2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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, March 3, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 11

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome Ian and Barbara Simpson. They’re business people from the town of Chemainus in my riding. They are wonderful people who operate a business called the Silver Mine, where they sell silver jewelry and copper jewelry crafted by First Nations artists.

They are a wonderful couple. Ian was a paramedic, and Barbara has been in the food industry all of her life. They’re wonderful citizens of Chemainus. I hope the House can help me welcome them to the B.C. Legislature.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, there’s a special young man in my life who actually believes he was born here in Victoria in the Legislature. He turns 11 today.

Happy birthday, Will.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In Section A, I call the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Environment. Here in the main chamber of the assembly, Section B, I call second reading of Bill 7, intituled the Private Training Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — PRIVATE TRAINING ACT

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that Bill 7, the Private Training Act, now be read a second time.

This bill is the result of a core review decision to improve the governance and regulation of the private training sector here in British Columbia.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The legislation will replace the Private Career Training Institutions Act. It will dissolve the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, which currently regulates the sector. It will bring the authorities and functions of the agency into the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Government first announced this intention on April 17, 2014, and consulted with private training institutions, sector representatives and other stakeholders about the proposed changes. Their feedback helped to shape the new model for a private career-training sector.

[1335]

This legislation will create higher-quality standards for the sector and higher educational quality for students. It will broaden enforcement mechanisms and provide better student protection. It will also streamline approval processes and create a risk-based approach that protects the public interest. It will also reduce the regulatory burden on private institutions that can offer consistently high-quality programs and that have a history of strong compliance.

The legislation establishes two pathways to authorization for institutions. The two pathways are registration and designation. Institutions receiving designation, by meeting higher standards of quality, will be entitled to three things: student financial assistance designation, educational quality assurance designation and hosting students on study visas under the federal international student program. The second category, institutions in the registration category, must meet education standards.

Students of both registered and designated institutions will have tuition protection. The student training completion fund, established under the current act, is continued. Institutions at greater risk of closure may have to provide security in addition to contributing to the tuition protection fund.

An administrative penalty framework is a new aspect of the legislation. This enables the registrar to impose monetary penalties for contravention of the act requirements. This enforcement measure will promote compliance with the act.

Government changed the governance model for private institutions in 2004 to allow industry to regulate itself. The landscape of post-secondary education has changed since then, with a greater need for students and individuals to have job-ready skills for the future.

The post-secondary sector today is more complex and much more international. These institutions complement the 25 public universities, colleges and institutes in the province, and this legislation will establish higher-quality standards for the sector. This will lead to a higher quality of education for students at those institutions. That higher quality creates greater confidence in the sector, both nationally and internationally.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and speak about Bill 7, the Private Training Act.

This bill is welcome in many ways, although I have some concerns about it. But it’s certainly welcome. It partially corrects a legacy of over a decade of problems in private career training as a result of the decision by government, by the Liberals, in 2003 that it was basically going to allow self-regulation of the industry. It privatized and allowed self-regulation and decided there would be self-regulation of private career-training institutions.

It’s interesting to hear that the minister has just said that the intention of this bill is to…. It’s going to result in a more integrated and effective regulation of private ca-
[ Page 6298 ]
reer-training institutions, the elimination of overlapping processes and a reduced regulatory burden on the sector. It says regulations made under the new legislation…. Regulations are going to get rid of red tape, essentially.

It is so ironic. Here is what the same government said in 2003 when it brought in the Private Career Training Institutions Agency — which was the privatization, essentially, of the regulation of private training schools. What they said at the time…. We spoke about it, and we were very concerned about self-regulation. We were very concerned about government devolving responsibility for regulation of private training schools.

The now Minister of Jobs said at the time: “This bill, I am pleased to say, will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions.” That was the intention.

[1340]

Lorne Mayencourt said: “We’ll reduce the regulatory burden for the private training sector. It will also reduce red tape for private training institutions and allow them to reinvest their time and money into the expansion of their businesses.”

Randy Hawes said the same kind of thing and railed about us on this side of the House always wanting government to do everything. He said: “This is going to be a great thing. It’s to just get government out of the way.”

Well, we have had 12 years, almost 12 years now, of government getting out of the way, and the legacy is a mess. The legacy has been a mess of schools where students have been getting ripped off, where agents have ripped off students, where the good name….

The most important thing is our good name and the high-quality assurance that students from around the world have had, that when they come to a British Columbia school in post-secondary and in K to 12, they are going to get the highest quality of education and that they don’t have to worry about it.

Unfortunately, that reputation has taken a real hit. We had a lot of really bad apples, really bad schools apparently taking advantage, or at least not being monitored and watched by this government, under this self-regulation.

The fact that we have the government now essentially bringing private career training back in and suggesting that what it’s going to do is to eliminate overlapping processes and reduce regulatory burden is pretty ironic, given that that was the claim that was made when they introduced the whole scheme in the first place. It’s kind of funny that you reduce red tape by getting rid of regulation, and then you reduce it again by bringing bodies back into government.

I want to say, also, that I have to give credit to my colleagues from Nelson-Creston and Victoria–Swan Lake. Both of them, twice in the last several years, introduced private member’s bills and tried to persuade this House…. Certainly, those of us on this side of the House were persuaded.

We tried to persuade members on the other side of the House that it would be a good idea to bring monitoring, regulation and oversight of these private career-training institutions back into government. Unfortunately, until now the wisdom of that was not acknowledged, and unfortunately, both of those bills were not accepted by this House.

It’s unfortunate, because I believe that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake brought his bill in as far back as 2007. The member for Nelson-Creston brought the bill in while she was Advanced Education spokesperson several years ago.

It’s too bad that this had to happen, that there was this deregulation. And it’s too bad that government took so long and did not accept our suggestion that there needed to be better monitoring, oversight and regulation. We could have avoided the many, many students whose view of British Columbia was tainted and who often lost thousands and thousands of dollars.

When we get to the committee stage, I have a lot of really specific questions. One of my problems with this bill, though, is that so much of it is left to be determined by regulation, so much so that I had to make requests of ministry staff to try to understand some of the major portions of the bill simply because we don’t know what’s going to happen. I have a real concern when that happens.

[1345]

I know it’s been mentioned on this side of the House before, but we really do not know exactly what it is that we are being asked to support in many cases. When we get to committee stage, I’ll go through some of those very specific sections.

It’s very difficult to know exactly what oversight is going to look like. Essentially, I don’t think it’s been decided yet. I’m not sure, one, why we would have the bill come forward without those things being decided. Then two, I guess my concern about it is that it’s very difficult for us to appropriately and fully debate a bill like this when we don’t know what the regulation and what the oversight is going to look like.

I find that disappointing and disconcerting, to the point that it wasn’t even clear to me, from looking at the bill, whether or not language schools were included. It was possible, reading the bill, that they were. Given that, for example, it said that any other type of institution could be brought in under the act, that could potentially, I guess, include language schools. I’m assured that that is not the case. But there is a new regulatory scheme for language schools, in a sense. That is something that has concerned some people.

I appreciate that it’s always a balancing act. Essentially, some of the language schools are small businesses. Some of them are very, very large multinational businesses.
[ Page 6299 ]
It’s trying to find that balance between the appropriate amount of regulation and, on the other hand, not so controlling a small business, particularly the small businesses, to the point that it’s impossible for them to operate.

There are some concerns about the language schools. What’s happening with the language schools, in my understanding, is that the language schools are not automatically covered by the act. What is going to happen to them is that they will…. If they want to practice it, if they want to have the benefits of being able to have students, for example, get visas — which many, many students will obviously need….

If they want to be able to be able to operate and have students come from other countries…. Virtually all the students that are going to the private language schools, all of them, are coming from other countries, so they’re going to need visas. They’re going to need, therefore, to get the EQA designation, which is the education quality assurance.

Now, this is causing some problems for some schools, as is my understanding. I’ve been hearing from some of the faculties and owners of some smaller schools, who are saying that that is too onerous. What that essentially does is it brings the schools under the regulation and the umbrella of the act.

We have called for that. We understand that it can be problematic for some schools, but we have called for that. One of the reasons — certainly what I’ve heard from some of those that are involved with the language schools — is that this is an area where there is real potential for abuse. And there has been abuse.

One of the problems — and I’m not sure; again, I’ll have to check; when we’re in committee stage, I’m going to ask questions about that — is determining the level of payment that goes into a fund, basically an insurance fund, for students who are in these schools.

The level of payments, to my understanding, do not include money that is paid to agents as administrative fees. They’re huge funds. They add up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. You’re talking about, I believe, in the range of over $1 billion a year. It is an industry that is worth more than $1 billion a year. It is largely the agents, the ones that are bringing the students, who are the ones that often get the money. They’re the ones that the students pay, both for the tuition for these private language schools, which are six to nine months that the students sometime go — usually longer term….

[1350]

They’re paying the agents the whole amount. There’s a real potential for, and there have been, significant abuses as a result of the fact that those agents are receiving the money. The school itself…. You may not be able to get the school, and the agents usually are in the home country of the students that are coming.

I’m not sure that this legislation is going to address that issue. I don’t believe it is. I know that in the consultations that government had, and also in my consultations with some of those language schools, they had a real concern about whether or not there would be control and monitoring and any way to get at the agents who are the ones that are bringing the students.

I want to go back to talk a little bit about some of the problems that have happened and why I think it’s good — at least a partial step, apart from some concerns about the legislation — to have this legislation. We will likely be supporting it overall. But I do want to say that the recognition, the acknowledgment that this was not working and that it should be fixed should have happened years and years ago.

Unfortunately we got to the point…. In January 2007, for example, we had China warning students. January 9, 2007 — a story saying:

“China is warning students who want to study abroad to avoid private post-secondary schools in Canada because it says shady operators are ripping off hundreds of international students every year. The warning was issued late last year” — that would have been late 2006 — “by the Chinese Education Ministry, a spokesman for the Chinese consulate in Vancouver said…. Its impact will be felt mainly in B.C. and Ontario because those two provinces have the most private schools catering to international students.”

Education consul Jianhui Xia said in an interview: “We want to protect our Chinese students from being cheated.” What an embarrassing assessment to have had back in 2007.

That was eight years ago, and unfortunately it has taken eight more years of these kinds of incidents before the government has finally moved to try to address some of the issues. In the meantime, how many thousands of students have been ripped off?

Now, I’m not slagging, not criticizing those schools that provide a good service and are excellent and serve the students that come here well. But unfortunately, when you have a lax regulatory environment, you’re going to end up — especially when you’re talking about an industry that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars — having those bad apples.

It doesn’t take too many incidents, and unfortunately there were quite a few, before the reputation gets around and you have, not an individual disgruntled in China — although that would be important as well — but you actually have the Chinese Education Ministry making a pronouncement that Chinese students should think very seriously about going to study in Canada because they might get ripped off by Canadian language or training schools. I think it’s really unfortunate that that’s the history of it.

We had another one, certainly, that the member for Nelson-Creston was very involved in. She pointed out that B.C. at that time, in 2012, was the only province that allows the private post-secondary industry to self-regulate. I hadn’t been aware of that, actually, until I read that. That was three years ago. It was the only one.

[1355]

She was raising the issue of a traditional medicine college that ended up…. The students, some of whom had gone there for years…. Stephen Harvey was mentioned in this story. He spent seven years in school and over $50,000 to earn his doctor of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine certificates from the Shanghai Traditional Chinese Medicine College — in my community of Burnaby, unfortunately. But when he applied for his licence to practice his trade, he was denied, and his education, he was told, was worthless.

Seven years and $50,000 because of a lack of adequate oversight in a system that this government put in place and refused to fix. That’s one person losing $50,000, and there were many others. It is unfortunate that we have that long history.

We have another example from 2006. This goes back such a long time. It’s so disappointing that this was allowed to go on for as long as it has. It certainly is an admission by this government that it failed, that it failed students. It failed international students and failed many students from here as well. It failed all of us because we’re concerned about the image of our province. It’s certainly an admission that there was a failure in this scheme, and I really don’t know why it took so long to finally fix it — or to some degree fix it.

We had another example. This is a story from October of 2006. “B.C.’s University Professors Call for Suspension of Lansbridge University Operations.” That was another B.C. school associated with Kingston College. “The organization representing B.C.’s public university professors today called for an immediate suspension of operations by Lansbridge University in response to the reports that Lansbridge’s owner, Dr. Michael Lo, appears to have offered degree programs illegally at another B.C. school he owns, Kingston College.”

Not only is our province as a whole tainted by those stories, or their reputation, but it gets very specifically to the term “university.” That is part of what happened with the deregulation or the self-regulation. Part of the act, part of the Private Career Training Institutions Act, was the widening of the ability for private universities to flourish, and that’s partly because of the deregulation.

I think it’s important to remember that this is what members from the other side of the House crowed about at the time and said, you know that we were all on this side of the House wanting red tape, and that it was ridiculous and it wasn’t necessary. It’s really unfortunate because it’s meant that many, many students have ended up losing their money or having a really bad taste.

Ida Chong said: “I don’t understand. The NDP seem to forget that we should be putting students first.” That’s what she said about the bill. She said: “We’ve strengthened consumer protection.” I’m not sure why they thought that, but you know, it is consistent. It’s consistent with the attitude that we hear on the other side of the House repeatedly — the suggestion that, somehow, red tape….

They use the word “red tape” and say it’s bad when, in fact, red tape is regulation. Red tape is oversight. Red tape is making sure not only that we have the standards there, but also that we monitor, that we inspect, we do the things, we look after our environment. That is what red tape is. And that is what those on the other side of the House repeatedly….

We got it again in the throne speech this year. The throne speech said: “We’re going to cut red tape. We’re going to do it, and we’re so proud of ourselves.” Ten years ago, over ten years ago, it was: “We are going to cut regulation by a third.” Well, thank you very much. When you cut regulation by a third just willy-nilly and say, “Okay, regulation in and of itself is bad” — you know, government is bad, regulation is bad — then what you end up with is situations like this.

[1400]

I do appreciate that government has finally appreciated that regulation is an important thing to do, that we do need to have oversight. We need to monitor. But unfortunately, part of the problem is that the devil is in the details. As I said earlier, we don’t know what the details are. We have many, many sections that say “to be determined by regulation” — some very, very important ones that, unfortunately, really will determine what the monitoring scheme is going to be like, what the regulatory framework is going to look like. It’s really hard to know exactly what this is all going to look like. We’re going to have to vote on it, which is unfortunate, before we really know what it looks like.

That’s certainly been a concern that’s been expressed by some of the stakeholders that I’ve talked to. They said: “Well, we don’t know for sure what we think because we’re not sure what it is that you’re talking about.” So many of the details — more than details…. So much of the structure is not in the bill itself.

I also wanted to raise a couple of things that some individuals raised with me. They are concerned, as I said earlier, about the fact that agents…. Here’s a quote. Here’s what one of the language schools, some of the teachers, said to me: “Currently there is little, if any, effective oversight of agents and recruiters, a gap that leaves students vulnerable to misinformation and unprotected from questionable actions taken by agents or recruiters.”

It’s not clear to me that that issue is going to be addressed. I mean, I think the fact that schools are being brought in and required to have the designation and the education quality assurance…. I’m not sure why it’s called designation now as opposed to accreditation. I’m assured it means exactly the same thing, but for some reason, we now have designation as opposed to accreditation.

Another comment was made. “A necessary step in any reforms made to the oversight of private language training institutions is to have faculty included in the governance system. Faculty have an important and in-
[ Page 6301 ]
dependent perspective on how institutions and students work.” That perspective was not reflected in the PCTIA model, the Private Career Training Institutions Agency model, where government was effectively based on self-regulation.

That is certainly one of the concerns of faculty, who often were caught in the middle. They would be very well qualified professionals in teaching at the private training institutions but were in no way represented in the oversight and in the governance system. So it’s not clear to me, as it now stands. I believe one of the things that is not clear that will be decided by regulation is: what is the oversight going to look like?

Well, that’s a huge issue. We’ve seen that in the apprenticeship system. When you remove those that work directly with those being trained, either as apprentices or in a private training college or institution…. When you remove people like teachers or unions from the mix — and it’s entirely an employer or, in this case, owners; it’s private so entirely owners — then it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work.

Profit motivation is fine, but when that’s the only voice that’s at the table, none of us are well served. We’re better served when we have a variety of voices at the table offering a variety of perspectives and making sure that governance and oversight are balanced.

There’s concern…. I’m not sure about what the complaint process is going to look like. Some of the most common complaints from students, certainly at the language schools, have to do with their homestay arrangement.

[1405]

This information that was given to me said:

“Too often the homestay arrangement is something controlled by either the recruiter agent, the institution or both. That leaves the student and their family vulnerable to less-than-agreed-to, acceptable homestay arrangements. Students also complain about the quality of the learning conditions, including crowded classrooms or inferior conditions within the institution. Again, the gap between what the recruiter agent promised and what the student receives is at the core of these complaints.”

I do believe that there will be an improvement to the complaints process. One of the things, one of the substantive changes…. I think the main substantive change, in my understanding of the reading of the legislation, is that the complaints process will be longer. There will be a longer period of time, and that’s good. It’s good news. It was six months, and it’s now increased from that, depending on the nature of the complaint, to a year or more. We appreciate that. We think that that’s a good thing, and we thank the government for that change.

If the complaint is about a homestay arrangement and the homestay arrangement is not something that will be governed or in any way managed under this new legislation, being brought back into government, then that problem will continue to exist. It’s not clear from the legislation that that will be addressed.

I also have some concerns about the formulation of the student training completion fund — or the reforming of it. This, I think I mentioned before, is like an insurance policy, essentially. It’s a fund to which all the schools pay into — the ones that were accredited. Now they’ll be called designated. In other words, they are guaranteeing that they’re of a higher quality and will have more oversight and certainly a closer look at them before they get their designation.

The student training completion fund is a fund which all the schools pay into, and they have to pay according to the size of their tuition. So if there is a complaint from a student or their family, if there’s a complaint…. For example, if the courses that were offered in fact are not given, if they don’t deliver on those courses or there’s some other substantive problem with the school, then students can file a complaint.

As I said, we’re pleased that the complaint period is longer. Certainly, I heard from stakeholders as well that this is a big improvement. There’s a real concern that a lot of the students don’t speak the language, and the information…. It’ll be interesting to see whether or not the information that is offered about the complaints process is in the language of the students that are actually attending the schools. If they’re not, then that’s not helpful. We’ll have to see about that as well, and I’ll certainly ask questions about what kind of compliance there needs to be and what kind of regulation there will be with regard to that.

Another concern in terms of the completion fund — the insurance fund, essentially — is that…. There are concerns under the old and also under the new act about whether or not the amount of money that is collected is the appropriate amount. I mentioned agents being very involved in the process.

My understanding is that, both with the old act and now the new, tuition, the amount that is tuition, is the thing that drives the rate that has to be paid — the premium, essentially — into the student training completion fund. But I’m not sure what kinds of controls there will be in the new act in order to ensure that what has happened in the past doesn’t happen in the future. That is, the tuition itself might not be extremely high, but the payment to the agent is very, very high and, in some cases, could be as much as, or perhaps more, than the actual cost of the program. Now, that might be a bit of an extreme, but it’s significant.

[1410]

The concern that’s raised about that is: how do you monitor that amount? And then: how do you take into account the fact that in some schools that agency fee is so high, yet it’s not reflected in the premium that the language schools are paid? Are those payments to the agents, which are a significant part of what the students are paying in order to come to school in British Columbia…? Are they collectible as well? I’ll have questions about that.
[ Page 6302 ]

One of the submissions that I saw said that having a process with regard to the student training completion fund…. “Having a process that’s easily accessed and can resolve matters in a timely fashion is probably the biggest challenge for the student training completion fund. The possibility exists that the process could take longer than an international student’s ability to access it, which could create a negative reputation for the province abroad.”

Again, we are concerned about the reputation of the province. That adds to the concern about scam artists and so on, and our very good reputation. For years and years we have rightfully gained a stellar reputation in terms of post-secondary education around the world because of the quality of our public institutions. My concern is that the quality that we are now cashing in on, in a sense, the reputation of our public institutions, our universities, our colleges…. I would say to anybody around the world: “Come to our universities and colleges.”

Unfortunately, you know, we are not funding our colleges and universities appropriately. We are still doing a fabulous job, but they’re facing their own challenges. At least we have a long history of wonderful standards in our public universities and colleges and institutes. It really is painful when you believe so much in a public education system and you believe that our reputation around the world is very, very good and then you see it challenged because this government made the decision that they were going to privatize and going to support privatization of training, including allowing organizations to use the word “university.”

Because of our stellar reputation, many students and their families assumed that this meant that if they came to any university in British Columbia, they were getting a top-notch education, assuming it was public. Maybe they wouldn’t know the difference, but they assumed they were coming to a top-notch institution. Now that has been tainted to some degree.

I think that we’re still doing a fabulous job. Unfortunately, because of this government’s determination to privatize, to hand over regulation to the industry themselves and say: “Make sure you stay top notch. By the way, we recognize that your bottom line is the bottom line and not the reputation of this province….” By handing it over, we’ve taken a bit of a blow. Perhaps this legislation will help bring us back a little bit and tighten things up and make it better.

I certainly do have some of the concerns that I have mentioned previously. One of the solutions, and I don’t know whether it has ended up in the legislation, is that by…. This would be a faculty submission. “Given that homestay arrangements are important conditions for students, some form of insurance against problems arising from homestays should be considered.” As mentioned earlier: “Where students give their tuition fees to their recruiter agents, the need to have those entities part of the fund is pressing.” Finally: “The experience of having a self-regulatory regime has shown the flaws in having a single stakeholder group control oversight of quality and standards.”

[1415]

There have been some improvements as a result of the changes to the federal government’s international student program, which set some federal standards for allowing students to come in. That would be the federal part, the student visas. As a result of that, the Advanced Education Ministry determined that all institutions that wished to host international students on study permits must attain their education quality assurance designation.

So there have already been some improvements, but it’s created some of these…. Because the standards were so lax under this government before, this has created some ripples within the industry and has created some problems and push-back. It’ll be interesting when we get to the next stage, the committee stage, to ask some questions about that and how that works.

Just in summing up, we’re pleased to finally see that government has admitted failure, given up and admitted failure, in its 11-year, almost 12-year, foray into self-regulation by industry, which has, unfortunately, created a number of victims and perhaps injured our international reputation for post-secondary education and education generally.

We warned about it back in 2003. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spent a good deal of time in the House saying the many, many concerns that she had about the fact that this scheme was coming in. We had many members from the other side telling us it was going to be wonderful and that it was going to mean there was less red tape and that things were going to be more efficient.

Now we have a government, 12 years later, coming back and saying, I think, kind of an “oops,” and saying that now that we’re going to bring it back in, there’s going to be much less tape and it’s going to be much more efficient.

We agree in that regard that it will be better. I look forward to having a chance to get down to the detail of this bill. It is very unfortunate that so much of it is going to be decided later. How things are actually going to happen is going to be decided later, because it’s going to be in regulation. We may not get to figure out exactly what the scheme is going to look like and whether those issues of compliance, those issues of homestays, the issues of agents, the penalty system, the compliance — whether or not that’s actually going to work. We’ll ask some questions about that when we get to committee stage.

With that, we’re pleased to see that we have the act. There are some parts that we have some real concerns about. After 12 years, we’d like to thank the government for listening to the people on this side of the House.

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 7, the Private Training Act. It is, I suppose, one of those exquisite ironies that
[ Page 6303 ]
the minister guiding the bill through the House was the president of the B.C. Liberal Party in 2001 and, shortly after the government came to power, was selected as a deputy minister in that government. He’s very familiar with many of the ideological promises that were made in the campaign document of the B.C. Liberals, sweeping them into power in 2001.

I really could only guffaw when I heard him say that the purpose of this piece of legislation taking the agency back into government was to reduce the regulatory burden. Everything’s changed but the language. The reality has changed. The reputation of the private regulation of post-secondary institutions was damaged. The government has finally admitted its mistake, although it’s done under the guise of saving some money. Yet the rhetoric is exactly the same.

I suppose that’s an admirable consistency. But to say, after everything’s that happened, that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce the regulatory burden is exquisite irony in the extreme.

[1420]

Mr. Lorne Mayencourt, who was an MLA at that point and now a Liberal staffer, said in his comments on the previous bill that set up PCTIA, the private regulator, that this “will also reduce red tape for private training institutions and will allow them to reinvest their time and money into the expansion of their businesses.”

Randy Hawes, a former member here and now back as the mayor of Mission, I understand: “The changes being made and the things being recognized are that the private sector actually takes great pride in doing the job well. And they do do the job well. They do it best when government gets out of the way and allows them to do the job they want to and they’re supposed to do. People will choose, without a lot of safety net from the government, the private operators that offer the best service…the best ability to stay in business because they offer quality service.”

Well, that was the theory. The reality, unfortunately, for many students, either from abroad or from British Columbia, who enrolled in some of the private institutions — not all of them — was that the regulatory standard was so loose that outright fraud and deception and theft of tuition fees was practised on vulnerable students. It came to the point where, as the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has pointed out, the Chinese consulate, the People’s Republic of China consulate in Vancouver, was warning students in China not to come to British Columbia to enrol in these institutions. The Indian consul general in Vancouver, similarly, was warning Indian students not to come to British Columbia because of the lack of regulation.

When one considers some of the regulatory problems that one hears about in other countries, that certainly is, again, a rather long tumble in the reputation of British Columbia in this area. A reputation in this area is damaging not just to the individual operators and to those students who enrolled in those institutions, but it damages the whole sector. Where these kinds of inquiries, through the blogosphere, become global inquiries, it can have a really damaging economic effect on the whole sector.

Indeed, that’s what seemed to happen. The Chinese consul who was in charge of this discussion and representing the consulate general said that he acknowledged that not all private institutions are disreputable, but China is not able to sort the good from the bad. In other words, the reputation resulted in caution, and the ability to make a decision about which one was good or which one was not was too difficult — hence, the blanket warning.

It strikes me as ironic, indeed, that that’s what took place. There are other examples — Kingston College, an institution with very close connections to the B.C. Liberals. Certainly, Michael Lo, the proprietor, very close connections to the B.C. Liberals, operated an institution which…. The Confederation of University Faculty Associations wrote and pointed out and informed, as best they could, other students about the problems with that institution.

The executive director, Robert Clift, in a news release back in October 2006, said: “Although Kingston College has been shut down, and the results of the investigation published on the PCTIA website, the former Kingston students are in limbo. They may be kicked out of the country when their visas expire, without their degrees, without tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and living expenses and without the two years of their lives lost to Michael Lo’s fraudulent educational empire.”

There’s another example. In my own riding, in Surrey-Whalley, during that period of time, after 2005 — I won’t mention the name of the institution; I think it’s happily disappeared — there were students who came to my office. They had paid their fees to a technical training institution regulated by the board. What this institution did was to take a deposit and then help these students apply for a student loan and have the entire student loan, or the bulk of it, directed to the institution.

[1425]

Once that came through, then what they would do would be to tell them that for the course that they had, they were reducing the hours. Then, within a month or two, that course would be discontinued. Basically, the people were told, “Well, we’ll give you a refund of your tuition” — which never came. The whole scam was to get the people to make the application for the student loan and get the money to the institution without any intention of delivering the service. That was an experience where I went to the local media. We did our best to get some justice for those students.

Certainly there were many problems. In fact, the government commissioned a report on the Private Career Training Institutions Act, a review by John Watson, who was a former president of BCIT. That report came out on
[ Page 6304 ]
January 10, 2008. One of the things that he looked at…. He spoke with public institutions, and he spoke with the University Presidents Council of B.C. This is what the University Presidents Council said: “It now appears that deregulation, particularly in the context of ESL institutions, has facilitated a decline in quality control. This must be reversed.”

He had a number of other recommendations. One of the ones was that the governing body of the PCTIA, the governing board, have some public members. In fact, he recommended a majority of public members, because the board was composed of representatives of the industry who seemed to be regulating — if one could use that term — in their own interest and not in the interest of the public or students or the international reputation of private institutions of British Columbia globally.

Certainly, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake are drawing on some of the work that the previous critics have done. The member for Nelson-Creston introduced a private member’s bill which sought to address many of the deficiencies which only now are being addressed in the bill that’s now before the House and that we’re discussing.

One omission, though, was that the previous Private Post-Secondary Education Commission did regulate language schools. What has now taken place in this act, despite recommendations by Mr. Watson as far back as 2008, and by, I think, some of those in the industry…. Certainly, it was included in the private member’s bill put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston to protect international students by bringing English-as-a-second-language or foreign-language schools under the authority of the act. This bill does not do that.

I’ll be interested to hear from the minister, should he care to venture an opinion on this, why that decision was made, given that this appears to be an overdue result of a long and tortuous process of public criticism and re-examination of some of the ideological shibboleths of the B.C. Liberals, forcing them to take this back into public control in order to better regulate and serve the public interest better — although the language, as I’ve noted, remains the same, of reducing the regulatory burden. The act, as I’ve said, I think is long overdue, will be welcome and will enhance the public reputation of British Columbia’s many private institutions.

That’s really what I wanted to say on this bill. I look forward to the….

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Well, I hadn’t quite concluded. I did want to add one further comment.

[1430]

The reaction of the B.C. Liberals over the years was, very understandably, defensive. I’m going to quote from Minister Coell, as he was then. Despite the example of very high-profile public failures of private institutions such as Kingston College and Lansbridge University belonging to Vancouver businessman Michael Lo, Minister Coell, the responsible minister, said this when asked about it: “‘The government does not feel the fact that very few schools have had problems would justify returning to rigid, one-size-fits-all regulation.’ The ministry will create a quality assurance program, according to an announcement issued with the release of the report” — that was the report of Mr. Watson — “but participation will be voluntary.”

Even then the government was reluctant to do the right thing, to introduce legislation like this and set out to correct the problems that it created back in those ideologically charged days post-2001, with which the minister will be very familiar.

Having now, I think, concluded my remarks, I will turn over the role of speaking to one of my colleagues either on this side of the House or…. From the look of it, probably not on that side of the House.

