2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 7

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

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Point of Privilege

(continued)

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I rise, as I indicated I would, at the earliest opportunity to respond to the point of privilege raised this morning by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. First, I’ll just deal with a couple of the procedural matters. You, of course, will be aware of the rulings of your predecessors relating to the matter being raised at first opportunity. I was not in the House. I am advised that a reservation of the right to raise the matter was made, so I won’t say anything further about that.

You’ll also be aware that over time the House has set down some pretty detailed guidelines for what is and what isn’t considered a matter of privilege. They are referred to in appendix E of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. The particular passage that I am certain, Madame Speaker, you will turn your mind to in considering this matter is contained at page 296 where the point is made that: “Unless there is evidence that a member has deliberately misled the House, a matter of privilege has not been established.”

Leaving that aside for the moment and with respect to the submission made by the member for Point Grey, I’m going to suggest to you, Madame Speaker, that the member has not made the case and therefore should not be invited to present the motion he referred to.

[1335]

I make that submission on the following basis. He refers to an April 2015 briefing note received under provisions of freedom-of-information legislation. The note states: “Due to a system error, the LDB has been overpaying commissions to commercial wineries.” He relies upon that provision.

The claim made, as the minister has said in the past, is incorrect. When the issue was raised earlier this session, the Liquor Distribution Branch reviewed its historical practices and contracts. I’m advised, and the minister has conveyed in several instances, that there was no error overpayment. The fact is the policy has been applied consistently since the 1980s until the spring.

Until April of 2015 changes, the LDB paid a 7 percent commission to commercial wineries. I’m advised it was always calculated based on the B.C. Liquor Stores retail price. The fact that the member chooses to interpret all of that information in a different matter and in a different fashion doesn’t make his assertion or interpretation correct.

In the same appendix that I referred to earlier, the Parliamentary Practice, the relevant provision, I would suggest and submit, is as follows: “A dispute between members as to allegations of facts does not amount to a matter of privilege.”

Moreover, and I think very significant, as I listened to the member’s submission to you in the House, in his remarks, he himself acknowledged that he is not clear as to where to place the blame. He said at one point that one is left to draw one of two possibilities. He laid out what those possibilities were, one of which, obviously, was his assertion vis-à-vis the minister, which I refute categorically.

If the member chooses to opt for one theory over another, that’s his business, but that is very telling. There is no evidence. The member has called and presented to this House no evidence whatsoever on the key point that meets the key threshold for a finding of a deliberate intention to mislead the House.

That threshold is very high, and that is for good reason. He has not presented that evidence, in my view. In my view, he hasn’t presented it because it doesn’t exist. But more importantly, I would respectfully submit that his application therefore must fail on that basis.

Madame Speaker: I thank the member for his submission, and shall take it under advisement and return accordingly.

Standing Order 35
(Speaker’s Ruling)

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

SOIL DUMPING IN
SHAWNIGAN LAKE WATERSHED

LNG DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSITION
TO LOW-CARBON ECONOMY

Madame Speaker: On another matter, hon. Members, yesterday and earlier today the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head sought leave, under Standing Order 35, to move adjournment of the House to discuss two matters of urgent importance.

First, on Monday afternoon, the member raised the issue of the Shawnigan Lake contaminated soil site stormwater containment system at South Island Aggregates’s Cobble Hill operations. Today, the member sought leave to raise a second matter of urgent importance: the need to develop a new provincial economic plan and climate change strategy prior to the first ministers meeting in Ottawa on November 23 and the United Nations framework on climate change conference in Paris later this month.

I thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his submissions, as well as the Government House Leader
[ Page 10212 ]
and the Opposition House Leader for their comments. Although there may be considerable interest in both topics, the rules of the House require that the Speaker apply the provisions of Standing Order 35 to the members for applications for urgent debate.

Standing Order 35 provides a unique opportunity for the scheduled business of the Legislature to be adjourned in order that an urgent debate take place. Therefore, members seeking to use Standing Order 35 must present factual and undisputed information for the proposed debate, which is: (1) not an ongoing matter already debated or available to be debated in the House; and (2) related to new, sudden and unexpected events requiring that the Legislature suspend all of their business for a genuine emergency debate on a specific matter.

In reviewing previous decisions relating to Standing Order 35, the Speaker is also required to assess whether opportunities for parliamentary debate exist. During the current session, the House debated aspects of both matters numerous times, including during oral question period, related ministry estimates debate and during other proceedings. In fact, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head previously raised the necessity for an urgent debate to inform the province’s contribution to the same climate change conference earlier this summer.

[1340]

Both matters are important topics. They have been the subject of previous debate this session, and they continue in the public domain with ongoing developments. However, the member has not articulated how the matters have substantially been suddenly altered and that there is now an urgent need to have them discussed over the remaining business of the House this afternoon.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, I must rule that both matters fail to qualify under Standing Order 35.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee on Bill 41.

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 41; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 1:42 p.m.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re continuing committee on Bill 41.

On the amendment to section 1 (continued).

A. Weaver: I’m just trying to seek clarification from the minister specifically with respect to the University of Victoria and, presumably, other universities as to the types of fees that are collected and whether or not these are what he had in mind.

If you’re a student going to the University of Victoria, you’re required to pay student fees for the UVic Students Society, fees set through earlier referenda; the UVSS renovation fee, set through referendum for the renovations of the student buildings; a UVic athletics fee, only for on-campus people and, again, set through referendum at a time back in history; a UVSS bus pass, also set through referendum; a UVSS dental plan and a UVSS extended health plan, both of which you are able to opt out of — as, I believe, is the case for every university I’ve talked to — if you have other dental plans existing.

Now, what I’m asking here is: are these the types of fees, in light of the information I gave, that the minister believes would be required to be paid anyway by a student who withdrew from the university student society?

I have a small follow-up on one of these after that answer.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member lists a number of fees, and it’s a bit of a sample of the range of fees found at our 25 institutions, the Justice Institute being the one organization that does not have a student society and, therefore, has no appropriate fees in this category.

The opt-out arrangements for at least two of those fees indicate that of the somewhere between 100 and 200 different fees we’re addressing here…. That will require consultation with the student societies and the universities and colleges involved to ascertain which ones should be put into which category.

A. Weaver: Just a quick follow-up here. The UVic Students Society fee is one that students are required to pay to keep the ongoing governance of the UVic Students Society.

[1345]

That student society fee will pay, in subsets, moneys to, say, organizations like the UVSS Food Bank and Free Store, the anti-violence project, the Society for Students with a Disability, the Native Students Union, the UVSS Students of Colour Collective and the UVic Pride collective, amongst others.

My specific question here is: if the students are paying one fee — that is, the UVic Students Society fee — and the student society makes decisions within that on how those funds are spent…? Is the minister talking about having them have each and every subset of their overall student fee being approved by the ministry, or is it just the one fee?

One of the overarching concerns is that micromanagement, at the level of the government, will be to look at each and every decision being made by a student society
[ Page 10213 ]
in a student society fee. Could the minister please provide clarification on that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope that the remarks I’m about to make will be reassuring to the student societies and to the members opposite.

The anticipation is that there will be no change in the structure, content, nature or collection of student society fees through this process. The student societies assess fees, which are widely variable around the province. From our perspective, what they do with the funds they collect under that fee heading is up to them. We have no intention of getting involved in what they do, particularly at the student society level.

I thought we had made this reasonably clear in the conference call on November 2, but if there is any remaining anxiety amongst the student societies and unions or amongst the members opposite, I hope this has succeeded in allaying those fears.

K. Corrigan: I hadn’t intended to ask any more questions, but I just want some clarification from the minister. Is the minister saying that the intention, at this point, is that all of the fees that are presently collected by student societies around the province — which are all subject to approval by the student bodies — will continue to be collected on a mandatory basis after this legislation is in place and after the regulations have been passed?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In follow-up to my previous answer, the student society fees themselves will continue to be collected in the fashion they have been. How the student societies themselves disburse those fees is entirely up to them. The wide range of other fees that are found — such as student newspapers; health, medical and dental fees; student union building levies; miscellaneous fees — will be the subject of the consultation with the ministry staff so that those can be put into the appropriate categories as the regulations are developed.

K. Corrigan: Well, the answer demonstrates the problem that has been created by this legislation. If the legislation had simply said that student fees will be collected by boards on behalf of the students, according to what their referendums include — they do have to have referendums; they have to have approval — it would have been fine.

Now the minister is saying the student fees are fine. There’s going to be no interference. But those student fees often include things like the school newspaper. They have one fee that includes the school newspaper. The minister is saying the student union fees are fine, but perhaps the newspaper isn’t. Well, the reality is that at many institutions, that student union fee includes a whole variety of projects and programs that might include, for example, the newspaper. I’m wondering if the minister could clarify.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite points out the very conundrum that we’re trying to address here. If a student association fee…. They vary anywhere from $38 to well over $100 — $200 in one instance. Those fees can include any number of different things, and it’s not our intention to interfere in how the student body or the student society decides how to dispense the fees they collect under the rubric of the student society or the student association.

Where there are separate fees — for instance, the student newspaper fees vary anywhere from $5 to $34; there are miscellaneous fees that vary from as little as $1 up to $90 — that calls for some degree of explanation. Perhaps that can be settled with the student associations during the consultation. One might not be surprised that the student associations may elect to incorporate some of these features into their student association fee for the sake of clarity and simplicity.

K. Corrigan: I don’t have a question. I’m just going to…. I want to make it clear which sections, most of the sections, we will be voting against.

[1350]

I’m just going to put it on the record that we will be opposing section 1. The reason for that is that it adds definitions of capital, program or service fees for student unions. This means that there will be a potential differentiation, which means, potentially, that students will not have complete control over what types of fees are mandatory for them because it will be eligible as mandatory.

All of that is going to be decided later through discussions, negotiations, consultation — however the minister wants to describe it. But it will not be decided until regulations are brought in. That is brought in by the government, and that is brought in by cabinet. Therefore, we are going to oppose this section.

The Chair: Shall section 1 pass?

A. Weaver: Point of order, Hon. Chair. I believe we have a motion to amend section 1 on the floor. We must deal with that first.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 1 as amended approved on division.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to ask one question on this. The act that is being amended, the College and Institute Act, presently says that a board — this is to collect student fees — may “collect fees from students who are not members.”

I’m wondering about why the word “impose” has been
[ Page 10214 ]
added. Is there any significance to that, or is it more of a housekeeping?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m advised that this is a selection of wording from legislative counsel to make sure that the intent is clear.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

K. Corrigan: This is a fairly lengthy section that sets out, essentially, how student fees can be collected and the fact that student fees can also be collected from students who are not members of the student society, if they choose to resign from the student society.

My concern about this section is the one that I’ve talked about generally. It’s that it differentiates between different types of fees and is part of the scheme that’s going to provide what those fees are. What are mandatory and what are not will be decided by regulation later. That concerns me.

I won’t go through it, but I think it would make sense simply to remove any references to differentiated types of fees, like capital, program or service fees, and simply allow the student society to have the fees collected on their behalf by the board and also the fees that are collected from the students who decided to resign from the society.

It could have been reworded. I haven’t been convinced by the minister there is any reason why it shouldn’t have simply referred to fees and not differentiate it and not provided that there will be later regulation to decide which are eligible, which are not. I believe that should be up to the students. I’m not going to go through every word, because we’ve had a lot of discussion, but we will be opposing section 4 as a result.

[1355]

Section 4 approved on division.

On section 5.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move the amendment to section 5 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 5, by adding the underlined text as shown:

5 Section 68 is repealed and the following substituted:

Power to make regulations

68 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) for the purposes of the definition of “capital fee” in section 1, including, without limitation,
[ Page 10215 ]

(i) prescribing types of fees, or what constitutes a fee, in relation to buildings and facilities, including fees for the operation and maintenance of buildings and facilities,

(ii) prescribing criteria for when a fee is included or excluded from a capital fee, and

(iii) prescribing circumstances in which a fee is included or excluded from a capital fee,

(b) for the purposes of the definition of “program or service fee” in section 1,

(i) prescribing fees to support the activities and operations of a student society, including, without limitation, association fees and membership fees, and

(ii) prescribing a program or a service, or types of programs or services, that a student society provides or intends to provide, and

(c) for the purposes of section 21 (1) (b).

(3) In making a regulation under subsection (2) (a) or (b), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may

(a) establish different classes of institutions, circumstances, things or other matters, and

(b) make different provisions, including exceptions, for those classes.]

On the amendment.

K. Corrigan: We will also be opposing this section. This is the one that gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that’s cabinet — the ability to make regulations prescribing what types of fees, for capital fees, can be included and programs and services which will be included as part of what students can gather and what could, therefore, also be excluded. We are going to oppose this particular section.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 5 as amended approved on division.

On section 6.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move the amendment to section 6 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

6 Section 1 of the University Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 468, is amended by adding the following definitions:

“capital fee” has the prescribed meaning;

“program or service fee” means

(a) a prescribed fee, or

(b) a fee for a prescribed program or a prescribed service

that is imposed and collected by the board on annual notice from the a student society under section 27.1;.]

The Chair: Shall section 6 pass? Section 6 carried on division.

Section 7 approved.

Section 8 approved on division.

On section 9.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 9, by adding the underlined text as shown:

9 Section 71 is amended

(a) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraphs:

(a.1) for the purposes of the definition of “capital fee” in section 1, including, without limitation,

(i) prescribing types of fees, or what constitutes a fee, in relation to buildings and facilities, including fees for the operation and maintenance of buildings and facilities,

(ii) prescribing criteria for when a fee is included or excluded from a capital fee, and

(iii) prescribing circumstances in which a fee is included or excluded from a capital fee,

(a.2) for the purposes of the definition of “program or service fee” in section 1,

(i) prescribing fees to support the activities and operations of a student society, including, without limitation, association fees and membership fees, and

(ii) prescribing a program or a service, or types of programs or services, that a student society provides or intends to provide,, and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(2.1) In making a regulation under subsection (2) (a.1) or (a.2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may

(a) establish different classes of universities, circumstances, things or other matters, and

(b) make different provisions, including exceptions, for those classes.]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 9 as amended approved on division.

Section 10 approved on division.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Section 13 approved on division.

On section 14.

D. Donaldson: We’re into different amendments to a different act at this point, so perhaps we want to get the correct ministry in here that deals with the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The provisions of the act beyond section 13 will require different staff and a different minister to attend. I suggest we take a short hiatus, and we’ll have a change of characters here.

The Chair: For greater certainty, the amendment to section 6 is carried on division, and section 6 as amended is carried on division.

The committee recessed from 1:59 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act at committee stage. It’s nice to see the minister and nice to see the staff. We haven’t had a chance to do committee stage on the Child, Family and Community Service Act for this session, anyway, and perhaps for a little bit.

In section 14 is a section that amends the name of part 2.1 to include “Youth and Adult Support Services and Agreements.” It’s the addition of the word “adult,” especially, I’m interested in. I couldn’t find a definition in the definition section of the act of how this legislation defines an adult. I was hoping the minister could elucidate about the lower age and upper age of what an adult means in this section.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Before I answer the question, I’ll just introduce the staff that is here. Christine Massey is the assistant deputy minister of policy and provincial services, and Leah Bailey is the director of legislation.

As to the member’s question, “child” is defined under the CFCSA as a person under 19 years of age, and includes a youth. We don’t need to define “adult” in the act because it is defined elsewhere in the Age of Majority Act.

[1405]

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

D. Donaldson: This section, as amended, is an amendment to section 12.3 of the act, which makes it possible for a director to make a written agreement with a person 19 years or older. Previously, it was that the director may make a written agreement with a person up until the person’s 19th birthday. This is in connection with youth agreements.

We have a situation…. Under subsections 12.3(1)(a), (b) and (c), it outlines a number of the criteria that define who the agreement can be made with. In the case of Carly Fraser, for instance, who wasn’t in care at the time she turned 19, would this amendment allow for the director to make a written agreement, a youth agreement, with someone who wasn’t in care when they turned 19 years of age?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The short answer is yes. The more complex answer is that the new, amended section under part (c) provided the person who is now 19 years or older but before their 19th birthday was “the subject of, or party to, an agreement under this Act” — meaning, like, a youth agreement…. Then, yes, they would be covered.

D. Donaldson: Could the minister…? The amendment reads: “Subject to the regulations, a director may make a written agreement….”

Would the minister be able to provide an example where the director could decide not to make a written agreement?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This is an agreement. These are agreements that we’re talking about. You can’t force either party in a voluntary agreement to come to the table.

[1410]

There might be circumstances where a youth would like a service, an agreement, but they don’t qualify, meaning that they are not wanting to use it under what the agreements have been prescribed in regulation.

For example, elsewhere…. Here, we’re talking about entering into these agreements for youth who are studying in a trades program or another. We’re hoping to expand it to life skills. Those things would be the kinds of things outlined in the regulations. There may be circumstances where the parties don’t agree that this is the right vehicle for support.

D. Donaldson: This legislation, this amendment if passed today, opens up the possibility of making youth agreements between the director and young people past their 19th birthday. How many people who are 18 now that will be turning 19 could be considered under this amendment in the next year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are approximately 700 young people that would turn 19 in any given year.

D. Donaldson: I believe my colleague would seek leave to make an introduction.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d just like the House to help me congratulate Janet Ruest. She’s a teacher at Chemainus Secondary School. This has been quite a year for Janet Ruest, a modest, hard-working teacher. Three prestigious awards have been granted to her, with trips to Washington, D.C., an expedition to the Galapagos Islands and more honours, including dining with colleagues this week in Ottawa to accept an award.

Janet’s awards go hand in hand with many well-deserved accolades after 23 years of hard work developing curriculum and study programs that see her students singing her praises and securing well-paid employment in the field of geography. Selected from 2,700 applicants as one of 35 highly respected educators from the United States and Canada, Ms. Ruest was chosen as one of the 2015 Lindblad Expeditions and National Geographic Grosvenor Teacher Fellows.

Just back from the Galapagos Islands, Janet is doubly honoured to be recognized for her dynamic teaching approach with the 2015 Innovation in Geography Teaching Award, Canada’s highest geography K-to-12 teaching award, presented by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society.

Janet and her husband leave tomorrow for Ottawa to receive this latest prestigious honour, rubbing shoulders with the likes of the Hon. Nellie Taptaqut Kusugak, Commissioner of Nunavut, and celebrated authors Margaret Atwood and Graeme Gibson.

I would like the House to help me give a warm and heartfelt congratulations to Ms. Ruest on her great achievements on the behalf of students in my district.

[1415]

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: The minister gave the answer previously of approximately 700 young people in the next year — 18 turning 19 — who could potentially be offered a youth agreement under this amendment. If passed, this amendment then will trigger that. What additional resources…? Could the minister give an idea of the additional resources that would be required to provide, potentially, 700 youth agreements or the number of youth agreements she anticipates will be triggered by this legislation?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There’s really no way to anticipate exactly how many people will take us up on this and will be eligible before the regulations have been brought into force and the change communicated outward. But what I can tell you is that in 2013-14, there were around 456 youth agreements, and the cost of those was about $3 million. So we would anticipate from that what we expect. But there isn’t a clear or final estimate at this point, given that the legislation hasn’t been passed and, therefore, regulations haven’t been set or communicated.

D. Donaldson: At this point, Chair, I would like to propose an amendment to section 15. I’ll provide a copy of that to the Chair and to the minister. I’d like to speak to the amendment while that’s being delivered.

This proposed amendment is to section 15, and it would amend section 12.3 under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

[SECTION 15 (a)

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

15 Section 12.3 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(a) Subject to the regulations, a director may must make a written agreement with a person 19 years or older who, before the person’s 19th birthday, was

(a) a child in care,

(b) the subject of an order for custody under this Act, other than as described in paragraph (a), or

(c) the subject of, or a party to, an agreement under this Act.,]

By doing this proposed amendment, it’s making it mandatory to offer all youth in care an agreement that will help ameliorate the defects of this bill, in my opinion. While it will be much better to extend proper support of foster care for youth like Paige, at the very least we need to eliminate the ad hoc, patchwork approach that allows our most vulnerable children to fall through the cracks.

As it is now, there is no line item in the budget for youth agreements. They have no stable, steady source of
[ Page 10217 ]
funding, and the children are being denied these already meagre supports. By making it mandatory for a director to offer a youth aging out of the system supports after 19, we will eliminate the chance that youth like Paige or Alex Gervais, youth who are at the greatest risk, don’t get an opportunity for what transition services are available.

[1420]

I might add to that that we’ve seen tragic death after tragic death of children under this ministry’s watch. These changes being proposed under the bill we have in front of us would not have helped Paige and would not have helped Alex.

These youth need social work. They need stable foster homes so they are not forced out like Paige. Kids who pass through the health and school system are not going to get the help they need through voluntary agreements. By adopting the proposed amendment to the bill that I am putting forth today, at least the government would be forced to sign youth agreements for youth who want to enter into that and make the necessary resources available for those youth agreements so that vulnerable children do not have to fight for youth agreements.

You can only imagine the children, youth like Paige, who was drug addicted, who was severely traumatized, or youth like Alex Gervais, who, again, was severely traumatized. These youth could potentially be put in the position where they’re going to have to fight for a youth agreement, because the legislation, as it stands now, is discretionary for the director — whether they want to make a written agreement with a youth or not.

I would suggest that by adopting the amendment that I am proposing, that a director must make a written agreement, it would not force young people who are already facing such incredible challenges — youth like Alex Gervais — to have to fight for a youth agreement.

The Chair: Member, this amendment is out of order because it will impose an additional charge on the public purse. You cannot make an amendment like that.

Amendment ruled out of order.

D. Donaldson: My comments now will be directed to section 15, which deals with section 12.3(b) in the Child, Family and Community Service Act. The bill we’re considering today at committee stage is recommending that life skills and rehabilitative programs be added to the conditions that must be met for a youth to qualify for a youth agreement on top of being enrolled in an educational or vocational training program.

So the legislation we have in front of us is recommending that we add life skills or rehabilitative programs under 12.3(2)(b). My question to the minister is: what will happen if we have a youth like Paige, who was labelled as service-resistant, who would not be, potentially, accepting of the condition of being entered into a life skills program in order to enter into a youth agreement? If the youth is resistant to that, does that mean the youth would have their supports cut off under this legislation?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The proposed changes today are meant to expand our ability to provide supports to youth who are aging out of care and to continue to expand and improve upon the way we support youth who are essentially aging out of the system. They are not meant to, nor could they, anticipate every circumstance, nor be appropriate in every circumstance.

There are youth who are not interested in a youth agreement type of model of support. There are youth who don’t require this type of support. There are youth who probably require another type of support.

[1425]

Government is committed to looking at the ways we provide support to youth, both in care and who are aging out of care, to see how we can evolve and improve the services that are available. But it is not anticipated that any one service will meet the needs of all youth generically.

D. Donaldson: In the spirit of what the minister described as expanding the ability for the ministry to offer services, I have a proposed amendment that deals with this section 15, specifically section 12.3(1)(b). I’ll provide a copy of those to the Chair and to the minister and would like to have the opportunity to address the proposed amendment I’m putting forth.

[SECTION 15 (b), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(b) in subsection (2) (b) by striking out “rehabilitative program.” and substituting “life skills or rehabilitative program.”, and by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) The agreement must provide for support services or financial assistance, or both.]

This amendment deletes the requirements in section (b) dealing with a rehabilitative program and life skills and simply states: “The agreement must provide for support services or financial assistance, or both.” In other words, it’s removing some of the criteria in this bill we’re considering today being put in place that could present challenges and barriers to youth over the age of 19 accessing a youth agreement.

Youth agreements should be offered because supporting former youth in care as they transition into adulthood is the right thing to do. Attaching conditions to youth agreements makes it all the more likely that those who need the supports most will be denied them.

Furthermore, in many rural communities and First Nations reserves, there are absolutely no services which fit in the requirements of a youth agreement — in other words, the rehabilitative program provision that’s in this section.

I don’t understand how it makes sense to kick a young woman like Paige off her youth agreement if she fails to attend a life skills course, for instance, or taking away
[ Page 10218 ]
a young person’s rent money under a youth agreement because they don’t meet the government’s criteria. That will only result once again in vulnerable youth being cast aside.

This amendment addresses the serious gap by eliminating these unnecessary and punitive conditions from youth agreements and ensuring that a youth agreement provides some measure of actual support to the youth. I would urge the minister and all members here to support this proposed amendment.

The Chair: Member, this amendment is also out of order because it will be an expense on the public purse.

Amendment ruled out of order.

D. Donaldson: The question I have now relates to section 15, which is addressing section 12.3 under the act — 12.3(c). It’s removing timelines related to these youth agreements.

My question to the minister is: what will the timelines look like in the regulations? The previous legislation actually had stipulations in the legislation around 19 years old and afterwards, and the legislation we’re considering now has no timelines in it. The previous legislation talked about the length of the agreement not exceeding 24 months and that “no agreement may extend beyond the person’s 24th birthday.” But this current amendment that we’re considering under this bill says that that is subject to regulation. So how long will youth agreements last, and how long can they be offered?

[1430]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The purpose of this section is to remove it from the legislation and essentially allow, through regulation, to define the time periods.

The section will authorize the renewals of agreements or, if an agreement is ended, another agreement to be made. The amendment would allow a regulation to be made to permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to determine the maximum age of eligibility, which is currently the 24th birthday, and the maximum duration of agreements, which is currently 24 months, by putting in regulation to be able to change that, with an intention to expand the ability to provide more flexibility to government to respond to the needs of youth.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

D. Donaldson: Section 16 amends section 103(2) in the act, and it deals with the ability to make regulations versus having specifics in legislation. My question to the minister is: why are we doing this through regulation versus legislation? What is the intent of the amendment here?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I just said, the intent is to allow flexibility to be able to amend or change the age limits or duration through regulation rather than having to open up the act. The intent here is to allow for flexibility to be able to better support youth who are aging out and in the time frame that makes sense for those youth.

D. Donaldson: I just want to hear it from the minister so we’re clear and have it on the record that regulations that are referenced in this section…. Will these regulations be brought to the Legislature for debate in public?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The regulations will be made by cabinet through OIC.

D. Donaldson: So we are depending on the minister’s word, and I take it, that the intent of these regulations is to expand the services available. But if that is not the case, there will not be an ability to debate the regulations because they are made in cabinet. I just wanted to get a yes or a no from minister on that.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

N. Macdonald: I think we’re switching here, so I don’t know if the minister needs to bring in his staff.

The Chair: Member, let’s just wait till we change the guard here.

[1435]

N. Macdonald: As I’m sure the minister has been told, I think the House Leaders have us on a bit of a time constriction. So what I’ll do is, with the sections, if there are multiple questions, I’ll give them all at once. If that’s a problem, if you need something repeated, I can do that.

Just on section 17, it amends the definition of “petroleum industry” with respect to the LNG industry. The LNG industry is now to include not just retail distribution of LNG but the wholesale or retail distribution or sale of LNG. Now, this wasn’t, as the minister knows, one of the recommendations of the review.

The question I have is: what does this mean for LNG? Will the BCUC have the authority to regulate its sale in the same way that it does for natural gas delivered to homes?

Hon. B. Bennett: There’s an important distinction between energy that’s delivered to residents and businesses
[ Page 10219 ]
in the province and energy that’s going to be exported on a wholesale basis. The reason for this change in definition is to ensure that LNG and compressed natural gas wholesalers are not regulated by the B.C. utilities act, because they are an export industry not serving the general public or the business community here in B.C.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

N. Macdonald: I understand that this section 19 and the previous section 18 come from recommendation 25 of the review. It requires the B.C. Utilities Commission board to employ a chief operating officer. Just three questions, and the minister can elaborate on any of these questions if he chooses to.

Has the B.C. Utilities Commission had an executive director or a chief operating officer regularly in the past? The second question would be the rationale for what could be perceived as another level of bureaucracy. Is it actually needed, in the minister’s view? Then the third one is: could the minister explain how the chief operating officer is chosen? Here, just to understand, is this primarily the BCUC and the board making that decision? Or is it a decision that also involves the ministry?

Hon. B. Bennett: In the past, up until 2007, there was an official at the BCUC who did the work of a chief operating officer on a regular basis, to the member’s question.

The second part of the question — it’s a fair question and one that, certainly, I asked when I saw the recommendation — is: what’s the point of adding another layer, if you will? The point really is that currently, without somebody to run the business of the commission, without somebody there to actually do the management work that an organization like that needs to do, it falls to the chair to do that work.

The chair is a person who more properly should be focusing on policy issues and working on files. So this frees up the chair to do more file work. It allows the COO to actually manage the operations of the BCUC. We certainly agree with the independent panel that recommended this.

[1440]

Just for the sake of interest and getting it on the record, it was actually various public intervener groups that suggested to the independent panel that a COO be hired. That was the second part of the question.

The third part of the question was: who hires or appoints the COO? That would fall to the chair. I don’t believe that there is any involvement of government in that. The chair of the BCUC would actually decide who would take this position as COO.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

N. Macdonald: Section 21 amends section 22 on exemptions. It is described as expanding the “scope of the minister’s exemption powers.” It removes references to “an eligible person” and replaces them with “a public utility.” The minister may now exempt a public utility from section 71, the energy supply contracts, and part 3, “Regulation of Public Utilities,” sections 21 through 64.

The explanatory note says that this expands the scope of the minister’s exemption power. I guess the question I have is: how does this expand the minister’s scope when the amendment seems to narrow the application? As a layman, it seems to narrow what the minister can do. The minister used to be able to exempt an eligible person. He or she may now only exempt a public utility from regulation under part 3, in section 71.

Hon. B. Bennett: The current provision authorizes the minister to provide exemptions for electricity-related public utilities. What we’re doing here is we’re saying that in addition to the authority to provide exemptions to electricity-related public utilities, the minister will now also have the authority to provide exemptions to non-electricity-related public utilities, including natural gas utilities.

There was a shortcoming in the legislation that required non-electricity public utilities to go through a more circuitous and time-consuming and expensive route than electricity-related utilities, which made no real sense. So that’s how it’s being broadened. It’s just being broadened to include non-electricity public utilities. I should say “non-electricity utilities” as opposed to “non-electricity public utilities.”

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

N. Macdonald: The question I have for section 22 is…. The independent review said that the B.C. Utilities Commission needs to be able to “use its discretion in balancing conflicting objectives” and that the energy objectives of the Clean Energy Act “should be reviewed and amended.”

Now, this amendment gives the B.C. Utilities Commission that discretion. I guess that the question I have is: when will the energy objectives of the Clean Energy Act be reviewed? Is there a date or a timeline that the minister has in mind?

Hon. B. Bennett: Two parts to my answer. First of all, the purpose for this change is in recognition, pointed out by the independent panel, that the 16 objectives in the Clean Energy Act are, in some cases, competing objectives. It is unfair and probably unproductive to ask
[ Page 10220 ]
the Utilities Commission to somehow magically find the perfect balance to those competing priorities, those competing values in the Clean Energy Act.

[1445]

Let me get the language appropriate here. Instead of saying “must consider and be guided by,” it will now say “consider and be guided by.” Let me just double-check on that. Yeah, it will say “must consider,” rather than the existing provision that says “must consider and be guided by.” That’s the change. It’s to allow the BCUC some more flexibility in how they balance those 16 objectives.

The second part of my answer goes to the member’s specific question: when will the 16 objectives in the Clean Energy Act be reviewed? We intend, actually, to do that over the next year.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

N. Macdonald: Section 23 allows utilities to request rate changes under subsection 61(4) if the price of its inputs goes up or down. Previously, the language said that that could only happen if it went up.

The question to the minister is: why is this amendment necessary? Was this one of the recommendations of the review? And if so, which one?

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, it’s a fair question. I think the best way to answer it is to give an example of a situation where input costs could go down, and the utility would want to be able to respond nimbly to that. That would be the example of natural gas prices, which have been going down fairly consistently for a few years.

In what used to be a normal world, gas prices being stable but all of a sudden, perhaps, taking a significant dip, the input cost to the utility goes way down. It would want to be able to change its rates to the customer quickly. That’s the purpose of the amendment.

N. Macdonald: And to the second part of the question or maybe part of the question: was this anywhere in the recommendations? Or is this something that simply the ministry realized has needed to be tidied up?

Hon. B. Bennett: The commission has certainly talked to the ministry about this. The ministry has been aware of it for I’m not sure how long, but I’m going to say for probably a year or two at least.

One doesn’t get the opportunity to amend legislation that often. What good staff do is they keep a list of things that ought to be done to a piece of legislation, and when they get the opportunity, they make those suggestions to the minister. We take it through the process, and this was one idea that made it all the way through the process and makes sense to us.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

On section 25.

N. Macdonald: With section 25, it relates to recommendations 19 and 20 of the report. Could the minister maybe explain the need for these changes, in the ministry’s view?

Hon. B. Bennett: During the work — the period of time that the independent panel was looking at the BCUC and how it operates and all of the different rules and regulations that it operates under — it was suggested by some parties that a consumer advocate office be set up. I think there are some provinces in the country where they have similar sorts of offices that are part of their utility oversight.

[1450]

The panel came to the conclusion that that was probably not the best way to assist, in particular, under-represented interests in the BCUC process, and that it would be more useful for them to be represented by counsel. The current provision requires that the Justice Minister sign off on the appointment of counsel. That’s rather time-consuming, again, and bureaucratic and, we think, unnecessary.

The way this will work, if this provision is passed, is that the commission will actually be able to appoint counsel in situations where they make a judgment that there is an interest that needs to be heard at the BCUC that requires counsel. It’s just a streamlining adjustment to the legislation so that the commission can make this appointment of counsel more quickly, more responsively to the need, and not delay the process and have it come to Victoria and have the Justice Minister have to sign off on it.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

N. Macdonald: The review talked about mandatory reliability standards on pages 31 and 32, but there were no recommendations. Sections 27 and 26 both deal with reliability standards. Can the minister explain the need for these changes?

Hon. B. Bennett: B.C. has been involved — along with other provinces and the U.S., of course — in the development of these standards. In an overarching kind of way, what I would say we’re responding to here is a need to provide consistency with these mandatory reliability system standards that have developed in the U.S. and across Canada.

All of the changes…. I’m happy to go through the various specific changes that are proposed in these provisions, but in an overarching way to explain why, it is 100 percent to make sure that our legislation is consistent, our
[ Page 10221 ]
terminology is consistent, and our process for exempting an entity from these standards is consistent with what’s happening in the U.S.

Section 27 approved.

The Chair: That’s the end of part 3. The committee will be in recess for a few minutes until we get a change of staff.

The committee recessed from 2:53 p.m. to 2:54 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 28.

L. Krog: I’m satisfied that all the proposed amendments are in fact in order and quite inconsequential and of no significant legal impact, apart from improving the enforcement of maintenance orders. Therefore, I have no questions on these remaining sections of the bill.

Sections 28 to 36 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

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

Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015, reported complete with amendments.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, now, Madame Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

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

Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015, read a third time and passed.

Madame Speaker: I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[1500]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2015

Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015

Red Tape Reduction Day Act

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015

Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015

Franchises Act

Provincial Immigration Programs Act

Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015

Electoral Districts Act

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[1505]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Point of Privilege
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey rose on a matter of privilege today, having reserved his right to do same on November 5 during this session. The gist of the matter is the allegation that the hon. Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch, in response to questions posed to her, had allegedly misled the House in stating there had been a long-standing policy of paying commissions to commercial wineries based on the retail value of product.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey tabled a briefing note from the Liquor Distribution Branch dated April 8, 2015, stating there had been an error in calculating commissions to commercial wineries and that the commissions were paid on retail value, not wholesale. Presumably, this had been based on a model from some point in 2008, resulting in an overpayment.

The briefing note goes on to suggest that in previous
[ Page 10222 ]
models, moneys were paid to commercial wineries, but from a quick review of the member’s tabled materials, it seems to have been a 16 percent payment for handling and shipping costs. This later became a commission arrangement.

From the Chair’s view, there is room to suggest there are questions as to whether the questions and answers were addressing the same issue. The member and minister appear to have been talking about different issues. It appears there was always a policy of payments to commercial wineries, but not in accordance with the formula of 2008.

I find there is not a point of privilege but an unfortunate dispute between members on the facts.

As well, hon. Member, I want to remind all members to temper their language in raising points of order on matters of privilege. It is not an opportunity to use language that can impugn the integrity of another member that is not permitted at other times during the proceedings of this House.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move as follows: that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the 40th parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time and date. And in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

Madame Speaker: Safe travels, all.

Hon. M. de Jong: Wherever the winds may carry all members, safe travels, à la prochaine fois.

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

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:09 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