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)

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 17, Number 10

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

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have a special guest that I’d like to introduce today. It is my pleasure to advise you that we have a visiting Clerk from another jurisdiction on attachment to our House this week: Ms. Bridget Noonan, the Deputy Clerk of the Parliament of Victoria in Australia. This visit is one of a continuing series of attachments whereby our Legislative Assembly hosts Clerks from other jurisdictions.

Please join me in welcoming Bridget to British Columbia and to our House.

Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us in the gallery today are board members from B.C. Wood. The board members in attendance: John Gillis, the board chair; Bill Downing, vice-chair; Grant McKinnon, their past chair; Brian Hawrysh, their CEO; Rob Mitchell, a board member; Brent Comber; Ron Andersen; Peter Sperlich; and Wayne Brown.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of B.C. Wood. As you know, B.C. Wood is a not-for-profit trade association that supports B.C. businesses that manufacture wood products. They’re here as a voice for industry, bringing innovative ideas to the table, insight on how we can strengthen B.C.’s wood culture. In partnership with government, along with my colleague, the Minister of International Trade, B.C. Wood is helping their members bring B.C. wood products to markets around the world.

[1005]

They’re great partners for us to work with, and I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. James: I have a number of guests in the gallery today from the group Moms Like Us, and you will see it is moms and dads who are part of the group. I’d like to introduce Jackie Powell, Cherry Lynn Brown, James Canova, Terry Germanson, Judy Bogod, Howard Powell, Russell Powell, Beth Danskin, Ken Beattie and Hilary Marks. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Hamilton: I’d like to introduce two guests in the House today from the Nanaimo and Duncan areas — first of all, Dr. Bridget Reidy and, secondly, Dr. Rondy Klepsch. Dr. Reidy specializes in geriatrics and fertility, and Dr. Klepsch is specializing in rural emergency medicine. Also, Dr. Klepsch is highly trained and specializes in being the mother of my legislative assistant, Kadagn Klepsch. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I have a guest from the Comox Valley here today, Linda McLean. Linda McLean has been a resident of Comox Valley for 32 years. She is a marriage commissioner and teaches a course at the local elder college using the Ministry of Health My Voice booklet. She also volunteers for numerous organizations in the Comox Valley, including the Comox Valley Child Development Association. Would the House please make her welcome.

M. Mungall: I’m very honoured to have several guests up in the gallery today. We have Jessica Sothcott with her daughter Rosalie, Susan Bowers, Rachel Goodine, Jennifer Brice, Thea McDonagh with Together Against Poverty, and Hilary Marks as well. Penny Tennenhouse is with Faith in Action. Dr. Christine St. Peter is the chair of Victoria Single Parent Resource Centre, and she’s here with Trevor Tuckwell. Lori Ferguson and Wendy Stone are both here with Victoria Cool Aid Society. May the House please make them all very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MINERALS SOUTH
CONFERENCE AND TRADE SHOW

K. Conroy: I recently attended the Chamber of Mines of Eastern B.C. Minerals South conference and trade show held in Nelson. The conference included a number of courses and technical talks from various experts and representatives from organizations and mining companies. Local miners and prospectors shared information with CEOs and government bureaucrats, all committed to sustainable mining in our province. The trade show included displays, posters and gold panning open to the general public.

Also, classes of schoolchildren visited to learn more about mining. What an experience to watch the kids as a local volunteer geologist explained the different types of rocks and minerals, including a number of fossils. Their reactions and comments were great, although I think Dr. Lesley Anderton, a retired geology professor from Selkirk College, seemed to be having as much fun as the kids as she imparted her vast amount of knowledge on them.

At Wednesday night’s dinner we were entertained by the Boomtown Garter Girls from Rossland, a well-known troupe of women who bring the art of cancan back to life as only they can. A reception was held Thursday night at the Chamber of Mines Museum. Here, with only one paid staff and many dedicated volunteers, the museum provides an opportunity to showcase the long history and the many benefits of mining to our region.
[ Page 5360 ]

On Friday I had the pleasure of a field trip to the Eagle graphite mine located in the Slocan Valley. I had my concerns as we drove into the beautiful south end of the Valhalla Range as to what a mine would do to the area. I was pleasantly surprised. Graphite is an extremely porous rock that eventually breaks down to a sand-like material that the finished product is processed from. There is minimal disruption to the existing geography, and the reclamation has already started. In fact, if you don’t know, you wouldn’t even realize there was a mine there.

The mine has huge potential as it has a supply of graphite that will yield a finished product for many years to come. Graphite is used in a number of ways, including pencils and batteries, specifically those used in electric cars.

Congratulations to all involved on a very successful conference, especially the local chamber of mines and their enthusiastic executive and volunteers.

SING ME A SONG PROGRAM AND
COMPETITION WINNERS

J. Thornthwaite: Earlier this year the Hon. Judith Guichon, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, launched a new initiative to promote music and community spirit across the province. The Sing Me a Song program is designed to provide an opportunity for musical groups throughout B.C. to write and sing an original song for the lead-up to Canada’s 150th anniversary celebration in 2017.

[1010]

The competition is open to groups of all ages and genres, from school and amateur musical groups to community choirs. Competitors are encouraged to infuse their lyrics with thoughts about what Canada’s 150th birthday means to them and to their community.

In June the winners for the inaugural year of the program were introduced. I’m very proud to say that the Parkgate Senior Singers of North Vancouver were this year’s winner in the open category. The Parkgate Senior Singers are a community group of men and women who love to sing and share a passion for performing. They sing in care facilities throughout the region, and seeing the joy they bring to residents is indeed a heartwarming experience.

Their winning song, Our Canada, perfectly encapsulates the beauty, diversity and splendour of our country and our province. It’s wonderful to see them recognized for their creativity and community spirit, and I encourage everyone to watch their winning performance on YouTube.

This year’s other winners were Little Mountain Elementary School from Chilliwack and Kylie Foncier and Pinetree Secondary School vocal jazz from Coquitlam. The Lieutenant-Governor presented all three winners with a trophy and a cash prize of $1,000, which will go towards their music program or other worthy causes in their communities.

Sing Me a Song has kicked off once again, and submissions for next year’s awards are due in spring 2015. I want to encourage musical groups throughout the province to take part in this fantastic program. Showcase your community for all of B.C. to see, and help celebrate our country’s milestones.

DR. NANCY HALL LEADERSHIP AWARD
AND MOMS LIKE US

C. James: The Victoria group Moms Like Us has been selected as this year’s winner of the Dr. Nancy Hall Leadership Award in Public Policy. What an incredible achievement for a local group that was founded just a short time ago. The Dr. Nancy Hall Leadership Award recognizes an individual or group in B.C. that has influenced mental health policy and contributed to positive mental health.

This award honours the spirit of Dr. Hall, a key adviser, consultant and friend to the B.C. division of the Canadian Mental Health Association for more than 15 years. Dr. Hall passed away in 2011 after a battle with cancer.

The members of Moms Like Us advocate for their adult children living with mental illness and work to help them experience respect, hope and opportunity for fulfilment. They know that their children and other young adults with mental health issues need support to develop their abilities and become contributing members of our community.

This group of mothers and fathers knows that a place of belonging is very important, and they’re supporting construction of a local clubhouse as part of the Clubhouse International program. There are already clubhouses in Port Alberni, Sechelt and Richmond, and they’re part of a network of 350 clubhouses in 33 countries.

I hope members of this House will join me in congratulating Moms Like Us on their selection as recipients of the 2014 Dr. Nancy Hall Awards. I wish this committed group of women all the best in their pursuit of better support for their children. They came together to make a difference for their children, and they are making a difference for our entire community. The statement on their Facebook page says it all: “Keep calm and end mental health stigma and discrimination.”

Thank you, Moms Like Us, for your tireless work and determination.

MERRITT GREEN ENERGY PROJECT

J. Tegart: The community of Merritt is known across the province for many things. For some, its natural beauty comes to mind, being nestled in the heart of the Nicola Valley, or perhaps it’s the friendly small-town atmosphere or the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology — or maybe even the music festivals, which will soon include
[ Page 5361 ]
the Rockin’ River Music Festival making its debut July 30 next year.

However, Merritt will soon be recognized for a new, innovative and exciting project that will benefit our economy and the environment for decades to come, the Merritt green energy project. This state-of-the-art facility will be one of the largest and most efficient biomass plants in North America, producing 40 megawatts of renewable energy to the B.C. Hydro grid using 307,000 metric tonnes of biomass sourced primarily from sawmill waste from local partners.

That’s enough energy or electricity to power 40,000 homes with clean energy, or the equivalent of reducing an estimated 95,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere, or removing approximately 45,000 cars off the road.

[1015]

The project will also open many doors for skilled workers, with an estimated 250 jobs being created during the construction phase and 80 new direct and indirect jobs over the plant’s operation.

First Nations in the community will benefit, thanks to the proponents signing, with the Lower Nicola Indian band, an impact benefit agreement providing that community with employment and investment opportunities.

Madame Speaker, this is an exciting project for Merritt and for British Columbia, benefiting our economy and the environment. Thank you for the opportunity this morning to share this news with all members of this House.

SURREY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

B. Ralston: The Surrey Business Excellence Awards, hosted by the Surrey Board of Trade, recognize leading businesses and not-for-profits in the city, and took place on November 6 this year. I can only note some of the highlights.

The recipient in the category of business firm with over 41 employees was FinancialCAD Corp., or FINCAD. Established in 1990, FINCAD is a global leader in its niche market, pricing and risk-management software for derivatives and other financial instruments. The company has 107 full-time employees, 80 at its Surrey headquarters in the city centre and the rest at its branch offices in New York, London, Dublin and Beijing — perhaps the wave of the future.

The not-for-profit recipient is Surrey Christmas Bureau. Board chair Al Keel and K.C. Gilroy, the only full-time employee, lead 80 volunteers at the seasonal peak providing a joyful Christmas to those otherwise not able to achieve it.

The new business category was intriguing. Beta Collective, started by Jason Wong, is Surrey’s first co-working space. Etios Solutions, led by CEO Gary Bedi, has assembled a talented team of digital strategists and other professionals. The recipient, Surrey Kids Physio Group, delivers physiotherapy designed exclusively for children. Laura Patrick and Nitin Ambardar are the successful business partners and owners.

The Surrey Business Person of the Year was a difficult choice for the judges. Peggy Howard, the general manager of Guildford Town Centre, leads 250 employees and is engaged intimately in Surrey’s public life. Chris Thornley, president and founder of Thornley Creative, celebrates 25 years in business as a full-time service design firm and is well known for his philanthropic leadership as well. But the edge went to the redoubtable Vikram Vij, who opened his runaway-success third restaurant, My Shanti, in Surrey just this year.

This is just a taste of the dynamic businesses in a diverse, welcoming and vibrant Surrey of today.

ROLE OF FRENCH-CANADIAN AND
ABORIGINAL PERSONS IN B.C. HISTORY

S. Sullivan: On December 2 renowned historian Jean Barman will have an official launch of her new book, French Canadians, Furs, and Indigenous Women in the Making of the Pacific Northwest. In it she emphasizes the critical role of French Canadians and aboriginal people they married in the early history of British Columbia. Indeed, she speculates that our province would likely be a part of the United States today were it not for their industry and perseverance.

Not many people are aware that although Alexander Mackenzie, David Thompson and Simon Fraser wrote in English, they travelled in French. The working language of all the trading communities of proto–British Columbia — from Taku near Juneau, Alaska, to Boisée, now called Boise, Idaho — was French. This was before the administrative capital was moved here to Victoria from Vancouver on the Columbia River after the border treaty.

Almost all of the leaders of proto–British Columbia married aboriginal women. James Douglas, our first governor, married Amelia, an aboriginal part-Cree woman. Like most of these early people, they spoke French at home.

Jean Barman was ably supported in her research by the organization Société historique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. This group is led by the historian Maurice Guibord. He and his members have been collecting early francophone records. They are cataloging the lives of thousands of French Canadians who have left their mark on this province.

The event will be held in Vancouver at the Maison de la Francophonie, which supports many francophone organizations. This book launch will be an opportunity to celebrate the important role of French Canadians in the creation of British Columbia.

[1020]

Oral Questions

FLU SHOT CLINICS IN
SENIORS FACILITIES

J. Horgan: It’s difficult sometimes to keep track of the government’s position on seniors and how we can best protect them at this time of year. Last week, we will recall, I mentioned that it was a Vancouver Island Health Authority policy to limit the number of people that could have dinner with their loved ones in a community care facility, and the minister’s response at the time was to remind everyone to get a flu shot. That was his response to question 1; that was his response to question 2.

Yet this week we discover that Fraser Health has decided to cancel seniors community centre clinics for flu shots. That’s curious to me, and I’m sure it’s curious to the people in Burnaby.

So my question to the minister is: if you were directing people to get flu shots last week, why is it that you’re cancelling flu shot clinics in seniors facilities in Burnaby this week?

Hon. T. Lake: I understand Fraser Health is trying to make sure that the services for influenza vaccines are optimized, and they made a decision to concentrate resources for younger patients. I’ve asked them to go back and look at that. It’s very important, as the Leader of the Opposition says, to make sure that our seniors population is protected. We will ensure that Fraser Health is doing clinics for seniors for influenza vaccine.

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

J. Horgan: It’s not just in Burnaby. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale will be interested to know that the clinic that’s been held in her community year after year after year has also been cancelled. I’m grateful that the minister is going to review the situation. But again, as it was with dinner with loved ones at Christmas time, this also is a policy that should have never gotten off the drawing board.

My question, again, is: will you assure seniors today that the people that had flu shots last year in seniors facilities in Burnaby and, in fact, the entire Fraser Health Authority will be able to do it again this year? It’s November, Minister, as you know. The sooner, the better.

Hon. T. Lake: To the Leader of the Opposition, yes.

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

J. Horgan: Again, if only the Minister of Transportation could flip as fast as the Minister of Health flops, we’d be in a lot better position on a whole range of issues.

I am grateful for the minister’s rapid response to this issue, but I just want to again put it in context for members here, who are gleeful that the minister has discovered an error and has corrected it. Many of the people in this facility had access to flu vaccination shots right here in the parliamentary precinct. Again, a concern for seniors in Burnaby and in the Fraser Health Authority was to learn that politicians had a higher priority than seniors.

Will the minister assure seniors right across British Columbia that before we give vaccinations to politicians in this place, we’ll be ensuring that we give vaccinations to every senior in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m not quite sure what part of yes the hon. Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand, but I can tell you this, Madame Speaker. We have greatly expanded the availability of influenza vaccine across this province. Pharmacists are now able to do vaccinations. I had my vaccine through a pharmacist last year and this year through a physician.

We have public health clinics and public health nurses that are doing vaccinations. We have increased the number of people that are eligible for a free influenza vaccine. We have a health care policy to ensure that our vulnerable patients in both residential care and hospitals are protected. I can assure the members opposite that we will ensure that seniors in this province have the ability to become protected against the flu.

CONSULTATION MEETINGS AND
INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

M. Mungall: The minister recently told media that in the first two weeks of November, we could all expect a consultation process to end the child support clawback. Except last week at the 11th hour, the ministry cancelled their consultation meeting with First Call, citing that they weren’t prepared.

[1025]

To date there have been no details, no announcements about this consultation. I can’t even get a briefing from this ministry.

To the minister: families and advocates who want to see an end to this poverty-creating policy are here today, and they want to know why you aren’t following through on your commitment.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Minister of Social Development.

Hon. D. McRae: To the Speaker and to the member opposite as well, I do apologize. I did intend to start last week in front of a large group of service organizations who support vulnerable British Columbians. For a myriad of reasons, we were unable to do it. But I still commit to making
[ Page 5363 ]
sure the consultations begin this fall. So on December 10, I will meet with the group of service organizations and kick off the consultation.

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

M. Mungall: I know that the official date of winter starts December 21, but in Canada it’s winter by December 10. The commitment was the fall.

The lineup of people wanting an end to the clawback is growing. UBCM, Canadian Labour Congress, B.C. Liberal constituency associations and now the Finance Committee — they all think it’s wrong that this government takes $187 a month away from Rosalie Sothcott while shelling out $4,000 a month for former MLA Ben Stewart’s Beijing car allowance. No one believes the minister when he says he can’t afford to give B.C.’s poorest kids their money back.

When will the minister meet with families here today and commit to ending the clawback?

Hon. D. McRae: I receive correspondence from constituents across British Columbia in regards to the top-up issue as well. I have met with individuals on this issue. Through the Accessibility 2024 consultation process, we definitely heard that the family maintenance issue was an important issue. That’s why in June 2014, I committed to having a dialogue of consultation going forward. On December 10, which is in the fall, we will begin it.

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

M. Karagianis: I think every reasonable person in British Columbia knows that consultation is not what’s needed right now. Action is what is needed.

Angie James’s son deserved to have the same opportunities as any other child, but for seven years this government took the $266 a month of child support that his father set aside for him. The Premier’s office spends more on catering than Angie’s son was supposed to get in child support in a year.

While the Premier wined and dined, he didn’t have a proper winter coat, enough food or opportunities to play sports. So will the minister do the right thing and commit today to stop the clawbacks?

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite says action is not happening. I claim to differ. Action is happening. For example, right now a parent with a child under the age of six is eligible for $485 in tax benefits, but in five months that’s going to change. In April 2015, between federal and provincial contributions, that amount will increase to $600.

I also have heard that persons with disabilities on the income exemption, who have increased from $200 to $800, are very supportive of that. Now, that does not meet everybody’s test. We have also had a scenario where we’ll have the annualized program for earning exemptions starting January 1. So an individual with a disability who is able to work will be able to keep $9,800 a year.

As well, Madame Speaker, I’m sure you’re aware that there are over 800,000 British Columbians who have their MSP premiums exempted. PharmaCare fees are waived for many thousands of British Columbians. Children have basic dental supports paid for by the government, school supplements.

[1030]

We continually evolve the programs for vulnerable British Columbians. I’ve never once said in this House that the work is done. We continue to talk to our stakeholders, talk to individuals. This government wants to do better. We will do better. We also have to make sure we do it within a fiscal framework that we can afford.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I think it’s a bit insulting to the families that are here what the minister considers that the government can and can’t afford. Nicole Edmond’s daughter in Kamloops sees her $200 of child support clawed back every month by this government.

The minister has said he can’t afford to give this back to her. As a result, Ayla will continue to go without nutritious food, school supplies and proper shoes. This money has been ordered by the courts to go back to these children, yet it is being taken away every single month by this minister.

He knows better. Do the right thing. Stop the clawbacks now.

Hon. D. McRae: I don’t think there was a question there. But that being said, I want to make sure that we understand that we work in this government….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. D. McRae: I’m sorry. I was listening.

Now, that being said, I want to make sure we respect the vulnerable British Columbians. Again, I want to remind individuals that I understand it is very difficult, and I don’t under-represent that at all in this House. That is why I am tasked with making sure that we provide programs for vulnerable British Columbians.

We continually evolve this. We have seen it happen over the last 14 years. We will continue to evolve social assistance programs. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. The work is not done. We will continue it.
[ Page 5364 ]

J. Kwan: It’s not like this government brought in the child maintenance clawback policy yesterday. They did it 12 years ago. A generation of children has grown up living in poverty because of this policy.

Five years ago I brought Ms. Lenlen Castro’s case to this government’s attention. Ms. Castro is on disability, and she fled an abusive relationship when she gave birth to her daughter in December 2009. She put her own safety at risk to secure child support. Little did she know that she would not get one penny of that money for her daughter. It’s been five years.

I’d like to ask the minister this question: does the minister care to explain to Ms. Castro why it is that her daughter has to continue to live in poverty today?

Hon. D. McRae: Governments in British Columbia and Canada, in the developed world, are always working to see how they can best support the vulnerable British Columbians. I think it’s always a testament to say yes, we need to have a dialogue; we need to make sure we do more.

Now, when the government is paying, it is always the payment of last resort. We expect individuals, if they have a payee, whether it is another parent, to assist if at all possible. But we want to make sure that there are those supports for those who do not have moneys or programs.

It is an issue that was raised in the Social Credit era. It has been raised by the opposition and us in the B.C. Liberal era. It was also raised by the NDP during their time. I’ve read in the House, as well, the statement by the MLA and cabinet minister hon. Smallwood. She has talked about…. They had to struggle with the opportunities. How do you find the balance between what you can afford and how you deliver services?

I work really hard to make sure that we have those programs for individuals. We talk to individuals on a regular basis. We continually evolve those programs to make sure we’re best supporting vulnerable British Columbians. And yes, we will continue to do that work.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Well, it is this government that brought in this policy 12 years ago. Not Joan Smallwood but this government. Twelve years of feeble excuses, and the saga continues.

[1035]

When this punitive policy was put in place in 2002, in its first two years 6,104 families were affected every month. In total, the government clawed back $14.6 million in support for single parents. Today that money has climbed up to $18 million. Surely, the minister will agree that this policy is a funny way of this government showcasing the Premier’s family-first slogan.

Will the minister rescind this family maintenance clawback policy, or is this just yet another example of the Premier’s pattern of behaviour: say what the people want to hear and then do whatever she darn well wants to?

Hon. D. McRae: For parents on assistance receiving monthly family maintenance payments, what we do is top up to ensure that an individual’s total monthly income is equal to current assistance rates. That being said, though, I mentioned earlier and I want to remind the members opposite that we continually bring out programs and support programs that assist vulnerable British Columbians.

Talk about school start-up funding. We provide supports for that. Discounted bus passes — we provide support for that. Free dental and optical care for children — we provide for that. We also provide child care subsidies for 45,000 children per year.

We continually work on these programs. I have said to the members opposite, and they do not listen, that we continually evolve these programs and that we will continue to do that work.

In the province of British Columbia we continue to grow the economy to make sure we can make those strategic investments that allow individuals to have better supports and perhaps to have that individual be self-supporting going forward.

FUNDING FOR WORKERS’ FAMILIES
PARTICIPATING IN CORONER’S INQUEST
INTO MILL EXPLOSIONS

S. Simpson: Last month the families of Carl Charlie, Alan Little, Robert Luggi Jr. and Glen Roche — the four men killed in the explosions at the Babine and Lakeland mills — wrote the Premier seeking help for funding independent counsel for the upcoming coroner’s inquest. This is an inquest where we can expect all other parties to have legal counsel, but the real victims — the families — will be on their own. They are asking for that to change.

The Premier didn’t have the decency to respond to the families’ letter herself or to have her Justice Minister reply. Instead, she ordered the chief coroner to answer.

To the Justice Minister, does she think it’s appropriate for the Premier’s office to direct the coroner to respond, denying the families’ request?

Hon. S. Anton: The explosions at Babine and Lakeland were terrible tragedies, and they urge us to explore ways to prevent such future deaths in similar circumstances. We understand. The families deserve answers. The communities deserve answers. I want to assure the families that the goal of the coroner’s inquest is to find those answers.

The coroner is independent. She will have a comprehensive, independent, fully open process. She is determined, from all her public statements and her written statements, to find how it happened, how the tragedies
[ Page 5365 ]
happened, and to prevent them from happening again.

In response to the complexity and the difficulty of this particular inquest, she has put very significant resources into it, including an additional coroner and an additional coroner’s counsel so that the needs of the families can be met, so that the interests of the families can be heard and so that she can determine how this happened and make recommendations to prevent it from happening again.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: None of the minister’s rhetoric answers the question about why the Premier essentially denied support for independent counsel for these families in this terrible time.

WorkSafe’s inaction allowed the unsafe dust accumulation to occur unchecked in the two mills. Government incompetence ensured that no one involved in these tragedies will face the justice system. Further, the B.C. Liberals have denied the calls for a public inquiry.

[1040]

Now the government won’t support the families by helping them obtain independent counsel for the coroner’s inquest. Is this what the Premier meant when she told families that she would have their back?

To the Justice Minister, why are she and the B.C. Liberals treating these grieving families with such disrespect?

Hon. S. Anton: As the House will know, the coroner is an independent officer. She has an independent inquest. She does not get directed by government. She makes her own choices.

She has said, through her public pronouncements and through her written pronouncements, her written statements, that she is extremely committed to ensuring…. I can read a piece of her letter, actually. She’s committed to ensuring that “the concerns, issues and questions of you” — this is directed to the families — “and your family members are acknowledged and addressed throughout the inquest process and during the hearing.”

She has appointed a second coroner, as I said. She goes on to say: “Additionally, given the breadth of the issues to be reviewed, the extensive material to be examined and in support of our commitment to maintain ongoing, important communications with the families, I will be engaging another lawyer to assist Mr. Orr, who’s the coroner’s counsel, and Coroner Newell in their preparation for the inquest.”

It is clear that the coroner is determined that she will have the resources, the inquest will have the resources and the families will have the resources that they need to find the answers to prevent, and to make recommendations to prevent, a tragedy like this from happening again.

L. Krog: Let’s talk about resources and perhaps a little contrast. When this government’s friends want a lawyer, this government is showing no hesitation in opening up the public purse and getting their friends a lawyer. But when four grieving families want legal help — not to defend their criminal activities, not to defend their injured feelings but to get answers about the deaths of their loved ones — this government pleads poverty.

To the Attorney General, why does she think that her colleagues are so deserving of publicly funded legal help but not these four families?

Hon. S. Anton: The independent Coroners Service…. The inquest that she will be running is an inquest that we should have confidence in, the public can have confidence in, because it is independent. She is determined to find out what caused these tragedies and to find ways to prevent them from happening again. That’s why she has appointed the extra resources.

Let me read again from her letter. She says…. The second coroner is Coroner Newell. “Please be assured that Coroner Chico Newell is available for you at any time, should you have questions or concerns. I have also asked that he and Mr. Orr, coroner’s counsel, meet again with each of you, jointly or separately, at your convenience so that you are satisfied that your voices are heard and that you have had all the opportunity you need…”

Interjections.

Hon. S. Anton: This is the independent Coroners Service. It’s a longstanding traditional office, and the job of the coroner is to get answers.

She goes on to say: “…and that you have had all the opportunity you need to relay your questions and concerns. Coroner Newell and Mr. Orr will also be available to you during the proceedings.” Then she goes on to talk about the second counsel that is being appointed.

It is clear that the coroner has the interest of the families very strongly at the heart of this proceeding because she is determined to find out the answers. The families deserve answers, the communities deserve answers, and the coroner is determined to get to those answers.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Athana Mentzelopoulos, the Premier, Paul Taylor, Gary Collins, David Basi, Bob Virk and the Minister of Education — what is it that all of these people have in common? They’ve all received or been eligible for government indemnities. They all had access to the best legal talent that public money could buy.

To the Attorney General, does she really believe that these seven individuals were more deserving of taxpayer-funded legal help than the families of the four dead workers?

[1045]

Hon. S. Anton: The issue at hand is the coroner’s inquest. The issue at hand is the tragedies that took place in Burns Lake and Prince George. The issue is whether or not the answers to those tragedies can be found. That is the goal of the coroner’s inquest.

It is a complex inquest because it’s dealing with two separate explosions — two separate tragedies, as it were. She is determined to find the answers to those things, as is apparent from all her public statements on the subject, from her letters and from the appointment of the additional resources that she is making to her coroner’s inquest.

The public should have confidence in that inquest, and the families, I hope, will have confidence in the inquest, because they will indeed have the resources. They will have the meetings with coroners, with coroner’s counsel so that their interests, their questions are put forward to the inquest, so that the answers they are seeking will be found.

K. Corrigan: Surely, the Attorney General knows that there is a big difference between appointing another lawyer who is acting in the Coroners Service and appointing lawyers or allowing families to have their own lawyers to ask the questions that they want asked.

Carl Charlie, Alan Little, Robert Luggi and Glen Roche — what do these names have in common? The Justice Minister rejected their families’ plea for help.

This government is so generous to its friends that it gave Ben Stewart a car, a driver and an apartment in Beijing, even when he was spending most of his time in Kelowna. But the minister expects these families to cover their own travel and accommodation costs during the inquest.

To the minister, why will she not consider making it easier for these four grieving families to attend the inquest in Prince George?

Hon. S. Anton: The lawyers are lawyers for the inquest. They are lawyers who will be working closely with the families. As I said a moment ago, they will be meeting with the families, and they will be working to make sure that the concerns, issues and questions of the family members are acknowledged and addressed throughout the inquest process and during the hearing.

As I said, the goal of the coroner, as she has stated a number of times, is to find out the answers to what happened in these tragedies. She is reaching out to the families. They are meeting with the families, and they will be doing everything that they can to ensure that the interests and the questions of the families are addressed.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Just to recap, in the days following the explosion, the Premier went to Burns Lake and Prince George. She promised those families…. She looked them in the eye, and she said she was going to support them. But here’s how they’re feeling now about how they’ve been treated by this government.

“Since 2012 the government and government agencies have not kept these fundamental promises made to us. Instead, families, injured workers and communities have witnessed botched investigations, finger-pointing between government agencies, a failure to enforce laws passed by parliament and the failure of WorkSafe, the RCMP, the B.C. government and the companies which own the mills to respond adequately to what happened.”

No one is being held accountable. And now we have a government that says: “We are not going to provide you legal support, and we’re not going to help you attend the inquest.”

Will this government start to try to restore the shattered faith that these families have in the justice system, provide them with legal representation and make sure that they can attend the inquest?

Hon. S. Anton: For the last two years the Coroners Service has indeed met with the families on a number of occasions to keep them informed of the progress of the investigation and now the progress of the inquest.

[1050]

In fact, I understand that they have been reaching out even this week to meet with the families. The meetings and the dialogue will continue to ensure that the families are supported and to ensure that their interests, as I’ve said, and their questions are acknowledged.

The coroner is doing her utmost, as she has said on a number of occasions, to ensure that the families’ interests are met and to find the answers. What caused these tragedies? What recommendations can she make in order to ensure that the tragedies do not happen again?

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: I have the honour to present a report of the Representative for Children and Youth, B.C. Adoption Update, November 2014.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continued committee debate of Bill 5, the Container Trucking Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONTAINER TRUCKING ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 10:55 a.m.
[ Page 5367 ]

On section 22 (continued).

C. Trevena: Picking up where we left off on section 22. We were talking, when we adjourned last night, about the…. We’d started to talk about rates. As we agreed, this is sort of the core, one of the key points of this piece of legislation.

I just wanted to confirm that the minister agreed there were going to be two rates, the rates set out in the joint action plan — hourly rates of $25.13 and $26.28. The minister confirmed that last night. I wanted to ensure that those were the fixed rates and that they couldn’t be reduced under this — that these are the minimum rates, and it will only increase after this point.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the rates that I read into the record last evening in response to the member’s question indeed will be the rates that will be set as the starting point, the benchmark, via regulation. Those were the rates that were negotiated in good faith in the joint action plan with the truckers.

But as the member knows in reading the legislation, the commissioner will have the authority, the responsibility to oversee all issues pertaining to rates once this initial benchmark is set in regulation. Of course, the commissioner will be informed, in large part, by the industry advisory committee which will be constituted to provide input on rates and other matters.

C. Trevena: Thank you for that confirmation. The commissioner will also, obviously, be guided by this legislation. We have the fact that the rates will be…. We’re in section 22(1)(b): “establish a rate under paragraph (a)….” That will be the initial minimum rate that we’ve confirmed as the two rates under the joint action plan. And then it’s going to be “based on one or more of the following: (i) a rate per trip; (ii) an hourly rate; (iii) any other basis the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate.”

I wondered if the minister could explain why we have (iii). There’s already, clearly, an understanding of the rate per trip and the hourly rate, but what is the other basis that might be considered appropriate?

[1100]

Hon. T. Stone: The intent of (iii) there is as follows. We want to ensure through this legislation that there’s flexibility for the establishment of, perhaps, a blended compensation model. As the member knows well, this is a very complex sector. There are drivers that are paid by trip, there are drivers that are paid hourly, and there are also drivers that are often paid in a blended manner, maybe a combination of hourly and trip. So that’s what would be captured by the third point there.

C. Trevena: Well, I appreciate that this is obviously very complex. Will this not create further confusion and further dissension if there is the ability to have a blending of the two different ways of paying for the work, whether it is the rate trip or the hourly rate? To blend them, surely, is going to create more confusion.

One of the things was to try to get some clarity of this. I know we’ve had the rates that Unifor has presented, the rates that were in the joint action plan.
[ Page 5368 ]
I’m just concerned that this will not ease things forward if the commissioner is then coming in and going to be mixing the two up just for certain licensees.

Going back to what we were discussing last night about the conditions on the licence and so on, it seems to be that one of the purposes of this act was to get some clarity and some uniformity. By blending it, you’re going to lose that uniformity and definitely lose the clarity.

Hon. T. Stone: To the member opposite, yes, to the latter part of her question. The rate regulation will be very specific. It will detail the specific rates that are to be paid for each type of move, with all of the different to and from locations and the hourly and trip rates. Those will all be detailed.

To the former part of the member’s question, again, point (iii) is simply here to provide the commissioner with maximum flexibility or latitude, should he or she deem at some later date that a different or complementary compensation mechanism or structure is advisable.

That being said, it is certainly our intent, through regulation as a starting point, to ensure that the rates that were agreed to back within the joint action plan — the hourly trip rates, the fuel surcharges that were detailed there — indeed become the starting point for the commissioner.

C. Trevena: Without belabouring this, the minister has been very clear — the fact that the joint action plan is the basis of this. But at the time Vince Ready actually recommended against allowing a blending of the rates. I’m wondering, again, why this option is even there.

Why not just leave it as you’re going to have the hourly rate and the rate per trip, rather than leaving that option there? There was a recommendation against it. It is going to cause confusion and definitely going to cause dissension.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the intent here, as I’ve stated, is simply to provide maximum flexibility for the commissioner on a go-forward basis to ensure that he or she has the latitude to develop and implement a third option, a blended option, for compensation, if he or she sees fit at some later date.

[1105]

Obviously, that would be the commissioner’s decision to make, and it would be informed by the industry advisory committee. But again, it is our intent to ensure through regulation that the starting point for the rates will be the hourly and trip rates that were agreed to and are detailed in the joint action plan.

C. Trevena: While I can understand the minister wanting to allow some flexibility, I still can’t understand why this is there. We have the agreement that we really need to have the certainty. The minister has said very clearly that the starting point is going to be the joint action plan, that it’s going to be those two ways of doing it.

Why have this here when it could, again, cause concern, frustration — you know, looking for the untold future? But surely it’s when the advisory committee says that the present system isn’t working that you then can start amending the legislation, rather than leaving that there as an option at this stage.

Hon. T. Stone: All I can do, hon. Member, is restate my answer, which I’ve said a few times now.

It is there because we believe it needs to be there. Certainly, that is based on the input of a broad number of stakeholders in the industry. We are firmly committed to ensuring as a starting point that those rates in regulation are the hourly and trip rates which were agreed to in the joint action plan.

But we believe it’s important, too, on the rate issue — which is central to this entire effort that we’re undertaking here — that the commissioner has maximum flexibility to be able to develop a new funding model, a funding mechanism, a compensation system that may be deemed by the commissioner at some later date to be more appropriate for the circumstances at that particular time. That is, obviously, very hypothetical.

Again, it’s our intent to use the rates that were agreed to in the joint action plan as the starting point in regulation.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister might let the House know who was consulted in deciding to have this third option. Which stakeholders suggested this might be a good idea?

Hon. T. Stone: Throughout this entire exercise, since last March we’ve been talking to stakeholders across the industry. There’ve been weekly steering committee meetings, where the discussion of blended compensation as a potential third option has been put on the table by truckers. We have had other interests in the business community that have indicated it might be advisable to ensure that there’s the flexibility to provide for that type of compensation.

We’ve looked at the pros and the cons, and again, it is largely hypothetical at this point. But to the best that we can, we want to make sure in this legislation, in this particular section as it pertains to rates, that we provide maximum flexibility for the commissioner.

The starting point will be the rates that were agreed to in the joint action plan, and then it will be up to the commissioner, informed by the industry advisory committee, on a go-forward basis after that point to manage and be responsible for the rate schedule and the compliance with those rates moving forward.

C. Trevena: Going on to section 22(c), “for the purposes of paragraph (a), specify one or more circumstances and one or more container trucking services on any one or more of the following: (i) the starting point of the container trucking services….” What is actually intended by this? What’s going to be covered by this?

[1110]

Hon. T. Stone: The intent of subsection (c) in section 22 is to provide clarity, for the purposes of rates, as to the starting point and the end point for the move of a container. This could reflect a move that starts on dock and moves off dock. It could be a move that starts off dock and moves on dock. It could be on dock to on dock.

It’s essentially the starting point and the end point of that container within the geographic area, in (iii) there, which is defined earlier in the act, within the dates and the times, and so forth.

C. Trevena: If we can just stick initially to sections (c)(i) and (ii), the start and the end point…. We had the discussion yesterday about the on and off dock. So the start and end point — who would determine that? Would that be determined…? As we were discussing yesterday — that it would ensure that it was covering the off-dock as well as the on-dock part, or is it going to be determined by the company or the trucker?

Hon. T. Stone: At the present time there is a known schedule in the industry, in the drayage sector, of all of the pickup and drop-off locations and vice versa. I actually read all of those current locations into Hansard yesterday. We will be using that schedule. That’s just an example of the level of detail that will be contained in the regulation. It’s very, very specific to those start and end points and the rates that are applicable by hour or trip for each of those types of moves.

C. Trevena: When we’re talking, then, about the geographic area, it’s the area the minister put in the record yesterday, so everything from basically Burnaby, Pitt Meadows, Delta all the way out to Chilliwack? That breadth is the section (iii), the geographic area?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, that’s correct. It actually goes right out to Chilliwack and, on the other side, right out to West Vancouver.

C. Trevena: When we’re talking about the dates or times of the container trucking service, could the minister explain a little bit more about that? Yesterday one of the questions that I had was the concern about the retroactivity. Is that covered in this section? If not, could the minister explain just what is meant here by the dates or times of the trucking service?
[ Page 5369 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Actually, the member’s question with respect to retroactivity and if that’s dealt with here — no, it’s not. The issue of retroactivity, which I’m sure we’ll get to, is actually dealt with in 22(2). That subsection is where the retroactive piece is captured. In 22(1)(c)(iv), “the dates or times of the container trucking services,” this is really just, again, within the context of the pickup and the drop-off locations and the geographic area, simply to provide the flexibility to also capture the days and the times that those moves take place.

[1115]

C. Trevena: At the moment there are 16 hours in a day for the trucking industry, as I understand it. But there are people who do extend this. Is there going to be any extra enforcement put in to ensure that it is limited to the specific hours per day?

Hon. T. Stone: The short answer is no. The issue of port access, the gates, is controlled by the terminals. It’s a terminal decision to operate within a 16-hour window or not.

When night gates were added that was because the terminals agreed to do it within the context of the challenges that the industry was experiencing relating to wait times. So the terminals agreed to put on night gates, which is why we have now a 16-hour window versus an eight-hour window previously.

But, broadly speaking, the issue of wait times and access to the port will be managed through the terminals, not dealt with in any fashion through our legislation.

C. Trevena: Point (v): “the duration or distance travelled during the carrying out of the container trucking services.” How is this different from points (i), (ii) or (iii) — the starting and end point and the geographic area? We already have the scale that covers the Lower Mainland. I’m just wondering if the minister could give a bit of clarity about what this section is in comparison to what we’ve just been discussing.

Hon. T. Stone: The intent here with respect to duration of distance travelled is to capture the reality of the fact that while today…. Let’s imagine a container move from point A to point B may take half an hour. Over time, over a number of years, perhaps there’s bridge construction or there’s other construction taking place, congestion. That same move in ten years could perhaps take 45 minutes.

So it’s important, we feel, to build the flexibility into this section to provide for both the starting point, the end point, the geographic area — but also to capture the duration of time that it takes to travel between the start and the end of that particular container move.

C. Trevena: We’ve got the catch-all point (vi). I think that there has been a lot covered here. I’m just wondering what the minister is hoping to see or might expect to see in the catch-all: “any other basis the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate.” We are talking here about different ways of describing geographic area. We’re discussing chronological, both calendar and hours. I’m wondering what other ways there might be to be looking at this.

Hon. T. Stone: Item (vi) here — I can say to the member, as of today, we don’t have a particular thought in mind in terms of what this could potentially apply to. But again, within the context of defining these circumstances, which are detailed in sub (c), we feel it’s important to build in maximum flexibility, remembering that this is enabling legislation. We’re doing our best here to capture all of the different facets of this particular issue as we understand and know them today.

[1120]

But we certainly don’t want to find ourselves boxed into a corner or find ourselves dealing with an unintended consequence of not providing adequate flexibility in relation to this piece, particularly as it relates to rates. It’s really just there from an enabling perspective to provide that flexibility, if needed, in the future.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Because it is enabling legislation, this is, perhaps, why we are going through it in such minute detail. We are trying to get a sense of what is going to be enabled and what the thinking is because this is the legislation, and so much of it is back into Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council making decisions. We really want to get a good understanding of where the government is going on this.

I’m going to point (f), so 22(1)(f). We have: “establish an initial minimum fuel surcharge, based on a specified unit of fuel used during the provision of container trucking services, that a licensee must pay to a trucker who provides, in specified circumstances, specified container trucking services to or on behalf of the licensee.”

Some companies pay for fuel on behalf of the owner-operators. I’m wondering how this recognizes the difference between those trucking companies that pay for fuel on behalf of the owner-operators rather than those that are subsidizing it — the difference in the way that fuel is purchased at the moment: owner-operator or driver.

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows well, perhaps there are few other areas in the sector that are as complex as the fuel surcharge, where it applies, and so forth. Generally speaking, though, most employees have fuel paid for by the companies that they work for. Generally speaking, most owner-operators pay for their own fuel. Of course, there are all kinds of exceptions to that rule.

What we want to ensure we capture here is that with respect to the fuel surcharge…. Because we know that there are many times situations with owner-operators
[ Page 5370 ]
where they may be provided a discounted rate for fuel — often it’s a fuel card or something that a company provides them so they are able to purchase their fuel at a lower cost — the fuel surcharge will be applied to the discounted rate of the fuel, not to the market rate. We think that that’s very important.

C. Trevena: I think what I’m trying to ensure is that it’s not downloaded onto the drivers. The owner-operators are dealing with that, and it’s not going to be a download onto them — that they’re dealing with it as a surcharge. Obviously, if there is any benefit, it’s nice that that’s passed on, but that it is within the hands of the owner-operators and not the drivers.

[1125]

Hon. T. Stone: The fuel surcharge is not a download. It’s actually a benefit to the drivers in question — the owner-operators. I mean, the concept of it was to provide the drivers with an additional amount of compensation to compensate for rising fuel prices. There’s no download of any costs here to drivers, to specifically answer the member’s question.

C. Trevena: I just want to go back for a moment. Sorry to jump here but still on section 22. I just missed a question on 22(d) in my anticipation of getting on to costs of fuel and the import of that.

Section (d). I wonder if the minister could provide a bit more detail. You’ve got: “for the purposes of paragraph (b) (i), specify which container trucking services or which parts of the container trucking services constitute a trip to which a rate established under paragraph (b) is to apply.”

I wonder if the minister could give some examples, some detail of what this paragraph means in relation to the trips that are going to be taken and the geographical issues we’ve been talking about.

Hon. T. Stone: This section, section (d), is here to, again, ensure that as the regulation is developed on rates, through the regulation we are as specific as we possibly can be as to what actually constitutes a move. As the member knows well, there are all kinds of moves — you know, truck moves in Metro Vancouver — that have nothing whatsoever to do with the drayage sector. The moves never touch the port in any fashion. This section will ensure that there’s maximum clarity on what actually constitutes a move within the drayage sector.

C. Trevena: When I had my briefing — and I do thank the minister’s office for providing a briefing on the bill — what we kept coming back to is the agreement that it is very complex.

I was wondering: how is this different from everything else we’ve been talking about? We’re talking about….

I’d have thought that one of the key issues was the on- and off-dock — to make sure that you get the guarantee that if a truck comes from one place and goes to another which is off dock, empties, comes back and comes back on dock, it’s still going to get paid as one trip. I’m now getting a bit confused about what the difference is here from what we were talking about earlier on the on- and off-dock issue.

[1130]

Hon. T. Stone: This section is here to provide, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the very specific details, the clarity, around what actually constitutes a drayage sector move.

Through this entire section 22 we’re dealing with…. The regulation will be developed that will have the very specific schedule of all of the pickup and drop-off locations, which I’ve read into Hansard, and the hourly and trip rates that will be applicable. It will deal with the geographic area, potentially dates and times, and so forth.

We’re building the flexibility here to also potentially have the regulation speak to the specificity of the types of moves. There are a tremendous number of container moves in the Lower Mainland which have nothing whatsoever to do with the drayage sector. We want to make absolutely certain that these regulations do not capture any non-port-related or non-drayage-related moves.

C. Trevena: Since these are all going to be in the schedule agreed through regulation, were all of these discussed and agreed upon under the joint action plan, or are they ones that are going to be evolved through the industry advisory council?

Hon. T. Stone: All of the details that will inform the rate regulation, as we’ve talked about it today and yesterday, have their genesis in the joint action plan from earlier this spring. As the member knows, there was a steering committee that met on a weekly basis through most of the spring, summer and into the fall, and a lot of good work done on the rates, a lot of good input received.

Vince Ready and Corinn Bell were engaged by the federal government through a good amount of that period to engage with the entire drayage sector, including a tremendous amount of hours with truckers. As the member knows, the Ready-Bell report deals in a great deal of specifics on this rate piece.

All of the above has come into play in terms of shaping the legislation that we’re working on here today, and all of the above will help inform the regulations that will follow respecting the rates.

C. Trevena: Will the industry advisory council also inform the regulation? I mean, is it evolving? When we’ve finished this bill later this week, beginning of next week and we get working on the regulation, is that being
[ Page 5371 ]
done through the ministry, or will it include the advisory council?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is no. The industry advisory committee will not…. It is not our intention at this moment for the industry advisory committee to inform or further shape the starting point for the rate regulation. We believe we’ve got all the material that we need.

Again, our number one priority here is to fulfil the commitments that have been made in good faith to the truckers. The rates — hourly and trip — and fuel surcharges are all well known, well understood, have been in the public domain for the better part of this year and were reinforced through the recommendations that came out of the Ready-Bell report. Those rates will form the starting point of this regulation.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister and his staff for being willing to talk a bit more broadly around each specific clause. I think it’s very important that we get a full understanding of this.

[1135]

Going back briefly to the specifics. I was on (d), now going back to (f) in section 22(1). We’ve got the fuel surcharge. It mentions: “…that a licensee must pay to a trucker who provides, in specified circumstances, specified container trucking services….” What are the specified services here?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is very much what I mentioned earlier with respect to subsection (c), where we talked about what exactly was contemplated by container trucking services. Again, it will be very much specified in the regulation as to what’s included in this concept of container trucking services.

It’s very important to make sure that we capture only drayage sector moves and not container moves that have nothing whatsoever to do with the port. That’s what would be intended through the words “container trucking services” in subsection (f).

C. Trevena: Going on to (2), this is where the minister says the retroactivity will come in. How broad is the retroactivity? Is it going back to April? From the point of the legislation coming into force? How is this going to actually work in the real world?

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the fuel surcharge, the retroactive date or the start date for that would be March 27, 2014. For all other rates — the hourly and trip rates — April 3 would be the retroactive date.

C. Trevena: Does this apply to all companies? Do they have to apply for it? How is it going to be managed? I’m assuming from this it’s going to be managed through the commissioner’s office. Will they have to apply to the commissioner’s office for this? Is it, again, available to every company owner-operator?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, an important question. The determination of who owes what is, frankly, going to be taking place over the next couple of weeks as part of the federal government port-driven TLS reform that is underway.

[1140]

As I read into Hansard yesterday, one of the conditions that we understand the federal government is moving forward with in terms of a condition of the new licence under the TLS reform will be a statutory declaration that the company in question has paid provincially regulated rates, and retroactively where required. It is there that companies will have to provide the assurance that they have paid those rates.

Of course, if they haven’t, there’s the whistle-blower component and the audit program that will be in place as well. But it fundamentally will be captured when the TLS reform that the federal government is taking care of at the moment…. It will be taken care of there.

C. Trevena: In order to get the new licence under the TLS reform, they’re going to have to pay the retroactive. Otherwise, they will not get a licence. Or if they do get a licence, somebody’s going to have to do the whistle-blower or it will come up in an audit.

I guess what I’m trying to confirm is that a company might get the licence, not have dealt with the retroactivity, and it’s only if you have somebody who has the confidence to test the whistle-blower section or if that company is audited that they would find that there has not been retroactivity, they’ve not paid retroactively.

Hon. T. Stone: The process will be as follows. As part of the TLS reform that’s underway, as the member knows, the federal government very recently published and released for everyone in the sector and more broadly the draft criteria that would be considered as the new conditions for licence under the new TLS system.

As the port completes its engagement with truckers and other drayage stakeholders over the coming weeks, there will come a point in time where all current, existing licences will be revoked. New licences will be granted under the new system, based on the new criteria.

One of the conditions of the new licence will be a statutory declaration that the company will have to sign, attesting to the fact that they don’t owe, they’re not in arrears on any payments to drivers, current or retroactive, if applicable.

If they’re provided a licence based on that statutory declaration and they are subsequently found by the commissioner to not actually be in compliance with that requirement and indeed they owe — they have some retroactive compensation amounts that are owing —
[ Page 5372 ]
then, as we talked about yesterday, the commissioner will have the authority through an order to impose administrative fines and potentially suspend and/or revoke that company’s licence.

C. Trevena: I think it’s my last question on this section. I think my colleague from Surrey-Newton may have a couple of other questions.

Sections (3) and (4). We have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council “repeals the initial minimum rate,” and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council “repeals the initial minimum fuel surcharge.”

Why would that be through regulation rather than the commissioner just setting a new minimum rate or a fuel surcharge?

[1145]

Hon. T. Stone: On these two, subsections (3) and (4), the intent here is to provide a mechanism through which the starting rates that will be set through regulation shortly following passage of this act…. A mechanism to essentially, through order-in-council, vacate that starting rate once the commissioner makes any changes on a go-forward basis to the rates.

Essentially, it facilitates a legal process to vacate the initial regulation. Once that happens, then the commissioner will have the authority to amend the rates schedule on an ad hoc basis as he or she sees fit without having to come back to regulation.

I want to make sure it’s understood that there will not be a requirement for regulation to amend the rates except for the one time, which, from a legal perspective, we are advised, is needed to essentially vacate the starting point, once that commissioner would like to make changes to the rates.

C. Trevena: So as the starting point, we’re talking about: passed the legislation, got the regulations in effect. The minister has been talking about getting this going, hopefully, by mid-December. That’s when this comes into force, to vacate it? And then we get the new rates set up under the joint action plan. That’s what we’re going forward with. It’s up to the commissioner from that point on to have the authority to increase the rates on an annual or whatever other basis he’s looking at.

Hon. T. Stone: No, what this provides for is essentially…. Let me back up. The rates are coming out of this legislative debate. We’ll pass the act. There will then be the order-in-council, the regulation that will establish the initial starting point for the rates, as we’ve discussed.

That regulation could potentially be in place for years. But the moment the commissioner determines that he or she would like to make a change, or believes a change is appropriate, to the rate schedule, it is at that point that the commissioner would develop a new schedule of rates with the amendments included.

In order to make the commissioner’s rate schedule applicable, we would have to vacate the original regulation. Again, that could happen a year from now, it could happen five years from now, or it perhaps could never happen. But we needed to provide in this section the mechanism to allow for that flexibility.

C. Trevena: Then after that point, once the commissioner has amended the rates, at whatever period it is, whether it’s two, four, five years hence, it’s just up to the commissioner at that point. It doesn’t have to come back to order-in-council. The commissioner has the authority to amend the rates, talking with the advisory council and others and making his decisions that way.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

H. Bains: I have a number of questions coming out of the question-and-answer that went on in the last hour and a half. But I just want to start with the retroactivity issue here.

The minister explained in great detail the tools that the commissioner will have, about making the companies and ordering them to pay the rates in the event that they don’t. One of them was dipping into the security deposit — and other tools available: going to the court and having their order enforced.

I think, as the minister has said also, some of the companies will not make the cut come the end of January or February when that last date is, when the new licensing system will come into place.

[1150]

How will the minister make those companies who do not make it or do not apply to get the licence…? I believe April 3 is the date when the new rate is supposed to be applicable. Till that date, how would you make those companies comply with what they agreed to?

Hon. T. Stone: There is no mechanism in this legislation, and there won’t be in the regulation either, to address the situation that the member has mentioned.

[1155]

If there is a driver today that feels aggrieved and hasn’t been paid rates by a company that ends up not applying for a new licence or isn’t granted a new licence…. If they are not granted a new licence under the new TLS, which is essentially what the province will be assuming through the commissioner’s office, then there is no mechanism through this legislation to address those situations. But those drivers would have the opportunity to pursue civil action if they so choose.

H. Bains: I think that is quite a concerning issue here. I think the minister knows there are drivers and owners that haven’t been paid, even after that 14-point plan was signed.
[ Page 5373 ]

The provincial government signed it. The federal government signed it. The port signed it. All stakeholders signed it. They all committed to the rates. It’s the responsibility of the government who signed on that deal to make sure that agreement is complied with and lived up to. It may not be part of this bill, but I think that concern still is there. We are talking about rates here. This bill is emanating from that dispute and the 14-point plan that was signed.

If there’s a retroactivity, is the minister saying that the only retroactivity means after the new licences are coming in? That’s the only mechanism the minister has now. The minister is saying that we don’t have any ability from that point, which is February — I believe it is February or end of January — and April of this year. So there’s a whole year where truckers, some of them, haven’t been paid according to what the companies and the governments agreed to.

I think the minister has to make some pledge and some attempt here to make sure that those companies live up to the agreement that was signed by this government.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, I certainly understand the gravity of the situation here. This is why we have brought forward this legislation. We committed in the joint action plan — we were a signatory to that — in good faith with truckers that we would do our part, in coordination with the federal government, to ensure rate compliance on a go-forward basis. That’s why we are doing this legislation here today. This legislation is largely about now and into the future so that we don’t find ourselves in this position anymore.

If there are drivers who feel aggrieved that to this point have not been paid rates, there are current mechanisms that are in place for them. There is a whistle-blower line, there’s an audit program, and there is certainly civil action that’s available to them as well. But the broader picture here is through this legislation we are setting up. We believe the structure is going to ensure that this kind of situation we find ourselves in doesn’t repeat itself again in the future.

With that, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:59 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. T. Lake 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 11:59 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