2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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, April 26, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 37, Number 8

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2016

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is a former member, Doug Horne. Doug is here today with a group of people. I wanted to acknowledge him not just for his service to this place, not just for his service to Coquitlam–Burke Mountain but for his ultimate sacrifice of giving up his seat so that we could elect the new member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. Thank you, Doug.

Hon. S. Bond: We’re delighted that today, at lunchtime, we will be proclaiming the next week in British Columbia Creative Industry Week. We know that a very significant contributor to the diverse economy in British Columbia is the excellent work done by actors and artists and book publishers.

We’re delighted to be joined by a large number of our guests here in the gallery today. We want to thank them for the exceptional work they do. We look forward to sharing some entertainment and celebrating the fantastic contributions of these sectors to British Columbia. I ask the House to make them most welcome today.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure, I know, along with everyone in the House, to be attending the creative industries event later today. It’s a really a great pleasure to see a whole bunch of friends of the film and TV industry.

I think there are about 22 in the upper gallery joining us today. We’ll try our best to give them some clippable clips in question period so that they can tweet them out to their mass followings — or put them in a movie, perhaps. Oh wait, that would be a bad movie. It wouldn’t sell that well.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: All right, all right, okay. Maybe our side would sell well, but I’m not sure about the other.

I want to say thank you for their work for the creative industries in B.C. It’s a shining light. We could do so much more together, and I know we will. Please, let’s make them very welcome. I won’t name all 22, but know that you’re special, each and every one, in our hearts.

J. Thornthwaite: To outdo the other side, I will name them all, because today not only is, as our Minister of Jobs had expressed, B.C. creative week, but there are all sorts of people from the film industry that are here.

First of all, I’d like to reiterate what our Leader of the Opposition had mentioned, which is our longtime friend Doug Horne. He was the former MLA, as we know, for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and also the former Deputy Speaker, so a very good friend of yours, Madame Speaker. He desperately tried to keep us all in line. We miss you here, Doug. He now works with Skydance Media, and he’s here with colleagues Larry Wasserman, chief financial officer of Skydance Media, and Jake Rose, the executive vice-president of production.

We’ve also got many people up there in the gallery from the creative industries. We had a wonderful time at your reception last night, thank you. Please welcome Peter Leitch, Suzanne Thompson, Kim Alexander, Geoff Teoli, Rob Simmons, Allen Harmon, Cynde Harmon, Kendrie Upton, Cameron Waldbauer, Hamish Purdy, Robert Pandini, Monique Prudhomme, Todd Masters, Lisa Robison, Andrew Jha, Jackson Davies, Christine Willes, Wendy Noss, Danielle Campeau and Karen Waldbauer.

Thank you very much for all you do for the economy of British Columbia. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.

[1010]

K. Corrigan: I’d like to welcome to the precinct today the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of British Columbia. The association represents 90 of B.C.’s consulting engineering companies that provide engineering and other technology-based intellectual services to the public and private sectors. Those 90 companies employ almost 10,000 people in British Columbia, and the consulting engineers contribute some $3.6 billion in annual revenue to the B.C. economy.

On a personal note, engineers are near and dear to my heart. My father was one of the founding members of the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia and one of the early chairs. So I know from summers spent going and visiting dams being built and bridges — that was my summer holidays — how wonderful and important this group of people are and thank them for building the province.

I hope that you’ll all make them very welcome.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have two introductions that I’d like to make this morning.

The first is a very dear friend of my wife, Charlene, and I, Sharon Paterson. She and her husband run a manufacturer’s agent company, and Sharon is here for the first time in question period. I know that they are a great example of small business that keeps our economy moving. I’d ask the House to make her feel very welcome.

I know that there have been introductions for the folks from Creative B.C., but I wanted to especially recognize a very good friend of mine, a biker dude that I’ve done
[ Page 12354 ]
a number of motorcycle charity rides with, and that is Jackson Davies. Now, members in the House would know Jackson as Const. John Constable from The Beachcombers. Jackson has a great reputation as a tremendous actor, a producer, a writer and is recognized as one of the true creative talents. I’d ask the House to make Jackson feel very welcome today.

R. Sultan: I have two introductions today.

First, let’s acknowledge the insurance industries in town. These are the members of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the people who actually do the insuring, not the brokers — the Chuck Byrne crowd.

They insured your car, your home, your business and ourselves against disaster such as earthquake and flood. Seismically speaking, IBC, as it’s known, warns — based on their own quite detailed studies — that a magnitude 9 quake about 40 miles offshore from where we sit today would cost many lives and about $75 billion in damage of which only one-third is insured, and the balance would be picked up by presumably the owners and perhaps the government. So let’s listen carefully to what they have to say about liability and solvency.

In the galleries today, from B.C.’s own insurance companies, we have Anne Barnes, Kevin Dobson, Cheryl Edmunson, Daryl Kochan, Mark Orr, Donna Cheeseman, Patricia Stirling and Brent Strilive. From IBC, Bill Adams, the vice-president; Aaron Sutherland; Mike Lee; Miranda Lee; and Sally Turney. Would the House please welcome these important saviours.

Secondly, as the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has already pointed out, the engineers are also in town, and they’re near and dear to my heart. I wear an iron ring myself.

Among us, visiting today are Keith Sashaw, the president of ACEC-BC, the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of B.C.; Ken Wiecke, operations manager at AMEC and principal with Thurber Engineering here in Victoria; Tim Stanley, structural engineer with Stratice Consulting and MMM; Jeannine Martin, vice-president, business development and marketing for COWI North America — previously known as Buckland and Taylor; currently famous for designing the new hub at the World Trade Center, which is being rebuilt after the terrorist destruction in lower Manhattan.

Imagine that. A North Vancouver engineering consulting firm is front and centre in a very big transportation hub at the new World Trade Center in Manhattan.

Finally, Cathy Fritter, with Moffatt and Nichol, specializing in automation and electrical controls.

[1015]

I should also mention my constituent, John Sherstobitoff, who is a principal in — what else? — seismic engineering at Ausenco. I think that’s the name of his company. Let’s hope we don’t have to call upon him. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: It would be a dereliction of my duty if I didn’t pile on and also introduce an honorary lifetime resident of Gibsons. I’m proud to represent the home of The Beachcombers. It’s great to have Constable Constable here. He might know that later in the years there was a Sergeant Sergeant, who was working in Gibsons, but that’s unrelated, anyway. I could go on….

A. Weaver: Please do.

N. Simons: Thank you. Encouragement from one member.

I’d just like to say welcome. You’re always welcome. People like hearing about his work, and here in the House we remember fondly his work on The Beachcombers. Come back to Gibsons.

Hon. C. Oakes: Here today are representatives from the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board — President William Lacy, from Quesnel; Director Roland Cataford, from Fort St. John; and the executive officer, Alexandra Goseltine, from Prince George.

The B.C. Northern Real Estate Board and its members serve the real estate needs of central and northern communities from Fort Nelson in the north to 100 Mile in the south, and from the Alberta border to Haida Gwaii — over 70 percent of the province. Would the House please help make them welcome.

D. Eby: I was very pleased to look up into the gallery and see a true rock star, a constituent and someone who I certainly like to count as a friend. Louise Mangan is here, the proud mother of Dan Mangan. I see Dan up there as well. I would like to especially welcome Louise to the gallery here today.

D. Barnett: Today in the House I would ask everyone to welcome members of the Ulkatcho band from Anahim Lake. We have with us Chief Betty Cahoose, Councillor Allen Louie, Councillor Gertie Capoose, Councillor Harvey Sulin, Councillor Judy Cahoose, Councillor Breanna Charleyboy, and the economic development officer, Laurie Vaughan. Would the House please welcome them here today.

I also would like to welcome a lady from my riding who is a realtor I worked with for many years. She is a member of the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board, and she’s also a member of the B.C. Real Estate Association board. Please welcome Gisela Janzen from 100 Mile House here today.

D. Donaldson: Visiting the Legislature today are 22 grade 5, 6 and 7 students from French immersion class at Majagaleehl Gali Aks in Hazelton. Majagaleehl Gali Aks is a Gitxsan name for John Field Elementary School, meaning “flowers of the rivers.” In Gitxsanimax, “flowers” is the name given to the children.
[ Page 12355 ]

They’re visiting today with their teacher Alain Paquette and their chaperones Heather Muir, Andrea Vickers, Samantha Combs and Cliff Coukell.

They are at a trilingual school. Majagaleehl Gali Aks is trilingual: Gitxsanimax, French immersion and English. I just met them out on the steps, and they’re a pretty enthusiastic group. It’s nice to see some kids from home. Would the members join me in making them very welcome to the Legislature today.

G. Heyman: Apparently, the member for Vancouver–West End’s example of restraint isn’t going to be followed today. So I’d like to welcome as well Suzanne Thompson of Encore studios, whose studios are in Vancouver-Fairview; and Rob Simmons of Atomic Cartoons, who’s also a constituent and whose offices are in Vancouver-Fairview. For those of you who go to Creative B.C’s exhibition in the rotunda, perhaps there’ll be a chance to dance in front of a green screen for you as well.

Also, I’d like to welcome my friends Louise Mangan and Dan Mangan. Apparently, Louise, who used to be my constituent, has now moved to Vancouver–Point Grey without any notice whatsoever. Would the House please make them all welcome.

[1020]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

VANCOUVER ISLAND
REGIONAL SCIENCE FAIR

R. Fleming: I’m pleased to speak about a tradition that goes all the way back to 1962 and is an incredibly inspiring and valuable resource for 21st-century innovation. I’m speaking about the Vancouver Island Regional Science Fair that was held April 10 and 11 at the University of Victoria for the 55th time.

This science fair, like 14 other regional science fairs across British Columbia, is a fun and engaging way for students as young as nine years old to design science projects with their peers and present them to judges and compete for awards in a number of categories.

The Vancouver Island Regional Science Fair is organized by the Society for the Advancement of Young Scientists, SAYS. One of the primary goals for SAYS is to promote science to grade 4 to 12 students in the school system and to the public at large. The organization is affiliated to Youth Science Canada and the Science Fair Foundation of B.C. Seven lucky winners of this regional event get to compete at the Canada-Wide Science Fair.

There are six exhibition categories at the Vancouver Island Regional Science Fair: engineering and computer science, life sciences, health sciences, biotechnology, earth and environmental science, and physical and mathematical science.

There are too many schools and successful participants and winners to mention, but I was impressed with the range and diversity of projects and scientific experiments that were presented by students. There’s one that I would find incredibly useful when I go camping this summer — the “thermo-electric generators to charge electronic devices in the wilderness” project. And they ranged all the way to the antibacterial properties of hot sauce. So there was lots to think about and to stimulate knowledge about science in our everyday lives.

I want to congratulate all the students and schools for their participation in this year’s fair and to thank the sponsors — UVic, of course; the Air and Waste Management Association; the Rotary Club of Victoria; the Science Fair Foundation of B.C.; and a number of science and engineering companies — for making this fair an annual tradition and one that has continued well into our century.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT
IN ABBOTSFORD

D. Plecas: Like many communities across this province, Abbotsford has been working hard to ensure that supports are in place for people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. And it’s encouraging to see what’s been taking place.

More and more people have been moved into homes, thanks to the work of many people and many organizations such as the Salvation Army, Raven’s Moon, Lookout Society and Abbotsford Community Services.

Last month I attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the first low-barrier supportive housing project in Abbotsford. Men struggling with homelessness will soon have access to 30 new supportive housing spaces. This housing project will be a facility which includes a place for those with active addictions to alcohol and drugs. With safe and affordable housing, tenants will have access to on-site health and support services such as mental health, addictions and medical services, employment readiness programs and meals.

One of our great local organizations, as I just mentioned, Abbotsford Community Services, will operate the building and provide on-site supports. They’ve been working for a long time to have the project go ahead, and I congratulate them on their vision and hard work.

It is important that we help the most vulnerable in our society and find that we have proper supports in place. While this new facility is being built, we have another shelter, a temporary shelter, which will remain open with support services for those who need them.

We are investing in long-term solutions and support services for people who are homeless, people who have mental health problems and addictions. Thanks to the perseverance by all partners involved, we are able to make this project possible. And collectively, we will keep doing more.
[ Page 12356 ]

SCHOOL LIBRARIANS IN
VANCOUVER–POINT GREY

D. Eby: You know, when people think about the amazing schools in Vancouver–Point Grey, they think about the teachers, they think about the students, and they might think about the principal. But behind the scenes, the librarians are working incredibly hard without fanfare to help our community’s young people develop skills that will serve them for their whole lives — everything from sports and nature to computers and cars.

At UHill Elementary, under Val Coopersmith’s leadership as principal, librarian Jorden Covert has established the library as a high-tech hub. At UHill, they operate a digital literacy program, a LEGO robotics program, and they play host to a coding club with access to iPads for the students.

[1025]

The library partners with UBC to host a young naturalists club. This year the students in the naturalists club raised 50 chum salmon from eggs and released them into Spanish Banks Creek.

At Bayview, active collaboration between the teacher-librarian and classroom teachers help students learn critical thinking skills, with special attention to computer literacy. Bayview’s librarian facilitates author visits, hosts the welcome-to-kindergarten program and works with parents to make sure that families have the resources they need to ensure that learning continues outside of the classroom.

At French immersion school Jules Quesnel, Principal Morissette works closely with teacher-librarians Fabienne Goulet and Caroline Letourneau. They are especially proud of their bibliotherapy section, devoted to hosting books that deal with difficult topics, where young people can ask the questions and get the answers they need about what’s happening in their lives.

At General Gordon, Principal Davidson works closely with teacher-librarians Mary Locke and Karen Beaty.

These librarians help students discover accessible literature, great Canadian authors and First Nations storytelling. The library is the central hub for students learning and research for the Heritage Fair project. The librarians run fun programs like the Poem in Your Pocket Day.

On behalf of students, teachers, parents and everyone in Vancouver–Point Grey, I want to thank all of our school librarians for making learning fun and exciting for all of our students.

RURAL SHUSWAP
HEALTH SERVICES NETWORK

G. Kyllo: In January 2014, a grassroots gathering put forward the need to champion health and medical services in small rural communities in the Shuswap. Over the next year, the group grew to include representatives from the entire Shuswap rural region and called themselves the Rural Shuswap Health Services Network.

Their founding purpose is to be a rural advocacy group that supports sustainable rural health services for the Shuswap and surrounding areas. Their goal, both then and today, is to improve the delivery and awareness of regionwide primary medical, health and allied services in the rural communities of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and the communities with those services within their entire Shuswap region.

The Rural Shuswap Health Services Network recognizes the challenges of providing health services across sprawling rural areas. Their purpose is not to find fault or put forward unrealistic expectations of service but to recognize the challenges, define current and future needs and find practical, innovative solutions to improving health care services in their communities.

The society has enjoyed many highlights over the past two-plus years. They have met with Health Match B.C. and the Ministry of Health to discuss physician recruitment incentives. They have met with representatives from five areas of administration for Interior Health, Shuswap North Okanagan. This is just the beginning of an ongoing conversation about health care services in the rural Shuswap.

I’m proud of their collaboration to bring healthier outcomes to rural Shuswap. This is a great example of communities uniting as one voice on a common cause.

WORLD JUNIOR TAEKWONDO
CHAMPIONSHIPS IN BURNABY

K. Corrigan: Well, we’re thrilled that the World Junior Taekwondo Championships are coming to the Copeland Arena and Fortius sport centre in Burnaby from November 16 to 20, 2016.

The delegations will include approximately 1,000 athletes between 14 and 17 years of age from over 100 countries, as well as more than 500 officials, referees, coaches and trainers and hundreds of parents. It’s estimated that the championships will bring between $4 million and $5 million in tourist revenue to Burnaby.

Tae kwon do, with roots that go back hundreds of years in Korea, is the most practised martial art in the world. It became an official Olympic sport in 2000 and is practised in over 200 countries by more than 75 million people. While the world championships focuses on the physical, competition is only one aspect of the philosophy of tae kwon do, which strives to create a more peaceful world through mental and spiritual development built on the values of respect, courtesy, kindness, self-control, integrity and other positive aspects of an individual’s personality.

Having seen a world-class team demonstration at the Korean festival in Burnaby last year, I know people who attend the championships will be amazed at the athletes’ skills. Congratulations to the city of Burnaby, particularly
[ Page 12357 ]
Coun. Paul McDonell, Tourism Burnaby and Taekwondo B.C.’s Tony Kook and Michael Suk, Taekwondo Canada, the World Taekwondo Federation and community and business sponsors, as well as the provincial and federal governments.

[1030]

Thanks also to all of the volunteers from Burnaby and the region, who I know will ensure that this is a wonderful and successful event.

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

J. Thornthwaite: Our government has proclaimed April 25 to May 2, 2016, Creative Industry Week in British Columbia. This eight-day celebration recognizes the success of the film, television, music and digital media industries and features various events showcasing their economic, artistic and cultural contributions to the province.

Creative industries are among the most rapidly growing sectors of the global economy and are major contributors to income generation and job creation in B.C. They account for $4 billion in annual GDP and support more than 80,000 skilled jobs, putting our creative economy neck and neck with sectors like mining, agriculture and forestry.

And 2015 and ’16 marked a record year for the film and television industry, with locally shot productions spending approximately $2 billion in British Columbia and providing $900 million in wages to B.C. residents.

This record-breaking year was supported by a number of high-profile projects like ABC’s Once Upon a Time, an acclaimed TV series that over the past five years has supported 5,500 full-time jobs and contributed more than $275 million in direct expenditures. Another high-profile project, Deadpool, employed more than 2,000 local cast and crew, pumped $40 million into the economy in just 58 days of production and provided $19 million in wages.

Last Wednesday I had the chance to celebrate Canada Film Day at a special screening of If I Had Wings at Capilano University’s centre for film and animation. This film is directed by Allan Harmon and co-produced by Cynde Harmon — who are here today with us — and stars their son, Richard, and daughter, Jessica.

It’s an inspirational film shot in the Lower Mainland in 2013 and explores issues like bullying, harassment, rising above adversity and discrimination against First Nations. It is now available free of charge to every school. I encourage everybody to check out that film and celebrate the creative industry.

Oral Questions

SUNCOM TRANSACTIONS AND
REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

J. Horgan: Under B.C.’s security laws, crowdfunding is limited to $500,000. But despite this, SunCom, a Lower Mainland company, appears to be crowdsourcing massive real estate deals.

The firm is issuing shares in large deals to unidentified investors using, in part, social media. For one example, they spent time raising $30 million in shares for two lots on Tisdall Street in Vancouver. They issued $103 million in shares for a ten-hectare site in Richmond for SilverCity, and they issued $60 million in shares to buy two Nelson Street properties in Vancouver from Wall Financial Corp.

The Securities Commission appears to be investigating this firm for its activities, but that didn’t slow them down. They flipped the Wall Corp. properties in less than a month for $68 million.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: how can a company raise $200 million for real estate deals on Facebook without the Securities Commission stepping in and shutting it down?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll take the specifics of the question — a detailed question, to be sure — on notice but highlight to the member, of course, that there is a strict regime in place relating to the regulation of securities in the province of British Columbia and the regulation of the real estate sector. But I’ll take the specifics of the member’s question on notice.

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

J. Horgan: With respect to those regulations, clearly, SunCom is circumventing those. That’s why the Securities Commission is conducting an investigation or, at least, made public that investigation in January.

One of the problems with this process, first and foremost, of course, is they’re recruiting investors that no one knows and, therefore, are obviously circumventing anti-money-laundering controls. Secondly, the amount being raised is some 350 times the legal limit. The transactions are paying no property transfer tax. Lastly, this goes unreported. No one knows who’s buying what and for how much.

[1035]

Again, to the minister, the minister is responsible for the Securities Commission. He has been a vociferous defender of the wild, wild west real estate market we’re seeing in the Lower Mainland. Now we have information that suggests that $200 million worth of property is now controlled by persons not known to the minister, not known to the government and, therefore, increasing the pressure upward for affordability in the Lower Mainland.

My question to the minister is: why would he allow this to take place, where no taxes are collected and no records are kept?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member began his submission to me in the House by pointing out an investigation that
[ Page 12358 ]
has been undertaken by the Securities Commission and then has, again, jumped, and asked me to jump, to a conclusion about that investigation.

I’m not prepared to do that. The Securities Commission in British Columbia, I can assure all members of the House, takes its responsibilities very, very seriously. It has been working not only on enforcing British Columbia security rules but has been a leader in Canada in developing a cooperative, comprehensive capital markets regulation scheme for securities right across Canada.

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

J. Horgan: An almost “before the courts” response from the minister. It harkens back to the good old days. I’m pleased to see that he’s true to form on that.

I appreciate that the minister may feel that the Securities Commission takes this very seriously, but SunCom clearly does not. An investigation was announced by the commission into their activities, and they flipped the property again anyway. In less than a month, it went from $60 million to $68 million.

Here’s the tragedy. No transfer of title has taken place. So $4 million was left on the table — by neglect, I suspect, by the government — in property transfer taxes.

The property on Nelson Street — the two properties — when it was purchased by the Wall Corp. was assessed at $15.6 million and, in less than two years, sold for $60 million and then, in less than a month, sold for $68 million. Not one dime came back to the treasury to at least provide some services for those who can’t find housing in the Lower Mainland.

My question to the minister is: I appreciate that the Securities Commission takes this seriously, but does the minister? Will he support our private member’s legislation and stop this practice and stop it today?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things come to mind. The member won’t be surprised that I’m going to continue to be reluctant to deal with a specific example, particularly in the absence of all of the details. I will say this. There are a variety of mechanisms by which interests in properties can be transferred in British Columbia. The conventional means by which title is transferred triggers an obligation under the property transfer tax.

There are other mechanisms. A share sale in a company, as the member knows, does not trigger that obligation. There are other instruments — bare trusts — that we are examining at the moment, because of apparent increases in the use.

I think the underlying message from the member is questioning the government’s commitment and the government’s managerial capacity. Ironically, today we got one of those report cards — and I know the member, probably, was going to refer to this in his next question — from Standard and Poor’s. Today, this report card on British Columbia: “In our opinion, B.C.’s financial management is very strong. The province demonstrates what we view as good political and managerial growth. We also believe that management of debt and liquidity is prudent.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: “We find B.C.’s financial disclosures transparent, comprehensive and timely, and in our view, B.C.’s financial management practices are the best among the Canadian provinces.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Continue.

[1040]

D. Eby: Let me tell the minister how things are going on the ground. Julia Lau is a former real estate agent who gave up her licence to avoid an investigation by the Real Estate Council. Now, she’s landed on her feet. She’s the one who issued tens of millions of dollars of shares on Facebook to buy the Wall street properties.

Now, before the sale, she did issue a prospectus of a sort. She warned shareholders about risk, the risk of not buying her shares. She wrote: “Whoever want to invest has to prepare the deposit with bank draft tomorrow. The shares will be sold out on Monday.”

Then, after issuing tens of millions of dollars of shares on Facebook, she updated her page as follows: “The $60 million project at 1065 Nelson Street, Vancouver, shares sold out in two hours. Thank you very much for the supporting from all my clients.”

If a disgraced real estate agent with no real estate licence, with no securities licence, can issue $60 million in shares on Facebook, clearly this government has lost control of the real estate market in Metro Vancouver.

Is the minister really going to stand up and defend this kind of activity?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am interested to hear more about the type of control the NDP would like to exercise, because when they have attempted to control in the past, it has had devastating consequences for the B.C. economy.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: The principle, the concept, of a share transfer as a means for transferring interest in corporations and the assets they control is well established in
[ Page 12359 ]
B.C., well established in corporate law. There are strict rules that must be complied with, that must be abided by. Those rules are contained within a variety of statutes relating to corporations and relating to securities. The Securities Commission, of course, is charged with the task of ensuring that those rules are complied with.

Our expectation, the expectation of the government, is that the Securities Commission actively and aggressively enforces those rules. I’ve already mentioned to the member that I will endeavour to obtain more information about this specific example.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: I don’t know how much clearer I can be that the expectation of this minister is not being met. Day after day, we rise in this House and raise these issues. Day after day, he says: “Hey, there’s no problem.”

Julia Lau bought and sold these properties without a real estate licence. She issued almost $60 million in shares without a securities licence. There was no official filing of any kind. She did this on Facebook. She flipped the company with SunCom while they were apparently being invested by the Securities Commission.

We have meetings with realtors today who work hard, who maintain their licences. There are securities brokers who do courses, who follow the law. Is this Finance Minister telling them they’re wasting their time?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, to the member I will say this. He and his colleague have raised an issue. I’ve alerted them to the fact that I will obtain more information about that issue.

We have a strict set of security regulations in place in British Columbia, and the government’s expectation and mine is that the Securities Commission, that agency charged with the enforcement of those regulations, will do so.

I know that the member feels absolutely no reservations about standing in this place — and a number of his colleagues, maybe most of them, feel the same way — making allegations and drawing conclusions on the basis of those allegations.

[1045]

I possess neither the luxury nor the inclination to do the same. Instead, we’ll await the work and the conclusion of the work of the agency charged with conducting that investigation.

L. Krog: Well, I’m delighted that the Minister of Finance is such a patient person, because two months ago, FINTRAC, Canada’s money-laundering agency, warned that Metro Vancouver’s real estate market is “at risk for being used for money laundering” — two months ago.

Now, the Minister of Finance is not just any ordinary Minister of Finance. He’s the former Attorney General. So one would think that he’d have some strong interest in ensuring that the rules in British Columbia to govern transactions are in fact observed. Between two sales of the property formerly owned by Wall Financial, $128 million exchanged hands. Real estate agents have to report transactions like that — anything over $10,000 — but Julia Lau is no longer a real estate agent.

My question to the minister is this. Does he perhaps think that maybe, just maybe, it would be appropriate for some authority to actually review these transactions to ensure that B.C. is not being used for money laundering?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member very quickly turns what is, I presume, a suspicion on his part into a conclusion. He is correct about this: there is, again, a strict set of rules that compel real estate agents, members of the real estate profession, to make reports to FINTRAC, to that federal agency, in an enumerated set of circumstances. In fact, the member will know that we have recently taken steps to increase our capacity as a province to interact with FINTRAC in other areas where there are concerns about money laundering.

We have a robust, growing economy. I know members of the opposition are viscerally offended by the notion that British Columbia would be leading Canada.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, even mentioning that fact seems to illicit a negative reply from the members, and I anticipate the same negative reaction when I remind them that people are coming to British Columbia. They want to live here. They want to invest here.

Now, that is not an excuse for circumventing the rules. The rules are there for a reason. In some cases, they may have to be enhanced, and the government is committed to doing so. But as difficult as it is for the opposition, on the day when one of the major international report-card rating agencies has said that British Columbia has the best financial management practices in Canada, would it kill them to recognize that we’re number one?

SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS AND FUNDING
FOR INTERNET SERVICE UPGRADE

R. Fleming: Well, let’s have the government across the way recognize that British Columbia is the second-worst-funded education jurisdiction in Canada on a day like today.

Right now….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, we will wait.

Please continue.
[ Page 12360 ]

R. Fleming: Right now, school districts across B.C. are being forced to cut programs, eliminate teaching and learning assistants and close schools because this government’s K-to-12 budget is failing our school system and it’s failing kids and families. The downloading of unfunded cost pressures by this government is estimated to be $190 million since just 2013, and it continues in this year’s budget. Hydro rate hikes, increased MSP, unfunded contract costs, inflationary costs — the list goes on and on.

[1050]

If the $54 million in cuts to school districts for what the Premier called “low-hanging fruit” wasn’t bad enough, the B.C. Liberals are now taking another $26 million from school districts for the next-gen network Internet service.

Does the Minister of Education understand that a $26 million budget hit for the new provincial Internet service is actually forcing school districts to make cuts to the classroom for resources for our kids for school districts to pay for it?

Hon. M. Bernier: I find that every time I need to stand in the House and answer questions during this time, I need to correct the member opposite, who continually misleads this House. When you talk about the fact….

Madame Speaker: Member. Member, withdraw.

Hon. M. Bernier: Sorry, withdraw.

Hon. Speaker, I’ll correct the member opposite. We have publicly said that we are fully funding the teachers’ settlement in this year’s agreement, in this year’s budget, so I’ll correct the member opposite on that. I’ll also correct the member opposite that schools, when they’re closed, are not being closed because of lack of funding. They’re being closed because of lack of students.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Bernier: We have 70,000 fewer students in the province of British Columbia. But at the same time, we’ve increased our funding yet again this year: $110 million added to the budget in the province of British Columbia for the students of British Columbia. We also have a 43 percent increase over the last 15 years of per-student funding.

We continually fund the students of British Columbia. But we do have areas of the province that we see decline of enrolment, which makes tough decisions for the local school districts. When you have schools that are half-full, when you have schools that don’t have students in them, those are decisions that local school districts need to make when they have the funding that’s coming in: to make sure that they are investing in programs in the school, good programs that are continually helping students.

That’s why we have some of the best outcomes in the world — because of those decisions, making sure that money is going into the classrooms for the students.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I think we all get it that high-speed Internet in the classroom is a standard part of 21st-century education, and that’s why it’s wrong for the B.C. Liberals to put a $26 million toll onto school districts and students to access the information superhighway.

This huge cost increase couldn’t come at a worse time. Why should towns like Armstrong, Penticton, Summerland, Osoyoos and Quesnel lose their schools to pay for this government’s $54 million funding cut and now this $26 million hit for broadband Internet?

Will the minister do the right thing? Will he give students across B.C. equal access to the digital learning age, and will he give school districts a break from being hammered again by his government so they don’t have to close schools and fire teachers to pay for broadband Internet access in this province?

Hon. M. Bernier: We will give equal access to all students in the province of British Columbia. In fact, the member knows that quite recently we just announced that every school in the province of British Columbia will be hooked up to the next-generation network by the end of 2016, to make sure that every student has the best opportunities, to make sure every student has equal opportunities.

This is making sure that we have reliable connectivity in the province of British Columbia. When we look at technology and the opportunities….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We want to make sure that we have reliable connectivity for all of our students. What’s important is that every student in the province of British Columbia — whether you’re in downtown Vancouver, Haida Gwaii or Fort Nelson — has the same learning opportunities in the province of B.C.

That’s why our government is committed to making sure that we have that funding in place, that we make sure that we have the next-generation network. That is why we work with the school districts. This was a request by the school districts and one that we’re proud to make sure comes to fruition.
[ Page 12361 ]

J. Wickens: Parents in Osoyoos have been told that their district can’t afford to keep open their only high school. The closure of Osoyoos Secondary isn’t just the loss of a school community. It could mean the loss of a local theatre and a local gathering place.

[1055]

This is the result of the B.C. Liberals failing to ensure that school funding keeps up with costs — costs like the next-generation network. Will the minister do the right thing, not just for families in Osoyoos but for families across British Columbia, and fully fund the next-generation network?

Hon. M. Bernier: When you look at, specifically, Osoyoos, they have some difficult decisions to make there — almost 30 percent fewer students in that district. At the same time, their budget has been going up. So when you look at 30 percent fewer students, obviously, those are decisions the local school district needs to make.

We also announced that on top of the $110 million that we’ve added in this year’s budget, there’s also $45 million in savings going to all the school districts in the province of British Columbia around the teachers pension plan. That’s money that gets to stay in the districts. That’s money the school districts can use to continue adding into the district for programs and for funding for their students, on top of the record funding that we are already contributing.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Wickens: It doesn’t matter what the minister continues to say. Districts are making cut after cut after cut. It’s not just Osoyoos that’s struggling because of this B.C. Liberal failure to properly fund public education. The Central Okanagan district actually has increasing enrolment. Yet they are looking to cut more than $3 million from their schools this year because of stagnant funding and increased costs — costs like the next-generation network.

Ironically, they are considering cutting half a million dollars from their technology budget. This would mean relying on outdated computers in their classrooms. A speedy Internet connection doesn’t get you anywhere fast if you have outdated technology. Does the Minister of Education really think that it makes sense to force school districts to cut computers to fund new technology?

Hon. M. Bernier: Again I’ll repeat for the member opposite. We continue, year over year, to increase funding to school districts. We have a per-pupil funding rate that goes to the districts. If a district is increasing — like Surrey, like other places in the Lower Mainland — you’ll see that year over year, their budgets continue to go up. When you look at that 43 percent increase in our per-student funding rate, that is going to the districts.

Now, when we look at the next-generation, again, this is something that we worked on collaboratively with the school district. This is something that they asked for. It’s something that we obviously wanted to make sure happened. When you look at the fact that we wanted to have good connectivity around the province, we wanted to have great opportunities for all our students, equal opportunities…. Those opportunities are why we have some of the best achievements in the world when it comes to our achievements for our students in British Columbia.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT
CAPACITY AND FUNDING

B. Ralston: The Minister of Education did reference Surrey, and I do have a question about Surrey. A decade and a half of B.C. Liberal mismanagement has left the Surrey school district in such a desperate situation that Laurae McNally, a longtime distinguished non-partisan Surrey school trustee, put forward a motion calling on the city to stop all development in neighbourhoods with overcrowded schools.

Does the Education Minister acknowledge that the Surrey school board’s unanimous recommendation is borne of desperation and intense frustration with the failure of the B.C. Liberals to fund flexibly for growth in Surrey’s school district?

Hon. M. Bernier: You know, people love Surrey. People move to Surrey. It is the fastest-growing school district and the largest school district in the province of British Columbia, which is why we continue to work with the school districts. We look at the stresses that they’re facing. That’s why we’ve invested $337 million in new seismic upgrades and new schools in Surrey since 2001.

[1100]

We’ve created 8,500 new seats in Surrey, and yes, we’ve got more to do. That’s why we continue to work with the Surrey school district. That’s why we’ve just announced another school there, in Clayton, that’s under construction right now. That’s why we’re working with the district for further announcements this year — because we understand the growth pressures that they’re under — and why we work closely with the school district for those investments.

Madame Speaker: Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Funding isn’t keeping up, in Surrey, with the pace of growth. Surrey students are going to school on staggered schedules, so they can accommodate more students than the schools were originally built for. The district is forced to spend, from its operating budget, $4 million a year — that’s money that doesn’t go into classrooms — to service more than 300 portables.

Conditions have deteriorated so much that the district has put forward an effectively desperate plan to stop all
[ Page 12362 ]
development, because the B.C. Liberals refuse to fund for growth in Surrey. Does the Education Minister plan to rethink the education funding formula to provide the money for growth that Surrey schools and the Surrey economy desperately need for prosperity?

Hon. M. Bernier: I find it quite interesting that the member opposite actually wanted to use the word “economy.” If he continues to say no to everything, we won’t have money in the province of British Columbia for these investments.

When you look at Surrey, when you look at the fact that we’ve invested…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Bernier: …$337 million in 55 projects in Surrey…. This side of the House understands that in order to have money to invest, you need to have a strong economy. You need to say yes to projects in the province. You need to say yes to Site C, in my riding. You need to say yes to LNG. The money that comes in from those projects….

They might have a magic money fairy in the NDP back rooms. On this side of the House, we have a strong economy to make sure that we can invest in the province of British Columbia for students.

When you look at the fact that we have….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We continue to invest year over year. So $64.6 million we recently announced — in Clayton and other projects. They’re going to create 1,800 seats in the district of Surrey.

In fact, I actually just spoke with the school board this morning. We’ve said that we will work collaboratively with them. We understand the pressures they’re under, and this side of the House, our government, is committed to making sure we work closely with them to alleviate those stresses.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, continued estimates on the Ministry of Children and Family Development; and in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 19.

[1105]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — GREENHOUSE GAS
INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On section 1 (continued).

G. Heyman: When last we gathered, we were still on section 1, and we were discussing the new entrant provisions and the transitional provisions. The minister was stating that each operation would be examined individually, presumably whether or not an operation or the technology in a plant was a carbon copy of another one.

Now, there are many LNG operations around the globe. Many of the entrants have experience. My question for the minister is: if these are newly built facilities, why do they need an initial period before they come into compliance? Why are they not in compliance before they begin operations?

Hon. M. Polak: This goes back to the discussion that we began yesterday. These are facilities unlike a product we might purchase at home and take out of the box and plug in. We turn it on, and it should immediately perform as expected. The same is true of a car that you buy. You expect, the first time you turn it on, that it operates the way it will always continue to operate.

During the commissioning of these facilities, that is often not the case. It can be that during the construction and commissioning of these facilities, there are quite wide fluctuations in terms of performance until the facility reaches a steady state. Nevertheless, there are still compliance obligations placed on the facility. Albeit, during the new entrant period, those compliance obligations are different.

The Chair: Shall section 1 pass?

G. Heyman: I don’t think we’re quite ready to pass the section yet, Chair.

[1110]

The minister mentioned buying a new car. If somebody buys a new car, they’re subject to the carbon tax. The carbon tax is there to incent a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, to encourage manufacturers to produce vehicles that are more efficient, to incent consumers to buy vehicles that are more efficient.

Perhaps there are fluctuations in the operations of a new entrant’s facility. Perhaps they go on for as long as 18
[ Page 12363 ]
months, or perhaps they go on longer. But what rationale can the minister offer to, essentially, give new entrants a pass on requirements, as opposed to incenting them to have their facility be the least polluting in the most rapid time frame possible?

Effectively, it seems to me that these provisions give operators a green light for a period of time rather than an obligation to meet requirements that British Columbians expect and that will apply at a later date.

Hon. M. Polak: They certainly do not get a pass.

The difference, with respect to the new entrant period, is the length of time that passes prior to the first calculation of their obligations and requirements. Ordinarily, if we move forward into a steady state when they are strictly a regulated operation without a new entrant period, they will report and be assessed on a calendar year basis. The difference here is it will be 18 months for the first period. Then the calculation is conducted in just the same way that it would have been for the 12 months. The 0.16 still applies, so they’re not getting a pass.

G. Heyman: Then perhaps the minister could elaborate more fully on the difference between the first 18-month period and subsequent months.

Hon. M. Polak: So in the initial stages of commissioning and construction, you have a situation where there can be large variations in emissions, while at the same time, there is relatively low production, thus skewing the figures over the one-year period and giving an inaccurate picture of what a typical compliance period will be for that facility in the out-years. It wouldn’t give us an accurate reflection of what can be expected as an emissions profile for that facility in future years.

The additional timing…. It could be lengthened, albeit that is the maximum period. The length of the new entrant’s period will be prescribed. It can’t be more than the 18 months. It could be less, depending on how the director assesses that individual facility.

[1115]

G. Heyman: Could the minister more directly answer the question about how this benefits the company, the proponent, by having the lengthy transition period?

Hon. M. Polak: It provides them with the best opportunity to be able to have their facility up and running in a steady state when it comes time for their very first reporting out, and, of course, having to meet the obligations with respect to their 0.16 intensity.

G. Heyman: So in fact, if, during the transition period, they’re well above the intensity level, there’s no impact on them, financially or otherwise, during the transition period.

Hon. M. Polak: No, that’s not true. The difference here is that the first reporting period is longer than what subsequent reporting periods will be. Subsequent to that, they will have to comply on an annual basis. In this first period, their emissions profile will be assessed based on that 18 months of performance, not 12 months. But they will still have to come into compliance.

G. Heyman: In other words, the calculation period is longer than what was initially contemplated, which is a benefit in terms of requirements for compliance of the operation.

Hon. M. Polak: The period of time is longer, but all the emissions during that time are calculated, accounted for. They are responsible for it.

G. Heyman: The only reason I can think of for introducing a longer period of time for calculation is to dilute the impact of making the calculation on the first year of operation.

Perhaps the minister could explain clearly. If there is no impact whatsoever on a proponent or an operation by allowing a longer averaging period…. It seems to me the whole purpose of this clause is to allow a longer averaging period, in order to minimize the impact of an operation that would otherwise have had to meet an intensity level based on a different reporting period.

[1120]

Hon. M. Polak: Truly, this is really just about recognizing an industrial process and accommodating it in the reporting time frame. These are complex facilities, and it takes time for them to fully commission and operationalize their facility. This simply means that you have 18 months before your first reporting period. But all of the emissions are monitored and reported.

The Chair: Shall section 1 pass?

G. Heyman: I’m not quite ready with section 1.

The minister yesterday indicated, when I was asking questions about the consultation process with industry and the drafting of Bill 2 — which became the act which Bill 19 now proposes to amend — why the need for transitional periods, the fluctuation of operations, was not contemplated or considered at that time, given the experience of the industry in other places.

The minister replied that no consultation regarding the drafting of the bill had happened with industry. Perhaps I used the wrong word, but I find it difficult to believe that the government, which has been meeting regularly in Canada and Malaysia and in other places with a variety of proponents around establishing this industry and bringing in legislation that was specifically designed to offer them a range of reassurances about what the finan-
[ Page 12364 ]
cial picture would look like, had no discussions whatsoever with prospective proponents around greenhouse gas reporting and emissions.

That notwithstanding, can the minister say what study and consultation was done to reach the conclusion that 18 months is the appropriate upper limit amount of time for a new entrant transition period and who was consulted to reach that conclusion?

The Chair: The member for Nanaimo asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today — I believe they’re behind me now — is a group of grade 4 students from Forest Park Elementary in Nanaimo constituency. Accompanying is their teacher Joe Smith and several adults. I think this is their first occasion to actually visit the B.C. Legislature.

I just had a chance to speak to another group of students from Forest Park Elementary, obviously a school that takes civics very seriously. I’d ask the House to please make all of these students and their teacher and accompanying guests welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: The 18 months was arrived at largely based on the experience of Norway, with their Snøhvit operations, which is one of the cleanest operating facilities in the world. It was, again, largely based on that experience that the 18 months was felt to be the appropriate time frame.

A. Weaver: I’m wondering, with respect to the implementation of this, what timeline the government is thinking that LNG facilities will start to develop and whether or not they expect any LNG facility to actually trigger a compliance period before 2020.

[1125]

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of implementation, we anticipate having regulations completed and drafted late 2016, early 2017. With respect to the member’s other question around the likelihood of operations being in place, I’ll leave that for the Minister of Natural Gas Development. We’ll retain our role as the regulator.

A. Weaver: My question back to the minister is this. Legislation will be ready and regulations will be ready — 2016, 2017, say. Does the minister expect there to be an LNG facility taking up these regulations before 2020? It’s a very clear question.

These regulations would not be put in place if there was not a very specific reason to put them in place. The specific question is: why are we doing this now? Who is coming, and what is the timeline by which government thinks an LNG facility will make a final investment decision such that these regulations will be triggered?

Hon. M. Polak: As the regulator, I’m not involved in discussions with respect to final investment decisions that industry players may make.

We have seen, in terms of the realm of approvals…. We know that Tilbury is certainly on its way. We know that Woodfibre has received both a certificate from ourselves and also from the federal government. We don’t know what the federal government position is going to be with respect to PNW.

Again, we operate from the regulatory side. In terms of what decision-making is occurring around boardroom tables, that’s not in my purview.

A. Weaver: The answer was, clearly, that the senior minister within government doesn’t really know. That leads me to the next question then. If the government is putting in place regulations along this line and is expecting — perhaps, maybe, but we don’t really know — some proponents to take it up, my question is this. Will the minister be introducing legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act this session? If anybody takes this up, they will need to do that.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize. I was listening, but I don’t quite understand what the member is asking about repealing.

A. Weaver: To clarify, if a proponent were to take up this new legislation and the compliance period were to be enacted or a transitional compliance period were to be entered into, then we know that the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target that is a matter of law in British Columbia — that we are to reduce emissions by 33 percent — will not be possible.

In introducing this legislation, it’s critical that the government introduce parallel legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which is currently a matter of law. The question to the minister is this. When will she be introducing legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You introduce this. You repeal that. When will that be occurring?

Hon. M. Polak: There’s no intention at this stage to introduce such legislation, and here’s why. Firstly, the member knows from the climate leadership team report that we’re well aware that we are not on track to meet our 2020 targets. That’s no surprise. It’s something that myself and the Premier have spoken about many times in public.
[ Page 12365 ]

We’ve also talked about the importance of considerations around the current climate leadership team’s recommendations. Those recommendations are modelled on the premise of having two newly operating LNG facilities in British Columbia. Now, they present a very challenging set of recommendations, but those recommendations are being wrestled with.

To the question of if the answer to not meeting the 2020 target is to repeal the legislation, the best example I can provide is what happens when there are challenges faced in the world of budgeting. We have a law in British Columbia that requires us to balance the budget. When we don’t manage to do that — and occasionally, that occurs; it certainly occurred when we had the financial downturn most recently — we don’t repeal the balanced-budget legislation. We have to work to get back on track.

[1130]

How will we address the existing 2020 target in law? I’m not aware of any decision with respect to that having been reached. It’s something that we will have to determine as we proceed with our new climate action plan.

A. Weaver: It’s not only the 2020 target; it’s the 2050 target. With respect, you cannot meet the 80 percent reduction by 2050 with two large LNG plants. Unless everybody in the province of British Columbia simply stops driving cars, it is factually incorrect to argue that you can, and the climate leadership team did not say that you could.

The reality is that these targets need to be repealed. The reality is that this government is misleading British Columbians — inadvertently, maybe. I wonder. This government needs to be honest.

It needs to be honest with them that this legislation, continuing the generational sellout, is essentially throwing aside our plans to reduce greenhouse gases by yet another loophole, the transition period. If any proponent were to take up this transition period and have a free rein, essentially, on greenhouse gas emissions, the 2020 target is out of the window.

The government has yet to say what they’re going to do with greenhouse gases to meet some other 2020 target. The government has no plan on greenhouse gas reductions. The government is full of hot air about the climate file, and the government is an embarrassment internationally in terms of what it has not done, anymore, on the climate action file.

My question to the minister, one last time, is: when does the government believe that proponents of LNG will actually make final investment decisions, and is the government actually stalling any climate leadership because it’s waiting to see whether an LNG facility will come or not?

Hon. M. Polak: Well — a lot to cover there. Firstly, there is no free ride. They will still have to monitor and report and be responsible and pay for their emissions over that time period. The first reporting period is simply allowed to extend for a maximum of six months more. There you go. That’s all the magic in it. They don’t get a free ride.

With respect to the climate leadership team’s recommendations, they’re there for all to see, and they certainly would put us on a path to meeting our 2050 targets, and they do include the operation of LNG facilities.

We also had, in terms of our climate file, some rather good news just delivered to us. It was a little unexpected, because we know that our trajectory recently has been more challenging in emissions. On April 14, I believe, the National Inventory Report came out and actually showed that we have seen a slight decline in our emissions, so that’s a positive. But we still have an awful lot of work to do.

The fact is, though, that this change, the new entrant period, does not change the obligations that these companies have to comply with their requirements. I know the member certainly is not supportive of the industry, and that’s fair enough, but it’s wrong to say that what this does is give companies a free ride. It does not.

A. Weaver: I’ve never said I’m not supportive of the industry. What I have said is I’m not supportive of hype and giving away a generational resource to foreign international companies at essentially no benefit to British Columbians.

My question on this topic, then, directly to the minister, is: which reporting are you talking about for fugitive emissions? The federal number or the B.C. number? Because they don’t match. Are you talking about the national inventory fugitive emissions or the B.C. fugitive emissions? Nobody quite knows, when the B.C. government talks about emissions reductions, which number they are using. The numbers don’t match up.

Hon. M. Polak: In this case, I’m not talking about simply the fugitive emissions; I’m talking about the National Inventory Report with respect to British Columbia’s overall emissions.

A. Weaver: But that number depends on an overall reduction based on a number. One of those numbers is fugitive emissions, and the fugitive emission number federally is different from the number used provincially. So my question is: which number is the right number, and which number does the province use when it’s actually doing its calculations in terms of greenhouse gas reductions?

[1135]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will know that this has been a long-standing problem, not just for British Columbia but for other provinces as well. There is a dif-
[ Page 12366 ]
ferent set of numbers that is utilized by the federal government, by various provinces. In fact, it is one of the important pieces of work that is being undertaken currently within the federal process, our officials meeting with federal officials — it’s happening between other provinces and the federal government as well — to arrive at a standard means by which we can measure and report emissions across all sectors.

In this case, what I was pointing to is completely the federal numbers and their report that shows we have seen a slight decrease recently in our emissions.

A. Weaver: The minister just admitted that the minister does not know which overall number should be used in discussing emissions reductions. In essence, what we’re hearing is that the ministry is essentially saying: “We don’t know what we’re reducing because we don’t know what number we should use.”

My question to the minister is: when are we going to have the answer to this?

Hon. M. Polak: The difference between the two is based on the fact that the federal government has a different threshold for reporting, for one. Theirs is 50,000; ours is 10,000. Therefore, we capture more of the data, which is likely the reason why it appears we have more accurate information with respect to our emissions from these facilities than the federal government would have. Their data set doesn’t capture those below 50,000, so they then must project what those might be.

Now, it’s a recognized problem and has been for some years. We’re hopeful that through the current process in which we are involved with the federal government that will be resolved. I know we’ve made significant progress discussing this at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

A. Weaver: Just to summarize then, the minister has talked about the climate leadership team’s recommendations. The climate leadership team’s recommendations, apparently — not what I read — will allow for two large LNG facilities to come in place. I guess we’d all have to have negative emissions — everyone else.

Let’s come to that. The climate leadership team recommended a $10 per year increase in the carbon tax every single year. My question then is: if the minister is going to evoke the climate team’s response, is the minister, here, today, willing to say that she accepts the $10 per-tonne increase in the price of carbon? Does she not think that this will immediately preclude any LNG industry from existing in B.C.?

Can she look British Columbians in the face and say that we support a $10 per-tonne increase in emissions pricing and that we honestly think that an LNG facility will develop here in B.C.? Does the minister honestly think she can have her cake and eat it too?

Hon. M. Polak: No surprise that, to the member, I’ll save pronouncements on taxation activities related to the carbon tax for the time when we’re debating that bill in committee.

[1140]

A. Weaver: Just to clear up the record for British Columbians who are riveted to their TV screens today, the answer is simple. You cannot increase carbon tax $10 per tonne, per year, and expect there to be an LNG industry. The reality is you can’t, unless you exclude all LNG emissions.

The reality is that we are witnessing yet another emperor with no clothes. It’s about time, frankly, that British Columbians be levelled with honestly — that we cannot have climate leadership and an LNG industry. Until such time as this minister levels correctly, honestly with British Columbians, they will continue and remain to have zero credibility on the climate file.

The Chair: I call the member to order. Withdraw that. “Dishonest” was mentioned.

A. Weaver: What am I withdrawing?

The Chair: Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, basically, you are saying that the minister is not honest.

A. Weaver: I didn’t say that. I said: “…levels to be honest with British Columbians.” I didn’t call anybody dishonest. I said: “…until such time as the minister is honest with British Columbians.” That is quite different, hon. Chair, and I challenge your ruling there.

The Chair: So I’ll caution the member, in the future, to be more careful when using parliamentary language. Thank you.

V. Huntington: In subsection (e), the new definition of “transitional compliance period” has been included in the bill.

I wondered if the minister could just elucidate a little bit on what she expects the transitional compliance period to be, especially in relation to paragraph (a), which is “a regulated operation that is not a new entrant.” Could she describe what this is implying?

The Chair: The member for Nanaimo asks leave to make an introduction again.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: Thank you for the indulgence, to the other members.
[ Page 12367 ]

Joining us today in the gallery, another group of students from Forest Park Elementary, grade 6 students, accompanied by their teacher, Jeremy Inscho, and four other adults — 27 keen students, obviously here to learn a little bit about democracy.

I’d ask the House and the members to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Polak: This provision is to take care of an administrative challenge that is presented, given that we can’t force companies to always begin their operations on January 1 and make it a nice, tidy, 12-month period.

For example, if you had a facility that came on line in February of a given year, it would still have to make its first report in December. If you had a facility that came on line in July, however, their first reporting period would be December of the following year.

It’s simply to deal with the fact that we cannot assume, we shouldn’t assume, that facilities are all going to start always on January 1 and make a nice, tidy calendar year for us, but it results, ultimately, that after that first period, they would, from then on, report every 12 months.

V. Huntington: With respect, I think that answers subpara (b), but it doesn’t answer sub (a), when you’re discussing in relation to a regulated operation that is not a new entrant.

[1145]

What does the minister think this particular paragraph is applying to? Is it, for instance, a situation where cabinet has issued an order-in-council on expansions of plants? Is this dealing with a new, expanded plant? What is “not a new entrant” applying to?

Hon. M. Polak: Not all facilities will qualify to be deemed a “new entrant.” They have to be a new facility in order to qualify. But just because they are a new facility, it doesn’t mean they automatically, then, become new entrants. That’s a decision made by the director based on a number of different factors.

In addition to that, there are companies that won’t be interested in the new entrant provisions. So we have to have a way to deal with those who would not be covered under the new entrant provisions.

G. Heyman: I’d like to turn to sub (f)(2)(b) and just ask a question for some clarity. It states: “6 months after a prescribed date applicable for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to the regulated operation.” Are those the dates that are referred to in sub (e)(a) and (b)?

Hon. M. Polak: Here’s how these different sections work together. So (f)(2), both sub (a) and (b), represent the determination that a facility has started operating. Here’s how you’d say it. Now, if you are a new entrant in that circumstance, then sub (e)(a) applies. If you are not a new entrant and you’re simply a regulated operation, then (b) complies. But (f) is the way in which we legally represent the start of that operation.

G. Heyman: The prescribed date refers to no other dates than those that are outlined in this bill — just for clarity.

Hon. M. Polak: We must remind ourselves, though, that this bill isn’t only about LNG. It’s about all industrial operations. The reason it says “a prescribed date” is because that gives us the flexibility to deal with different industrial sectors and the realities that the way in which they operate are going to be different. So common language in legislation when we recognize that there may be a need for a director to prescribe something that we couldn’t anticipate in detail in the legislation.

G. Heyman: I’m sorry, Chair. I just want to make sure I understand this.

[1150]

Could the minister explain, with an example, how a prescribed date might be arrived at and what it would be that would be other than that contained in sub (a) and (b)?

Hon. M. Polak: The date of first shipment may not be the best way to determine whether or not a particular facility is fully operating and therefore should be captured by compliance. Remember, too, that we are looking here to establish the earlier of the two. In the case where it was felt that….

Let’s say, for example, you had an industry that wasn’t shipping anything, but they’re obviously fully operational, and stuff’s coming out of their smokestacks. You want to be able to capture them. This gives us what we believe is an administratively fair way to do that, and capture the earlier of the two, so they can’t get around it simply by not looking at shipping product.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

G. Heyman: Section 11…. Let me make sure I’m in the right place. Bear with me for a moment. This removes restrictions on who may purchase funded units. Can the minister explain her thinking in this change to allow non-regulated operations to participate in the carbon market and the rationale for that and how this will actually operate?

Hon. M. Polak: Right now there is interest on the part of those who do not have industrial operations in British Columbia to voluntarily take actions with respect to carbon neutrality for their businesses, etc. We think that’s some-
[ Page 12368 ]
thing that is very good news for B.C., and we want to help to facilitate that. This is the way to expand that opportunity.

I’ll leave it at that, and maybe the member has another question.

G. Heyman: I think my question may require more time than is allowed before noon, but I will ask it anyway, and we’ll see how things go.

There probably were people interested in participating in the market prior to the drafting, introduction and adoption of the act, which was introduced as Bill 2. Why has the minister changed her mind on this? Or to ask it another way, why was this provision not included when the original Bill 2 was introduced, when probably there’s been very little change in interest?

Hon. M. Polak: Remember, too, that the act, when it was brought in, is what established the funded units. They couldn’t have had an interest in them before they were established.

With that, I will note the hour, and I will move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); L. Throness in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $1,451,160,000 (continued).

D. Donaldson: I’m going to continue with the questions around the children and youth with special needs service line in the ministry. I’m going to follow on some of the comments that the minister made in responding to my colleague yesterday around the provision of services to children and youth with special needs.

The B.C. Association of Child Development and Intervention has pointed out that 75 percent of the agencies under that umbrella group have wait times for the various services that are provided through those organizations. Some of the wait times are quite astounding. We’re talking about early intervention therapies, occupational therapy — up to one-year-and-one-month wait times through the BCACDI agencies. Early intervention therapies, physiotherapy — there is up to a nine-month average wait time. This is average — not the high end, just the average. Early intervention therapy, speech-language pathology — one-year-and-one-week wait times in the north, average.

Of course, these are very concerning, because these are children who need these services in order to achieve all they can when they enter kindergarten. Sometimes they’re still waiting for these services when they enter the elementary school system. Yesterday the minister, in responding in part to this issue, said that in some parts of the province, the speech pathologists are there, but we don’t have the dollars to provide the services.

The B.C. Association of Child Development and Intervention points out that any new funding provided to them has been limited to wage increases only, and no new resources to address wait times and access issues or to expand services have been forthcoming.

[1110]

Can the minister explain how, in this budget, without a budget increase to the association representing child development centres, these wait times are going to be addressed? Is it just a matter that the parents are going to have to wait another year to see these wait times decrease?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer is going to be the same as it was yesterday. The reality is that around the province, there are challenges with early intervention programs in terms of meeting the demand. The one thing we’re working on with BCACDI and the individual centres is looking at how to better collect the data in a consistent fashion on what the waits are for, who’s getting service, who’s not getting service, who’s on multiple lists or waiting for multiple services, who is receiving some service.

Right now that data is very limited because it’s captured differently by different agencies and not centrally held. We are working with them on that to see if we can better define where the needs are specifically for what
[ Page 12369 ]
services. But at this time, it doesn’t change the fact that the budget in this area has not increased, and it’s not anticipated that we will be able to provide any additional funds in this area. So it’s about maximizing what’s there and ensuring that as many children as possible are receiving the service as quickly as they can.

D. Donaldson: The minister said yesterday that they’re trying to make sure that assessment and reporting is consistent across all of the agencies so they can have better data to actually try to support these children and these families. When will that happen? Families already know that they’re not going to get any relief this year in the budget. When does the minister actually know that she’ll have enough information to try to actually get more funding into this area that’s very important for young children?

[1115]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We’re working with BCACDI, but we’re also having to work independently with individual agencies. Not everyone is a member of BCACDI. While we’re working on getting both the prioritization and the information reporting back consistent, it will take some time. It isn’t anticipated that we’ll have strong data even at the end of this year — specific enough to really get a good handle on it.

That said, we know there is demand for this. We know there is demand in this area. We know that agencies are doing the best they can to ensure that as many children as possible are accessing services. While I’ve already said we don’t anticipate any kind of adjustments this year and we don’t have additional dollars in the budget, we would hope that there might be the ability to make some investments here next year, but it will be entirely dependent on the budget process next year.

D. Donaldson: I’m going to move on now to the “Child and Youth Mental Health Services” line in the ministry.

I note that in the mandate letter from the Premier to the minister, which always starts with a balanced budget…. I guess that’s cold comfort for the parents of children and youth with special needs. As we just heard from the minister, balance the budget, and leave kids that need these services on a wait-list for over a year.

In reference to children and youth mental health, I note in the mandate letter from the Premier to the minister…. The minister is to “lead a working group with the Ministries of Health and Education to review and define child and youth mental health services in the province and make recommendations to cabinet by June 30, 2016, on potential improvements.”

Can the minister inform whether that process is on track and, in fact, recommendations will be made to cabinet by the end of June?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes. The work is on track, and I expect to be bringing those proposals forward.

D. Donaldson: This was one area in the ministry’s budget, children and youth mental health, that did not receive an increase. If you consider the cost of living and inflation at about 1.6 percent, the actual increase to this service area…. This area of service of the ministry is actually losing ground.

This is particularly troubling in light of the fact that the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, the bipartisan committee, recently came out with a final report on youth mental health services in the province after a two-year process of work on this topic. The report called for urgent and immediate action. Again, this is a bipartisan committee. When we see the budget for this topic flatlined in this coming year, that is a far cry from urgent and immediate action.

I’m wondering if…. There are a couple of important recommendations. There are only 20-odd recommendations in the report, which makes it manageable. I would like to know if the minister agrees with the recommendation of fostering a one-child, one-file philosophy and addressing real or perceived barriers to information-sharing among care providers. That was one of the recommendations — one child, one file. It’s important in that the interagency files that accumulate on a child needing mental health services can be barriers to the child actually getting those services, whether it’s the police, whether it’s education, whether it’s this ministry.

[1120]

Could the minister say whether she’s in favour of the one child, one file? If so, what she’s doing to ensure that it happens in this budget?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As it relates to his commentary about the budget, I will just say that there’s work underway, as we have already stated, relating to the responsibility in my mandate letter around bringing options to cabinet. I won’t prejudge the outcome of that work, but certainly, budgets are not formed prior to recommendations. I will say that much on that.

As it relates to his questions or comments about information-sharing and whether or not I agree with that, we’re certainly not, at this time, looking at implementing or embarking on any kind of large technology mechanism for that as it relates to child and youth mental health.

[1125]

What I can say is that work through the collaborative — which is, of course, MCFD, Doctors of B.C. and other partners, and CMHA…. Through that work, they’ve developed guidelines for practitioners in terms of sharing of information between individuals that may be involved in the life of an individual with mental health challenges, whether that be police, social workers, doctors, school counsellors and so on. Those guidelines on information-sharing and how best to achieve that…. The implementation of those guidelines is underway.
[ Page 12370 ]

D. Donaldson: I want to stress that the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, the bipartisan committee, heard over the last two years from many, many witnesses in regards to producing this report, from experts in the field and also, very importantly, from families and youth receiving — or not receiving — mental health services and what could be done to make that better.

One of the recommendations, as well, was to establish targets “to ensure that children, youth and young adults identified as exhibiting signs of behavioural, emotional or mental health issues are assessed within 30 days and begin receiving treatment within the next 30 days.”

Now, that could be up to a 60-day gap. I think that is something that is a minimum. I would like to see that made even better, and so would the people who made submissions to this document. Regardless, 30 days to wait for an assessment and 30 days to wait for the beginning of receiving treatment is an improvement on what we see now.

I would like to ask the minister if she thinks it’s acceptable for children and youth with mental health issues to be waiting more than 30 days to be assessed and waiting more than 30 days to get treatment.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Obviously, we’re aware of the committee’s work and thank the committee for their work. Many of the recommendations are in line with other reports and recommendations that have been made previously in this area and certainly will be considered and are being considered by the committee as we look at what we might take forward in terms of recommendations to cabinet.

As it relates specifically to wait times for services, what I will say is that the member should be aware that we launched a revised intake process for child and youth mental health services back in January of 2014. As a result of that, there are now 78 intake clinics around the province that are walk-in intake clinics that allow families to meet directly with clinicians and discuss a plan for services or treatment during that initial visit. They are assessed immediately to determine whether or not they qualify for CYMH ministry services. Essentially, they are immediately assessed now through that process.

There are, though, in some cases, delays in treatment. All of the assessments and CYMH teams use a triage and prioritization process. Individual assessments are screened for urgency. Where immediate response is required, it’s provided.

[1130]

Less urgent needs may face a wait for service in locations where there’s high demand, but they are provided with interim supports and, of course, guidance to connect back with CYMH if their situation or needs change in the time in which they’re waiting for service.

D. Donaldson: The first recommendation from this report, Concrete Actions for Systemic Change, from the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, was to “assign responsibility for leadership and the coordination of child and youth mental health services to a new minister for mental health.” That was a recognition by the committee of all of the testimony that was heard around the lack of coordination of the approach to these services. Does the minister agree with that recommendation?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the minister responsible for child and youth mental health services in the community, I have a responsibility for this area. I share that with the Minister of Health, who has responsibility for the urgent side of mental health. That includes urgent care for youth in the health system.

Beyond that, I don’t have responsibility for determining whether or not different leadership in this area is required. That question would better be directed to the Premier, as it is the Premier who determines cabinet responsibilities.

D. Donaldson: Well, I didn’t ask the minister whether she had the ability to determine about this recommendation; I asked her what her opinion was of it. Apparently, she doesn’t have one.

I would like to now move on to another area. It’s not children and youth mental health. I’m sorry for the jumping back and forth with your staff, but since time is so limited, we’re having to switch topic areas quite quickly here.

This one has to do with provincial centralized child protection screening. We know that this project is one that will see one phone number for child protection reports for the whole province. My understanding is that this was implemented by the end of March for the entire province — this centralized screening.

Under the old phone system, skilled administrative staff were always able to answer the phones quickly and prioritize calls in terms of urgency. This is what we’ve been told by people working in the system. The new ICE system seems to back up calls and essentially put many callers on ice without the skilled prioritization that would happen with human phone operators.

What we’ve been hearing in the field is that…. And members of the public are reporting being put on hold for very lengthy periods of time, ranging from five minutes to 90 minutes, when they call in. Of course, this is a major concern — when someone is calling in to a centralized phone system around a child protection report and is put on hold for that length of time. You can imagine the consequences of that time lag.

I would like to ask the minister if she knows of these long waits to get service through the new centralized calling system and if there is a standard that she has for the length of time that a call should be answered under this new system and what she is doing to correct this long lag time.

[1135]

Hon. S. Cadieux: For the member’s information, the
[ Page 12371 ]
helpline for children hasn’t changed at all. It’s open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Anybody can call. And nothing has changed. Immediately they talk to a social worker. There’s no wait.

Where there has been a change, yes, is around centralized screening. We have moved to a new system there. As of December, we do have a benchmark for calls coming in, and we can track it. We’ve received 13,940 calls, with average wait times of 13 seconds before receiving an answer on the main line, two minutes and 17 seconds to receive an answer from a social worker after being transferred, 12 minutes and 24 seconds to receive a callback from a social worker. That time was inflated due to a glitch. That has now been resolved, and callbacks are all now under ten minutes.

The service standard we’ve set means that all calls are answered by administrative staff within 13 seconds, and calls to social workers are answered in less than ten minutes. We’ll continue to monitor that and, if required, add additional staffing or change the staffing model there to accommodate for that.

S. Robinson: I have a number of questions, but I’m going to roll them into one, given the time.

My question is about the community poverty-reduction strategy that was launched in May 2012. It was a joint initiative between the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, premised on the experience that no one party can address the complex issue of poverty. This was a community-based initiative about making a difference in the lives of individual families by bringing together existing community resources and encouraging local innovative ways of addressing family needs.

I’m wondering if the minister…. I’ve just got a list of three questions, for time. What’s the status of this partnership, the current status? Here we are, four years later. How many families were served by this program? How much money was spent by the ministry and by the local governments?

[1140]

There were seven communities — Port Hardy, New West, Surrey, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Prince George and Stewart. They all came to the table as well. If the minister has any of that, that would be very, very helpful.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The community poverty-reduction strategy program is still running within the ministry with the communities of Surrey, New Westminster, Cranbrook, Kamloops, Stewart and Port Hardy. The UBCM and the city of Prince George decided not to continue to be a partner in this project. So 176 families have been directly served, and $9,000 has been provided to the member communities for memberships in Tamarack for the Cities Reducing Poverty network, which is a best-practice community forum for sharing of best practices across the country around community poverty-reduction strategies.

Beyond that, we have funded the family consultants in each community for sort of a half-time person in each of those communities to coordinate and work with the communities on their strategies. We spend approximately $300,000 a year supporting the strategies.

The Chair: One final question for the member for Stikine.

D. Donaldson: It’s a pretty straightforward question to do with permanency placements.

While the minister’s team gets ready for that question, I just want to take this opportunity to thank the minister and the staff who have been present over the estimates session here, for providing the information that they have provided. Also, I know that the minister would love to go on for a week on this topic. I would, certainly, because it’s a very important topic for the children and youth of the province. But we have to concede to our other colleagues on both sides.

I have a number of written questions I’ll provide to the minister that I wasn’t able to address, even though there’s lots of paper around here. I’ll that put together and have it to the minister tomorrow.

[1145]

The final question I have…. It’s new information that came to light last week, with the minister saying that there’s a new target of 600 permanency placements in 2016-17 for her ministry. Could she inform: how many of those 600 are targeted for children and youth of aboriginal ancestry for 2016-17?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We haven’t set specific goals for First Nations or aboriginal children, but, of course, given the percentage of aboriginal children that are waiting for homes, I would expect there would be a large portion.

The larger target this year, the increased target of 600, allows us a broader concept of permanency that will hopefully be more compatible with the needs of First Nations communities and First Nations children overall and build on the work of Grand Chief Ed John, so it won’t be just adoptions but broader permanency options considered as we move forward.

But for the member’s information, of the 368 children that were adopted last year, 154 of those were aboriginal children.

Vote 17: ministry operations, $1,451,160,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I would move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 17 for the Ministry of Children and Family Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada