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, July 21, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 28, Number 6

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

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, joining us on the floor this morning from the Northwest Territories is Robert Hawkins, the MLA for Yellowknife Centre.

Welcome.

Tributes

MAYWELL WICKHEIM

J. Horgan: It’s with great sadness that I rise to inform the House of the passing of Sooke pioneer resident Maywell Wickheim. Maywell reached the tender age of 90 years before passing this weekend.

[1005]

Maywell will be remembered by many in British Columbia for his pioneering work as a logger, a business person, a marine operator and historian. He also was a gardener, and he cultivated the community garden ethic and mentality in Sooke. He established the Kludahk Trail, and those who have had the good fortune of hiking in the Sooke Hills will remember with fondness Maywell’s trails.

He was a great man, a wonderful man. He will be severely missed by the people of Sooke. I would ask this Legislature if we could pass on our best wishes to the family and the people of Sooke who have lost a gentleman, a scholar and a fine British Columbian.

Madame Speaker: It will be done.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Coleman: I have a couple of introductions today. We’re joined in the House today by Don and Dustin Stirling of Fort St. John, the president and vice-president of Epscan Industries.

Epscan has been involved with electrical instrumentation, oil and gas and other resource industries for over 35 years. They currently have operations in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. They pride themselves in their strong family values and have a long history of training and hiring local talent. They currently employ 150 people and have been responsible for putting thousands of individuals through apprenticeship training programs over the three decades of operations. Would the House please make them welcome.

I’m not done. [Laughter.]

Madame Speaker: You have the floor, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: We’re also joined today — and I know that the Minister of Health is anxious to get up to make his introduction, and I will welcome it in a minute — by a very talented, gifted and hard-working individual who actually is my constituency assistant. She does a great job on my behalf, keeping the trains running and the office in order and doing a lot of things locally that sometimes I’m not able to get to in my constituency. Jennifer Mamone joins us today.

Hon. T. Lake: It’s a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today and introduce Robert Scherf, someone that is well known to many of my colleagues here today.

Rob was my constituency assistant in Kamloops in 2010, and his love for politics brought him here to Victoria where he started working for government caucus. He served many positions, including assistant legislative assistant, legislative assistant and, finally, executive assistant in the Whip’s office.

He left Victoria in 2013 to finish his masters of public policy at the University of Toronto, where I got to visit him on one occasion. In his spare time, Rob enjoys a long list of hobbies, including the cello, scuba diving, archery and squash, although I never got him to take up soccer.

Rob took time out of his busy schedule to work on my campaign in 2013, for which I’m very grateful. I would like the House to join me in please welcoming Rob Scherf here today.

B. Ralston: I have an introduction to make. Yousef Barakat is the founder and president of the Canadian Arab Forum.

A former diplomat, he emigrated to Canada in 2010. He’s also a community leader who advocates and encourages the greater involvement of the Canadian-Arabic and Muslim communities in community and political life here in British Columbia. Many MLAs will already know him, and he’s also known to many Members of Parliament. Please welcome Yousef Barakat to the Legislature.

Hon. S. Bond: It’s not often in the Legislature we have more than one individual to introduce from Fort St. John, but apparently today is the day.

I am delighted to introduce Glen Lawrence. He’s the vice-president of operations for CCT Controls, which has its head office in Fort St. John. What is incredibly impressive about this company is that it is an electrical instrumentation automation service provider, and they have just continued to expand their services and their workforce over the years. The company started in 2006 with five people and has grown rapidly. It now employs 147 people.
[ Page 9120 ]

I know the House will want to join me in making Glen feel very welcome today.

M. Bernier: Today we’re joined in the House by Mr. Scott Pomeroy. Scott is the president, the CEO and co-founder of Continental Pipeline and Facility Ltd.

Continental has been a leading provider in pipeline facility construction in the oil and gas sector for over a decade, primarily in my part of the world, in northeastern British Columbia and northwest Alberta. They have their operations presently in Fort St. John. I’ll be talking to him about opening up in Dawson Creek afterwards too.

May the House please make them welcome. They’re here today to enjoy the discussion that we have on the floor, which is really important to northeast British Columbia.

[1010]

Hon. T. Wat: It’s my great pleasure to introduce my very good friend, my supporter and my constituent Phebe Chan. Phebe is a business and immigration lawyer with Richards Buell Sutton. Phebe connects Asian business with Canadian investments and business opportunities, specializing in business investment immigration as well as work permits for the technology and LNG industries.

Phebe is a policy advisory and advocacy committee member of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and a Pacific Gateway Committee member of the Burnaby Board of Trade. Would the House please join me in giving her the most warmest welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have the tremendous pleasure of introducing a constituent of mine, Geoff Mulligan, from Enerpro Systems, and a longtime friend from West Vancouver, John Moonen, who is also here, a friend of the House. They are coming to visit our Minister for Housing, so can we please make them welcome.

D. Plecas: Today in the House, sitting in the gallery beside good friend of the House Lynn Klein, we have Victoria resident and Island Health emergency room doctor Dr. Chuck Sun. Dr. Sun also holds faculty appointments at the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia. With over 40 years of service, he just may well be Canada’s longest-serving emergency room doctor.

Dr. Sun has played a particularly significant leadership role in a number of ways in his profession, improving patient health outcomes, how EMS providers play a key role in organ tissue recovery and donation, developing many of the advanced medical protocols employed by our world-renowned ambulance paramedics and introducing physician assistants to our Canadian medical system.

Would the House welcome Dr. Sun — or Chuck, as he likes to be known — to the House.

Tributes

LYLE KRISTIANSEN

N. Simons: I’d like to pay tribute to a former Member of Parliament and a constituent of mine who died this past June at the age of 76 in Sechelt. MP Lyle Kristiansen was elected in Kootenay West in 1980 and again in Kootenay West–Revelstoke in 1988, serving as the critic for mining, forestry, Canada Post and industrial health and safety.

It wasn’t a surprise that he became active in politics, considering his pedigree. His grandparents attended the founding convention of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. His parents met at a CCF social. He was delivered by Dr. Lyle Telford, later the CCF MLA and future mayor of Vancouver, the man he was named after. He and his beloved wife, Vera, were married in 1961 and honeymooned at the NDP’s founding convention in Ottawa.

Lyle took a great interest in preserving British Columbia heritage. He was instrumental in ensuring that Streetcar 23 and Capitol Theatre in Nelson were preserved. He also talked tirelessly about the need to consider the struggle of workers around the world and the importance of keeping them in our thoughts.

An avid student of Napoleon, he died on the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. As NDP leader Tom Mulcair told Lyle’s wife, Vera: “The strength and resilience of our party are thanks to people like Lyle.”

On behalf of this House, Madame Speaker, I would ask that you convey your condolences to the family on behalf of the House.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: British Columbia is blessed by many strong leaders in local government representing the province — 162 municipalities and 27 regional districts. These dedicated individuals serve their communities through elected offices as mayors, councillors, electoral area directors throughout British Columbia. Many of us in the House know the great importance of local government in our communities.

Today in the House we have two individuals who have made the commitment to serve their communities through their local government.

For over 20 years Dave MacDonald has served the district of Port Ed, first as councillor and now as mayor. It is no exaggeration to say that many people in the northwest of British Columbia think Port Ed and Dave MacDonald are synonymous.

Dave is a good friend of mine. We served on the North Central Local Government Association for many years together. I’m truly delighted to have him here in this House today and to hear the dialogue moving forward.
[ Page 9121 ]

[1015]

And Lee Brain is the 29-year-old first-term mayor of Prince Rupert — big ideas. He’s a fourth generation Rupertite, raised in the community. Lee has a background in working with youth at risk, First Nations and community sustainability. Lee’s facilitation experiences enhance his qualities as a leader who can bring people together in support of a healthy, prosperous community. I would like the House to join me today in welcoming these two fine local government leaders.

D. Eby: If my eyes don’t deceive me, I think I see the executive director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Jordan Bateman, up in the gallery. I’m sure he’s got some very serious questions about the extensive use of marble and ornate woodwork in this chamber. Could the House please join me in making him welcome today.

D. Ashton: It gives me great pleasure to welcome some young kids to the proceedings today. It’s always nice to see them come in. The three individuals that I know quite well are the best water-skiers and best tubers that I can think of. Please, would the House help me welcome Matthew, Katrina and Alexander Sweeney. They’re here with their mom and dad today, along with a good friend of theirs, Finn. Welcome to the House.

M. Elmore: I’d like to recognize Francis Pugsanhan, who is in class today but watching on TV. He’s a third-year political science student, very interested in politics, in government, from a young age. He’s studying Canadian federalism and geographies of transportation, and I recognize him also as a very keen potential young leader in our community. I would like everybody to please recognize him and give regards.

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to let the House know that one of my legislative assistants — very competent, well-liked and very much appreciated by me with the great work that she does — Emily Boon, is leaving us as of Thursday. She has served in this House for three years as an ALA, an LA and an outreach coordinator, and she will be truly be missed.

She’s moving on in a new chapter of her life with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, where she’ll do very well. I just wanted the House to congratulate her on her new adventure and to say goodbye and good luck from us in the chamber.

So thank you, Emily.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Somewhere in the House today is my new constituency assistant, Mr. Keivan Hirji. I think we convinced him not to come to the House because it’s too scary, but he’ll find his way sooner or later, and we look forward to working with him. Would the House please welcome him.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

COQUITLAM BLUE MOUNTAIN
GIRLS SOCCER TEAMS OF 1981

S. Robinson: The Coquitlam Sports Hall of Fame is a local celebration of our community athletes and their accomplishments. Developed as part of the Coquitlam Sports Centre renewal project in 2010, the Coquitlam Sports Hall of Fame provides a glimpse into our terrific achievements and legacies of our athletes and our community.

I recently attended the 2015 inductee ceremony, and there was one inductee that caught my attention. There were about 25 middle-aged women hugging each other and chatting together like long-lost friends. They were excited about the event and about the acknowledgment they were about to receive. These women were being celebrated because of their 1981 participation in soccer.

You see, Madame Speaker, back in 1981 there weren’t a whole lot of girls playing soccer, but that year there were three Coquitlam Blue Mountain girls soccer club teams — the Rangers, the Devils and the Royals — and they were at the forefront of an important step for girls’ soccer.

For the first time in the Vancouver Sun soccer tournament’s history, girls were invited to compete. The Sun tourney, at the time, functioned as a minor soccer provincial championship, with the winners featured prominently in the pages of the newspaper.

The Coquitlam club made a big statement that year, sweeping three of the top divisions. The Rangers won division 1, the Devils took division 2, and the Royals captured division 3. The first-ever Sun Soccer Girl, recognizing the tournament’s top girls player, was the Ranger’s Jane Norman, with the Royal’s Karen Daws the runner-up.

This Blue Mountain club would also fill out half of the all-star team that year. The sweep by the Coquitlam club was an instrumental part in the acknowledgment that girls’ soccer was deserving of serious consideration and strong representation in both time and funding.

Women in sport have certainly come a long way, and I was pleased to celebrate the tenacity and the commitment that these girls, now women, demonstrated 34 years ago by taking to the soccer pitch and playing just like girls.

[1020]

FIRST NATIONS TREATY PROCESS
IN CHILLIWACK-HOPE AREA

L. Throness: The Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation visited Chilliwack a few weeks ago to meet with SXTA, an association mandated by seven Stó:lō First Nations — many of them in my constituency — to negotiate treaties on their behalf. The minister sat with SXTA
[ Page 9122 ]
members for over an hour, talking about the treaty process and the path forward.

Grand Chief Joe Hall related the progress of negotiations and expressed a desire to move more quickly toward an agreement-in-principle. The federal negotiator was also present and willing to accelerate the process.

I much appreciated the minister getting personally involved to push the matter forward for my constituents. The minister, and I with him, agreed that we need to move more quickly toward an agreement-in-principle because treaties hold benefits for all parties at the table.

There are multiple benefits for First Nations, economic benefits in terms of cash, rights to land and resources and the tools for them to participate in our modern economy. For the broader community, treaties are ever more important in the wake of the Tsilhqot’in decision a year ago. Treaties not only provide certainty for First Nations but certainty for larger communities too.

In my riding some First Nations are reticent to join the treaty process. But in areas like Cultus Lake participation is important and time-sensitive. The pressure for development is growing along with the increasing popularity of Cultus Lake, and First Nations need to negotiate now to maximize their interests before other interests become embedded on the land.

I’m privileged to have 36 First Nations in my riding, and I will continue to encourage them to become involved in the treaty process in order to settle historic grievances, to enjoy the financial benefits of treaty, to get on with the business of growing and prospering their communities and to provide certainty for all concerned.

PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING

M. Elmore: July 30 is the second World Day Against Trafficking in Persons. We’re familiar with the brutal history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade that enslaved millions and has left us with repercussions today, from the underdevelopment of Africa to supporting the industrialization of Britain and the U.S. And we see that there are forms of modern-day slavery that exist.

The world day is a call to action to end this crime, to raise awareness and to send a message of hope to all its victims, who often live unrecognized amongst us. At any given time an estimated 2.5 million people are trapped in modern-day slavery. Men, women and children fall into the hands of traffickers both in their own countries and abroad, and Canada and B.C. are not immune to this.

We see domestic trafficking and Canada used as a country of origin, transit and destination for victims. Extreme poverty, entrenched inequality and lack of education and opportunity create the vulnerabilities that traffickers exploit.

We need to take steps to ensure that there are services for victims of human trafficking. These are often very complex cases that require resources for police investigation. We also need dedicated legal services, which we don’t have in B.C., for trafficked persons to bring their cases forward and, as well, provincial legislation regulating labour recruiters and employment agencies.

We see that temporary foreign workers are especially vulnerable to exploitation — live-in caregivers, nannies, seasonal agricultural workers and domestic workers with less than permanent status. The requirement for workers to be tied to one employer with an employer-specific work permit can also be abused by unscrupulous employers and traffickers.

We need to bring an end to the temporary foreign worker program that enables modern-day slavery by placing low-wage workers in a precarious immigration status and also bring an end to employer-specific work permits.

We see aboriginal youth particularly vulnerable. It’s also marked by the first screening of the Public Service Alliance that highlights labour trafficking in Canada by West Coast Domestic Workers Association, the office to combat trafficking in persons, so it’s a great opportunity.

HOMELESS CAMP IN MAPLE RIDGE

D. Bing: Yesterday we had the opportunity to debate the homeless camp located on Cliff Avenue in Maple Ridge. The government is committed to working with the city and all of our partners to provide a solution to the camp. This has been a difficult time for local residents and businesses located near the camp, and they should be recognized for their patience and understanding.

I would like to acknowledge the unwavering support of the Minister for Housing to work with me and my community on a plan to find people shelter. I have been working diligently behind the scenes for several months on this file. I have always believed that the solution lies in cooperation between various levels of government, non-profit agencies and the community at large.

[1025]

Yesterday I was pleased to announce in this House that the government of British Columbia is willing to fund a temporary shelter, provided the city of Maple Ridge finds a suitable location. I would like to acknowledge the mayor of Maple Ridge and thank city hall staff for their professionalism and for collaborating with me and ministry staff to make this solution possible. Staff at B.C. Housing should also be recognized for their efforts to find housing for people identified as homeless at the camp.

As we speak today, work is being done in Maple Ridge. Ten people have, so far, been moved into housing. Approximately 70 rent subsidies are now available for people at the camp through the homeless prevention program. I remain committed to working with all partners and the community to find solutions and to help those in need.
[ Page 9123 ]

SISTER-CITY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
BURNABY AND KUSHIRO

K. Corrigan: Earlier this month the city of Burnaby hosted a delegation from the city of Kushiro, Japan, led by Mayor Ebina, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of their sister-city relationship. It is one of the oldest such relationships, and I would note that the city of Vancouver also celebrated a 50-year anniversary with Yokohama, Japan, this year.

There are many similarities between Kushiro and Burnaby. Both are on water, both have rivers, and both love hockey. One of the highlights of the visit was the official dedication of Kushiro Park on Burnaby Mountain, in the riding of the member for Burnaby-Lougheed.

The park is also the location of the beautiful sculpture called Playground of the Gods, created by Ainu artists Nuburi Toko and his son Shusei, who actually came to Burnaby several years ago, for many months, to create the sculpture. Many first-time visitors are surprised that these beautiful totem-like structures are not created by First Nations.

Andrew Petter, Japanese Consul General Okada and many other dignitaries and members of the Japanese-Canadian community attended the park dedication and other events of the visit. Another highlight of the busy schedule was an event at the Nikkei centre, the beautiful Japanese-Canadian cultural and event centre that we are very proud to have located in Burnaby.

Sister-city relationships build economic, educational and cultural ties. I would note that the annual Citizen of the Year in Burnaby receives the Kushiro Cup, named in honour of the relationship. Sister-city relationships build trust and friendship, ties that can be building blocks for larger relationships between provinces and countries, and that brings benefit for all of us.

It was a very successful visit. Congratulations to the city for being such great hosts. The Burnaby delegation looks forward to continuing and strengthening the relationship when it visits Kushiro later this year.

PUBLIC POLICY AND
DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINTS

G. Hogg: Most of us know about Humpy Dumpty. He sat on a wall and subsequently had a great fall. But like so many mishaps, in life and in policy, there are many things that we don’t truly understand about Humpty — like how did he get in that precarious position anyway? What was he thinking? Why did he go up there, anyway? How did he get up there? It’s like so many of us who get into difficult positions and then wonder: “What was I thinking? How did I get into this mess?”

And why was it that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty back together again? I assume the king’s horses and the king’s men were pretty good at fixing things that didn’t go the way that was expected, so what was different about Humpty’s injury that was so challenging, that he couldn’t, even with help, get it together again?

It seems that our ideas about how things work can fail us. Humpty was, I assume, the only one on the wall. If so, he had a different vantage point from everyone else — or every egg else. I wonder if he knew that sharing similar views was part of being socially and intellectually acceptable? What if Humpty’s view was so different, yet correct, and everyone else’s view was wrong?

It seems that no one challenging the prevailing view of a group is deemed credible. Maybe the king’s horses and the king’s men didn’t tolerate different approaches and really didn’t want to save Humpty because he was just going to see things differently anyway.

It seems that to get agreement, Humpty should have presented information in a way that confirms rather than threatens his group’s values. He probably should have found some validators, experts with diverse views. Then, just then, perhaps he could have solved his differences. He should have focused less on facts and more on social meaning.

It seems that it’s only when we perceive that a policy bears social meaning congenial to our own values that we become receptive to evidence, because culture is cognitive prior to facts, and in policy disputes culture is political prior to facts as well.

[1030]

Humpty’s story has so much to teach us. Seeing the world from different points and different vantage points helps us to better understand ideas and to better understand each other.

Oral Questions

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY HANDLING OF CHILD PLACEMENT
CASE AND COURT ORDERS

J. Horgan: For several days in this House we’ve been asking the Minister of Children and Families why her ministry continues to disobey Supreme Court orders. As a result of the last incidence that we are aware of, an 18-month-old girl was put into the hands of a sexual predator.

I’d like to ask the Premier a few questions about that today. But before I get to it, I want to remind her of some of the words in the ruling that was received from the B.C. Supreme Court just last week. The judge said the following with respect to the ministry’s conduct: “Wanton and reckless and, at a minimum, grossly negligent” and “recklessly indifferent” and “intentional misconduct, bad faith, reckless disregard for their obligation to protect children.”

Now, we’ve been asking the minister about this issue and about whether she would take responsibility for her actions and the actions of her ministry, and she has refused to do that. So my question to the Premier is: based on what the Supreme Court has said, based on the com-
[ Page 9124 ]
plete absence of responsibility and accountability from the minister over the past three days, how can she have any confidence in this minister’s ability to do her first and foremost job — protect the children of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: In this case government has been confronted and British Columbians have been confronted with a set of facts that is absolutely heartbreaking. I know that the minister has acknowledged that in the House, and I want to add to that. I think it’s important that all of us remember that social workers go to work every day and do some of the hardest jobs — probably the hardest job — in the public service. They make very, very difficult decisions every day, and they do not ignore court orders.

In this case, there were two separate court orders which were conflicting. That adds to a very complicated job and makes it even more complex. The minister has said that her ministry is studying the judgment. It’s a 50,000 word judgment. It’s over 1,000 paragraphs. It’s a very long and complex judgment.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition always has a need for speed, and that, I think, is the nature of opposition. We also have a need and a duty to make sure that we do this right. This judgment was rendered last Wednesday, and the minister, the ministry, is taking the judgment and its words and comments very, very seriously. By the end of the week she’ll be in a position to confirm the next steps.

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

J. Horgan: Well, we have evidence in court judgments that say that the ministry disregarded court orders. We had a case just last January, a second case, of the ministry disregarding court orders. In fact, in that judgment, a separate judgment, the ruling went as follows: the Ministry of Children and Families “is in breach of an order of the British Columbia Supreme Court,” and “they are arguably in direct contempt of that order.”

Yesterday, under direct questioning, specifically to the policy and practice of the B.C. Liberal government to ignore court orders, the minister said that that was not the case. She said that people who work in the Children and Families ministry “do not ignore court orders.” Yet we have overwhelming evidence — 1,000 paragraphs, by the Premier’s count…. I’m glad that she was able to tote them up for us. We have direct evidence to the contrary of what the minister said yesterday.

In light of that fact alone, how can the Premier have any confidence in this minister’s ability to put children ahead of protecting her ministry?

[1035]

Hon. C. Clark: I will not join the member in concluding today that social workers in the Ministry of Children and Families routinely and regularly ignore court orders, and I will not join him in condemning their judgment and the way they render those judgments. It is a very difficult and complex job, as I said. I believe it is one of the most, if not the most, difficult jobs in the public service.

Social workers have a duty to make sure that they put the best interests of children first. They did, I’m sure, in this case think that they did that. But before we jump to conclusions about exactly what happened, we do need, as the minister said, to make sure that we structure a proper review. She’s in the course of doing that.

This very long and complex judgment was rendered last Wednesday. I understand that the member, for the purposes of question period, would like to demand that the government move quickly. We will move quickly, but this judgment was rendered a week ago, and we’re going to make sure that we structure our look at this and the review of this properly so that it’s done right. The civil servants, the public servants, who work so diligently on behalf of our province protecting children deserve that. Most of all, the children, the vulnerable children, that the ministry looks after every single day deserve that.

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

J. Horgan: Perhaps I’ll just help the Premier out a bit. The first ruling in this case was three years ago, just as the minister was being sworn in to her responsibilities to protect the children of British Columbia. That ruling identified that the ministry interfered with police investigations and, in the face of evidence that there could well be sexual abuse from the father, fought on behalf of that father for custody of the children. This most recent ruling just last week was with respect to damages and consequences of those decisions.

What the minister did, when you picked her to be the Minister of Children and Families…. She had a choice to make at that time. There was a scathing ruling before her and her ministry with respect to how they had addressed this family, putting four children in the hands of a sexual predator. Three years later — after spending millions of dollars defending the indefensible, after going to court to continue to make the case that they were right and the mother was wrong, after putting these children’s lives in upheaval — the Premier can say today that “We don’t want to rush to judgment”?

How is it possible, based on the evidence before this House, that the minister can say, “Let’s wait till 4:30 on Friday,” when the minister will make an announcement about a review of themselves? Not acceptable — not to this House, not to the people of British Columbia.

Will the Premier today assure everyone in this province that it will not be yet another internal investigation about Liberals telling Liberals that everything’s fine?
[ Page 9125 ]

Hon. C. Clark: You know, the member stands up and says that the minister should have been speaking out and doing more two years ago. This is the first time he’s ever raised this in the House himself. He stands here and says the government should have been acting on this two years ago, while the trial was still underway.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: There is a reason he’s standing up for the first time now. It’s because the judgment was just rendered six days ago.

We are going to make sure that we structure this review properly. It is vitally important for the children, who we have a duty to protect, that it is done properly, that it is done thoroughly. That is our duty as government. The minister has spoken to that. We intend to do that. The children, these vulnerable children, who come into the care of government are too important for us to do anything else.

The minister, as I said, is structuring the terms of reference for the review now. We will be releasing those for citizens of the province to be able to see as soon as practically possible.

[1040]

D. Donaldson: We’ve just learned that the Ministry of Children and Families ignored another court order and sent a young girl to live with her father, who had a history of violence, a man who had threatened sexual abuse of his own child, a man who was not allowed unsupervised access to his daughter by court order — a court order that was ignored.

At what point will the Premier step in and say “enough”?

Hon. C. Clark: As I have said, it is a terrible and tragic story that we’re talking about here in this Legislature. The children that come into the care of the government are the most vulnerable people in our society. The minister takes that responsibility very, very seriously. We all know that. I think in recognition of the seriousness of the duty that we have to those very vulnerable children, we need to make sure that the review of the circumstances and the review that’s been demanded by the courts be done properly, be done well and be done thoroughly.

We received a 1,088-paragraph judgment six days ago. The ministry is working as hard and as quickly as it can to make sure that we structure a review that does justice to the circumstances, to the children involved, to the family involved, to the social workers involved, but most importantly, more broadly, to all of the children to whom we are responsible in government.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: The representative called the case we’ve been asking about for a week “a new low” for government. This is the government that failed to investigate how baby Isabella died in their care, a government that didn’t think it was worth asking why a baby who died in their care had bone fractures.

A new low. Yet we haven’t heard a word of contrition from this government. What we have heard is excuses. There’s no excuse for defying a court order for the sole purpose of handing children over to a child molester. These cases have been known for years under this minister and this government.

Why do the minister and the B.C. Liberal government continue to be grossly negligent in the care of children? Who is accountable if not the minister and the Premier?

Hon. C. Clark: These children who are in the care of the government and families who depend on the government to ensure that we are supporting them in keeping their children at home, as well, and the range of services that the ministry provides…. They depend on us, on government — the processes of government, most importantly the social workers within government, who do these incredibly difficult complex jobs every single day.

They depend on us to make sure that we are doing our utmost to care for them and look after them. The minister takes that job extremely seriously. This is an incredibly difficult case. It’s tragic, and for anyone who has followed it, it’s heartbreaking.

The minister is now, as I said, as part of her responsibilities, structuring a review, making sure that we get those terms of reference right and making sure that we do right by our duty to those children who depend on us. This is never an easy ministry in government. It’s never one where the problems are simple to solve. Nonetheless, it’s absolutely necessary.

The minister understands that. She’s worked hard to try and find that balance. Through this review and through the regular reviews that the ministry conducts, we are going to continue to work hard to find the balance and make sure that we are doing the right thing by those vulnerable children who depend on us.

[1045]

K. Corrigan: This is not new. The minister and her ministry have known for three years that her ministry was ignoring a court order and that they continued to do so even after being called back into court by the Supreme Court justice and directly told by the judge that they were breaching an order that he had put in place to protect these young children. “The director knew that the supervised access order had been made following allegations of sexual and physical abuse committed by their father more than three years ago.”

My question to the Premier: will the Premier admit, contrary to what the minister said in this House yester-
[ Page 9126 ]
day, that her ministry did in fact choose to ignore a B.C. Supreme Court order, an order that would have protected against the sexual abuse of a young child? Will the Premier and will this government take responsibility for her government’s actions in this case?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said yesterday, no matter what level of court makes a decision, child protection social workers have to, and must, have the best interest of the child at heart. That must govern their actions, and they do that while relying on advice, legal advice, in child protection matters.

The opposition would like to retry this case in the House today, and they continue to recite the horrific circumstances and findings. I have said that British Columbians deserve to know that their child welfare system is responsive and guided by the best interests of the child and accountable for the decisions it makes.

I have been elected by my constituents, as have all members of this House, to do the right thing, not the easy thing. In that, I am taking the time to ensure that the form that the necessary review takes adequately reflects the extremely serious findings of the court. That is what we’re going to do.

Madame Speaker: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: What both the Premier and the minister have repeatedly…. The minister has repeatedly said, suggested in this House, that somehow this was just a case of two conflicting orders. The minister knows that that is a completely misleading statement and a misrepresentation of the facts of the case.

What the minister herself knows, and has known for three years, is that her ministry misled the Provincial Court in order to produce an order conflicting with the Supreme Court order. The document the ministry used to get the conflicting order from Provincial Court was filled with “egregious factual errors, misstatements and omissions.” It was intentional. The Provincial Court was “not made aware of the context in which the supervised access order was made or the protection concerns it addressed.”

Given these facts, how can the minister possibly suggest that her ministry acted appropriately and that her ministry was working to protect the interests of these vulnerable young children?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I believe that the thousands of social workers that go to work every day in some of the toughest jobs in government, confronted with horrific situations and circumstances and facts, make the best judgments they can to protect the children that they are entrusted to protect. That said, the extremely lengthy and very serious judgment that was presented last week requires a thorough and serious review. It necessitates, I believe, a review of policy, of practice and of any potential human resources implications.

I have committed to making the terms of that review public as quickly as I can.

[1050]

L. Krog: I’ve heard the most remarkable assertions in this chamber this morning that would indicate, it seems, that this government believes that they’re above the rule of law. The social workers are subject to the rule of law, and we have court orders that have been disregarded.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Does the minister really believe that a Provincial Court order obtained under false pretences supersedes the order of the B.C. Supreme Court? Is that her ministry’s best excuse for placing these children in harm’s way?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Ministry of Children and Family Development, as everyone knows, is confronted by very difficult circumstances every day. I don’t know of a minister who has been involved in this ministry who hasn’t faced serious situations and cases that bring into question what was done in the efforts to protect children.

I take my job very seriously, and I take the judgment from last week very seriously. Ultimately, at the end of it, what everyone in here knows is that children were harmed. That is why we need to make sure that a thorough review of all of the circumstances of this case is done, in our best efforts to ensure that that does not occur again.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, I have news for the minister. There has been a very thorough review — 50,000 words, 341 pages. It’s called a judgment of the Supreme Court, and it came to some very strong conclusions on a factual basis, which created this mess.

The B.C. Supreme Court judgment is absolutely clear on the facts. The decision to ignore the Supreme Court order was “wanton, reckless and, at a minimum, grossly negligent.” Further, she “disregarded directions and orders of this Court and did not act with any diligence, let alone special diligence with respect to the children’s best interests.”

Will the minister finally stop making excuses and take responsibility for the actions of her ministry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I have said repeatedly, British Columbians, this family, deserve to know that their child welfare system is responsive and accountable. As such, the seriousness of the judgment last week necessitates a serious review. The details of that review and the form it will take will be available as quickly as possible.
[ Page 9127 ]

COUNSELLING SERVICES FOR
CHILDREN IN CHILD PLACEMENT CASE

N. Simons: Well, I think that social workers around the province are pleased that the minister acknowledges they have a hard job. I think many of them know that their job is being made harder by this government’s response to concerns that are raised in public.

Clearly, the minister is concerned about her reputation and not so concerned about the impact this has had on the children, because we know for a fact that they have had to fight tooth and nail ever since the offences occurred. They’ve had to fight tooth and nail to get money to support the children through counselling.

Why is this minister continuously denying the requests for funding for counselling this long after this horrific situation occurred?

[1055]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Upon reading this judgment, anyone would have tremendous empathy and sympathy for the children involved. Despite the review that must be undertaken and the time that is being taken to ensure that that review is thorough, the reality is that these children have been traumatized and harmed. That is why government, in 2013, provided $10,000 to plaintiff’s counsel to ensure that the children had access to counselling services.

In addition, the children have had access and continue to have access to the crime victim assistance program. Government is absolutely prepared to ensure continued access to counselling, but it is up to the custodial parent to access that for their children.

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

N. Simons: The minister knows that her ministry interfered in the mother’s attempt to apply for victims of crime compensation funds. She knows that even today the children are not getting the support they need. The minister knows this, and surely she knows that the mother has been told that the only way that she’s going to get help is if she goes back to this same ministry and asks them for assistance. I don’t think that’s fair under the circumstances. After everything this mother and her children have been through, it’s hard to fathom how this government can take this approach.

There’s a crisis of confidence in our child protection system in this province. Are people going to be willing to phone and report to an agency that doesn’t do proper investigations, that makes up facts, that denies court orders? The easiest thing a social worker has to do is follow a court order. Those are the decisions that are easy for social workers. If a Supreme Court order tells you to do something, you do it.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: How can this minister restore some faith among the people of this province that she’s got her ministry under any control at all?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I just said, for the information of the member, the family has been provided with $10,000 to ensure that the children have access to counselling services. The ministry, and government as a whole, has an ongoing duty to support these children, and we will do so.

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY HANDLING OF CHILD PLACEMENT
CASE AND COURT ORDERS

M. Mungall: The minister’s and now the Premier’s responses to the questions that the public has on these cases in the Ministry of Children and Family Development are upsetting, to say the least. They have not committed to ensure that J.P. and her children are actually in counselling, as though they have no responsibility to make sure that that is happening. They have refused to take responsibility for the ministry putting the children in harm’s way, defying court orders and siding with a sexual predator. That is the situation at hand.

They have even gone so far as to say that no court orders were violated, even though the facts clearly show that that’s simply not the case. Worse still is that she knew the ministry’s conduct in J.P.’s case three years ago was so abhorrent but still chose to spend millions in defending the indefensible rather than doing the right thing.

We’ve just come to a point where no one trusts this government with an internal investigation, a review, whatever the minister wants to call it. How can she not see, how can the Premier not see, that the only way forward is an independent investigation?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I am not sure how else to answer this but to say once again that the very serious judgment, with the horrifying facts as presented, necessitates a thorough and comprehensive review. I am working through with my ministry the details of what form that review will take and how to ensure that all of the policy, practice and human resource implications are addressed.

[1100]

When the details of that review — the terms of reference of that — are available, we will be able to release them to the public. It’s absolutely, absolutely important that British Columbians and the family involved know that we in the ministry take our responsibility to children extremely seriously and that our system is always guided by the best interests of the child and ultimately accountable for the decisions that it makes.
[ Page 9128 ]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Robinson: I have a petition asking the British Columbia Legislature to amend the B.C. human rights code to include gender identity, to amend the B.C. human rights code to include gender expression, to amend the B.C. human rights code with the following subsection: “Without limiting the generality of the word ‘sex,’ for greater certainty sex includes gender identity and gender expression.”

I have 1,017 signatures collected by the students of Dr. Charles Best Secondary.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Second reading of Bill 31.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — OMBUDSPERSON
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 31 now be read a second time.

Government wishes to ensure that the Ombudsperson has the tools he needs to fully investigate the Ministry of Health terminations, should the matter be referred to him. The amendments in this bill address a specific issue respecting the powers of the Ombudsperson to obtain information that is covered by non-disclosure provisions in other provincial enactments.

Currently the Ombudsperson Act does not override provisions in other provincial enactments that require persons to maintain confidentiality in regard to documents or information that they come across during the course of their employment. That is, people cannot be compelled to produce documents or disclose information to the Ombudsperson if they are covered by such a non-disclosure provision. These amendments would change that in regard to Ombudsperson investigations undertaken as a result of a referral from the Legislative Assembly or one of its committees under subsection 10(3) of the act.

First, the amendments would disapply section 19(2) of the act from these investigations. This subsection provides that a person who is subject to a non-disclosure provision contained in another enactment cannot be compelled by the Ombudsperson to provide documents or information to the Ombudsperson in an investigation. Second, the amendments would provide that non-disclosure provisions contained in other enactments do not apply to the Ombudsperson investigations under subsection 10(3) and that the Ombudsperson can exercise all his powers under section 15 of the act despite those non-disclosure provisions.

These amendments are being made following a request by the Ombudsperson and the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. The changes are designed to support a unanimous referral by that committee to the Ombudsperson to investigate Ministry of Health employee terminations that occurred in 2012, as requested by my colleague the Minister of Health. Government is making these amendments so that there can be no question that the Ombudsperson has all the necessary powers to access information necessary to conduct a full investigation.

I do emphasize that these amendments would only apply to Ombudsperson investigations that result from a referral of a matter by the Legislative Assembly or one of its committees. Such referrals are extremely rare events. Indeed, this is the first time such a referral is being made in British Columbia. Ombudsperson investigations undertaken as a result of complaints or on the Ombudsperson’s own initiative, what we might call the usual work of his office, would still be subject to existing non-disclosure provisions in other statutes.

I trust that these amendments will meet with the approval of the House. They are intended to help us reach resolution on having a full, and fully independent, review of the Ministry of Health employee terminations.

G. Heyman: I rise to support this bill, as far as it goes. It has been about two weeks since members of the Finance Committee had a chance to review the letter from the Ombudsperson that raised a number of concerns that he had with his ability to conduct an investigation of the Health firings that would enjoy the trust of both the public — public confidence — and the fired researchers.

[1105]

There has been much discussion since that time. Over the course of that time, some of the issues that were raised by the Ombudsperson have been addressed, and he has expressed to the committee that he believes they have been addressed.

When the committee met last week, it was clear in reviewing the statements of the Ombudsperson and the statements made in this House by the Attorney General, as well as in the committee meeting by the Deputy Attorney General, that there was a difference of opinion. The remaining obstacle was the Ombudsperson’s belief that without a legislative change to his act, he could not effectively conduct an investigation without being hampered and fettered in his ability to compel evidence.

When this was raised in the House, the Attorney General, at the time, did not concur or said that it should be left to the committee to address the issue. When questioned in committee, the Deputy Attorney General stated that he did not believe that there was a necessity to change the act, in the form in which the Ombudsperson first raised a request, which was actually to make his act
[ Page 9129 ]
consistent with more modern acts that are in place governing other independent officers of the Legislature. That was, in fact, his original request. He subsequently, in order to make it possible to carry on an investigation, suggested that perhaps an amendment could be made that was limited — as this bill, in fact, limits the amendment to investigations carried out pursuant to a referral by this Legislature or a committee of this Legislature.

It was troubling in many ways at the Finance Committee when the Deputy Attorney General answered questions of members of the committee in a manner that was both unconvincing and, in fact, contradictory. It certainly didn’t convince the Ombudsperson that a change was not necessary or would not in fact have a significant impact.

Having said that, however, this amendment, at least in this case, in the referral that is being considered by the Finance Committee, will remove one more significant obstacle and make it possible for the committee to have meaningful discussion and consideration going forward with respect to the Minister of Health’s request that we refer to the Ombudsperson. There are still other matters to consider, but this one will be dealt with, at least in the short term, by this amendment.

Having seen the Attorney General change direction with respect to questions that were asked of her about her willingness to make this amendment and having brought this amendment forward, I will be supporting it. I believe my colleagues will as well.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the member opposite for that, and I move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered, by leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 31, Ombudsperson Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — OMBUDSPERSON
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 31; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:09 a.m.

On section 1.

G. Heyman: I would simply ask the Attorney General what her rationale is for limiting the amendment with respect to the Ombudsperson’s powers to compel testimony despite other statutes to referrals from this Legislature.

[1110]

The committee — rather than the case with, for instance, the Representative for Children and Youth and other officers of the Legislature — simply does not have that restriction whatsoever.

Hon. S. Anton: There are many statutes that would be impacted by a change like that, as the member will know. The speed of bringing forward this amendment has been rather remarkable for amendments to legislation, and there simply hasn’t been time to do the kind of analysis that would be required for the kind of amendment that the member is suggesting.

G. Heyman: Does the minister have specific statutes in mind with respect to her earlier statement?

Hon. S. Anton: I would like to introduce Neil Reimer, my senior policy and legislation analyst from the Ministry of Justice.

I can’t pick out one statute over another. Every one would have to be looked at and analyzed. There has not been time to do that, so it was better to deal with this situation that we’re dealing with today.

G. Heyman: Given that, as I’ve said, other statutes governing other independent officers of the Legislature do not contain such a limitation, is it the minister’s intent to review the impact of a further change to the Ombudsperson Act to make it consistent with other independent officers of the Legislature by completely deleting the reference to confidentiality provisions?

Hon. S. Anton: That remains a matter for another day. We’re aware of the request by the Ombudsperson, but today we’re simply dealing with it to enable this piece and this proposed referral to go ahead.

G. Heyman: With respect, is the Attorney General saying: “No, there will be no further review,” or “Yes, there might be a further review, but we’re talking about this bill today”?

Hon. S. Anton: We are aware of the request. I can just say there has been no decision made in that regard.

G. Heyman: Then I’ll ask one more question. Given that the Ombudsperson is charged with reviewing a
[ Page 9130 ]
broad range of issues of interest to the public with respect to administrative fairness and the activities of government, what rationale might the Attorney General have for not considering an amendment that would bring the powers of the Ombudsperson in line with other independent officers of the Legislature who conduct investigations of interest to British Columbians?

Hon. S. Anton: That’s the same answer I gave earlier, which is that there are many different statutes involved. There would have to be an analysis of all of them, and there simply has not been time to do that.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:15 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — OMBUDSPERSON
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 31, Ombudsperson Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage on Bill 30.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
PROJECT AGREEMENTS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:18 a.m.

On section 2 (continued).

B. Ralston: Continuing, then, on some of the definitions in the agreement. The definition that’s next that I want to ask some questions about is what’s referred to as a “comparable agreement.” The meaning here is that assigned in clause 10.17(b). The heading is “Most favoured nations” status. Now, headings are simply there to order the agreement and have no legal significance. I believe that’s set out somewhere in the agreement.

Nonetheless, can the minister explain what a comparable agreement is? There’s a definition in 10.17(b) which refers to entering into another project development agreement in a manner “substantially similar” to this agreement. How would substantial similarity be determined?

[1120]

Hon. M. de Jong: From the section itself, the member will know that there is a reference to an agreement that relates to a project for the processing of natural gas in British Columbia into LNG. The phrase there is: “…in a manner substantially similar to this agreement.” I think the member’s question is: “Well, can you expand upon that?”

I would do so by pointing to the portion of the bill — section 2, in fact — which lays out the elements that must be present in a project development agreement. Upon examination, I would suggest that if a document or an agreement is held up for analysis and it does not include those elements — or any of those elements — it wouldn’t qualify as a comparable agreement.

B. Ralston: In the LNG project development agreement there are four significant features that might trigger indemnity. That is, payment by the province in the event of…. There is a defined term, “adverse event” — that is legislation that’s focused on changing the tax position of the LNG facility or the liquefaction process that’s referred to in any project development agreement.

Just for clarity then, a comparable agreement, in order to so qualify, would have to contain all four of those elements? Or if it were to contain one of the elements, would it, by definition, not qualify as a comparable agreement?

[1125]

Hon. M. de Jong: I took the member’s question to be this. Recognizing the elements that statutorily must be included in a project development agreement, could an agreement that included fewer than four triggering events change measures qualify as a comparable agreement? My sense is: yes, though the legislation does make it clear that there must be reference to one tax change event and the greenhouse gas measure. That’s two.

The question is: must it always be four? Our quick analysis is that an agreement that referenced three or two change events could also qualify as a comparable agreement, assuming it included all of the other elements enunciated.

B. Ralston: Where in either section 2 or in the definition does the minister find support for that interpretation?
[ Page 9131 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, hopefully I’ve understood the member’s question. I think the response I have given and the proposition I’m advancing is that since subsection 2(2) of the legislation sets out the essential ingredients of an LNG project agreement, I would advance the proposition that a comparable agreement, to qualify as a comparable agreement, must at a minimum include those elements.

B. Ralston: Following upon that, the next definition is “comparable proponent rights,” and I take it that flows from the definition of a comparable agreement. It would be those rights assigned to the proponent if it were agreed that an agreement was indeed comparable within the definition — so one that flows from the other, I take it then.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I’d agree with that proposition if I understood it correctly.

[1130]

B. Ralston: The next definition is compensatory measures. The definition here refers to clause 3.6(b) of the agreement. Really, it’s a species of a section that deals with consequences of an adverse change event. The references in there — it’s spoken of “the economic equilibrium of the parties” and “the payment of an equilibrium payment.” “Equilibrium payment” or “equilibrium,” although the minister has used it and it appears in the agreement, is not a defined term. Is an “equilibrium payment” a subcategory of a “compensatory measure,” or is it a separate term that has its own individual meaning?

For example, 3.6(g)(ii) speaks of: “must not require the province to pay an equilibrium payment in respect of a calculation period.” Just wondering. What is the meaning of the term “compensatory measure” and its relationship to “equilibrium payment”?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member’s question: is there a difference, or potentially a difference, between a “compensatory measure,” which is a defined term, and an “equilibrium payment”? There is. I think the most accurate way I can describe that difference is to point out that a compensatory measure could include an equilibrium payment or a payment, but there could be other mechanisms utilized to address an adverse change event. An equilibrium payment, in the context of the section and the agreement, really is a subset of a compensatory measure.

B. Ralston: There is reference in the agreement to a way of dealing with the issue of a compensatory measure by an offset, for example, as opposed to a direct payment. The broader term, then, as the minister said, is “compensatory measure,” and an equilibrium payment is a subset of that broader measure. Have I understood the definition then?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe that’s correct and accurate.

[1135]

B. Ralston: We’ve dealt with the issue of confidential information at this point. I want to look at what’s described, as a defined term, as a “discriminatory GGIRC” — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control. That’s what that stands for. It’s given a meaning set out in clause 3.5(d).

Given some of our discussion yesterday about the way in which the incentive scheme works, I think this is of some interest to many about what would be the result of a change in that regime and the degree to which that would trigger compensation by the government as a party to this agreement.

According to this definition set out in 3.5(d), it’s subject to a clause above, which is…. There is a requirement to negotiate by the end of this year — assuming this agreement is ratified — a revised version of the incentive scheme. But leaving that aside for the moment, it will occur:

“…if, at any time after this agreement has been amended pursuant to clause 3.5(c),” which is above, “the province amends any of the GGIRC features that are subject to this agreement. If a discriminatory GGIRC event occurs, the province may be liable to the proponent with respect to the difference between the proponent’s direct costs of complying with the GGIRC Act prior to the change in the relevant GGIRC feature and the proponent’s direct costs of complying with the…act after the change in the relevant GGIRC feature, taking into consideration the change….”

And it goes on. I suppose the question arises, given that this agreement, some of the features, could last 25 years…. The calculation could make it, depending on when commercial operation commences, be in place for 35 years.

If, for example, the government was to decide that, as we discussed yesterday, rather than pay incentives to the company for meeting an emissions intensity standard of a 0.22 target, no incentive payments would be made…. In other words, incentive payments would be terminated. That standard may be perhaps lowered. Incentive payments would only be paid if a lower standard were achieved — that is, harder to reach but lower in number, very similar to perhaps the Canada LNG standard of 0.16 as an emissions intensity target.

If those changes were made, is the position of this agreement that compensation…? If it cost the proponent money to achieve that target at any point during the 25 to 35 years of the agreement, would the government be obliged under this agreement to pay the proponent a sum of money equivalent to their cost to achieve that standard?

[1140]

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to the kind of example that the member has advanced for the committee…. We have been and will continue to be cautious about absolute definitiveness, but I think I have the member’s point about altering benchmarks and altering — I wouldn’t
[ Page 9132 ]
want to say tinkering, but changing — some of those requirements.

I think it’s fair to say that that would qualify as an adverse change event and, potentially, could then trigger the discussion that takes place and potentially trigger indemnification provisions. There’s no automatic entitlement to indemnification, but there is, when an adverse change event occurs, an entitlement to have a conversation.

Of course, there is also the question about the threshold and, depending on the change, whether the impact extends beyond the threshold that leads to an entitlement for indemnification.

The final thing that I would draw to the member’s attention are the items referred to in sub (e) of the portion of the agreement that we are talking about, 3.5(e), where the parties have specifically referred to three things, and they are not insignificant things, that can change. For example, (e)(ii): the possibility that cap-and-trade legislation that is of general application might be introduced and the specific agreement that that, and the other two items referred to, does not qualify or would not be regarded as a discriminatory GGIRC event.

B. Ralston: I can understand, from the perspective of the company, why they would want to lock in and fix what they would see as their long-term costs in the process of calculating their financing costs, assuming the project goes ahead, to amortize the loan and to the financial institutions that they would have to satisfy over that lengthy period of time. What is the compelling policy reason, on behalf of the government, on this crucial issue of emissions, as it relates to the total emissions of the province?

There’s a greenhouse gas target that’s set by the government, that is the law of the province, which envisages substantial reductions of emissions by 2020. Why would the government, as a question of policy, enter into this sort of agreement which really limits the ability of the government to change emission standards over a very lengthy period of time in order to make them reduce emissions that would be in a way that’s consistent with the professed goals of the government? That is, reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions of all industries, every industry in the province, for the policy reasons that we heard so much about in years gone by, particularly from the Premier and the then Minister of Finance Carole Taylor.

This seems to be very much inconsistent with that policy direction and imposes a potential financial liability on the province over a lengthy period of time. I’m wondering if the minister could explain why the decision was made to include this feature in the agreement.

[1145]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it’s a legitimate question at this stage of the proceedings — what has motivated or driven the government to adopt a particular approach that reveals itself in the contractual document.

I think a part about the member’s presentation that, perhaps, is missing and might help explain the basis upon which the government has taken these steps is to recognize that with respect to this new industry, we have imposed, through legislation, through the measures, a standard of emission control on this industry that does not exist for others. It is, by definition, unique. We do not impose the same measures of control on other industries.

What this industry has said in reply is: “Insofar as you purport to do that, we are prepared to endorse that by virtue of….” In the case of the proponent, Pacific NorthWest: “We are prepared to accept and endorse that, but in applying these unique requirements, these industry-specific requirements, we are asking in return for a measure of stability that will allow us to assess and determine our costs with some certainty over a defined period of time.”

We, in turn, have accepted the essential elements of that argument but have preserved unto the Crown, unto the government, unto the Legislative Assembly, the option of replacing this approach with a general mechanism or a general approach to emissions control that would apply across the board to all industries, by way of example.

It’s important, I think, to accept for the purpose of the analysis that we are applying requirements, creating requirements and creating targets — and not just targets, but minimal requirements for this industry that do not exist for others. The measures that we have been discussing flow from that.

[1150]

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for his answer. I believe I have cited this before, but in this specific context, I’m going to go back to it again. This is Mr. Matt Horne, who is a policy analyst with the Pembina Institute. He was appointed by the Premier to sit on the climate action review that’s taking place. I believe the member for Peace River South chairs that committee.

Here’s what he says, his assessment of these measures. Again, I don’t expect the minister’s response will be substantially different. But I think it’s important just to express this contrary point of view from a very authoritative source:

“If the Pacific NorthWest LNG project is developed, the agreement doesn’t eliminate all of the options to improve climate change policies, but it significantly limits them and locks in a new subsidy for fossil fuels. At a time when the scale of our climate challenges is becoming increasingly clear, government should be keeping policy options on the table and continuing to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. With the Petronas agreement, however, B.C. is doing the opposite.”

That would refer specifically to this particular section, which, as the Minister of Natural Gas Development likes to say about this agreement, locks in stone the obligation to pay compensation that is in light of potential future policy options that result in change and may cause some
[ Page 9133 ]
additional financial burden for the proponent over the course of an up-to-35-year period.

I suppose I don’t expect the minister to respond any differently, but I did want to bring this to his attention and ask whether he has any additional comments in response to this comment by Mr. Horne, a member of the Premier’s task force on climate change.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t expect the member to answer for someone else, but he has invited me to comment.

It would be interesting to know what analysis level of relevance or significance the author of the statements that the member has referred to attaches to sub (e) and the provisions contained with sub (e). They seem and they are intended to be at odds with the proposition that the member has advanced on behalf of the analyst, Mr. Horne. We will, I suppose, speculate, and perhaps at some point he will provide his views on that matter.

The other general comment that I think is important to make is the certainty and stability that the government has accepted and sought to achieve, in a very limited way with the proponents, relates to cost structure, as opposed to locking in or eliminating public policy choices that governments of the future can make.

There is actually nothing whatsoever precluding the kind of significant change contemplated in sub (e), including something as dramatic as the shift to a full cap-and-trade system across the economic spectrum. But even in circumstances where a change event is triggered, there is no limit on the Crown or the government or the Legislative Assembly’s ability to move forward with these changes.

There is a mechanism by which to determine whether that has triggered one of the provisions that lead to a discussion around compensatory measures or equilibrium measures. That exists in a limited and defined way.

This might be an appropriate time, then, to move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.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