerns about the affordability and that sustainability for families in this province. Can it continue at the rate increases that we've seen? Those rate increases, Member, do go back. We spoke on this. Between '91 and '99 there were some significant rate increases. Between '03 and today there have been some significant increases.
The ability for the independent ferry commissioner to take a look at this in the interests of the ferry users…. I'm very confident he recognizes that it is all-encompassing. He will do the best he can and then put forward recommendations.
Again, I go back. This is not just based on his ideas. This is going to be based on his public engagement.
G. Coons: I would think that the ferry commissioner before the current one wouldn't want to be referred to as the old one. Perhaps the previous one. I'm sure Martin Crilly would prefer that. We'll refer to him as the previous ferry commissioner.
That's the problem. What ended up happening in Bill 20, the last time we opened up this can of worms, just a little pop, this government put in that the commissioner has a mandate to look after the interests of ferry users. That happened in the last legislation on the Coastal Ferry Act.
Here we are with the new commissioner a month into his job, and he's saying: "I can't do it." He needs the definition of what considering the interests of ferry users is. I would think it would be incumbent upon the minister to ensure that the commissioner has the definition of consider the interests of ferry users, because that's why we're in this mess. It was just proposed and put in, in Bill 20 previously, last year, a year and a half ago, and now we're here again with this can of worms.
I'm wondering: is there a difference in the minister's mind between "considering the interests of ferry users" and "looking after the public interest"? Is there a difference between those two terms?
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do see a difference between the interests of the ferry users and the public interest. I think they do overlap. I can't predetermine what the independent ferries commissioner is going to do as he looks at his review here, but I would not expect he will be travelling to Pouce Coupe to engage the public there. I know. I see the members on the other side in shock and awe that that may not occur. But I do think that they overlap somewhat.
You spoke about how it is not well-defined what the public interests are. I think that is part of what the independent commissioner's review is going to determine as well. I think that's a very important part. I wouldn't say far too often, but many times I think the public feel that the people in Victoria — I'm speaking about all MLAs — impose their will instead of the will of the people. The independent ferries commissioner is going out to talk to the public, to the interested ferry users, and come back with recommendations on what he thinks will improve the operation.
G. Coons: Again, I agree with the minister. But I think the previous minister said, when the legislation was coming through for Bill 20, that the interests of ferry users was underwritten in the legislation, when I asked her about that previously. Obviously, the commissioner could not find it underwritten within the legislation, because he is now having that problem.
On that note, I'm going to propose another amendment. I think the minister has it.
[Section 2….Section 53.1 of the Coastal Ferry Act, SBC 2003, c.14…is amended by adding "by considering the interests of the public good in the interest of ferry dependent communities" after "balance the interests of ferry users".]
Amendment negatived.
The Chair: Now, in accordance with the motion that was tabled in this Legislature yesterday, it is now 7:30 p.m. I call sections 2 through 6.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. B. Lekstrom: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 7:31 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 14 — COASTAL FERRY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2011
Bill 14, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. I. Chong: I would like to call committee stage of Bill 11, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BIll 11 — YALE FIRST NATION
FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; D. Black in the chair.
The committee met at 7:36 p.m.
On section 1.
S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and her staff.
At section 1…. I'm hoping this is in order, but it's the beginning of our session here so I'd just like to get a bit of clarification that I think would apply to the whole bill. I believe it would be in order.
This is all done through regulation. I'm just curious. If we get beyond this point and this bill is ratified by the end of this session, prior to it going for federal ratification — which it's my understanding from the meeting with staff could be up to a year, a fair length of time — what are the provisions for amending sections of the bill? Is that possible? There are regulations. What's involved with that?
Hon. M. Polak: I'll begin just by introducing the staff who are accompanying me here today: my Deputy Minister, Steve Munro, and we have Mark Lofthouse, chief negotiator, and Jeff Loenen, our legal counsel from Ministry of Attorney General.
Thank you for the question. Amendments at this stage are unlikely. If they do occur, they tend to be administrative changes. Anything of substance would have to go back through the agreement process again for ratification by Yale, for example. However, for those administrative changes, if necessary, the process would be for the three negotiators representing each party to sign off on any of those changes.
S. Fraser: Thanks for the answer.
If I could follow the train of thought where it's leading me, does that mean, for clarification, that if there was an amendment of substance, as opposed to an administrative amendment, that would then require it to come back to this place? Would it have to come through a process in the Legislature again?
Hon. M. Polak: All three parties would have to sign off on a change. If it was of substance, then it would have to come back to all three places — the Yale for ratification, here for ratification, and if it had already passed through the federal House, it would have to go there.
S. Fraser: Just a bit more on this, if I could. If it was discovered that there was a need for an amendment — something subsequent happened within the next year, hypothetically, prior to ratification at the federal level — is there any difference? I mean, if a situation like that happened, would it be any different if it happened before or after federal ratification? Would the process change at all, and if so, how?
Hon. M. Polak: Should issues arise during the period of implementation or preparation for implementation, the method of addressing those is typically to reach an agreement outside the treaty as opposed to amending the treaty itself. An amendment to the treaty itself, if it was of substance, would essentially amount to renegotiating an agreement.
S. Fraser: Just the final clarification. If the Yale First Nation themselves discovered a mistake or an amendment that would better serve maybe a situation that wasn't anticipated, would that kick in the same process? Would it then have to come back to the province, the federal government? Would it have to be re-ratified in this House through this process and/or the federal House if it happened after federal ratification?
Hon. M. Polak: If it was an amendment of an administrative nature, then the three parties could sign off on it. If it was an amendment of any substance, it would have to go through the entire process again.
S. Fraser: Now, I might have missed it, but do we know where the line is between "administrative" and "substance," and how would that be determined if it isn't clearly defined?
Hon. M. Polak: That is laid out in section 26.8. Again, just to make it clear to the member, it is contemplated that through the implementation process there may need to be discussions that result in other agreements outside of the treaty. That would be the way in which issues are managed through implementation and in fact has already occurred, for example, with the Maa-nulth treaty, which I know the member is familiar with.
S. Fraser: Just moving on. It's still under section 1, but section 1(2). It says: "Words and expressions used in this Act have the same meanings as they have in the Yale First Nation Final Agreement, unless the context requires otherwise." I'm confused by the statement. What exactly does that mean?
Hon. M. Polak: This wording is not unique to Yale or the Yale final agreement. It is standard legal terminology to protect against an irrational interpretation of words within the document.
S. Fraser: I don't mean to belabour this, but could I seek the indulgence? Could the minister provide me with an example, just for my clarification, of: "unless the context requires otherwise"? I still don't quite get it.
Hon. M. Polak: We could come back with an example for you, but essentially it's to ensure that there isn't some wild interpretation placed on a word that would generally make sense within the context.
B. Simpson: So the treaty we have in front of us, just for those who end up reading this or paying attention to this.... As legislators, we have a document that is 495 pages long that is the final agreement. But within the context of this chamber, we have a bill, and that bill is the only document that we, as MLAs, can try to impact or affect.
I know that the opposition critic and I have been asked by, in particular, the Stó:lô to look at some amendments. We've clarified that that's not always available to us because the final agreement is a final agreement. It has been negotiated and constitutes a final document.
So all we can do is speak to the bill, but the bill lockstep references the sections of the agreement. Therefore, we can participate in an exercise of trying to understand what's in the agreement and trying to make sure we understand how we arrived at the agreement as well. It's with that in mind that my questions will focus on initially.
So section 1 of this. There's a preamble of whereases. The one I pointed out last evening in second reading motion is: "AND WHEREAS Canadian courts have stated that this reconciliation is best achieved through negotiation and agreement, rather than through litigation." Courts have ruled, time and again, that their preference is not to litigate a resolution to the question of territorial claims and land claims. Their preference is government-to-government negotiation that ends up in a treaty that represents constitutional rights.
It also says: "AND WHEREAS the Yale First Nation Final Agreement embodies the principles of this New Relationship, including mutual respect, recognition and reconciliation of Aboriginal rights and title." And then, "...by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows," and we're on section 1 of the enactment, which is the definitions section.
The definitions section is the first section that actually defines the agreement as between the Yale First Nation, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia.
So for the record, what is the government of British Columbia's understanding of what constitutes the Yale First Nation? What is the Yale First Nation?
Hon. M. Polak: That is defined by Canada in the Indian Act.
B. Simpson: Okay, so let me ask the question a different way. What is the minister's understanding of how many people are involved in the Yale First Nation, and what physical land do they claim territorial rights to?
Hon. M. Polak: As of May 2011 those members enrolled through provisions defined in the treaty are 155. That is further described in better detail in section 25.1 of the treaty. Their reserve lands amount to about 217 hectares, and their statement of intent lands as filed with the B.C. Treaty Commission amounted to 103,120 hectares.
B. Simpson: With the minister's forbearance, part of the reason for answering some of the questions, of course, is that some of this won't go into Hansard, into the public record. I know it's in the agreement. In order to avoid reading sections of the agreement in…. That's why I'm asking some of these questions, so that they are available.
So 155 members. I wonder if the minister could clarify, because the public reporting of the vote puts the number of members at 99, with 66 of the members voting in favour of the treaty. If the minister could just simply state what the nature of the vote was, who was registered with a right to vote, how many participated in the vote, and what the actual vote was of the Yale First Nation to accept this treaty.
Hon. M. Polak: Staff are just taking a look at the raw number of people who voted. To answer the member's question — and we can get you the other number afterwards — the difference between the membership of Yale and the number of people who voted is similar to what would happen in a typical general election for us. There are those who were under the age at which they were allowed to vote, and there were others who simply did not vote for a number of different reasons. The vote did pass with 68 percent of those voting in favour.
B. Simpson: For a point of reference, because this is going to be part of my questions, certainly, with respect to this treaty…. The Stó:lô First Nation…. There are two components to the Stó:lô First Nation, as I'm sure the minister is aware. What's the minister's understanding of how large that First Nation is?
Hon. M. Polak: This just goes to show that this is probably the lowest television ratings for any Hansard broadcast in the history of the House. In fact, even members present are not watching the proceedings in the House as we proceed. However, we will continue.
Staff are just taking a look at what our official best estimates are in terms of a population attached to Stó:lô. There are, in fact, three components to Stó:lô. There is the tribal council, the treaty association, and then a number of independent Stó:lô bands, so it's three groupings totalling about 29 bands. We'll get you the number in terms of our estimates of attached population.
To go back to the previous question, there was a 94 percent participation rate in the vote, and that amounted to 91 of 97 eligible voters.
B. Simpson: Now that the other distraction is gone, I'm sure that many people will be switching back to Hansard and watching with great interest.
I appreciate the minister getting that feedback from staff, and also the correction. I was talking about the two organizations or bodies. There are ones outside. There are Stó:lô who are self-identifying, as Yale did, and then participating in the treaty process. There are Stó:lô who are not participating in the treaty process, and some Stó:lô bands that are not participating in the Stó:lô organizations.
I guess the reason for raising Stó:lô is that we'll get to the issue of overlapping claims or right-and-title issues. The first process in the resolution of a treaty under the B.C. Treaty Commission process is a statement of intent to negotiate. Could the minister state for the record: what was the time frame for Yale to issue a statement of intent to negotiate?
Hon. M. Polak: Just to clarify, the Yale are not Stó:lô, self-identified. They are not a self-identified Stó:lô First Nation. They are, in fact — and have been, under the auspices of our federal government, for the last 110 years — identified as an independent First Nations band. Not Stó:lô, but as Yale. Our estimates have the membership of Stó:lô in all three groupings to amount to about 5,200.
With respect to the statement of intent, the B.C. Treaty Commission accepted the statement of intent to negotiate by Yale on April 26, 1994.
Just a suggestion, a friendly one, in order to keep us moving…. Section 3 moves us into discussion of the entire treaty. I wonder if the members would be interested in passing through sections 1 and 2 and then continuing this discussion under section 3. I leave that to them.
B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's offer, but we're in the definitions section. There are significant questions about definition, and what we're talking about is kind of the start of definition. Hopefully, Hansard reflects this.
I never indicated at all the contention that Yale was a self-identified Stó:lô. I didn't say that. I just said that Yale self-identified and entered the treaty process.
The minister has indicated that she believes Stó:lô are around 5,000. The Stó:lô themselves have indicated publicly that they believe they're in the 10,000 mark, so there's a difference in an order of magnitude that's quite significant there.
But when the Yale…. Again, the minister must know, because she's had meetings with the Stó:lô, that the Stó:lô disagree with the minister's contention about Yale and Yale's contention about Yale. The Stó:lô contend that Yale is a village of the Stó:lô, and I'll take a look at that in a second. This is under the definitions component, because in definitions the Yale First Nation is defined.
During the statement of intent, it's my understanding — and I look to the minister to disabuse me of that notion — that it's incumbent upon the self-identifying First Nation in the statement of intent to provide the government with a list of any First Nations whose claims overlap with the traditional territory that they have expressed an intent to negotiate around.
At the time, did the Yale First Nation identify the overlapping or conflicting claims of Stó:lô at the date that she indicated they issued a statement of intent?
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Hon. M. Polak: To be clear, it's not my contention that Yale are an independent First Nation and not Stó:lô. They have had their own status as an independent First Nations band for more than 100 years, according to the federal Indian Act, the government of Canada.
With respect to the statement of intent, that is provided not to us. It is provided to the B.C. Treaty Commission. We do not have that documentation. That is strictly managed through the B.C. Treaty Commission, and I suppose the member could seek to access that information from the B.C. Treaty Commission. Nevertheless, that's not information they provide to us. It was provided to the B.C. Treaty Commission, as I said, in April of 1994. They are the ones who make a decision with respect to that, and it is they who hold those documents. We have not seen them.
B. Simpson: I want to be crystal-clear, given the minister's response, that I respect the right of Chief Robert Hope and the Yale First Nation to identify in any form that they wish to in their recognition under federal jurisdiction. I'm not contending that they are Yale or Stó:lô or anything. I'm simply saying that part of the debate around the Yale treaty is the contention from the Stó:lô versus the contention from Yale. The treaty process is clear that in the statement of intent, there is supposed to be a clear statement of where there are overlapping claims.
While the minister does claim that the government isn't responsible, that that goes to the B.C. Treaty Commission, one would think that due diligence on the part of the provincial government.... The B.C. Treaty Commission is not a signatory to this agreement. The government of British Columbia, on behalf of Her Majesty, is a signatory.
The government of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty, is a signatory, and the Yale First Nation is a signatory. The B.C. Treaty Commission is not a signatory, does not have rights to sign.
If the government of British Columbia is going to enter into an agreement that has the potential in any way, shape or form to extinguish the right of another First Nation, I think it would be incumbent upon the government to actually understand whether there are other First Nations rights at stake here.
Let me try it at a different angle. If the minister thinks it's only up to the B.C. Treaty Commission to know…. When was government apprised by either the Yale, the B.C. Treaty Commission or by the Stó:lô that there were serious issues with Yale self-identifying and entering in the process and Stó:lô not having their rights guaranteed, either by way of letter of intent or by way of a process that their issues could be heard?
The B.C. Treaty Commission hopefully got it in the statement of intent, but when was the government apprised that there was an issue with respect to the Stó:lô overlapping claim?
Hon. M. Polak: Let's be clear about how the statement of intent process operates. The B.C. Treaty Commission are charged with making that decision. They are independent, and we do not, as government, have a right to interfere with that decision. In fact, we would be contravening the role of the B.C. Treaty Commission and our role if we were to, as the member suggests, consider it due diligence to examine the B.C. Treaty Commission's decision. That process, by the way, was established back in 1992.
We certainly understand our obligations, and that is one of the reasons that we continue to consult not only with Stó:lô, but also with other impacted First Nations. We fully expect to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
But the member should be aware that further in the Yale agreement, in fact, under section 2.12(2)(b), there is an explicit provision that deals with what the member is concerned about. The member said that prior to us potentially extinguishing the rights of other First Nations…. In fact, according to the treaty itself, that actually cannot happen.
The section reads as follows. That's a provision of the treaty. "If the provision cannot operate and have effect in a way that does not adversely affect that right" — in other words, the right of another First Nation — "the Parties will make best efforts to amend this Agreement to remedy or replace that provision." That continues in place going forward through the implementation of a treaty.
In other words, there is no possibility of extinguishing the right of another First Nation. It is, in fact, enshrined in this treaty, as it would be in any other, recognizing that in the entire province, there is truly only one First Nation that does not have overlap issues with other First Nations. Yet we intend, as time goes by, to successfully reach agreements with First Nations in spite of those difficulties.
B. Simpson: We will get to section 2 and that clause in particular because, of course, the language is "best efforts," and best efforts to date in these late stages of the final agreement have not led to resolution. So it is conceivable that the Yale treaty…. We'll get into the issues of permitting, gatekeeping, giving what the Stó:lô believe are their time immemorial rights of access away to another First Nations.
I think the Stó:lô would disagree vehemently with the minister about the nature of extinguishment and the comfort that they might get from best-effort language in the agreement. Maybe I'll ask the question to the minister: at any point in the agreement, is Stó:lô recognized as existing?
Hon. M. Polak: The reason that Stó:lô are not mentioned in this treaty is because this is the Yale treaty, not the Stó:lô treaty. There is a provision — not just the one that I read, but also one that deals with the right to reasonably access the areas that the Stó:lô would be interested in. Again, we understand our obligations, and we'll continue to consult with Stó:lô and with other First Nations that are impacted.
It is worth noting that in the case of the Maa-nulth treaty and the overlap dispute that took place with the Tseshaht First Nation, the agreement to resolve that only came into place two weeks before the implementation date. The treaty had been fully ratified three years prior to that.
This is certainly not out of sync with the way in which we have conducted ourselves in negotiations with other First Nations and in concluding other treaties. In fact, it can be argued that the satisfactory conclusion of agreements such as the one with Tseshaht is actually easier to get to once you have some parameters, as defined in a final agreement. They can very often be easier to reach than with the blank slate that exists before one has a final agreement in place.
I want to reiterate. We certainly understand our obligations. We have provided for the mitigation of any impacts on the Stó:lô within the treaty in that particular section, and we intend to continue the consultations with them to ensure that their rights are protected fully.
S. Fraser: I'm just going to step into this for a moment, because the minister made a comment about the Tseshaht First Nation and the Maa-nulth treaty. I was present. It was just days before the implementation of the Maa-nulth treaty that the Tseshaht and the five Maa-nulth Nations did arrive at an accommodation.
I would submit that that's maybe not a fair analogy to this situation. In this situation there is quite a.... I don't know if "acrimonious" would be the right word, but this is quite a volatile situation — the history of the questions about the access and territorial boundaries and the historic use of the canyon itself that are identified, certainly, for the Yale and the Yale treaty here. The conflict, if you will, with the Stó:lô over that predates the first reading of the treaty.
To a large extent, I'd say it's of a different magnitude than anything that occurred between the Maa-nulth First Nations and the Tseshaht — and, of course, being mindful that of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations in and around Clayoquot Sound and Barkley Sound, the Tseshaht, as well as the five Maa-nulth Nations, were all Nuu-chah-nulth.
There may have been discussions about territorial issues, certainly, and maybe disagreements, but it was not of the scale.... It's not nearly comparable, I do believe. I just wanted to clarify that. I have some experience with what's happening on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
B. Simpson: Thanks to the opposition critic for stepping in on that, because I also want to clarify.... I do appreciate.... The minister sent me a note yesterday, after my second reading, when I intimated incorrectly, from understanding the opposition critic's opening remarks, that the Tseshaht was done before the final agreement was reached. The minister disabused me of that notion.
So I went and I did some reading on that. That's where I want to go now, because the opposition critic is correct. We're looking at a fundamental difference in these two circumstances, and also the belief by many experts in treaty negotiations, by many First Nations that the government is on a slippery slope. What happened in the Maa-nulth was resolved, for reasons that I'll illustrate momentarily.
What's happening in the Yale may not be resolved, and I think it gives little comfort — in fact, I know it gives little comfort — to the Stó:lô that reasonable access is somehow guaranteed through this treaty and that it's somehow easier to reach an agreement on unresolved territorial claims if one of the parties needing resolution gets the claim and the other has to argue their case in the court or with government post.
The best analogy I can come up with is two children playing in a sandbox. An adult comes along, picks one, says, "It's your sandbox," and then to the other one: "Well, now that we know it's this person's sandbox, you've got the right now to prove that you get a share of the sandbox or that you get reasonable access." That's how it feels to the Stó:lô. I see the minister nodding her head in the no, but it's the Stó:lô who are the ones who are living with the consequences of this, not the minister.
In the case of the Tseshaht, we have a situation in which…. And I'll come to the question. When a statement of intent is put before the B.C. Treaty Commission and the territorial claims of other First Nations are named, there are two opportunities or two ways of approaching overlap agreements.
The first is to simply exclude them outright from the treaty table. So those are excluded, and no rights are allocated to any of the parties in an exclusion agreement. The treaty is then formed, and only in areas where there's an agreement that that First Nation has primary right and there's an agreement around overlap that's not contested. That's dealt with, but the area that's under contention is excluded.
The second way to do that is to establish a boundary agreement or a joint resource management agreement or some kind of memorandum, and that's what the case was in the Tseshaht. They had an agreement. That agreement was what allowed them then to finally reach the agreement before the full implementation of the treaty. The agreement then became, as I understand it, an appendix to the treaty, and some of the rights….
Okay, so I'm misunderstanding that. Again, I read a lot over the last couple of days. So I'll take that off the table.
My point is that the work was done after statement of intent. Agreement was made then that what they would do is do a terms and a joint resource agreement. As the minister knows, the Maa-nulth is part of the Nuu-chah-nulth. There was a division there, and part of that division is a small group, self-identified, who entered the treaty process. The Tseshaht was caught in the middle.
As part of what went on there, and to the opposition critic's point, the accord that was facilitated before the implementation was facilitated by the Treaty Commission. It used the memorandum that already existed as a tool to reach that agreement so that all parties could celebrate.
But here's what Tseshaht Chief Councillor Les Sam warned to government: "Now that it's been accomplished, I would challenge the federal and provincial government to append this document to the Maa-nulth treaty" — so that's where I got it from; there was a challenge to append it — "and to include consultations between all nations as part of the treaty process. Imagine all the trouble they could save if they just started out doing the right thing in the first place."
That's really what the contention is here. For the record, Madam Speaker, from a reputable source that was provided to me. Hugh Brody, the Canada Research Chair in Aboriginal Studies at the University of the Fraser Valley, has a piece that he has written about the risks of the Yale agreement.
He points out an interesting fact. He states:
"Experts on aboriginal fishery on this stretch of the Fraser River in question in the Yale treaty" — which the Yale get control of and now can give permitting or reasonable access to the Stó:lô — "estimate that 60 percent of the salmon harvest in Stó:lô communities of the Fraser Valley area still come from some 93 family fishing sites in the canyon. The lands include most, if not all, of the fishing sites that the Stó:lô Coast Salish people have developed, managed and used for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. So it looks as though the Yale agreement is an important reckoning with history."
It says it does and does not pay due attention to history, and what it points out is it actually makes the situation for the Stó:lô more untenable because the Stó:lô, as a people, were actually moved by the settlement government out of that territory and down into the agricultural lands in the Chilliwack area. That's what's weakened, if you will, their claim because they're not living there any more. But they were moved out of there by the settlement government, not by their own accord.
My question to the minister: is it the minister's understanding that, at any time during the treaty process, either an exclusionary agreement was arrived at, taking into consideration Stó:lô claims, or an understanding or a resource-sharing agreement or joint management agreement was arrived at, as part of the treaty process, that either the Stó:lô or the Yale can point to as a possible way forward to resolve this outstanding issue?
Hon. M. Polak: That's a wide-ranging question, so I'm going to do my best to address the components that were raised.
I first want to go back just briefly and address the comments around Maa-nulth. One cannot say that there is an identical, apple-to-apple comparison, but it is worth noting that the disputes with respect to the Broken Islands group — which is a huge, huge geographic area — were not insubstantial. This was a pretty big dispute.
In fact, the agreement that was reached was reached between the nations. It's not something that we are a party to and, hence, one of the reasons it would not be appended to the treaty. There are still ongoing negotiations to settle finer points of that, the important thing being that the parties are interested in reaching resolution. Indeed, that is a model that, if you think about it, occurs all the time with local governments that are non-aboriginal, where various things arise.
It's really important to note that nothing in the treaty modifies Stó:lô's rights. I'll say that again. Nothing in the treaty modifies Stó:lô's rights. The fishing right for the Yale is not exclusive. They have no right to control the fishing on the river. The only thing they have the right to control with that respect exclusively is their treaty settlement lands.
With respect to that, in order to address some of the concerns that have been raised by Stó:lô, that is why there is a provision in section 14.8 that reads as follows: "14.8.1 Yale First Nation will consider a request by an individual for Reasonable Access to Yale First Nation Land other than Frozen Lakes Land and may refuse such request on reasonable grounds. In the event that Yale First Nation accepts the request, Yale First Nation will provide the individual with a Permit, or otherwise allow Reasonable Access to the requested site."
So the test is reasonable access. It is not specifically named as a Stó:lô right, because this is a Yale First Nation treaty and the right applies to anyone who would wish to access what is a non-exclusive fishing right that would be governed by the minister and by environmental regulations and others.
It is also important to note that in terms of the work that has been done prior to reaching this final agreement, in discussions with Stó:lô, negotiators have repeatedly sought from Stó:lô identification of specific sites, specific locations about which they have concerns, and to date they have not been able to provide any.
With respect to the specific questions asked by the member, there was 100 percent overlap with respect to Stó:lô's claims and Yale's claims. So there was no exclusionary agreement that could be reached, and there was no shared-territory agreement as we entered in that. I apologize if I've missed any of the areas that the member inquired about.
B. Simpson: Because of the sensitive nature of this issue, again, I want to make a statement of respect for Chief Robert Hope and the Yale. In my conversations with Chief Joseph Hall, he has also indicated the same respect.
Chief Joseph Hall has indicated quite clearly that he believes that 90 to 95 percent of this treaty they can live with. While they believe fundamentally that Yale is a Stó:lô village, they don't contest Yale's right to self-identify because, in fact, there are other Stó:lô bands that are self-identifying that they're going to have similar overlapping claims.
The issue here is not as simple as the minister makes it, though. It's better for me simply to reflect the Stó:lô language that they've provided both the opposition critic and myself with. One pertains to chapter 1, definitions of a permit.
This is the commentary from the Stó:lô itself that should be on the public record.
"The permit. This provision would allow Yale to charge a fee to Stó:lô for a permit to access their own fishing rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly held that this is not lawful for B.C. to do. They cannot through the back door now set up a system whereby another level of government in B.C. can now demand permits for Stó:lô to fish. This is unconstitutional."
Not my language, Madam Chair. That's the language of the Stó:lô.
And, as the minister indicated, we have a 100 percent overlapping claim. We're not talking about a few areas that are in dispute. To show the untenable nature of the minister's contention that somehow the idea of reasonable access and definition around "reasonable," which is similar to the definition around "best efforts," if the minister was part of the group that felt that they were completely disenfranchised, their rights extinguished, I think that she would also feel the same discomfort with words like "best efforts" and "reasonable access" and the interpretation of those terms.
So with respect to this specific portion, and we will get to that in section 14, but because the minister referenced it, I can rebut just now that the:
"Yale First Nation will consider a request by an individual for Reasonable Access to Yale First Nation Land other than Frozen Lakes…" — which we'll get to — "…and may refuse such request on reasonable grounds" — so reasonable access and reasonable refusal.
"In the event that Yale First Nation accepts the request, the Yale First Nation will provide the individual with a Permit, or otherwise allow Reasonable Access to the requested site."
So for the Stó:lô: that's again saying that it's now the Yale's sandbox and that permission has to be given by another First Nation, a permission that is not, in their estimation... Again, I'm trying to reflect the spirit and intent of the conversation and the briefing I've been given. It's a restricted access that is not permitted as far as they're concerned under the constitution of Canada, but will be restricted and permitted under a treaty. So that's the issue.
You have unrestricted access by the constitution of Canada, and you now have restricted access by a treaty signed by Canada and British Columbia. That access is by permission of another First Nation which the minister indicates has a 100 percent overlapping claim.
So the real issue is basically who raced to the table first, who made their claim known first, who got it signed off first, and now Stó:lô is only going to get a best efforts attempt and reasonable access.
So the Stó:lô's commentary on that is:
"This is unacceptable. Yale First Nation has never functioned as a gatekeeper to the canyon for Stó:lô. Stó:lô do not now and never have asked permission from Yale First Nation to access their fishing rights which are property fully owned by Stó:lô families. It is not acceptable to establish a permitting system whereby Yale First Nation will be able to determine whether Stó:lô can access their property and on what terms."
That's the nature of the contention, and the minister must know that this has already come very close to the potential for violence. The potential for violence exists as well as the potential for serious litigation.
So my question to the minister, since she raised it: who determines "reasonable" in this case? The word is "reasonable." Who determines what is reasonable access?
Hon. M. Polak: First, the term "reasonable" is an objective standard that is defined in law, and it is included because of that very definition and nature of that definition. Let's deal, then, with that section.
The section that the member and I have been referring to, section 14.8, is drafted in the positive. As a result, I am advised by legal counsel that the Yale could not refuse a request that was reasonably made. The section is also drafted broadly so that it applies not only to Stó:lô but also to other members of the public who may wish to access fishing on the river.
You will note that not only is a permitting method mentioned, but also it refers to other means by which access could be granted. We would anticipate that the eventual agreement that could be reached with Stó:lô would not involve permitting. It would likely be some type of non-permitting agreement together with the Yale.
We will continue to be consulting and discussing with Stó:lô, and we have every expectation that in the rather lengthy period of time between now and implementation, we would be able to reach such an agreement.
Another very important thing to note, I believe, is that we can't forget that there is a pre-treaty context, and in the pre-treaty context, the areas of concern are, for the most part, existing treaty lands. As of right now, the Yale already have control over those reserve lands. So the reserve lands on which the Yale currently reside are, by and large, the areas that are of concern. They are the ones that are right down at the river.
So truly, when it comes to those lands, in fact having this particular section now apply to those lands that will become treaty settlement lands actually spells out far more clearly the capacity for other people, including Stó:lô, to access fishing on the river that, without this section, they certainly do not have as a guarantee explicit as it is found in the treaty section.
B. Simpson: To the minister's point of, again, how the First Nations that claim that they were on that land since time immemorial, as Yale does, I'm sure the minister must be able to understand how the Stó:lô then feel that in the Yale treaty, they're relegated to another third party, just with non-aboriginal interest, commercial interests, others that the Yale First Nation can deem by permit that made a reasonable request.
Again, I'm sure the minister must at least understand the egregious nature of just even the language that's being used here — that along with anybody else, the Stó:lô can get reasonable access, when the Stó:lô, as the minister has already indicated, have a claim over the entire area as a primary claim, as a time-immemorial claim, just like the Yale.
I'm sure that the Yale First Nation, if the shoe was on the other foot and they were being accorded reasonable access by permit by Stó:lô, would feel exactly the same as the Stó:lô. I hope the minister's not suggesting that the Stó:lô's visceral reaction to this is somehow a surprise, given the history of this dispute.
But the question remains, and maybe the minister can point to it in the treaty. As I said, here we are in the eleventh hour of a session that has been truncated. We have time allocation. As MLAs, we saw this treaty a few days ago, and relative to all of the other work that we've got, 495 pages of it.
Somewhere in here, maybe, the minister can answer the question of what the dispute resolution mechanism process is whereby the Stó:lô can actually come to somebody and say: "We believe we asked for reasonable access. That access was denied."
So what is the dispute resolution mechanism available to the Stó:lô as one of the First Nations in this case, between Yale and Stó:lô, that claim time-immemorial rights to that same territory?
Hon. M. Polak: First, I just want to make it clear that we certainly do understand the concerns of Stó:lô. We understand the very emotional nature of the attachment to the land of all First Nations. I should point out, though, in terms of context, that Stó:lô also have a virtually 100 percent claim overlap with the Tsawwassen First Nation. Indeed, they have worked out arrangements with Tsawwassen. Some of those were not worked out prior to the signing of the treaty and, in fact, were worked out following that.
In terms of the dispute resolution, it is important to note that the implementation of the treaty is not only up to Yale. The implementation of the treaty is up to Canada, British Columbia and Yale, and should there be issues with respect to that implementation, then we would expect those to be resolved through negotiation. We intend to continue to work toward that end with Stó:lô, and we fully expect to be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion to those discussions.
But we recognize that given the historic nature of the dispute, it stands to reason that this would take a considerable amount of time and effort, and we're quite willing to do that. In fact, when I met with the Stó:lô, and again when I wrote them after the meeting, I committed to them that we wished to continue to engage with them and were committed to ensuring that their rights were not extinguished in any way by the Yale agreement.
B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments about understanding how the Stó:lô feel. However, I don't think it's the same case with the Tsawwassen as the minister indicates. Yes, there was a claim there, but the minister must know that the level of acrimony, the level of the desire for the Stó:lô to have the claim on the Fraser is not the same as that expressed for Tsawwassen.
I have the situation with the Nazko and northern Shuswap. You do get these statements of overlapping claims, testing the water, making sure interests are protected, etc., but not to the degree that we have on the Fraser portion where the Yale is. So I don't think the comparison holds.
The minister has indicated that the process still lies with Canada, with British Columbia and with the Yale. But my question was actually quite particular, because if it is in the treaty.... Again, I haven't had an opportunity to go through the whole treaty. What is the actual process, though?
If Stó:lô — which, again, they're going to have, and the minister knows this — have trouble even agreeing to the permitting process.... You know, they contend that agreeing to being permitted or agreeing to give Yale gatekeeper rights is in and of itself a concession to something they don't believe should have happened. But suppose that they did, and they were denied those rights. My question is very specific. What is it that the Stó:lô need to do? How do they initiate a process, and what does the actual process look like to determine that legal application of "reasonable"?
Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, there are varying degrees of acrimony that present themselves when parties can't come to an agreement, especially with respect to things that are of such an emotional nature and where there are such strong historic ties between people and the land. Nevertheless, having grown up in the Fraser Valley, I'm aware of the kind of acrimony that has existed with respect to the claims that cross over between Stó:lô and Yale and other First Nations in the valley.
I would put it to the member that that exists already and has existed for many years with varying degrees of heightening to the tensions, depending on what happens to be going on at the time. I would also put it to the member that there is significant potential to improve that situation now that the treaty provisions will allow for a far clearer definition of what the rights of the parties entail and how they may be actioned.
With respect to process, again, I would advise the member that we believe it would be highly unlikely that the process through which the Stó:lô would access their fishing rights would be one of a permit.
In fact, we have every expectation that it would likely be a blanket agreement and that within that agreement there would be a dispute resolution process. There would be mechanisms to reach decisions when there are disputes that arise. Certainly, it is our intent to negotiate such an agreement and such provisions that would ensure that the Stó:lô have even improved access when one considers the history on that part of the river over the last many decades.
It is our hope and our expectation that we would be able to negotiate such a blanket agreement and provide better certainty to the definition of the rights of Stó:lô in that area of the river than currently exist outside of treaty.
B. Simpson: This is one of the reasons why last night I moved a hoist motion for six months, because the argument the minister's making — the final agreement is on the table and it's now in process towards implementation, etc.... I still think that hoist and — the opposition critic indicated — referral to committee…. We could have maybe tidied some of this up.
Again, the minister is indicating from the government's perspective.... And the government obviously wants this treaty. It's another treaty. It's another resolution of an outstanding claim. But the minister's contention that somehow it clarifies and makes it easier.... It clarifies it for one nation to the exclusion of the other nation, other than if you take it that the other nation gets clarified because that one nation gets rights that it doesn't. So the clarification aspect is one-sided — again, the contention from Stó:lô.
Secondly, the minister indicated that they don't have an expectation. It's another reason why it's quite conceivable that this should be taken, put aside, not rushed debate and not do all of this stuff. But the minister's contention is that it's not the government of British Columbia's belief that Stó:lô will get access by permit, that there will be a blanket agreement negotiated somewhere.
I wonder if the minister could refer to what section of the final agreement talks about a blanket agreement that would cover off Stó:lô's specific rights in this case and resolve Stó:lô's specific rights by blanket agreement as opposed to the process of permitting.
Hon. M. Polak: First, to the member's specific question. That, again, is part of section 14.8.1, where it references that the Yale First Nation will provide the individual with a permit or otherwise allow reasonable access to the requested site. It is written in an enabling manner so that it facilitates the negotiating of such an agreement, and that's our expectation with respect to the process that would engage Stó:lô .
With respect to, though, the idea that one would delay for six months and then reach an agreement, it's highly unlikely that one would reach an agreement in six months or less. The Maa-nulth agreement took pretty much three years for what the member himself suggested was a much more simple dispute.
The Yale right now, under the Indian Act…. Let's pretend for a moment that there is no treaty in discussion right now. Right now, as it stands, the Yale have exclusive rights to control their reserve land, which makes up the vast majority of what amounts to treaty settlement land in the treaty. So right now, under the Indian Act, the reserve land is under the control exclusively of Yale, and that is the vast majority of the sites that are entailed in the treaty settlement lands.
So when I referenced the fact that the treaty actually goes a long way to enshrine the rights of Stó:lô to access and the rights of other British Columbians to access fishing in those areas, it is, in fact, provable simply by looking at the current status of access through those lands to fishing. Right now there is no provision that protects those rights. The treaty does put in place that provision in section 14.8.
B. Simpson: We're winding down for the evening, but I want to do a couple of things. I have a pointed question, and then the opposition critic is going to close off.
So again, to the minister's contention…. It may appear to some that we're arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but the reality is that the minister is contending that the Stó:lô, like everybody else….
The minister's reference, and we'll get to section 14, doesn't have any reference to blanket agreement. The minister indicated that her expectations are that the Yale would enter into a blanket agreement with Stó:lô. But the Yale could enter into a blanket agreement with commercial fishermen, could enter into a blanket agreement with recreational fishermen, could enter into blanket agreements with whomever.
The minister stipulated, and the Hansard would show it, that it's her expectation or the government of British Columbia's expectation that Stó:lô would not have to go through a permitting process but that a negotiation would occur in which they would have a blanket agreement — and then turned around and quoted a passage that doesn't say that. It just actually says that other arrangements are available and that those same arrangements are available to anybody else who wants to get access outside of a permit process.
The second point I want to make is that the minister is again contending that I would say: "Go back to square one." That's not what I'm saying at all. The reason for a six-month hoist, which was defeated by the House, is that the final agreement is actually on the table. So all that the minister is saying about defining rights, defining what the lay of the land is….
It would be on the table, then, and simply give the Stó:lô, who are seeing this for the same first time that we MLAs are seeing it, the same first time that…. They have understood that things are evolving, but now that they've got it here, they would then enter into a relationship with the government to figure these things out.
So my question is to the minister, to close off my part for tonight. The minister has indicated she believes that permitting won't be the way that the Stó:lô will access their rights, that it will be by way of blanket agreement. The minister indicated that she thought that could be negotiated. So is the minister indicating a commitment to some due process whereby Stó:lô will be able to remove the need for permitting and replace it with a blanket agreement?
If so, what does that look like, and how long does she think it might take?
Hon. M. Polak: First and foremost, it's worth noting in this discussion, because it is a significant part of the context, that this treaty and the discussion of the treaty and the implementation of the treaty does not exist outside of section 35 of the Constitution of Canada.
Section 35 provides a very important context within which a treaty must operate and, as such, it is not correct to say that Stó:lô are like everyone else. In fact, what I am trying to present to the member is that the provision in 14.8 would allow access to Stó:lô as well as allowing access to the general public. It is not for a moment to equate the rights of the general public with the rights of Stó:lô. As I've said before, the Yale treaty does nothing to negatively impact on the rights of Stó:lô.
When it comes down to what could potentially be negotiated, it could be a blanket agreement with Stó:lô on the whole. It could be an agreement with individual Stó:lô families who have historic residence in the Yale area.
All of those things are potentially available to negotiate. These are negotiations that would result in an agreement between Yale and the interested parties of Stó:lô, be they Stó:lô on the whole, Stó:lô in a particular grouping of some of the 29 nations or, indeed, individual families. This is a negotiation, and it is impossible to predetermine what form will find satisfaction with all parties that would be within the negotiation.
It is not correct to say that the Stó:lô have not had access to or knowledge of the wording of the Yale final agreement. The developing language of the agreement has been shared with them going back to 2008 and, in fact, the final agreement language was available to them as early as 18 months ago.
S. Fraser: I'd just like to make a comment. First of all, I support the Yale people and applaud Chief Robert Hope and acknowledge his father before him and the work they've done for 17 years. I do support the Yale people in their bid here for treaty, and I will be voting thusly.
This debate that we're having…. We're on section 1. It's an important one. It's part of the check and balance. While I don't agree with…. I couldn't vote in favour of a hoist motion. I have suggested that there are so many issues in a treaty of this nature, in any treaty, but it's 515 pages, including the bill, if you will.
We've had very little time, as the member for Cariboo North has stated. We have requested in the opposition an extension of this sitting, which is a very small sitting after ten months of not sitting, and this would be a reason for that two weeks' extension, which was denied.
So we're sitting here still on section 1. I have a few more questions on it, but I needed to make that clarification. I'm going to make the plea again to the minister. I believe Bill 11 will pass. I hope we have a bit of time tomorrow still — an hour, maybe. That may get truncated, too, because of another issue that's coming to the House, and there's limited time.
But there's never been more of a need than using one of the basic tools of this Legislative Assembly, and that is to empower the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs so that both sides of the House, members on the government side and on the opposition side, have the opportunity to actually address some of these issues. We shouldn't be here at the eleventh hour on section 1, knowing that we're going to run out of time.
It doesn't make for the process of this House to work in a process that should be a celebratory one for all the people of British Columbia. It has been exclusive, it has been secretive, and it is leading to a problem in actually deliberating over just section 1 of this bill, Bill 11. We're trying to get through section 1 before we close today.
I guess I have a couple other questions on definitions. I would note Five Mile fishery. It's not in the definition section. That, I believe, is problematic, certainly for the Stó:lô, who have claims to canyon fishing rights also, certainly regarding Five Mile fishery. That term is not even acknowledged in the definitions, which is section 1. Can the minister verify that and comment and maybe explain why that has been excluded? That is a problem, certainly, for the Stó:lô.
Hon. M. Polak: To go back to a few points, yes, there are very many issues around this treaty. There were very many around Maa-nulth, very many around Tsawwassen. There always will be.
A treaty is a beginning. It is a new way of relating, and we do not expect that a treaty is the end of dialogue and negotiation. In fact, in many ways, because a treaty lays out a framework that didn't exist under the reserve system in the Indian Act, it in essence opens up a whole new range of discussions, negotiations — be that in the manner of Tsawwassen as it discusses its new relationship with Metro Vancouver or with TransLink or with other municipalities…. We expect that treaties will be a beginning point of negotiation, not an end point.
As far as the select standing committee, I'm sure the member knows that it's not up to me as the minister to charge the committee. I do want to say…. I know that we have time constraints, and in the interest of getting through the bill, I would suggest that perhaps we discuss, ahead of our time tomorrow, whether or not some of these matters really take us well outside section 1. We should perhaps be going through these issues in a more orderly fashion, given that we are dealing, I think, well outside the definition section.
To the specific question, the Five Mile fishery is not dealt with specifically in the treaty, and that's because the treaty deals with land. It deals with the treaty settlement lands that are now, under the treaty, becoming the lands owned by the Yale. The fishery is a non-exclusive fishery, and the treaty does not in any way impact on the rights of those who would take part in the Five Mile fishery.
S. Fraser: I believe that the minister's statement would be a contentious one from the Stó:lô's point of view, certainly in some of the issues they've raised with me and that we're trying to get clarification on in this House. I'm going to move on, because certainly section 14 is a place to possibly look at the fisheries issues further. I'm hopeful that we can get to that tomorrow.
One other definition, though: Frozen Lakes Land is a contentious part of this treaty, certainly from the Stó:lô point of view, and I understand the importance for Yale also. But again, in the definitions section of the treaty here, it says it "means the Yale First Nation land described as 'Yale First Nation Land — Former Provincial Crown land,'" and then, of course, it's cited in a map 3 and appendix B-3.
I understand the minister's statement about not citing Stó:lô in a Yale agreement. Fair enough. But the minister and her staff must know how contentious Frozen Lakes Land is and the claims that span the Stó:lô also. So I just wonder: was there a specific reason to lay it out strictly as Yale? Under that definition, I would suggest it excludes historic use that the Stó:lô claim.
Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:01 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada