2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 17, Number 6

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2014

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: There are some people in life who go the extra mile, and we’re joined on the floor in the assembly today by four individuals who have certainly done that and are sterling examples of going the extra mile.

As members know, yesterday we had the PPCLI veterans here, and it is the centenary of the start of World War I, the 100th anniversary, and the 75th anniversary of the start of World War II. Guy Black and his friends Jim Millar, Markus Fahrner and Sonny Son have walked — yes, they have walked — here from Port Moody, to Victoria, all in an attempt to ensure that all of us, British Columbians and Canadians, never forget.

Guy Black deserves the credit for coming up with the idea for this undertaking. He wanted to honour those who heroically served in two world conflicts, because a man from Port Moody, Augustus McKnight, was killed on August 11, 1916, and served in the same company of the same unit as did Mr. Black. It’s a noble gesture, a memorable one in its own right, and I know that all members will want to welcome these four gentlemen to the precinct. We will also want to thank them for the gesture they are making in remembrance of the contribution of so many Canadians.

For the information of members, they will be laying a wreath in the rotunda — I believe, following question period, or at noon — and any members seeking to join them are welcome to do so.

To our four guests: thank you very, very much.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to join with the Government House Leader in welcoming Guy Black; Second Lt. Markus Fahrner, who’s retired; Mr. Jim Millar; and Mr. Sonny Son, here to help to commemorate the centenary of World War I and the 75th anniversary of the start of World War II.

The minister has talked about what a remarkable journey it is to walk here from Port Moody to Victoria. I just want to also acknowledge that back in Port Moody, in the Tri-Cities, these four gentlemen also created a trench, a First World War trench, to give young people today an idea of what it must have been like back during the First World War. They created that model trench for people to see, and it’s been extensively covered in our local paper. It’s quite an achievement.

[1010]

We, too, on this side of the House would like to join with the government in welcoming these remarkable individuals.

Hon. S. Cadieux: A couple of years ago on a nice, clear September morning, I was thrown over the side of a building in Vancouver and rappelled 20 storeys to raise money for Easter Seals.

I am pleased to welcome to the gallery this morning Nirm Blatchford, Stephen Miller and Clifford Marr from B.C. Lions Easter Seal society. I understand that they have encouraged, this morning, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to also be thrown over the side of a building. Would the House please make them welcome for all the great work that they do for B.C. kids.

J. Darcy: I had the opportunity, together with some other members of the official opposition, and I know that they’ll be meeting with government members today as well, to meet with some gentlemen who are in the gallery today to raise awareness about prostate cancer and about the critical importance of early screening.

I want to thank them for opening my eyes and for opening the eyes of British Columbians and Canadians to the possibility of curing most cancers, healing most men who develop prostate cancer, if we do the early screening and attention. Thank you very much, and I know that everyone will join me in welcoming them to this House.

Hon. T. Lake: I’d like to add to the member for New Westminster’s welcome to our guests from Prostate Cancer Canada. It is Movember, when a lot of us are reminded about men’s health and making sure that men are vigilant and stay healthy.

In the gallery today we have from Prostate Cancer Canada Rocco Rossi, the president and CEO. We’ve got David Walker, who is the vice-president for western Canada, and Don McInnes, who is the past chair. With them are Don Conance, Eric Huffey, John Winter and, in addition to those members, we have someone that’s known to all of us, the original captain of our Vancouver Canucks, Orland Kurtenbach.

I would hope that the House would make all of these members of Prostate Cancer Canada welcome here in the Legislature today.

D. Routley: Everyone in the official opposition knows this, and I’m sure many of the government members know it, and if they don’t they should come on over to our caucus offices for a warm welcome from someone who brightens everyone’s day, and that’s Will Maartman. Will Maartman is one of our staff members. He joins us in the audience today along with his parents, Ben Maartman and Jan Jones.

Jan is a retired high school teacher. Ben is retired from the B.C. Ambulance Service. They’re now farmers and
[ Page 5262 ]
operate a small cow farm in the Cedar area in my constituency. They also run a small business as a dog boarding and daycare location. They’re from Parksville originally. Will grew up in Parksville.

As a cyclist, I’m very happy to say they’re all avid cyclists. Ben has done several Ironmans, Will himself is a cyclo-cross racer and has done road races and criterium racing here in Victoria, like the Bastion Square criterium. He has a sister who he says is even faster than him, so that’s one fast sister.

Please, can I have the House help me welcome Will Maartman and his parents.

L. Reimer: I have two sets of introductions to do today.

It’s an absolute pleasure for me to welcome my four constituents who have walked here from Port Moody. Mr. Guy Black served in the 6th Field Squadron as a reservist. That’s the same squadron as Lt. Augustus McKnight, who was killed on August 11, 1916. Mr. Guy Black has been so instrumental in organizing Korean War commemorative events and has been very, very active as a volunteer in recognizing our veterans, those who have served and those who continue to serve.

I also want to introduce Second Lt. Markus Fahrner, who is a retired British Army veteran.

Thirdly, I’d like to welcome Mr. Sonny Son, who is the past president of the Korea Veterans Association, western Canada chapter. Sonny also served for South Korea in the Vietnam War.

[1015]

Fourthly, I’d like to introduce to you Mr. Jim Millar, who has been very active and supportive of this. He’s our executive director at the Port Moody Station Museum and the Port Moody Heritage Society.

Would the members of this House please give a warm welcome to these wonderful constituents.

L. Popham: It’s my pleasure to welcome my good friend Skylar Dell and her two children, Franny and Rupert, to the precinct. They’re going to be joining me for lunch today and a tour of my most favourite room in this precinct, the Legislative Library. They’re also the constituents of my colleague who represents Victoria–Swan Lake. Welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some guests from my riding here today from Capilano University. The Capilano Students Union, or CSU, represents more than 7,000 students in North Vancouver, Sechelt and Squamish campuses. They work very hard to engage students and involve them in school life so that they can build community and foster spirit.

By 2019 they hope to establish a strategy on student housing, establish scholarships and bursaries and play a significant, collaborative role in education decision-making with government and the administration. They’re starting that today by meeting with myself and the Minister of Advanced Education. Could we please welcome Sacha Fabry, the VP of university relations and services; Giselle Aiabens, organizer; Christopher Girodat, general manager; and Brittany Barnes, president and VP, external relations.

M. Dalton: I have a couple of introductions today. Visiting us in the gallery is Torrey Kestevan. Torrey is a third-year poli-sci student at University of Victoria. She’s also a board member of WUSC. I know the first two…. It’s World University, and I forgot the other two. She told me; I didn’t write it down. Anyways, it’s a great organization. Essentially, they sponsor refugees and then help them along to get an education at the university. Would the members please make her feel welcome.

I also notice — she just appeared here — Nicole Paul. Nicole helped me in my campaigns in the past, worked as a summer intern in my office and was also the B.C. Young Liberals president. Would the House also please make her feel welcome.

E. Foster: I have two guests in the precinct today, Joanne Kineshanko and Ray Donard. Ray is visiting from Seattle, and Joanne hails from my hometown of Lumby, where she owns and operates, in partnership with her two sons, the very successful Kineshanko Logging.

Joanne has a long, long list of community involvement attributes, which I won’t go into because we don’t have an hour, but she was the mayor of Lumby. She was a councillor and a regional district director. She co-chaired a major fundraising initiative for the Vernon Jubilee Hospital Foundation, where they raised $7 million. She’s on the board of Whitevalley Community Resource Centre, and so on and so on. She was awarded and honoured just this past year by the Vernon Women in Business as the Woman of the Year for all the great work she’s done in our community. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: The school district of Surrey is having a week where they’re celebrating students and welcoming students to go to work. I’d like to extend a welcome to my nephew Jackson Hogg and a thank-you to my two constituency assistants for tolerating, putting up and engaging him. Would you please make him feel welcome.

L. Reimer: I’d also like to introduce to the House today my constituent Mr. Garrett DeWaal. He is a tireless volunteer at the Port Moody museum, and he is also supporting by driving over here my four constituents who have walked. Would the House please make Gerry Gerrard welcome.

I also would like to do two other introductions. Rev. Richard Steele has come here today to support my constituents, and so has Gerry Gerrard. Rev. Richard Steele
[ Page 5263 ]
is president of the Royal Canadian Legion Public Service Branch 127, and Gerry is sergeant-at-arms with the Royal Canadian Legion Public Service Branch 127. Would the House please make these three individuals very welcome.

[1020]

S. Hamilton: A bit of a departure. This evening the students from my constituency at Delview Secondary School are embarking on probably one of the biggest canned and dry food drives in the province. Every year they go out and collect food for the food bank prior to Christmas for the people who need it the most. I just want to wish them luck. I hope the House would join me in doing so as well.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WALK TO HONOUR WAR VETERANS

S. Robinson: I rise in the House today to give thanks and express appreciation to these four veterans who are present here in the chamber with us. I want to acknowledge Mr. Guy Black, Mr. Sonny Son and Mr. Jim Millar and 2nd Lt. Markus Fahrner, now retired. These veterans walked from Port Moody to the Legislature, starting yesterday, and they arrived this morning, having walked all night.

They’ve done this to mark the occasion of the 100th anniversary of World War I and the 75th anniversary of World War II. They did it to honour all those British Columbians who died in these two great wars, wars that were supposed to end all wars.

When I heard that these gentlemen were doing this march, I wanted to rise in the House to express my heartfelt thanks. You see, my grandfather was Pte. Max Aisenthal. who served in World War II with the Algonquin Regiment, out of Montreal. He was sent overseas in the spring of 1944. While he would rarely talk about the war, I had a way, often with a bottle of rye at our side, to get parts of the story. Over the years he shared many stories. Some were about the horrors of war, some were about losing friends, and some were about making friends.

The one that is most pertinent for today is the story he told me about how he got to the Netherlands, where he spent the bulk of his time during the war. He told me about landing in northern France and about walking across France and into Belgium. He told me about walking across Belgium and into the Netherlands. He told me about walking in rain, in slush and in mud. He told me about the bitter cold, the wet feet, the tired backs and arms, and the blowing wind in his face.

Hon. Speaker, these men here with us today do my grandfather proud. These men have marched in his honour and the honour of all of those men and women who have served us and our nation.

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you on behalf of all of us. Thank you to all those who have served us well, preserved our democracy for us and for others around the world.

L. Reimer: It is with great pride and honour that I stand in front of you today to speak about the wonderful war veterans that travelled here to the House of the people, and by “travelled here,” I mean walked here over the last two days from Port Moody.

This was a very symbolic walk that honours this country’s greatest heroes: heroes who died serving our country, heroes like Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, at the National War Memorial in Ottawa; and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, killed at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec; and Lieutenant McKnight, an engineering cadet from Port Moody who fell serving our country in World War I, one of five from my constituency of Port Moody–Coquitlam who were killed in the world wars.

Earlier this year I was privileged to take part in a McKnight Trench dedication ceremony at the Port Moody Station Museum that commemorated the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II.

Today we continue to honour the bravery and the accomplishments of our veterans, whose sacrifices are forever entwined with all Canadians. They changed our country and our lives irrevocably for the better. Many gave their lives to do so, and for those who have lived, many bear the scars of their fight for our freedom.

The Great War brought with it destruction and death on a scale the world has never seen before — thanks, in large part, to new technology and trench warfare. My grandfather Mr. Norman Bartlett served in World War I for many years with the British army. The scale tipped again with the outbreak of World War II. The freedom we enjoy today would not have been possible without the courage and commitment of all of the men and women who served Canada so selflessly — and continue to serve.

[1025]

Thank you, again, to our wonderful veterans Guy Black, Sonny Son, Markus Fahrner and Jim Millar of the Port Moody Station Museum for joining us today and for all their efforts in organizing this symbolic walk and ensuring that we always remember those who gave all, those who have served and those who continue to serve.

GERRY FURNEY AND
TOWN OF PORT MCNEILL

C. Trevena: When we come back after the break, the local political landscape is going to look a little different — and, I have to say, nowhere more than in Port McNeill, where Mayor Gerry Furney is standing down. After 46 years in office, 39 as the mayor, he’s decided it might be time for a break — B.C.’s longest-serving mayor and one of the longest serving we’ve seen in this country.
[ Page 5264 ]

Mayor Furney, originally from Ireland — and still retaining, as everybody I think in this chamber knows, his Irish brogue — came to Port McNeill in 1956, having seen an ad in Vancouver for loggers. When he got there, he thought he’d landed in paradise and still thinks his home community is the best.

Port McNeill was little more than a camp then, and he got involved in local politics because of that. He’d gone to the community hall and was told that the bunkhouse guys just weren’t welcome there, despite them giving a dollar payroll deduction. So he got elected to the community hall committee, and there was no looking back. He’s only been out of office for two years since being elected to Port McNeill council in 1966, when after his first term as mayor he was defeated by just one vote.

Mayor Furney is an old-school politician who cares passionately about his community. He is everywhere and knows everyone. He’s been there to make Port McNeill a better place and to make Canada a better place.

Last year, coming from a resource town, he was particularly affected by the Lac-Mégantic disaster. His response was to commit a dollar per person in Port McNeill to help the rebuild and persuaded other local governments on the north Island to follow suit. He said recently: “One of the worst phrases is: ‘They should do this, or they should do that.’ ‘They’ is you. You need to step up and get involved.”

When he’s not involved in politics — I know it’s hard to imagine, really — among his other pursuits and pleasures, he plays the trombone, and he writes poetry. Popcorn for Breakfast was published when he was 77. His wife, Carmel, will be pleased to have more time with him, and his community is on the quest to find his replacement. The two candidates vying for his position of mayor both realize that Mayor Furney’s boots are going to be very hard to fill.

ROLE OF APPRENTICESHIPS

J. Thornthwaite: I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the importance of apprenticeships in British Columbia.

Tomorrow, November 7, has been proclaimed Apprenticeship Recognition Day in our province. By 2022 there will be more than one million job openings in British Columbia, along with an increase in demand for more and higher skills.

Apprentices are a vital part of our skills-for-jobs blueprint. Our blueprint charts a seamless plan for young people from high school through post-secondary education right into the workforce. We are seeing progress today. B.C. has twice as many apprenticeships and is issuing around three times as many credentials since the creation of the Industry Training Authority.

Aboriginal youth are the fastest-growing demographic in the province and play a vital role in a strong B.C. economy, and we are working to increase the number of aboriginal apprenticeships. Today there are over 37,000 registered apprenticeships in B.C.’s industry training system. Of these, approximately 3,700 are women. While the percentage of women is increasing, I look forward to seeing this number continue to improve.

Developing and maintaining a highly skilled workforce is vital to British Columbia’s economic prosperity, and our government wants to celebrate and recognize apprenticeships and the positive impacts they have on individuals, businesses and the economy. I encourage all members of the House to take a moment to recognize apprenticeships and the employers who sponsor apprenticeships for the contribution they make to our province. Today’s apprenticeships will build tomorrow’s projects and our province.

OBSERVANCE OF REMEMBRANCE DAY

N. Simons: This coming Tuesday, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, we’ll pause and contemplate the sacrifices of those who gave their lives, those who suffered from injuries, seen and unseen, those who served and those who are serving now and the families and loved ones of them all. Canadians have served with distinction in troubled places around the world, protecting civilians and fending off those that aim to disrupt and destroy the lives of innocent people.

In the First World War my maternal grandfather enlisted in the Royal Air Force. As it was near the end of the war and he was only 18, he went back to the farm with an honorary commission as second lieutenant. My paternal grandfather, on the other hand, was in the German cavalry. I remember a photograph of him in his uniform. Like war, this subject was never discussed.

[1030]

As the Second World War neared, my paternal grandfather, then a respected lawyer in Germany, was forbidden to practise law and was stripped of his citizenship. With growing anti-Semitism around them, the family, including my father, fled to Holland and then to Canada. By then, in Halifax my maternal grandfather had enlisted in the 10th Searchlight Battery as a gunner and was later promoted to bombardier, sergeant, second lieutenant, lieutenant, then captain in charge of coast artillery instruction.

Remembrance Day is a time for personal reflection to remember our conflicts and the suffering of those impacted but also to remember the outrage at the affront to decency that prompted our collective response. This Tuesday, my father’s birthday, I think of the suffering he and his family endured, his hidden memories of fear, and the suffering of those who have been victimized by brutal regimes.

I also think of my mother’s fears and the fears of her parents, descendants of 18th century Nova Scotia settlers. I think of all parents then and now, their devastating
[ Page 5265 ]
losses, their courageous sacrifices and the uncertainties in their lives. May Canada always be a harbour of refuge for those oppressed, and may we always promote and defend human rights.

Never again, lest we forget.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
IN VICTORIA AREA

M. Dalton: A few days ago the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and I visited three independent schools in the Victoria area. I must say that we were impressed with what we saw.

Discovery School has about 100 kindergarten-to-grade-12 students, who all have learning disabilities. They receive instruction tailored to their specific needs in a supportive atmosphere. Discovery’s philosophy is to return students to the regular school system as soon as they are ready. Many students are diagnosed with dyslexia or other language-processing issues, and it’s encouraging to see their success.

Elizabeth Buckley is a small elementary school located at the Cridge Centre for the Family. Principal Roberta MacDonald told us that the school de-emphasizes grade levels and specializes in instructing low-incidence autistic children. EBS goes by the motto that everyone gets what they need, and not everyone’s needs are the same. The classrooms embody a culture of respect, and students develop a deep understanding of individual differences and acceptance for all.

Victoria’s newest high school is Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry, founded by Jeff Hopkins former superintendent of school district 64, Gulf Islands. Jeff was B.C.’s first safe schools coordinator and worked to address issues of intimidation, harassment and marginalization through strategies that support inclusion and a welcoming school environment.

Jeff mortgaged his house to start the school, where learning is organized not by traditional subject areas but by interdisciplinary projects and lines of inquiry. About a quarter of the student body are special needs children. The school motto works very well for them and all the students. Many educators have come to observe Pacific’s approach, including well over 100 public school teachers.

I celebrate the impact that these independent schools and others like them are making in the lives of so many of our children.

Oral Questions

GUEST RESTRICTIONS FOR MEAL EVENTS
AT SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

J. Horgan: Observers of this place will know it’s rare that we agree on both sides of the House, but I think we can all agree that Christmas is a special time for many families in British Columbia. And although we often say that Christmas is about the kids, it’s also about seniors, particularly seniors in care homes.

That’s why it’s perplexing that we’ve learned that Island Health has directed care homes on Vancouver Island to limit the number of guests that seniors can have for Christmas dinner. In particular, the Trillium seniors lodge in Parksville has been told that they have to restrict it to one guest.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Surely to goodness he wants to see everyone who enjoys Christmas have a positive time this year. Why is he directing care homes to restrict the number of guests that can come and spend time with their family?

Hon. T. Lake: Everyone should be able to enjoy Christmas in its fullness — our holiday season, whatever your religious upbringing. It’s a time for families to come together.

[1035]

I know a lot of people will want to see their aged parents or grandparents in seniors care facilities around the province, and I hope they will all make sure that they are vaccinated for the flu before they do that to make sure we protect our vulnerable citizens. But I’m not aware of the restrictions on visitors, so I will happily have that conversation with the people at Vancouver Island Health.

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

J. Horgan: I’ll help the minister out a bit. I have a copy of a letter from Island Health to care homes on Vancouver Island, which was in the possession of his parliamentary secretary, the member for Parksville-Qualicum, the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, over the past two weeks. It’s surprising that it wasn’t brought to his attention before now.

Let me just read one section of the letter. It says: “In years past we used to cater to all the residents’ families and have a large, bustling, excellent-tasting meal and great festivities.” That’s the past. Here’s the grim future. In north Vancouver Island care homes have been told they can have only 12 guests. So, as the letter says, if there are 80 residents, you can have 92 people for dinner. Instead of it being a family occasion where people come together, it’s turned into a lottery. If you’re lucky enough to pull your name out of a hat, you can invite one of your loved ones to come for dinner.

Again to the Minister of Health, knowing that his parliamentary secretary has been in possession of this information for a couple of weeks, will he stand here today and ensure that this program gets cancelled before it gets off the ground?

Hon. T. Lake: The province of British Columbia spends about $1.8 billion every year on residential care for seniors
[ Page 5266 ]
in our province. We have the highest amount of money made available to seniors that are in publicly subsidized spaces. But what’s really important, what’s critical for those vulnerable seniors that are in residential care facilities is their safety. That’s why people should be vaccinated or wear a mask when they’re going into facilities at this time of year to make sure we’re not spreading the flu.

I can say that I know the health authorities have the safety and the concern for their residents when they put policies in place. I told the member opposite that I will have a conversation with Island Health to understand the justification for this, and I will do that. But to suggest that we are not allowing people to enjoy Christmas, I think, is ludicrous. We encourage everyone to be social and enjoy their aged parents that are in residential care homes in British Columbia.

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

J. Horgan: Here’s a letter from the Trillium facility to family members. It opens: “Due to the recent restrictions imposed on our facility restricting extra meal tickets to 12 for any meal event, we are working hard to lessen the negative impact” — the negative impact — “this restriction has on our residents and their families.”

This has been going on for a couple of weeks. Again, the parliamentary secretary has been aware of it. The Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors has been aware of it for a couple of weeks, so it’s passing strange that what we’re hearing now is that we’ve got to make sure we get our vaccinations and we’ve got masks on. No one’s coming to dinner, because they’re told they’re not allowed in the facility.

My question to the minister: if the care providers know that this is a negative policy and it’s going to have a negative impact on their residents and on their families, surely to goodness the right response today…. We can flip and flop pretty quick in this place, as we’ve all known over the past couple of days. Why don’t you pop to your feet, Minister, and say we’re not going to do this?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I would encourage the members to wait for more information. I will have that information after I speak with Island Health. I have great faith that the policies and procedures that they put in place are to protect the vulnerable population in long-term residential care facilities. That is what we all need to be concerned about, to make sure that those folks that are in long-term residential care are protected and kept safe. I will look into this policy and happily report back to the member.

[1040]

M. Karagianis: The government has turned Christmas dinner into a lottery for seniors.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, just wait.

M. Karagianis: I think everybody in this House knows what the odds are of winning a lottery, and that’s not very good. So imagine how seniors are going to feel if they’re not the lucky ones who get to see even one of their family members for Christmas dinner.

My question is: who is going to pick and choose who the 12 people are that get to go to dinner in this seniors facility? Is it going to be the parliamentary secretary? Is it going to be Island Health? Is it going to be the minister? Who actually gets to pick the winning lottery winners here?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m happy to stand up each time and say that I will look into the policy and report back to the members opposite.

S. Fraser: Well, the minister has all the information. It was given to his parliamentary secretary a week ago. The letter from Island Health is as bizarre as it is callous. It’s a government that has lost all perspective, all moral compass.

I will return to the letter that the minister has seen, through his parliamentary secretary. It says…. I’ll requote what the Leader of the Opposition said. “In years past we used to cater to all the residents’ families and have a large, bustling, excellent-tasting meal and great festivities.” Sounds good. But then it goes on to say, however: “These large events are no longer meeting the needs of our residents.” No mention of health issues or masks.

Can the minister tell us which part of Island Health’s past Christmas dinners it is that seniors don’t like? The excellent-tasting food cited here? The great festivities? Does the minister think, really think, that seniors want to have Christmas dinner all by themselves?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m happy to repeat that I will look into the policy and report back to the members opposite.

M. Farnworth: I really don’t know what there is to look into, other than the fact that in years past families got together with their senior parents in the care home to celebrate Christmas. I don’t know what’s so terrible about that.

This policy change is a ridiculous one, and all the minister has to do is stand in this House and say: “I don’t care what VIHA has done. We are scrapping that policy.” I’ll tell the minister this. There are loads of MLAs
[ Page 5267 ]
in this House who have been MLAs for Christmas past. They’re all going to be MLAs for Christmas present. But if this policy continues, none of them will be MLAs for Christmas future.

ALBERTA RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
AND CORPORATE HEAD OFFICES IN B.C.

V. Huntington: Last week the Leader of the Opposition joined my longstanding concern over a 13-year-old trade dispute that is impeding the development of B.C.’s domestic oil and gas sector. Despite signing TILMA in 2010, Alberta persists in using mind-and-management residency requirements that discriminate against B.C. business and suck up revenues that should accrue to British Columbia.

[1045]

In spite of agreements to “treat businesses, investors and workers of the two provinces at least as favourably as they treat their own,” B.C. will neither develop its own residency rules nor initiate a dispute resolution process under the new west partnership trade agreement.

There is an utter lack of information on what Alberta’s protectionism costs B.C.’s economy. No numbers on the lost tax revenue, lost jobs, lost investment and lost ancillary benefits — nothing. B.C. probably couldn’t win a trade dispute because it couldn’t prove injury.

Does the Minister of Finance have any estimate of the impact Alberta’s residency rules have on B.C.’s economy? If not, will he initiate an analysis to determine the value of those lost economic opportunities and revenues?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question, for it touches on an issue that is of importance to all of us and accomplishments for which there is a measure of pride within the government — and that is, the agreements that we have struck with the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan. In fact, as we speak, the Premier and the Transportation Minister are advancing that.

I can tell the member, as well, that in a discussion I had with the new Minister of Finance in Alberta just a few days ago, the topic was discussed. We emphasized our view, our continuing view, of the importance of allowing for the free movement of goods and people and the elimination of impediments to the movement of goods and people.

There continue to be obstacles in the path. The member has mentioned one of them. I can assure her that that remains a priority with us, along with some other very important initiatives.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: Thank you to the minister for his reply. It’s now, I think, the fifth iteration of somewhat the same answer that I’ve received over the last few years.

Until Alberta’s residency rules are challenged, the proposed incentives to attract energy head offices to B.C. are meaningless. B.C. will be little more than Alberta’s energy colony. And until those residency rules are challenged, any pretence of developing a world-class domestic energy economy may be just that: a pretence.

If Alberta will not relax its firm control over energy firms operating in western Canada, what action is the Minister of Natural Gas prepared to take to protect British Columbia’s autonomy and control over businesses operating in our own oil and gas play so that B.C. can see all the benefits that should be ours?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member. Again, it is an appropriate subject for discussion.

I will say this. There are two issues here. The member has alluded to one, with respect to the location of corporate headquarters and corporate head offices. That is a legitimate issue.

I would say this, however. I’ll be cautious because there’s legislation before the House, and I’m certain the member will want to canvass the issue in detail when we move through that legislation. But the tax credit scheme that has been proposed and that the House is considering now is not contingent upon the formal relocation of corporate headquarters and has far more to do with the allocation of income.

We’ll discuss that in detail, and the member can present her views. But there are two separate issues, and I in no way want to diminish the importance of the first issue.

SOCIAL WORKER CASELOADS AND SUPPLY

D. Donaldson: Six years ago the Representative for Children and Youth said staff turnover in the Ministry of Children and Family Development was “a barrier to high-quality service delivery.”

Today, six years later, in response to the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union report showing that unmanageable workloads and chronic understaffing are compromising the safety of children, the minister announces that 70 front-line people already working are to be called “new hires.” That is her response to address staff shortages.

In what world, Minister, can you count 70 people already working as adding new positions? When will this government actually take improving service delivery to vulnerable children seriously?

[1050]

Hon. S. Cadieux: It came as no surprise to me that the BCGEU released a report suggesting that social workers were having challenges meeting their obligations on the
[ Page 5268 ]
front lines serving children and youth. I’ve been speaking with social workers since I became minister, and I directed that staff look into what were the challenges that our workers were facing on the front lines, where were they and what was the best means by which to address them.

I am very pleased that today we did announce we will be hiring an additional 200 front-line child welfare workers over the next year. In addition, we’re going to redesign a number of system procedures and processes that have not been changed in many, many years despite significant changes in how we actually do business. That will free up social workers’ time so that they can do what they are highly trained and very, very competent at doing, and that’s the front-line social work. I’m extremely pleased that we were able to announce this today, and I look forward to the outcomes.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, I’m glad it came as no surprise. The representative pointed out six years ago to this government what the problems were.

The minister is on record as saying there are no new dollars to support any of these supposed new hires. The government response to concerns six years ago from the Representative for Children and Youth and to this devastating report today is to announce yet another business function redesign in this ministry. That in the past, as we know, has been a code word for service cuts to front desk service hours, for example — so vital, especially in remote and northern communities.

Cutting services, no additional new staff, no new dollars — that is not a way, Minister, to provide the services that are desperately needed for children and families. These children don’t need any more empty promises. How can the minister follow through on her announcement when there’s not a penny of funding or the leadership to support it?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member opposite was in the detailed technical briefing that I held this morning, Madame Speaker. Unfortunately, he obviously doesn’t understand any of the work that social workers actually do in this province.

The redesign of services that we’re talking about is about taking data entry work, talking about transactional services and talking about freeing up in small offices time spent on the phone on intake, which we do very, very well through our after-hours services in a very professional way, so that front-line social workers can do the work that they are highly trained to do with families and children.

In addition, recognizing that even with those service redesign opportunities, the opportunity to change procedures across the ministry and to free up that time for social workers, much of which has come at their request…. The reality is that we are hiring an additional 200 full-time permanent staff in child welfare to make sure that our front-line staff have the resources they need to do the job.

N. Simons: Well, I wasn’t at the technical briefing this morning. But I’d say I understand what social workers have to put up with when they’re understaffed and there’s no one to fill in when they’re on a break or a holiday or sick. This is a hugely important issue for the children of this province.

[1055]

The government seems to know what to say when they’re faced with another report condemning their history in this ministry. But as soon as the photo ops end and the reaction ends, we get nothing. So what’s going to make it different this time? What’s going to actually change, not just the words promising…? We’ve heard these promises before. What’s going to actually change to make the lives of the children who are vulnerable in this province and the social workers who are trying to do their best…? What’s going to make it better for them?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Only the NDP could make the hiring of 200 additional front-line staff not action.

I appreciate that the member opposite was not at the technical briefing, and I’d be happy to provide him with one so he can fully understand the depth of the information, the depth of the work that went into planning for these changes and, in fact, what will be different after the fact.

Madame Speaker, I have never made these promises before. This is new. I have done, with my staff, extensive work into determining where and what is needed. I have advocated for those changes, and we are making them today.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: I hope the minister forgives me for being skeptical, and I hope she forgives the province for being skeptical because we have heard this all before. This is a situation where there’s no new money — there’s no new money — so how is it going to be that the minister can actually say with a straight face that this is going to actually improve things for the children of this province?

I don’t think that the people of this province are going to buy that. We have seen transformational change. We’ve seen child at the centre. We’ve seen $66 million identified by the representative as going to absolutely no change in the province. And now we are being promised more transitional change. That means absolutely nothing to the social workers or the children of the province.

How is the minister going to…? My suspicion is that
[ Page 5269 ]
this is just words to cover up something that they apparently weren’t surprised to hear. How can it be that this government waits for a damning report to say that they’re going to do something different? When are they going to actually do something different?

Hon. S. Cadieux: If the member opposite thinks that we made a decision to hire 200 staff and change a number of policies and procedures within the ministry over the next year and a half after last night’s report was released, then he doesn’t understand ministry business at all.

The reality is that this work has been underway for a great deal of time. When I first took over this ministry two years ago, I started hearing from social workers about the challenges that they were facing.

We have had representative reports also outlining these challenges. I’ve had conversations with the representative about these. But we are not going to make significant changes to the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s service delivery, to our staffing regime or anything else without thorough investigation of what is actually required and where and how — to make sure that we know it will be effective when it’s implemented.

Madame Speaker, we are sure of that. With this release today of an announcement that we are going to add those 200 new front-line workers, I am confident that we will be able to do that and meet all of the mandate of this ministry.

M. Mungall: Here’s the bottom line. The minister made a promise. I was there. It sounded good. It’s what we all wanted to hear. But there’s no new money.

The fact that the minister admitted that there is no new money going to fix these problems makes it feel a lot like Groundhog Day, and kids aren’t going to get the supports that they so desperately need.

Report after report after report has showed this government just that, yet no new money, but a promise of 200 workers. So the question is: what’s going to get cut to fill those positions?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In a caseload-driven ministry like the Ministry of Children and Families the reality is that resources will always be a challenge.

[1100]

The other reality is that this ministry has seen budget lifts over the last couple years and is scheduled to continue to see that.

It is not budget day, but what it is, is my job to ensure that what is the priority in our ministry gets addressed. This is a priority to me. I am making the commitment to address it and to do that within budget.

REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH PATIENT
CASES AT SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: Corbin Shale struggled with mental health and addiction issues, including depression and anxiety, his entire life. After attempting to take his own life, he was admitted to Surrey Memorial Hospital, where his family was promised he would be looked after until he was stabilized. Instead, he was prematurely released, with no coordination between the hospital and mental health providers in his community. Five days later he died.

I’ve spoken with Corbin’s mother, Shannon. Fraser Health said they would review Corbin’s death. Can the minister confirm that the Shale family can indeed expect to receive the results of this review?

Hon. T. Lake: The sudden death of a family member is a terrible tragedy. All of us understand that. I understand that this incident occurred May 18 at Surrey Memorial. Fraser Health has informed me that they have completed their internal investigation of the circumstances around the event. There’s also a coroner’s investigation underway. The recommendations that result from these investigations will be reviewed when they’re available, to ensure that we provide the best care and support for our patients and their families.

I know Fraser Health has met with this family that underwent this terrible tragedy to discuss the findings of the internal investigation and address the family’s concerns. I know Fraser Health is working with the family to help them understand the circumstances, and I certainly would encourage them to continue to do that.

S. Hammell: Seventy-one-year-old Valerie Healy died instantly after crashing her car and then jumping from an overpass while in a psychotic state. Three hours earlier Valerie had been released on a day pass from Surrey Memorial’s in-patient psychiatric ward.

The review presented to her family found that Valerie did not qualify for a day pass, because she was severely malnourished. The family was not informed of the conditions of her release. The charting of the patient’s mental health issues was shoddy and incomplete. Valerie’s family was not informed of the conditions of her release, like no car keys in her home.

Can the Minister of Health assure this House that changes have been made at Surrey Memorial Hospital and other hospitals in B.C. so that tragedies like this never happen again?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for her, I think, very real concern for the family that underwent this terrible tragedy. Wherever something like this happens in our health care system, we try to understand the circumstances. We obviously do investigations. The
[ Page 5270 ]
health authority has done an investigation. We rely on the coroner’s report as well. Those findings are used to make sure that we can avoid any kind of incident like this in the future.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Legislative Assembly Accountability Report, 2013-14, which includes the assembly’s first audited financial statements. I would like to commend the dedication and efforts of members of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee and staff of the Legislative Assembly who contributed to this successful audit and the accompanying report.

[1105]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
COMMITTEE TO APPOINT A
POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I’d like to move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend the appointment of a Police Complaint Commissioner, pursuant to section 47 of the Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.367

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

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

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

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

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

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

The said Special Committee is to be composed of John Martin (Convener), Marvin Hunt, Eric Foster, Mike Farnworth and Jennifer Rice.]

The usual powers are included. I’m not sure if the hon. Opposition House Leader has seen it. I think he has, or has now. The names being proposed for composition are John Martin, convener; Marvin Hunt; Eric Foster; Mike Farnworth; and Jennifer Rice.

By leave, I so move.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued committee stage debate on Bill 2.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL
REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

On section 12 (continued).

A. Weaver: I have just a couple of questions left on section 12. The first one concerns the use of the 100-year time horizon. I appreciate its introduction here, and I understand where it’s coming from. My question to the minister is…. At other times in this bill, leading up to now and subsequent to this particular section, I’ve asked the question of why the 100-year time frame has not been included in legislation.

My question is here. Why is the 100-year time frame included here and not elsewhere?

Hon. M. Polak: It is, as we’ve discussed earlier, included in the regulation that supports the previous sections of the bill. Again, we rely on advice as how to best craft a bill and its attendant regulations so that we accomplish the objective.

I will, on another matter, just clarify something that the members were inquiring about yesterday, and that is with respect to the selling of earned credits and whether or not taxes are paid on any profits that might be seen from that. I am advised by Finance that the usual corporate income tax rules would apply in that case.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for that clarification there.

Again, on this same topic, how would the director come to know — the director referred to in this bill here, in this section — if the carbon capture and storage project was actually releasing carbon into the atmosphere or not? I recognize that this is somewhat hypothetical, but we do have sour gas capture and storage here in British Columbia.

My question is: how is that monitored, and would that monitoring actually carry over to monitoring of a carbon capture and storage system?

Hon. M. Polak: Their reporting is third-party verified, and it would be apparent in their reporting of increased
[ Page 5271 ]
emissions. We are coming to some further sections where we’ll also deal in a more detailed way with respect to the systems that will govern that.

Section 12 approved on division.

On section 13.

[1115]

A. Weaver: Under section (2)(c) of this section here, I’m wondering if the minister could inform me of what she anticipates to be prescribed here. Under (2)(c) it says: “prescribed information is published through the registry.” I’m a little unsure as to what “prescribed information” refers to.

Hon. M. Polak: This particular provision would allow for us to make decisions as to what types of information we require to be provided to the registry. Part of the reason for the flexibility is….

If you cast your mind back a few sections to where we listed documents that would be posted, it could be — we have not determined this yet — that certain documentation is most easily provided through publishing in the registry. We will develop a list of prescribed items that fit with the best way to publish particular information.

A. Weaver: The minister, in essence, describes some of my concerns or what I perceive to be some problems here. If we read section (4)(c), it talks about the “prescribed portion” of an offset and the “prescribed classes” of emission offset projects.

It reads a little bit like: “Let’s give government a blank cheque to kind of prescribe whatever they want, and let’s hope that it’ll be caught at some point down the road in regulations.” Obviously, when I vote against this section, as I will, it’s because of the preponderance of such wording as “prescribe this, prescribe that,” when we’re really not given much guidance now as to what that is.

Perhaps the minister would be able to share with us what is envisioned with respect to a prescribed portion of offset or a prescribed class of emission project, with perhaps an example or two.

[1120]

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, it’s quite the opposite of a blank cheque. Let me describe that. What these provisions do is require that in order for…. They basically have to meet the test, right? For a prescribed portion…. And the reason it’s a general term here is because for each project, each one will be different. We can’t possibly list them all in the act.

For each one of them, a prescribed portion would be the amount that is third-party verified on an annual basis minus anything that was withheld for the contingency account. This allows the director to actually say, “Here, for this project, this is what the prescribed portion is,” and you can only deal with that. You have to meet that test.

With respect to prescribed classes, it requires that you only be dealing with those projects that are approved to create offsets. So again, the reason they would be called prescribed classes is that they are prescribed by that approval that they have received to be an offset.

It’s the exact opposite of a blank cheque. It actually creates the restrictions around use, based on what each project has received in terms of its third-party verification and approval. It allows the director to set those out and say: “You must abide by what we have previously approved and agreed to.”

A. Weaver: I withdraw my previous criticism of the wording, with this clarification here.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

A. Weaver: I am wondering what regulations the minister anticipates for governing the registry administrator, as described in subsection (1).

Hon. M. Polak: This is not about what regulations will be developed for section (1). Section (1) is fairly standard language that limits what the registry administrator can do. It essentially stipulates that the administrator can’t just make up their own rules and walk around and say, “I’m the administrator,” and do what they want. They, instead, are only empowered to act based on what is in their legislation and what is in regulations.

Of course, the following piece of that section, dealing with the directions of the director, would also be under the authority given to them through the act and through the regulations. It is simply making the point in law that they have to act within the authorities that are given. They can’t make them up themselves.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

A. Weaver: I’m just wondering if the minister could clarify — this also relates to the subsequent section — why there’s a need to actually distinguish between registries inside and outside of government.

[1125]

Hon. M. Polak: In this section, of course, it deals with government establishing a registry. In the next section we’ll be discussing the potential to have an outside agency as a registry.

We have not made the decision as to which system would best suit our needs. In addition to that, we anticipate that over time that situation may change, and it may
[ Page 5272 ]
be that we wish to adjust as to whether or not we use an internal government registry or an outside one. At this stage we have not made that decision, and the act empowers government to do that in the future or to make changes to that in the future if they wish.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

A. Weaver: In subsection (3)(f) of this, it refers to insurance. I’m wondering if the minister might provide some details as to what specific insurance is being referred to here.

Hon. M. Polak: This isn’t insurance specific to the matter of offsets or managing offsets. The language in section (3), in the various subsections, is fairly standard when we identify the requirements that we would place on an agency with which we contract. Ordinarily, in other ministries and other situations like this, these are fairly standard requirements that we would place on an outside company or agency with whom we do business.

A. Weaver: On that note, then, may I ask what the minister believes would be used to ensure that the insurance that the registry administrator requires is considered to be “adequate”?

[1130]

Hon. M. Polak: It wouldn’t be simply left to Ministry of Environment or another individual ministry. Pretty standard in government that whenever there are contracts into which we enter, there are ministries, like Finance and others, that review those contractual arrangements, make sure that all the criteria is appropriately met.

Adequate and appropriate insurance would be one of the things that they’d look at. It would be different depending on the nature of different companies. There could be a number of different types of companies that might operate a registry or any number of circumstances under which someone could operate a registry.

Again, every time government enters into a contract with an outside agency, company, those types of provisions are reviewed. This is simply, again, pretty standard language to require that we do that and that the obligation is placed on government to ensure that.

A. Weaver: In section 2 it refers to an administrative agreement, and I’m wondering if the minister could clarify whether that agreement would be made public.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, that information would be publicly available.

A. Weaver: With respect to disputes, has the minister got a sense of the type of disputes that have existed or needed to be settled when parties in the past have participated in such registries? In particular, are there any B.C. contexts that one could refer to?

Hon. M. Polak: Not having a registry, we have not as yet experienced disputes. However, should the case arise that two — I’m just trying to think — owners, two folks, two agencies, two companies that have offsets in the registry…. If there is a dispute between them, we want to create a path by which the administrator can put them through a dispute resolution process of some type.

A. Weaver: The final question in this section is with respect to penalties that would apply if a registry administrator uses information he or she obtains in the course of administering the registry for purposes outside of administering the registry for British Columbia.

Hon. M. Polak: Government would approach that the same way we approach any other breach of contract.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

A. Weaver: What are the undesirable characteristics of being an agent of the government for the purpose of this role outlined in section 17, and why is this such an important distinction?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, a fairly standard clause. A lot of legislation ensures that it is clear that the registry administrator does not have any regulation-making powers of their own.

Second 17 approved.

On section 18.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to know if the ministry is considering making the registry, in a sense, neutral to government cost, ensuring that those that use the registry pay enough to maintain it so that it’s not the citizens of B.C. that have to maintain this registry.

[1135]

Hon. M. Polak: Our intention is cost recovery. This particular section ensures that it is government that is setting those fees, those structures, and that if we were using a registry outside of government, we would be able to stipulate those in a contractual arrangement such that they wouldn’t be able to go out wildly and jack up fees and costs themselves.
[ Page 5273 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Just to be clear, the goal of the government is to ensure that it is that cost recovery and that no tax dollars go towards it.

Hon. M. Polak: That’s our goal, that the fees recovered would cover the cost of administering it.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

A. Weaver: Just wondering if the minister might provide details as to what oversight there will be to ensure that the director transfers credits into the appropriate account, given that there is a great deal of responsibility vested in one office into making sure that these are accounted for accurately.

Hon. M. Polak: This ensures that the administrator must follow the instructions of the director. The offset or earned credit — the offset unit, the funded unit, the earned credit — by this point in time would already have an account and be registered, right? The term “specified by the director” refers to the account that the director has already attached to that offset unit, funded unit or earned credit. This simply ensures that the administrator follows that that is stipulated already by the director.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand this section allows for the transfer of performance credits and for the government to establish a trading scheme. Is this trading scheme in a sense going to be set up by the government, or is it at arm’s length? What does that look like? The minister might be able to illustrate it with some potential, theoretical, hypothetical examples.

[1140]

Hon. M. Polak: Section 20 outlines — similar to what you would outline with respect to a bank account that held money. These units can be moved around, and this sets the rules for how they can and cannot be handled and moved around.

A. Weaver: I was wondering if there’s any oversight or any appeal process of the director’s power to transfer compliance units in and out of compliance accounts and to retire compliance units.

Hon. M. Polak: To be clear, at this stage it is the holder of the account who makes decisions as to what they do with them. The director’s authority is vested in the certificate. The director has said: “Here’s your certified unit. Here’s your certificate that you hold.” And the director, of course, is responsible for maintaining the registry.

If you will, the “oversight” is the registry. This, again similar to a bank account, outlines what one can and can’t do, but it’s the holder of the certificate that decides whether or not they transfer it, move it around. They make those decisions, just as you would manage your own bank account. But there are rules that tell you what you can and can’t do with it.

A. Weaver: I’m trying to understand why a holder of an account — compliance units — would want to transfer from one registry to another. What other registry would they transfer from, and why are we allowing for it in this legislation? Perhaps the minister could outline an example that would illustrate this for me.

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to 20(1)(c), we discussed in earlier sections the anticipation that at some point another registry may be established. If there was, this allows us to…. I shouldn’t say this allows us. We have the ability to create regulations as to how one would move to a different registry.

You’re in an existing registry, you see a new one, you like that better, you want to go to the new registry, or there’s another reason why you need to shift to a new registry. If authorized by those regulations we create, if we allow you to, then you could transfer them to another registry. But at this stage, this is just enabling that to happen if it were to be the case.

A. Weaver: In subsection (6) it refers to the retirement of compliance units, and it specifies that this could not happen “earlier than one year after the date the compliance report and verification statement in respect of which the compliance units are to be retired are due.” My question is: where did the one-year number come from, and what is the rationale for one year versus six months, versus two years?

[1145]

Hon. M. Polak: It results from the one-year time frame for reporting. There’s a lag between the actuals and then when the report is made. One wouldn’t want them to be able to retire or claim retirement of them previous to having that reporting and verification complete.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

A. Weaver: I’m wondering if the minister could outline whether or not these inspectors would be new positions. Would they be reassigning existing staff? Would they be at arm’s length from government, or would they be within government?
[ Page 5274 ]

Hon. M. Polak: It’s our intention…. I think we discussed this earlier, as well, with respect to classes of persons designated. It would be our intent to use the existing resources with respect to compliance and enforcement, including those within our own climate action secretariat.

A. Weaver: Does the minister believe that there are enough resources in play if, indeed, the government lands its hyperbolic dream of five LNG plants in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, the member will know that already we are managing compliance and enforcement across all industry sectors. This section empowers the minister to designate under the authority of this act.

Similarly, in my other legislation in this ministry, I can designate people who are then empowered under, for example, the Environmental Management Act, and it has its own guidance.

Numbers of staff. I mean, we are not anticipating any significant increase in workload in the immediate future. As time goes on and if that workload increases, then we would, as would be a matter of course in any other circumstance, seek additional staffing if it was required.

A. Weaver: My final question on the section is with respect to conflict of interest. How does the minister or minister’s staff ensure that any potential or perceived conflict of interest would…? There would not be a case to be made that this could happen through inspectors, perhaps, having some kind of relationship with the people that are being inspected — in particular, if they happen to be, at some point down the road, third parties.

I know initially they planned to be in-house. But perhaps down the road, there may be third parties who are contracted out to do this.

Hon. M. Polak: To another piece of legislation we go. The Natural Resource Compliance Act governs the behaviour, activities and appropriate guidance for natural resource officers. There is then a schedule of which natural resource officers are covered by that and outlines under which act they find their authority.

What we would do is, if there was a new class of persons designated other than those that currently exist, we would simply add them to that schedule, and they would be governed by that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I figured now might be as good a time as any to ask the question, as we are looking at inspectors. Of course, one of the things, in order to ensure inspections are done well, is also having the ability to, potentially, through Freedom of Information Act, be able to review the actions that led up to decisions made, where possible, where they are not redacted, and so forth.

[1150]

Yesterday the minister said she was going to go back to get an answer on the registries for carbon credits, offsets, etc. Were they going to be under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? I just wanted to know if the minister might have an answer now.

Hon. M. Polak: At the time we were discussing the technology fund, I believe, and whether or not it would be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I don’t have…. It’s not that I haven’t received an answer. I think there’s a bit more information that needs to be provided in the answer that I’ve received so that I can give you some greater confirmation to that.

With respect to issues of compliance and enforcement, inspection and all of that, then that would occur similarly to the manner in which it does in all other areas of inspection and compliance. This would be no different in terms of the type of reporting expectations and, of course, appropriate limits on release of information.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

A. Weaver: I’m not a lawyer, obviously, and I won’t apologize for that. But I do have some questions. Perhaps this is covered in other acts here. It’s with respect to the legal implications and the powers granted through section 22 to allow enforcement and compliance.

In particular, it says here in 22(1) that: “For the purposes of ensuring compliance…or the regulations, an inspector, at any reasonable time, may enter land or premises, other than premises or a part of premises used solely as a private residence, and inspect any place, process, thing or activity…” etc.

My question is: will the inspector need a warrant to do this, or is the inspector empowered to go in as he or she sees fit?

Hon. M. Polak: As long as what they are inspecting is with respect to compliance with this act, then they would not need a warrant.

A. Weaver: Would the inspector be protected from indemnities, as issued by the government, in the case that they were challenged in terms of access to property through trespassing suits, for example — as we’re seeing here presently with Trans Mountain filing suit against people trespassing on public land, which doesn’t really make much sense to me, although I’m not a lawyer. Is there a way that these inspectors will be indemnified?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, and this will operate almost entirely similarly to the way in which inspectors operate under the Environmental Management Act.
[ Page 5275 ]

A. Weaver: In this section an inspector also has the right to enter private property if it’s “part of the business premises or operations of an industrial operation.” Now, given that the definition which we discussed much earlier about industrial operations is “one or more facilities, or a prescribed activity, to which greenhouse gas emissions are attributable,” it seems to me that, as I tried to argue earlier, private property can be interpreted quite broadly. Frankly, anything could be a prescribed activity, and any home burning natural gas is producing greenhouse gases.

So the lack of clarity here — I’m wondering if the minister could comment on and as to whether or not there are means and ways of actually ensuring that we’re not going to see inspectors wandering into people’s homes, questioning their use of natural gas, etc., or on a premises that, in fact, is an industrial operation. That is so poorly defined that they can really choose whatever they want to be classified as such.

Hon. M. Polak: Notwithstanding our disagreement with respect to the appropriateness of the definition, I can advise the member that I have every confidence that the appropriate restrictions are in place. I would also draw the member’s attention to the earlier portion in section 1, where it explicitly excludes a premises or a part of a premises used solely as a private residence.

[1155]

A. Weaver: Are there any checks and balances in place to ensure that inspectors do not abuse their powers?

Hon. M. Polak: In the same manner as there are with respect to compliance and enforcement under the Land Act, under the Environmental Management Act and, again, referencing back to the act that governs the conduct of the various natural resource officers.

A. Weaver: If an industrial operation decides to challenge the inspector’s right to actually enter the land, is there an appeal process or a review process or a judicial process that would allow them to challenge the inspector from entering their land at the time the inspector wants? Say, for example, the inspector decides that they want to go in, and the industrial operation says: “Well, you can’t because we’ve just had a spill of something, and it’s not a safe time to go in.” The inspector, I gather under this, can make the decision whether they want to or don’t want to go in.

My question here, then, is: is there a means and a way for the industry to actually say: “No, you can’t because of this”? If the inspector still wants to ignore it, is there an appeal process that they can go through?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, similarly to other compliance and enforcement legislation, the company, if there was a dispute, has recourse through the courts.

The Chair: Member, noting the hour.

A. Weaver: I do note the hour, hon. Chair. I assume we’ll continue at a later date.

The Chair: Motion to adjourn.

Move the motion.

A. Weaver: I so move adjournment until such time.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada