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)

Monday, November 16, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 5

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

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Ministerial Statements

TERRORIST ATTACKS IN PARIS

Hon. M. de Jong: “Paris outragé! Paris brisé! Paris martyrisé! Mais Paris libéré!” Il y a 70 ans que Général de Gaulle a dit ces mots mémorables. It was over 70 years ago when de Gaulle said this. In those days, Parisians wept with joy as the scourge of fear and tyranny was swept away from their lives. Today, however, a veil of sadness has descended over Paris and across all of France. From the magnificent heights of the Sacré Cœur Basilica, the tears of a city descend the gentle slopes of Montmartre and mix with the timeless currents of the Seine. The weathered stones of Père Lachaise bleed for the innocent, whose only sin was to stand in the path of evil.

The scale of the criminal acts that have been perpetrated against the people of Paris really does defy description. The monsters and their sponsoring accomplices will be brought to justice. We know that. Those who are driven by hatred and would impose their will through violence and fear will ultimately fail. They always do. But today, as the people of Paris gather — Place de la Bastille, la Republique, Place Vendome — to console, to understand and to mourn, we want them to know, like all Canadians do, that they do not stand alone.

Vous êtes dans nos coeurs. Nous sommes ensemble dans l’esprit. You are in our hearts and in our prayers. No terrorist, no criminal can douse the torch of freedom that burns bright in the City of Light. Paris outraged. Paris martyred. Mais, toujours, Paris libéré. Vive les Parisiens. Vive Paris. Vive la France.

J. Horgan: I join with the Government House Leader and all members of this House in acknowledging the tragedy that occurred in Paris over the weekend.

It seems like the Charlie Hebdo event was just yesterday. Yet we, I think, have become desensitized, to a great extent, to the human tragedies of terror and war and oppression around the globe — not just in Europe, not just in the Middle East, not just in Africa but yet in every corner of the globe.

I believe that that desensitization to violence is something that we need to be grasping each and every day — a reminder to ourselves and to our constituents that terror, war, hunger, starvation and oppression exist in every corner of the globe. It exists here in Canada. But the human spirit is indomitable, and hope, love and compassion will win out.

I was thinking, as I was preparing my remarks today, of Jack Layton and his last letter to Canadians. I think, perhaps, that last letter could have been to all of the world — that hope, love and compassion should win out and will win out at the end of the day.

The people of Paris are grieving. The people of the world are grieving. Yet here we are, at work today, defiant in the face of those who would have us change our lives to suit their needs. The fact, again, that all of us are here today, doing our jobs — representing constituents in every corner of British Columbia — as other legislators are doing, as other people are doing, whatever their walk of life, whatever their vocation….

[1340]

We will not be bowed by terror. We will not be bowed by oppression. We will work as a Legislature and as a society every day to make the world a better place. That’s why we all came here. It’s a grim reminder, but a good reminder, that we should continue every single day to work together to solve the problems of our time rather than ignore them.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: I would like to introduce two individuals today. We have Jeremy Dunn, who is the executive director with the B.C. Salmon Farmers. He’s joined by Vincent Erenst, who is a member of Salmon Farmers but also represents the company Marine Harvest. This industry feeds millions of people around the globe and provides jobs across coastal rural British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Horgan: I have a number of introductions today. I’d like to start by introducing Chief Dwight Dorey and his assistant and advocate for First Nations issues, Jerry Peltier. Both Chief Dorey and Jerry Peltier are here today to talk to members of the Legislature about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, of which Chief Dorey is the national chief. This is his fourth term as national chief. He is a Mi’kmaq from Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia. Jerry Peltier is the Grand Chief of Kanehsatà:ke.

In my office today, as you can well imagine, I have a lacrosse stick hanging up in the corner. We hit it off right away, talking about lacrosse as Canada’s summer national sport, as the House knows full well now, and also a game that originated with indigenous people here in Canada. It was great to speak about more issues than just lacrosse, but that was a good icebreaker.

I’d also like to introduce one constituent and one friend of the House. Lynn Klein is here, as always, and joining him is Lisette Robinson, a constituent of mine attending question period I think for the first time, here in the Legislative Assembly.
[ Page 10156 ]

Lisette has a long career working and volunteering in the medical field. She’s been a UN peacekeeper with the Canadian Armed Forces in Yugoslavia. She was an army reserve medical assistant and then a paramedic with the B.C. Ambulance Service here in B.C. Then she became the regional training coordinator with the Justice Institute.

She lives in my constituency with her three daughters. She is a proud Langford resident and certainly one who is going to enjoy the proceedings very much today. Would the House please make Lisette very, very welcome.

Also joining us are two youngsters. Ravi Parmar is the now-21-year-old school board trustee from school district 62. He was elected on his 20th birthday in 2014. He’s here joining us today to observe the proceedings and see if the board of education is as civilized as the Legislative Assembly.

Also joining him is Brent Thom, who has recently become active within the B.C. NDP in my constituency. Brent was born and raised in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He joined the Royal Canadian Navy to see the world but was injured on deployment. He’s currently a business student at Camosun College here in Victoria as part of the Veterans Affairs rehabilitation program.

Both of these young men are outstanding examples of commitment and passion about public life. Would the House make both of them very, very welcome.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It brings me great pleasure to introduce three constituents from Parksville-Qualicum who are visiting here today. First of all, Paula Peterson and her husband, Jerry, are not only constituents but great, dear friends of mine who are very actively involved in the community in multiple ways — most importantly, always opening their hearts and their home to everybody and making them feel welcome.

Joining them I’d also like to introduce Anne Duggan, who is at her first question period here today. Under Anne’s leadership as CEO and senior advocate for Elder Life, she was able use her great care and compassion for many years to assure the highest quality in home care supports and in home care for seniors in our community. She is now retired and calling Victoria home.

Would the House make them all feel very welcome today.

D. Plecas: Today in the gallery, we have one of Abbotsford’s most welcome and liked group of people, and that is the board of directors for Tabor Village. It’s a seniors home in Abbotsford that, along with 400 of their staff, provides a home for 300 seniors. This year is their 55th anniversary.

In the gallery, we have, specifically, the chair of the board, Hildegard Bandsmer; building manager, Al Gerbrandt; board members Bill Dyck, Pat Janzen, Len Neufeld, Joy Rees and Carole Wiebe; and the executive director, Dan Levitt. Would the House, please, make them feel welcome.

[1345]

B. Routley: Today I would like to welcome, first, Sonya Furstenau, from Shawnigan. She’s the CVRD director. I see a couple of other Shawinigan constituents in the crowd. I would like to welcome them as well.

We have Georgia Collins with us today. Georgia is the federal NDP constituency chair and was just successful in electing Alistair McGregor as our federal representative. Congratulations for that, Georgia.

Also, I had a wonderful lunch today with Dara Quast. who is an Island girl. She moved to the Cowichan Valley 25 years ago. She volunteers in our office and does some website work on the computer.

A special guest today I enjoyed a tour and a nice lunch with and talked about wineries and specialty vinegar production is Marilyn Venturi. Marilyn was born in Australia. She immigrated to Canada back in 1970. She obtained her bachelor’s degree in microbiology at UBC and then worked at UBC in the provincial health laboratory. Years later she completed her teacher training. Her interest in French led her to the University of Montreal, where she met her current husband — I guess, her only husband. I should be careful with that.

She has enjoyed opportunities for research in her field related to wine and vinegar production, the first being an extensive and successful National Research Council project. Her family’s wine-making philosophy is to allow the quality of the grapes to be reflected in the purity of their wines and their specialty vinegars.

With that, would the House please join me in welcoming all these fine guests.

S. Robinson: I would like to join with the member for Abbotsford South in welcoming the board members from Tabor Village. I would like to extend a particular warm welcome to Dan Levitt, who is their executive director. You see, I go way back with Dan Levitt. I knew him as Danny when I was the counselor and he was the camper. It makes me very proud to see him in such a fabulous leadership position today.

Would the members please join me in welcoming him here.

Hon. J. Rustad: Louis Riel was a leader of the Métis people, a Canadian politician and a founder, of course, of the province of Manitoba. Today is Louis Riel Day and marks the 130th anniversary of his death.

It was a great pleasure today to spend some time this morning with representatives of the Métis Nation British Columbia as well as with the member for Maple Ridge–Mission on the legislative grounds as we raised the Métis infinity flag in recognition of Louis Riel Day.

I’d like to take a moment here to recognize some mem-
[ Page 10157 ]
bers that are in the Legislature here today in the gallery, several members of Métis Nation B.C. who have joined us: the president of the Métis Nation, Bruce Dumont, and his wife, Joanne; the vice-president, Annette Maurice; and the minister of Métis women, Clara Morin-Dal Col.

Would the House please make these distinguished individuals welcome.

M. Dalton: It was a real special day this morning, at the crack of dawn, raising the infinity flag, the Métis flag. I can see it fluttering away from my window right now. Well, not right now, but when I’m in the office.

I do want to ask the members to make welcome some different Métis leaders, including Barbara Hulme, who is a Métis Nation B.C. veteran; Lissa Smith, the regional director for Vancouver Island and Powell River; Rob Humpherville, regional B.C. Métis assembly of natural resources and Captain of the Hunt; and Dale Drown, who is from Mission and the chief executive officer.

Please make them all welcome.

[1350]

G. Kyllo: In addition, other delegation members from the Métis Nation. We have from Métis Nation of Greater Victoria the president, Victoria Pruden, joining us today; the Métis Nation B.C. Victoria community youth representative, Mr. Brian Cathers; and the North Island Métis Association president, Michael Dumont.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I’d ask you to join with me today in welcoming Christine Eidt to the gallery. Christine Eidt and I met more than four decades ago when we were heralding the B.C. Youth Parliament as the successor to the Older Boys Parliament in British Columbia. It was a long time ago. She’s joined by her friend Linda Gauthier, visiting from Victoria. Christine is visiting from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

LOUIS RIEL AND HISTORY OF METIS

M. Dalton: I rise in the traditional territory of the Lekwungen people to acknowledge that today, November 16, represents a true landmark in Métis history. On this day in 1885, 130 years ago to be exact, Métis leader Louis Riel was convicted of high treason following a Métis uprising and executed by hanging.

Intelligent, well educated and a compelling speaker, Riel was elected to the Parliament of Canada on three separate occasions. However, due to politics and the turmoil of his time, he was never able to take his seat. His life combined the heights of success and the depths of defeat. Widely regarded as the father of Manitoba, Riel was a fierce champion of democracy and human rights for Métis people and other westerners.

Partially due to his leadership, Manitoba became a province in 1870. People in what are now Saskatchewan and Alberta won the right to vote in 1886 and provincial status in 1905.

In various areas of Canada, his life has been commemorated by statues, schools, buildings and streets. He has been memorialized in an opera, stamps, documentaries, biographies, articles, songs and pop culture. Many of the demands in the bill of rights that he championed for the Métis and for westerners in 1885 came to pass after his execution. The bill of rights emphasized bilingualism, protection of the lands of longtime residents and democracy.

Today the Métis are officially recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act of Canada as one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. There are some 70,000 self-identifying Métis in British Columbia, of which I am one.

I am pleased that the president of the Métis Nation, Bruce Dumont, and many other Métis leaders are here today. The province and Métis Nation B.C. continue to work on strengthening our relationship, improving collaboration and increasing the quality of life of the Métis people. These objectives are outlined in the Métis Nation relationship accord signed in 2006 and remaining in place today.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

L. Krog: November 15 to 22 is Restorative Justice Week, not just here in British Columbia but around the world. The theme for this inspiring time is “Inspiring innovation.”

Restorative justice is a philosophy and approach that views crime and conflict as harm done to people and relationships. It is non-adversarial, a non-retributive approach to justice that emphasizes healing in victims, accountability of offenders and the involvement of citizens in creating healthier, safer communities. The goal is to reach meaningful, satisfying and fair outcomes through inclusion, open communication and truth.

Essentially, restorative justice is about the criminal meeting their victim and coming to resolution, with the assistance of communities all across this province. Indeed, since 1998 — I emphasize again, for the members opposite, since 1998 — the Ministry of Justice has supported the delivery of community-based restorative justice approaches through the community accountability program.

Today there are currently 53 restorative justice programs across the province, all striving, with minimal dollars, to deliver an excellent program that prevents crime, that helps communities. Indeed, the member for Abbotsford South, in a wonderful Blue Ribbon Panel for
[ Page 10158 ]
Crime Reduction report, emphasized the value of restorative justice programs.

Indeed, as the Attorney General herself has recognized, supportive of the program, this is something that has been around for a long time but is very much in its infancy. It has the opportunity and the ability to ensure that criminals don’t get started down the long road to further criminal behaviour.

[1355]

The recommendation from the Blue Ribbon Panel and, indeed, Mr. Cowper’s report, A Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century, all again emphasized the value and importance of restorative justice. Making better use of it in a provincewide plan for diversion, including restorative justice along with education, quality assurance and control, performance measures, reporting and education — everyone’s clear: it’s a good thing; let’s do more of it.

DIABETES AWARENESS

P. Pimm: This is Diabetes Awareness Month. This disease does not care who it attacks. In 2014, I became diabetic and ended up in the hospital with a sky-high blood sugar count. My kidneys and pancreas completely shut down, and it took several days to get back to a livable level.

Some of the risk factors to watch for are having a parent or brother or sister with diabetes; being a member of a higher-than-normal risk group, such as aboriginal, Hispanic, South Asian, Asian or African descent; having been diagnosed with prediabetes; or being overweight, especially if that weight’s mostly carried around your stomach.

Diabetes is a serious condition that currently affects more than 387 million people worldwide — more than ten million Canadians, as well as 442,000 British Columbians. The cost of diabetes in Canada is approximately $14 billion and rising every year. The cost in British Columbia is approximately $1.6 billion, expected to be $2.1 billion by 2025.

The Canadian Diabetes Association is leading the fight against diabetes by helping those affected to live healthy lives, preventing the onset and consequences of diabetes, and discovering a cure. Diabetes can be monitored and controlled with proper diet, regular testing and proper insulin tablets or injections. A great example of this: just last night, I tested myself. I was at 11. I went for a short run — and trust me, I’m no runner — but when I got back, I retested, and I was back down to 8.2.

We are currently helping over 400,000 British Columbians living with diabetes to take ownership of their health by providing supports and services, such as extended coverage of insulin pumps to patients 25 and under, developing provincial standards for schools, and increasing screening rates significantly so that now about 85 percent of adults in B.C. over the age of 45 have been screened.

Maintaining health and wellness can in many cases prevent and manage prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. People across Canada can take the CANRISK two-minute test at www.take2minutes.ca. I encourage everyone to go on that website and have the test.

MANUFACTURING AND HIGH TECHNOLOGY
BUSINESSES ON SAANICH PENINSULA

G. Holman: I spoken before in this House about the idyllic rural landscapes and pristine marine environment of Saanich North and the Islands. It may surprise some that the Saanich Peninsula also provides a significant proportion of the industrial land base in the capital regional district and is home to one of the most vibrant manufacturing and high-tech business areas in British Columbia.

Of the 120 manufacturing businesses on southern Vancouver Island, over half are located on the Saanich Peninsula, with a combined annual revenue of $1 billion. The majority of these manufacturers export an average of 80 percent of their products. The west Sidney industrial area alone accounts for over three-quarters of a billion in annual revenues, $110 million in annual payroll and over 2,500 employees — including well-known employers such as Scott Plastics, Seastar Chemicals, Ramsey Machine Works, AXYS Technologies and, of course, Viking Air.

What can government do to attract and improve the viability of such businesses? Investments in workforce training and international marketing are of course important. Promoting industry linkages between these firms — in other words, the development of industry clusters — can also help. Other policies may not be as obvious, like affordable workforce housing and improving public transit, which not only support and benefit these businesses but also benefit the public at large.

The good news is that the rural landscapes and pristine marine environment of Saanich North and the Islands is one of the reasons why entrepreneurs and their workers choose to locate there in the first place. The manufacturing and value-added sector on the Saanich Peninsula is another clear example of how environmental protection in this digital age and in a fiercely competitive global economy can be a key factor in attracting capital investment and skilled workers.

FACTS AND BELIEFS IN SOCIETY

G. Hogg: Now for something completely different. I was recently approached by a constituent who asked me how I could possibly be so stupid as to have supported a particular piece of legislation.

[1400]

Well, I’ve been looking for an answer to that question. It does seems that there are times when people just don’t agree with me. I get challenged and criticized. I know that
[ Page 10159 ]
those criticisms are sometimes unfounded and sometimes unfair, but perhaps sometimes I am, as my constituent suggested, stupid.

A Canadian researcher and Yale professor named Philip Tetlock may have found an answer. He asked what it is about politics that can make people seem so dumb. His research answered the question by the finding that politicians, and the populace generally, are susceptible to occasional bouts of ideologically induced insanity and that defections from those ideological beliefs are a rarity.

Two other researchers have also tried to answer this very important question. Their research discovered two important insights into how our minds work. However, to my knowledge, no one in this Legislature was a subject to any of their studies. They concluded, firstly, that we can often be blind to the obvious, and secondly, that we are often blind to our own blindness. It seems that we don’t see the obvious and that we can’t see that we don’t see it.

I think the researchers are saying that when we don’t see the obvious but have it pointed out to us, we may see it and still deny its existence. They are suggesting that we may be stuck in a kind of cognitive illusion of denial. They are similarly suggesting — in a mirror image of the familiar optical illusion of an oasis in the desert, where the parched wanderer craves water and sees it, but it’s not there — that politicos crave answers and can’t see them, but they are there.

This research seems to be of questionable value. It tells us that some people find it impossible, due to their cultural or group belief systems, to be open to other options. But knowing that doesn’t seem to be of much value.

As for that constituent who asked me how I could possibly be so stupid, I answered him by saying: “For me, it was really very easy. I just had to be myself.” That seemed quite acceptable to him.

LOWER MAINLAND CHRISTMAS BUREAU

S. Simpson: As we start to think about the Christmas season and gifts for family and friends, let us think about an organization that has had similar things on their mind for the last 85 years. The Lower Mainland Christmas Bureau is celebrating 85 years of working to ensure that Christmas is a little better for thousands around the Lower Mainland.

This year the bureau will deliver over 100,000 toys and items to local bureaus and community groups and will help over 1,000 Vancouver families directly with food vouchers, clothes and toys to ensure they have a merry Christmas. And every summer since 1947 they have sent kids to camp who otherwise would not be able to afford to go. Established in 1930, this organization has only two full-time staff and gets the rest done with volunteers — a remarkable accomplishment. It is an organization with an impressive group of sponsors from the corporate and labour community.

A great example of community support is the motorcycle toy run that this year added $20,000 and 2,100 new toys to the bureau’s coffers. While many deserve credit for these accomplishments, I want to note one person in particular — Chris Bayliss, the executive director of the organization. He truly does it all. He raises money, manages volunteers, drives the truck, sorts the toys and sweeps the floor. Chris demonstrates every day a commitment to making people’s lives better, and we can all learn from that. Thank you, Chris.

We often speak in this place of reducing poverty. While the Christmas bureau may not do that, they do reduce the stigma of poverty. When kids return to school after Christmas and talk about their new toys, the students helped by the bureau will be part of that conversation too. When kids come back after summer and talk about their camp experience, poor kids helped by the bureau to go to camp can talk about their experience too.

We all wish the Lower Mainland Christmas Bureau was unnecessary, but we know that will not be the case anytime soon. Until we beat poverty and inequality, let’s thank and support the Lower Mainland Christmas Bureau on 85 years of making the season a happier one for many and wish them much support and success in their future.

Oral Questions

PERMIT FOR SOIL DUMPING IN
SHAWNIGAN LAKE WATERSHED

J. Horgan: Last August the B.C. government gave a permit to South Island Aggregates, a 50-year permit, to receive over 100,000 tonnes annually of toxic, contaminated soils just above the drinking water supply for 12,000 British Columbians.

[1405]

Throughout the debate around this issue, through judicial review, through appeals to the appeal board, the government has steadfastly maintained that they were protecting the interests of the people of Shawnigan Lake, that they were protecting the water within Shawnigan Lake and that there was nothing to worry about.

Sadly, the worst fears of the residents of Shawnigan Lake were realized on Friday when the Ministry of Health, through the Island Health Authority, issued a “do not use” water advisory for those living and taking water on the south end of Shawnigan Lake.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. After years of being approached by residents, whether they be elected representatives, regular citizens or former Liberal candidates, the response has always been: “Do not worry. We’re here to protect you.” Until it rains. As you well know, we live in a rainforest. The first rain in the 50-year permit led to a no-use advisory for the people in the region.
[ Page 10160 ]

Can the minister now do the right thing, stop the movement of contaminated soils into the Shawnigan watershed and do it today?

Hon. M. Polak: First, let me correct the member. The answer has not been “don’t worry.” The answer has been that a permit of this nature is issued by government scientists who operate independent of political interference. That has been the answer. Those same people, dedicated staff, work to ensure that there is compliance and enforcement on all sites where there are permits for facilities like this.

In the case of what has occurred in that area, I can tell the members that ministry staff were there, were conducting samples. Those samples have been taken to a laboratory. I am told that half of that sampling and testing is complete, and no public health threats have been identified in that testing. We expect the majority of the rest of it to be provided to us this afternoon.

In the meantime, I can tell the member that from the investigations of those staff, it appears that the contaminants that were witnessed are actually surface runoff of sediment.

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

J. Horgan: Well, yes. I mean, water is a basic necessity of life. Everybody understands that.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Sorry, Bill, didn’t hear you there.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

J. Horgan: Contaminated soils in a watershed less than 100 kilometres from this building. Thousands of people affected. Thousands of people concerned, repeating those concerns almost daily to the Minister of Environment and to the Minister of Mines. What do they get for their efforts? They got an advisory on Friday saying “do not use.”

That advisory was updated on Saturday to say the following. “Island Health is advising not to use or draw water from the area of the lake for residential or commercial use, including bathing, personal hygiene, drinking, food preparation” — and on it goes. That’s hardly the way for residents to live for the next 50 years.

Now, I well appreciate the Minister of Mines doesn’t care what goes on at minesites, but the people above Shawnigan Lake are absolutely convinced that this practice must stop. The CVRD is in court. The Shawnigan Ratepayers Association is in court. The right thing for the government to do, while these issues are before the courts, is to suspend the 20 to 30 trucks a day that are bringing contaminants to an empty minesite and affecting the lives of thousands of citizens.

Surely to goodness it’s time for the minister to put people first, stop the trucks and let these people get on with regular lives, like all British Columbians expect from their government.

Hon. M. Polak: I can assure the member that staff from the Ministry of Health and staff from the Ministry of Environment have taken these issues very seriously. They have conducted additional testing. They have been on site with respect to concerns about this particular incident with runoff. They will continue to be vigilant.

With permits that are dealing with very serious substances, it is important at all times to be cautious. It is also important not to sow panic where we should not.

[1410]

In that regard, I will quote from the medical health officer…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: …who issued the order, Dr. Murray Fyfe, on CFAX, responding to some of the very ill-advised comments that have been out in the media. This is what Dr. Fyfe says. “First of all, we don’t know that anything actually made it into the water, and we are going to follow up with the Ministry of Environment as we get results back to determine whether anything happened at all.”

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: I guess the water in Quilchena is okay, but the water in Shawnigan Lake is not. I don’t know how the minister can say we are sowing fear when we’re reading from an Island Health Authority water advisory. That’s not sowing fear. One minute the minister says: “Trust us.” The next minute, another hand of the government says: “Don’t drink the water.” If that’s not cause for concern, I am at a loss to know what is.

For two years, the people of Shawnigan Lake have been appealing to this government for some reason. You just have to go to the site and stand at the edge of where they’re collecting contaminants and look down at the lake. It doesn’t take a physics degree to figure out that that’s not going to work for 50 years.

Now, I appreciate that the member from Vancouver, from the tony side of Vancouver, doesn’t care a whit about
[ Page 10161 ]
the people of Vancouver Island, but the people on this Island deserve the same level of respect as every other British Columbian.

Will the minister do the right thing today and say to South Island Aggregates that we’re pulling the permit until we are absolutely convinced that we can protect the people of Shawnigan Lake?

Hon. M. Polak: It is important in all of these cases to deal with the facts. Let me outline some of them.

Firstly, permits of this nature are issued based on the decisions of independent scientists, free from interference from politicians. Compliance and enforcement recommendations are made in the same way. Politicians do not direct those scientists to make their recommendations. They conduct sampling. They assess whether or not…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: …a permit is being complied with.

But the members would be interested to know this as well. In terms of the area for which there is an advisory, there are no licensed permitted drinking water systems drawing water from that area. The nearest groundwater source is two to three kilometres away.

In fact, as I mentioned before, with half of the sampling results in, there is no evidence of a public health threat identified in those samples. In fact, the evidence points to contaminants as a result of runoff of sediment, not of contaminated materials. We will have more information this afternoon.

B. Routley: The groundwater control design at Shawnigan Lake contaminated soil dump has clearly failed. A mystery creek has now showed up right under the contaminated soil dump, and my constituents have been told not to drink the water.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

I will hear the question.

Please proceed.

B. Routley: There is another storm on the way, the second of many that will hit the coast this winter, and residents now live in fear of their own drinking water supply being totally compromised. Their trust has been broken.

[1415]

At an absolute minimum, will the Minister of Environment commit today to shut down the contaminated soil dump while these design flaws are fully and properly investigated?

Hon. M. Polak: The member references the facility being in failure. I can tell the House that there is absolutely no evidence of a breach — none. In fact, when….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister, please proceed.

Hon. M. Polak: It is always difficult to deal with permits in the Ministry of Environment that handle materials that are not welcome in our backyards. But it is necessary to ensure that we do have safe places to deal with contaminated materials so as to ensure that they are not dumped illegally and in unsafe places.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. M. Polak: So permits of this nature are issued not by politicians. They are issued by those who have the scientific expertise in order to make those decisions.

Compliance and enforcement recommendations are also made by independent scientists who do not get directed by the Minister of Environment. If the members wish to substitute their political judgment for the scientific judgment of those with expertise, maybe they should make that claim.

Madame Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B. Routley: With non-answers to these questions, I’m surprised that this government could even manage a two-door outhouse.

Madame Speaker: Member.

B. Routley: When you look at…

Madame Speaker: Member.

B. Routley: …what’s going on here, they certainly can’t be managing a contaminated soil dump.

Between the Shawnigan Residents Association and the Cowichan Valley regional district, my constituents have now paid more than $1 million in legal fees in an attempt to protect their own drinking water. They find themselves in the bizarre position of using their hard-earned money to hire lawyers to fight for the right that this government ought to be safeguarding for them, and that’s the right to clean drinking water.

The minister is well aware that she and the Environmental Appeal Board have been lied to, and she has done nothing.
[ Page 10162 ]

Madame Speaker: Member, please pose your question.

B. Routley: Why does this government continue to abandon our communities and force them to fight for a resource that she is duty-bound to protect?

Hon. M. Polak: The members of the staff of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment dedicate their entire careers to working to ensure that public health is kept safe, that the environment is kept safe.

These people have the expertise, but they also feel the heavy obligation to ensure that those careers matter, to make sure that they are doing their part in upholding their obligations for British Columbians across this province. They do that each and every day. They do that independent of political interference. That is the way it should be.

Now, I have advised the House with respect to the testing that is ongoing. I have advised the House that at this stage, the half or so samples that we have received back, in terms of results, show no public health threat. We have additional samples coming back.

As with any circumstance, if there is a threat to public health found, we act. If there are non-compliances in terms of a permit, we act. We will do so in this case.

I will simply finish with the quote again from the medical health officer, which says: “As we get results back, we will determine whether anything happened at all.”

[1420]

WRONGFUL-CONVICTION COURT CASE

L. Krog: A very simple and important question to the Minister of Justice. Today the city of Vancouver finally stopped trying to retry Ivan Henry, wrongfully convicted 35 years ago. The city of Vancouver settled. Will she do the same today?

Hon. S. Anton: When a matter is for this chamber, it’s for this chamber. When a matter is before the courts, it is in the courts.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: The reason that this matter is before the courts is because this government refuses consistently to do justice to Ivan Henry. And to top it off, I’m informed that now that the city of Vancouver has done the right thing and withdrawn from the case, the provincial government is considering hiring an amicus curiae to raise the arguments the city of Vancouver wouldn’t — further insult to injury to Mr. Henry.

Hon. Speaker, 35 years ago, he was wrongfully convicted. The courts have determined that. The Attorney General has some fundamental duties. She has the duty to protect the honour of the Crown by ensuring the justice system carries out the requirements of due process and to restore this honour, and thus the public’s faith in the justice system, when the fundamental rules of a hearing aren’t met.

It is absolutely clear to the people of British Columbia, to Mr. Henry and to the city of Vancouver that what is going on in B.C. Supreme Court is wrong. I ask her simply today: will she do the right thing? Will she settle this case and give Mr. Henry the justice he so richly deserves?

Hon. S. Anton: The member opposite raises a number of interesting issues, all of which are before the court. That is the proper realm for them to be, and we will leave them there.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL RULING ON
CONDUCT OF COLLEGE OF VETERINARIANS

H. Bains: After weeks of dithering, the minister finally, two weeks ago, accepted that he had the statutory authority to make sure that the human rights code is followed and that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s decision is implemented by the College of Veterinarians of B.C. He said: “We have the Veterinarians Act that comes under my ministry, and therefore, there are many opportunities to deal with the situation after Thursday if the college does not meet the test I have set for them.” The next day the college informed the minister that it would not be meeting the test to follow the tribunal’s ruling.

My question to the minister is this. Why is the minister not utilizing many opportunities he says he’s afforded under the act to ensure that the college follows the Human Rights Tribunal’s ruling?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you for the question. As I’ve said in this House before, there is no place for racism or prejudice anywhere in British Columbia, including all the associations and colleges that work within this province. I expect all associations — and, in particular, I expect the College of Veterinarians — to live by the human rights code and to ensure that all their agents and employees live by the human rights code as well.

I think it’s also important to reinforce the message that the Human Rights Tribunal decision was based on the actions of the association some ten years ago. None of the members on the board of the current college were on the association board at the time.

I’ve been working, through my deputy minister, with the president of the college — working out some possible solutions. We have come to the point where we’ve issued them a letter, which I’ll be happy to table in the House after question period today. As to what is contained in the letter, it’s the high bar to which I am holding the college accountable.

[1425]

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: The minister talked about the letter that he sent — what he said two weeks ago — and that he would do something. Let’s talk about the letter that he has written. He said: “My expectations are as follows. The college and all organizations in the province are expected to adhere and to comply with the human rights code. The college, its members and its agents must not engage in discriminatory conduct prohibited by the human rights code.”

Wow. What a noble idea. That law has been in place for decades. He didn’t have to remind them. He had to take action to make sure the law is followed. Even the answer today…. No wonder those same victims are going through the same discrimination that was found to be discriminatory — those actions of the college.

As a matter of fact, as we speak now, the college that he tried to absolve of any wrongdoing is defending themselves from the same type of complaints, from the same members — the college that he has appointed four members of. No wonder the college continues to fight against the victims of discrimination and retaliate against them. He has failed to take any action as a result of this. Why the college is engaged in these tactics is because they know — and they knew — that this government and this minister would do nothing. And they were right.

My question, again to the minister, is: why did he fail to take real action, as he promised in this House and outside, to ensure that the human rights ruling is implemented?

Hon. N. Letnick: The member is obviously wrong. Even the member for Vancouver–Point Grey said in the media last week that the college has every right to take a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal to judicial review. If the member opposite is saying that the government should block every time that an organization wishes to go by its constitutional rights, he should stand up in the House right now and say so. Indeed, we have taken action on this side of the House. We’ve engaged….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: We expect the college to pass an anti-discrimination law — cultural sensitivity language embedded in its college policies. We expect the college to also follow through on its promise to hire a former Supreme Court of Canada justice to review best practices. We have asked the college, also in the letter, not only to look at what happens here in B.C. but to look across the country to find out what is the best practice and make sure that not only are they held to that high standard but, also, all their agents and employees.

S. Hammell: The minister says he has told the College of Veterinarians to regain the confidence of its members and the public. What has the college done? They’ve hired a lawyer to fix their discriminatory discipline processes. The problem is the college got it wrong. The lawyer they’ve hired to fix the discrimination is from the same firm they’re using in court to argue that their process isn’t discriminatory. Does the minister see how this perceived conflict of interest makes it harder for the people in this human rights case to reconcile and move forward and for the college to regain public confidence?

[1430]

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I would like to say that we on this side of the House totally respect the Human Rights Tribunal in their decision. We expect the college to institute practices that are the best in the country. We have given them 60 days to report back on their progress, and I intend to follow up with the question from the member opposite.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: This is about the college and how the decision looks to the veterinarians and the public. The college is using the same firm to fix their discriminatory bylaws as they’re using to argue in court that the bylaws are fine and there is no discrimination.

To the minister: there is a perceived conflict of interest. As a cabinet minister, he knows that well. Will he act to address this serious issue?

Hon. N. Letnick: I find the assertion that the Minister of Agriculture should be telling the college which lawyers to hire very troubling. Where does the line end?

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. N. Letnick: It is clear that the college must comply with human rights across this organization. They have taken steps to do that. I won’t take the time in the House to outline all those steps. People in the House know the steps. We are going to hold them to those steps.

We have raised the bar on their steps as well. We have told them they must come back with a plan within 60 days to ensure that not only are they complying with the human rights code throughout all their organization but that it also will apply to all their agents and employees. We’ve also offered to them the use of a mediator paid for by the government, should they wish to avail themselves of that. The list goes on and on.
[ Page 10164 ]

Overall, I just want to say that the government is well aware of the issue. The government is making sure that the human rights code is respected by the college, and we will be there over the next couple of months to watch the college to make sure they comply with all the aspects of the letter, which I will table after question period today.

CLOSING OF CANFISCO SALMON
CANNING OPERATIONS IN PRINCE RUPERT

J. Rice: Last week we learned that Canfisco is shutting down its salmon-canning operations in its Prince Rupert plant. This will result in 600 direct jobs vanishing from Prince Rupert. The loss of indirect jobs is more than double that. These jobs, salmon jobs, are a crucial part of our identity and culture as a community.

My question is to the Agriculture Minister. Why has your government been silent in the face of this crisis in my community?

Hon. N. Letnick: As far as I understand right now, the company is in current review of how many jobs will actually be lost. Every job that’s lost in this province, of course, affects not only the family that is impacted by the companies as well.

I understand that the issue of canned salmon is…. In this particular case, it’s because the market for canned salmon has come down. Hopefully, the company can find other purposes, other uses, for their employees.

I find it galling that the members opposite would actually be complaining to us on this side of the House about economic policy. If it wasn’t for this side of the House saying yes to things like Site C, yes to LNG, yes to the expansion of agriculture, yes to the expansion of aquaculture, where would we be in this province? I can tell you I’d rather have the problems on this side of the House than have them, on the other side of the House, in control of our economy.

J. Rice: The jobs at Canfisco are jobs that already exist, jobs that are already supporting real families. Tomorrow’s theoretical jobs will do nothing to pay today’s bills.

[1435]

Local families depend on these jobs. First Nations people up and down the Skeena River and along the north coast come to Prince Rupert to work these jobs.

We know that north coast salmon is still going to be canned. It’s just not going to be canned in British Columbia. Jobs are being shipped overseas. What is this government going to do today for families that need jobs now, and will this government take action to ensure B.C. salmon creates B.C. jobs?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s really important that the members opposite understand that we are concerned for every job in British Columbia. That is why we have a jobs plan. We have to diversify our economy, and we’ve done that on this side of the House.

We’ve had record increases in the amount of GDP impacted by agriculture and aquaculture.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: So $12.3 billion, a record year. It’s a 5.9 percent increase over the year before, which is also a record increase from the year before that. Increases in tourism, stronger technology — the list goes on and on.

On this side of the House, we are here to be job creators. On that side of the House, they say no to everything.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a joint report of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Representative for Children and Youth entitled Cyberbullying: Empowering Children and Youth to Be Safe Online and Responsible Digital Citizens; and Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists reports Investigation Report 15-04, lobbyist: Leslie Hrushowy; Investigation Report 15-09, lobbyist: Dan Jepsen; and Investigation Report 15-08, lobbyist: Gordon Hunter.

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —
SOIL DUMPING IN
SHAWNIGAN LAKE WATERSHED

A. Weaver: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. As advised in Standing Order 35, I gave the Chair notice, and I have provided a written statement of the matter proposed to the Clerk.

By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, an emergency debate concerning the recent failure of the contaminated soil site stormwater containment and clarification system at the South Island Aggregates–Cobble Hill Holdings’ South Island Resource Management operations.

There were, in the past few days, at least two documented breaches of water bypassing the system into the Shawnigan potable water stream network. On November 13, Island Health issued a no-water use advisory “advising residents not to use water taken out of the lake from the south end of Lake Shawnigan, south of Butler Avenue and Verlon Road, due to suspected overflow of water from South Island Aggregates’ site.” This means that
[ Page 10165 ]
residents were being advised “not to use or draw water from the area of the lake for residential or commercial use, including bathing, personal hygiene, drinking and food preparation.”

This morning I visited the area today to witness many scores of residents of Shawnigan Lake standing along the roadside desperately seeking government action. Despite the fact that members opposite think this is a joke, I walked around the facility this morning, and there is water running off that facility today in violation of the permits that they have been granted. Yet we have the side opposite thinking this is somehow a big joke.

Last week a steady stream of trucks brought in high-sulfur soils, further contaminated with hydrocarbons from the metallurgical coal activities that occurred at Pacific Coast Terminals in Port Moody. Five thousand people draw their drinking water from this lake, and 12,000 people live within the region.

There are several court cases before that we will obviously not have time but could explore in debate, and local residents have documented many cases of non-compliance. And as of this morning, the Island Health water advisory remains in place.

As it should be clear, the need for this debate is urgent. Trucks are not delivering sediments today but will start again tomorrow. British Columbians are facing very real health impacts from a decision this government has made, and there has not been and will not be an opportunity for this issue to be debated appropriately other than within the scope of Standing Order 35.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the submission. I think, by my recollection, we had an earlier application this session under Standing Order 35. I think that at that time, I made mention of the very particular and specific test that the rules of the House require be applied.

[1440]

It occurred to me after I made those comments that I made them without actually having the benefit of reading the material that the member has filed with the House. I believe that one of the options available to you, Madame Speaker, is to defer debate, briefly. I probably should have done this earlier but would do so now and at least read the material that the member has filed with the House and then provide a more fulsome response on behalf of the government shortly.

Madame Speaker: I thank both members for their submissions.

Tabling Documents

Hon. N. Letnick: I would like to table a letter I wrote to Mr. Shaw, the president of the College of Veterinarians of B.C., on November 12, with my expectations for the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

I would ask the members to please come to order.

Motions Without Notice

REFERRAL OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT REVISION TO
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move that:

[The revision of the Local Government Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 323 be presented to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for examination and recommendation pursuant to the Statute Revision Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 440.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills by the Legislative Assembly, the Committee is empowered:

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the hon. Opposition House Leader has received a copy of the motion — and other members as well.

By leave, I would move that motion.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued second reading debate on Bill 41.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2015

(continued)

A. Dix: We’re continuing debate on Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. The Speaker will recall that this bill amends a number of acts, includ-
[ Page 10166 ]
ing issues related to universities and colleges, which my colleague from Burnaby has discussed at length. It also deals with issues around youth agreements, which my colleague from Stikine will be addressing, which are significant issues. Indeed, it’s significant issues for people in my constituency who live under those agreements, which in my view, anyway, provide insufficient resources to young people in care.

The purpose of the legislation is to extend eligibility. But there are, I think, some significant issues around the youth agreement program and the need to provide more resources to young people for whom the province is, in fact, the guardian — to allow them the resources they need to succeed under those programs.

I’m going to be focused, in my remarks today, on those sections of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that deal with the B.C. Utilities Commission. In particular, what this piece of legislation seeks to do is to amend….

[1445]

They argue, consistent with a report that was done into the BCUC, to make a series of minor amendments — in fact, to put in place six of the 35 recommendations. I note that the most significant of those recommendations are not being implemented here and, in fact, are being significantly undermined, as we speak, by the government.

Nonetheless, those amendments include the creation of a position of a chief operating officer. That is created by statute here to direct the staff of the commission. This is a change in the structure of the commission. There’s streamlining of some processes for exemption. Given the use of exemption power by the government, it’s interesting that this is the one they would proceed with most quickly.

Finally, and this one is not lacking in irony, the government is giving the commission more discretion on whether to be guided by the Clean Energy Act’s energy objectives. Why is that the case? Because the government, in legislation, has provided the commission, which it constantly criticizes, with contradictory objectives. So what they’re saying to the commission is: “You’re able more easily to ignore our ridiculous previous legislative efforts in your efforts to do your job on behalf of the people of British Columbia.”

I think it’s significant to put this in the context that these changes and these reports…. This is, of course, not the first report. It’s, in fact, the third report that has utterly, even though they’re government reports, rejected the government’s approach to energy policy and, in particular, the BCUC. This was rejected, ironically, by B.C. Hydro’s core review in 2011, implemented after a disastrous period that has led to the very significant rate increases that Liberal political decisions have caused at B.C. Hydro today.

Equally, the industrial electricity core review task force, in 2013, did precisely the same thing, emphasizing the important role of the B.C. Utilities Commission. That report was again completely contradicted by the government’s actions and activity in the subsequent period. Of course, this report itself, which says very clearly and unequivocally that the independence of the Utilities Commission….

Let me quote from the report. “The existence of an independent expert commission is more important than ever today. By regulating monopolies, the BCUC provides an essential public service.” Yet in spite of these government commission reports, the government has continued, over the years, to exempt major projects and exempt major public policy positions — essentially, not follow the law — with disastrous consequences for ratepayers and the people of B.C.

Who can forget the $1 billion smart meter initiative, justified by its positive impact in reducing the number of grow ops? All of the performance indicators that the government promised have not gone ahead. In fact, they’ve been deleted, it would appear, from the B.C. Hydro website. The reason we were going to do this is now no longer in existence. They did it anyway. They spent $1 billion.

The exemptions they provided to the Clean Energy Act, exemptions for government decisions under the Clean Energy Act — which are dealt with, again, in detail, in this BCUC report…. Now we know, because of the miscalculation and the political decisions of the government, we lost $1.4 billion — it’s hard to imagine you could do that — on power projects over the three years, in which this year is one, last year and next year. It’s $1.4 billion, not according to me, but according to B.C. Hydro’s own documents — $1.4 billion.

They exempted themselves. They said they didn’t have to justify their expenditures and their public policy decisions before the BCUC, and now ratepayers are paying a $1 billion price tag. It’s hard to imagine that: a $1 billion price tag. That is how much that particular activity cost taxpayers.

There was a decision to exempt the northwest transmission line and a decision to exempt other objectives of the Clean Energy Act, including review of demand and future demand, which used to be a regular occurrence at B.C. Hydro. What they would do is they’d make demand forecasts every year on which decisions would be made. They stopped making them. When? After the 2013 IRP. Why? Because they knew those new demand forecasts — because we can see it in the actuals, in the actual amount of energy consumed — were wrong. They wanted to make the Site C decision, so they decided to hide that evidence from the public in advance of the decision.

[1450]

That would not have happened, could not have happened…. It is the very purpose of the B.C. Utilities Commission to ensure that that does not happen. Yet the government, as a matter of policy, has routinely made billion-dollar mistakes and exempted itself from regulatory approval.
[ Page 10167 ]

You would think, having made mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake, having refused and not complied with good management practices, having been wrong on demand, having been wrong on Power Smart, having been wrong on its estimates…. They failed to provide them. It’s extraordinary.

What you do when the evidence goes against you, if you’re this government, is you don’t ask for the evidence. This is the way you get around it. You have a 2013 IRP based on 2012 numbers, and you don’t update them because the updating would make your decision around Site C look worse. Rather than saying, “These are the facts here, on which were based the decision,” you hide the facts. You delete the facts. You delete them again, and then you delete them again. That would make for delete, delete and delete.

Now, what they did…. Well, this is what they did. What they did, at the end of 2014, is to make a decision not based on the facts, because they had intentionally hidden the facts. It’s not based on rigorous analysis, because they didn’t do that. They knew — and their own documents show this; look at the first quarterly report of B.C. Hydro this year — that the demand for power goes down. We’ll review that in greater detail in a moment. Yet they did not….

They chose to proceed nonetheless. They chose to proceed nonetheless, not because they knew they were right — in fact, they knew they were wrong about those questions — but because they want, presumably, to use billions — indeed, tens of billions — of dollars of public expenditure as a political wedge in the present, regardless of its impact on rates and the economy in the future. It is reckless activity. It is, frankly, the subject of this legislation, which is a government that says one thing about the BCUC, does another and leaves the ratepayer to pay the price.

Now, when this report came out, the Minister of Energy said that he’d changed. He was a changed man. He had a new approach to the BCUC that he was going to take — not the old approach, where they made disastrous mistakes because they didn’t review things at the BCUC. He was a changed man. He was going to change. He was going to implement the decisions of the report, and then he was going to move forward. What did he say? He said: “We will work with the BCUC to implement the recommendations and strengthen the commission.” He goes on to say: “I think we need to find a way to give the Utilities Commission more capacity, more resources, so that they can deal with not just smaller issues, but the big issues.”

What is the first thing they did after that? I think it’s interesting. I know that my colleague from Oak Bay will be interested in this. What is the first thing they did afterwards? In August of 2015, they decided to engage in a process to exempt two major transmission projects from the BCUC. You say one thing; you do another. Was there any justification for it? Does anybody, any major group dealing with energy policy, think this is a good idea? Just so you don’t think it’s the union or a consumer group or seniors groups or public interest groups that think this is the wrong thing to do, what did…?

We’re referring, in particular, to the Peace region electricity supply project, PRES, which used to be called DCAT 2. They changed the name, which is, I guess, what they call innovation over there. Then there’s the North Montney power supply project. These are two very significant projects, very costly projects, potentially — very costly projects, potentially, for ratepayers. They may be the right projects, but they are not going to be reviewed.

Because it’s interesting to see, what did the Association of Major Power Customers of B.C., AMPC, say? They’re not an affiliated organization of the NDP, to my knowledge, although I may be wrong. What did they say? “Exempting the two projects above from BCUC review and oversight appears to be a step back from these clear commitments” — referring to the minister’s comments — “a step that should only be taken for the clearest of reasons. In this case, no such reasons have been articulated.”

[1455]

They asked for information. And they said, “AMPC has not received any such information,” and so they “oppose the request by B.C. Hydro and ATCO for exemptions from the normal Utilities Commission Act requirements.” That’s what the industrialists say. The public interest groups say the same thing. So did COPE 378 and other interveners.

What did they do? The first thing they did…. The minister has already said that his decision is essentially made. He’s proceeding. He’s exempting these projects — a private monopoly in British Columbia that will be totally unregulated and wants to exempt itself from any regulation, and B.C. Hydro.

This isn’t just any project, by the way — the DCAT 2 project. It’s interesting. This is a project that’s very controversial — so controversial, that when its predecessor project…. It’s over budget; that goes without saying. That’s what the minister would call ipso facto — that it’s over budget and years past schedule, that project. But when they tried to get that project — and they did get that project — through the BCUC, the controversial project was DCAT 2, now called PRES. Remember: change the name. This is Liberal innovation.

What did they say? They said: “Don’t ask us about DCAT 2. You will have every opportunity in the future before the BCUC to discuss that project. We know it’s a problem, and you’ll have an opportunity to engage then.”

What did they do? It’s bait and switch. They go forward a couple of years later, and they are planning to exempt that project from BCUC approval. There is absolutely no justification for doing so. It is a project that’s expensive. It’s a project that involves, I would argue, a significant public subsidy in both cases. Even though the ATCO project, which is the first project, is a private
[ Page 10168 ]
project, B.C. Hydro has responsibility and makes guarantees both around price — meaning that the existing ratepayers are going to provide a subsidy on price — and on costs outside of the agreement, none of this subject to BCUC approval.

In short, what the government did…. They had a project. It was difficult. It was controversial. Many people think it doesn’t make sense. They came and said: “Don’t worry. This is going to go before the BCUC.” Not a decade ago, not in the 1980s, not in the 1950s, but a couple of years ago, they said: “You’re going to have an opportunity to look at this at the BCUC.”

Now that we need that opportunity to come and look at it at the BCUC — a few months after the minister made specific commitments on the BCUC, when he received this report, when he said he was going to follow through on a report that says the BCUC is to be respected — what did they do in their first opportunity? Well, no such thing. In fact, they did the opposite. They did the opposite of what they said they were going to do.

This is a significant problem. You have a report. You have a piece of legislation. The government commits to a bunch of things. Then, when it matters, when it’s significant, when the government wants to do something, they immediately, again — having failed on smart meters, having failed on the clean energy plan in terms of its short-term costs, having failed on measuring demand and having failed on the process on Site C, which their own numbers say is going to lose significant resources….

Here’s what another group…. I know that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is concerned that the business community may have a different view. Well, let me read an editorial from Business in Vancouver that talks about these very issues of demand that are central to this exemption I’ve been talking about and central to the way the BCUC should function. Here’s what they said in a recent editorial:

“Hydro’s predicted 40 percent increase in electricity demand in the province over the next 20 years, a key justification for Site C, needs recalculating, especially in the wake of Paper Excellence’s recent shutdown of paper production at Howe Sound Pulp and Paper. Newsprint mills are major domestic industrial customers for Hydro, and the global pulp and paper industry’s rapidly changing business fundamentals foreshadow more hard times ahead.

“Prior to its permanent closure in 2010, Catalyst Paper’s Elk Falls mill near Campbell River was one of Hydro’s biggest customers. Numbers in Hydro’s fiscal report show stagnant electricity demand from large industrial customers in the province over the past decade.”

[1500]

The past decade — stagnant demand. But in that past decade, this government has been in office and apparently engaging in its economic agenda.

“Sales in that category have slipped by 15 percent, to 14.02 terawatt hours in fiscal 2015 from 16.4 terawat hours in fiscal 2006” — down after ten years of supposed Liberal economic development. What they also show is that electricity exports, of course, south of the border dropped dramatically in 2015. This is again from Hydro’s own documents.

In fact, what Hydro’s documents are saying is that the government is significantly behind its own estimates, not for 2024 or for 2028 or for 2035 — everyone would understand that’s hard — but the estimates they made in 2012 for 2015. One-quarter of the net power to be produced by Site C off in their estimates in two years, and they refuse — refuse, refused — to have their plans reviewed independently.

We know why. We know why they failed to do it on northwest transmission. People paid the price. We know why they failed to do it on smart meters. People paid the price. We know why they failed to do it on their IRP. People paid the price. And now we see it again on two more projects.

A government that every time they’ve been asked about the BCUC, says: “Our position is to respect the BCUC.” But every occasion they’ve had, they’ve undermined ratepayers interests and the BCUC — every possible opportunity, including since the most recent promise. It took them, unbelievably…. The minister made a promise in March, and he broke it by August. He broke it fundamentally by August. It took him very little…. There was April, and there was May, and there was June. There was July and then August.

He broke his promise by August. Again, it’s because there’s going to be a private subsidy paid for by every single small business and individual in British Columbia. And the government won’t justify these massive expenditures in terms of their value. They won’t do what they’ve said they would do repeatedly.

With respect to this legislation, we have again a government that says one thing and does another. The consequences, when you lose money in the billions, for ratepayers are the investments not made, the jobs not created. The costs increase for all businesses, which dramatically costs jobs. When you make decisions such as the decision on Site C, when you know the evidence is different from the basis on which you made the decision…. No one would justify that on a business basis. That isn’t even beginning to discuss the other issues with respect to Site C.

In other words, how can the government continue to act this way? And yet they do. They continue to act this way, and they continue to expect ratepayers to pay the price. Their hope — as it was, I guess, when they exempted themselves in 2009, in 2010, in 2011: “Well, let’s get through the electoral cycle.” In the case of this current project, “Let’s get through two more electoral cycles,” before people have to pay the price for what is nothing more or less than incompetence in the management of energy policy.

There has to be a way. There has to be a better direction. The BCUC review shows some of the direction — if only the government hadn’t already broken its word before we
[ Page 10169 ]
even get a chance to pass these minor amendments in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

R. Fleming: I want to speak to one section of this miscellaneous bill this afternoon, and that is to do with the College and Institute Act amendments and the University Act amendments to deal with the collection of student society fees at the public post-secondary institutions across British Columbia.

We have heard cogent arguments, comments about the other three sections of this bill relating to the Justice, Energy and Mines and MCFD ministries. I will confine my remarks, I think, really just to the first major section of this bill dealing with those acts that govern Advanced Education.

[1505]

I have to say that my interest in making my remarks is, in part, to see whether the stated intent of government in fact bears to be true when regulations are later being made to bring into full force these changes — as well as the changes to the Societies Act that passed through this chamber in the spring sitting of the Legislature, for which we are still awaiting orders-in-council to bring regulations into place.

The stated reasons for bringing in the changes here, and in the Societies Act prior to it, are to recognize the uniqueness and the distinction of student societies — first, within the Societies Act changes to recognize that student union organizations, in many cases, are large and sophisticated organizations. They are governed by their own highly developed democratic internal bylaws. They, in turn, have all types of reporting obligations to their members, including financial reporting where there are business enterprises involved, where there are services for which specific fees are collected.

That is, I think, positive recognition under the Societies Act that they’re a little bit different than some of the small, membership-driven organizations that exist in all of our communities that are represented by the members here of the Legislative Assembly. These are large, distinct organizations that occupy a very different place in British Columbia.

Indeed, under this miscellaneous act this afternoon, the stated reason from government for pursuing amendments to the College and Institute Act and the University Act is, again, to recognize the uniqueness of these institutions, to give them additional security and to protect them from various ambiguities within the law that could in fact undermine the stability of student union organizations.

Those motivations are all positive. However, the minister has asked for trust, both from the stakeholder groups that come under his ministry, of which student unions are the one in question here today, and also in asking the opposition members here for trust. For some of us, given the past actions of this government on a whole range of fronts, including around funding commitments and broken promises to the university and college sector, it’s not about trust. It’s about a leap of faith that is being asked of us here this afternoon.

I sincerely hope that there is nothing to the concerns, which I will share this afternoon, from organizations like the University of Victoria Students Society, who have written to the minister and copied me on their correspondence. I sincerely hope that there is nothing in this bill that will later arise to undermine the stability of those organizations.

I can tell you that student societies are not only a permanent feature in the life of any campus in British Columbia; they are a positive feature in our communities. I think of the University of Victoria Students Society or the Camosun student society, for that matter, and the role they play both in advocating for students as well as providing concrete programs and benefits for the well-being of their members. Indeed, those functions are not only highly developed and evolved over many, many decades; they have become indispensable in our community and, in a city like Victoria, absolutely critical for the large numbers of residents here who are in fact full-time or part-time students at these institutions.

Looking at the University of Victoria again, we’re talking about, I think, a $12 million or $15 million annual operation here. It’s certainly one of the largest employers in the region of its type. It can also be seen distinctly as one of the largest cooperative business enterprises in the region, which has annual accountability through its general meetings and through elections to the boards of directors that other enterprises simply do not face — so already a very well-governed part of our economy and part of the fabric of British Columbia around advanced education.

[1510]

I agree that it’s important to eliminate legal ambiguities that may threaten the role and the stability of student unions in the future. Nevertheless, there are a number of questions that do arise out of this. I know that the critic for Advanced Education, my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake, will have questions very specifically at committee stage, when we get there. Here at second reading, I want to put my finger on some of the things that have arisen from the consultation, so to speak, that the minister has engaged in with student societies.

I know that the minister has said, in a conference call for which there is a transcript available, that…. He has made a very, very clear commitment that this is not about a government who…. Let’s face it. Its actions and its view and its agenda for advanced education don’t get a very positive reception on most campuses around British Columbia. I can’t think of any where the student body has a lot of good to say about the B.C. Liberals and their administration and the fact that we have, for example, the highest interest rates of any student loan program in the
[ Page 10170 ]
country or the least generous student grant programs of any province in Canada.

Those are all well-known facts. Those are things that this government has rolled back in the last 15 years. It’s understandable why student societies would want to have a very clear understanding of just exactly what the minister has in mind.

He has said very clearly — and I have a transcript here — that he’s not looking at, even though the legislation says and is creating different categories of what kinds of student fees are collected, making a distinction, for example, between capital and program fees. He has said very clearly that his government is not interested in shutting down, for example, freedom of the press, where newspaper society fees or radio society fees for licensed FM broadcasting stations are, indeed, collected on those campuses. So very, very good. I’m glad that the impulse to shut down independent media on our campuses is not in the sights of this government.

He has very clearly said, and made this commitment, that, for example, mandatory transit passes at those campuses around British Columbia that have them — which are mandatory on everybody, regardless of whether you use transit service or not — are not being subjected to some kind of a latter review by this government or that they will be undermined.

The minister has said some comments around some benefit programs that are provided by student unions that, again, raise some flags and maybe call into question the trust that he is asking for from the student associations that have been involved in his consultations so far. Specifically, I’m thinking of extended health and dental programs.

Now, again, an extended health and dental program on a campus is voted upon, approved by a majority. It can be voted out, again, by a majority of those members on a campus. Many campuses do have extended health and dental programs, and they are negotiated with a variety of providers — Pacific Blue Cross and those kinds of organizations — based on having a set pool of benefit participants. That’s how you negotiate them. You cannot sign an agreement to provide extended medical benefits or a dental program for university or college students with no idea how many students will, in fact, participate in that plan. It won’t work. Those programs will fall apart.

When the minister raised that example as something that may be separated out later in regulation or that may be given latitude by Liberal-appointed boards of governors at these institutions to be collected or not collected, that raises concerns. It raises concerns not only in undermining those programs but that, in fact, we have hit the thin edge of the wedge.

Now, I hope this isn’t true, because those programs are governed well right now by the people that potentially benefit from them. They determine, as they should, independently of government or the institution, whether they wish to have collective benefit programs like that in place, and it should remain that way.

[1515]

I think that if the government is really looking here to make distinctions between different types of fees that are collected, then in fact, we’re not preserving the long-held, long-fought-for independence of student organizations to not be sat upon by their institutions, to not be some kind of glorified class presidency that’s appointed by the chancellor or the president of a university or a college — but that they be genuinely independent organizations. What would the minister be doing raising the suggestion that perhaps some of those fees, in fact, can be second-guessed by appointees that are loyal to his government and appointed by his government?

That’s a concern that I have and that, clearly, a number of student organizations in British Columbia have. They are interested — student societies — in having the law be made more clear about how to handle situations where members who do not wish to be members of their student organizations have a process to withdraw their membership, much as we do in, for example, labour organizations.

The law of the land since 1946, to my understanding, has been that where there are union certifications granted in a workplace, where an employer and a union representing employees reach an agreement, there is boilerplate language around the issue of membership fees. This is what was the cause of so much industrial turmoil in the decades that preceded and has created both union and employer stability in the postwar period.

I think that’s where the idea, obviously, originated from in Canada around student societies. In fact, if you look at the law that exists in Quebec, it very clearly references student societies as having recognition that is legally equivalent to trade unions and employee unions under the labour relations code in that province.

Now, we don’t have that in British Columbia, but we do have something that most provinces do not have. That is explicit recognition of the independence and the fee-collecting responsibilities — the obligations of boards of governors at our college and university institutions. So it’s a form of, if you wish, the Rand formula that exists in the employer realm.

Nobody is looking to upset that relationship that has evolved in British Columbia, as I understand it, and the minister has clearly said this, I think, on the record on more than one occasion. Yet there could be a slight Trojan Horse effect here, where the minister has also said he’s comfortable with discerning which fees should be collected and which fees perhaps ought not to be.

That’s something different than the legal problem that the government said it is interested in correcting. The legal problem is around how you accommodate people who wish to remove themselves from mandatory membership in a society that they, for whatever reasons —
[ Page 10171 ]
religious, political, philosophical — may object to being made to hold membership in.

The legislation has been clear that you can do that. You can withdraw your membership in a student union organization, as you can in a trade union organization. But — and this is important — the legal precedent has been long established that you must continue to pay fees. You must pay the fees, although the membership can be surrendered.

As I understand it, nobody is trying to change that part of the legal jurisprudence in Canada for which there have been all kinds of Charter cases argued. However, student societies don’t have a sophisticated or a distinct act that recognizes them here in the province of British Columbia. They, in a sense, cling to a number of clauses that very explicitly do spell out their rights to exist and their freedom from interference from the administration under the University Act and under the College and Institute Act.

[1520]

The worry here is that the minister, in seeking to eliminate a conflict with the Societies Act, is, in fact, weakening the position of student union organizations as it exists now.

I have made remarks this afternoon about where I think the minister has provided the right kinds of assurances, but I also have raised some of the concerns that student unions have brought directly to his attention, and mine as well, so that I could put them on the record.

I think that the principles around compulsory versus voluntary membership are ones that should be very clear in law. There’s no disagreement, I think, between both sides of the House on that, as the minister has expressed so far in this debate.

The difference is around whether the language in Bill 41, this miscellaneous bill, is sufficient to recognize that distinction or whether it, in fact, increases the ambiguity and the ability for administrative interference — and perhaps a legal challenge to the membership opt-out provisions that currently exist and can be availed of by people who don’t wish to be members of the society but who, because they attend one of these public institutions, are still required to pay those fees.

I don’t think that I need to say it at great length. I’ve used the issue of health and dental benefit programs — if those were to be undermined by these changes. It’s an example the minister used. I don’t think that I have to go too far down the road, though, to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact the minister and the drafters of Bill 41 have not got the language right, then we could be in for a period of instability at our institutions.

Most student unions carry debt for building improvements, for providing capital facilities for the enjoyment of their members and to enhance student life on campuses. Those debts are usually held with private banks. They rely upon the mandatory, regular, stable collection of fees to get those loans and mortgages.

If we are opening up a situation where the legislation is, in fact, not becoming less ambiguous about the fee-paying obligations of non-members of these societies but becoming more ambiguous, then we could be putting student union organizations into financial uncertainty as well.

I think the biggest concern, obviously, too, though, is around opening up potential for political interference. Let me conclude on this point. If we are going to trust the minister and his government to create later, after passage of this bill into law, different categories of fees, there obviously is a concern that somebody somewhere in his party, or perhaps deeply lodged in the ministry, may have some idea about types of fees that they object to.

They may have an impulse to not trust the members of the society to decide democratically, through their various referendums and through the bylaws that they are able to craft and through the control which they exert over their own affairs. They may wish to impose a different view.

They may wish to, for example, say, “You know what? Student unions have no business having an opinion on international affairs or holding membership in a provincial or national organization. Maybe they have no business in, for example, holding opinions on topical issues that are in the public realm, that are under public discussion” — you know, like maybe the right-to-die movement that’s happening, which has been visited upon by the Supreme Court recently and has to be decided upon by lawmakers like ourselves and those in Ottawa.

Maybe this government doesn’t like the fact that many campuses fund campus clubs who hold different political or philosophical views than their own.

That is a temptation I surely hope that nobody in that government…. Although they have passed resolutions at their own political convention some years ago, I would note, surely nobody is going to act upon that impulse and seek to betray a trust that the minister has given, on his own word and maybe a handshake, to student organizations throughout B.C.

My remarks this afternoon are simply to put a circle around that, to remind this House that while some student organizations are comfortable with the language, others are not.

[1525]

It’s to remind those — through Hansard — in debate that it was the minister who gave his word that this was not about opening up opportunities for interference. This was not about moving away from the independence that governs and must govern student societies’ affairs in the province of British Columbia. This was not about upsetting the balance of power and obligations and responsibilities that the administration has with those student organizations. It’s about removing ambiguity in law.

He says it’s only about that. I’m concerned that it could be about other things. I’m willing — and, in fact, would
[ Page 10172 ]
be delighted — to be proved wrong in several years’ time. But based on the track record of this government…. We’ve been so disappointed when we’ve been asked for leaps of faith on legislation in other instances that I have to raise those cautions here this afternoon. That’s what I thank you for, Mr. Speaker — to be able to do at this stage of debate today.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015. It’s another one of the miscellaneous statutes acts, this one with amendments in four different areas — the first, of course, being Advanced Education amendments that my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake discussed recently. Part 2 is Children and Family Development amendments; part 3, Energy and Mines amendments, specifically with respect to BCUC; and part 4, Justice amendments.

This bill actually covers a rather large number of bills within these four categories: the Child, Family and Community Service Act; the College and Institute Act; the University Act; the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act; and the Utilities Commission Act.

The amendments clarify a few definitions and generally expand regulatory and exemption powers for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or, in the case of the Utilities Commission Act, the minister assigned in the place of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This amendment bill seems to follow a pattern of a rather large number of these bills we’ve seen this year where the legislation is made somewhat increasingly vague and left up, often, to the discretion of the appointed minister or regulator.

With respect to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the amendments are said to enable the expansion of the agreements with young adults program, allowing the Ministry of Children and Family Development to extend the duration of agreements and raise the age limit. Now, this is important.

This is an important piece of legislation that’s dealing with the transition of youth from the ages of 18 to 19 who often fall between the cracks as they move from being a child to an adult. The amendment will allow and enable agreements to be used for life skills programs, in addition to the current educational, vocational and rehabilitation programs, meaning that children will be able to transition better.

I was speaking this last Saturday with an RCMP officer from the Victoria region, out on the West Shore, who said that the single most common call they get are calls with respect to adolescent mental health issues. Now, part of the problem, of course, is that these adolescents who move into adulthood fall between the cracks after they age out. This legislation allows ministries to actually coordinate — extend the coverage — under Children and Family Development, and it’s a very fine piece of legislation that I’m very proud to support.

On the same note, the changes to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act add further amendments that I’m very pleased to support. In particular, the changes will allow for child and spousal support decisions from other provinces and territories and countries to be more efficiently processed.

The administrative changes will allow support order decisions from jurisdictions that do not provide court-certified copies of decisions, such as those reached by tribunal, to be registered with the B.C. court. In addition, instead of using the court sheriff services to serve applications for support from other jurisdictions, the director of maintenance enforcement will now use a private process server.

Out-of-province support orders are often hard to collect and said to account for about 11 percent of family maintenance enforcement program cases. Again, an important piece of legislation within the broader Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[1530]

Then we move to the Utilities Commission Act changes. Now, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway — I believe it was Vancouver-Kingsway — gave a very eloquent and fine analysis of the changes to the Utilities Commission Act, in particular how it affects BCUC.

The changes include…. They’re being told to implement recommendations from the BCUC — B.C. Utilities Commission — Core Review Task Force. That task force was initiated by government in 2014 in response to concerns raised by customer groups and utilities about BCUC’s capacity to deliver clear and timely decisions.

The proposed legislative amendments are said to increase the BCUC’s effectiveness and efficiency and reduce the cost of regulation for ratepayers, who pay for BCUC in their utility rates. It all sounds fine at face value, but in terms of the implementation, what’s being proposed is that the amendments really seem to focus on increasing power and exemption abilities of the minister.

Now, while some ratepayer groups consulted during the core review are said to support these changes, it’s a disturbing trend that we’re seeing more and more often within this government’s legislation: to put more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer and ask British Columbians to “trust us.” As we saw earlier today, there are times when “trust us” simply is not good enough.

The final component of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is with respect to changes to the College and Institute Act and the University Act. As I mentioned, my colleague from Vancouver–Swan Lake did a fine job outlining some of the…

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Did I say Vancouver–Swan Lake?

With humble apologies to the member from Vancouver-Quilchena, the member for Victoria–Swan
[ Page 10173 ]
Lake outlined some of the issues that some universities’ student groups have felt concern on. The amendments here to both the University Act and the College and Institute Act make adjustments to how fees are collected, or can be collected, from people who leave student societies. The Minister of Advanced Education says he will consult with student societies to determine which program or service fees should be protected under legislation.

I understand why this legislation was brought in. With the recent passage of the Societies Act, we were left with a rather concerning gap in legislation that led to questions as to what would happen to the fees if students pulled out of the student societies. I recognize that the minister, in consultation with a variety of student groups, put forward the amendments that we see before us today both on the order paper as well as in the original act.

There has been some concern that too much power will be granted to the minister to determine what is or is not considered a fee. It’s something that…. Rather than pass judgment on it at this particular junction, I’ll ask for some specific examples during committee stage, to get on record a certain number of these examples to see whether or not this is what the minister believes to be considered as student fees or student charges.

As the member for Victoria–Swan Lake…. The UVic Students Society has been quite vocal about their concerns with this specific piece of legislation. They knew that changes regarding fees levied against those who leave the student society were coming. They were concerned. They did not expect the format that the government used to bring these changes in to be the one we see today.

In fairness to the minister who brought in the changes, it’s not clear to me, in the time frame that the minister had, that it was able to, under the same umbrella, bring all potential types and qualifiers and identify all those that would be viewed to be student fees now. The minister has committed to engaging student groups in the future to discuss this.

Nevertheless, it has left an element of uncertainty. When there’s uncertainty, there’s concern, because student groups — not only the University of Victoria and others — believe that they are being asked to “trust us” once again.

I will say that the student group at the University of British Columbia seemed to be more supportive of the changes as put in, although they, too, note the irony of almost a catch-22 being in place. They don’t think it’s fair, but a catch-22 is in place, where they say that the Societies Act seems to imply, quite logically, that only members of a society can cast votes on society business.

[1535]

Yet there’s an administrative problem, because students who resign their membership must continue to pay student fees. The bill specifies that these students must also continue to have voting rights. That seems to be in conflict with the Societies Act.

But, as I will outline, there are ways around this, which brings me to a comment. I’m concerned that, in fact…. Ironically, in light of the amount of time we’ve spent during this session discussing red-tape reduction, it seems to me that one of the consequences of this amendment is a rather substantive increase in red tape to be applied to student organizations in British Columbia.

The bill separates the fees that students face into multiple, regulation-dependent categories, which may operate in different ways. There are a number of issues that I can think of that need to be addressed in the committee stage, as I mentioned, that I’ll cover later. But first, this bill creates the so-called red tape for student societies that I alluded to earlier as follows.

Previously, a simple annual vote took place. Annually, students would vote. That vote took place to elect a student board and was used to pass any new funding. The student board would be elected. New funding would be approved or not approved by a referendum, and it would be done with all students who are members of the student union or society voting.

However, the bill appears to morph this process into a far more convoluted red-tape process. I should have worn some red tape over my suit here today. Student societies must now account for a new category of students who will cast ballots on funding referendums and not on the student election.

This strikes me as odd — that you’ll have various groups of students voting on various things, in light of the fact that student turnout at the best of times is not as high as it could be. They already suffer from limited turnout in many universities around the province, let alone making this much more complicated and having different categories of students being able to vote for something or against something.

Secondly, the bill confers, I would argue, unnecessary powers to the minister to decide which fees apply in which ways. Again, I recognize that this probably was left as a matter of regulation in light of the timeliness of trying to get something passed this session so that student groups collecting fees from students who secede from the union or society that represents them would be in place sooner than later. I recognize that.

However, there are questions that we can explore at committee stage, and they’ll fall along these lines. In general, there’s an issue with the increased reliance on regulations to set policy. However, in that case, there should be a simple remedy. Consult with student unions about the specific fees they levy and draft the legislation accordingly.

Again, we are told that the regulations will come in place through consultation with the student groups. Again, as I’ve argued earlier and pointed out, some of these student groups more so than others feel that they’re being asked to trust the government. Depending on the various student groups, some will trust them more than others.
[ Page 10174 ]

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The minister, of course, is suggesting that we should all trust government. Well, as I mentioned earlier, trusting government, in many cases, is simply not good enough. We don’t have to reiterate the example we heard today during question period and the resolution I brought forward for emergency debate on the Shawnigan Lake situation.

The change, as I mentioned, also appears to allow the government to decide which fees are appropriate. That, again, could potentially limit the union’s or society’s ability to challenge government decisions it doesn’t support.

Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that the university of somewhere in B.C. decides to form…. Through referendum, the students decide that they want to put a group there, a union. Their union, through the fees, has decided a club is going to be formed. It’s going to be the “We have to get the Liberals out in 2017” club.

Now, that’s a fee that has been approved by referendum, and students then…. Maybe one or two in the university who don’t agree with that pull out of the student society. The decision as to whether or not that fee that was elected democratically…. Whether or not the students who pull out can actually take their payment of the fees with them is left up to the minister to decide.

[1540]

Clearly, there is a potential conflict there. There’s a potential question as to whether or not the minister will or will not support.

I give a rather crass example. But we could actually move a little closer to where it’s not so clear. Obviously, all of British Columbia has sincere trust in the present Minister of Advanced Education to do absolutely no wrong at any time. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that there were a minister who ideologically did not believe that men could be with other men and marry other men, and therefore that minister…. I’m sure there are many of them in government who feel that way strongly. Perhaps they are in a position of decision-making.

They, then, could decide: “You know what? These fees are not allowable.” Hence the concern of some student groups over others. Now, as I pointed out, this clearly would not happen in British Columbia with the esteemed leadership of the Minister of Advanced Education, also representing Vancouver-Quilchena. But there may be other ministers, at some point in the future, who will be less trustworthy.

Finally, I will say that much of this I’m going to try to deal with in committee stage by providing specific examples of specific clubs that do exist already in some universities and see whether or not the fees to these clubs were the types of fees that the minister was thinking are allowable to actually be passed on as a direct cost back to the students union if the students pull out of the union or the society that represented them.

With that, I thank you for your time.

Deputy Speaker: I see no further speakers. The minister will conclude the debate.

Hon. S. Anton: Seeing no further speakers, I will close debate, and I move second reading of Bill 41.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 41 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015, 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 move that committee stage of Bill 42, intituled the Electoral Districts Act, proceed.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 42 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 42; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined by Neil Reimer, senior policy analyst and my right-hand man in all of these things.

G. Holman: I would point out that while he is your right-hand man, he is sitting on your left-hand side.

This side of the House has made it clear that we’ll be supporting this bill. There’s really not much to the legislation — essentially, maps attached to the legislation. In our view, the panel had a difficult job, particularly given the fact that there were 17 constituencies in the interior of British Columbia that were essentially frozen. Also, the other direction from government was to increase the number of MLAs by two, in part, I guess, to try and mitigate the difficulties that the freezing of those constituencies created.

[1545]

Given that direction, which we think made the commission’s job a little bit more difficult than it already was, we think they did a fair job, a balanced job. We’ve indicated that in second reading. We feel that all things considered, the panel, whose credentials and expertise are beyond reproach, did as good a job as could be done
[ Page 10175 ]
balancing the difficult decisions that they had to make around boundaries.

I do have one or two specific questions. The first is in terms of the decision to freeze the number of constituencies — the 17 constituencies or the three regions in the interior of B.C. Did the government get a legal opinion on that? You understand better, I think, than most that there is the potential for a constitutional challenge arising out of this. The number of constituencies frozen comprises a rather large percentage of the total number in British Columbia. So one of my questions to government is: was a legal opinion obtained on the constitutionality of that direction to the commission?

Hon. S. Anton: Suffice to say that I was, and have been on an ongoing basis, fully briefed on the issues — in particular, the issues relating to the question that the member is raising: the question of maintaining the number of districts in the three regions of the province.

G. Holman: Just a quick follow-up. If there was a challenge, it could potentially create some timing problems — could it not? — with respect to the 2017 election. Has the minister, or has government, considered what might happen if there were delays sufficient enough that the boundaries couldn’t actually be changed in 2017?

Hon. S. Anton: It’s a hypothetical question. I don’t want to speculate on a hypothetical question, but I will say a couple of things. One is that there is a presumption, when the Legislature approves legislation, that the legislation is valid. The second thing I will say is that on a practical level, as soon as the assembly supports the legislation, if it chooses to, the Chief Electoral Officer will immediately begin the process of considering the new districts and preparing for the next election. There is a lot of lead time in the preparation for an election. That work will start right away.

G. Holman: Apologies to the minister, but I didn’t really understand your response to the first question about the legal advice that you obtained around the constitutionality of freezing that number of constituencies.

[1550]

Did you, in fact, receive written, formal, legal advice on the constitutionality of that?

Hon. S. Anton: Legal advice is not something that is discussed in this House. What I can say, though, is what I said earlier — that I have been fully briefed on all of the issues and support this legislation and believe it to be proper legislation.

G. Holman: One of the recommendations made by the commission was that Elections B.C. could take over administrative support for future work. Could the minister comment on that? My understanding during second reading was that you were looking favourably on that recommendation?

Hon. S. Anton: The commission did use the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, which was extremely effective and administratively efficient. In fact, they ended up using only a third of the budget that was available. Given government’s interest in being fiscally prudent, I must say I do compliment them on that.

They have recommended that that was a very effective choice and a useful choice for both themselves and for government in terms of the financial savings. They are recommending that that practice continue with future commissions.

G. Holman: One other question regarding government direction to the commission. It was to freeze the 17 constituencies but also to add two additional constituencies — essentially, two additional MLAs in this House. How did government come to that decision?

Hon. S. Anton: Just to be clear, the direction out of the legislation from 2014 was to keep the same number of districts, but there was not a direction to freeze the boundaries of the districts. In fact, some of those boundaries were adjusted within the regions.

Secondly, the question of why there was a possibility of adding two more. I’ll just remind the member that that was discretionary. What the commission was given was the discretion to add two seats, should they choose. They did choose, recognizing, I think, the growth in population in the two areas that they chose extra seats.

I would note that the overall numbers are fairly manageable and fairly reasonable. When they came up with that, it seems to have worked, putting the extra two in. Again, that was a choice available to them. They did not need to take it but chose to.

[1555]

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that response.

Essentially, what government did was give the commission the discretion to add two, if they so chose. The minister is characterizing it as their decision. Fair enough. Why wasn’t discretion given for just one more or three more or four more? How was that discretionary flexibility of two additional MLAs…? How did government land on that degree of discretion as opposed to some different number?

Hon. S. Anton: These were in the amendments made in the legislative changes of 2014. We are, in affect, asking to re-debate that particular piece. That was passed by the Legislature over a year ago now.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.
[ Page 10176 ]

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Bill 42, Electoral Districts Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 40, intituled Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act.

[1600]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 40 — NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 4:04 p.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: Section 1 proposes adding a definition, which is an “authorization holder.” It’s not terribly helpful in the way it’s defined. It’s “a person who holds an authorization and is not a permit holder.”

[1605]

In the Oil and Gas Activities Act, which this seeks to amend, an authorization is a defined term in subsection 1(2). Authorization means, with a few exceptions, “an authorization under a specified enactment to carry out a related activity, and includes the conditions, if any, imposed on the authorization…or the specified enactment.”

There’s this reference to a related to a related activity, which would appear to be something other than a direct activity. “Related activity” is also a defined term in the Oil and Gas Activities Act, and (b) in the definition is: “the carrying out of which is required for or facilitates the carrying out of an oil and gas activity.” Again, it seems to be something secondary or ancillary to a primary activity.

Further in the act — though I think this doesn’t really add clarity but, more likely, confuses it if you are trying to draw a distinction — in section 24, the heading of it is: “Application for permit and authorization.” Then it goes on to talk about how one might apply for a permit. Then under subsection (2) it says: “An application for a permit under subsection (1) may be consolidated with an application for an authorization.”

Clearly, these are terms of art that have a meaning that may be more obvious to practitioners than they are on the face of the bill. So I’d ask the minister if he could explain what is intended by adding this definition of “authorization holder” to section 1(2) of the act.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, I will. What section 1 does, the purpose, is that it adds a definition of an authorization holder to the act, which expands the scope of the definition of “related activity” to include activities that are required or facilitate making “an application for a permit.” In the existing provision, basically, there’s no definition of an authorization holder.

The current definition of “related activity” is: “‘related activity’ means an activity (a) that, under a specified enactment, must not be carried out except as authorized under the specified enactment or that must be carried out in accordance with the specified enactment, and (b) the carrying out of which is required for or facilitates the carrying out of an oil and gas activity.”

The significance of the change is that before undertaking an oil and gas activity, a proponent often needs to conduct exploratory work, which may require government authorization. The preliminary work may help a proponent determine the feasibility of an oil and gas activity or prepare a satisfactory application.

The expanded definition of “related activity” is needed to allow the commission to authorize activities that are required for or facilitate making an application for a permit. Several sections of the act respecting a related activity currently refer to a permit holder or an applicant for a permit. In order for all authorization to be treated equally under the act, these sections need to be amended to include an authorization holder, who may not yet be an applicant for a permit or a permit holder. As such, a definition of “authorization holder” is needed.

The proposed amendments will streamline the authorization process and ensure that the act’s compliance and enforcement provisions apply to all authorizations related to oil and gas activities.

B. Ralston: From that explanation — which is, if the minister will forgive me, still a bit murky — is an authorization designed to legally permit or give legal permission to activities that take place prior to an application for a permit? In other words, it’s preparatory activity in support of an ultimate application for a permit, which would be the more substantive application. Is that what’s intended here?
[ Page 10177 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that’s what’s intended.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, just for the sake of illustrating the point, give an example of an activity that would be properly described as falling under the authorization category as opposed to the permit category?

[1610]

Would that be clearing land preparatory to, prior to, making an application for a permit to drill, for example? Would that fall into that category? I’m trying to think of activities that would be preparatory to application for a full permit.

Hon. R. Coleman: Your example. We’ll call it a master licence to cut — for instance, if you want to go on the land to do that. Right now, that authorization, if it was coming, would come through another ministry and then be delegated over to the Oil and Gas Commission. This would allow the Oil and Gas Commission to be able to do it all and to give the authorization.

B. Ralston: I’m presuming, in the example, an application to cut would have gone through the Ministry of Forests, previously, and then some functions were delegated to the Oil and Gas Commission.

The question, I think, does arise then. Is it intended…? In that process — if that activity now, with this change, falls squarely in the jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas Commission without the need to transfer from another ministry — would the standard of the scrutiny and environmental protection and all the same considerations apply equally? Or is this an effort to change the process and perhaps make it more expeditious, which, as the minister will appreciate, sometimes gives rise to questions about due process and attention to other values other than the values that the proponent may be interested in.

Hon. R. Coleman: Rather than going to two places, they go to one. But they have to apply exactly the same things of the acts of any application on the authorization piece.

What now happens, for instance, is if somebody wants to do something, they go to Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. They delegate to the Oil and Gas Commission. They manage it according to how the acts and statutes are. This will just allow somebody to apply to the Oil and Gas Commission, and they will apply the acts the same as they would have if it was delegated to them.

B. Ralston: Is the main effort in this legislative change to move authorizations from the forestry — or FLNRO, as I think the acronym is, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations?

[1615]

Is that the main source of applications for authorizations that would be impacted by this change — in other words, make it a single application with the Oil and Gas Commission? Is that the intention, and is that the main impact of this legislative change?

Hon. R. Coleman: The five places it would probably touch base the most, hon. Member, is under the Forest Act, the Land Act, Heritage Conservation Act, Environment Management Act and the Water Act.

B. Ralston: I just have a question, then, arising that’s a follow-up question based on the minister’s answer. That was a question I intended to pose prior to the answer, on the Water Act. Certainly in the fracking process, it’s well known that immense volumes of water are required. The Water Act was recently debated extensively in the Legislature. Major revisions were brought forward, and there was a permitting process, I believe, set up in the Water Act for water extraction, particularly on the scale that we’re talking about in fracking operations.

Is it now the case that an application that formerly would have been made under the Water Act and to that ministry, the relevant ministry — I think it’s FLNRO — would now come to the Oil and Gas Commission alone?

Hon. R. Coleman: Right now the Oil and Gas Commission can, under section 8 of the Water Act, issue a permit relative to short-term use of water. Section 9 of the act, which is “Changes in and about a stream” — they can also do that. They can also do it under section 26, “Permits over Crown land.”

The process that’s used for fracking with regards to water doesn’t use groundwater, for the most part. It’s deep water, saline water, well below the water table. The water table is about 150 feet, and we’re down about 2,000 or 3,000 feet. So that doesn’t have to apply, because it’s not under the Water Act.

[1620]

Basically, it’s if you’re having to do something in a process, in advance of deciding to do a project, you want to measure the water and you want to do the work. Basically, what they’re allowed to do now…. This just allows it to be able to be part of the permit process and issue a permit to it rather than having to go through the Water Act in a different ministry. The Water Act is still applied; it’s just applied by the Oil and Gas Commission.

B. Ralston: Just so that I’m clear, then, the minister is saying, I thought, that given the water in the fracking process typically comes from deep saline reservoirs 2,000 to 3,000 metres below the surface, the Water Act doesn’t apply.
[ Page 10178 ]
Did I hear the minister correctly? I just wanted to confirm that.

Hon. R. Coleman: Under those circumstances, that’s correct. The Water Act doesn’t apply.

B. Ralston: Is it intended that the authorization process that’s being developed here would require an application for an authorization to get permission to use those deep saline reservoirs, in order that some account might be taken of the volume that’s taken out in that process?

Hon. R. Coleman: That activity would never be part of something related to this act where you’re having an authorization. You’d be well past the authorization stage and into a permit. The water would then be, with regards to the deeper water, a part of the application permitting process and the measurement process that the Oil and Gas Commission has in place today.

B. Ralston: I’m looking at subsection 1(b). The amendment is to add “oil and gas activity or making…a permit under section 24.” That’s clearly and simply consequential to the creation of the definition of an “authorization holder.” Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: Section 2 amends the definition in the Oil and Gas Activities Act by adding paragraph (b.1): “the exploration for a storage reservoir.” The definition is fairly…. There are a number of headings: “(a) geophysical exploration, (b) the exploration for and development of petroleum, natural gas or both, (c) the production, gathering, processing, storage or disposal of petroleum, natural gas or both, (d) the operation or use of a storage reservoir.” Then there are a few others as well.

Why was it felt necessary to add, specifically, a definition to the definition section — this description: “the exploration for a storage reservoir” — when it might well be included in some of the broader categories? I think I know the answer. The role of storage reservoirs is going to be enhanced, or at least the opportunity to enhance the role of storage reservoirs is going to be enhanced, to store CO₂ from industrial activity. Is that the reason why it’s being added?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I’ll just, for the clarity of everything…. Basically, what it does is amend the “oil and gas activity” to include “the exploration for a storage reservoir” to ensure it is an activity regulated by the commission. The current definition of “oil and gas activity” in the act means “(a) geophysical exploration, (b) the exploration for and development of petroleum, natural gas or both, (c) the production, gathering, processing, storage or disposal of petroleum, natural gas or both…, (e) the construction or operation of a pipeline, (f) the construction or maintenance of a prescribed road, and (g) the activities prescribed by regulation.”

This adds in the operation or use of a storage reservoir. Basically, the commission today has the authority under the act to regulate oil and gas. I don’t think we’re adding that. We’re adding the exploration for it. I got that wrong, but I’ll just clarify that for you in a second.

[1625]

We’re adding the exploration for a storage reservoir. We can have a storage reservoir, but now the exploration for one needs to be authorized.

The commission has the authority under the act to regulate the oil and gas activities, as defined in this section. The current definition allows for the exploration for petroleum and natural gas and the operation or use of a storage reservoir. However, the exploration of a storage reservoir is not included. Amending the definition will enable the commission to issue activity permits for the exploration of a storage reservoir. The expanded definition will allow the commission to regulate all phases of a carbon-capture-and-storage project, which will include the exploration for such a reservoir.

B. Ralston: I think the minister agreed with me.

That’s really the only question that I have on that particular section, then.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

B. Ralston: This is an amendment to section 9 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act which is entitled “Application of section 8 to pipelines under jurisdiction of Canada.” It’s described as a consequential amendment, but I’m not clear just how it is. It repeals the definition of “approval” in subsection 9(1), and I think adds (b) and then substitutes something else.

Could the minister just briefly explain what is intended by this proposed amendment?

Hon. R. Coleman: This basically repeals and replaces the definition of “approval” in subsection (1) to include an approval that’s required for or facilitates making an application to construct or operate a pipeline and repeals and replaces subsection 9(4)(c) to clarify that an approval is considered an authorization and a person who holds an approval is considered an authorization holder under most sections of the act.

Section 9 of the act, which is the existing provision, addresses the application of the commission’s authorities under specified enactments to a pipeline under federal jurisdiction. The commission’s powers under specified enactment do not apply to pipelines under federal jurisdiction unless the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council extends the commission’s powers by regulation. If the LGIC does extend the commission’s powers to issue an approv-
[ Page 10179 ]
al respecting a pipeline under federal jurisdiction, the carrying out of the activity under the approval must be considered in the carrying out of related activity.

The significance is the proposed amendments are consequential to the amendments that have been made in section 1 of the act. The definition of “approval” in section 9 currently aligns with the definition of “related activity” and needs to be amended so that it continues to align with the amended definition of related activity.

Subsection 9(4)(c) sets out that approvals issued under this section are subject to other relevant provisions of the act. This makes sure that the authorizations issued by the commission are treated the same whether related to a federally or provincially regulated oil and gas activity. The proposed amendments will ensure this section continues to serve its purpose in light of the proposed amendments to section 1 of the act.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to section 25(1.1), which are powers of the Lieutenant-Governor — that’s the cabinet — by regulation. There is a substitution of the present (1.1) for the new proposed (1.1).

Can the minister explain what the new proposed (1.1) does that’s different from the existing one?

[1630]

Hon. R. Coleman: What it does…. It doesn’t make any changes, but it extends it to that preprocess, as we outlined in section 1. Basically, it replaces section 25(1.1) to allow the LGIC, by regulation, to issue a direction to the commission, respecting the commission’s authority to issue permits under the act or authorize under specified enactment. Of course, the existing provision allows, by regulation, for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to issue direction to the commission respecting the commission’s authority to issue permits under the act.

However, given the changes to section 1, you also have to have a consequential amendment that allows, ensures that government is also able to restrict the commission’s power to issue authorizations for related activities, as we would for other activities. That power could be if government wishes to restrict or manage development of a particular area. Basically, it’s allowing for what we did in section 1 to take place under other operations under the act.

B. Ralston: With respect, I read the proposed amendment slightly differently. What it appears to say is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that’s the cabinet — “by regulation, may issue a direction to the commission with respect to the exercise of the commission’s power under section 8…and the commission must comply with the direction despite any other provision of (a) this Act, the regulations or an order made under this Act.”

The language, to my ear, is very reminiscent of a special direction to the Utilities Commission, which enables the cabinet, by regulation, to override some of the regulatory concerns that might otherwise be required to be taken into consideration by the commission, because section 8, which this purports to override, is the very broad power of the commission to issue permits and authorizations.

Can the minister explain what the intention is here? I see it as being very analogous to a special direction to the Utilities Commission by the cabinet, overriding the power of the commission to resist or do other than comply.

Hon. R. Coleman: The power exists now for the commission and LGIC, by regulation, to issue a direction to the commission with regards to an activity. The only difference with this is that now you have “related activity” being added to the definition of the activities in the Oil and Gas. This section, reworded, now captures that and is better for the implementation of the act.

[1635]

It’s consequential to the one made in section 1 of the act. The proposed amendment will ensure that government is also able to restrict the commission’s power to issue authorizations for related activities, which wasn’t in there before until section 1 of the amendments of this act. The power can be needed for…. Government wishes to restrict or manage the development of a particular area.

One example would be if you wanted to have a competitive process on Crown land for somebody who was interested in activity. Let’s say where they wanted to…. You might have two or three companies that want to bid on activities that might lead to an LNG plant being placed in a particular place in British Columbia. They would all probably need authorization to do some work relative to that. The LGIC would be able to manage that so that we could actually then tender it correctly.

B. Ralston: What the minister is saying, then, is that the power to override, under section 8, the commissioner’s responsibilities, or the commission — which are very broad and sweeping powers given to the commission to issue permits and authorizations — exists already, and this is simply extending that power to include authorizations as well as the issuing of permits. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, the authorization to cover related activities.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

B. Ralston: This section amends section 31 of the existing Oil and Gas Activities Act. What it’s proposing is
[ Page 10180 ]
adding a subsection that allows exempting a person or a class of persons from a requirement to give notice under subsection (1) “to a land owner or class of land owners if the commission is satisfied that (a) the activity respecting the proposed amendment would not be carried out on the land of the land owner or class of land owners, and (b) the proposed amendment would not change the effect of the permit on the land of the land owner or class of land owners.” Then there’s a further definition.

In the present section 31(1), “Before submitting an application under subsection (4) for an amendment to a permit, a permit holder must provide notice to the land owner of the land on which an operating area is located, and the notice must (a) provide a description of the proposed amendment, and (b) advise the land owner that he or she may make a submission to the commission….” And then there’s a process to be followed, setting out some timelines.

I gather that what’s proposed here is to exempt the requirement to provide such notice. Can the minister explain? Generally, for the most part, I think, oil and gas activities are intense and widely regarded as being intrusive upon normal uses of land. Can the minister explain why one would exempt this requirement to provide notice to landowners of work being done near their land?

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ll just read from my section note here. I think it might clarify it for the member.

The current consultation process requirements can be problematic in respect of permits with large operating areas. For example, if a permit holder wishes to change one riser on a pipeline, the permit holder must notify all landowners within the operator area of the permit, which may cover hundreds of kilometres.

The proposed addition specific to section 31(1) will allow the commission to exempt a person or a class of persons from the requirement to notify a landowner or class of landowners if the commission is satisfied that both of the following criteria are met. First, “the activity respecting the proposed amendment would not be carried out on the land of the land owner or class of land owners, and (b) the proposed amendment would not change the effect of the permit on the land of the land owner or class of land owners” that the permit area covers.

The proposed amendment will add flexibility to the notification framework by allowing notification requirements to be tailored to specific situations.

[1640]

For example, if a permit holder wishes to change one riser in the pipeline, the commission may exempt the permit holder from notifying landowners outside the area in which the riser will be changed. The commission would need to be satisfied that both criteria, as I read out a second ago, are met. For example, the activity would not be carried out on the land of the landowner and would not change the effect of the pipeline permit on the land of the landowner.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate the example that the minister has used, although obviously that’s a relatively minor and perhaps even trivial one. Surely, one might expect there are cases where there are major works that are proposed. Yet this would give the opportunity to the commission to exempt that requirement of notice.

Is there any limit on the scope of the activity or, I guess, the intensity of the activity that would limit the commission’s ability to use this power of exemption from notice?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the key here is that the activity respecting the proposed amendment would not be carried out on the land of the landowner or class of landowners, so it wouldn’t be affecting them, and the proposed amendment would not change the effects of the permit.

So there’s a permit issued for a pipeline. The permit is an effective permit that permits the entire pipeline. By changing a riser, it’s not changing the effect of the permit on the land of the landowner or the class of landowners.

It basically comes down to that level of detail where it would not have an impact on the landowner or the class of landowners. The class-of-landowner pipeline would be the land that the pipeline goes across, and 50 to 100 kilometres away, changing a riser on a pipeline is not going to have an effect on that permit because the permit would have detailed, in that particular case, that the risers have to meet certain specifications and pressure testing and those sorts of things. With regards to it, it’s a matter of maintenance, but the way the act is written now it would require a much larger notification, when in actual fact it’s really about not affecting.

The key to this is it would not be carried out on the land of a landowner or a class of landowners and would not change the effect of the permit, which is very key to the two being read together. The permit is in place for the activity. The permit has to be met. And so if it doesn’t change the effect of the permit on the landowner on their land or the class of landowners, then that can be allowed. But it’s not a case of just saying that we can change something just because it’s one landowner.

D. Donaldson: I appreciate that the minister gave an example of the changing of a riser and the notification that might be required for somebody 1,500 kilometres away, but I live in an area where there’s a very heightened interest on what happens on the land and activities that take place on the land, both by residents — for example, in the Kispiox Valley — and also by First Nations: Gitxsan, Wet’suwet’en and Gitanyow, on their traditional territories.

Just to be clear on this proposed amendment that “may exempt a person or a class of persons from the requirement to provide notice under subsection (1),” if you have an example of an activity that doesn’t take place on fee simple land — for instance, that takes place on Crown
[ Page 10181 ]
land or traditional territories — who specifically makes the decision about whether that activity could be exempted from the requirement to provide written notice?

[1645]

Hon. R. Coleman: The statutory authority lies with the Oil and Gas Commission, who are the statutory authority for all permitting and things in and around oil and gas. There’s not an immediate example that you could talk about with the Wet’suwet’en and the other First Nations, because there’s no pipeline there. So until a pipeline was actually permitted and built, this would have no effect whatsoever. It would only be in the future, if there was something small that had to be changed on the pipeline, that it would affect the land.

Of course, when you’re dealing with any consultation with a First Nation, you always take in the traditional territory as well as the fee simple and Crown land. That all comes together in a different discussion but in a discussion with regards to who’s being affected by whatever minor change may be being made.

D. Donaldson: Well, I appreciate that the proposed pipelines have not yet been built in the areas that I discussed. But, of course, the amendments we’re talking about here will impact how people who live in those areas are able to discover what’s happening in their own backyards. For example, there are people who have large fee simple properties where, perhaps a kilometre or two away from where they reside on Crown land or traditional territories, a pipeline is proposed.

So thank you to the minister for pointing out who makes the decision about giving exemptions, but what about the criteria? He mentioned small changes that had to be made. What kind of criteria would enable the person responsible in the Oil and Gas Commission to exempt a person or class of persons from the requirement to provide notice, and are those criteria available to the public?

[1650]

Hon. R. Coleman: Anything to do with Crown land, First Nations land, is still subject to consultation and all the rest. This only deals with private land. So it’s only land that…. Under the definition in the act, “‘land owner’ means (a) a person registered in the land title office as the registered owner of the land surface or as its purchaser under an agreement for sale, and (b) a person to whom a disposition of Crown land has been issued under the Land Act….” So it doesn’t include the unoccupied Crown land and all of that. That would still be subject to the other consultation process of First Nations and communities.

D. Donaldson: Would the decision of the commission to exempt a person or a class of persons from the requirement to provide written notice be made public?

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely.

D. Donaldson: I don’t see that requirement laid out in the amendment or…. Could the minister explain if that’s in the legislation and where that would be made public?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t think it needs to be in legislation. I mean, that has been the operational side of the Oil and Gas Commission and the way they disclose their information. That would continue. We would, obviously, by the commitment in this debate…. They would have to follow the instructions of the House anyway, but we don’t actually have to legislate that disclosure. In actual fact, the Oil and Gas Commission has been basically set up to where it’s pretty open. The fact that you would let people know would be standard, because that information is out there.

D. Donaldson: I take it from that answer that it wouldn’t require a freedom-of-information request to get the answer to an exemption, but the minister can correct me if I’m wrong on that.

People in the areas where I live, which are rural areas and remote rural areas, really care about their own backyards and the land on which they reside. Often they are the eyes on the ground when it comes to activities by industry. Under this proposed amendment, where an exemption may be granted to the written-notice rule, how will a landowner know if maintenance, as required under a permit, is occurring if written notice of such an activity is exempted?

Hon. R. Coleman: This doesn’t affect the maintenance on the permit as it exists. So all the maintenance work…. It’s not considered to be necessary to be notified — the landowner — because the permit requires maintenance of different pieces of the pipeline or whatever activity on certain schedules and levels of expertise. This has no effect on that.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to section 32 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. It refers to in the section: “…if the authorization holder has not applied for a permit before the pre-
[ Page 10182 ]
scribed period has elapsed.”

[1655]

The prescribed period, I’m assuming by the choice of language, is something that is set out in regulation. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is also consequential to section (1.1). It sets out: an authorization “…expires if the authorization holder has not applied for a permit before the prescribed period has elapsed.” Basically, what it means is we can cancel a permit if it has elapsed in time. Sometimes you might get people who apply and they haven’t done the work. It collapses. They have to come back and reapply because it would expire. This allows us to do that.

It ensures that the authorizations obtained in order to complete an application for a permit expire if the person does not apply for the permit in a reasonable time frame. Sometimes you will get situations where nothing has been done, and over a period of time, it elapses. We say: “Fine. You’ve got to come in and reapply.”

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

B. Ralston: This is a new section that’s being added about disclosure. I’m wondering if the…. It reads: “The commission, in accordance with and to the extent required by the regulations, must (a) disclose to the public, or keep confidential, the records, reports and plans referred to in section 38” — and if I can read the title of section 38, it is “Records, reports and plans,” basically to be maintained by a permit holder — “and (b) disclose to the public applications received under sections 24 and 31.”
[ Page 10183 ]

Can the minister explain how this is different? It’s new, I gather. What’s the purpose of this section? It appears to give discretion to the commission. Although the first phrase is “disclose to the public,” the second one is “keep confidential.” So it appears to give to the commission complete discretion on disclosure or not of all records relating to the activities of authorization holders and permit holders.

[1700]

Hon. R. Coleman: This new section is to clarify the commission’s obligation respecting records, reports and plans, including application for permits and amendments to permits received by the commission. Section 38(2) of the act requires the commission to “disclose records, reports and plans to the public in accordance with regulations.”

The current position of section 38(2) in the act creates some ambiguity respecting its application. The current provision should be interpreted as applying to only the records, reports and plans that the permit holder must produce under section 38(1).

The proposed amendment to create a new section for the requirement adds a specific reference to applications received by the commission and will clarify the intent of the provision, which is to require the commission to disclose records, reports and plans, including applications, to the public in accordance with the regulations.

B. Ralston: A couple of follow-up questions, then. The present subsection (2) imposes an affirmative duty on the commission. “The commission must disclose records, reports and plans to the public in accordance with the regulations.” The new wording says “disclose to the public, or keep confidential….” So is it the intention of this amendment — as it appears to be, and I wonder if the minister will confirm this — to give the commission discretion not to release, to withhold records in cases that the commission decides, in its discretion, are appropriate?

Hon. R. Coleman: This has been added by advice of leg. counsel and legal counsel. Ironically, the previous section basically read that we were to disclose. But at the same time, there are the core samples — for instance, drill core samples. There has always been a certain period of time that they’re held because of the investment of people. Obviously, their investment — to not disclose that immediately while they’re working through…. Then, at a certain…. They’re all disclosed in the long term.

This is to add, to clarify — to clean up the section, basically — or keep confidential to cover situations where there may be things that need to be kept confidential for competitive or trade purposes, for investment of folks that need to. Since it’s actually done, in a way, with core samples particularly, the advice was to keep “disclose” and to add “or confidential” to “the records” because of that.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that explanation. Just if I could explore that a little bit further. The present section, subsection (2), says: “The commission must disclose records, reports and plans to the public in accordance with the regulations.”

[1705]

Presumably, there’s the ambit in drafting the regulations that if one chose not to disclose core samples for a year or two years for competitive reasons, that power existed under the present legislation. I’m at a loss to understand why this further amendment is required, if the power to craft the regulations in a way to meet the objectives the minister spoke of is necessary.

Hon. R. Coleman: Whenever you do a scan and you do amendments to legislation, sometimes leg. counsel or legal counsel pick up — both, sometimes together and sometimes separate — some things.

So the regulation today allows to disclose to the public or keep confidential for a certain period of time things like a core sample. But that doesn’t match up to the language in the legislation, so this is to make sure the two are harmonized with the language of the legislation and match up to the regulation as it exists.

B. Ralston: Subsection (b) of the proposed amendment says: “The commission, in accordance with and to the extent required by the regulations, must disclose to the public applications received under sections 24 and 31.”

Those are the main sections by which permits and authorizations, assuming the legislation is as amended, would be made. Was there previously no authority to disclose to the public those applications? Is that why this is being added? Was there litigation, or was there the possibility of litigation? Sometimes, in some resource applications, there’s keen interest by the public in the application that’s being made and the extent and scope of the activity that’s being proposed or being applied for under the permit.

Hon. R. Coleman: This just tightens up the section to “must disclose to the public applications received under sections 24 and 31.” It picks up some of the stuff we’re doing. But it was felt, in looking at the drafting, that the section was somewhat ambiguous and should be clarified with regards to adding a subsection (b) to “disclose to the public applications received under sections 24 and 31.” Prior to that, it just referred to “in accordance with regulations.” So this actually tightens it up.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

B. Ralston: This repeals the existing section 56, which is entitled “Statutory immunity”. This is immunity from the consequences of, I guess, misfeasance on the part of employees or directors or officials of the commission in the performance of their duties and relieves them or protects them from personal liability.

There are some amendments proposed here to that section. It looks like it’s clarified or expanded. Can the minister explain the purpose of the expanded definition, and why it’s being proposed at this time?

[1710]

Hon. R. Coleman: This replaces the existing statutory immunity with a new statutory immunity framework. Basically, section 56 currently provides immunity to “the government, the commissioner, the commission, an official or the commission’s directors or employees,” with respect to sections 50 to 53 of the act. That’s the emergency management piece, which is basically relative to that side.

In the rest of the act, the employees of government are not protected. If somebody decides to take action against the commission, and the commission is not…. The proposed repeal, then, replaces the section, subject to the review of the statutory immunity committee in government. The commission is seeking approval from the statutory committee to provide immunity to commission staff respecting all duties and powers under the act.

If somebody is doing their job and doing it within the law and doing it with obviously proper intent, today they could still be sued. This amendment will maintain the current immunity framework for the government and the commission under sections 50 to 53, but the immunity framework would be extended to cover the employees of the commission and not the commission and not the government. The government would still be liable under the act, but the employees, who would be doing their jobs under the regulatory or statutory process that they’re doing their jobs under, would be protected because government and the commission — therefore, the legal body — would still be liable.

B. Ralston: Have there been any lawsuits which have selected members of the commission, employees of the commission, as defendants? Secondly, I’m presuming from the minister’s description that fraud in the performance of the duties would void the statutory immunity.

[1715]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, legal intent, bad faith, those things…. There’d still be liability on this. This is for people who are doing an honest job on behalf of government under a statutory authority, and someone chooses to sue. Rather than being able to sue the individual, they would be suing government and the commission, which is actually how we do it under the Wildfire Act.

Sections 20 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

B. Ralston: This adds a definition of “storage well,” and there’s an explanation that’s provided in the bill note which speaks of — and we addressed this earlier — the prospect of long-term carbon capture and storage projects. I’m presuming that this definition is for that purpose.

The definition says “‘storage well’ means a well in which casing is run and that, in the opinion of the commission, is used or being capable of being used to…recover, into or from a storage reservoir, (a) petroleum or natural gas,(b) carbon dioxide produced from a prescribed source, (c) water…(d) waste, or (e) any other prescribed substance.”

Can the minister explain what is meant by “casing”? Is that an impermeable wall around the entire storage reservoir or storage well that would mean that if, for example, CO₂ or carbon dioxide was injected into a storage well of this type, there would be no possibility that it would migrate elsewhere in the deep underground? When speaking of using more natural wells forming in the deep subsurface, there is sometimes expressed a chance or a likelihood that the carbon dioxide so injected might migrate elsewhere underground.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is correct. It amends the definition of “storage reservoir” to include something else, which is carbon dioxide from a prescribed source. It
[ Page 10184 ]
amends the definition of “storage well” by replacing the phrase “used to dispose of or produce” with “used to dispose of or to recover” and adding “carbon dioxide…from a prescribed source” to the list.

The current definition of “storage reservoir” is “‘storage reservoir’ means a naturally occurring underground reservoir that is capable of being used for the introduction, disposal, storage or recovery of petroleum, natural gas, water produced in relation to the production of petroleum or natural gas, waste or any other prescribed substance.”

The current definition of a “storage well” is “‘storage well’ means a well in which casing is run and” — casing would be the industry term; in our case, we actually run casing and double-cement the casing down into the particular source so it can’t, above a certain level, actually ever leach or leak — “that, in the opinion of the commission, is used or is capable of being used to dispose of or produce petroleum or natural gas, water produced in relation to the production of petroleum or natural gas, waste, or any other prescribed substance into the storage reservoir.”

[1720]

The significance is that the current wording of these definitions limits the use of storage reservoirs and storage wells for carbon capture and storage to carbon dioxide produced from activities related to the oil and gas industry. Adding “carbon dioxide from a prescribed source” to the definition of “storage reservoir” and “storage well” will allow the storage of carbon dioxide for other industries as well, which is part of the science that’s going on with regards to climate change and the ability to sequester carbon.

Using the term “recover” in the definition of “storage well” more accurately reflects the intent of the definition. It aligns the definition of storage well with the definition of storage reservoir.

So in all that language, it really is about being ready with some form of legislation and regulatory process should the science come to where it says we can do this. Obviously, we would have to do safety. The questions the member brought up with regards to migrating within the geology or what have you would all have to be satisfied through a permitting process before we would ever do a CCS project on any level, I would think.

But this does allow us to actually be able to do the permitting and the work, if it’s necessary. It’s something that, even though it comes up from time to time, we need to have the legislation ready to handle.

B. Ralston: I want to pursue a little bit further the definition of a storage well. I’m just clarifying in my own mind and in the definition what it exactly means. It says it “means a well in which casing is run,” and casing would be the concrete, as I understand it, reinforcement around the outer rim of the well itself but would be “capable of being used to dispose of or recover, into or from a storage reservoir.” A storage well with its casing is to be distinguished from a storage reservoir.

Would the reservoir itself have casing as well, or is that where we enter into the realm of naturally occurring cavities deep below the surface which are accessed by a storage well with casing and then are simply a naturally forming space that would be used, if it were permitted, to store the proposed CO₂ or petroleum or natural gas?

Hon. R. Coleman: Today a storage well would be if you’re drilling down below the surface of the earth 1,000 or 2,000 metres, and then you are entering into an area where there is shale gas. That would be considered a shale well, which is already a petroleum and natural gas piece of a storage well. That would be a storage well.

A storage well could also be, under today’s definition, water produced in relation to the production of petroleum and natural gas. We take salty water, saline water, and not use fresh water with regards to the fracking process. Those already exist.

The only difference, change, here is to add “carbon dioxide produced from a prescribed source.” That means you found a storage well where the geology would match up, where you could actually sequester carbon, and now you want to be able to drill down and sequester the carbon — which would require, by obvious fact, the introduction of pipe and casing into the storage well so that you would be able to push the CO₂ down into the particular geological formation that could accept it and absorb it safely and in such a way.

There is some science and stuff in and around that. There was identified a few years ago a particular location in northern British Columbia that would be good for carbon capture and storage. The project wasn’t economically feasible at the time. Whether it will be in the next five or ten years, or the next year or so, we don’t know.

At some time, there may be, given all of the discussions going on with regards to climate and climate change…. The sequestration of carbon is going to be an issue, I think, that’s going to come forward. What we’re doing is making sure that the ability to put CO₂ produced from a prescribed source, whether we attach the regulations and what have you to it in the permitting…. We would be able to do it if we thought it was to the benefit of industry — or CO₂ — in British Columbia or Canada.

[1725]

B. Ralston: I believe the minister is referring to the Spectra Energy project. I think I toured that, in the sense of going not into the well but to the head of the well, north of Fort St. John a few years ago.

I just want to be clear about it. I think the minister is using the terms, perhaps inadvertently, interchangeably — the “storage well” and the “storage reservoir.” The way this definition is drawn, it makes a distinction between the
[ Page 10185 ]
storage well with a casing and then the storage reservoir, which I assume the well connects to from the surface.

Am I understanding that correctly? The storage reservoir that’s referred to could be and is more likely naturally occurring in the sense that it is not reinforced with casing. I just want that to be clear for the record, that’s all.

Hon. R. Coleman: The two go together. In section 1(a), to “storage reservoir” we’re adding “carbon dioxide produced from a prescribed source” as something that you can have in a storage reservoir. When we repealed the definition of storage well, we didn’t actually change it other than to list the activities, versus having them in a sentence. When we made “storage well,” we just said “a well in which casing is run and that, in the opinion of the commission, is used or is capable of being used to dispose of or recover, into or from a storage reservoir.”

The storage reservoir is where you can put it or take it out of, but then you need the casing in the well in order to go into this. In the identification within the act, the storage well has been there, but it was always “petroleum or natural gas, water produced in relation…waste or any other prescribed substance.” What we’re doing is adding “carbon dioxide produced from a prescribed source.”

The reason for that is basically, today, because it prescribes stuff, you could put some carbon captured and stored related directly to the oil and gas industry. But by adding “carbon dioxide produced from a prescribed source,” it means that it will allow for the storage of carbon dioxide from other industries as well, or other activities. Basically, that’s why it’s worded that way.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

B. Ralston: I don’t have any questions. I just wanted to thank the minister.

The next sections beginning now are those proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act. I’ll turn it over to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey to deal with the next section. I presume that the minister might wish to change officials as well, but I’ll leave that to his discretion.

Section 29 approved.

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 5:29 p.m. to 5:32 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 30.

D. Eby: The first question for the minister…. Before I begin, I want to put on the record how much…. I don’t often get the chance to compliment the minister, so I like to take every advantage I can. It’s quite an impressive mo he has for Movember here. It’s a wonderful start.

Interjection.

D. Eby: Take the compliments, Mr. Minister, when you get them.

I certainly admire his courage.

Bill 40, in front of us — the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act. A fairly significant number of these provisions that we’re about to go through relate to housing. Can the minister explain why he has put so many housing provisions into a bill that somebody that is interested in housing issues and looking through the House’s agenda for the parliament would have absolutely no idea that these housing provisions were in front of the Legislature, based on the title of this act?

It’s not miscellaneous statutes. There’s absolutely no clue that it’s related to housing. It is the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act. Why did he put all these housing provisions in this bill?

Hon. R. Coleman: Believe it or not, I don’t get to name the acts. Basically, because it’s the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, I guess they just decided to put all the amendments into the one title. You could have titled it anything else, but it’s basically that. There’s nothing more nefarious than that.

As I said to the member opposite, I’ll go on the record that I don’t think this is very good-looking. But I have to do it for another 14 days.

D. Eby: I’m just jealous. That’s all it is.

Section 30. The Residential Tenancy Act amendment proposes the ability to permit payment in electronic form. I’m curious about why this is limited to deposits rather than any payment under the act, which would include a judgment or some other payment — rather than strictly limiting electronic payment to repayment of deposits.

[1735]

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member has outlined, the purpose of this is so that the landlords will be able to repay security and pet damage deposits by electronic means. That’s obviously by agreement with the tenant. This allows that to take place, to return the security deposit or pet damage deposit through electronic means or an electronic funds transfer so it could be transferred to your bank account electronically.

The reason it doesn’t touch any of the other activities with regards to residential tenancy is that this is the only thing that’s specified in the act that says it has to be done by a cheque. It’s in the law that it says that, so we thought
[ Page 10186 ]
we’d bring in the option to do that.

Automatic deposits and what have you — post-dated cheques, electronic means — can all be done by agreement with the landlord and the tenant now, so it’s not required to be specified in the act.

V. Huntington: During my comments at second reading, I indicated to, presumably, the minister and his staff that I had some questions with regard to the informality of the electronic transfer as it’s expressed in the act. I think we asked some of the questions of staff, but perhaps to get on the record, I’d like to go over some of the concerns that we had.

Section 88 has very significant and specific requirements for communicating between the landlord and the tenant. With regards to a cheque — payment by cheque, etc. — it’s fairly specific. Yet we find with the payment by the electronic transfer a very informal approach is taken in this act.

Is there any way that the minister can advise this House if there are going to be specific guidelines attached to the repayment of a deposit by electronic transfer?

Hon. R. Coleman: Within the act today, the recourse for the tenants, if they don’t receive the e-transfer within 30 days, is valid, if that’s the question. However, it’s the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the tenant is sent the deposit in a way that it will be received, under section 38. If a tenant does not receive the deposit within the required 15-day period, they may apply for dispute resolution requesting the deposit to be returned. The landlord may be ordered to pay double the amount to the tenant as a result.

The landlord, obviously, can check the status of their e-transfer at any time because they know where it is, and they’ve set up a security password to inform the tenant, in some cases — to be able to double-check that. Obviously, the two parties need to communicate.

The protection is in the act with regards to the 15 days. If they don’t receive the money in 15 days, they could be forced to pay double the amount of the damage deposit.

V. Huntington: Is it in the act that the landlord and the tenant must agree on an electronic transfer? Is it in the act that that is an agreed-upon form of repayment?

Hon. R. Coleman: It doesn’t specify that, but obviously, the act does require that the landlord must do the following: “repay, as provided in subsection (8), any security deposit or pet damage deposit to the tenant with interest calculated in accordance with the regulations” — that would include whether it was sent by cheque or by electronic deposit; “make an application for dispute resolution claiming against the security deposit or pet damage deposit.” That takes you through all the other aspects with regards to the damage deposit with landlords.

[1740]

This is just adding another tool that both sides, actually, have told us over time that they’d like to have, particularly for people that are somewhat transient, that may be moving around for an area. They will move. They may not have a new address, but they would have a bank account that the money could be sent to quickly.

They’d be able to receive their damage deposit back so they’d be able to actually have that for the next tenanting that they want to do in the new location rather than waiting for a cheque to come in the mail.

V. Huntington: I agree, if everything is just fine and the tenant has the capacity to receive a cheque or a payment electronically. What about the tenant who cannot receive a cheque electronically or who would choose otherwise because they haven’t got the manner of processing that?

What about the fact that often electronic transfers incorporate fees that cheques do not. They have time periods. What is it? Generally, electronic transfers can expire after 30 days, whereas a cheque is six months. There are some penalties, it would seem, to be attached to those people who might be more marginalized than the average.

Our concern is that unless there is a mechanism that requires the landlord and the tenant to choose to repay electronically, there would be penalties attached to doing so, if the processing of that electronic transfer isn’t taken care of as we would think it would be but in a marginalized situation might not be able to be.

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, if you don’t have a bank account, you can’t receive it electronically. It’s the responsibility of the landlord to make sure that damage deposit is returned within 15 days or be subject to paying double the amount of the damage deposit. So that exists.

As for fees, later on in the act, the member will see a section that says that the landlord can’t charge for this process.

V. Huntington: But the financial institution can charge a fee. Whereas they won’t for the deposit of a cheque, they could charge a fee for an electronic transfer, and often do. Moreover, that transfer is sometimes restricted, as I mentioned, to a 30-day period, whereas the deposit of a cheque can be for a six-month period, and it’s still good.

How is the tenant being protected in this act from those penalties that may accrue to that electronic transfer? It’s an unfair assumption that the transfer will go through under the same conditions that a cheque might.

Hon. R. Coleman: No different than it’s an unfair assumption to say that there are no cheques ever that are NSF, and there are no fees attached to them either. This is about having a process to streamline the way that this transaction can take place for both parties. And the disci-
[ Page 10187 ]
pline is in place to pay double the amount to the tenant if they don’t receive their damage deposit back within 15 days.

V. Huntington: If we’re going to go down that route of assuring that the deposit is made or that the repayment is made, how does the landlord assure himself that that transfer has been received and has been repaid? Is there a legal mechanism in the act that enables that landlord to determine that?

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m familiar with electronic banking. I’m also familiar with electronic banking with regards to some businesses. I know that folks at home are actually capable of going on line at any given moment and knowing whether something has gone through.

They don’t have to wait till the daytime. They don’t have to wait till nine to five when the banks open. They can go on 24-7 and determine whether a transfer has been completed, because it comes out of their bank account electronically. They have an electronic record on line, right there in front of them all the time.

[1745]

V. Huntington: I’m specifically, and have said so a number of times now, speaking about individuals who are marginalized, who won’t have access to on-line banking — not everybody does — and certainly won’t have access to a computer to determine whether a transfer has been received or not. Moreover, there are fees attached to electronic transfers — not always, perhaps, but normally. And that transfer expires faster than receiving a cheque would.

All I’m looking for is some mechanism in the act that ensures that the tenant and the landlord have agreed on the form of repayment so that that individual is aware of when that repayment occurs, is not penalized by additional fees, is not penalized by a shorter period to access that repayment. You can be gone for any number of reasons for longer than 30 days, and all of a sudden that repayment is no longer valid. All I’m looking for is that mechanism of surety between the tenant and the landlord.

Hon. R. Coleman: The person that’s actually paying the bill — usually the business — electronically is the one that pays the fee. In this case, this act won’t allow them to transfer that fee over to the tenant.

It is a landlord’s responsibility, under the act, to ensure the tenant is sent the deposit in a way that it will be received. Obviously, if they don’t have a bank account and they don’t have access to electronic banking, then it’s a cheque, which is receiptable. The person gets a cheque and takes it to the bank. I can’t say if they don’t have an active bank account at a level where the bank isn’t charging a fee for every cheque that’s cashed there by that individual either. For that piece, I have no control or knowing.

I do know that under section 38, they have to be sent the deposit in a way it will be received. So No. 1, they have to get it. No. 2, if they’re not sent the deposit and receive it within 15 days, they can apply for dispute resolution and request the deposit to be returned. That would be the case if the landlord has not met his responsibility or her responsibility to return the deposit. As a penalty for not doing it and not getting it to them in 15 days, the landlord could be ordered to pay double the amount to the tenant.

These checks and balances are in place and have been for some time. The only difference here is that one of the options or one of the availabilities is, in the marketplace, to allow someone, because it’s not designated in the act…. Rent can be paid by electronic deposit today — all of those things with regards to it. Unfortunately, in this act, it’s way more specific than the existing provisions that say they can only repay a security deposit or pet damage deposit to a tenant by mail and by leaving in a mailbox or by delivering personally.

This allows now to speed up the process and, particularly, for the tenant to receive it by not having to try and connect with the landlord or have a forwarding address. If they don’t have one, they can actually have it sent to them electronically and have their money in their bank account so they can put a damage deposit down on the next place in whatever community they’re moving to after they leave the tenancy.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just a question. I noticed in a few other parts of the act that there are other ways to communicate with tenants and landlords — by registered mail, by dropping it in a mailbox, by sending it by fax. I’m just curious, if we’re looking at bringing in e-mail for this section, why other areas weren’t considered. What kind of reasoning did the minister make on other areas of the act that speak about communications between landlords and tenants?

[1750]

Hon. R. Coleman: In the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act in the spring, in the transformation project…. That particular amendment act already amended that for administration by electronic — doing e-mail and those sorts of things. However, they haven’t been brought in by regulation, because it’s part of that transformation of the tribunals to try and streamline — we have a lot of tribunals in government — how that process would work more efficiently. But it is part of that transformation.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.
[ Page 10188 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: If the minister wants to cover this further on in section 33, I would understand that. I’m just curious why the ministry decided to focus exclusively on family violence as opposed to…. I know I’ve got constituents who have roommates, and it’s happening more and more as people try to find a way to pay the bills.

Sometimes a roommate can get violent. They may not be a family member per se but can make it so horrible…. I’m thinking of one case, in particular, I had to deal with where an elderly woman had a younger person living there as a roommate. It was just not good. She didn’t feel that she could act, because she didn’t want to lose her home. In the end, it all worked out through other means. She was not a family member of the person who was committing the violence yet still very much felt like she was in the same situation as if she was.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have talked about this, in looking at how we might be able to catch what the member describes in the future. The challenge when doing this was basically: how can you do this and be consistent with the laws that would allow you to be able to deal with the family violence as it exists today? What the member describes…. In some jurisdictions, they’ve done something a bit similar. But what we’re also finding is that it has raised the threshold of proof about the violence. That then means people are caught in the court system or any court orders or whatever the case may be to be able to prove it and then be able to have that intervention.

The first pass-through with this one was to try and get to where we could deal with what would be the broader aspect of society, and we’ll work on the others that the member has described as we go through this.

The amendments use a definition of violence that’s consistent with the Family Law Act in B.C. right now, and that’s why they’re there. With the broader definition of violence, you have a higher threshold for verification to involve the police and the court system, like I mentioned. To get to the next threshold, it requires some additional work in order to get there.

We’ve chosen this process because the majority of individuals who experience family violence often don’t want to be involved with police. They may access community services where it could be someone like a social worker, a psychologist, a doctor or whatever that might be able to give us the verification so that they would be able to get out of their lease. We’re trying to be as responsive as possible as we look on the more detailed things in the future.

[1755]

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister for that response. In the case that I’m thinking of, certainly there were community people — counsellors, etc. — who were well aware of what was going on. No, the person, of course, didn’t want to go to the police. She had a small circle of friends who were there for her. I’d hope and encourage the ministry to continue to look at this. It’s a good step, but we know it doesn’t capture all the cases.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

S. Chandra Herbert: In this section, it discusses ending a fixed-term tenancy before the tenancy agreement expires. I can understand the reason for that in the sense of…. You know, there could be large financial outlays the person would have to make to get out of a fixed-term tenancy.

But just specifically, why was this not also — this provision, I guess — allowed for regular month-to-month tenancies? I know the financial outlay somebody might have to make would not be as large, but if you had to give your two months, etc., it still could be a certain amount and prohibitive for somebody who had no income and potentially had to figure out how to get a new home. So just if you could give me an explanation why it only applies to fixed-term tenancies.

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason it wasn’t brought into this is because the Residential Tenancy Act…. Under month-to-month tenancies, you give a month’s notice. So it’s not like where you’re tied into a three- or four- or number-of-years lease on a long-term care relationship where you get meals and stuff applied and then you go into long-term care and somebody wants to continue that liability onto your family or your estate, or somebody that’s in a fixed-term tenancy with regards to being in a lease and needs to leave because of the protection of themselves. If you’re in a tenancy where it’s month to month, you can actually give the one month’s notice. That’s why we didn’t consider it.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m just curious. What percentage of rental agreements in this province are fixed-term tenancy as opposed to month to month? I understand fixed-term tenancies, at least in my constituency, are a fairly small number. However, they are being abused. That’s another issue that I will have to address with the minister at another time. But I’m just curious. What is the percentage? My assumption is that the vast majority are not fixed-term.

Hon. R. Coleman: Most tenancies in B.C. are month to month. That’s what the Residential Tenancy Act was basically designed around. This really started out more along the lines of…. The violence issue came in after different ministries commented on violence-free B.C. and what we could do for people trying to flee violence, which may be a very small minority with regards to leases.

The biggest piece, though, was people who were being required to continue a lease while they were in long-
[ Page 10189 ]
term care, where they probably were either not coming out of long-term care, could end up in hospice or could go to hospice, and somebody still was billing them every month for that rent when they’re not using the unit and because they’re caught in that contractual relationship in a lease.

We felt if we could at least give some relief there…. That’s where it started. Then we worked into the violence piece, the domestic violence piece, which obviously leads into the next discussion the member was having a minute ago.

D. Eby: In the definition of “long-term care,” it’s defined as: “…unlikely to return to living independently under a tenancy agreement.” I can see that this is going to result in a lot of debate about the length of time and the definition of “unlikely.”

Is there a reason why the minister didn’t at least give the possibility by regulation to set out a specific amount of time within which they’re unlikely return to living….? Obviously, in G.F. Strong, for example, a lot of people will be in there for months recovering, perhaps years of rehabilitation, but will be likely to return to living independently. And yet these people would be captured in the same way that the people the minister described earlier or the intended beneficiaries of this would be affected. So I’m curious about why that definition that’s quite vague was used instead of something like “unlikely to return within three months or six months,” for example.

[1800]

Hon. R. Coleman: Under regulation, there’s going to be third-party verification with regard to this, which is going to be the important piece to how this works. It’ll be a health care professional, not us or somebody else, making that determination. What we did here is we used a definition of “long-term care” or mental health care provided in a long-term care facility. The person exists within government. For instance, the “long-term care facility” means certain care facilities under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. It catches those. You’re trying to get to where you could understand that.

I don’t think we’re in a position…. If the health care person says this person should be let out of a lease because they’re not likely to come back when they got healthy in a month from now, I don’t think we should put anybody in that position. If the health care professional is giving them the verification, then they should be allowed to get out of the lease.

D. Eby: The definition seems to speak to a permanent disability rather than a transient, albeit year-long or months-long, disability. Was it the minister’s intention that this be read as “unlikely to ever return to living independently”? Or was it the intention that it should be read as “unlikely to return to living independently within a reasonable amount of time”? The doctors are quite a particular group. I’ve dealt with doctors on forms that have similar kinds of definitions, and they say: “Well, it seems actually likely that over a period of years they will return to living independently.”

I just want to clarify for the record, in case this comes up, that the intention here of the Legislature and the minister, for what it’s worth, is that it’s “unlikely to return to living independently in a reasonable amount of time,” as opposed to requiring a permanent disability.

Hon. R. Coleman: If it’s a facility under the “long-term care facility” definition — meaning any of the following: “(a) a community care facility under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act; (b) a facility that, under the Continuing Care Act, provides a program of continuing care in the form of residential care; (c) a hospital within the meaning of (i)…the definition of ‘hospital’ in section 1 of the Hospital Act, or (ii) section 5 of that Act” — then, if they’re deemed by a health care professional not to be able to live there anymore, that’s what they will need to be able to get out of the lease.

D. Eby: I guess that’s the best we’ll get, although I do wish for the record that the minister would clarify that this section does not require a permanent disability in order to meet the terms as set out in the definition. I think it will be an important one. I invite the minister to make any comments on that.

The definition of “family member” has the same definition as in the Family Law Act. The Family Law Act is quite specific in terms of family members. It requires living in a marriage-like relationship, for example. As we know with violence against women, they may not know the person who is stalking them, for example. They may not have ever lived with them in a relationship but may need to change their accommodation.

Is there any thought of broadening the definition of the people involved in the violence, even if the minister is not prepared to broaden the definition of family violence in the provision?

[1805]

Hon. R. Coleman: We talked about this a few minutes ago — that we wanted to keep it as, to start with, an understanding within the existing laws and definitions. Stuff that would be outside of that would take some more work with regard to, obviously, the verification and the legal process involved. It would not have enabled us to move at this level on this particular act. We’ve said we would continue to do the work and see what else we could improve on.

D. Eby: So 45.2(1)(a) and subsection (2)(b) speak about the people who are authorized to give these notices under the regulations, and they will be required to
[ Page 10190 ]
keep records by the regulations. Can the minister speak to who he has in mind in terms of who would be authorized to give these kinds of notices under the regulations and, also, what type of records they may be expected to keep under the regulations?

Hon. R. Coleman: That’s the work that has to be done once we get through this piece. Basically, it’s likely to include people like victim services workers, justice system professionals, health care professionals. They will be professionals who have experience assessing safety and risk with regards to family violence or the need for long-term care. So it could be a doctor, a professional, but we will define all of those in regulations after consultation.

Sections 33 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

D. Eby: We’re now onto the Strata Property Act provisions. The question is to the minister. This section refers to holding….

Interjection.

D. Eby: Oh yeah, sure. Pardon me. Thank you very much to your staff there, Minister, for their assistance today.

Section 38 refers to how “the strata corporation must hold the meeting within 8 weeks after the demand is given to the strata corporation.” Can the minister advise the period of time from beginning to end that the act contemplates in terms of the wind-up or dissolution of a strata corporation under these new provisions — how much notice? If I’m a resident in a condo building, how much notice do I have at each stage in this act? I found it a bit complicated to follow in terms of how much notice someone in a unit would actually get under these amendments.

[1810]

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member is aware that we asked the Law Society to look at this through a process with regards to winding up a strata corporation. This has all been basically part of the work that they did for us.

What it does is it allows the owners and other eligible voters additional time to consider and explore their options to provide additional protection for strata lot owners when considering whether to terminate a strata corporation. For an issue as significant and important as determining a strata, the advice we got was that winding it up on two weeks’ notice is inadequate. Basically, at least four weeks’ notice is required to be given for owners and eligible voters to explore options, arrange for a proxy, change travel plans or campaign for or against.

In addition, an owner or other eligible voter who has waived their right to be notified at the annual or special general meeting will still receive a notice of determination that a winding-up resolution will be considered. This ensures that all eligible owners are notified of this particular resolution. Under the act, a strata corporation must give at least four weeks’ written notice under subsection (1) of an annual or special general meeting at which a winding-up resolution would be considered.

D. Eby: The written notice, then, would be delivered in accordance with what notice provisions? Would that be the notice provisions of the particular strata’s bylaws, or are there provisions within the Strata Act that set out notice under this act?

What I’m getting at is: someone is on vacation for a month, timed it badly, or maybe the strata times it as such. They get a notice under the door. Do they get any other kind of notice? What is the notice requirement?

Hon. R. Coleman: We did have conversations about this. The recommendation was…. After the vote has taken place, it has to be validated by court order, and a person who had been in the circumstances that the member has described could question it through the court order.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

D. Eby: Why are assignees of right to vote to a mortgagee not permitted to vote on a winding-up resolution?

Interjection.

D. Eby: I’m on section 41. It amends section 54, and it restricts the ability of a mortgagee who has been the recipient of an assigned right to vote. It says that mortgagee may not vote on a winding-up resolution. My question is: why are they not allowed to vote?

Hon. R. Coleman: We also had conversations about this. It was felt, in conversations with the work that was done here, that even though the mortgagee’s security is important, allowing mortgagees to vote on terminating a strata, instead of the strata lot owner, deprives the strata lot owner of a voice in a very fundamental property decision. The mortgagee’s interests will be considered by the court in deciding whether to confirm the resolution under the court order that will be required afterwards.

[1815]

Sections 41 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

D. Eby: Why is an owner not allowed to apply to court, failing the event that a strata corporation applies to court?
[ Page 10191 ]
Why don’t we provide a provision here that permits any owner to apply to court in the event that a strata corporation doesn’t?

Interjection.

D. Eby: I’m on section 48. It creates a new section called 273.1. And sub 273.1(1) creates the ability for strata corporations…. Well, it actually requires strata corporations of five or more strata lots, and creates the opportunity for strata corporations of fewer than five lots, to apply to the Supreme Court. But for some reason, it doesn’t create the opportunity for owners of strata lots to apply to the Supreme Court for an order in the event that the strata corporation doesn’t.

Subsection (2) talks about the failure of the strata corporation to make that application to court. If I’m an owner, I get the notice. I know the thing has passed. If my strata corporation doesn’t make an application to court, I’m not given standing by this section to make that application in their stead. Similarly, if my strata unit has five or fewer lots, and they don’t have to go to the Supreme Court, I’m not given the option to make the application.

Why are owners not permitted to apply, under this section, to go to court? Why is it just the corporation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Requiring a court order can be financially a burden was the research and the recommendations that we received, as we worked on this, on small stratas. With an 80 percent of vote required — effectively, unanimous when there are only four or fewer units — small stratas have the option to apply directly to the registrar to wind up the strata corporation without a liquidator. The interest of registered charge owners would be protected by requiring their consent to wind up the strata corporation and cancel the strata plan.

A small strata corporation may still pursue a court application to avoid the requirement to obtain the written consent of all registered charge owners, as would be available today.

It really was about the small strata — basically, one or more owners or registered charge holders. Small numbers, because obviously, this could be an expensive process. You can’t get to 80 percent with four people unless you have all four people. That is why the calculation.

D. Eby: Why is a court application required in the event of a 100 percent sign-off in a larger strata? If you get 100 percent of the people on side, why do you have to go to the Supreme Court to get this ratified under the act?

Hon. R. Coleman: This came out of the recommendations from the B.C. Law Institute. There could be other charge owners and things that felt that no matter whether it was 100 percent, you still need to make sure you’re dealing with the charge holder — like the earlier conversation about mortgagees.

That part of the process to keep it so that it was solid was one of the recommendations, and we accepted that.

D. Eby: I couldn’t figure out, under this new sub 273.1(2), why the government would be proposing a section that appears to remove the 60-day requirement after saying: “Okay, if you’ve got a strata and it’s five or more strata lots, you’ve got to do this within 60 days.”

[1820]

Then the next section says that the failure to do this within 60 days doesn’t prevent you from applying. It doesn’t affect the validity of the winding-up resolution. What’s the point of having a 60-day deadline if the next section then says you don’t have to comply with it?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is basically to catch…. Even though there’s a vote and somebody decides they don’t want to do the paperwork because they have a different opinion, it still allows the owners to still have the validity of the resolution to not be affected but to still allow owners to seek the court order after the 60-day period to compel the strata to make the application that’s required under the process.

D. Eby: Subsection (5) of 273.1 discusses what the government is asking the courts to do in the event they get one of these applications. Subsection (a) says the courts are to consider “the best interests of the owners.” Can the minister advise…? It is a very broad understanding. Certainly, if it’s in court and there’s an application, there’s probably someone disputing it.

So when the section says “the best interests of the owners,” which owners is the government referring to? The best interests? Are we talking about financial interests? Are we talking about personal interests?

It’s a very loose section that we’re handing to a B.C. Supreme Court judge and saying: “Make a decision in the best interests of the owners.” Now, I would assume that the wording here is probably “the best interests” of the majority of the owners without undue unfairness, as subsection (b)(i) captures, to one or more owners. It doesn’t say that. It just says “the best interests of the owners.” Are we talking about the majority of the owners here? If so, what particular interests are we talking about?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it’s broad because you need to deal with the best interests of the owner, which is section (5)(a) of 273.1 in the changes.

Really, what it is, is that you’re trying serve all the owners and registered charge holders with a petition that ensures they have a standing in court. Obviously, people need to have their rights and their interests protected. The legislation provides guidance to the court in how to consider the best interests of the owners, so it’s broad in that way, and it includes any significant unfairness to one
[ Page 10192 ]
or more owners or registered charge holders.

The interests of the owners are primary in this discussion, but the courts, when they do the court order, need to know what other things could be affected. That is why it’s broad that way.

Sections 48 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 40, Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:25 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