R. Fleming: I’m pleased, I think, to be speaking to this bill this afternoon. It’s been, to say the very least, a long time in coming.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The mistakes that were made by this government as far back as 2003 have been the subject of inquiries, investigations. They have been the subject of warnings by international consulates to residents. They have been subjected to intense media scrutiny; an investigation by our own Auditor General, an independent officer of this House; opposition scrutiny; case files in the hundreds, if not thousands, by MLAs of all parties who had student complaints directly brought to them — because the original legislation was so flawed.

The legislation that goes back to 2003 was really a centrepiece of a package of bills that sought to deregulate government oversight across a whole range of areas and activities in British Columbia — even things like health and safety regimes in the workplace or in certain sectors like hospitality and restaurants. That’s how this government viewed student consumer protection. It was an impediment, it was red tape, it was “bad for business,” and it needed to be gone.

They rushed into it headlong without any adequate consultation with the sector. They failed to anticipate many of the things that critics — both elected critics on this side of the House and those with expertise in post-secondary education policy — had to say before they introduced the bill at that time and after and during the debate.

Of all of the mistakes that this government has made, I have to thank so many individuals, people who were
[ Page 6305 ]
tasked by government to look into this problem, for their patience. And the opposition should be included in this, too, because the remedies were so obvious of what was missing, what had been removed and was proving to be a very costly mistake.

Those remedies were obvious, and they were put before this House in a private member’s bill, one of which was introduced by me as far back as 2007, one of which was introduced by the member for Nelson-Creston in 2012. They were retabled after they would die on the order paper. We had ample opportunities to debate in this very chamber how to fix flawed legislation and bring back oversight for the private career-training college sector and student consumer protections for students.

[1435]

We had ample opportunities, and it’s not until this day, this afternoon, that legislators have actually had an opportunity to finally see the government introduce something that, in a sense, in every sense, acknowledges that the 2003 bill that they introduced as some kind of fanfare centrepiece of a deregulatory regime of government — the dawning of a new era, as it was called — was a complete and utter failure.

Today government admits that what opposition said, what critics said, what people in the sector said, what post-secondary education leaders said — restore oversight to the private career-training college sector — is being done.

Now, I agree with our critic that this bill is light. There’s very little in it. We will look with great anticipation to see whether what is hinted at in the legislation is, in fact, introduced later by regulation. But I think it is a victory for a lot of people, who paid a very, very heavy price, to see government finally come full circle, admit failure, admit the hardships that they created and, in a sense, be won to a position where so many people had said before: “Enough is enough.”

British Columbia cannot be some kind of outlaw or Wild West jurisdiction where private career-training businesses have very little to comply with in law and are not overseen. B.C. will finally join other places where that is not the case. We’ve suffered reputational damage. I know the critic, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, has had a difficult time quantifying it. Anyone would.

When you are the subject of international warnings from places like India, South Korea, Japan and China, directly through their embassies here on the west coast — and we’re talking about 55,000 to 75,000 international students from those countries I’ve just mentioned coming to Canada each year — warning students not to study at private career-training colleges in British Columbia because of what was going on, you know that this jurisdiction has suffered significant reputational damage.

I hope that, from 12 years of this government turning a blind eye to it, we can recover some of the reputation that we’ve surely lost internationally by this bill — and by a number of other actions that should be taken as well.

I want to go over how flawed the original motivation was around getting rid of protections for students in private education, private post-secondary education, in B.C.

You know, it’s one thing for a government to have a positive motivation to reform something, to say that we can make something better. I don’t think anybody would argue that the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission of B.C. was 100 percent perfect. But I think what we would argue, and it’s certainly being acknowledged just by the introduction of Bill 7, is that in many ways it got the fundamentals right. Those fundamentals were completely jettisoned.

I think the primary ones that I want to discuss this afternoon are around basic consumer protections that can and should be expected of a province like British Columbia, where students internationally are coming and paying tens of thousands of dollars — in fees, in homestay fees, in visa applications, in travel — to get here to study in a country that is seen as a good place around the world.

Canada and some other countries, like Australia, have been at the top of the destination list for Asia-Pacific students for some time because they’re assumed to be places where the rule of law is strong and where consumer rights are respected.

What this legislation did…. I go back to the quote, just to show you how completely wrong government members were at the time, of excited Liberals in this House in 2003, when there were several hours of fanfare at the introduction of this bill.

[1440]

We had the then member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head saying: “Bill 52” — as it was — “is about strengthening consumer protection for students who are attending these private post-secondary institutions. What does the NDP have against protecting students? I don’t understand. The NDP seem to forget that we should be putting students first.”

That was characteristic of her remarks on what Bill 52 was all about.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Yes, as I said, it was the previous member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I wish to say it again. And she’s the previous member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head because the voters have made her the previous member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

We had a fanfare and excitement from another previous member, from the west end of Vancouver. This bill will “provide consumer protection to students of registered institutions, while reducing the regulatory burden for the private training sector. It will also reduce red tape for private training institutions.” Wow, how exciting that is.
[ Page 6306 ]

In the rush to table this Bill 52, as it was called back then, none of the stakeholders in the sector were consulted. Nobody was asked their opinion about how to strengthen consumer protection in the bill, and if ever there was an Orwellian title to a bill, it was this.

What in fact happened in Bill 52, and has been the source of more than a decade of problems and consumer fraud that was legally accomplished in our province, is this: what was removed in the disbanding of the former commission was any ability to have a process for student complaints that should arise.

Prior to Bill 52, colleges were required to post a bond for each student that registered — a holdback, if you will — so that that student was protected and so that the institution had an incentive to meet the student’s expectation of what was indeed promised to them, of what kind of courses they would receive. That holdback was only given to the institution after it was…. It wasn’t an onerous percent. It was 1/5 or less of the value of the tuition fees. But that was disbanded.

There was a process under the former commission where, if an unsatisfied student — and it’s a small percentage, as it should be — wished to make a complaint, they did so directly to the registrar of the commission, an independent body. They didn’t go to the owner of the school to make the complaint, which would be, I think we can all agree, hopelessly biased. They went to an independent registrar.

That registrar would make a determination as to whether the student was, in fact, misled as a result of a false representation made by the institution. If the institution was found to be guilty of that, to be guilty of — I think fraud is the strongest word I could use — misrepresentation of what was promised to the student and paid for with hard-earned money, tens of thousands of dollars, then the student had to be paid via the holdback fund in full — a full refund within 30 days of that complaint being settled by the registrar.

That is consumer protection. That’s what it looks like. And that was exactly what Bill 52 zeroed in on and eliminated. So for members on that side of the House, way back in 2003, to characterize a bill that systematically removed any avenue, any fund and any process that was independent to hear and resolve student complaints…. The bill was fundamentally about getting rid of student consumer protections in the province of British Columbia, and that is, in fact, what it did.

Now, the sad thing and the predictable thing is that there was an immediate impact of moving towards this new deregulated model, where only industry had a seat around the table, this self-regulating model. Immediately hundreds of students who had problems with private colleges began to make complaints.

[1445]

The problem was so bad within just a year of Bill 52 passing, in 2003, that the opposition became aware of a list of 15 private colleges that were being audited.

What were they being audited for? I think this is of interest to taxpayers to be reminded of. The 15 private colleges that were being investigated immediately after Bill 52 was passed were being audited for student loan irregularities by the Ministry of Advanced Education. They had to look into abuse of the integrity of publicly provided student loan funds to students, because once there was nobody guarding the henhouse — or the fox was in charge in this case — some of the bad apples were encouraged to act very badly, which is what was predicted.

Some of these institutions began to feel that they would never have their shoulder looked over. Their decisions would never be second-guessed, and they would only have to be accountable to themselves because this government commission no longer existed.

So what happened? Again, this is at a minority of colleges, but the law has to anticipate the worst sorts of behaviours that could arise and prevent them from happening, and it no longer did.

What happened on the ground was that financial advisers, if I can call them that — those people who had those titles at private career-training colleges — would take advantage of…. In one instance that was famous, which was called City Tech College, around ’05, ’06 they took advantage of literally hundreds of Mandarin-speaking students who came to Canada.

This is why the Chinese Consulate issues a blanket warning against private colleges, around the world, about British Columbia. These financial advisers who worked for the private institution would sponsor the student, and then they would fill out the student loan form for them. The student loan form would never actually go through the student. It would go directly to the institution because it’s a self-regulating industry now. As long as the application was made, and the financial adviser said that they were working within the parameters, of which there were very few, this became legal.

This became an incredible gravy train for those who would abuse the system and abuse innocent students coming from abroad to study in British Columbia. It happened in hundreds if not thousands of cases. We had government money, taxpayers’ money being funnelled into institutions, which the student never saw but became 100 percent responsible for repaying because their name was on the loan document.

We received documents here on the opposition side of the House where the internal ministry was so concerned that they did handwriting analysis of these doctored applications for student loans and found systematic fraud.

You know, we’re talking about instances that happened in 2006, 2007. Today it’s 2015, and government is only getting around to doing something about this. This regime, by and large, still exists. That’s the culture that was created in the rush to so-called deregulation.
[ Page 6307 ]

What’s interesting is that at exactly the same time that B.C. was pursuing this, the Ontario government under then Premier Dalton McGuinty was looking at what British Columbia had created in the 1990s here. They were looking at the commission model we had created, and they brought that into law.

B.C. was out of step, had no internal validators saying you should do this — although they had a couple of colleges that were very high profile donors to the B.C. Liberal Party, I should add, and I’m sure my colleagues will expand upon. But there was nobody in the sector who was credible who recommended this.

The clamour became so loud, the evidence of the failure of Bill 52 became so apparent so quickly and persisted for so many years, that soon it was irresistible for this government to avoid launching an inquiry to do that. They picked well in terms of a person who was independent and credible to lead that inquiry. It was Mr. John Watson, who was a former president of BCIT.

[1450]

He did a thorough job. He did a good job, and he did it very quickly. It was a report that was produced — and I’m trying to remember — I think within 90 days of assignment.

There were at least 12 — if memory serves me correctly — strong, thoughtful, comprehensive recommendations brought by Mr. Watson.

Government at the time, the minister, said they would act upon these wise recommendations immediately. Well, two years later only one recommendation, probably the most cosmetic recommendation of the bunch, had been acted upon.

I’m not going to go through the Watson report — you’ll be pleased to hear, Mr. Speaker, and members opposite will be. But I remember he himself at a press conference characterizing…. He was asked by a reporter: what’s the problem in British Columbia right now? He was being asked about language colleges as well as private career colleges in B.C.

He said that the fundamental problem in B.C. is that the regulatory requirement for that sector consists of two things you need to call yourself a college in B.C. You need a hundred bucks to go down to your municipal government to get a business licence, and you need your first month’s rent. That is all you need in the province of British Columbia, post–Bill 52. And he was right. That is all that was needed.

A name, a hundred bucks and your first month’s rent — and you’re licensed to print business. You could go get taxpayers’ money by the heaps from student loans that were deemed available to you and your students. They never even touched the student. They went right into your school’s bank account.

That’s what we had in place for year after year. We had complaints from hundreds and hundreds of students that amounted into the thousands. When the minister was confronted with this ridiculous regime, even in the face of evidence that international consulates were making complaints to his government, his answer to students was: “Well, take it to civil court.” And you know what? Because that’s all that was available, some students did go to civil court.

Some students, after being ripped off for thousands of dollars, shelled out of their own pockets hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars or more, to be represented by a lawyer in a foreign country with a strange civil court process because that’s all there was. The Better Business council couldn’t do a thing, the minister refused to do anything, and that’s what they did. Some of these students actually had their visas expire, and they had to pursue a small claims court settlement even after they had returned home, coordinating through their lawyer in the province of British Columbia.

That’s how badly these international students were treated by this government for the better part of a decade in B.C. That’s what has to end.

I don’t know if Bill 7 is going to end this shameful period — where student consumer protections were completely stripped from the legal framework of what consumers can and should expect in the province of British Columbia — but it does allow, and it does admit, that the industry-led, deregulated model was a failure and that we are finally going to have a process for government public oversight, as we should have, for students who account for what government calls a $1 billion industry. It’s unbelievable that we haven’t for so long.

I look forward to the next stage of debate, where we can ask the minister and his staff questions about some of the abuses that went on, to get assurances that they will no longer be able to go on in our province. If they can’t give satisfactory answers, the opposition will look for opportunities to amend this bill to make it stronger, to make it what it was, in many cases, and to make sure that the abuses that went on in B.C. will no longer happen.

M. Mungall: I really want to thank the member for Victoria–Swan Lake. This is an issue that’s been going on for ten years, and the member was able to dig back in his memory and pull forward many stories of what’s been going on for the last ten years around this issue in private post-secondary education and the lack of protection for students and the lack of regulation that happened as a result of this government’s decision over ten years ago. Being able to pull forward all that information and share it with all of us here in this House right now is a real tribute to his work when he previously had the file as critic for Advanced Education.

[1455]

I find Bill 7 a step in the right direction. I’m pleased to see it finally come forward. I would have liked to have seen it come forward a long time ago. I would even have liked for this government to have debated — at least
[ Page 6308 ]
debated — my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake’s bill in 2007, or the bill that I put forward in 2011 that addresses this and so much more of what’s not, but should be, in this bill.

That’s because members on this side of the House saw a problem happening years ago. They warned the government. They offered ideas on how to solve the problem, which is interesting because I remember in January of this year, just before we all came back to the Legislature, that the Premier was in the news saying that the NDP has no ideas. And here, her government is putting forward legislation that pulls directly from the ideas that we’ve put forward in this House.

So I’m guessing that we certainly do have ideas. We actually have a lot of ideas. I had a good time that day tweeting about many of them and offering them up to the Premier for her to use at her leisure. We would love to share them in the spirit of collaboration in this House.

I’m glad that she at least took one — well, part of one. Part of the problem with this bill is that it doesn’t address some of the key areas where we’ve seen students have a considerable number of complaints, where they’re not getting the protection that they need and that we should be establishing in this province so that we don’t see consulates from China or from India or from other parts of the world — from Korea — issuing complaints and warnings about studying here in British Columbia and, therefore, weakening our system.

Indeed, I have spoken over the years to many private post-secondary operators — I have several in my constituency — and they all agree that we need better regulation because a few bad apples were ruining it for everybody else. So we start to see a step in the right direction here with Bill 7.

But we don’t see regulation of the English language learning schools, and of course, they number by the hundreds in B.C. There is just no regulation of them whatsoever — no surprise. We have seen hundreds of complaints, many of them coming directly to our community offices and our constituencies, and there is nothing we can do for these students, nothing we can do except offer them a number for a lawyer. That’s not good enough.

That’s not good enough for British Columbia. That’s not good enough for our post-secondary sector, and that’s not good enough for students. I’m hoping that we can put forward some amendments and that the other members opposite will agree with those amendments and see them, in the spirit of collaboration, as strengthening this bill for the betterment of the sector, for the betterment of students.

Some of the responses to date, though, from this government have been woefully inadequate. Which is…. Like I said, this bill is a step in the right direction, but again, it’s not fully where we need to be going. It’s not adequate. A previous attempt in addressing the problems in private post-secondary, and some of the complaints that students were putting forward, was the EQA, the quality assurance brand that this government developed and attempted to market.

It never fails that whenever there’s a problem that requires regulation of the private sector — of some of the people who have given large donations to the Liberal Party — that they come up with the answer of: “We’ll just do some marketing. We’ll just do some education.”

But what’s really needed is regulation. And it’s taken them how many years? It’s taken them at least seven years since the EQA was established to recognize that that wasn’t good enough. You can’t just market your way out of a problem. You actually have a duty, a responsibility in this House to act, and I’m glad to see that they finally learned that, and they’re taking a step in the right direction today.

It’s almost a little bit of a “Told you so” moment for us here on the NDP benches because we’ve been bringing these stories to the House repeatedly for over a decade.

[1500]

I remember working with students who were going to an institution that had the university title in its name run by Eminata. Eminata had donated over $15,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party. They probably appreciated when an e-mail was leaked out of a minister’s office right into their hands, warning them of an investigation that a journalist was covering on the way in which students were not being well treated and well respected by their institution, that there were problems at that institution.

That example goes to show why it has taken the Liberals so long to get here, that it wasn’t just a matter of ideology way back when, in 2003. It was how this government, over and over and over again, makes sure that they put their friends’ — their rich friends, their donors — interests ahead of everything else, ahead of student protection, ahead of a strong post-secondary sector that sees a well-balanced private sector that’s well regulated, that many in that sector ask for those types of regulations. That is never acceptable.

Like I said, I’m glad that the government has finally woken up to the realities that have been going on for over a decade, and they are finally attempting to truly remedy the problem, but they haven’t fully done so. Like I said, I hope that they will respond, in the spirit of collaboration, favourably to some of the amendments that we’re going to put forward that will ultimately round out this piece of legislation and give British Columbia the regulations and students the protection that they need.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to put my remarks on the record today, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this piece of legislation. It’s a kind of déjà vu, going back many years when we debated this issue and the issue about the
[ Page 6309 ]
students not being protected, students being taken for a ride. They were asked to pay huge fees, and hardly any education, and no one listened to them.

It was the New Democrats, on this side, that were bringing these issues to the attention of the minister of the day, but because, as the speaker before me said, the friends were on the other side of the Liberal Party, they simply ignored it and tried to shove it under the carpet.

Now, here, this particular bill, Bill 7, I think clearly is an admission of failure by this government. It would be nice if the minister would stand up in this House and maybe list all the victims that are left behind. There’s a list of victims, not only the students but also, in some cases, the institutions as well, because of who ran this outfit and organization.

At that time, when we brought these issues to this House…. What we were told at that time…. The minister, Ida Chong, said: “What does the NDP have against protecting students?” I mean, this would be the most laughable if anybody could read all the comments that were being made at that time and the issues that were brought to their attention from this side, by the NDP, our caucus members. The reaction that came from the government side would be laughable if there weren’t so many victims left behind by this ill-conceived policy by this government to privatize everything that they could see, under the Ministry, at that time, for Deregulation.

[1505]

You know, the regulations are in place for a reason. Of course, from time to time, you revisit them, but just to blanket statement and say that one-third of the regulations will be cut — the results are before us now. You’ve seen the results of that approach everywhere: health and safety at WorkSafe B.C., the students being victims, getting defrauded of their fees in this particular case.

I’ll give you an example of how this government…. I sometimes question when they come up with these nice slogans. In 2003, when that bill was brought in, this is what the Minister of Labour now said at that time. This is 2003: “This bill, I am pleased to say, will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions.”

That was then, 2003. After a whole array of victims, this is what they’re saying today. In 2014 it’s being said here: “This new approach will also result in more integrated and effective regulation of private career-training institutions, the elimination of overlapping processes and a reduced regulatory burden on the sector.”

Again, they said the same thing in 2003 that they’re saying today, so I sometimes question the sincerity behind these statements. They said the same thing at that time. If they’re saying the same thing today, does that mean that there will be so many more victims before they really wake up and really pay real attention to how to protect these students?

I’ll give you some examples. I raised this issue with the then Minister of Advanced Education, Murray Coell, during estimates. We had a college in Surrey, Barkel College, and there were students from India and Pakistan, sometimes husbands and wives. They had post-secondary education, a highly skilled workforce. These were people who had ambitions to upgrade their skills.

Because of all of the websites that are listed out there, they decided that this was a college where they would upgrade their skills. This government also allowed a process by which the students would go to the college and they’d sign away the student loan part that they would be qualifying for from B.C. and the federal government to be sent directly to the college. The promise was made that they would deduct only the tuition fee portion, and the remainder would be returned back to them.

Guess what. The students who qualified for these student loans…. All the student loan money went to the college, and there was hardly any education. They complained to the ministry. Nothing happened. There were some superficial investigations conducted. Nothing actually substantive happened to protect these students.

You could see the writing on the wall. These students will not get the education, their money is taken, it’s gone to the bank accounts of the college owners, and the students are going to be left holding the bag. That’s exactly what happened because of the lack of action by this government.

What happened? After all of the money was transferred to the college, the student loans…. In some cases, I think it ranged from $8,000, if my memory serves me correctly, to $24,000, because there were husbands and wives as part of that group as well. And guess what. The college then declared bankruptcy.

So here are the students who came to upgrade their skills. They came to this country with new hope and opportunities to serve this country and contribute towards the economy and make their lives better as well. They took what this government put together for them to upgrade their skills. It was a government-sanctioned process.

They went through the process, went to this college and applied, as they were told, for these student loans. All of the student loans went to the college, and then the college shut down and declared bankruptcy. When I raised this with the minister at that time, the minister said: “I’m aware of it now, and I’m calling the RCMP.”

[1510]

Well, lo and behold, the college is gone. There’s no record to be found. Later on the RCMP found they couldn’t get anywhere. Those students, the new immigrants who came here with high hopes, are the people who would contribute to the economy and well-being of our country for years to come. This was their first experience, thanks to this government. They were left holding student loans
[ Page 6310 ]
to the tune of $8,000 to $24,000. That was their introduction to this government’s ill-conceived ideas and ill-conceived policies.

Those students — they’re good citizens — paid their loans. They’re working out there. I run into them every now and then, and I feel for them because this government let them down. I think it was an embarrassment for all of us, all of us as Canadians, that we allowed our system to get these new immigrants defrauded only because they wanted to upgrade their skills. That was their only fault. They wanted to upgrade their skills, as they are required to do to move ahead in this country.

So that’s the problem. That’s the students’ side of it. Then what happened? It’s not that just the students were complaining. The government of China, through its consul general, and the government of India, through its consul general here in Vancouver, raised these red flags.

Here’s the headline in the Vancouver Sun, January 9, 2007. “China is warning students who want to study abroad to avoid private post-secondary schools in Canada because it says shady operators are ripping off hundreds of international students every year.” That was the headline in the Vancouver Sun. Do you think that would have woken this government up? No, because their friends were running those colleges. The donors were running those colleges. So it’s, “I don’t see anything. I don’t hear anything. As long as the donations keep on coming, it’s okay with us,” says the government. That’s the attitude that they had.

You know what? In the meantime, the people who elected them to govern for them, to look after their interests, were left holding the bag. That’s the experience of these new Canadians to Canada. The consul general of India also had articles printed in Indian papers: beware if you want to go to B.C.

I mean, how much damage it could cause to our reputation across the world — embarrassment caused all across the world. But as long as the donations keep on coming from their friends who are running these colleges, it’s okay by this government. That’s the attitude.

Has anything changed? Not much has changed. We’ve seen examples of that now. The friends are hired to lobby on behalf of their friends to lobby them. Makes a lot of sense. The Liberals’ friends are hired to lobby Liberals to the Liberal government. It still goes on today, so nothing has changed.

I think it makes me feel pretty embarrassed to be sitting in this House, because we are all considered that we are part of this whole system. But the fact of the matter is that we’ve been raising this issue — and not only just standing up and speaking about these issues. Two of my colleagues, both of them previous critics for post-secondary education, brought in private members’ bills to bring it to their attention. Do you think they would then pay attention to it? No, they would not, because who is running the colleges, on the other side, happen to be their friends.

Let’s take a look. They didn’t spare anybody. It’s not just the students. There are so many victims out there. By the way, Barkel College — we’re talking about not just one or two or four or 15 students. We’re talking about 112 to 120 students and, like I said, in some cases husbands and wives. They were highly educated from their home country, many of them from Pakistan and some from India. They had their undergraduate, and many of them had postgraduate degrees as well.

They wanted to come and upgrade those skills. This was their first experience with this government’s policy. They’re left holding the bag for tens of thousands of dollars.

[1515]

Then here was another side of it. There was one college called Royal Canadian Institute of Technology, RCIT. Just because they decided that they didn’t want to go and kowtow to some of the rules that were in place or the way they wanted them to just go along with their policies, because they wanted to do a good job, PCTIA found a way to shut them down.

Here was an article in Vancouver. Business in Vancouver printed this article: “PCTIA sought a Supreme Court injunction on October 11 to freeze RCIT’s assets, claiming RCIT students had not completed programs within the time periods specified in their contracts and that contract dates had been adjusted without the students’ knowledge.”

Then, “In an interview with CKNW radio” — listen to this — “PCTIA CEO and registrar Karin Kirkpatrick conceded that RCIT had no student complaints or financial problems.” But they shut them down. This was a college that was generating something like $1.6 million and about $555,000 net profit coming in. They shut that college down.

Michael Khan went to minister after minister, MLA after MLA, but no one would listen to him, the owner of the college. I guess he wasn’t a big enough donor to the B.C. Liberals, so they just ignored him. They allowed his business to shut down, and they’re all in the courts right now. That’s the problem with this government.

This government like to call themselves business-friendly. This is how they kill businesses, and this is how students were getting ripped off right under their noses. With all the complaints, it’s not that they didn’t even know. They knew, right from the beginning, what was going on in those colleges and how the students were getting ripped off.

It’s not just the students. The foreign governments are telling their students and telling their population: “Hey, don’t go to B.C., because students are getting ripped off in British Columbia.” You would think that the government would pay attention to those kinds of negative stories coming out about our province outside of this country. You’d think that would wake them up. Not a chance, because they want to protect their friends rather than doing the right job. That’s the problem.
[ Page 6311 ]

Right now, I think it’s probably a good bill, at the end of the day. They woke up about ten years later, leaving behind a whole host of victims. For many of them, it took them years to recover.

Like I said, they were new immigrants coming to this country, trying to make a living here, and they were getting ripped off. Can you imagine the life that they must have endured after that? That’s what happened under the watch of this government — because, to them, their friends are more important. Friends, just the really rich friends — those are more important than the general public or the people that they should be serving.

As a result of all of this, then, I say I’m happy that, finally, the government is doing the right thing. But again, we will be looking at the details in committee stage. I never pass anything on this government. What you see on the surface usually isn’t what you get at the end.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The Minister of Health said: “Come on.”

I mean, how many examples do you want me to list, Mr. Minister? I’d probably need two hours to list all of them. I don’t think you would endure two hours of my speech, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

H. Bains: Don’t encourage me.

[1520]

The issue here is this government’s failure and, finally, an admission of their failure. Just for the benefit of the Minister of Health, I want to read two statements. Then I think the Minister of Health now will pay attention.

The member from Prince George, the current Minister for Labour, said in 2003, when that bill was around: “This bill, I am pleased to say, will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions.” That was then.

Now let’s move forward to 2014. This is what’s being said: “This new approach will also result in more integrated and effective regulation of private career training by institutions, the elimination of overlapping processes and a reduced regulatory burden on the sector.” Two statements, same thing — 2003, now 2014.

How do you trust them? I think the Minister of Health is satisfied with what I was saying, and that’s why he’s not chirping anymore.

Those are my remarks, and I wanted to stand up and make those remarks because I was involved in dealing with many of those victims of this government’s policies. So those are my remarks, and I will be really interested in what comes out at the committee stage. I’m sure our critic will be examining every section of the bill line by line so that we know exactly what we are getting into and how the students, at the end of the day, are protected.

That’s the bottom line. That’s what we want to find out. Hopefully, we will see that in the bill. Hopefully, the students once again can see that finally…. It took them about ten years, but the government woke up and admitted their failure and their mistakes.

J. Kwan: I rise to enter into debate on Bill 7, the Private Training Act. As we’ve heard from the speakers before me, what this bill does, essentially, is to repeal and replace the Private Career Training Institutions Act by updating the framework for regulation for the various institutions that provide private training.

It is interesting to me that we’re here standing in this House debating this bill, where the government introduced the bill to bring back some form of regulatory regime for the private institutions. Now, the argument, of course, from the government is that they’ve always had a regulatory regime.

But really, what happened is that back in 2004, about 11 years ago, we actually had regulatory measures for private institutions. In fact, back then we had the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, which was a body that was controlled….

Before that we actually had the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, which was an arm’s-length agency that ensured consumer protection. When I say consumer protection, that means students who are trying to access education through private institutions. That commission also worked to ensure that there would be integrity and high standards of educational competence by these private institutions.

That changed in 2004 when the current government actually eliminated that commission and replaced it with the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, which is a body controlled by the industry representatives. In other words, gone was the arm’s-length element of people looking at both regulatory measures and standards in the interests of their students. Those measures were gone.

At the same time, when the government introduced the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, it also excused some certain schools, private schools, including language schools, to be regulated at all.

[1525]

I remember this debate. At that time there was grave concern from the community because in the backdrop of significant cuts from the government in the public institution sector — in advanced education and in education and elsewhere — came deregulation.

The government of the day then said that this was important because that was all part of the core review to eliminate red tape. Then, of course, since that time — in spite of opposition concerns that were brought forward to the government’s attention in and outside of this House — the government proceeded with that measure, in any event.
[ Page 6312 ]

In that period, as we heard from a number of my colleagues who spoke…. They highlighted major problems and issues as a result of that, where students, basically, were cheated. These were foreign students who came primarily to try to access an education, and they were cheated of their money and their opportunities. And there were local people, too, who accessed that educational opportunity. They, too, were cheated of that opportunity.

In fact, the situation got so bad that I actually had conversations with various folks in the community about this. The consul general for China and the Ministry of Education branch of the consul general’s office had so many complaints and had such grave concerns that they actually spoke up about this and basically urged students to not come and enrol in private institutions here.

Now, imagine the implications of that and what that means for us, not just for the students individually but for the families who worked hard to raise the funds so that they could enhance their educational opportunities and, ultimately, their career opportunities. But imagine that in the international framework — what that meant for us in terms of our reputation worldwide.

China wasn’t the only consul general’s office that raised the issue, as we heard from my colleague. As well, at that time — and I still remember this — the consul general for India also raised the same issue. It just garnered, I think, the kind of international attention that nobody wants. Yet that was the reality.

I know that in my office at that time we had a litany of letters from people who wrote about this, who complained about it — how it basically shattered their dreams, how it caused undue problems for the families financially and otherwise. That was the legacy of the elimination of what was working, by the government — in the name of red tape.

Now, the reintroduction of some of these measures through Bill 7, the Private Training Act…. The government will say: “Oh no, this is only just a review of the process. We’re not really admitting that we created all those problems 11 years ago.” But the truth of the matter is — and the evidence actually shows you — that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do: erase the problems that were created by the government 11 years ago.

Now, the issues that I want to bring up, which are central to standards and central to ensuring that there is arm’s-length protection for the students, were actually highlighted and brought to the government’s attention back in, I think, 2008, if memory serves me correctly, through the Watson report. What the Watson report basically called for, after a string of complaints that surfaced from the students that really sort of hit the public sphere, was for educational standards to be established and to ensure that is in place.

One of the things that the Watson report called for was the appointment of the Private Career Training Institutions Agency’s board to represent the public’s interest and not the institution’s private interest. That’s what was part of the major problem. When you have people who are from the industry who are only looking inward about the industry and not looking at the larger picture, you create problems where the public interest is forgotten.

[1530]

The Watson report actually highlighted that and said that’s exactly what needs to be in place — that you have an agency in place that’s arm’s length and that will ensure the public’s interest is protected.

The Watson report also called for the government appointing process to actually elect board members, as opposed to appointments from the government. Part of the problems that were highlighted was that these appointments, interestingly, were some of the people who had the largest issues of violations. As it happens, they were also people who gave the government giant donations as well.

I mean, it’s interesting when you sort of look at those two facts together and then you wonder what’s wrong with that picture. Hence, the Watson report highlighted the need for an independent board, an arm’s-length board and that the industry members be elected to the board.

The Watson report also added, I think, a key element to the notion of arms-length regulation and interest, in terms of public interest. They wanted actual representation from students on the board, again, an important measure that should be in place in terms of ensuring, again, the arms-length nature of the board itself. It asks for representation from the aboriginal community, as well, in terms of ensuring that there is broad-based representation.

The Watson report calls for replacing the current system of registration and voluntary accreditation with a more vigorous and mandatory registration process that includes consideration of educational standards. So how about that — to actually put in measures that speak to educational standards when we’re talking about private institutions in the provision of education? One would think that standards are pretty important and one would think that you wouldn’t want to do away with that, but yet, that’s what the government did when they first eliminated the original commission.

The other thing that the Watson report highlighted and called for was the creation of a charter of student rights and responsibilities and a complaint system based on the charter. That is a very, very important piece to standards and also an important piece for the consumers. When you run into problems, what are the rights of the students that ought to be protected? How do you go about protecting it? If the complaint system is ineffective, then what use is the complaint system?

Those are, I think, critical pieces that, I hope, through regulation, Bill 7 — the Private Training Act — will actually address. One of the things at the time when there were so many problems that surfaced with the deregu-
[ Page 6313 ]
lation of private institutions…. I recall that there were people who were asking the government for a list of the schools that should be made available for potential students so that they would know and be warned of what the issues are that they may encounter should they become a student of that institution. That was never done. That information was never provided.

Even if you were to make a list available to say, “These are the active complaints from the student body around this institution, and here’s what they are and how they were resolved” and just put a record of it so that people are aware of it, that would have been a huge measure for providing information to students who may be very far away, who would not know, necessarily, what those issues might be with the various institutions — for them to access that information so that they can make an informed choice and to make an informed decision. That was never acted on.

I hope that there will be some measures in Bill 7 to deal with that, in terms of the creation of a charter of rights and responsibilities and a complaint system based on the charter, and information that people can access when they are making the decision on which school they embark on in terms of trying to develop their educational opportunities and career development.

The other issue that the Watson report brought forward is to strengthen the status and independence of the registrar and giving the person power to impose fines and penalties when institutions don’t comply.

[1535]

One of the issues that I know that surfaced with the elimination of the former commission was that there were folks who violated various rules, various regulations, and they just sort of carried on business as usual. Very little was done because it was self-regulating, and it was barely ever brought to the forefront.

The strength of a complaint process really does rely on the actions that need to be taken and will be taken after you identify violations of various rules and regulations. If there is no follow-up with respect to that, then what good is it? If you don’t have a measure of penalties and fines and so on, then effectively your rules and regulations are ineffective.

The Watson report actually called for the power to impose fines and penalties when institutions don’t comply. I do think that that’s an important measure. I do hope that Bill 7, the Private Training Act, will put in some measure with respect to that.

The Watson report also calls for a higher level of oversight and control than other schools. I think that was in recognition of the vulnerability of students who are overseas, who are foreign students coming over to embark on their educational ventures, and to ensure that level of protection is in place.

I’m not sure whether or not the regulations will come forward with those kinds of measures that have been identified by the Watson report, but I certainly hope so, in Bill 7. And I certainly hope that some of those issues will be canvassed in committee stage when we get down to the clause-by-clause discussion.

The thing that I’m wondering about too, which is curious to me: how come it took so long for this to come about? This was done 11 years ago. The issue was back in 2004, and by 2008 the issue had escalated to such a magnitude that it drove the consuls general of both China and India to actually issue statements in the public realm around the dangers of private institutions here and the issues that people face.

There were headlines that read, “B.C. Private School Mess: Lessons Learned?” — with a big question mark. That was back in 2008, and still no actions taken. There were other statements issued, press releases issued calling for suspension of various university operations. That was back in 2006. In fact, B.C. university professors called for the suspension of Lansbridge University operations back in October 2006.

Those are, in my estimation, fairly drastic actions for people to take. People don’t just sort of come out one day and decide: “Well gee, I’m going to call for a suspension of a school.” The consuls general’s offices don’t just one day wake up and tell the students from their respective countries to avoid Canadian schools. People don’t do that just on a whim. They do that because there have been grave concerns that have been brought forward and no action taken to remedy those concerns.

As things continue to escalate, the problems continue to exist, then people have to take these drastic measures. When they have to take those drastic measures, the people that get hurt are prospective students. Then, of course, for us, the people who get hurt are, well, us — British Columbia. Our international reputation is severely damaged because of the lack of action from government.

[1540]

There is one thing that I do want to highlight in terms of this bill, which is that, to my understanding, language schools are not part of this bill. That’s because there have been other measures that the federal government had taken to deal with some of the issues that had been identified. To that end, as I understand, language schools will not be part of Bill 7 or will not really be a significant piece of it in that way.

In bringing forward Bill 7, though, I would be very interested in knowing from the minister…. Maybe he can respond to some of these questions when he closes debate. In these years where the original commission was eliminated, and the amount of complaints that the government got, especially with language schools, what did the government do? What measures were put in place to address those concerns? Or were they, just like all these other complaints preceding this, left unheard and not dealt with? Then all of a sudden, for whatever reasons — the government says that it’s because they had consultation — now they have decided to bring forward Bill 7.
[ Page 6314 ]

I would be really interested in knowing what prevented the government from taking action earlier. Why didn’t the government respond at the height of it, when all of these problems surfaced and people were raising all of their concerns?

I wonder whether or not there has been any action for the government to get in touch with the students who were impacted by this. I know that some students actually went into debt. A lot of the students went into debt. They borrowed money in order to get this education, only then to be cheated out of it. What measures were taken in terms of following up with respect to that?

The other issue is that the government, in bringing forward Bill 7…. Going forward, I would be very interested in knowing before they bring in all the regulations — to determine whether or not the regulations are going to be sufficient — because a lot of the bill, regulatory practices and so on, would actually be brought forward to regulation, and then through regulation they will be enacted. What process will the government embark on with respect to the regulations, in bringing forward the regulations, to ensure that those measures are, in fact, strong enough?

I’d be interested in knowing as well whether or not the government consulted with the consular general’s office in terms of input from them — because they received a lot of the complaints from the students with this issue — and to get advice from them in terms of what measures need to be in place to restore, I think, the level of credibility that we need to put in place with respect to private institutions.

We have an opportunity in going forward with Bill 7 to address some of these issues. But to do that, it is important to look back in history to see where it came about. The problems that surfaced really were a creation of the government when they embarked on their budget-cutting, regulatory red tape–cutting exercise, which created all these problems.

I think that there ought to be accountability in terms of letting people know how they’ve dealt with those problems since that time, and then, in coming forward with Bill 7 to address item by item the issues that surfaced, how Bill 7 would actually redress these items.

With that, I will be looking forward to the minister’s response to some of these questions. I hope he will have some answers for this House, and I will be looking forward to committee stage debate.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speaker, the minister to close debate.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move second reading of Bill 7.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that Bill 7 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Private Training Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for second reading of Bill 12, the Federal Port Development Act.

[1545]

BILL 12 — FEDERAL PORT
DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 12 be read a second time.

I am pleased to present the Federal Port Development Act. This particular act deals with some issues in and around federal ports, establishing an LNG industry as a government priority, an industry that we believe will boost employment, investment and provincial revenue.

The act will encourage investment by clarifying the regulation of LNG on federal port land. Currently there are two facilities planned for federal port land, both at the Prince Rupert port. One is Pacific NorthWest LNG. The second is the Prince Rupert LNG. There are additional projects, actually, that are in two export permits in that area, but they aren’t actually in the federal port.

The act will provide authority for B.C. to enter into agreements with the government of Canada and the federal port authorities. These agreements would work in conjunction with any new regulations Canada may adopt under the Canada Marine Act. These types of agreements and federal regulation will extend provincial authority and provincial law to LNG development on federal port lands.

Agencies, like the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, will oversee construction, operations and permitting of LNG facilities. The province will have a seamless regulatory framework on federal port land. We are currently working with the Prince Rupert Port Authority and Transport Canada on agreement and draft regulations for LNG development in the Port of Prince Rupert.

Marine traffic and LNG shipping are not affected by the Federal Port Development Act. The act complements federal amendments to the Canada Marine Act made last year.

The province has consulted extensively with Transport Canada and other federal departments, the Prince Rupert Port Authority and proponents. The federal government and the LNG proponents support these steps.

I look forward to the committee phase of the bill once we get through second reading, and I look forward to members opposites’ comments.

B. Ralston: This is indeed a very brief bill. It has four sections. The guts of it, if I can put it that way, is section 3, which gives a provincial official or provincial body the “authority to exercise a power or perform a duty under
[ Page 6315 ]
a federal regulation,” it says, where that federal regulation “incorporates by reference the enactment of British Columbia under which the power is granted.” Secondly, the government has entered into an agreement for the administration and enforcement of the federal regulation.

What I take from that is that the federal government…. It proposes, contemplates, that an agreement will be signed between the federal and the provincial government, which would satisfy subclause (b). Then the provincial government — I think in this case it seems the agency that the minister is thinking of is the Oil and Gas Commission — will enforce that federal regulation. This follows upon amendments to the Canada port act, the federal statute which makes this possible.

Really, then, it depends to some extent on the federal government to enact a regulation that takes into consideration the usual things that one looks for in a good regulation: the needs of the community, the environment and fiscal considerations as well. It’s something that…. I have some questions in the brief committee stage that I expect we’ll get to, but as the bill stands, it’s very straightforward.

Certainly, the stages at which the various applications are would suggest that perhaps, if there’s a final investment decision in the case of Pacific NorthWest LNG, this enactment will help the regulation of that development, since it falls within the federal port authority of Prince Rupert.

This bill is very straightforward and very brief. Whatever further questions I have, I will save for the committee stage of the bill.

[1550]

A. Weaver: On its own, Bill 12 is not inherently problematic. However, Bill 12 cannot be taken in isolation. The reason I say this is that it must be considered in conjunction with the recent passing of Bill C-43 in the federal government. Why that’s important is….

Let me please go to Bill 12 and read to you, hon. Chair, the explanatory note. “This bill provides authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to authorize a member of the executive council to enter into an agreement contemplated by section 64.6 of the Canada Marine Act.” So we go to section 64.6 of the recently passed and highly controversial omnibus Bill C-43, which had a little change to the Canada Marine Act buried under division 16 of an over 475-page bill, I believe it was.

Let’s go to section 64.6. It says this: “The Minister” — that’s the federal minister — “may enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government of a province, with respect to the administration and enforcement of a regulation made under subsection 64.1(1).”

Let’s go to 64.1(1) in the same division 16 of the omnibus bill that recently passed in the federal government. It says this: “The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting any undertaking or class of undertakings that is situated or proposed to be situated in a port, including regulations respecting the development, use and environmental protection of the port as it relates to the undertaking or class of undertakings.”

Now, this may seem all very innocuous — short bill, two pages, a couple of definitions, not that much — but the implications are profound not because of what’s in in Bill 12 but because of what’s not in it.

I’m profoundly troubled that the federal government has, through this, opened up significant gaps in our regulatory framework with Bill C-43, and with the introduction of Bill 12 our government is complacent in this deregulation.

I would have had a chance to explore this further in a briefing, but ministry staff were not made available for a briefing, nor were they made available for a briefing for the independent member for Delta South. We wanted a briefing. We wanted to probe these questions, probe the relationship between Bill 12 introduced here and Bill C-43, that highly criticized, highly critical component of which being division 16’s amendments to the Canada Marine Act.

Let me walk you through a little bit of my concerns in more detail. West Coast Environmental Law did a very, very thorough analysis of the fundamental troubles that exist within Bill C-43 federally, which the province is now complacent with through the introduction of this bill here today.

Let’s take a quick look at these. According to a legal backgrounder produced by the West Coast Environmental Law, it says, as follows, with respect to an overview of the Canada Marine Act, which is of direct relevance to the bill here, which this bill is making us complacent with:

“The Canada Marine Act governs…marine ports. Pursuant to it, a number of medium-sized ports are designated as public ports that are administered by Transport Canada. Larger ports, such as Vancouver-Fraser, Prince Rupert and Port Alberni” — all of which are in B.C. — “are administered by port authorities that govern the shipping, navigation, transportation of goods and passengers, and handling and storage of goods in those ports as agents of the Crown.

“The minister” — that’s the federal minister — “is responsible for administrating federal port property but may entrust port authorities to manage the property” — as is done here in British Columbia. The Canada Marine Act requires port authorities to develop land use plans to regulate the types and use of structures in port. They are also responsible for conducting environmental assessments of activities related to ports, such as the storage and shipping of thermal coal.”

[1555]

The changes that occurred under Bill C-43 federally, which this government is indicating complacency with — not only complacency with; acceptance of — are the following. The changes in Bill C-43 authorize Canada to sell its lands and infrastructure to a port authority and port authorities to then lease that property to industry.

Now, why is that a problem? The governance of such a port authority is now being passed, potentially, from the federal government, through this bill, to the province if the appropriate sections of the Canada Marine Act are revoked.
[ Page 6316 ]

Why that’s a problem, as pointed out in West Coast Environmental Law…. The changes allow port authorities to buy federal lands and infrastructure — e.g., ports — from the government and then lease those lands to companies or authorize companies to use them for as long as the port authority, now under the administration of the province, has control over them.

Once sold, those lands would no longer be federal property, meaning they would — and this is important — not be subject to terrestrial species protection under the Species at Risk Act or automatically trigger federal environmental assessments of certain projects that occur in them.

This is a way of deregulating environmental oversight of our marine ports. This government is complacent in this by indicating its acceptance of Bill C-43’s amendment to the Canada Marine Act. Sadly, I don’t even think the government understands this. This is what is so sad.

This has incredible consequences on the future of our coasts along British Columbia — deregulation of environmental protection on our coasts in British Columbia — and the government is just watching it happen as they continue down their generational sellout to try to score a quick win from their message of hope wrapped in hyperbole about LNG, which will not materialize, even though they’re giving it away or trying to give it away under the LNG tax regime, even though the federal government caved in terms of capital tax relief, even though….

Hon. T. Lake: Don’t you want jobs here?

A. Weaver: I would love jobs here — the Minister of Health is asking — but I’m still looking for them. The reality is, as I have been saying for two years, the natural gas supply globally is oversupplied, and British Columbia are bit players in this global game. The government doesn’t even have is a clue how to negotiate with foreign entities, and they look like a pack of fools.

Further to this bill, I truly don’t believe the government actually understands what they’re doing. The federal cabinet has been given, under C-43, broad power to make regulations respecting industrial use of Canada’s ports, including regulations that would — here I go — hand over regulatory admission or even judicial control of industrial activities in ports to any person, including a province, port authority or even industry itself.

Oh my goodness. We have the potential here for industry to write the environmental protection that they should abide by, and this government is complacent. This government is complacent by bringing in this piece of complacent legislation saying: “Please enable us to take command in this regard.”

Also, it says here under the West Coast Environmental Law that this gives the federal cabinet power to give any person or body the power to make rules or procedures for such hearings, limits the liability of and establishes defences and immunities for the person or body in charge of the port activities — heck, nobody is accountable, legally or otherwise — make rules allowing information regarding activities in ports to be kept confidential.

Now we can have, here, cabinet decide what may or may not be confidential at a federal level, and this government is complacent in allowing that. It’s mind-boggling.

This Bill C-43, which this government is now complacent with in introducing this bill, authorizes destruction of documents created or submitted in respect to the activities of the port.

Can you see the irony here? We discuss legislation about preserving documents in perpetuity electronically, and this legislation in C-43 federally, which the government is complacent with in bringing in this bill today, authorizes the destruction of documents created or submitted in respect to activities in ports. Cabinet can do that federally.

[1600]

The potential threats to environmental health and safety are profound. As pointed out by West Coast Environmental Law, the proposed amendments that were passed federally, which this government is complacent with, raise a number of concerns. Chief among them is the broad power the new provisions would give federal cabinet to give away control of port lands, activities and administration to any person without ensuring that environmental health and safety are protected or that citizens are able to have a say in where, when and how potentially risky shipping activities occur on B.C.’s coast.

Can you imagine, hon. Speaker, this government having complacency on this particular piece of legislation federally, giving away — giving away — the rights of British Columbians to put in place checks and balances on the protection of their coast? It is shocking.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I could go on with the many, many examples put forward by West Coast Environmental Law, but, perhaps, let me just focus on this one here. This is with respect to the fact that because port lands would become private if sold — they can now be sold — the terrestrial-species-at-risk legislation would no longer apply federally. We don’t have to worry about that. It’s LNG that trumps species at risk, trumps coastal First Nations, trumps the rights of British Columbians.

As they point out, similarly for projects that are not specifically listed in regulations, CEAA 2012 only requires an environmental review for activities that take place on federal lands and involves a federal decision, such as an approval. Under the proposed changes, which were passed, if a port authority were to buy federal lands, a federal review of potentially harmful activities on those lands would no longer be automatically required.

Here we have legislation now passed federally that no
[ Page 6317 ]
longer requires environmental federal reviews on potentially harmful activities on B.C. port land, assuming that the B.C. ports buy this. Now this is under the guidance, through this legislation, in the hands of British Columbia. Do we trust government in this area? I think not. They’ve been telling us we’d have one, we’d have two, we’d have three, we’d have four — it’s almost a kids’ game — we’d have five, we’d have six, we’d have seven, we’d have more — LNG plants. Still waiting.

One hundred thousand jobs — still waiting. A billion-dollar prosperity fund — still waiting. A $1 trillion hit to GDP — still waiting. Elimination of the PST — still waiting. Thriving schools, thriving hospitals — still waiting. Wealth and prosperity for one and all in British Columbia — still waiting.

This government is an embarrassment when it comes to the discussion on LNG. They’ve made fools of us internationally with respect to our position on the fossil fuel industry, claiming this, claiming that, rewriting international regulations that we should get credit for shipping LNG for carbon reductions, yet we should not get credit for shipping thermal coal, and on and on.

Back to my example. Fraser Surrey Docks LP’s proposed direct transfer coal facility in Surrey was required to undergo a federal environmental assessment by the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority because the project fell on federal lands under the port authority supervision. Let me read that again. At Fraser Surrey Docks the proposed direct transfer thermal coal facility in Surrey was required to undergo a federal environmental assessment by the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority because the project occurred on federal lands under port authority supervision.

Well, guess what. The feds can sell the land to the port under Bill C-43, the omnibus bill. No longer is it on federal lands; it’s on port lands. No longer have to trigger a federal environmental review. But now it’s administered by the B.C. government — that same government so desperate to fulfil its hyperbolic LNG promises of hope and prosperity that we can’t trust them.

We can no longer trust them. They’ve given away a resource through the LNG tax regime. They’ve put in place long-term, stable pricing of hydro rates to an LNG company, which, I would ask, is the only reason why we’re proceeding forward with Site C. The only reason is to provide power, on the taxpayers’ backs, for an LNG company that this government has signed an agreement with to provide a fixed-price electricity contract for some years.

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: You know how to do research. Why don’t you do some?

A. Weaver: Oh, I’ve done lots of research.

Hon. R. Coleman: You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

A. Weaver: Oh, I clearly do. That’s why the minister’s upset. The minister’s upset because I’m pushing a button — a button of truth that the government does not like.

The port authority’s approval of the facility is being challenged in court — that’s the Fraser Surrey Docks — by a group of citizen and non-profit applicants representing Ecojustice and others. That happens because of the fact that there was federal jurisdiction there prior to Bill C-43 being passed.

Bill 12 allows for all of these regulatory gaps and problems to exist on port lands that come under the power of the provincial government, which raises serious questions and concerns. Will this mean that LNG ports will not have to undergo a federal environmental review under the Canada Environmental Assessment Act? Yes, if that land is sold to the port authority.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Not all of them are. Surrey…. That’s not true. Some are; some are not. We would be delighted if the minister knew his own file.

If so, does this mean the LNG facilities won’t have to undergo a stringent regulatory review process as they otherwise would have? No, they wouldn’t.

Hon. R. Coleman: They are.

A. Weaver: No, they wouldn’t. You’re trying to…. Hon. Speaker, through you to the minister….

Wool cannot be pulled over British Columbians’ eyes anymore. This emperor has no clothes. This LNG emperor has no clothes.

Further questions: will this exempt LNG terminals from terrestrial species protections under the Species at Risk Act? Yes, it would — again, ways of deregulating and eliminating environmental oversight.

Would this give the provincial government the power to make rules allowing information regarding activities in ports to be kept confidential or destroyed? If so, what oversight would be involved in this? Would this power be delegated through legislation or through regulation, or neither? Fundamental questions that could have and should have been asked in a briefing.

If Westridge marine terminal were to fall under this agreement, would this mean that the terminal could destroy or keep confidential documents relating to any oil spills? Imagine that — the federal government able to sell the lands within the port to a port authority, abdicate its responsibility and then have confidential documents relating to spills destroyed. And this government is complacent.

These are just a few of my concerns and questions with respect to this bill. Fundamentally, this is why I move a hoist amendment here today. The hoist amendment is as follows. I move: [ Page 6318 ]

[That the motion for second reading on Bill 12, Federal Port Development, 2015 be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting the words “6 months hence.”]

Hon. Speaker, with your leave, I’d like to speak as to why this amendment is so important.

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: Moving this motion through to hoist is critical. It is not clear to me that Bill C-43, and in particular division 16 of that bill, will survive the next federal election. While I recognize that this government has taken every single play card out of the Harper Tory playbook, it’s not clear that they will continue to govern our country after October of this year.

That is why it is important for us….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: No, I’m not going to run federally.

This piece of legislation, and particularly the component with respect to the Canada Marine Act, may be revoked. But here we have a government going all in now and not taking the foresight to determine whether we should actually reflect upon this some time and wait until after the regulation before we cash our Tory playbook’s latest card.

As an MLA, I have not had adequate opportunity to explore this in detail. I requested a briefing. I requested a briefing from the minister’s staff. I was told: “They’re in lockdown.” Do you have any idea what that means, hon. Speaker? I don’t. “They’re in lockdown.”

[1610]

You cannot brief MLAs in this room on a piece of legislation that plays along this generational sellout, trying to give away our resource in a desperate attempt to fulfil an election promise that was so irresponsibly put forward to the people of B.C.

We’ve been given literally a few days — a few days — to go through federal legislation, to go through and engage stakeholders, to try to unearth and examine serious concerns that arise from this. As a legislator, it is our job to ensure that we are looking for British Columbia’s best interest, even when that means standing up to our federal government and actually reflecting upon the legislation before us.

The current government in Ottawa has been spending the past few years passing legislation that greatly reduces environmental protections that are in place, including those on our west coast. They’ve waged a war on science and on information. I have grave concerns that in passing Bill 12, what we are doing is permitting yet another deregulation of the environmental protections that British Columbians count on.

We hear the heckling from across there.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, there was a lot of heckling. Now it’s quiet because they’re agreeing with me. What’s funny about this heckling…. They claim that we don’t understand this bill. The members opposite claim that we haven’t read the legislation. Well, that’s the purpose of a briefing.

I have the general sense here that this government is quietly trying to get this bill through fast without any critical look. Because you should critically…. Frankly, I don’t think half the members opposite have read or even understand what Bill C-43 and the Canada Marine Act modifications actually mean in terms of British Columbia, because if so, we would have actually heard that articulated to us earlier. It wasn’t.

Given the connections that this bill has to C-43, I believe that this Legislature would benefit from additional time to consider the full implications. We’re not in any rush. We’re not in any rush for the imminent construction of LNG facilities. Let me tell you, hon. Speaker, there is no rush. We’ve been waiting two years for this promise to materialize.

You know, I play a game when I talk about LNG in this country. It’s called “Where’s Waldo?” But it’s actually: where is the LNG facility? I have gone around all the various LNG sites with my camera, and I’ve taken pictures here and pictures there. I see a lot of nothing.

There is no rush. What is the rush? The rush is to get this through now — to take yet another piece of legislation from the Harper book, the C-43 bad legislation, and to ensure that this is put in place and that deals will attempt to be created so that the legislation that exists federally cannot be changed.

Any bill that’s passed in this provincial Legislature should be brought in with the intention of backstopping for where the federal government is dropping the ball, not for taking the ball and moving it and dropping it again. The government has a duty to stand up for the rights of British Columbians, not to be patsies, lap dogs for the federal government as they deregulate our coastal environment.

I don’t believe that Bill 12 before us today adequately ensures that these protections are in place. At best, the provincial government is absent. At worst, they are complicit in this deregulation.

Given the lack of urgency, again, with respect to this so-called impending LNG industry, it would seem irresponsible to not take additional time to consider the ramifications. Let’s push this bill out, until after the federal election, when we can better understand the federal government’s intentions and whether the deregulation of our environmental protection will be continuing.

Let’s use the additional time to consider the full ramifications of changes at both the provincial and federal levels. Let’s use the additional time to actually provide MLAs in this Legislature a briefing as to what the government believes the implications of this are.
[ Page 6319 ]

This is simply not the way we should be doing governance in British Columbia. For that, I move the hoist motion that I put before you.

B. Ralston: I rise to address the amendment that has been brought by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Certainly, I agree with him that having sought a briefing, he should have received one. If he didn’t receive one, that’s wrong. That was an issue that was raised by one of our critics in relation to another bill. So I support the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head in that respect.

[1615]

The concerns that he raises — and he raises them in some detail — are complicated and may well have some merit. Certainly, that’s not the advice that I received when I was doing my research on this bill, but that’s the very purpose of the committee stage. There’s an opportunity to explore, at the committee stage, in great detail all the questions that the member has raised here this afternoon and to seek answers. Certainly, that’s something that I signalled my intention to do. I’m sure, should the matter proceed to committee stage in the next week or two, the member will have that same opportunity.

In my view, the place to address those concerns fully is at committee stage. The minister is assisted — although, I’m sure, he would assure us he’s quite capable on his own. He has access to expert advice. He has access to deputy ministers and others who can give the answers to the questions, the important questions, that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has posed here somewhat rhetorically.

I think that’s the way to deal with the concerns that the member has raised. I don’t dismiss them. I think they’re important, but I think there is a better way to deal with them than the way in which he has proposed in this amendment.

V. Huntington: I, too, support the hoist motion. This is a bill that is triggered by C-43, and C-43 offers the ability to regulate and create regulations that I don’t believe have been seen before in this country. The minister himself says that the agreement that Bill 12 will enable the federal government to sign with the province means that the province would take over whatever regulation the federal government would enact.

Those regulations could include the handing over of regulatory administrative or even judicial control of industrial activities in ports to any person, including a province, port authority or even industry; give to any person or body the power to make rules or procedures for hearings and take any dispute into a tribunal rather than the courts; limit the ability of and establish defences and immunities for the person or body in charge of port activities — in this case that would be the province and perhaps any industry that the federal government regulates — make rules allowing information regarding activities in ports to be kept confidential; authorize the destruction of documents created or submitted in respect of activities and ports.

These are regulations that this province could well be administrating as a result of Bill 12. This parliament deserves to know more about it. I believe that the members of his own caucus probably deserve to know more about what is behind Bill 12 and what authorities it grants to the province.

Bill C-43 is a terrible piece of legislation. It….

Deputy Speaker: I’d ask the member to speak to the hoist motion….

V. Huntington: I am. It enables regulation to be developed that this province would be able to administer under Bill 12 and the agreement pursuant to it. This parliament, this body, needs to understand the full ramification of the authority that the province is asking for in Bill 12.

I definitely support the hoist motion.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, to the member opposite, obviously we’re not going to be in support of a hoist amendment, but I want to clarify a couple of things, right?

First of all, the member opposite who spoke first, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, spoke to my ministerial assistant on Monday and was told we weren’t available Monday because the people that are actually able to brief on this bill are in a lockdown in significant negotiations on a file that’s pretty important.

You were asked, hon. Member, to submit your information, your questions, if you wanted to. We would send you detailed responses if we couldn’t get a briefing done prior to bringing the bill to the House. Otherwise, we’d deal with this in committee stage.

Now, I don’t mind if you’ve changed from what I thought was a professional member of the Legislature to an insulting, demeaning member of the Legislature who gets up here and uses flagrant language that insults people in government and the work they do in preparing a bill, the research they do. That’s entirely up to you. But it does change the relationship, hon. Member. It changes the relationship because you don’t get to do that and expect that you’re always going to get a response that’s going to say: “It’s okay, member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, to go out there and say the things that you do.”

[1620]

We’re not here to debate the federal piece of legislation. If you want to go debate federal legislation, run in the federal election in October. You’re bringing in a bill, and you want a debate in this House with regards to this when it’s not related to the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — point of order.
[ Page 6320 ]

Point of Order

A. Weaver: I have a point of order. We’re not having personal attacks here, hon Speaker. We are having a discussion on the hoist motion. The member opposite is taking a personal, vindictive attack on me as an individual in this House. I would seek a ruling on that.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I gave you significant leeway, as did the previous Speaker in the Chair, during your time. I’m simply allowing the minister to rebut some things that were said. We’ll see how it continues. Thank you.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Coleman: I will go through the Chair, because I think you haven’t talked to the federal government. You didn’t do your research. You don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t understand the legislation and the impact with federal legislation. They’re all things that are not exactly what I would call complimentary from the hon. member, hon. Speaker.

He went on with some other language, and there are things that I won’t go into today. If he wants to go tilt at windmills, looking for grassy knolls…. The one thing I will enjoy, because of the comments the member made about LNG….

I know the status of discussions. I know when FIDs are coming. I know when the companies are planning on making those. I will enjoy the meal, to watch the member opposite eat his words in the next year or two. I will enjoy watching him eat his words, as final investment decisions come that are coming down the pike and he sees the construction of LNG. But it doesn’t matter, because he doesn’t support it anyway.

And the members opposite don’t support it anyway. They’re just upset that maybe somebody’s already spent…. Let’s see. One company has actually invested $7 billion to date in British Columbia. Another one’s already on the ground with $2 billion in investment.

If the member would ask the member for Skeena what’s going on up in Terrace and Kitimat with regard to economic activity related to the work that’s going on with LNG, he’d find out that there are a lot of things going on the ground that are actually affecting positively the economies of those areas of the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite knows very well that there’s an environmental assessment process going on, on the northwest LNG project right now. It’s been going through the environmental assessment process. It’s a substitution process that allows us to work with the federal government to make sure the environmental standards are high. The member chooses not to actually recognize that.

The one thing about the conversation I heard from the member opposite just in the last 20 minutes tells me we’ve changed the game for the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who’s decided that insult versus fact, research versus backup and talking about the wrong piece of legislation — because the province is trying to do the work that’s necessary to actually work with federal legislation — is entirely up to him.

We will not be supporting a hoist motion on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment proposed by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

[1625-1630]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is on the hoist motion as put forward by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

V. Huntington: I do rise today to express my concerns about the genesis and the implementation of Bill 12, the Federal Port Development Act. In my opinion, Bill 12 would not exist without the recent amendments to the federal Canada Marine Act.

It is triggered by amendments contained in federal Bill C-43, and it cannot be talked about in isolation from that bill.

Those changes to the Canada Marine Act are extraordinary — stunning, in fact — and enable Canada to hand over regulatory, administrative and even judicial control to the activities in ports to any person or body it chooses. Bill 12 is the legislation which permits the province to assume that control and which is granted pursuant to an agreement under the amended Marine Act.

[1635]

The provincial government has argued this bill is giving clarity to LNG development proponents, and it certainly is. In some respects, it’s a harmonization of all law that will relate to port developments. But, depending on the agreement, the province could take control of the port with all federal environmental, safety or even labour laws removed.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

It is the ultimate harmonization, with no public understanding of its ramifications, no consultation and no notice to this House of the critical nature of this legislation.

Why do we need Bill 12? Are the federal environmental protections so onerous for the proponents of industry? Are we simply replacing federal oversight with provincial oversight? No, we might not be. It looks like we may be, but we might not be, given the provisions of Bill C-43. Or is something else going on?

There are scenarios that we can speculate on, but I don’t feel like being heckled at this point. However, I will say that in the minister’s introduction of his bill he said that the province, pursuant to Bill 12 — or the agreement — will work with any regulations Canada may adopt under the new Marine Act. The potential for those regulations is extraordinary, and I’d like to read them out yet again.

Bill C-43 gives the Governor-in-Council, Canada, broad power to make regulations respecting industrial use of Canada’s ports, including regulations that would hand over regulatory, administrative or even judicial control of industrial activities in ports to any person, including a province, port authority or even industry.

It makes rules allowing information regarding activities in ports to be kept confidential. Will that be part of the agreement that the province, under Bill 12, will sign with the federal government? We don’t know.

It will authorize the destruction of documents created or submitted in respect of activities in ports. Will that be part of the agreement?

It will set out rules of procedure for hearings in relation to projects and activities in ports. This is what they referred to as the potential judicial control enabling port authorities, provinces, any person, industry itself to create a tribunal that will hear disputes and not allow the public to refer them to the courts.

It will give any person or body, including the province, the port authority or industrial actor, the power to make rules and procedures for such hearings. It will incorporate by reference any provincial statute or document made by any person, including corporations — meaning that industry documents, provincial guidelines or port authority policies could become federal law without being subject to customary public scrutiny; i.e., without parliamentary oversight. Will the province sign an agreement that enables that section of the Marine Act to be actioned?

Under the Marine Act…. And as the minister said, they are currently working with the federal government on matters pursuant, I believe he said, to the agreement — I stand to be corrected — which the province will administer under the regulations. In other words, Bill 12 can allow the province to administer the development of port facilities that are no longer required to follow standard environmental law or even standard jurisprudence in the country.

The fact is that the new federal changes can delegate law-making powers to any person, port or province, including to industry. Bill 12 is enabling the province to administer the port. I quote the minister’s introduction again. “The province will work with regulations Canada may adopt.” The Governor-in-Council, that is Canada, can convert any legislative, administrative, judicial or other power on any person or body that the Governor-in-Council considers necessary to effectively regulate the undertaking.

So then, pursuant to an agreement, does this mean a phone call to Ottawa between the two governments so that the two governments can collude on what regulations will apply on those federal lands — if, in fact, they haven’t already been sold to industry and, therefore, no regulation applies to the lands? And which environmental protections will be disregarded?

[1640]

Could we see a situation where LNG development operations, or any type of development for that matter, would not be subject to standard federal or provincial environmental regulations or assessments?

Because ports are generally located on federal land, they typically have certain environmental safeguards built in, such as the triggering of a consideration of environmental impacts for all new projects or expansions, as in this case. This is why I’m so concerned.

These types of regulations, this type of authority that is being granted to government impacts Delta South intimately. We are faced with an assessment that won’t be subject to Bill 12, I don’t think, in any way, shape or form at this point. We’re faced with an assessment where we already know that rules are watered down and that environmental laws are subject to so much manipulation at the port level that we don’t trust them anymore.

The protection of certain species under the Species at Risk Act is also part of Bill C-43 and can be removed by sale of those federal lands. With the conferring of legislative, administrative and judicial power to anybody, including corporations, these safeguards are now put at risk.

The legislation before us today gives us no assurance that the province will effectively administer and follow those standard environmental protections that we have come to understand. It is broad in scope, Bill 12, and all the agreement is to be determined behind closed doors, so we do not know what the province intends to negotiate within that agreement with the federal government.

Because of Bill C-43, the very amendments to the Marine Act which give the province authority to enter into this agreement, we have before us a grave series of regulatory powers that could be passed to the province. I’m not saying they will be, but they could be. It is incumbent on the members of this House to understand what authorities the province intends to accept under this agreement.

I am concerned about this bill because — and this particularly affects south Delta — of how it relates to another change made in the Canada Marine Act. One of the most controversial elements that arose in the newly updated Marine Act was that the federal government can now sell federal lands to a port authority. When this happens, federal laws and protections, because of C-43, will no longer be applicable on those sold lands.

No longer will Canadian environmental assessments necessarily be triggered for projects on port lands. No longer will endangered species under the Species at Risk Act be protected.

Will the province fill this void? Will it agree to those regulatory changes? Will it accept that fundamental change in how the sale of federal lands might impact developments and Canadian environmental laws on port developments? Will this agreement, pursuant to Bill 12, allow the province to do that? Will they agree to that authority under a port that they will now be administering?

This bill provides the province with potentially new and wide-sweeping powers that have traditionally been under the jurisdiction of the federal government, yet it does so without any guidelines, without any assurances that the government of British Columbia will fill in any missing environmental protections with the transfer of this authority.

The province has obviously been intimately understood and probably even consulted on the development of sections in C-43. Otherwise, I do not believe Bill 12 would have been ready so quickly.

Have we so lost our principles that government is willing to participate in an abrogation of its duty to the public interest? That is what is happening, in my opinion, here and in Ottawa, and why I so urgently suggest to members of this House that we refer this bill to committee.

The province is complicit. And lest members say that it’s all a federal decision, Bill 12 is triggered by a federal act, and that is by C-43. I could be a little more significant in some of my words, but I don’t want to upset the minister at this point.

[1645]

I will say that I believe that what we could be seeing is a willingness to shirk responsibility over all the subjective matters that matter so much to the public in this province. How could the province — my government, our government — participate in a transfer of power which would allow industry or the province or ports to write federal law outside of parliament?

I repeat that. Bill C-43 allows the regulatory powers to write laws outside of parliament and in the dark of the secret night, as far as I’m concerned. How could the province put ourselves, itself, in a position that might enable such an extraordinary power that is beyond the Canadian experience?

I believe this bill needs to be better understood by members in this House. I believe that it needs to be understood by the public. I believe that it should be referred to committee.

I am moving:

[That the motion for second reading on Bill 12, the Federal Port Development Act, be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substitute the words “the bill be not now read a second time, that the order for second reading be discharged, the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper, and the subject matter referred to The Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.”]

I so move, Mr. Speaker.

On the amendment.

V. Huntington: I just want to say that my sole purpose for moving this amendment is to slow this bill down, to enable this House to more fully understand the implications, to allow the province to explain to us what powers it intends to look at in the agreement, what it is hoping to be able to accomplish with the agreement.

I can support an agreement under Bill 12 that enables the swift and streamlined and straightforward administration of the development of a port in this province. I can see the sense in harmonizing distinct matters that would be better assumed under one authority. What I don’t understand is how Bill C-43 might impact the negotiation of that agreement under Bill 12. I think that a committee should be able to examine that and that this House is deserving of an explanation and a better under-
[ Page 6323 ]
standing of the impacts of this authority the province seeks before we pass Bill 12.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s desire to refer this particular bill to a standing committee, and I understand the member’s deep concerns about Bill C-43 and the particular piece of legislation that we are debating before us in the House today. But I would suggest that that’s what committee stage is for, at third reading: to be able to explore the kinds of questions that the member has raised.

We on this side understand the importance that she attaches to this bill. I know that at committee stage we will certainly be expecting her to participate fully in the discussion around the questions that she has. I would expect the government, having heard the issues that have been raised, to be prepared to answer those questions at committee stage, which is the place for the fulsome examination of a bill and the implications it has and the effect that Bill C-43 would have, if any.

We think that those questions are best dealt with at committee stage and, therefore, we’re not able to support this particular amendment.

Amendment negatived.

On the main motion.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: I appreciate the members and their amendments, but obviously we’re going to move ahead with this bill and have the discussion.

[1650]

I will, though, tell the members that I have no intention during committee stage of entering into committee stage debate about a federal piece of legislation. We will talk about the provincial piece of legislation.

If the members opposite want to debate federal legislation, I know there’s a federal election coming up in October, or somewhere thereabouts. Both members opposite are welcome to go and run federally if they wish to enter into federal debates, but in this particular House we will deal with provincial legislation.

I do find some of the language around this, not only the one language from the member for Delta South…. I didn’t realize I was that powerful that I could be complicit in the drafting of federal legislation. I haven’t, in the 19 years I’ve been here, ever had them once come and consult with me about a piece of federal legislation and ask me if I wanted to give them advice or tell them how to proceed. I think it’s a nice compliment, but I must tell the members opposite that I do not have that type of national influence with regards to legislation.

I will add one little thing, though, not to the member opposite but to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I got back from my staff that he was actually quite nice about the fact that a briefing couldn’t be produced because of the fact that the person that would have to do the briefing was in a lockdown in significant negotiations. It was also reiterated this morning with the member, who again had no problem. As a matter of fact, we said we would take questions if he wanted to.

That wasn’t just to one person in my office. That was to my chief of staff, my ministerial assistant, my assistant deputy minister and two members of staff in the ministry who are, ironically, there to do a briefing on another piece of legislation. They had the expertise to be able to do it because they weren’t tied up in a negotiation and a lockdown and not available for a particular point in time.

We do try and cooperate with members opposite. But obviously, when they say they’re okay with something in the morning and they wish to bring it up in the House in the afternoon and be critical of my staff, I find that to be somewhat offensive. I don’t appreciate it. I did not appreciate the other comments, as I already said about the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

I’ll leave it at that, because I think that was said. I already reacted to that and clearly made it clear to the member opposite that moving from a professional capacity as a member of the Legislature and a conversation in a debate and going to an insulting conversation leads to difficulty in future relationships if we don’t actually get past that.

I look forward to the committee phase of the bill. I think that during the committee phase we will deal with the sections of the bill, section by section, clause by clause, as we always do. We will have staff here to be prepared to answer the questions, and we’ll go through that.

Again, I will reiterate that that debate will not be about the passage of a federal piece of legislation that I was not complicit in drafting or having any influence on. What we’re trying to do is actually make sure we harmonize, to be able to make the legislation effective and protective of British Columbians.

On that, I would say that we should put the motion to the House for second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be moved to committee stage for the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Federal Port Development Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Thomson: I call committee stage of Bill 4, intituled the Chartered Professional Accountants Act.
[ Page 6324 ]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTANTS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 4:55 p.m.

On section 1.

The Chair: Perhaps I’ll let the Minister of Advanced Education introduce his staff that he has present.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Joining me in the House today is Claire Avison, assistant deputy minister for Advanced Education, and Katherine Thiessen-Wale, who’s also with the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

K. Corrigan: I guess I’ll make a comment first. This is a bill that we’ve already said we are fully supportive of, and so one might think that we would just go through all the sections very quickly, but I think this is very significant — what is happening.

The CGAs, the CAs and the CMAs — the chartered accountants, the certified management accountants and the certified general accountants — are going to be joining forces, merging, here and across the country. When you consider that there are 40 accounting bodies that are involved in this across the country, it is a massive undertaking. It’s taken years. It’s been four years since there has been significant public discussion, almost four years, and in fact, it has been tried before and didn’t happen.

For that reason, because it is very significant when three bodies here in British Columbia and at the same time across the country are going to be merging like this and have the merger approvals, there’s got to be some amount of change in each one of those bodies. There well may be change compared to the last acts, and there’s more than one act involved.

I haven’t, in this case, done what I normally do, which is read all the previous acts or relevant acts, because there are so many. So what I’m saying is that I think that, given the significance of this, that I’m going to spend a fair amount of time asking questions, because there is a lot of change here — some cases none at all, some cases quite a bit and some there may or may not be and I do not know.

Starting with section 2, I am going to ask, given that these three bodies are merging in British Columbia and it is very significant…. I’ve looked at the consultation, the submission by the chartered professional accountants — using the designation already before they are together. I know that there was interim legislation that said that was fine. Given the significance of the submission and all this happened, I guess the first question I’d like to ask is: who was consulted in this process?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The three listed organizations in section 2 — the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, the Certified Management Accountants Society of British Columbia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia — were all consulted.

[1700]

K. Corrigan: I notice that in the recommendations by the three bodies — chartered accountants, CGAs and CMAs — they, on page 13 of the submission that I have, said that it was important to consult — and maybe they did — the members, so that was apparently done, but also members of the public, including the financial regulators, such as the B.C. Securities Commission; public representatives who represent the public interest and participate in the governance and regulatory process; the government, obviously; and consumers. It lists consumers of accounting services, employers of accountants, accounting firms and post-secondary educators, who also have a significant stake in the profession. It says it would be important to know their views.

I’m wondering about those. Apart from the three organizations, did government itself not go and consult with those other types of organizations, which the accountants themselves say it was important to talk to?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The three organizations seeking to be brought into one organization through this legislation themselves consulted extensively across the country with government and a variety of stakeholders, including several of the national accounting firms, accountant training offices, a variety of businesses, the B.C. Securities Commission and academics from a number of post-secondary institutions.

I note, as the member has, that this is I think the ninth of ten provincial initiatives to bring in this legislation. The consultation cumulatively across the country has obviously been extensive, but it was led by the three organizations rather than by this government.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that those organizations did that. But given that section 2 says that we are going to be merging these three separate designations, did the minister not think that it was important to take somewhat of an independent look — for example, with consumers?

I’ll look ahead. I will ask questions about section 3 in a second, but section 3 talks about all the objects of the new organization. For example, I see in this new organiz-
[ Page 6325 ]
ation that advocacy, professional education development, admission, and establishing and enforcing professional standards are all part of what is happening.

Given that this is very significant — and different than other professions, some other professions — did the minister not feel that there needed to be some kind of satisfying for government that these other organizations had been appropriately consulted? Perhaps, did the minister or the ministry staff take a look at the consultation, or get involved in any way, in satisfying itself that the consultation confirmed that this was the right thing, not just for the accountants but also for the public interest?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I said earlier, the legislation involving these three bodies has been the result of extensive consultation across the country, given that we are relatively late in this game, as a provincial jurisdiction, to bring in this legislation.

The three entities that are affected here have done extensive consultation themselves with academics, industry and the Securities Commission.

K. Corrigan: What the minister is saying, then, is that the ministry — the minister or the ministry staff — did not feel any obligation, prior to bringing in this bill, to doing its own work in terms of satisfying itself that…?

[1705]

Just because the accountants all decided it was a good idea to merge and then create the regulatory framework, there was not a further obligation to consult and satisfy themselves that this was the best thing for the public? I guess the answer, then, is no.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As noted earlier, the consultations done by the profession were widespread. This matter, as we all know, has been the subject of an extensive advertising campaign. After this advertising campaign, no public interest has come to our attention. It has been conducted by the professions that are about to be merged.

K. Corrigan: I guess just one last question on this, then. Perhaps no public interest has been expressed, but did the ministry in any way ask to review any of the consultation documents or summary documents or ask for feedback of any kind or ask to review that which came out of the consultation process — or even for confirmation that there were all these areas consulted in? No requests to do that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Ministry staff have reviewed the consultation efforts that were taken on by the three professional bodies.

K. Corrigan: So if that’s the case, did the…? For example, if the ministry staff reviewed the consultation, would the minister be able to assure this House that there was no significant opposition that would be such that it would cause the ministry to be concerned or want to do any kind of its own consultation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to the member opposite’s question, the consultation efforts undertaken by the three professional bodies have been reviewed by our staff and found to be expressing only minimal satisfaction from some of the members in that they conducted votes which were all majority votes in favour of merger. But obviously, when they’re not 100 percent votes, there’ll be some dissenting votes there.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I certainly understand that. I’ve read a fair amount of what the process was over the last three or four years, and I know there was significant opposition. I’m actually not thinking so much about opposition within the profession — or professions. I’m thinking, as well, of consumers and other organizations.

I think it’s always important that government, when it’s bringing forward legislation, is the one responsible for determining and satisfying itself that the appropriate consultation has taken place, that the public interest has been protected. Relying entirely, I would think, on the organizations that are merging, which are providing services to that public and…. They are services that can be, as dry as some people think accounting might be, contentious. They can be significant in somebody’s life.

[1710]

That’s fair enough. I’ll go on to a different question in this section. I’m interested that subsection 2(4) says: “The head office of the organization must be (a) in the city of Vancouver, or (b) if specified in the bylaws, in another location in British Columbia.” Why?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The three bodies that intend to merge came to the conclusion that they wanted to have their head office in Vancouver but also to have the flexibility, in the event of societal change, to move it somewhere where, perhaps, there’s lower rent or greater access to government — or, perhaps, in the centre of things in Burnaby.

K. Corrigan: Of course, the member opposite has discerned where the source of my concern comes from.

I just don’t understand. Is this a legacy thing that came from the other organizations? I don’t understand why it would have to be in a piece of legislation. When we look at all the pieces of legislation that come before this House where we express great concerns on this side of the House that we will find out great masses of the operation of a particular regulatory framework…. We’re going to find out about it later because it’s in regulation or it doesn’t exist at all. I just don’t understand why there would have to be any reference whatsoever as to where the head office of it is.
[ Page 6326 ]

What is the reason that we would even have to specify that it be in the city of Vancouver?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Without going back to consult the three organizations that intend to merge, the premise would always be, of course, that in order to hold committee meetings and disciplinary body meetings and so forth, they prefer to be near a good bulk of their members. In the current state of play in our province, the bulk of their members are in the city of Vancouver.

We know that they service the entire province, and they have members throughout the province. Nonetheless, just like many other professions, they tend to congregate in the commercial centre — which, for the moment, is the city of Vancouver. We don’t have a quarrel with them on that, but as I say, they have wisely left open the option of moving to another fine location just to the east of Vancouver.

K. Corrigan: Well, I know this government has stated recently that it is against regulation, and it’s going to do everything that it possibly can to get rid of unnecessary regulation. So if what this bylaw is saying is that the head office will be in the city of Vancouver, unless they decide that they don’t want it in the city of Vancouver, in which case it’ll be somewhere else…. I’m not really sure why it is that we’re wasting a subsection of precious regulatory space by determining that it must be in the city of Vancouver.

It is odd. Obviously, the organization can decide to have its head office wherever it wants to. So I really don’t understand why it needs to be written in the act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is, of course, in response to the expressed desire of the three merging bodies. They have, of course, the power to specify in their bylaws how that might change without going back to the Legislature or coming back to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to get a regulation. They can just do it in their bylaws.

K. Corrigan: Well, if it wasn’t in the legislation in the first place and it wasn’t in the bylaws, then it could just be wherever it is that they wanted to put the office. That would be my reading of it, unless there’s something special that requires legislation, that there’s a requirement that they specify. I don’t think that there is any. I just can’t imagine that that would exist.

Okay. Well, I’ll go on. I want to ask a question about subsection (3) of section 2. Subsection (3) says: “For the purposes of exercising its powers and performing its duties under this Act, the organization has all the powers and capacity of a natural person.” That is a standard legislative term. I just wanted to make sure there’s nothing special — that it was not in the previous acts and that it simply gives the organization the power to do all the things that a natural person would do. Is that correct?

[1715]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite is correct, in that the goal is, as in all other legislation of this sort, to give the entity that arises from this legislation the power to hold property, enter into transactions and so forth. So there is no particular surprise in finding that subsection (3) provides for that.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

K. Corrigan: Section 3 sets out the objects of the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. It says it has the following objects: “(a) to promote and maintain the knowledge, skill and proficiency of members and students in the practice of accounting; (b) to establish qualifications and requirements for admission…and continuation of membership…(c) to regulate all matters, including competency, fitness and professional conduct, relating to the practice…(d) to establish and enforce professional standards; (e) to represent the interests of members and students.”

I referenced this briefly when we were talking about section 2. What is being enacted here is that the CPABC, the accountants organization, is going to be performing all of the various functions that I’ve listed there. This is different than some other organizations, like the lawyers, particularly, where you keep the advocacy apart from the professional conduct side. You have the benchers, and then you have the Bar Association.

I’m wondering if, in framing this act, there was thought about or consideration of separating the functions, as in some other professional organizations.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Interestingly, the accounting profession in British Columbia will not be exclusively limited to this merged body. We have heard input from accountants who work internationally, who have a separate body, that they do not want to find themselves captured by the practice standards established by CPABC. So the term “accountant” will be available more widely, but the usage of the description of a certified public accountant in British Columbia will be limited to the merged entity that arises from this legislation.

The practicality of the matter, of course, is that the vast, vast majority of practising accountants in British Columbia will be captured within the CPABC title, but we do have to leave room for other bodies. More specifically, to address the member’s concern, this legislation is very similar to the role of the Law Society, with the exception of 3(e), in that enforcing professional standards and engaging in training programs and so forth are within the purview of the Law Society.
[ Page 6327 ]

K. Corrigan: Well, that’s precisely what I was asking. The Law Society and, I think, some other professional bodies as well…. I certainly know that the Law Society and the bar are separate. There’s certainly a lot of debate about whether or not a regulatory body should be everything, all things to all people, or whether or not there should be a separate arm for advocacy and a separate arm for discipline and looking at the qualifications and so on.

The question really was: was there any consideration of whether or not those functions should be separate?

[1720]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Writ large, the answer is, of course, that physicians and dentists have had well-separated bodies for a very long time. One is to protect the public interest, not the interest of the practitioners, and the other is to promote the interests of the practitioners.

The Law Society has for many years had a bit of a hybrid model. They often share office space — that is the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society — and their functions are somewhat intermingled. This represents a different spot on the spectrum. But this does not anticipate that there would be entirely separated public interest protection bodies and advocacy bodies.

As the member opposite probably knows, the College of Physicians and the, I believe it’s called, College of Dental Surgeons do not engage in training. They do not engage in establishing anything more than professional standards and protecting the public interest.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I agree. Those are all valid comments. So in this case, I guess it’s almost unique. Well, no, the Law Society does…. There is engagement in training, I guess, by the Law Society, or oversight of the training. All of those functions, though, are being rolled up into one.

My question was, and I’ll ask it again: was there any consideration or discussion in framing this bill about whether or not that was the best model? And how was the decision made that they would all be rolled into one?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that we’re taking three existing entities, and this legislation would serve to merge them into one without changing the role that the member opposite addresses of a possible division between promotion and regulation.

This does not represent a change other than to bring those three bodies with that existing function together. As the member opposite has pointed out, this is not unique. There are a number of other callings in life where the roles are combined.

K. Corrigan: You partly answered my question, because I premised when I started. I said that usually when I am looking at a piece of legislation that significantly changes the regulatory framework, I would take a look at previous governing legislation, but because there are several pieces of legislation, I have not done that. I thought I would rely on the good offices of the member opposite, the minister, and his staff to sort of guide me through where the changes are. So that is partially answered.

Just a confirmation. All three of the bodies that are being merged — and I’m seeing a nodding head — previously had all of these functions that were merged, then. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: Given that, did the minister consider, in framing this legislation, that perhaps that should be reviewed? Was it looked at whether it’s working properly, whether or not it is the best model, whether the public interest is being protected? It’s the same kind of question as with section 2.

It is an obligation, I think, particularly when you’re looking at something as a governing body, to make sure the public interest is maintained. Did the minister and his staff, in framing this legislation, take a look at whether or not this was the best model?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise is that this has been the operating mode for these three bodies nationwide. Now they are seeking to merge and will continue on with the operating plan. We did not investigate the issue of separating out 3(e) from the rest of the functions, which one could say are essentially the same as the Law Society’s functions. That is 3(a) through 3(d). But 3(e) was left there because that is the status quo.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

[1725]

K. Corrigan: Section 4 provides that a board of directors for CPABC is established and consists of “(a) not less than 9 persons elected by and from the members in accordance with the bylaws.” I know that when we get much further on in the bill, which will probably be another day, there are some interim measures as well.

This is going to be the way the board operates, or the makeup of the board. I was wondering if the minister can tell me whether or not this is the same or what is different from the previous boards or if there are any differences from the previous three boards that are now being merged.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The information I’ve gleaned is that the three existing bodies have larger boards, up to 21 members. The working premise is that a smaller, more effective board could be more committed to the task rather than having an oversized board, which sometimes leads
[ Page 6328 ]
to dilution of responsibility. The premise here, of course, as the member can note in section 4(1), is that there be nine members chosen from within the profession in accordance with the bylaws and three persons who are not members of the body to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

K. Corrigan: Actually, it says “not less than 9 persons elected,” so I guess we could, because they’re going to be the ones making the decision, end up with 21 members on the board. How did the minister come to that conclusion, that that should be what it is? Was that, again, recommendations from the three bodies that we have that provision?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The recommendation for nine members came from the professions themselves. Obviously, nine being divisible by three meant that they could find a multiple of three for their representation, and then the three persons to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to balance out to a board of 12.

As the member opposite has noted, this is a minimum in terms of the number of members, but given the nature of politics in our world, it’s likely to remain a multiple of three for some years to come.

K. Corrigan: Now, that’s an interesting comment. The minister has said it’s likely to be a multiple of three, which indicates that the divisions that have existed in the past…. It’s an acknowledgement that there may be a certain affinity or a fondness for those previous designations for some time, which again points back to, actually, how monumental it really is and how much of an accomplishment it is that this profession has managed to merge in Canada — British Columbia and the rest of Canada.

I suppose that there were certainly many, many reasons for that. We talked about that previously when we were discussing this in second reading of the bill. Part of it is international pressures to protect the brand. There’s a trend towards globalization. There’s a trend towards harmonization and standardization that’s probably been the motivating factor. But then again, I could see that over the years, as this was coming forward and being accomplished, certainly it did take a lot of work to get the members there. I saw that the various groups here in B.C. and across Canada started off, some of them, with a minority of the members actually wanting this.

[1730]

It took a lot of work and a lot of advocacy and, I think, a lot of persuasion to get their members there. But I think we did end up coming to the right place. Everybody I’ve talked to from the profession, from various organizations, has all agreed that it’s the right thing to do.

The provision specifically with regard to…. The members that are going to be elected to this board have to be “resident in British Columbia.” They must either be “chartered professional accountant members in good standing, or (ii) members in good standing in another class of members specified in the bylaws.”

Those provisions, as well as the fact that there have to be elections to the board that must be held every 24 months — are those the same provisions as were in the three organizations that have come together?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The conclusion is that the three professions had slightly different requirements in this regard and that this is essentially a reconciliation of those three.

K. Corrigan: Again, sort of going back to the general premise that this framework, this act, is largely the result that came from the merger talks and the merger work that the three groups, the three professions had. Was this all? For example, these provisions where there were some differences — was it the bodies themselves that came up with a suggestion in the end? Or was the ministry involved in negotiating and sort of brokering that to any degree?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The structure of section 4 at this point represents the result of consultations with the three accounting bodies and hearing their joint submissions and then coming up with a legislatively robust approach to it. It is not just accepted in the form proposed by the three accounting bodies.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: With regard to subsection 4(5), that provides for a vacancy. If there’s “a vacancy among the elected positions of the board” between AGMs, “the board may appoint a member until the next annual general meeting or special general meeting.” That’s a pretty standard provision. Is that provision new, or is it something that already existed with the boards?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the member notes, this is a more or less obligatory provision in modern legislation. We are aware of it having existed in two of the three prior acts. So here we have made it uniform.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

K. Corrigan: This also, when it talks about the powers of the board, looks like a pretty straightforward provision.

I’m wondering if this is just a standard provision and what it means, essentially.

[1735]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This section will continue the ability in the existing legislation for the board to exercise powers on behalf of the organization. As the member
[ Page 6329 ]
notes, it is essentially the constituting section to provide the board with powers to take action.

K. Corrigan: And just to confirm, that subsection (4) says: “If a bylaw and a resolution are in conflict, the bylaw prevails.” That would be standard, as well, I would assume.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

K. Corrigan: Section 6 deals with the officers of the organization and says that there will be “(a) a chair, one or more vice chairs and a treasurer elected by the board from among board members elected under section 4….” That referred to the board of directors. And “(b) a president and a secretary appointed by the board, and (c) any other officers as specified….” The president serves as the CEO of the organization and there would be a registrar appointed.

Is any of that new, or did each of those organizations have those structures in place as well?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Apart from nuances of title, these positions are essentially what the existing bodies have.

K. Corrigan: And just to confirm very specifically, the president being the CEO. Each one of those organizations previously had a president who served as a CEO?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The role of chief executive officer exists at each of the three legacy bodies and, much like the Law Society, it seems that the name has changed over time. We’ll all recall that it used to be that the treasurer of the Law Society was the CEO, but that has changed. The current legislation reflects the current desired state of leadership in the organization.

K. Corrigan: Just as a sort of general question, I guess, for the pleasure of the viewing audience, the millions and millions of people who are watching this….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: The tens of millions, my associate said. Every person in Canada.

Generally, what is happening in this legislation is that there will be bylaws made — I want to make sure I’ve got this correct — by the organization. But essentially what there is going to be is that there is going to be an interim board that we’ll deal with much later in the legislation. There will be an interim board that’s going to consist of a variety of people that sort of change over from the existing organizations.

Is it foreseen that the organization that is going to create the bylaws…? I may have missed this somewhere in the bill. It’s fairly long. Is it going to be the new board, once it’s in place, that is going to put together the very significant body of bylaws that will govern this organization? Or is it the interim group that is going to be setting out the guidance or regulatory framework?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a very valid question, particularly from someone so legally astute as the member opposite. This is not a simple task to reconcile the bylaws and come up with an entirely new uniform set of bylaws. That task has been assigned to the interim board.

K. Corrigan: I’ll look with even more heightened excitement at the transitional sections that are in the 70s somewhere, and we’re on section 6. I didn’t fully understand that. Maybe it’ll be more clear there.

So it’s expected that the interim board is going to be the one that’s really going to set the framework, just to be clear on that.

[1740]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is correct. The interim board will be doing the hard work of reconciling these three bodies and making them into one and ensuring that their bylaws are entirely compatible, which is no small task.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

K. Corrigan: This section, section 7, deals with meetings of the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. and provides that there must be an annual general meeting held in accordance with the bylaws. So there you go: some of the bylaws are going to have to be hammered out. There are going to be elections, conduct of business as specified in the bylaws — it is going to be a lot of work — and special general meetings can be called as specified in the bylaws.

My assumption is that basically those are pretty standard provisions with most regulatory bodies and that those provisions will be the same as in the previous acts.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: The suggestion in subsection (3) of section 7 says: “Unless the bylaws otherwise provide, only chartered professional accountant members in good standing are eligible to vote at an annual general meeting or a special general meeting.” I assume that has been the case in the past?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct. This is to anticipate situations such as honorary members, who would not be permitted to vote.
[ Page 6330 ]

K. Corrigan: And that votes by proxies are allowed? Again, that was something that was in the previous bylaws of the other organizations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We have ascertained that the CGA legislation provided for proxy votes, while the other two acts did not. It would appear that we’ve reached a state of best practices here and sorting out the role of proxies explicitly in legislation.

K. Corrigan: And I would assume that it is in the legislation because the CMAs and the CAs also agreed that that would be a best practice?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

K. Corrigan: Section 8 deals with benevolent and educational funds. It says that the CPABC “may, directly or indirectly, receive, manage and invest contributions and donations from members or others” as either “(a) a benevolent fund for the benefit of any member, or the family of a deceased member, who may require financial assistance, or (b) an educational fund for the benefit of any of the following who may require financial assistance” for scholarships: students, members, applicants for admission and so on.

Is this a new fund, or has this existed before? Maybe a little bit about that — you know, there might’ve been a big fund for one of the organizations and nothing in the other. A little bit more background would be interesting.

[1745]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns that all three of the legacy bodies did have funds of one sort or another, and they have now come to the conclusion that they should put these funds together and manage them in a uniform fashion.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering. When you’re looking at an educational fund, sometimes there are foundations, like the Law Foundation. But we’re not talking about something significant like that. I’m seeing the heads shake there. Maybe just a confirmation that this would be sort of a…. Is there any limit on the amount that that fund can be? Do we have any idea of what the scope of the fund is?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The quantum in these funds is not known to us at the moment. The premise is that these funds have to be managed within the bylaws of the organization. One would hope that being a collection of roughly 30,000 accountants, they will manage it scrupulously.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

K. Corrigan: This is a pretty self-explanatory section. But I just want to confirm that this gives the board of the CPABC the ability to make bylaws. This would be no change. Bylaws “for the purposes of the management and objects of the CPABC.” This would be the same as in the previous legislation that governed the other three bodies?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

K. Corrigan: Section 10 deals with bylaws respecting meetings. It said: “Without limiting section 9, the board may make bylaws respecting annual general meetings and special general meetings,” including time, place, voting rights and things like that. I would assume and seek confirmation that that also would be something — if not exactly the same wording — that would have been in all three of the previous bodies’ governing legislation.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct. This is reconciliation and best-practices version of the legacy bodies sections.

K. Corrigan: So when the minister says “best practices,” is the reference there that…? For example, there’s a reference to voting by proxy, which was not something that was in all three — nothing significant, though, that the minister can confirm. There’s no significant change for any of the bodies in this regard?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise being, as noted earlier, that the CGA body had the provision for proxies and the others didn’t. They came to the conclusion that they should. I don’t believe the voting by electronic means was available in any of the legislation. Of course, that’s very desirable these days so they can have decentralized meetings and get maximum participation.

K. Corrigan: Sometimes it’s those seemingly little things that can create angst or controversy. The idea of voting by electronic means — it doesn’t say that you can; it just says that they can make bylaws — is that something that has actually occurred in any of the bodies before?

I recall that we’ve just gone through something with the Law Society where there was a very significant vote with regard to Trinity Western University. I believe that you could vote electronically on that. I’m not sure. Maybe you had to go…. Anyway, is this something new?
[ Page 6331 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We on this side, the team, are not aware of this having been used previously by the accounting professions, but other professions are moving into this field. Given that accountants are very widely distributed geographically, it’s deemed desirable to give them the means to go down this path if their bylaws permit.

[1750]

K. Corrigan: No significant concern about this at all? Was this something that all three of the bodies agreed to? And I guess in a larger question, in framing this whole bill, did the government go through each of the sections separately, or was it a representative group that was negotiating with government or talking with government on this?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a very valid point, and the text that is represented in the bill is very much a consensus of the three bodies. Of course, they will have had their own internal views on this, but they came to the table with us with a consensus view on the vast majority of the material in the bill.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

K. Corrigan: Section 11 deals with bylaws respecting board elections, and it says: “Without limiting section 9, the board may make bylaws respecting the election of members to the board, including (a) procedures….” Again, it talks about “staggering of…office and the setting of terms longer than 24 months to facilitate the staggering of terms.” Is that something new, the idea of staggered terms?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This was not explicitly stated in the previous legacy statutes, but this is the emerging best practice, and there is consensus amongst the legacy bodies to go down this path.

K. Corrigan: Then the inclusion of “election of board members on a regional basis.” Are there regional representations on the existing boards?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am unable to confirm that today for the member. We can look into that. But it’s good to see that, like the Law Society and the College of Physicians, they are headed down the path of ensuring regional representation.

K. Corrigan: I would assume that that again was something that was a consensus decision by the three bodies. Was it one group that came and met and had discussions that had representation from all three? Just a little bit about who it was that was working with government on this.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The mechanism by which all this came about is that the three legacy bodies had benefited from observing the experience across Canada and had seen what had evolved in the other jurisdictions and, essentially, came to us with a uniform package of their goals. We worked with them to make sure that it was all entirely viable within our legislative framework.

K. Corrigan: Each of section 10 and then section 11, which we’re dealing with now, and then, I believe, sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21…. Anyways, I’ll stop there. Each of those sections that are dealing with procedures, basically, or speaking about the bylaws, all say: “Without limiting section 9….” I’m wondering if the minister could explain why it is, at the beginning of each of those sections, there needs to be a reference back to section 9, which is the one that basically said that the board can “make bylaws for the purposes of the management and objects of the CPABC.”

[1755]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise is that the explicit statement of powers in sections 10 and subsequent should not be seen to be exclusive of a more general power to make bylaws in section 9.

One would not want, of course, the general power under bylaw 9 to be somehow seen to have been conclusively stated in the subsequent bylaws. Hence the prefix saying, “Without limiting section 9…,” which leaves the general discretion to make bylaws in place in section 9 rather than purporting to lay it out in a codified manner in the subsequent sections.

K. Corrigan: It’s what I thought was happening. That would mean, then, for example, that there could be further bylaws under section 9 which amplified or were more than, as well, something that was…. For example, bylaws respecting meetings. It could have more than just the time, place, manner, voting rights or voting procedures. It would give the power to have further bylaws in that regard.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

K. Corrigan: Like the other sections, this deals with bylaws respecting officers. Is there anything significantly different in this section than the sections and the powers that governed the three organizations before they merged?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The CGA Act was silent on this point, and the other two pieces of legislation did address it. So this is an effort to bring them all into the same best practice and to actually define these things.
[ Page 6332 ]

K. Corrigan: Does that mean the CGA Act previously couldn’t make bylaws respecting officers, “including the appointment, election and replacement of officers”? Or did they just do it without the powers being set out?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: While the CGA Act was silent on this particular provision, they relied upon their general bylaw-making powers to define their officers. This one, of course…. The modern act provides for the specified power that is found in the other two pieces of legislation.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

K. Corrigan: This refers to the board being able to make bylaws respecting committees. The two specific areas are an executive committee — then it talks about the composition of that — and a disciplinary committee. Oh, and a review committee and any other committees.

I’m wondering. To the minister: did both of those types of committees previously exist in all three of the organizations that have merged?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: All three of the legacy bodies had comparable committees that sometimes went under different titles. So this is a reconciliation of those.

K. Corrigan: I’m particularly interested in the disciplinary committees. Is it all three of the bodies, then, that you’re saying did have committees that would be responsible for discipline in their respective organizations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

K. Corrigan: Section 14 gives the board power to “make bylaws respecting students and other applicants for admission,” including establishing the procedures, setting the requirements, fitness and character. This is a really important section. So I’m wondering. To the minister: again, is this a set of powers that all three of the previous organizations had?

[1800]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In this instance, the CMA Act was silent, and the other two legacy acts did deal with this specifically. As the member opposite points out, this is in modern practice a fundamentally important section.

K. Corrigan: Just a confirmation, though, that the CMA Act did have a process for admitting students. To be honest, I’m not intimately aware of the accounting profession, so I’m learning a lot here. Did the CMA profession have students and a process for admitting students in?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: All three of the bodies have had processes for admitting students into their respective professional bodies for a number of years. This is, as I say, simply a way of codifying the existing conduct and bringing it up to a current standard.

K. Corrigan: All three of the bodies had a process for investigations into the conduct of students or other applicants for membership, looking at character requirements, fitness, and then establishing an appeal process in respect of the manner in which examinations for admissions as a member are conducted. So there’s nothing new here in that regard?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

K. Corrigan: Section 15 provides that the board can make bylaws respecting the election of a member as a fellow of the CPABC, of the Chartered Public Accountants. I’m wondering what’s going to happen with those people that are fellows under the…? Previously, I assume, all three organizations had fellows. If so, are those people who were fellows going to continue to be fellows in the new organization?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The new act of course provides for this designation to be provided for all members of the merged profession. Amongst the legacy professions, only the chartered accountants had this designation.

We do not have the current information about grandfathering the existing fellows in the institute of chartered accountants, but one would assume that they would make a firm case for being reappointed under the new regime, much like current Queen’s Counsel will seek to become King’s Counsel when that time comes.

K. Corrigan: You know, when you’re merging, it is such an accomplishment, but it’s going to be difficult. That’s one of those little things. You wonder whether somebody, when they merge, something that is small like that…. Suddenly there could be a concern that somebody becomes a fellow of the merged group. I guess we’ll wait and see, but you just never know what’s going to set people off. I will wait to see.

I guess I don’t actually have another question about that section.

Section 15 approved.
[ Page 6333 ]

On section 16.

K. Corrigan: I took a look at this section. It talks about: the board can make bylaws respecting classes of members and standards of competency, fitness and professional conduct for a class of members. We will talk more later. There are other provisions about “classes of members” and so on.

Maybe I could get an example, or discussion a little bit or more explanation, of what types of classes of members are foreseen with the inclusion of this section.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Section 36 of the proposed legislation anticipates the member’s question and lays out three categories: the chartered professional accountants, including fellows — I suppose the full-blown membership category; associate members; and technologist members.

One can imagine that in an accounting enterprise there’ll be various levels of skill and experience and also various levels of having passed examinations. This anticipates that and also allows for further developments in future without coming back here for further legislation.

[1805]

K. Corrigan: Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. I had seen section 36, but there’s also…. I can’t remember what section it is, and we will get to it at some point. There’s also discussion about what I thought this also could refer to, which is a different type of class, talking about specialties and designations, which I think is really interesting. I would assume — we will probably more fully discuss that when we get to that section — that there is some anticipation of the fact that we’re going to have the three merged together and there could be audit specialties or specialties that are more aligned with the separate designations that we have now. Or am I misinterpreting what I have read?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise here is that there will be a common educational program for the three legacy bodies as they become this unified body of chartered professional accountants. Of course, as has happened in other professions over time, there are some professionals who seek to become subspecialized and be recognized for that. This act will leave that door open in case there is a future category.

The member may be familiar with the existing qualification of CBV or certified business valuator, which is not anticipated in this legislation. If the body created by this legislation wanted to go down the path of subspecialty designation, this opens the door for that.

K. Corrigan: I can’t remember the section, but we will get to it. I had inferred from my reading of one of the sections that that was foreseen. That is not the expectation at this point, particularly — that there will be specialties. In the legal profession there are no specialties, but in the medical profession there certainly are. Is the expectation that it would go towards the idea of the medical profession, where you have actually do have specialties that are very defined?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Not at this point. The member makes a good point. The legal profession tends to take a full-scale practitioner and restrict their practice, if anything. In the field of medicine, the general practitioner is really only a beginner who has to then further qualify in family practice or ophthalmology or something else. These bylaws do not anticipate any particular path in that direction, but make it available to the merged profession to sort that out for themselves.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

K. Corrigan: Hon. Chair is having to work hard for those ayes today. It’s ten past six in the evening.

With respect to section 17, section 17 provides that the board can make bylaws respecting members, including — and this is important, I think — “qualification and competency requirements of members, including establishing those requirements and conducting reviews of members to ensure compliance,” compulsory learning, certification or licensing, specification of types of accounting services, for the purposes of the certification and “standards for the manner and method of practice of members.”

I am wondering how much involvement there was of the minister in looking at this and reviewing this. It’s an important part of what the board is going to be overseeing. I’m just wondering whether that was pretty well left to them, themselves, or whether there was a real thought about what that would include.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to the member’s query, the three legacy bodies did engage with government on the content of this section, which the member correctly notes is one of the most important sections in the entire act.

[1810]

In consultation with the ministry, we undertook quite a review of legislation across the country and came to the conclusion that this formulation was compatible with the other legislation in the rest of the country and workable in terms of the role of the professional body, and this would be the desirable section on this issue.

K. Corrigan: Part of what this does…. It doesn’t in itself establish the scope of the accounting profession, but it certainly contemplates it to some degree. I look at the submission from the chartered professional accountants, as they call themselves. They were given the ability to use that designation.
[ Page 6334 ]

That was an interesting process in and of itself. I couldn’t understand why I was suddenly seeing all these commercials for the CPA before we dealt with the legislation. I thought that maybe they were being a bit presumptive until I found out that, in fact, they had been given that ability. That’s probably important, given the importance of brand.

Something I’ve learned going through this process is that the branding — the faith in the designation, the confidence that it instils — is a really important part of this merger. I think it is important. I hadn’t understood that before — that it’s important to establish. I think most everybody would agree that CAs were sort of seen as being the brand. Now they are trying to merge all of the three and have a brand that is recognized as being competent and professional.

I notice the submission that I received says:

“The design of the new Canadian CPA” — this is nationally — “certification program would not simply add together the requirements of the existing programs. This would create an unwieldy and unattractive qualification process. Rather, the new Canadian CPA program would be designed to meet the needs of industry, government and public practice by ensuring that all CPAs have the strong foundation of knowledge and skill as a professional accountant to succeed in whatever role or position they take on. It would recognize that not all CPAs will be trained to be auditors at the point of qualification, though it would provide that option.”

A few questions come out of that. First of all, did the minister feel that there was any obligation to in any way define what those competencies would be? Secondly, is there any concern whatsoever, because they’re merging three organizations, that there will be any diminishment of the competencies of the group as a whole, or any part of that group, because of the fact that they’re merging?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise here is that the accounting profession has a profound interest in maintaining its credibility and maintaining the strength of the brand.

This section provides the basis for that self-regulating group, with all of the extraordinary nuances of the uniform final examination — which I’m sure all of us would fail miserably — to establish the standards for entry into the profession so that the profession can determine who indeed can hold themselves out as a competent accountant. Then, as the member noticed earlier, there may be further qualifications for functions like audits and tax that the profession would impose on its own members.

K. Corrigan: The core competencies that this submission talks about are financial accounting and reporting; management accounting, planning and control; assurance; taxation; finance; and performance management. Later, when it’s talking about audit — I read this before — it says: “It would recognize that not all CPAs will be trained to be auditors at the point of qualification, though it would provide that option.”

[1815]

Is the qualification as an auditor not part of the requirement for any of those three designations at this point?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This, I think, reflects the evolution of the profession, in that audit used to be a fairly basic function — say, perhaps, before 1960 — which has become more recently fraught with liability. It is something that many accountants self-select to stay out of, while others seek to do it because it’s their idea of a successful practice.

This provision leaves it open to qualified accountants who have entered the profession to practice in management or other business functions without seeking the designation that they are holding themselves out as auditors or otherwise.

K. Corrigan: Just for clarification on that, what I asked was on the audit function. I’m thinking particularly of the CAs. Was there any one of those three previous professions that required they be trained as auditors?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ve now been educated to the fact that under the legacy professions, chartered accountants were empowered to do audits if they self-selected to become auditors. Some CGAs would go down that path and become auditors, but CMAs did not engage in audit work.

K. Corrigan: Just to be really clear, were the CAs or the CGAs required to get that training to be qualified as auditors in order to get their designation as CAs or CGAs?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The composite view is that under the legacy regimes, the qualification of chartered accountant enabled one to perform audit work; the qualification of CGA led one to a position where, with some further qualification, audit work could be done; but the CMA designation did not entitle the practitioner to be an auditor.

K. Corrigan: I’m just trying to think this out. If that’s the case, if it’s not going to be a requirement now, does that mean that there’s anything about the new unified training that is going to be any different for the CAs? You’re saying those are people that would be certified as being able to do audits previously. Does that mean that the training is going to be any different? Is the training going to include a competency for doing audits or not?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The understanding is that being a self-regulated profession, they will be determining what qualifications lead to the ability to sign off on audits. Of course, it may well be that they come to the conclusion that the new uniform examination either does or does not qualify one to be an auditor. That will be in their purview. As we all know, given the scope of liability for audits these days, one would expect they’ll be prudent in how they approach it.

[1820]

K. Corrigan: Well, I think this is a pretty important point, and I would imagine it would be. I’m assuming that those that are going to be members of this new merged profession will understand it.

Section 17 says “…the board may make bylaws respecting members, including…(c) certification or licensing requirements for members to provide specified types of accounting services.”

Is it possible that with this enabling legislation, the road that the merged profession could go down would be to say: “We are going to say that you are a CPA, but” — for example, using the example of audits — “if you want to call yourself an auditor, you’re going to have to take further training and get further certification”? Is that something that is expected or something that is possible under the legislation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There are two angles to this. The first is that the interim board will be charged with sorting out the issue of the existing legacy practitioners and the competencies that they are to have acknowledged in the new regime. Secondly, with the new training program, there will be both core and elective course modules, with six core competencies and a number of other competencies which the individual could seek to get — presumably, further designations and possibly even further letters behind their name.

K. Corrigan: I understand that this legislation won’t anticipate every single type of nuance, but that seems to me pretty important. I don’t know whether it’s the proper purview for legislation or regulation or self-regulation and self-defining. But it seems pretty important if what we’re looking at is the possibility that you would have gradations of qualifications and that you might become a CPA and not be able to do audits until you get further training of a year or two years, which would be very significant.

I guess I’m asking again: is it an expectation from the minister, or was this thought about and considered in framing this particular section of the legislation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The six core competencies that we understand will be required for new accounting students are financial reporting, strategy and governance, management accounting, audit and assurance, finance, and taxation. One can well imagine that this is like many other professions, where they’ll need to be exposed to these modules. They won’t necessarily practise exclusively in one of those zones, because it’s really to give the student the ability to acknowledge where a problem lies rather than to assert that they know how to fix it.

K. Corrigan: That’s a slightly different list than was in the original submission that I have, which was similar. In the one that I was reading earlier, it talked about the core competencies and didn’t talk about audits. The core competency list that the minister just read, which is maybe a later iteration, does talk about audit assurance, which I would assume means that the members, in order to get admitted or to become members, would have to have that ability to perform an audit. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I should correct that perception. These core competencies, as I say, could be readily analogized to medical training, where every medical student is exposed to neurosurgery, but they wouldn’t dare enter someone’s skull. They’re just there to recognize what a problem looks like and refer to the appropriate specialized individual.

[1825]

K. Corrigan: I conclude from that that it is possible and that, basically, government is leaving it up to the body itself to make the decision about whether or not, given that these different organizations are merging — that may or may not be relevant — there could be certification as a CPA and that there will possibly be new certifications or advanced certifications. I don’t believe that that’s happened before.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps I could address this question, and then we’ll assume that we’re going to be adjourning, according to the House Leader’s wishes.

To address the particular question, the understanding we have on this is that those core competencies will be part of the baseline training, and then it will be up to the profession to decide when an individual is appropriately qualified to perform an audit, which, of course, is one of the functions of accountants amongst many others.

It may be that they require specialized training or perhaps a certain level of experience under supervision before they are allowed to independently and personally sign off on audited financial statements.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Thomson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.
[ Page 6336 ]

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Ashton in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $118,122,000 (continued).

S. Chandra Herbert: Before we broke for lunch, we were talking about climate action, but before we continue in those questions, I would just ask if there is any information — documents, files, etc. — that the minister had committed to get yesterday available at this time.

Hon. M. Polak: There isn’t for today. We will endeavour to get that.

If I might, I thought I would begin with some answers to the questions from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. It’s not addressed point by point, but I think it covers it.

I’ll start maybe just with the status of the Jumbo project itself. The substantially started decision for Jumbo, of course, hasn’t been put in front of me at this point, so the environmental assessment office has not made a determination regarding any non-compliance.

There is a compliance and enforcement effort that is underway which is, of course, separate and independent from the minister’s decision on substantially started. My understanding is that the compliance and enforcement branch is awaiting a report from Glacier Resorts Ltd. related to an engineering avalanche risk evaluation. Then it’s over to them to determine what, if any, consequences there should be if there is determined to be a lack of compliance with any of the conditions.

That becomes important because in the substantially started decision that will ultimately come to me as minister, there are a number of things that must be considered. We are certainly guided by the information that is provided in the EAO user guide, legal analysis, jurisprudence. In particular — and the member referenced it — the information contained in the B.C. Supreme Court decision with respect to the Tulsequah Chief mining project, of course, provided useful guidance and some greater definition around substantially started.

For the purposes of the minister’s decision, that means that one must consider not only the elements that have been worked on by the company, but then, also, the minister must — I must — turn my mind to what weight should be given to various elements of the work that has been done. We certainly understand from the Tulsequah decision that construction of physical permanent structures should have greater emphasis in the substantially started decision, and permitting and the amount of money expended has less emphasis.

[1340]

It would probably be helpful for the member — perhaps he already has — to take a look at the substantially started decision with regard to Tulsequah Chief mine. It does outline much of what we’ve adopted as our approach. In that case, of course, the EAO looked at the elements of the entire project, with a greater weighting on the permanent physical structures related to the project.

In terms of participation and involvement in the substantially started process, it is a part of our standard approach that we would ensure that we are limiting the involvement to the Ktunaxa Nation Council and the Shuswap Indian band. This is a matter of administrative fairness to the company, so there are many opportunities throughout the process for public input. But on the matter of substantially started, that is a different situation and one in which we need to be paying attention to the legally derived criteria and also the input from the First Nations. That’s why that is limited in that way.

I hope that addresses the questions. If not, certainly I’d be happy to pursue any greater detail that the member wished.

N. Macdonald: I think you’ve answered two of the questions, to be fair, so I’ll just go back to the first one, on substantially started. The question actually was: in trying to decide if it’s substantially started, do you look at the whole project and judge from there, or is it simply elements of the project? That’s the first question.

The second question I think you answered in that…. The legal opinion that I saw says that you should not be including anything but the physical elements. You’re saying that you disagree with that, that you would put more emphasis on the physical elements but would include everything. If you have a legal opinion on that to support that, I’d like to see it tabled, please.

The third element, which you didn’t answer, is that if a person commits an offence, if you do find that the day lodge is not in the correct place and therefore is not in compliance, does that mean it’s not looked at as part of the substantially started? If it’s out of compliance — if that’s what you find out — then is it not considered?

The other thing was with the movement of the day lodge. There’s a very specific question in law. It’s suppos-
[ Page 6337 ]
ed to be that any movement of that goes through a process. I want to know: is this a change that went through a process and that either the environmental assessment office or someone within the ministry gave approval for the change in location? And if that’s the case, where’s the documentation behind that?

The other questions asked for the quantitative metrics used to determine if the project is substantially started.

I think, as far as I could hear, only two of the questions have been answered. The other two, which I haven’t mentioned yet, are just the substantially started…. Do you tell groups at the beginning of the project what substantially started is going to look like? That was one of the questions — I think the fifth question. And then the sixth one: why do you not get a recommendation from the environmental assessment office in helping you make the decision? Or maybe you do, and I just misunderstand.

Those are the questions that, hopefully, you’ll be able to provide an answer to.

[1345-1350]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to preface my remarks, I do have to be somewhat careful, in that because I’m the statutory decision-maker, I will avoid making more specific comments with respect to the Jumbo project. I know the member understands some of the challenges that places on me.

Let’s get to the questions. With respect to the way in which we approach substantially started decisions, the portion of my comments earlier, while perhaps not word for word, are substantially a quotation from the Supreme Court decision in Tulsequah Chief.

That is the section that reads: “Construction of physical permanent structures should have greater emphasis in the substantially started decision.” But the decision goes on to say that permitting and the amount of money expended would have less emphasis. It’s not that they don’t get considered at all but that the permanent structures are given more weight in the decision.

With respect to any legal opinions that may or may not have been received, that would be a matter of solicitor-client privilege. With respect to the EAO and any construction that is out of compliance, it is impossible to determine at this stage what impact, if any, a compliance decision would have, because we don’t know the nature at this stage of what the compliance or out-of-compliance would be.

We don’t know what action the compliance officer may recommend. It’s their discretion within some boundaries, so it’s impossible to determine what impact that would have on the decision, except to say that I think it’s fair to conclude that when the minister decides to suspend a process or to wait on a decision for further information, obviously that information will play a role in informing the ultimate decision on “substantially started.”

With respect the relocation of buildings, I will be general here. With any project, it depends on the specificity of the EA condition. If the certificate condition literally spelled out a precise location for a piece of construction, then that would be a matter that would have to be returned to EA for approval of an amendment to the certificate.

However, if the condition is not that specific and if the matter is covered in other areas through permitting and local zoning, then it would be a matter for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations under the master resource development agreement, probably combined with the local government zoning, but it wouldn’t be a matter for EA.

[1355]

In terms of metrics, we do not have metrics around “substantially started.” That is because of the fact that this is decided on a case-by-case basis. Every project is unique, and the circumstances around it have to be considered separately. As a result of that, we also do not provide any definitive criteria to the company, and for the minister making the decision, the legal test is whether or not it is a reasonable decision for the minister to conclude, based on the information in front of the minister.

In terms of any recommendations that may or may not come from the director of the environmental assessment office, that is at the discretion of the director. There are some cases where the minister is provided with recommendations and others where they are not. Typically, that is addressed in the referral by the director.

I hope that covers all of them.

N. Macdonald: That was great. I appreciate it. Just the one…. Do you look at the whole project or just elements of the project?

Hon. M. Polak: We look at both, essentially, because you have to compare the elements of the project that have been completed against the whole project that was proposed at the beginning.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the answers around environmental assessment for the Jumbo project and how environmental assessment works.

We’re going to jump back to climate change, climate action, the urgent need for us to address climate-changing pollution, which has of course put us in a tough spot — particularly generations to come.

I had been asking, specifically, what areas within our economy are actually going to see greater reductions so that we can meet our goals and meet our legally required goals to reduce emissions by 18 percent by 2016. The minister responded with Pacific Coast Collaborative. We’ve talked with folks in Washington state and down south — and a number of other things that are going on.

I actually wanted to see commitments. I know that there was an agreement signed with Washington state and Oregon and California, saying that we’re going to
[ Page 6338 ]
commit to do a whole bunch of things. Most of those things were things that B.C. had already done. Some — certainly, the electric vehicles — had been. They were cancelled in the last budget, brought back in this one. Really, it would be helpful for me to know.

I understand the minister will not commit to a date to launch a climate action plan 2.0 or to even launching one. I had hoped that we would get such a commitment because it is so urgent.

I will come back again just to ask: what are the new commitments? It was up front in the climate action plan from 2008, seven years ago, that those actions would only get us so far. They wouldn’t get us to our end goal — not even close. I think it was something like: “We still need to find actions to reach another 70 percent of those emissions.” I’m just remembering off the top of my head.

We’re a year out now from 2016, where we have to have had another 6 percent in reductions. The staff are obviously monitoring what groups were doing last year and what they’ve been doing this year so that we do get to the 18 percent reduction by 2016.

Can the minister share with me what industries specifically, what areas specifically, have reduced emissions to such a large extent from 2012 that we will meet the goals by 2016?

[1400]

Hon. M. Polak: In the absence of a fully developed plan for the next stage of climate action, I think perhaps the easiest way to illustrate where we’re looking and where we want to be discussing with, in particular, environmental organizations as to the types of initiatives we might undertake, here are the places where there are opportunities for reductions.

One of the largest remains transportation. To give you a sense, personal transportation is responsible for about 13 percent of British Columbia’s emissions, and commercial transportation for 24 percent — still substantial reductions that can be realized there. Residential and commercial, the built environment — in both of those areas combined, for 11 percent.

Net deforestation — not something we necessarily think of as directly related to climate change, but it is and is responsible for 6 percent of our emissions.

Waste — another area that most ordinary folks don’t necessarily think of as attached to climate change, but it is — is responsible for 6 percent.

Fossil fuel production. Here is where we have actually seen some success. It has fallen from 18 percent of our emissions to 17 percent of our emissions. Before one looks and says, “Well gee, that’s only 1 percent,” that’s a drop. In addition, it compounds, because of course, as a percentage of our overall emissions and because our overall emissions have dropped, it represents a greater than 1 percent drop in their contribution to that — if I’ve explained that clearly.

Then we look at all other industries, which would also include forestry but with the net deforestation piece taken out. All other industry combined is another 19 percent.

I answer it this way because that is how we will begin the work and development around specific initiatives that could eventually form the next climate action plan. We’ll be looking at where the opportunities are and then working with the various agencies and industries responsible, together with advice that we will get from talking with our partners in the environmental communities, to put together what a plan, going forward, would look like.

[1405]

You can see, though, from the responsibility for emissions and where it’s divided that there are still significant opportunities for us to reduce.

S. Chandra Herbert: Will the minister be urging not only her constituents but joining the yes for transit coalition to urge a yes vote for the Metro Vancouver transit referendum, then, as transportation is such a sizeable amount of climate change emissions?

Hon. M. Polak: I don’t have any individual plans to be campaigning, but certainly, government has been clear about the importance of funding transit. As Transportation Minister at the time when the campaign was ongoing and the initiative was announced, I think my position at that point was fairly clear — that here was a referendum we had committed to, if the mayors seek funding outside of their already allotted funding mechanisms.

I don’t have any current, specific plans myself to be campaigning, but I think the position of government is clear. My role as Transportation Minister when the initiative was originally announced, I think, also makes that clear.

S. Chandra Herbert: So will the minister be urging her constituents and others, if they ask, to vote yes?

Hon. M. Polak: I don’t want to sound like I’m committing to doing something that I have no plans to do. I don’t have any plans for any specific personal campaigning or urging on my own, so I wouldn’t want to leave that impression.

S. Chandra Herbert: But if a constituent or a British Columbian asked you, as Minister of Environment, if you thought they should vote yes, what would you say?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, I suppose it depends how the question is asked, because I don’t tend, on any matter, to tell constituents: “Here’s how I think you should vote.” What I try to do is persuade them of the validity of the position that, in fact, transit needs to be funded.
[ Page 6339 ]

We’ve told the mayors…. I mean, the mayors are their elected representatives, and this is something that we’ve worked through with them, to find a mechanism they believe will work. Both of my mayors in the Langleys are supportive of that, and it has the potential to provide great benefits for communities like Langley — who, up until now, certainly haven’t seen the level of transit investment that we would have liked to.

My approach is not to say to a constituent ever, “I think you should vote this way or that way” on any given topic. It would be to attempt to persuade them, with what I think are compelling arguments, that a vote for yes is a vote for improved transportation for Langley and something that will help us move forward into the future.

S. Chandra Herbert: Took a while to get there, but I’ve got there now. I understand the minister will try and persuade her constituents to vote yes as opposed to tell them to vote yes.

Certainly, I think persuasion is necessary. I guess, given that we’ve got such a large percentage, whether or not it’s 24 percent of pollution from commercial vehicles…. I believe the figure was 13 percent — maybe it was 18 percent — for people in terms of their own transportation.

It’s vitally important that we take a leadership role, I think, in trying to improve that transit. I’m disappointed that a referendum was the way that it was chosen to be done. I think the government, if it was truly serious about acting now on climate change, would have, rather than just saying, “We will make a big investment in a bridge” in one area, without a referendum, but “We will avoid making a decision around transit….” So it was disappointing.

I guess the question would be: does the minister feel, should citizens say yes, that the provincial government, as part of its commitment to climate action, will come through with the provincial amount of money so that we can actually address climate change in transportation? Will they come forward to help fund the total package that the mayors have outlined?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, forgive me. I’m not going to go into the second question very deeply because, of course, that can be canvassed with the Minister of Transportation during his estimates. I will say I think you can judge from past capital expenditures in transit that we certainly have been ready to be at the table for important investments like the Canada Line, like the Evergreen line that is currently under construction. The record is there.

[1410]

With respect to, though, the importance of transportation, it is really important to note — and I can say this very clearly coming from Langley — that the Port Mann construction was a transit decision. Up until the new Port Mann Bridge was constructed, there had not been transit across that corridor since 1986 because the corridor was too congested for the bus to maintain a schedule.

Now not only do we have transit, but we have it in the form of an express bus, which now can see residents from my constituency travel from Langley direct to a SkyTrain station in less than 30 minutes. It’s well used. The parking lot there is already starting to be full to capacity, and we’re anticipating even greater improvements.

It would be wrong to think that the Port Mann Bridge decision was an either-or with respect to transit. In fact, the construction of the Port Mann Bridge was responsible for the single biggest improvement in transit south of the Fraser in decades.

S. Chandra Herbert: I should have been specific. I wasn’t speaking about the Port Mann. I was speaking about the Massey bridge, the proposed bridge that has been put forward while transit resources have not received the same priority.

I’m curious. What percentage of the provincial fleet is currently electric vehicles? I know there was a commitment signed that 10 percent of public and private fleets would be electric by 2016 — 10 percent of purchases, I should say. Where are we at now provincially?

Hon. M. Polak: As with many of the initiatives that result from climate action policy, Ministry of Environment doesn’t actually track that number. We’re fairly certain that that would be available through the minister responsible for Citizens’ Services. We can certainly pursue that on the member’s behalf instead of leaving you to test out which minister in estimates you need to tag. So we’ll endeavour to find out exactly who has those numbers and get those to you.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the offer, and I would certainly appreciate the help. I asked the question, as it was one of the commitments the government signed in the Pacific Coast Collaborative, so I thought we’d be further ahead. Maybe another ministry has taken charge of that commitment.

I’m not quite sure how the Pacific Coast Collaborative works. I thought it was housed as a commitment through the Ministry of Environment, so I thought that information would be there. Given that the government has said one of their new initiatives to address climate change is electric vehicles, I really would appreciate that information.

What percentage of climate reductions, greenhouse gas reductions, does the ministry think we’ll get because of the electric vehicle program that recently launched, and what are they doing with the private industries to see them adopt 10 percent in their fleets?

[1415]

Hon. M. Polak: Firstly, the first round of the clean energy vehicle incentive program resulted in the purchase of 950 vehicles provincewide for a total that’s around 1,500 clean energy vehicles that would be on the road now.
[ Page 6340 ]

It’s impossible to project with any precision what that will mean in terms of overall reductions, in part because there’s no way to standardize what emissions reduction each vehicle would represent.

To illustrate, there would be a big difference between my dad…. He’s 85 and, if he was still driving, would probably only take his car to church on Sunday, once a week, right? His emissions reductions, even though he had a clean energy vehicle, would probably be not even measurable. But if you were a busy family with a few kids and you’re racing around to hockey and ballet and soccer all the time, obviously it would have a greater impact. So it’s difficult for us to estimate with any precision.

In terms of encouraging the private sector and their fleets, that is one of the important reasons for a broad approach to reductions, one of them being the carbon tax — but just prices overall. If you consider the change, which I’m sure…. Well, perhaps. I’m not sure if the member flies into Victoria Airport regularly or not. I do, and on Sunday night I can tell you there’s a huge difference between 2005, when I was first elected, versus now in 2015.

Virtually all the cabs lined up out front are Priuses. If you talk to cabbies, you’ll find out the reason is that it’s an awful lot cheaper not just in terms of the fuel prices but also maintenance costs, etc. I think the biggest selling point there is that not only do they achieve emissions reductions — of course, that’s becoming more and more important to the public — but there are significant savings to be had for the companies in terms of the return on investment for purchasing a vehicle.

S. Chandra Herbert: At what point next year will the minister know that they’ve been successful in their goal of reaching 10 percent — of new purchases for private fleets and public fleets to be 10 percent electric? Is that being monitored, or how are you going to know that this is a success?

[1420]

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll start with the commitment in the Pacific Coast Collaborative agreement that was signed. One of the action plans is to take actions to expand the use of zero-emission vehicles, aiming for 10 percent of new vehicle purchases in public and private fleets by 2016. I’m advised that in terms of this commitment, in the Pacific Coast Collaborative the lead ministry on that is Energy and Mines and that they’re tracking it. So they would be the ones to ask, and we’ll be happy to give them a heads-up that you’ll be asking the question or seeking the information. We can try to pursue that on your behalf, but it’s not something that we track in the Ministry of Environment.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m curious what the minister will be bringing forward to the federal government to go to Paris in terms of what recommendations our federal government should be acting on. Should they be adopting a carbon tax like B.C. has? What should our federal government be doing? I’m just interested in what advocacy the minister is doing on the national stage around these issues.

Hon. M. Polak: Some advocacy takes place in terms of our staff. Of course, they are frequently in discussions with Environment staff federally around outlining what actions we have already taken in British Columbia and what actions the provinces are jointly trying to initiate.

I can say that at a staff level, but also at a personal level, together with the minister…. The Minister of the Environment federally, I’m sure, is quite tired of hearing me espouse the great benefits of the revenue-neutral carbon tax, whether it was in Lima or at our recent meeting of federal-provincial-territorial ministers. It is something that we still believe could be workable Canada-wide.

I understand that the federal government is not, at least to date, interested in that initiative, but it’s one we continue to pursue. Of course, according to my mandate letter, it’s an important part of my role.

We have seen success with other provinces in terms of recommendations that we are making. One of the key recommendations that we are making together — as British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec — is that federal governments worldwide recognize the important role that subnationals play and that they seek to engage in initiatives that don’t unduly interfere with actions that subnationals have already taken. The carbon tax would be a good example. We wouldn’t want to see an overlay of something else that the federal government might undertake that could perhaps damage our actions around a revenue-neutral carbon tax. That has been the focus.

In terms of going to Paris, we continue to work together with our other provinces, with the federal government. I understand that in April the Premier will be in Quebec for further discussions that will take place at a first ministers level around what kinds of collaboration opportunities there are for provincial jurisdictions around climate action leading to Paris in 2015.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate that answer. I know the minister said revenue-neutral carbon tax, because that’s what it says it is. Of course, we’ll remember that it’s actually revenue-negative in that the government gives out more money than it takes in from the carbon tax.

[1425]

I know some have raised the issue and said: “Why don’t we take the approximately $400 million” — I think it is, give or take a couple million — “and actually put it into building retrofits so we can get to zero net building?” We could upgrade buildings so that we’re wasting less power, less gas, etc.

Is the minister looking to find a way to ensure that the revenue-neutral carbon tax actually is revenue-neutral
[ Page 6341 ]
and not costing the provincial government hundreds of millions every year so that that money can go into things like LiveSmart, which helped make more efficient buildings but was later cancelled by this government?

Hon. M. Polak: This is a matter that is one of tax policy, and certainly the revenue-neutral carbon tax is one of our flagship programs around our climate action plan. Nevertheless, the decision as to how that money is allocated is firstly determined by legislation. Secondly, any change would have to be considered by the Minister of Finance.

S. Chandra Herbert: We’re going to now move on to environmental assessment, if that’s all right. I’ve got a whole bunch of questions around one area, but I’ll start with questions around the proposed waste-recycling facility on the banks of the Fraser River, Aevitas recycling.

Of course, the minister will know there’s been huge concern from folks who fish along the Fraser, who fish over here on the Island, who care about the Fraser. I’m just pointing out that in their view, the waste-recycling facility is needed, but not in that location, arguing that should there be a major flood — which, as we know, with climate change will increase — you could be washing toxins down into the Fraser River and poisoning that river. I’m just curious about the status on that. Has the minister heard these concerns? Is she going to respond to them?

[1430]

Hon. M. Polak: First, with respect to the environmental assessment office, they are currently working together with the company to determine if, in fact, their project triggers a review under the reviewable projects regulation. Some large facilities like this do trigger that, but at this stage that is the extent of the involvement of the environmental assessment office.

At this stage we have received an application under the hazardous waste regulation. That will be reviewed. The location is not under our jurisdiction. The location is under the jurisdiction of the local government, and they have made a zoning decision. That is their jurisdiction, not ours.

We will review the project based on its safety. Certainly, we do not approve facilities to operate if they are not deemed to be safe. That decision, by the way, is not one made by the minister. It is made by a statutory decision-maker.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: What role can the minister play? Can the minister determine, because of great public interest, that an environmental assessment should be done for a project like this?

Hon. M. Polak: The minister does have the authority to, in exceptional circumstances, pull in a project that wouldn’t ordinarily trigger a review. But at this stage we will allow the review by the EA to unfold and determine what, if any, further action needs to be taken.

Again, though, there is a significant amount of review and assessment by the ministry under the hazardous waste regulation. We certainly expect that those decision-makers would abide by the data that they receive and make a decision that is based on the safety of both the environment and human health.

S. Chandra Herbert: While the zoning might be a local decision, surely, the location along the banks of the Fraser would be something that would be considered around the hazardous waste regulations or potential environmental assessment.

Is that the case? Just considering the facility itself, not where it is…. Is it the case that it is considered the location right by the Fraser River? That is my question.

Hon. M. Polak: To the extent that the location influences the safety, that would be considered. Of course, that would be natural, given that, as part of the review process, one has to consider the potential of any discharges into the environment. That would be part of the entire context that would be reviewed.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister for being here for questions. My question relates to the wood fibre LNG environmental assessment process and the Eagle Mountain-Woodfibre pipeline.

The two questions I have are, essentially: why has the minister allowed this process to occur without any consultation on the Sunshine Coast side of Howe Sound, when the project proposals are closer, in fact, to my riding than they are to Squamish itself?

The residents of the Sunshine Coast on that side of Howe Sound are feeling left out of the process, and many of them believe that such a project could potentially have an impact on them, on their communities. I believe that both the town of Gibsons and the Sunshine Coast regional district have asked for this.

The second part of the question is: is the minister contemplating a further extension of the consultation period, considering there are almost 13,000 pages of evidence, of submissions, to go through? Is it reasonable to expect that the average person, or even people who are interested in this issue, can really go through, probably, over 200 pages of evidence per day? Is that a reasonable expectation?

[1435]

Hon. M. Polak: The Sunshine Coast regional district certainly hasn’t been excluded. In fact, representatives sit on the advisory working group for the project. And anyone — anyone — across the province is welcome to make comments and provide public input to the process.

We do recognize that there’s a substantial amount of
[ Page 6342 ]
information to go through, and it’s one of the reasons that instead of our usual 30 days that we allow, in this case we began with 45 days that we allowed for that public input. In addition to that, we have recently announced the extension of that for a further 15 days on each project.

In terms of its reasonableness, it is always a huge challenge with the technical information that comes out. We try as best we can to provide helpful information, as do the proponents. We recognize it can be a challenge. It is a difficult balance to find, between ensuring sufficient time for public comment while at the same time sticking to the timelines that we have in our legislation — which, as the member likely knows, is 180 days.

N. Simons: So nobody thought about having one public meeting in Gibsons or in Langdale or in Sechelt or anywhere on the Sunshine Coast, yet there were numerous meetings in Squamish and up and down the Sea-to-Sky corridor. I wonder if the minister believes that’s fair.

I understand that people can provide submissions, but sometimes being in a room at an open house or in a question-and-answer situation — the kind of information people can get is of a different quality. On behalf of the residents of the Sunshine Coast, I think that there should be some public hearings, at least one. I’m wondering if the minister is able to comment on that.

[1440]

Hon. M. Polak: While there are no public open houses contemplated by the environmental assessment office on the Sunshine Coast, we are aware that the proponent is considering an open house on Gambier Island.

I think, though, it’s important to make something clear. These are not public hearings where input is gathered. In fact, there’s no note-taking. We don’t particularly receive input at public open houses. Public open houses are there as information to the public and an opportunity for the public to ask questions about the project.

Input-gathering takes place on line, or people can make written submissions, but the public open houses are not for the purposes of input. There’s certainly no reduction of the opportunity for citizens on the Sunshine Coast to provide input simply because there isn’t an open house. In fact, those opportunities are not intended for the gathering of input.

K. Conroy: There’s a water bottle company called Miller Springs that’s located between Beaverdell and Osoyoos. I understand that they’ve submitted an application to increase their water bottling consumption licence from 4,000 litres a day to an additional 50,000 litres a day. This is a significant increase in an agricultural area.

I’m wondering if the ministry would require an independent water table study be completed to ensure that the water table can actually sustain this increase.

Hon. M. Polak: The Water Sustainability Act certainly will enable that to take place. Nevertheless, it’s an allocation decision, and the allocation decisions are handled by Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, so the question would need to be directed to them.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m going to ask around the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project. I know the minister’s been waiting for questions on this one. I’m sure, not a surprise.

[1445]

I’m very interested in actually protecting B.C.’s interests here and ensuring that we actually get answers to questions. I know the ministry submissions, the government’s submissions, suggested they were as well, arguing that we needed an emergency management response plan from Kinder Morgan, as they provided in Washington State, in order for them to truly honour the process, to honour the wishes of cities like Burnaby, Vancouver, southern Gulf Islands, all the way along the line, Port Moody, Belcarra — indeed, the Union of B.C. Municipalities as well.

As Kinder Morgan has refused to provide an emergency management response plan to the National Energy Board, as the National Energy Board has refused to listen to B.C.’s request that that be provided, what is the government going to do? Without that information, it’s pretty hard to make any sort of determination that they’re acting in the public interest in any respect.

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will know that I have, on more than one occasion, expressed my disappointment publicly with the fact that the NEB did not compel Kinder Morgan to provide the information around their emergency response plans. Nevertheless, the NEB is one process among many that will take place over the course of the life of this project, should it be approved.

I note that, as a result of our efforts in pushing the company, pushing the NEB, in spite of not being required to, they did provide a redacted version of their emergency response plan. We think a full plan should be provided with respect to their existing pipeline.

I’ll also note that the NEB — again, I think this is largely a result of the work of ourselves and other interveners in pushing the subject — has decided to require that in the case of the development of an emergency response plan for the new pipeline, Kinder Morgan would be required to consult with First Nations; also with local governments and with the province.

S. Chandra Herbert: What are the other processes the minister refers to? B.C. gave away its right to have its own environmental assessment process. Is there some other legal process that the minister is referring to?
[ Page 6343 ]

Hon. M. Polak: There are certainly direct discussions with the company — in addition to that, the consultation process that would result if they were to move ahead. We would intend to participate in that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Legally, though, the government did give away B.C.’s right to make a decision around the Kinder Morgan pipeline process.

What would the minister do if the National Energy Board approves the project? The cabinet, federally, has already signalled — the Conservatives — that they want this to go ahead no matter what people’s concerns are. What exists that the minister could actually do to have consultations and so forth, when they’ve given away their legal rights?

[1455]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, we aren’t as a province limited in our efforts to simply what we can control through an environmental assessment. I know everyone is well familiar with the five conditions that we have put on the table and the requirement that those five conditions be met before any heavy-oil pipeline would be allowed through British Columbia.

We have progressed with that to the point where Alberta has signed on to our five conditions. In addition to that, as a result of our pushing forward with the five conditions, the federal government is now working with us on our land-based spills response and our marine spills response capabilities. So we can see that those five conditions have certainly had an influence and will continue to have an influence, because if they don’t meet those conditions, they will not go forward.

In terms of our future role, there are also permits that are required for any heavy-oil pipeline that would have to travel through British Columbia. And as with any permit coming from the Ministry of Environment, if requirements of those permits are not met such that the project is safe…. We do not grant permits when we do not see the criteria for those permits being met.

S. Chandra Herbert: Kinder Morgan refused to answer questions about geohazards. They refused to provide a full record of all spills from Kinder Morgan pipelines involving liquid hydrocarbons over the last 30 years. They refused to provide a summary of any spills that are significant in terms of the volume released, impacts to the environment and/or lessons learned.

They didn’t answer half the questions that the city of Vancouver and the city of Burnaby asked. They didn’t answer 95 percent of 2,000 questions they were originally asked and refused to answer, then finally only answered 5 percent of those questions. And they refused to provide an emergency management plan, as well as whether or not they really had staff available to respond should there be a spill, even though Washington state required them to do that, but our process didn’t.

I don’t see how one of those conditions that the government talks about — which needs to be approved through the National Energy Board — can really stand up as an effective condition when you cannot actually get answers to the questions required. Does the minister, according to her staff, believe this process is being honoured? The staff said:

“Trans Mountain’s failure to file the evidence requested by the province denies the board, the province and other interveners access to the information required to fully understand Trans Mountain’s ability to effectively respond to a spill related to the project.”

I’ll just say that again. It

“denies the province, the board and other interveners information required to fully understand Trans Mountain’s ability to effectively respond to a spill. It further denies the parties a meaningful opportunity to test and clarify the evidence filed by Trans Mountain. If the review process established by the board is to be honoured, then Trans Mountain’s failure must be corrected.”

Now, it wasn’t corrected. The National Energy Board did not require them to do what the province said they needed in order for the province to have the process honoured, in order for the province to actually get the information required to make decisions around world-class oil spill response, emergency spill response, geohazards — on and on the list went.

I’m trying to understand how this government continues in a process which it itself, through its evidence, through its filing, says has effectively been dishonoured because this information has not been provided. Can the minister explain why this government is continuing in a process that it itself has suggested has been dishonoured by not providing the information that would be needed to make an effective judgment of Kinder Morgan?

Hon. M. Polak: As I’ve already outlined, I believe the important work that our staff has done has resulted in further information being provided. It is not up to the standard that we would have wished to see. Nevertheless, it is clear that our role in the NEB process has an influence over not only what information is provided but how that will be evaluated by the NEB.

[1500]

I won’t prejudge what our final submission will be, but we will be making a final submission. We will certainly be clear with respect to our view as to whether or not we think the NEB should approve or not approve the project.

I don’t see any relative value in pulling out of the process. It is the process that they have provided us with. Whether or not we find it to be as complete as we would like, I do not think it helps British Columbians’ interests for us to remove our voice from that process.

S. Chandra Herbert: British Columbia’s voice has been dismissed, effectively, in this process again and again and again. Three times the B.C. government asked
[ Page 6344 ]
for an emergency management plan, moved a motion requiring it. The National Energy Board rejected our province every single time. They did not say: “Sorry.” They did not explain why. They just accepted Kinder Morgan’s argument, despite the fact that across the border in Washington state Kinder Morgan had to provide an emergency management plan — such that we would be able to see it there, but we can’t see it here.

B.C. has the ability to have its own environmental assessment for this pipeline project, where we could actually say: “No, you don’t get to play around the rules, dance around the subject and not give us the information we need to make our own decision.” Why has B.C. categorically refused to assert our power, to make sure that B.C.’s voice actually carries weight?

The B.C. government told the National Energy Board and Enbridge that it didn’t meet our conditions, that it shouldn’t go ahead. The National Energy Board and Stephen Harper’s government completely dismissed our point of view and said that, yes, it should go ahead, all steam ahead.

Why won’t we have our own environmental assessment for this project given how shabbily we as a province have been treated, given how shabbily the cities of B.C. have been treated and regions have been treated — and given the broad support? The Union of British Columbia Municipalities has requested our own environmental assessment — that we not continue in this sham of a process and have our own process so that we can actually get the answers we deserve. Why won’t the minister do that?

Hon. M. Polak: We’ve established our own criteria, and it is the five conditions. Far from being dismissed, we had a federal government that was not anywhere near the table with us discussing land-based spills response or marine-based spills response. They are now fully working together with us in the development of both of those.

I still cannot see any benefit to the province in pulling out of the NEB process. What is important is that we assert ourselves in the roles, responding with the five conditions and also with respect to responsible permitting decisions that will be made based on the safety of any project that would proceed.

S. Chandra Herbert: Has the government approved any permits for Enbridge in the north now that they’ve had their approval from the federal government?

Hon. M. Polak: We are not the only ministry that would be involved in permitting decisions. I can say that the Ministry of Environment has not.

[1505]

I would have to double-check. I’m not aware of any that other ministries or agencies may have granted, but we could certainly confirm that with our counterparts.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’d really appreciate that, and I appreciate the offer to get that information given that the province said quite forcefully that we should not proceed with Enbridge, and the federal government — the National Energy Board — dismissed our point of view and just went ahead anyways. Despite the five conditions, they said: “No, it should proceed.” I would be very interested in that.

I wonder why the ministry decided not to ask any financial questions of Kinder Morgan.

Hon. M. Polak: We determined, in presenting our case and asking our questions, that we would focus in on conditions 2 and 3.

S. Chandra Herbert: During the Enbridge process one of the key arguments that the province made was around finances, which they argued was how they determined that they should not approve the Enbridge pipeline process and why the province made the case that it did.

The Kinder Morgan pipeline could affect gas prices in B.C. It could have major impacts in terms of risk on us but also lack of value. Questions for Kinder Morgan relating to how it is set up are incredibly important. It’s set up, as you know, by two former Enron executives, and there have been very strong cases made by Robyn Allan and others that the books are set up in such a way to stop B.C. from getting a value, a fair share of taxes.

Kinder Morgan’s tax lawyers are quite happy about this. More for the corporation; less for British Columbia. There have been suggestions that we might make only $1.5 million on the current Kinder Morgan pipeline coming through the province.

If one of the conditions is risk versus fair value for British Columbians, as the government has laid out, it would seem to me that they would have actually asked questions about finances. They would ask questions about how Kinder Morgan is set up, about what the taxation is they expect.

They’re out in communities saying, “There’s going to be great value for British Columbians” — with press releases, what have you. But the B.C. government, who should be the one asking the questions, didn’t.

Why focus in such a way not on money, not on the actual finances of Kinder Morgan? Why were there zero questions asked?

[1510]

Hon. M. Polak: The decision was made that priorities were conditions 2 and 3. It’s not that the financial realities of the company are not important, but they are certainly outweighed by the importance of conditions 2 and 3.

It wouldn’t matter how much tax money was going to be injected into the B.C. revenues. That wouldn’t overtake the importance of conditions 2 and 3 if they were not met.
[ Page 6345 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, conditions 2 and 3 are not being met now. They’re not providing information that is required to actually assess whether or not they are being met. It’s a quasi-judicial process. You cannot cross-examine Kinder Morgan for the information they provide.

Even when you ask questions, they don’t answer. They don’t answer about spill response. They don’t answer about what their history is of oil spills. They don’t answer questions about having a submerged-oil response plan. They don’t have information about how their response plan will be enhanced, what equipment they have access to.

The list goes on and on and on: whether they have any answers on how to deal with challenging geography, remoteness, sections of the pipeline in those areas. What strategies do they have? What specific training do they have? Are they providing to ensure automatic funding is available up front to municipalities to participate in incident management immediately once an oil spill occurs? The list just goes on, and it’s huge. The province can ask. They don’t get responses. They don’t get answers. So I just don’t see how continuing with this process works.

Saying that we can ask questions about the finances at a later date because we need to focus on spills and protecting the environment and so on — well, that’s well and good. But asking questions without an answer doesn’t protect the environment either, and waiting until a process is complete and the federal government approves the project is a little bit late to be coming back and saying: “Well, Kinder Morgan, can you tell us how your taxation structure is set up?”

Is this about negotiating behind closed doors? Has the province met with Kinder Morgan privately?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ve been quite clear publicly with respect to our disappointment in the way in which the NEB has proceeded. Clearly, from our arguments, which the member has quoted, we have been pushing very hard to see more than what we have seen in the NEB process. That doesn’t mean that I see a benefit in pulling out of the process. But nevertheless, it’s one of the reasons that our five conditions are so important.

I did not say that we intend to wait until processes are completed and then to discuss finances. I didn’t comment on finances because our focus is on priorities 2 and 3 in the five conditions.

With respect to any discussions behind closed doors, that’s not something that my staff are engaged in.

[1515]

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m trying to understand here. We’re going through a National Energy Board process. They will make a decision. The government has not asked questions about finances of Kinder Morgan. They’ve asked questions about emergency management response and not got answers.

Kinder Morgan and the National Energy Board have basically thumbed their noses at the province’s interests again and again. Yet we’re going to continue in the process, to ask questions that we don’t get answers to so that they can make a decision — and the federal government can, with the legal ability to put it through — with us only being able to try and stop it by using permitting, should it be approved. It’ll be approved; we still won’t have answers to the questions because the National Energy Board hasn’t required that we get them.

I’m trying to understand how this is in any way a good process legally, socially and ethically and how it works in the province’s interest. It clearly isn’t, yet B.C. is just going along the way, losing every time we ask questions.

We have the city of Port Moody now considering finding ways that it can block the pipeline because it can’t get answers. The city of Port Moody is not known to be an activist, aggressive council. They try their best for their citizens, and they are so frustrated that they’re now talking about ways that they, as a city, can block the pipeline because they can’t get answers either.

The city of Burnaby, much the same. The city of Vancouver, the Gulf Islands — people are fed up. It took the Union of B.C. Municipalities not that much time to decide that the process was a sham and that B.C. needed its own because we were not getting the responses we need.

The ministers often talked about needing certainty, that we need to be able to provide certainty to industrial players so that they can see good process, so that they know what the rules are to follow. The process that exists, because B.C. has given up its right to have its own environmental assessment, is the National Energy Board. Is there going to be a new legal process to assess the five conditions? Or is it a decision based with the minister and others behind closed doors, that they can decide if they are meeting the conditions or not without the public really being involved?

Wouldn’t it be better that we have an environmental assessment process for it to go through, where we would be clear what our needs and our demands were, as opposed to relying on a behind-a-closed-door process post the federal government approving a project when we have so few legal means to stop it?

Hon. M. Polak: I think I’ve been fairly clear, and I’ve been clear in public before. We’re certainly not satisfied with the NEB process. I’ve expressed our disappointment. The Premier has expressed our disappointment with the NEB process. We will, of course, be outlining in our final submission any deficiencies that we see or have seen with the process.

In terms of our five conditions, far from being a behind-the-scenes kind of discussion, our land-based spills intention paper…. We’ve had two of those put out publicly for significant public input and consultation. On the
[ Page 6346 ]
marine spills area, we’ve produced the Nuka Research report, one of the most comprehensive reviews of marine preparedness that has ever been conducted on the coast of British Columbia.

We intend, as we proceed through the five conditions, to continue with that very transparent placement of information for the public.

S. Chandra Herbert: So then the minister will be outlining, or the Premier will be outlining, soon what they expect on the financial side?

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: As the member I’m sure can appreciate, as Minister of Environment that’s not for me to say.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well then, this will be for the Minister of Environment to say. Does she believe it’s world-class oil spill cleanup if you leave 85 percent of the oil in the water, as is currently the industry standard? Or what is the minister’s standard in terms of a world-class oil spill response in water?

Hon. M. Polak: We certainly do not have world-leading spill response right now. We also know from the Nuka Research report that there is no jurisdiction on the planet that can claim, with respect to the entire process, world-leading spill response. In the research that we have conducted, what we have found is that there are elements of world-leading response represented in jurisdictions all around the world.

The ongoing work that is taking place now as a result of that research is to identify where those elements are and to follow the best practices that we see in different jurisdictions to put together what would amount to a world-leading spill response. But we are not there yet, and we certainly don’t have world-leading spill response here in British Columbia. I think that was well illustrated with the incident with the Simushir off the west coast of Haida Gwaii.

S. Chandra Herbert: In terms of the specific, though, I’m told the world-leading spill response for extracting oil from the water is that you would leave about 85 percent of it in the water. You’d only really be able to collect 15 percent of the oil. If the government was able to find a way to leave only 84 percent in the water, that would technically be world-leading because it would be cleaning up 16 percent as opposed to 15 percent. Is that the kind of thing that the minister is trying to get to for world-leading spill response? I think for most British Columbians, that still would not be acceptable.

Hon. M. Polak: The member is referencing what we know of current capabilities worldwide. That is not what we would consider in our definition of world-leading. It’s not our intention to simply be better than anyone else. It is our intention to meet the spirit of that.

British Columbians demand that we are prepared to respond in a meaningful way to any kind of disaster in our natural spaces like that, particularly on the marine environment. But it’s not our intention simply to meet the minimum requirements.

Now, what that will look like in its entirety, again, is under development based on the research. But we certainly don’t believe there is any jurisdiction right now that would meet our view of what world-leading should be.

S. Chandra Herbert: Will the world-leading, so called, and land-based spill response, in terms of land-based and marine-based…? Will those be documents used in the final submission of the B.C. government to the panel, or will they not be available and completed yet? What’s the timeline for completion?

[1525]

Hon. M. Polak: Final submissions are scheduled for September, and we don’t anticipate that our work would be complete on either of those files.

Let me point out, though — I think, in my mind anyway, this was made clear in our submissions on NGP — that the onus is not on the province in the NEB process to define what world-leading is. The onus is on the proponent to prove that what they have is world-leading. To date, we have not seen that.

I will also comment to say that it is clear that any kind of world-leading response would be a matter of continuous improvement as well. You would never find a point where you’d say: “We are done. We are finished. It is the best it could possibly be.” That will never happen. We will always have to be working to use better research, better technology and to be constantly improving. We know we are not there now. We know we are a long ways away from it now.

But no, those products would not be available by the time that our final submission is made.

S. Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that Kinder Morgan has put forward what it wants to do, and the province is supposed to assess that, ask questions, which it has done. It has not gotten many responses to help the province decide whether it should be proceeding or not, but it’s based on what the project is supposed to be, what they’re recommending it be.

It’s a little challenging that the spill response papers, and so on, won’t be ready to have the province use that information to scrutinize the project that Kinder Morgan puts forward. What is the timeline for those papers? Is there a goal that they must be available by a certain date?

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]
[ Page 6347 ]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the first part of the question, we don’t see any disadvantage to not having those products completed by the time of our final submission, because of course, again, the onus is on the company to prove their case that they are able to provide a world-leading response. Both the land-based spills intentions paper and also the Nuka Research report clearly identify where the deficiencies are. The onus is on the company to come forward with a response to those deficiencies.

With respect to timing, the land-based spills response — we are aiming at a spring 2016 completion of the work on that. With respect to marine spill response, that is more challenging from a timeline standpoint in terms of commitment because, of course, it is largely under federal jurisdiction and, so, impossible for me to provide a timeline.

We would obviously like to see that sooner rather than later, given that regardless of what happens to either the NGP or the Kinder Morgan pipeline, we already have significant traffic up and down the coast of British Columbia in the form of container ships. Those, of course, can be equally concerning — in some cases more so, because those ships are not as well prepared to prevent a spill. We would like to see that work done sooner rather than later.

I should, in fairness, acknowledge that the federal government over the last few years has continued to take steps to improve response on our coasts. It’s not good enough yet.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m not sure that I would agree that the federal government is taking really big steps to improve response, given that they’re now considering getting rid of a number of communications stations along the coast.

They’ve gotten rid of, of course, in my own backyard, the Kits Coast Guard base, which the Premier herself said needed to be restored if we were going to consider Kinder Morgan at all. It has not been restored. That was her quote at the time. I don’t know if she still believes what she used to believe then, but I would hope so. It’s pretty vital.

[1530]

I wonder what steps the province has taken in preparing to try and defend our interests in stopping the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline, given that the province said it shouldn’t proceed, but the federal government has said it will go ahead.

Hon. M. Polak: The key place where we are doing our work is with respect to the demands for a world-leading spill response on our oceans. As I’ve said, the federal government has, more recently, been willing to work with us on that. We’re certainly not satisfied that that has progressed sufficiently to date. It’s not good enough yet. That is the area where we have continued to press our efforts with the federal government.

We also, of course, work together with them in terms of land-based spill response. They have a role to play there as well, but, obviously, not as significant as the marine spills response.

S. Chandra Herbert: The province was very clear that Enbridge shouldn’t proceed, that it was not in B.C.’s interest. So it surprises me that the minister is now saying they’re working with the federal government around improving marine spill response, in answer to my question about what they were doing to plan to stop Enbridge. It sounds more that the province is facilitating Enbridge’s potential passing through B.C., rather than working, as they said they would do, to stop permitting, to stop things because it’s not in B.C.’s interest.

Has the position changed? Is the government now saying they’re open to considering Enbridge? Is that what they’re saying now?

Hon. M. Polak: Our position has not changed. Our submission at the end of the northern gateway pipeline hearings was that it should not proceed unless and until the five conditions were met. Those conditions have not been met to date.

Of course, we would continue to work with the federal government to improve the marine spill response and to, hopefully, achieve success with the five conditions. If the five conditions were met, considering the huge hurdle that that would be, I’d be hard pressed to find how our position has changed. I don’t believe it has. We’re consistent with the submission at the end of the northern gateway pipeline hearings.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister provide the legal opinion that says the province has the right to stop permitting, whether it’s at hydro stations or in other areas, to block a federally approved project like this, given the province’s agreement to hand the power to the federal government to make decisions such as this?

Hon. M. Polak: There never exists a legal right for the province or any other permitting body to arbitrarily block a permit. Nor have I ever said that we would do that.

Permits have criteria. Criteria have to be met for permits to be granted. That’s the basis upon which one would decline to provide a permit.

Again, with respect to legal opinions, those are matters of solicitor-client privilege and not what I would comment on.

S. Chandra Herbert: Was a legal opinion provided?

Hon. M. Polak: That’s a matter of solicitor-client privilege and not something I would comment on.

[1535]

S. Chandra Herbert: The Premier, then, when saying she was going to block hydro lines and hydro projects and other things that would be required for Enbridge, was simply just speaking her own mind without background, I guess, because if it’s really up to the decision-makers at a lower level, not the Premier herself, how could she make such statements?

Hon. M. Polak: Both the member and myself are part of a profession that necessarily is involved with communicating with the public. The Premier herself has that role to play. I find, I know, in my ministry that there’s often a difference between a very technical answer and how I might communicate something to a public who don’t spend their time thinking about the role of statutory decision-makers. Many of them would never even have heard that term.

In answer to the member’s question, my view of that is that it expresses the functional reality that the public would understand. What I have expressed by saying that we do not grant permits when something is deemed hazardous to the environment is: “We don’t grant those permits.” Now, to a layperson — that’s certainly the audience to whom the Premier was speaking — I think that could quite easily be said as “Those permits can be blocked.”

It doesn’t mean that there is going to be an arbitrary decision made. Those decisions are made by statutory decision-makers. But I think it does help to express it in a way that a layperson could understand.

S. Chandra Herbert: Has the B.C. government asked or had any meetings with Kinder Morgan or with Enbridge relating to any of the five conditions in the last year?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to conditions 2 and 3, there have been frequent and ongoing meetings and dialogue between my professional staff and representatives from Kinder Morgan — as we would have with any proponent that was going through our own processes. It is a way in which we can clarify what information we would like to see and encourage proponents to provide that.

I’m not aware of just how much communication there was with Enbridge at the time. I’m afraid that’s a bit in the long past. It wouldn’t surprise me if the same had occurred. But yes, our ministry does do that and continues to do that with Kinder Morgan as it relates to conditions 2 and 3.

[1540]

S. Chandra Herbert: In terms of conditions 4 and 5, would I have to go to those ministries to ask this question? Yes, okay. I’m seeing that in terms of the finances and aboriginal relations, I’d have to go to those ministries to get an answer.

In terms of Kinder Morgan, I wanted to ask if the B.C. government has asked any questions or plans to — I guess it’s too late now, because the last call for questions has passed — around oil supply to the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby.

I’ve heard real concern that regardless of if the project is approved or not, that refinery will be shut down, meaning that we must rely on the United States for gas supply in this province. Were there any questions raised about that?

Hon. M. Polak: No, we confined our questions to those that related directly to conditions 2 and 3.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does the ministry work with other ministries around these questions? Again, I’m surprised. If this was a multiministry question-and-answer thing, I would understand the Ministry of Environment focusing only on 2 and 3, on environmentally related issues. But again, I can’t believe that no questions were asked around finances, around gas prices, around issues that definitely impact the people of B.C. around taxation, industry, the structure of the company.

Is that expected that that would have come from the Ministry of Finance or somebody else? Again, why did the government not feel these questions were a priority at all?

Hon. M. Polak: As I’ve said before, our decision was to focus our questioning on conditions 2 and 3.

B. Routley: The issue that I’m here about today I’m sure comes as no surprise to the Minister of Environment, and that’s the issue of contaminated soil in the Cowichan Valley, specifically in the Shawnigan Lake area. I know it’s under appeal, so I don’t want to risk hearing the answer over and over again that it’s an issue before the Environmental Appeal Board. But I do want to ask what I would think are a couple of simple questions that are on the minds of folks in the Shawnigan Lake region specifically.

Within the experience of the minister…. This isn’t something that we’re used to. The Environmental Appeal Board wrapped up their hearings back in July of last year. It’s now almost eight months. So I guess our question is: is this the usual kind of length of time it takes to get a decision from the Environmental Appeal Board, or is this exceptional and rather long? This is affecting things like real estate values, and the community is telling me things like that they’re holding their breath waiting for this decision.

[1545]

Hon. M. Polak: We at the ministry are anxious for a decision, as well, and are surprised by the length of time that it has taken.

First of all, I know that the member is aware that they are a completely independent body. We don’t have any influence over how long they take for their decision. It is influenced, of course, by the complexity of the decision but also by what else they may have on the go at the time
[ Page 6349 ]
and what their capacity is. They are an independent body. We’re anxious for a decision as well.

B. Routley: Thank you for that. The folks in the Shawnigan region, for example…. The director, Sonia Furstenau, has reported that real estate values have been impacted. I think there was a recent story by CBC about real estate values being impacted and businesses impacted in the Shawnigan region.

One of the pieces of evidence that I’m sure your ministry is aware of, because you would have had people there on your behalf, was the evidence from the statutory decision-maker of the Ministry of Environment, who was at the hearing, that the Ministry of Environment did not do a full economic impact study or any kind of an impact study with regard to the potential impacts that are required in the statutory decision-maker’s handbook.

As we understand it, the statutory decision-maker has a handbook that he’s supposed to go through. He admitted on the stand that he did not do an economic impact study.

We’re wondering if you’re about to do one now. Maybe that’s broken out already, and we’re just not aware of it.

Hon. M. Polak: Unfortunately, I can’t comment with respect to any testimony that was before the EAB.

B. Routley: The issue of professional reliance is something that…. This wasn’t an issue that was raised, necessarily, before the board, but we do know that it’s kind of standard practice, whether it’s the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, that they believe in the notion of professional reliance and suggest that that’s a good model, because they can then hold the professional reliance folks responsible. They can be held accountable for the advice that they give.

In response to that, could the minister tell us: was the ministry in any way surprised? Or did they actually give advice on the professional reliance that was involved in the proponent giving the information, Active Earth, on the…?

Yes, it was an issue before the Environmental Appeal Board, but ultimately, everybody’s asking the question in the community: why didn’t Active Earth take the stand? They’re the professional group that you relied on for making decisions, and yet they didn’t take the stand.

Do you have any explanation for that? Or were you surprised, like the rest of the community, that they did not take the stand to defend their professional decision-making?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m sure the member won’t be satisfied with this but probably not surprised. I really can’t comment in any detail with respect to this, given that it is before the Environmental Appeal Board.

B. Routley: Maybe this you could comment on. The CVRD has spent $460,000 so far on legal defence. The community has spent has spent more than $500,000 on their legal defence.

Being as how this is the budgeting process, my question is: have there been moneys allocated out of the Ministry of Environment’s budget for this case, or does that money come out of some other ministry? Could you inform us where that money would be paid out from, for lawyers for the Ministry of Environment?

[1550]

Hon. M. Polak: The way this operates: any time that we hire legal counsel, unless we hire external legal counsel, it is an internal transfer. We hire them, if you will, from the department of Justice, so it would be the department of Justice that would have an accounting of specific cases and what they have billed. We don’t track that. We don’t even have within our budget framework a specific amount that’s dedicated to legal because it is an internal transfer in government. But the Ministry of Justice, Attorney General should have that amount.

B. Routley: I guess, along the same lines, if there is a judicial appeal and obviously…. I guess I’m getting a bit ahead of myself, but we’re hopeful that the outcome is to cancel the permit. If that doesn’t occur, I’m told that the community is committed to fundraising and to going forward with a judicial appeal to the Supreme Court.

So the question is: would the Minister of Environment already have had some discussions with the other ministry involved? Or is that something that’s not necessarily discussed even though there have been clear indications that this could be a very costly matter indeed? Is there any pre-planning in this budget or in the other minister’s budget for this ongoing battle with the community of Shawnigan Lake?

Hon. M. Polak: There have been no discussions of that nature to date.

B. Routley: On a related matter, the Cowichan Valley regional district — it’s not recent — back in 2012 was talking about doing a study. They found over 1,200 truckloads a month of contaminated soil coming over the Malahat to dump at 11 different sites in the Cowichan Valley region. Some of those sites were unofficial, and they were calling it bootlegged, contaminated soil dumping.

So my question is: what follow-up action, if any, has the Ministry of Environment taken to protect the good citizens of the Cowichan Valley from this alleged illegal activity that I’m told by the CVRD is the responsibility of the provincial government?

[1555]

Hon. M. Polak: In general, we do encourage people in communities to report any illegal dumping that they’re aware of through the RAPP line. When that happens, we do investigate and we do follow up.
[ Page 6350 ]

I’m told that in the case of the concerns in the CVRD, over the summertime there was some sampling done at some of the sites of concern. I don’t have specific details with me, but our staff would be happy to follow up with you and let you know, and we can let the CVRD know, where we’re at in terms of proceeding to investigate the activities that are alleged.

B. Routley: Thank you for that, Minister. I’ll certainly accept that generous offer.

I would like to finish up by asking for a copy of the statutory decision-maker’s handbook. I went on line looking for such a thing. I thought maybe it would be posted and available. If I could get a copy of that, I’d appreciate that.

Hon. M. Polak: We’d be happy to provide that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve got a bit of a grab-bag of a few different questions which I’ll bop around, so I appreciate your understanding.

The first question regards something I asked about last year, which was a report into cumulative impacts of oil and gas activity in the northeast of the province. I know there was looking at water issues, air quality issues and so forth. I understand that that report is now about a year overdue.

I wonder if the Ministry of Environment has signed off on that report, approved it, reviewed it at this point.

Hon. M. Polak: The Ministry of Health is the lead on that. We’ve certainly been a part of it and participating, as have other ministries and other agencies. My understanding is that it is expected to be released in the next few weeks, but you can certainly canvass more specifics with the Minister of Health at that time.

Mr. Chair, I wonder if we might enjoy a ten-minute recess?

The Chair: This committee is recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: We’ve previously spoken about methane emissions from the gas sector in the northeast, about how some have said that B.C.’s emissions are way too low compared to other methane emissions in the Pennsylvania area on that side of the United States. I’m wondering: when has the latest independent monitoring of methane emissions been done in the northeast and by whom?

[1615]

Hon. M. Polak: There are a couple ways in which this is reported. Firstly, the provincial inventory report is based on the National Inventory Report that is produced by Environment Canada. We pull the B.C. data from there.

In addition to that, with respect to our own regulations in British Columbia, for over 25,000 tonnes, they must have their reports verified. So in their reporting to us, for over 25,000 tonnes, they must have those reports verified by an accredited verification body.

[1620]

With respect to leak rates from pneumatic devices, government and industry together conducted a joint study of those in 2013. It is an ongoing piece of work that we have to improve what’s happening with respect to the performance of pneumatic devices.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is the minister able to provide that study? It may be on a website that I haven’t been able to find. But I’m curious what the percentage is compared to other…. Are we better than other areas? Are we worse than other areas? Given the huge climate change impact of methane, I’d be interested in seeing that report.

Hon. M. Polak: Apparently, there is a vast amount of data available. I won’t attempt to read it into the record. What I will do is simply direct the member to our website. Then if you click on “Climate change” and then go to “GHG data and reporting,” I’m told there is a section on pneumatics and what data we understand from that.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We’ll recess until after division.

The committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: I was about to ask about the northeast and bringing in EPA standards and whether they’re the best technology standards for pneumatic devices in the gas production. I know there are high-bleed and low-bleed. They reduce the amount of methane. I believe it’s high-bleed.

It sounds confusing, but the natural gas star program is a program that the EPA has brought in, in the United States to reduce the amount of methane being put out into the atmosphere. Is the ministry considering bringing in technology standards for the sector to ensure that we’re getting the best technology and the lowest methane emissions in the northeast?

Hon. M. Polak: A long huddle for what will end up being a short answer, which is that any decision to consider some kinds of requirements around specific devices would be the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission. And that would be something to ex-
[ Page 6351 ]
plore with the minister responsible, which would be the Minister of Natural Gas Development.

S. Chandra Herbert: I asked the question because I thought, given climate change is certainly a big concern of this ministry, that this ministry might be making suggestions about ways to reduce methane emissions, as they do have policy support on that side. But I will take it up with that minister.

[1640]

I’m going to move on to a story in the media the other day. A man was fishing in the Vedder River, and he pulled up a fish full of plastic bits. He said that prior to that, he’d never seen anything like it except for one time when he pulled up a fish that had a cigarette butt in its guts.

I guess the question really is…. I’d raised with the minister the idea of banning plastic microbeads, a useless product that is used in cosmetics. There’s no need for it. It washes through the sewer system straight out into the ocean. It’s being found in humongous quantities. It’s used in toothpaste. It’s used in facial scrubs and other areas. There’s no need for it. There are natural ways to do that.

I know that some of the big producers are slowly moving to phase it out. However, not everybody is. I’m wondering if the minister is considering raising this with the Environment Ministers from across this country to add to the list of things that should not be allowed in our products. There is no need for it, and continuing to allow it to go through is just allowing more pollution to end up in our waterways.

Hon. M. Polak: Our ministry has been in communication with the federal government, in fact. I’m advised by my deputy that he has had direct communications with the federal deputy of Environment.

The federal government is currently studying the issue to consider whether or not they take national action. It’s our view that the federal government would be best to establish consistent national rules around this because they are responsible, of course, for product standards and trade.

It is a challenging issue in part because it’s not just the items that the member identified, but also, of course, there is widespread use in biomedical products as well as health science research. Nevertheless, we have been advised by Environment Canada that as they acquire more information, they may, in fact, consider addressing this through their chemical management plan.

We are in communication with the federal government. It is something that we are concerned about, and we will continue to encourage them to take action from the federal level.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate that it has been raised at the federal level. I’d specifically focused on cosmetic use of it, because I know there are other uses, many other uses, which don’t end up in the waste stream going out into our waterways.

I would ask for a timeline, but with the federal government you never can tell if they’re going to act at all. Often they say they are, and we’re still waiting for oil and gas regulations around climate change — I don’t know how many years — five, six, seven years after they first promised them. So I won’t ask that question. I do think the province could act on this if they wanted to.

The next question is…. The European Union has just moved to phase out flimsy plastic bags by 2020. They’ve decided that ending up in the landfill, the use of the oil product, the fact that many plastic bags end up in our oceans as well after only one use is just not a good thing. I’m wondering if the ministry is considering looking at the issue of plastic bags, looking at the issue of raising it at the federal level as well or considering its own action.

[1645]

Hon. M. Polak: We have no current plans to proceed with the control or ban of the use of plastic bags. We are certainly encouraged to see that there is increasing use of cloth reusable bags and also that many companies are now offering recycling. Large grocery store chains, etc., allow you to bring back plastic bags that you’ve used.

S. Chandra Herbert: There’s a movement to enshrine the rights to a healthy environment — clean air, clean water, clean land. Most notably, I believe Richmond, Burnaby, Vancouver, Victoria and a number of municipalities in British Columbia are now signing onto this, arguing that we as a province and, indeed, we as a country need to adopt standards to have the right to a healthy environment with legal protections, with legal ability of citizens to take their governments to court should the government not be responsible in protecting all of our natural resources. Real calls for legislation are starting to build.

Has the minister heard anything about this movement? Is she interested? Would she consider this in a positive light, with the possibility of introducing legislation to give everybody that right to protect their environment, should their government not be taking care of it in the future?

Hon. M. Polak: We, of course, as the Ministry of Environment, take very seriously our responsibility to protect the environment of British Columbia, not only for the sake of our ecosystems, but also for health and human safety and enjoyment.

[1650]

Having said that, we are not considering legislation of that kind. It would be my view — not being a constitutional lawyer — that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms adequately protects the rights of individuals to be able to enjoy their lives in healthy surroundings.
[ Page 6352 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Both Ontario and Quebec have such legislation and have had such legislation for quite a number of years. I urge the minister, through her staff, to look at what improvements those have made for citizens in those provinces and look at how valued that legislation is in those provinces. I think it is worthy of consideration, and I hope the minister will keep an open mind on this suggestion.

I want to ask about cosmetic pesticides. The Premier had promised that we would ban cosmetic pesticides in this province for health, arguing, I believe, that she didn’t want her child to be playing on a lawn covered in pesticides — that it would not be good for his health.

However, the government moved to not ban pesticides after she became Premier and said they would bring in regulations, which, to my view, are very weak — and very weak to the Canadian cancer association as well, insofar as to be almost meaningless.

I would like to ask when all the regulations will be brought into force, such as they are.

Hon. M. Polak: There is an important part of the storyline that we also need to remember, and that is that an all-party committee also considered how to approach this. The regulations that were developed as a result were based, in large measure, on the recommendations from that committee. We anticipate that the regulations would be implemented in the spring of 2016.

S. Chandra Herbert: What proportion of the submissions received during the comment period on the regulations stressed that government should return to its original position of banning cosmetic pesticide use?

[1655]

Hon. M. Polak: We don’t have that breakdown here with us, but a summary of the comments that were provided in the submissions from 2013 are still up on our website.

S. Chandra Herbert: For a healthy environment, we need healthy bees. One of the big concerns that people have raised are neonicotinoids. I know I’ve canvassed this issue with the minister in the past, and I just wanted to ask: has the ministry done any science itself, or are they relying on any science, to come up with a policy around neonicotinoids and how they might impact bee populations in this province?

Hon. M. Polak: We have not conducted our own. We are certainly, though, keenly interested in the outcome of the federal government’s review through Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency. We understand that the status…. They will be providing an update to the public about the status of that evaluation sometime in 2015 and 2016.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister will know, of course, that to get good policy requires, in many cases, good comment from people — comments, suggestions, the public. Gone are the days where we have a small group of experts and nobody else has anything to offer. Indeed, now there are many opinions, and many people have access to information in a way they never had before.

However, citizens are often — or have been, in this province — faced with what are called SLAPP suits, strategic lawsuits against public participation, particularly around environmental projects. In Kinder Morgan’s case, they took on a bunch of Burnaby citizens. They’ve now since withdrawn but threatened them with incredibly high legal bills.

I wonder if the minister has any opinions on legislation to stop those kinds of suits, as they limit the public’s ability to be involved in improving our environment.

Hon. M. Polak: The Ministry of Environment would play no role in those considerations. He should likely canvass that with the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General.

D. Donaldson: I have a question relating to the environmental assessment office budget and a specific example of what I’ll be alluding to in the overall picture.

Basically, as the minister knows, the environmental assessment office budget flatlined, stayed at about $11.6 million. There’s been no increase from last year, yet oversight on billions of dollars’ worth of projects is still part of the role of the environmental assessment office.

In the northwest her government, through this ministry and the environmental assessment office, have issued environmental assessment certificates approving pipelines, proposed LNG facilities and mines, for example. Some of these certificates were opposed by First Nations in the northwest, and non-aboriginal residents. But for those who did support them, and for any fair-minded person, the province at a minimum….

[1700]

People in the northwest have a reasonable expectation that a project that receives a certificate will be monitored by this government to ensure compliance with the conditions. These conditions are to reduce risk, as the minister knows. So it’s all about trust. That’s the job of the environmental assessment office — to monitor, after the certificate is issued, to ensure compliance. There’s been a big increase in environmental assessment certificates issued, but no additional budget in the environmental assessment office for compliance and monitoring.

As the minister knows, there was a problem pointed out by the Auditor General in a report a few years ago. I’ll quote from that report. “The EAO’s oversight of certified projects is not sufficient to ensure potential significant adverse effects are avoided or mitigated.” I recognize
[ Page 6353 ]
that that report was from 2011. There was some attempt to address the Auditor General’s comments at that point. Part of the response from the ministry that this minister is in charge of was that other staff — for instance, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations compliance and enforcement staff — could take on some of that monitoring. But in this budget, we see the compliance and enforcement under FLNRO is reduced.

I have a specific example that relates to this budget question. It deals with the Wet’suwet’en, the Office of the Wet’suwet’en, which represents the hereditary chiefs. In 2008 the Pacific Trail pipeline was issued an environmental certificate by this government, and it crosses a large portion of the Wet’suwet’en traditional territories. Subsequent to that certificate in 2014, just in the fall, the ministry found that there were a number of areas of non-compliance by Pacific Trail Pipelines in regards to the mitigative measures, the compliance measures that were set out in the certificate.

They entered into a compliance enforcement agreement with Pacific Trail Pipelines on those conditions that weren’t being met. But the conditions and the certificate…. There were over 400. Many of them were found to be in compliance. Pacific Trail Pipelines was found to be in compliance. However, the difficulty that the Wet’suwet’en have — and I think it’s a reasonable request — is that the over 400 conditions are simply a checklist. Pacific Trail Pipelines is the receiver of their certificates. It says: “Yes, we’ve done this.” There’s no ability for the Office of the Wet’suwet’en to determine what the compliance actually meant. What did Pacific Trail actually do on the ground to comply? What they’re requesting is that the environmental assessment office release the audit, the administrative inspection that the ministry used to determine how Pacific Trail Pipelines was in compliance with many of the 400 conditions. A reasonable request.

That request was made back in November. It’s been over three months now, and they haven’t received that information from the ministry. They haven’t received the information from the administrative inspection, the audit where the ministry determined Pacific Trail Pipelines was in compliance. Again, it’s a matter of trust, and that’s a long delay. We know that the environmental assessment office hasn’t had a budget lift to do the monitoring function that is required of them and that creates trust in the public that somebody is keeping an eye out on this.

My question to the minister is: why did she not ask for…? Considering the importance of the project to the provincial budget that this government talks about, why was she not successful in getting a budget increase from Treasury Board for the environmental assessment office? Will she, at least, commit to getting the audit into the hands of the Wet’suwet’en as soon as possible?

[1705]

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of the budget for the environmental assessment office, we have received a lift. In fact, last year we received a lift of $2.96 million, and we believe that that has met the need that we have to respond to increasing workload.

With respect to the request of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en, we anticipate being able to provide that to them by the end of this month. We do, because of administrative fairness, need to provide the company with the ability to view that information before it’s sent out. But again, we anticipate being able to provide that to them by the end of the month.

The Chair: The member for Port Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair, and a pleasure to see you chairing this committee.

I have a couple of questions for the minister on two different topics. They’re local questions, so if the minister is not able to answer today, I fully understand, as long as she commits to get the information back to me. That’s why I’m asking.

First question. It’s been almost ten years now since the creation of Pinecone–Burke Mountain provincial park, probably one of the best provincial parks in the Lower Mainland, in the Tri-Cities. We are an area that is rapidly growing in terms of population, and, as a result, our regional parks are very well used. There’s increasing interest in the use of our provincial parks that are close to us, and Pinecone–Burke Mountain is that park for us.

My question to the minister is: are there any plans in the ministry in terms of upgrades to Pinecone Lake–Burke Mountain park to make it more accessible to people, whether it’s trail development, whether it’s the ability to access some of the remoter areas of the park, such as Boise Creek, off Pitt Lake? That’s the first question to that. The second question: is there also a long-term plan in terms of improvements to the Pinecone Lake–Burke Mountain provincial park?

Hon. M. Polak: As the member anticipated, I don’t have that level of detail with respect to our parks capital plan, but we will endeavour to provide an answer.

M. Farnworth: Again, the second question is a local issue. It has broader provincial implications. As the minister is aware, like her own riding of Langley, Port Coquitlam and the Tri-Cities is one of the key growth areas in the Lower Mainland, and a lot of that development is impacting on salmon streams.

We have guidelines in place around fish-bearing streams in terms of setbacks and the like. But as we’ve seen in some of the streams within my area, my community and in the neighbouring communities, there have been changes in terms of the hydrology. In fact, some of the streams have a tendency now to dry out in
[ Page 6354 ]
the summer, which impacts, of course, young salmon.

One of the things that has happened in the past has been provincial funding for the drilling of wells on those streams to ensure that there is year-round water supply that results in appropriate water flows for salmonid fry that are in those streams.

[1710]

What I want to know is: is that program still in place? Is the ministry still providing or able to provide funds for that kind of salmonid enhancement and protection?

As we’re seeing increased development on Burke Mountain, in particular, one of the issues that is concerning is: is there going to be enough water in some of those streams, particularly some of the smaller ones, where there has been…? Because it has been untouched now for so long, there is considerable salmon potential in those streams. We want to make sure that if there is an impact, the ministry has an ability to remediate some of that.

Hon. M. Polak: From what we can gather from the question, staff advise that in terms of the efforts around well-drilling analysis like that, it would likely be through the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry. Salmonid enhancement would be federal, in any case, so it’s not something that we would necessarily be able to respond to, unless maybe there are more specifics that might guide us.

If the member wishes, though, we could certainly pursue the question with our counterparts in FLNRO and try to determine an answer.

M. Farnworth: There are two projects where the province has participated in the past. One is Scott Creek, where there was a well that was drilled. The province participated in that. The other was a creek called Maple Creek. These were in the late ’90s. Now, they may well have been part of an infrastructure program, and we do have the Building Canada fund. So if there’s the opportunity to access funds through that shared basis….

But there are examples in the past where the province has either by itself or in participation done that kind of activity. I would encourage the minister to look into that, because for a very inexpensive sum of money, you can have a considerable impact on community environment protection, particularly around salmonid enhancement.

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you. That helps to have some greater specificity. We’ll pursue that and get back to you with an answer.

G. Holman: I had a few questions regarding MMBC for the minister, specifically with regard to recycling depots in the southern Gulf Islands — just to follow up on questions we’ve had in the House. Also, the minister was good enough to have a brief conversation with me about my concerns there.

I want to, for the record…. I think we might possibly be moving in a positive direction here, but I want to make sure that the minister is aware that the incentive for rural depots offered by MMBC is on a different basis. It’s on a per-tonne basis. It’s not on a per-household basis, whereas I think the minister before thought that the incentives were on the same basis, the per-household basis. It’s a different formula.

The minister is also clearly aware now, I’m sure — and I just want to confirm this for the record — that both the Southern Gulf Islands Recycling Coalition and the CRD estimate that the incentives for rural depots only cover a fraction of the operating costs of rural depots in the southern Gulf Islands.

I just want to confirm for the record that the minister clearly understands (a) that the funding formula is different than for blue box and (b) the concern that the current incentive offered by MMBC only covers a small part of operating costs.

[1715]

Hon. M. Polak: The difference in terms of per tonne versus per household has to do with the calculation that MMBC undertakes in order to determine what amount the community will get in terms of an incentive. In the case of the CRD, they receive now approximately $5 million annually that they did not receive before. In the meantime, their depot services have not changed. Their costs for operating depots have not changed.

It is our expectation that when communities receive incentives like that, they will continue to operate in the way that they have in the past. If depot costs were in excess of revenues that were received — in the case of other stewardship programs, for example — those costs have been traditionally covered by the CRD. My understanding is that as a result of staff working with all of the parties to clarify how this operates, there is a recommendation coming forward to the CRD that they would continue to fund in the same manner that they had before.

MMBC doesn’t directly fund the depots. What they do is use the per-tonne amount to calculate. The CRD used a per-household amount to calculate. In the end, though, the CRD is still $5 million better off. Providing the same services that they were before, they are $5 million better off than prior to MMBC providing them that incentive.

[1720]

G. Holman: This is a little bit more complicated than I was anticipating. The point that myself, CRD and the depots are trying to make is that because the funding formula is different, the fact that the CRD gets X million dollars…. Virtually all of that is for the blue box program. There’s a different incentive that MMBC pays for rural depots. It’s as clear as that.

So the fact that CRD is getting $5 million to cover both blue box and the rural depots is still…. They’re still
[ Page 6355 ]
several hundred thousand dollars short in terms of funding for the depots. The funding is not in one big package. There’s an incentive for blue box, based on per household, and there is incentive for rural depots based on per tonne.

The point that we’ve been trying to get through to the minister is that the funding formulas are different. Rural depots are still from MMBC, which is responsible for at least the 3P recycling in British Columbia. That’s their responsibility. The funding for rural depots is short.

I don’t want to belabour or go round and round the mulberry bush on that, because I thought that in the House…. My understanding was that the minister was indicating that, while there were some bumps in the road, she was willing to try and work through the issue with stakeholders. And that’s where I wanted to go with this, as opposed to getting caught up on the technicalities of funding formulas — although I am a little bit concerned that the minister is still sort of melding the two together when they’re actually separate formulas that leave depots short.

Where I wanted to go with the question was…. My colleague from Saanich South and I will have some additional questions on MMBC later. I’m sure you’re pleased to know that. We have sat down with MMBC and asked them for their cost estimates for rural depots. How did they come up with that rural incentive, which, I’m pretty sure, applies across British Columbia regardless of the area? How did you come up with the numbers? Can you show us those numbers?

Mr. Langdon of MMBC was a little bit coy in his response. He seemed to suggest that, yeah, we could see those numbers.

What I wanted to ask the minister was: can we get all the parties in the room, including your staff, MMBC, CRD and the depots? Let’s look at those numbers. I’ve actually mentioned this to staff in the briefing we had with MOE before. Let’s sit down, compare those numbers, understand where MMBC is getting its formula for rural incentives and talk it through, so we’re at least on the same page in terms of understanding where the numbers came from.

Can you play a role, Minister…?

The Chair: Member, everything is through the Chair. You’re not directing your comments to the minister.

G. Holman: Through the Chair, can the minister play a role in ensuring that MMBC will come to the table, that your staff will come to the table with all of the stakeholders, talk about those numbers and come to an understanding about where MMBC is getting this inadequate incentive for rural depots?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll go back to front. I would be happy to facilitate a discussion like that. It would probably be helpful.

With respect to the funding, though, it’s not a matter of us not understanding the different calculations. MMBC doesn’t go into a community and calculate what the costs of that particular community’s program might be. Good reason for that. There are different levels of service all across the province. So what they do is calculate an average. In the case of depots, it’s on a per-tonne basis. In the case of a blue box program, it’s per household.

[1725]

So they would look at the CRD. They would base the calculation of their incentive on how many tonnes are going to depots and how many households are involved in blue box. On the basis of that, they calculated that the incentive was $5 million.

It is not paid to CRD in discrete pockets, where: “Here’s a portion for depots. Here’s a portion for blue box.” They are paid $5 million. The CRD, then, has complete discretion with respect to how they utilize that $5 million.

As I said, through the work that my staff, together with CRD staff, have done, there is a recommendation, as I understand it, coming forward to the CRD for them to continue the same funding pattern that they had with respect to depots in the past — which was that where there was a deficiency, the CRD would cover that.

G. Holman: I want to thank the minister for that response. That would be helpful. I won’t belabour the debate about the numbers today, but I think it would be really useful if everyone could sit around the table and talk about how they arrived at it.

One other question before my colleague wants to broach some larger issues around MMBC. The recycling target for British Columbia of 75 percent. I want to make sure I understand. Does government, does the ministry, establish that target? Or does MMBC establish the target?

Hon. M. Polak: The ministry is responsible for setting the diversion rate targets, and then the steward organizations, whichever they might be, are responsible for submitting a plan, which we then review and approve in order for them to meet those diversion targets.

G. Holman: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

The concern that I have and the rural depots within the CRD have is that that 75 percent target, which is provincewide, could…. You could have rural depots essentially shut down in the CRD, throughout the CRD, and you could still make that target. So this is the concern about the target being established provincewide. Maybe I’m not understanding that, but this is the concern, and it does go back to the funding formula.

If MMBC can achieve the 75 percent target and still underfund rural depots, at least in our view, they’ve met their obligation, leaving rural depots out in the cold. That’s the concern, and I wonder if the minister could respond to that.
[ Page 6356 ]

Hon. M. Polak: The diversion target is not the only target that they must meet. They also must achieve 84 percent of households being served by blue box and depot.

I should also point out that in terms of the funding that is provided to CRD, that would have been negotiated between CRD and MMBC. So that would already be set as an agreement between the two of them.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

Yeah, it is true that the CRD did sign an agreement, but it was a temporary agreement with MMBC. The understanding was pretty explicit that CRD would step in and make up the funding difference for a period of time. That’s the basis upon which they came to that agreement with MMBC.

[1730]

It wasn’t intended as a long-term arrangement. CRD was deliberately stepping in to top up the funding but still ultimately feel that MMBC is responsible for funding recycling in British Columbia and that the CRD should not have to do that.

Just one final question, and I’ll pass it over to my colleague. My understanding is MMBC will not be reviewing its incentive till 2017. Do I have that right?

If I do have that right, and as a result of the meetings that may now occur with the ministry hoping to facilitate getting the stakeholders together…. If it actually turns out that depots are being underfunded — or any other major issue that might come up — is the minister, the ministry, willing to direct MMBC to reconsider its incentive packages before that 2017 date, if there’s an obvious inequity that comes up as a result of discussions?

Hon. M. Polak: The agreements that are made between local governments and MMBC are the business of the parties that enter into that agreement. I have no authority to direct either MMBC or a local government with respect to how they’re going to behave in that contractual relationship.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

I don’t know if they are planning a general review of their incentives. I do know that the contracts they sign are five-year contracts. So in that sense, there may be a review of a contract when five years’ time is up.

But let’s not forget that the CRD is providing the same service they were providing before MMBC. The only difference is they’re now receiving $5 million to assist them with that program.

It’s also important to remember that MMBC represents one producer group, that for packaging and printed paper, whereas the recycling services — depots, for example — are operating and receiving other types of materials, as well, from other stewardship groups. So the $5 million, again, is additional, new, money for the CRD providing the same service that they were before.

L. Popham: To begin my questions about MMBC, I first would like to ask about the managing director, Allen Langdon. I requested that Mr. Langdon be here to assist with answering questions, and my request was denied. I’m wondering if the minister can explain why.

Hon. M. Polak: MMBC is a stewardship organization, a member-driven organization. They are not under contract to government. They don’t receive government funds.

Estimates is a process whereby those who are responsible for government programs are here to assist the minister in answering questions. It would be not appropriate in estimates to bring an outside, independent not-for-profit into the estimates process.

L. Popham: In principle, I think I understand what the minister is saying, but it does raise some fundamental questions about transparency and accountability. MMBC is a B.C. society. It is compelling B.C. businesses to pay over $100 million, which is essentially a tax.

[1735]

Basically, at this point it’s a government-created monopoly. MMBC was approved a year before the regulations came in, creating a monopoly for this type of recycling. How can the public get answers to their questions regarding MMBC, which is regulated by the government, without having the opportunity for MMBC to be in the room?

The idea that the government doesn’t give MMBC any money — I’m not sure that’s completely true because the Ministry of the Environment is performing collections for MMBC. So in a roundabout way, they are getting money from government.

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to appearing at estimates, I can’t think of any example where a not-for-profit society fulfilling regulations would be appearing at estimates. It’s just not appropriate. They have no governance role. They are not responsible for taxpayers’ dollars. With respect to their contracts that they have with local governments, again, that’s the business of the stewardship organization and local governments. No one, no business is required to join MMBC.

Businesses are required under our regulation to deal with their obligations to dispose of or to provide for the appropriate disposal — in this case, recycling — of their materials. Just as MMBC came together as a producer group, a member-driven organization in order to provide that stewardship, any other group of producers could have formed up and submitted a plan and done the same thing. In fact, individual companies, if they were large enough, could also submit a plan and do the same thing. So there’s no obligation to sign up with MMBC.
[ Page 6357 ]
The obligation is to comply with the regulation.

In terms of compliance and enforcement, it’s no different than it would be for any other regulation under EPR. If there is a steward — and this would be the same in the case of tires or paint; you could go down the list — if they were not able to show the Ministry of Environment that they were in compliance, either on their own or through a stewardship agency to whom they pay fees or are a member of, then we would be enforcing compliance.

L. Popham: Well, currently the only way to comply is by signing up with MMBC.

Hon. M. Polak: Unless they want to form their own group.

L. Popham: Okay, so acknowledging the minister’s comment, they could form their own group. I don’t think there are any groups that have been approved at this point. MMBC is the only show in town at the moment. When we’re trying to figure out if this regulation is working, it would be very helpful to be able have answers to questions that I believe the minister is going to tell me need to be directed toward MMBC. But I going to give it a shot.

How much money did MMBC generate in fees from businesses in 2014?

Hon. M. Polak: The purpose of estimates, though, is to question the minister with respect to the ministry’s budget. MMBC has nothing to do with the ministry’s budget. They don’t take money from us. They don’t provide revenues to us. Estimates is not the only avenue for asking questions, but it is an avenue for asking questions about the Ministry of Environment budget.

[1740]

It is a question that you would have to pose to MMBC.

L. Popham: How many FTEs are involved with MMBC?

Hon. M. Polak: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Could I just ask: do you mean with respect to employed by MMBC, or do you mean ministry staff involved in EPR?

L. Popham: Ministry staff involving themselves….

The Chair: Member, if I can…. Through the Chair, and so we hear, on record.

L. Popham: With regards to ministry staff working on issues around MMBC.

Hon. M. Polak: In our extended producer responsibility program we have 12 FTEs, and approximately five of those are directly involved with assisting through the implementation of MMBC’s operations.

L. Popham: Is work being undertaken by the ministry to help MMBC collect fees?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes. Over the last several months we have engaged in an effort for compliance and enforcement, which has resulted in bringing an additional 163 producers into compliance.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me how many collection letters have been sent out from the Ministry of Environment to businesses that should be in compliance?

Hon. M. Polak: I don’t have the number of letters, but we can certainly get that information for you. The way it works is that we send an initial advisory letter that lets the producer know of their obligations and our belief that they should be responsible under the regulation. Then, based on their response…. Sometimes producers respond with evidence that, in fact, they should not be captured under the regulations. Sometimes that’s correct. Sometimes they’re not correct. In the case where they still remain in non-compliance, they are then sent a warning letter advising of the consequences under the regulation of not being in compliance.

L. Popham: I’ve received quite a few copies of those letters that have been sent out. Mostly it’s when businesses contact me because they’re quite upset with the tone of the letter, and mostly it’s because they either hadn’t understood what they were supposed to do, or they didn’t agree with the way that MMBC was making them do it. Then the Ministry of Environment steps in with quite an aggressive letter.

For a business that’s struggling to begin with, it can be an extremely excruciating experience. That’s the feedback that I’m getting, and I’m very concerned.

[1745]

I’m going to wrap up my line of questioning because we have other members that want to ask questions. But one of the issues that I think needs to be reviewed…. I think with MMBC there are many issues. A lot of what has come forward with MMBC is about the issue of fairness, accountability and transparency. This is one example of that.

The Ministry of Environment is demanding franchisees to pay into MMBC, but many independent businesses don’t. This puts franchisees at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. The materials in question are exactly the same. The volumes of recyclables are the same, and the impact on the environment is the same. Yet the Ministry of Environment treats them completely differently.

My question is: why is the Ministry of Environment creating winners and losers in the marketplace in a totally arbitrary way?

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to franchisees, the approach that the province has taken in the regulation is
[ Page 6358 ]
to target the parent corporation and not the individual franchisee owners. Now, that can be affected by the franchise agreement that might be in place. Again, that’s a business-to-business arrangement. Our target is the parent corporation.

I should just remind members that, with respect to the impact on business in British Columbia, the member will know that we took action early on together with MMBC to ensure that our small businesses were not negatively impacted, in particular, by regulating an exemption for low-volume producers and then assisting with the development of some standard fees that involved no administrative reporting obligations.

In the end, the regulation around packaging and printed paper will cover less than 1 percent, or about 3,000 of the province’s 385,000 businesses. So the vast majority of businesses in British Columbia are not impacted by this. But our target in terms of franchisees and franchises is the parent corporation.

L. Popham: Well, that might be true, but the parent corporation is often divvying up those fees and putting it onto the franchisees. Those are the letters that I’m getting. I’m surprised that the minister isn’t getting those letters as well.

From the start what I’ve tried to make very clear is that MMBC has created a lot of unintended consequences for businesses in B.C. It includes businesses that are just trying to operate day to day. It also includes the businesses that are in the business of recycling. There has been a lot of damage that’s been done.

My request to the minister, through the Chair, is that we take a step back from MMBC and look at the unintended consequences on a greater level and see what’s being done and, at the same time, make sure that MMBC is made to be more transparent and more accountable so that the businesses that are being affected can at least get some answers and an explanation why they are being affected so dramatically.

I have put forward a letter to the Auditor General asking for a review of this program. I think it would be great if the minister would support that request. I don’t think that there should be any problem with a review, if everything’s on the up and up. I think MMBC fails to answer a lot of really important questions.

There are businesses that are currently in trouble. I’m getting that feedback all the time. I would be very happy to forward that to the minister, and perhaps we can sit down and review the businesses being affected. It’s not just one type of business. It’s starting to be a variety of businesses across the province.

Hon. M. Polak: I will just reinforce that we’re quite willing to sit down with the members and, certainly, with CRD, with the parties, with Allen Langdon, and engage in the discussion around some of the challenges that they’re facing. We have taken the approach, as we have done with other EPR programs, as they’ve evolved over the years, as problems arise…. We’re doing our best to help the communities and MMBC to solve them.

[1750]

Nevertheless, in terms of transparency…. MMBC is a not-for-profit. It’s established under and subject to all of the reporting conditions set out by the B.C. Society Act. Nevertheless, although they’re not required to do so, MMBC will be submitting and publishing independently audited financial statements as part of its annual report due on July 1, 2015.

V. Huntington: I’m going to be asking questions on the environmental assessment process surrounding Deltaport and terminal 2, if the minister wishes to ask her staff to change over.

Last year the minister and I had a brief discussion of how the province intended to approach the environmental assessment of Deltaport’s expansion, the terminal 2 expansion. I understand, and understood then from the minister, that the province was looking at what its jurisdictional interest and authority might be.

Subsequently, I have attended a briefing with the critic on the environmental assessment process the province intends to follow. In that the jurisdiction is thought to be resting within the dust, light pollution, traffic and noise issues predominantly, I wondered if I could ask a few questions on how the environmental assessment office intends to approach that during the assessment.

I’m interested in what baseline data the assessment office would be using in order to determine what the levels of impact might actually be as the expansion goes forward. In other words, the air quality — what baseline data are you using to determine the actual particulates and the broad spectrum analysis of the emissions related to port activity?

We know port activity has the most serious of all emissions, other than perhaps cement plants. Delta is very interested in how the province will be looking at that. Also, the baseline on light pollution — what are you using? Will you be using figures with and without both greenhouse light pollution and the ferry terminal pollution? How do you manage those baselines? Same with noise. What are the baseline noise studies that have been done by the province, independently from the port?

I have to say that I think that’s extremely important — knowing that the port development will also be accompanying the ferry terminal noises. There’s significant noise from port activity and traffic.

How is the province going to be looking at traffic expansion? Is it going to be just locally on the causeway or through the region?

I recognize that’s going to take a bit of talk, but I only have two questions here.

[1755]

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll try to uncomplicate it. It’s probably easier to begin with how we envision the process unfolding. We will be relying on the data collected by the federal government in their process. However, that is only to ensure, if there is the same report required by both agencies, that we’re not asking them to do that report twice.

In the case where we were to find that there were deficiencies…. For example, the member listed air quality, light pollution — baseline data around those, including greenhouse, ferry noise, traffic expansion. If in any of those cases — which we, by the way, agree are essential to the analysis — the federal government process was deficient in providing that data, or if indeed, they didn’t look at certain of those aspects, then we would step in and we would conduct our own analysis. If the data was insufficient, then again, we would step in and conduct our own analysis.

In terms of the baseline data, when we are engaging in that analysis, we require the company to do that research. The proponent has to provide us with their baseline data, and then we examine that to ensure that it is sufficient and that it is accurate. If it is not, we send them back to do a more thorough job. But we then would use that baseline data to conduct our own analysis if, in fact, the federal government data collection and reporting process does not provide that sufficiently.

V. Huntington: I expected that answer, but I wonder if the minister would be able to ask her staff if I could have a detailed account of what you’re looking for or have asked the federal government, the port, to provide in terms of the baseline data you’re interested in.

I’d like to know what level of air quality study is being anticipated, what the levels are, how thorough the analysis of emissions is. I’m concerned that that has not been done with the thoroughness that it needs to be done. I don’t know how the province can sufficiently understand what the future is going to be unless they have determined precisely what they need from the existing data or the existing situation. If it’s possible to get some of that detail required by the province, I’d certainly appreciate it.

In terms of provincial interest and impacts on other provincial interests — perhaps I should put it that way — I’m going to go through a series of them. I recognize that it may be difficult to answer, in this forum, with any thoroughness. So please, Minister, if you feel it would be better to give a written response, I’m perfectly willing to accept that.

[1800]

I believe that there are other provincial interests at stake here. I would like to know how the province intends to manage those or oversee those as the assessment goes forward.

Firstly, the expansion itself is contiguous to a wildlife management area. Basically, two areas are impacted immediately. I’d like to know what the province is looking for in terms of the port’s impact on that wildlife management area or whether that has been excluded from your jurisdiction because the expansion is considered to be outside of a provincial interest.

I’d like to know how the assessment office might be looking at the future of the ALR, given the port’s oft-stated interest in seeing the agricultural land reserve in proximity to the port developed as an industrial reserve.

The B.C. Rail mandate is to purchase and hold port-related lands. B.C. Rail holds a number of lands along Deltaport Way, which serves the causeway. I’d like to know how the province intends to look at whether or not the eventual use of those lands to serve the port is part of the assessment that you want to have or whether, again, you consider that to be a cumulative impact that is not in the provincial interest or jurisdiction at this point; i.e., because the province holds lands and the mandate of B.C. Rail is to acquire and hold lands for port development, does that interest the province in any way and its consideration of how the assessment unfolds?

The water lots. There are water lots, and the bottom of Georgia Strait is provincial. I believe the hydrology of the Fraser is probably significantly impacted by this proposed development, and I’d like to know how the province intends to look at the impact of the hydrological changes on provincial interests in the Georgia Strait and adjacent foreshores.

That kind of covers what I think are other provincial issues that I have not had a chance to discuss with the assessment office. I would like to know whether there is any interest in the assessment office in maintaining a watch on those issues. And if so, what are they looking for?

[1805]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to be clear — hopefully, this provides some comfort to the member — there is in no way a giving up of jurisdiction in this particular review. This does trigger our act and does trigger an environmental assessment. We will conduct that.

The way in which we are going about it, though, to avoid duplication in terms of asking for the same studies and same reports, is that we will be watching the federal process unfold. We have not gone to the federal government and said: “We’d like to see X, Y and Z.” What we will be doing is attempting to extract as much data as we can from the federal process, and where we see that it has not met our needs in terms of analysis, we can step in at any time and conduct our own analysis and require our own information from the proponent. We certainly will do that.

With respect to the other provincial interests, it’s not uncommon on projects for there to be a range of different ministries. I identified, for example, in the member’s list, FLNRO, Agriculture, Transportation. So while we wouldn’t necessarily be engaging around the wildlife management area, the ALR, the port sub, the water
[ Page 6360 ]
lots, if there were concerns that arose during the process, either raised by community or raised by other agencies, we work with those other agencies, as we do in any other EA process, to determine what level of analysis we need to undertake. So we don’t rule it in or out at this stage, and again, we watch to see what data unfolds.

With respect to the hydrology of the Fraser, the member, I’m sure, won’t be surprised to hear me say that that becomes a bit of a jurisdictional issue in terms of responsibility for fish, responsibility for foreshore, responsibility for navigable waters. But again, we intend to insert ourselves — and will — at any point where we have concerns and need further analysis.

Just as a point of perhaps better understanding, the same is true in terms of working with other agencies of government. When we evaluate a mine, for example, in the environmental assessment, we reach out to our counterparts in the Ministry of Energy and Mines and seek any information, expertise or, in fact, concerns from them about things they think we need to address in the environmental assessment process.

I hope that’s helpful.

G. Heyman: I note the time. I know my colleague from Vancouver–West End has a couple of questions remaining, so unless the answers are very short, I’d be quite happy to receive the answers in writing at some point in the future. But I’d like to enter the questions.

The first question is…. In the minister’s mandate letter for the coming year point 9 asks the minister to “work with the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training to deliver on our Growing Green Jobs plan to ensure resource sector growth spurs green technology innovation.” I’m interested in specifically what initiatives are underway currently or might be planned to be undertaken in the coming year.

[1810]

Then in the vote descriptions in the estimates. Under climate action, one of the support activities to be undertaken by the subvote on climate action is support for adapting to the impacts of climate change, as well as advising and supporting executive council and its committees on a number of issues but including clean energy. I’m wondering if the minister, at some date, could elaborate, specifically, on what measures and advice are being undertaken with regard to those two items.

Hon. M. Polak: I will just say, the answers probably wouldn’t be short, so we will endeavour to provide those to you after estimates.

S. Chandra Herbert: Given that we will have to shut down relatively soon, I will list the three questions. If they are long ones — the answers — I can totally get a response later.

I had a request from one of the other MLAs for an answer around which company got the contract to do the Prince Rupert airshed study. And at what point do we expect that will be made available to the public?

I was approached by a fellow whom I spoke with the Chair about up on Swan Lake Provincial Park. He wanted to know if B.C. Parks was going to have any opinion on the proposed drilling for gas underneath Swan Lake. Were they going to be involved? What was the minister going to do about this subject that they had a lot of interest in? I told him I would pass it on.

Finally, maybe this is an appropriate place to finish. I’ve been approached by many people about the application of biosolids, which some would call poop — not just poop but other things as well — in the Thompson-Nicola valley. “We’ll get to the bottom of it,” I told them.

Anyways, I will finish there. They’re very concerned, of course, about the smell and potential impacts on water supply; and that they didn’t know about it; that it has just arrived, they felt, in their neighbourhoods; and that they don’t have a say over it. Consultation concerns were raised, as well, with the First Nations in that community. There’s just a real concern that the process isn’t as rigorous and doesn’t protect their health as much as it should.

I will put those out there, and the minister can respond as she is able, but that will be my final question for tonight. I just want to thank the minister and her staff for their willingness to provide answers. I look forward to receiving information that the minister had committed to me in this process as well.

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll try to do all three as quickly as I can. I am going to try and go quickly, though, so if there is additional information the member would like, we’d be happy to pursue that outside of estimates.

For the Prince Rupert airshed study, it’s a company called Essa. We will receive the draft report at the end of March and expect to be releasing that in May.

With respect to Swan Lake and the drilling, there’s absolutely no risk to the lake. This will be horizontal drilling, and there are strict rules in place. Just as an example, steel casing and cementing are required to a depth of 600 metres in order to isolate any water sources from a natural gas well. Drilling at this location, though, would likely be more than 2½ kilometres deep, so no risk to the lake. This would be managed through the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. They regulate the entire life cycle of the well. I’m happy to provide some of the additional requirements that are placed on these companies.

I should also say that three wells already have been drilled to date under the park and the north end of the lake in 2008 and in 2010. There are four wells licensed and approved in this same area, and all of those have been drilled using directional drilling. They drill down quite a distance away and then go underneath.

In respect of biosolids in the Merritt area, the first and, I think, most important thing to make sure is understood for the public in the area is that, as a result of concerns
[ Page 6361 ]
that we’ve received from the area, applications in the Dry Lake area are not to continue. We have asked for additional information from the proponent.

[1815]

There are two different matters here. There is the matter of the composting facility, and then there’s the matter of the application. In the case of the composting facility, the Ministry of Environment is responsible for regulating the operations, ensuring that those operations are conducted safely. I have been on site. My staff have been on site a number of times in response to specific complaints. We have investigated and, to date, have not found concerns.

Specifically, with respect to concerns that there was leachate entering into the river, our staff have actually been on site, conducted testing and determined that this was not leachate. In fact, it was snowmelt.

Now, I recognize, though, that there are community concerns around this. Location is actually determined with respect to appropriateness on ALR land. There are regulations around that that the ALC enforces. That requires, for example, that 50 percent of the product be spread on the proponent’s own land. The other 50 percent, as I understand it from the proponent and as we are pursuing in discussions with them, is largely sold to golf courses, landscapers — those kinds of businesses.

Nevertheless, we are continuing to review the appropriateness of the application and whether or not their plan is sufficient. We are doing that in conjunction with the Interior Health Authority.

I have met with the leaders of the First Nation communities. We’ve committed to put together a group that will focus on the scientific analysis that we can provide to them, ensuring that we are able to give them confidence that they are not going to see their drinking water negatively impacted.

Vote 21: ministry operations, $118,122,000 — approved.

Vote 22: environmental assessment office, $11,610,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Votes 21 and 22 of the Ministry of Environment and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada