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)

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 38, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2016

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: I have several guests in the gallery today. First, I have Denice Bardua, who is the president of CUPE for the B.C. northern area district council. Cherryl Macleod is the president of CUPE B.C. Kootenay area, Kayla Kinloch is the vice-president of CUPE Local 4990, and Tania Cutts is the secretary-treasurer. I always appreciate…. We work hard together. They work hard on behalf of our community. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. James: I have four guests who are in the gallery today. They are all passionate advocates for, and supporters of, sustainability and the preservation of our environment. The first is Jacques Sirois. He is a naturalist, a biologist, a heritage enthusiast and guide, which you’d find out if you had a conversation with him.

I also have three individuals who are here from the Robert Bateman Foundation. That’s an organization, for members who don’t know, that’s committed to inspiring discovery, understanding and the development of a love of nature which leads to environmental stewardship. If you haven’t visited the centre, it’s just a few steps from the Legislature, and I’d encourage you. I have Jonathan Jia, who is a board member; Peter Ord, who is the managing director; and Erin Henshaw, who is the gallery manager. Would the House please make these guests very welcome.

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning, from Ottawa, is the Ambassador of Iceland, His Excellency Sturla Sigurjónsson. He’s accompanied by Harald Aspelund, director general for administration and consular affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they are accompanied by Ms. Heather Ireland, honorary consul for Iceland.

We will be meeting His Excellency and the entourage, with the Minister of Environment, to discuss a number of topics, including fisheries, renewable energy and climate change. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Also, if I may, in the House, we have Hedy Dyck, chief operating officer for B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association. The B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association is an industry association working to serve B.C. nursery growers, landscape professionals, retail garden centres and the associated landscape horticultural trade.

We also have with us Heike Stippler, a prominent landscaper in Whistler, Pemberton and Squamish since 1999, and Michael Kato, Canadian Nursery and Landscape Association director, B.C.’s representative on the national association and B.C. nursery grower. They are here for a special ceremony at the Garden of Honour today. Would the House also please make them feel very welcome.

G. Heyman: I’d ask the members to welcome one of my guests in the gallery today. Paul Finch is the treasurer of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, my old union. Paul is one of a new generation of labour leaders that’s bringing innovation and change to the labour movement in British Columbia.

Paul, in particular, whom I’ve known since he was first an activist in the BCGEU, is bringing a lot of dynamism and a lot of new ideas to the BCGEU. He’s here over the next couple of days and last night to bring solidarity to the CUPE convention and also to honour workers in the Day of Mourning events today. Paul understands, as I hope all of us in this House do, we’re not just mourning for the dead; we’re fighting for the living.

[1010]

To fight for the living, we have to ensure that, every day, workers with every employer in British Columbia have the ability and the assurance that if they raise safety concerns, if they raise concern about dangerous worksites for themselves or for their co-workers, they will not be subject to reprisals of any kind whatsoever and that the government and WorkSafe will stand behind them every step of the way.

Please join me in welcoming Paul Finch.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Today I have two introductions to make in the House.

First, I’d like to make a great introduction to my newest constituency assistant, Shayne Blandin. Shayne is a part-time receptionist at Inclusion B.C., where I met her and realized that she has a true passion for politics. So I offered her a job at the constituency office, and she started working for me. She has been to the House of Commons nine times for the sole purpose of question period, yet today is her first time at the provincial Legislature to witness question period.

I ask the House to please make her feel welcome.

J. Horgan: Today I rise to say farewell to Sean Richey, who has been working in the NDP caucus as our co-op student for this term. Sean is a first-year law student at the University of Victoria, and he has also specialized in firefighting and smoke jumping. So I suppose that reference earlier on to first responders and, particularly, firefighters jumping into the breach…. What Sean has been doing for us in the basement in research is helping put out fires as well. I thank him for that.
[ Page 12486 ]

Our colleagues on this side of the House certainly want to wish Sean all the best in his law career, and we’re hopeful that we may well see him in this House sometime in the future.

Hon. T. Lake: Members from both sides of the House had an opportunity to meet with the Canadian Cancer Society this morning for breakfast and to learn about some initiatives on cancer prevention, which, of course, is very important in the Daffodil Month of April. I’d like to thank them for the advocacy that they’ve long provided to governments across Canada.

Joining us in the House today is Sandra Krueckl, the vice-president of Cancer Control, and Jenny Byford, the advocacy lead for the Canadian Cancer Society.

I don’t know if Barbara’s in the House at the moment. I want to acknowledge Barbara Kaminsky, the CEO for the B.C. and Yukon Division, Canadian Cancer Society, for 21 years and soon to be retiring.

I want to thank, and have all members thank, Barbara for her tremendous work on behalf of cancer prevention, cancer support and just the general health of British Columbians.

Tributes

BARBARA KAMINSKY

J. Darcy: I would like to join the minister in thanking the staff and the volunteers and the board members from the Canadian Cancer Society that we met with today.

I also want to take the opportunity to pay a special tribute to Barbara Kaminsky, known as perhaps one of the greatest cancer fighters in the province of B.C. Always passionate, always armed with solid facts, incredibly smart, articulate, doesn’t take no for an answer, comes with visuals, like the first time I met with her. She spread out all this stuff about flavoured tobacco products and inspired me to take that issue on. They did the same this morning with sugary drinks, with visuals that we can take back to our communities.

We all work hard in this place for public service. I think that it truly can be said that Barbara Kaminsky is one of the people who can say that she’s contributed to saving many, many lives in the province of British Columbia. There isn’t a lot better tribute that we can pay to an individual than that. Thank you.

I’m sure all members of the House will join in thanking Barbara Kaminsky for her years of public service, especially for fighting and preventing cancer, which affects so many of our loved ones.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: Today in the precinct we are joined by 30 grade 5 students from St. Catherine’s Elementary School in Langley. They are led by their teacher, Maria Canil, and they are joined by nine parent volunteers.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Rice: I have two guests in the House today. Rick Gilker is from the city of Prince Rupert. He works for the city of Prince Rupert. Rick is better known to me as a friendly neighbour who brings me fresh fish. In fact, this Sunday…. Sunday is his fishing day, but Sunday is my day to come to Victoria. Just as I was boarding a plane, apparently two beautiful, almost still flapping salmon steaks arrived at my house — only for me not to enjoy.

[1015]

Brenda Armstrong is also here. Brenda also works for the city of Prince Rupert. She’s worked there for over a decade. She drives every truck imaginable, apparently, including sweepers and dump trucks and trucks that I can’t pronounce their names. I think it’s wonderful that she’s been so successful in a non-traditional occupation for a woman. So I salute her on that. She’s also the mother of two boys and is a foster parent as well.

Would the House please make both my guests feel welcome.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to also introduce today two longtime friends of mine from my sport family who I’ve known for a while. I don’t want to say how many years because it ages all of us.

Gail Hamamoto has been the executive director at B.C. Wheelchair Sports for the last three years but has been involved in the wheelchair sport community for more than 22 years. She’s also on the Canadian Paralympic Committee’s board of directors.

With her today is Carrie Linegar, who was the B.C. Wheelchair Basketball executive director for 15 years and now sits as a special projects manager and currently is supporting the B.C. Spinal Cord Injury Community Services Network.

Would the House please make them both feel very welcome.

M. Karagianis: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a community leader in my constituency to the gallery today. Mitzi Dean is the executive director of the Pacific Centre Family Services Association, which operates on the West Shore. I’ll be speaking a little bit about a project that she’s got in my two-minute statement.

Mitzi is one of those community leaders that has provided family services in the West Shore for many years and has done miraculous things as dollars have dwindled and has always managed to meet the needs of the community. She’s an outstanding community leader, and I would ask everyone to join me in making her very welcome today.
[ Page 12487 ]

Tributes

STAFF OF BENGAL LOUNGE

D. McRae: I ask you a question. Where can you find 247 years of service experience in one room? It’s at the Bengal Lounge.

I’d like to recognize ten individuals who have actually worked there a very long time. Lauren has been there 25 years; John, 29; Robin, 24; Patrick, 25; Manon, 29; Chris, 30. Sydney has been there for 40 years, and Leonard, otherwise known as Lenny, has been there for 45 years. Those individuals aren’t retiring; they’re just moving to other parts of the hotel, I think, in the coming weeks. Some of those individuals served myself, my dad and, very likely, my grandfather.

We have some great experience in this room. There’s some amazing experience over there.

Statements

SALT SPRING COFFEE

G. Holman: I want to recognize the 20th birthday of a truly west coast fair trade business, Salt Spring Coffee, one of Canada’s largest and most respected organic roasters, supplying more than 1,200 outlets. Starting this fall, Salt Spring Coffee will be expanding and will be available in more grocery stores, restaurants and cafés across Canada.

Could the House please join me in congratulating co-founder and fellow islander, Mickey McLeod, CEO of Salt Spring Coffee, on 20 remarkable years of success.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’d like to join my colleague, the Minister of Social Development, and also welcome Gail Hamamoto to the House. Gail’s mother and my father are brother and sister. I think the only other person that I’m related to who’s actually come to the House is my father. So I wanted to take the opportunity to ask the House to welcome my cousin Gail Hamamoto as well.

R. Chouhan: Today I have three groups of 37 grade 11 students from Byrne Creek Community School. One of the groups is led by their teacher, Greg Neumann. They’re here to learn democracy in action. I think one of them is already here. The others will be joining us later.

I ask the House to please welcome them.

L. Throness: I’d like to welcome my friends Glen and Marla Pinchin from Chilliwack today. Glen is quite the thespian. He’s an accomplished actor as well as a director of the Gallery 7 Theatre company. Marla is an artist. She’s a well-known quilter whose artwork I’ve seen and is really outstanding. I’m looking forward to having lunch with them in the House today. Would the House please make them welcome.

I’d also like to thank a grade 7 class from Hope that I introduced the other day; 36 students played beautifully for us on the front steps of the Legislature. Would the House please thank them.

[1020]

Ministerial Statements

NATIONAL DAY OF
MOURNING FOR WORKERS

Hon. S. Bond: Today I rise in the House to recognize the National Day of Mourning in British Columbia. Today we pause to honour workers whose lives were tragically cut short or changed forever by illness or injury in the workplace. We remember and recognize them because they are our colleagues, our friends, our mothers, our fathers, our wives, husbands, daughters and sons — those who we will always hold near and dear in our hearts.

It’s a day when we express our heartfelt condolences for the pain felt by families who have lost a loved one and for families dealing with the aftermath of a workplace injury or illness. They are certainly in our thoughts and prayers today.

Those lost are not forgotten. These are people who gave dedicated service in workplaces throughout British Columbia, and their efforts are often reflected across the entire province, in the building of our cities and our towns, our roads, our harbours, our tunnels, our bridges and in the services that we rely upon every day. Without the hard work of these men and women, our province would not be what it is today. But the cost should not be so high.

It is unacceptable for workplace tragedies like these to happen, and it is devastating for everyone. We can all agree that even one life lost at any workplace is one too many. It’s important for all of us to continue to work tirelessly to make sure we’re doing everything we possibly can to address worker safety issues. As a government — and, I know, every MLA in this House — we are committed to the safety of the workers in British Columbia.

We have made changes to strengthen the Workers Compensation Act to improve workplace safety and to ensure a world-class inspection and investigation regime at WorkSafe B.C. But every employer, every worker, every British Columbian must remain vigilant to ensure workers safety is always the first thing we think about on a worksite.

We also have a responsibility to educate ourselves but also those around us. We need to raise safety awareness, particularly amongst our youngest workers, to help prevent tragic incidents from occurring today and in the
[ Page 12488 ]
future. We must all work together to build a culture of safety that makes workplace tragedies a thing of the past.

Today flags are flying half-mast in front of this building, in front of government buildings and many other institutions and workplaces across the country in honour of those lost or injured in the workplace. The Day of Mourning reminds us that every life is precious and that all workplace parties need to be diligent to ensure adequate health and safety. All of us — employers, workers, unions, WorkSafe B.C. and the government — share the goal of keeping British Columbia’s workers safe.

Let us continue to work together to ensure that everyone goes home to their families safely at the end of every workday. Shortly, we will stand together in a moment of silence to remember and honour those whose lives were tragically lost or changed forever at workplaces in British Columbia. I hope that we will take that opportunity to once again recommit ourselves to ongoing efforts to improve worker safety in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to join with the minister today on the National Day of Mourning. Today, April 28, is the National Day of Mourning. Today is the day that we recognize those workers in B.C. and across Canada who died on the job in past year.

The Day of Mourning is a solemn day. It is a day that is deeply painful for loved ones who are left behind. In 2015, 182 workers in British Columbia did not come home. Those families lost loved ones, and in addition, thousands more were injured, many seriously. Further, we are increasingly aware of occupational disease, which can be debilitating or life-shortening, that is related to workplace circumstances.

[1025]

The first National Day of Mourning was recognized by the Canadian Labour Congress on April 28, 1985 — over 30 years ago. The date itself is a recognition of the passage of the first Workmen’s Compensation Act on April 28, 1914, in Ontario. An act recognizing the Day of Mourning was adopted in the House of Commons in 1991, and a proclamation was made in British Columbia in 1992. The recognition of the Day of Mourning that started in Canada now takes place in over 100 countries around the world.

Workers are killed every week in British Columbia. Some are very public circumstances, like the explosions at Babine and Lakeland. But most fatalities are much less public, with little acknowledgement outside of families, friends and co-workers. Regardless of the attention they garner, all of these deaths are tragic, and all should be preventable.

In this place, it’s our obligation to demand the highest standards of attention to prevent serious workplace accidents. It is our obligation to challenge WorkSafe B.C. to be the best that they can be, to challenge them to focus their attention on both prevention and rehabilitation and to be strong on enforcement, demanding that all workplaces be the safest that they can be.

I can only imagine the heartbreak that comes with that knock on the door to tell you a loved one won’t be coming home. Today, the National Day of Mourning is the day we set aside to acknowledge this reality for far too many families. Today is for remembrance, but most importantly, let us understand that we need to stand up for workers’ safety every day.

It is an obligation of all of us in society that we share, one that most of us in this place, in particular, have a responsibility for. Until we can ensure that it’s no longer talking about 182 who died in 2015, but none, we haven’t finished the work.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, please rise for a moment of silence.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — PROFITS OF CRIMINAL
NOTORIETY ACT

Hon. M. Morris presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act.

Hon. M. Morris: I move that Bill 24 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Morris: I am pleased to introduce Bill 24, the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. This legislation is aimed at preventing criminals from profiting from recounting their crimes.

As government, we have a responsibility to protect victims and their families. It’s unacceptable that murderers or others convicted of serious crimes could attempt to benefit from the pain and suffering they have caused others. Today we’re taking action to ensure that convicted offenders are not allowed to financially exploit the notoriety of their crimes.

Bill 24 will apply to offenders convicted of serious and violent crimes. The legislation will ensure that any profits earned from the recounting of designated crimes through a book or a memoir or selling memorabilia do not go back to the criminal. Proceeds collected by government under this legislation would be paid to support victims or their families.

I move that Bill 24 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 12489 ]

Bill 24, Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M223 — WORKERS DAY OF MOURNING
RECOGNITION ACT, 2016

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Workers Day of Mourning Recognition Act, 2016.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to move that a bill intituled Workers Day of Mourning Recognition Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and now read for a first time.

Motion approved.

[1030]

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to introduce the Workers Day of Mourning Recognition Act. This legislation would formally recognize April 28 every year as the day of mourning for workers who have been killed or injured on the job, like the 182 workers who died on the job and the thousands more who have been injured during 2015.

As part of that recognition, this legislation would require all public buildings to fly their flags at half-mast in acknowledgement of the sacrifice these workers and their families have made.

We know that there are ceremonies across this province, including in front of this Legislature today, to recognize the Day of Mourning. These include ceremonies organized by business, labour and WorkSafe B.C. We also know that many local governments and others choose to lower their flags in recognition of the Day of Mourning. However, it does need to be noted that those are individual decisions that we are all grateful for, but they do not reflect a provincial recognition or obligation.

This is truly a matter that should be non-partisan — a matter that, I believe, every member of this House could comfortably support. I would say to the government, and I would say to every member in this House: if we truly want to reflect cooperation on something that is non-partisan, this piece of legislation is that. It is something that should be above politics. I would hope that this legislation would be allowed to come forward for quick passage in this session.

I would encourage the minister responsible to support this. I would encourage the minister to bring her own bill if she’s more comfortable with that. But our issue is that if we expedite this legislation, commencing next year we will see a law in British Columbia that elevates the death of workers to at least as serious a level of acknowledgement as the Red Tape Reduction Day.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M223, Workers Day of Mourning Recognition Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WEST SHORE WELLNESS HUB PROJECT

M. Karagianis: Next week marks the official ground-breaking of a new wellness hub for the West Shore in my constituency. The centre for well-being will provide 15,000 square feet of program space right next to the West Shore Child, Youth and Family Centre on Wale Road.

This new initiative is a project of the Pacific Centre Family Services Association — PCFSA, which has been serving families and individuals with education, counselling and a range of services since 1968. Associate Director Mitzi Dean, whom I introduced a few moments ago, and her amazing team are dedicated to creating a wellness hub that is a therapeutic environment.

With the growth of the West Shore, the new centre will help meet the demand for services, including child and family counselling. By supporting the health of the community, the centre will help to continue the revitalization in the heart of Colwood.

For nearly 50 years, the PCFSA has given children and families affected by violence and trauma the help that they needed to reshape their lives. This work continues with more than 1,000 adults and children accessing their services just last year alone.

The population in the West Shore is growing. Demand on services is ever increasing and has outgrown the capacity of the community. Over the last few years, domestic violence calls and mental health incidents have increased substantially. It is hoped that the new centre will help reduce wait times. This building will finally provide counselling rooms sufficient for staff to work with children, families and adults who come to them for safety, support and new pathways.

PCFSA has launched a campaign to raise funds through donations and in-kind contributions. Funding is being sought from all levels of government, business, foundations and citizens.

This small and mighty organization in my community breaks ground on this exciting project next Thursday.

Congratulations to Mitzi Dean and her caring team of staff and volunteers on this very significant milestone. Thank you very much for what you do in the community.

CHEAKAMUS CENTRE
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

J. Sturdy: The Sea to Sky is a favourite destination for outdoor recreation, but it isn’t just the active outdoor
[ Page 12490 ]
lifestyle that makes our region so appealing. What characterizes the Sea to Sky are the deep cultural and environmental connections we have with the land. It’s this connection that the Cheakamus Centre cultivates and inspires in the next generation of British Columbians.

[1035]

Since 1969, the centre has helped students from K to 12 foster a deeper appreciation for the natural world. Formally known as the North Vancouver Outdoor School, the Cheakamus Centre sits on 420 acres of ecological reserve in the Paradise Valley, north of Squamish.

The centre provides a wide variety of environmental programs to students from across the province of British Columbia and offers experiences that create emotional connections and enhance the exploration of nature, forming classrooms out of trails, forests and spawning channels to help students discover relationships between ecosystems and all that depend on them.

Since 1986, the Skw’une-was program has been sharing the practices of the Coast Salish people through a living experience. Students, teachers and First Nations cultural specialists work together to engage in daily life in and around the big house, providing a unique opportunity to learn about the rich culture of the Squamish people.

Over the years, the centre has expanded to include a salmon hatchery; a working farm and classroom; and forest, aquatic and art labs. In 2012, the BlueShore Financial Environmental Learning Centre was completed. This LEED platinum facility uniquely integrates green building innovation with environmental education.

As it heads into its 48th year, I’d like to congratulate the Cheakamus Centre on the continued, long-standing and future success of its programs, which provide countless opportunities for young British Columbians to learn about the land that sustains us.

MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS
IN PORT COQUITLAM

M. Farnworth: On the 7th of May, a week this coming Saturday, it will be the day that people in Port Coquitlam look forward to each and every year. It will be the 93rd annual May Day celebration in the city of Port Coquitlam.

It is an opportunity for us as a community to come together to celebrate our heritage and our history, to celebrate families, to celebrate the arrival of spring, to look forward to the opportunities of the future and, most of all, to have a really great time. It’s an event that’s put on with the dedication and work of the May Day committee, the city council and hundreds of volunteers.

It’s a day for families and kids. I went to my first May Day Parade in PoCo when I was about nine years old. I’d sit on a curb. We’d watch the floats go by, we’d catch the candies, and we’d wave to everybody. And we’d follow along the parade as, at that time, it would go down Shaughnessy Street, through the downtown, under the underpass. They would — Minister of Transportation, pay attention to this — close off the Lougheed Highway for almost two hours as the parade made its way to the north side of town. Sadly, that’s no longer allowed.

But what does take place is a tremendous opportunity for families to get together to watch the crowning of the May Queen, to see the maypole dancing that has been taking place continuously since 1923 and to truly celebrate. Small-town community spirit is alive and well in the Lower Mainland.

I invite everybody in this House. On the 7th of May, that Saturday, come to Port Coquitlam to see a long-standing city tradition and have yourselves a really great time. Once again, thank you to the volunteers and the May Day committee that make May Day celebrations in Port Coquitlam such a stunning success.

Chilliwack Progress NEWSPAPER

J. Martin: For the last 125 years, the local newspaper the Chilliwack Progress has been recording the story of Chilliwack in its pages. It remains British Columbia’s single oldest community newspaper, published continuously with the same name in the same community.

W.T. Jackman wrote in the first four-page edition in 1891: “We are most decided in our opinion that there is a grand future in store, both for the Chilliwack Valley and for the great province of British Columbia with all her varied and inexhaustible resources.”

Chilliwack’s story was foretold, and those words could not have been truer. As the agricultural community grew, Chilliwack’s economy, infrastructure, culture and governance developed as well. For 125 years, the Chilliwack Progress has been there to cover all of it.

As the industry has changed, so too has the Progress, maintaining one of the most read news websites in our community, adding social media to their business model and working with the Chilliwack Museum to archive all previous issues in a searchable, on-line database.

[1040]

I’m so proud of the staff at the Progress, past and present, for their outstanding work. Publisher Carly Ferguson and editor Greg Knill lead a great team of journalists, advertising reps, photographers and creative designers. I would like to ask the House to join me in congratulating British Columbia’s single oldest community newspaper, the Chilliwack Progress, on an incredible 125 years.

Thank you so much for your service to my community.

VICTORIA HARBOUR BIRD SANCTUARY

C. James: Did you know that right here around the B.C. Legislature is home to the oldest migratory bird sanctuary on Canada’s Pacific coast? The Victoria Harbour Bird Sanctuary was established on October 27, 1923. The
[ Page 12491 ]
sanctuary was formed to control hunting in the area, along with Shoal Harbour and Esquimalt Lagoon bird sanctuaries. Today the Victoria Harbour Bird Sanctuary is the largest, most urban and perhaps the most forgotten of bird sanctuaries, encompassing 1,840 hectares below the high-water mark from Portage Inlet to View Royal to Ten Mile Point in Saanich.

This sanctuary is a permanent home to more than 20 species of water birds, including gulls, cormorants, diving ducks, grebes and raptors, including bald eagles. The Inner and Outer harbours provide wintering habitat for mergansers, and the offshore kelp beds at places like Clover Point support impressive numbers of water birds, particularly during the winter months.

These amazing birds are part of an interconnected web of life that also includes otters and seals and whales. This is one of the most diverse urban wildlife zones in the country, and all of it is just minutes from right here. Thanks to the efforts of dedicated volunteers, community organizers and government agencies, Victoria Harbour, Esquimalt Harbour and the Gorge waterway are now the cleanest they’ve been in half a century. Ecological restoration initiatives are paying off. The wildlife is staying, and it’s coming back.

The Victoria Harbour Bird Sanctuary was recently recognized as a Canadian NatureHood by Nature Canada for its remarkable urban wildlife and potential to connect urban Canadians and their children to nature. I’d encourage everyone: come and make your own connections. Visit our amazing shores, and enjoy the variety of birds and wildlife found here.

Thank you so much to all those who have worked so hard over many years to clean up and to restore habitat along our waterways, and my appreciation to the local birdwatching groups that promote the awareness and understanding about the Victoria Harbour Bird Sanctuary.

BENGAL LOUNGE

D. McRae: Like many residents of and visitors to Victoria, I love the history and architecture of the city. Arguably, the two most iconic buildings in British Columbia are here. One is this building, the hallowed Legislature, and the other is the Empress hotel.

While the 108-year-old building was constructed as a CPR property, today the 477-room hotel is newly owned by the Bosa family from Vancouver. To those who walk by every day, it is obvious that the hotel is currently in the midst of a much-needed renovation. And while I’m sure many people are excited to see the preservation of this grand hotel, many are sad to the demise of, arguably, the most iconic lounge in western Canada, the Bengal Lounge.

In 1969, as part of the then renovation project aptly named Operation Teacup, the Bengal Lounge emerged as a replacement to the Coronet Lounge, which had opened in 1954 as Victoria’s first cocktail bar and was one of only three such liquor licences in the entire province. In fact, to get the licence, the hotel had to ensure that there would be no necking booths, to satisfy the archaic liquor laws of the day. I’m not sure what necking booths are, but they sound intriguing.

Today, as for the past 47 years, guests enter the Bengal through a narrow hallway that opens into a large, dark-wood-panelled room. Guests can stroll past teak elephants and a panther on the way to the grand fireplace that dominates the back wall. And while many would assume that visitors’ eyes would be drawn to the crackling fire, most are looking at the aged tiger skin hanging above the mantle, which, legend has it, was a gift from the King and Queen of Siam — that’s Thailand today — to the hotel many years ago.

As one sits down, either on an overstuffed leather couch or the large wingback chairs, you can’t help but look around to see who you share the room with. Is it Roger Moore, John Travolta, Barbra Streisand, Han Solo — that’s Harrison Ford to most of you — and of course, Queen Elizabeth? Are they there enjoying the room’s ambience? They’ve been there before.

Yet while the room has seen its share of celebrities, for most British Columbians, it is their memories that the Bengal brings back: a young person’s first drink, a first date, an important anniversary or a birthday, a business deal or perhaps just spending time with friends. That’s what people associate the Bengal with.

[1045]

The Bengal will close in the coming days, and visitors will get to enjoy the new eating and dining areas being opened in the hotel. While I’m confident the hotel and staff will inspire a new generation of memories, I, like many, will treasure my time spent at the Bengal. I lift my glass of water to toast the Bengal. Thanks for the memories.

Oral Questions

PREMIER’S INCOME FROM
B.C. LIBERAL PARTY AND
GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

J. Horgan: Yesterday I asked the Premier about her $50,000-a-year top-up, and it was all jokes and laughs on the other side of the House. I’m hopeful that after an evening of reflection, the members on the other side will take this issue as seriously as the people of British Columbia do.

Yesterday the Premier said that this information was all disclosed, that everyone knew about it as far back as 2011. But I reviewed some old clippings, which is a propensity on the other side, and I discovered an interview with the Premier done in 2012. When she was asked about how much she received from the B.C. Liberal Party, she said: “I don’t know.”
[ Page 12492 ]

Well, that year the Premier received $45,000 from the B.C. Liberal Party as a top-up to her already substantial salary for working in this place. Now, I don’t know about you, hon. Speaker, but…. That might be pocket change to the Premier, but to most British Columbians, $45,000 showing up in my bank account would have an impact. I would go, “Man, I’m going to remember that,” but sadly, the Premier did not.

Now, British Columbians have seen, in the time that the Premier has been in office, their hydro rates go up every single year, medical services premiums go up every single year, another hit again on ICBC costs, affordability going through the roof. I think they’d be quite happy to have a top-up of their salaries.

In light of this, what does the Premier have to say to the people of British Columbia about her need to have additional moneys on top of her $200,000 a year while they are getting next to nothing? Wages have been flat, and in fact, we have the lowest minimum wage in Canada.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I would caution all that, indeed, questions should be directed to where there is executive or ministerial responsibility.

Hon. C. Clark: I’m happy to respond to, perhaps, the question that wasn’t asked and parts of the question that were, I guess — the ones that were in order.

I will say this. When the member opposite says that British Columbians are getting next to nothing, I can’t tell you how wrong he is — 72,000 new jobs created in the last year. We’re predicted to double the national growth rate. We are getting there because British Columbia’s government is finding a way to say yes to projects.

I can tell you when British Columbians will be earning next to nothing. It’ll be when there are no jobs left if the NDP are successful getting into government and find a way to say no, as they have been for the last five years, since I’ve been in this place. You can’t support working people if you don’t support people going to work.

On this side of the House, we support people going to work, and every day we will resist the NDP’s call to say no to jobs, to say no to workers, to say no to growth, to say no to resource communities. We support workers in British Columbia. We support them going to work. We support the creation of those jobs so that every single British Columbian can have a chance to enjoy a better standard of living, no matter where they live in the province in Canada that is thriving more than any other in this country.

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

J. Horgan: Well, there certainly has been an increase in the quality of life for the Premier, and $300,000 over the past five years from her B.C. Liberal Party for her efforts in fundraising is a sizeable increase. I’m sure she’s very pleased with that. But the 2,000 miners that are no longer working in British Columbia, while the Premier has been on watch, aren’t too happy about that. The 35,000 forest workers who are no longer working in that industry, since those people on that side have been in power, are not too happy about that.

I want to go back to the 2012 interview where the Premier couldn’t remember. She said: “Oh, it’s a car allowance. I do a lot of driving to party events and those kinds of things.” I started to reflect over my experience observing the Premier over these past five years. She doesn’t really drive around in the Lower Mainland or here on Vancouver Island without her detachment from the RCMP — which is appropriate. I think they’re picking up the gas, and a car allowance wouldn’t be necessary there. She takes a private jet back to Kelowna. Again, I don’t believe you need a car allowance for that.

I would think that the people in the Lower Mainland, the people in British Columbia would be quite happy to have a car allowance, but they would also be even happier if there was a significant investment in public transit in the Lower Mainland.

[1050]

The Premier said no to the Mayors Council. The Premier said no to the people of the Lower Mainland, for the past five years, in terms of increasing transit and transportation options in the Lower Mainland.

My question to the Premier is: although she’s had $300,000 for her car allowance over the past five years, why is she shortchanging the people of the Lower Mainland and not aggressively investing in transportation and infrastructure as they’ve been asking for since she became Premier?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, I’m glad the member got a chance to talk about transit because we should spend a little time talking about that.

The member opposed the 7,000 jobs and all of the convenience and the climate change goals and all of the things — the great things — that have come out of the Canada Line. The member opposed that.

The Evergreen line, which creates 8,000 jobs and, when it opens, will help us to fight climate change, will fight congestion and improve quality of life in the northeast — the member opposed that.

The member opposed the Port Mann Bridge and the highway widening which, again, is going to have a positive impact on climate change — is having a positive impact on climate change — introducing transit across that bridge for the first time in a long time. That’s something that creates 8,000 jobs.

The South Fraser Perimeter Road, the Sea to Sky Highway, the George Massey Tunnel replacement — need I go on? The members across the way don’t just oppose jobs. They don’t just oppose workers. They don’t just oppose people going to work. They have opposed almost
[ Page 12493 ]
all of the projects that this government has said yes to, things that will make sure that we are able to fight climate change and improve people’s quality of life.

And by the way, Member — I really like your suit today.

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

J. Horgan: It’s always interesting to hear the soliloquies from the Premier.

I would prefer to bring her back to the topic of the day and the topic on the minds of almost every single British Columbian that I’ve come in contact with. That is the fact that she gets paid $200,000 a year, and her party is giving her another $300,000 a year because of her good efforts — $300,000 over five years.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Again, a caution, Members: where there is ministerial or executive responsibility.

J. Horgan: Last night when the Premier was laughing off the top-up she gets from the B.C. Liberal Party, in Osoyoos, they were losing their only high school.

The commitment to public education on that side of the House is legendary, if you talk to anyone who’s in the system. Talk to parent advisory councils. Talk to school board trustees. Talk to teachers. Talk to teaching assistants. It’s been neglect, neglect, neglect and court case after court case after court case.

But instead of focusing on the important issues in the south Interior, the important issues of education, the Premier is sitting down, having dinners with donors, and that is just plain wrong.

What I would like to hear the Premier say today….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait.

Deputy Premier.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: I mentioned that we have the lowest minimum wage in the country. I’m wondering if the Premier could advise us if the reason we have not seen an increase in the minimum wage on her watch — but once — is because the people that she sits down with don’t want to see that. Her corporate donors don’t want to see the minimum wage go up.

My question to the Premier is: why won’t you raise the minimum wage? Is it because of your donors or what?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I was very proud that on the day after I was sworn in as Premier, we raised the minimum wage for the first time in a decade. We got British Columbia into the number one place in the country.

We have more work to do, and that’s why the Minister of Skills Training is out talking to communities and small business, people who are working across the sector, to see what we can do to make sure that British Columbia finds its way back toward the top of that list of people.

[1055]

The thing about British Columbia that’s so good is that we are the fastest-growing economy in the country, and we are doing better than anywhere else in Canada. That means that we have a chance to do better by the people who live here. That means that we can make the kinds of historic investments that we have in health care and education and in supporting a different minimum wage. All those investments are enabled in one way or another by a very strong economy.

What we have seen under the NDP, in the 1990s, was an economy that was shrinking, that people were finding their way not to the bottom and not to minimum wage, but they were fleeing the province because there were no jobs here. We are absolutely dedicated….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: Our work every day is trying to find a way to say yes, trying to find a way to support workers, to support workers going to work. While the member criticizes private fundraising done by political parties — at the same time that he introduced his bill to say, “We’re going to ban corporate and union donations” — he went for a $2,000-a-plate fundraiser in Vancouver. While he says there shouldn’t be any support from political parties, he’s letting them buy his suits and buy his shoes.

What’s important today, in terms of the business of this House, is what each of us are focused on in trying to improve the lives of British Columbians. You won’t get there by saying no, which is what the opposition does. The only way you’ll get there is by saying yes to workers, yes to work, yes to resource community and yes to jobs, and that is what we do every day.

LEGISLATION ON PAYMENTS FROM
POLITICAL PARTIES TO PREMIERS

D. Eby: The Premier does support a different minimum wage for British Columbia. It’s the lowest in Canada. In the meantime, there’s a different wage that’s the highest in Canada — that’s the Premier’s commissions from fundraising. She gets the most of any Premier in Canada. In fact, she is one of only two Premiers who receives these kinds of payments.
[ Page 12494 ]

These actions are making people ask: who does the Premier work for? Does she work for her donors, or does she work for the public? She’s being paid handsomely by both.

Premiers in Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland don’t receive these payments. Legislatures in Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta have passed laws that make these kind of payments illegal or impossible.

To the Premier: the conflict commissioner is investigating her six-figure commission. Will she save him the time and pass a law that makes it explicitly illegal in British Columbia for a Premier to receive fundraising commissions?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order. This Chair has been clear that questions will be directed in terms of ministerial and executive function.

Hon. S. Anton: The member opposite needs to choose his forum. When he came with a similar kind of question yesterday, he had already taken a letter of complaint, seeking an opinion from the conflict commissioner.

He had brought that to the conflict commissioner yesterday and asked for that opinion. If he’s asking the conflict commissioner for an opinion, then that is where we should seek the opinion — not in this House.

You’ve got to choose your forum. The forum has been chosen by the member opposite as the office of the conflict commissioner, and that is where we need to let this decision be made.

Madame Speaker: A new question? The member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

D. Eby: I see the Premier has her legal team up for her every day this week. It’s very nice to see.

This is a relatively straightforward question about a law that we would like to see passed in British Columbia. Other legislatures are able to debate, in the legislature, laws that they would like to see passed. We would like to see a law that bans the Premier from taking commissions from fundraising done by her party.

Will she stand up and explain why she won’t pass that law?

[1100]

Hon. C. Clark: I know that members are protected by privilege in this House and can say or make up anything that they want. But the member should know that that does not happen, it should not happen, and of course, in British Columbia, to my knowledge, it has never happened.

M. Farnworth: The question is really simple. Other provinces have made it illegal to provide additional payments to the Premier of the province, other than that allowed for by legislation in their respective provinces. Other provinces don’t even consider the practice.

My question to the Premier is this. Will she introduce legislation into this chamber that outlaws the practice of paying additional payments to the Premier, other than those allowed by existing legislation in the province of British Columbia, as other provinces in this country already do?

Hon. C. Clark: I am the Premier of British Columbia and the representative of our government. I’m also the leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, and I have been since I was elected. Those are both jobs that I hold down, and I don’t think it’s right and proper, either, that taxpayers should pay for me to do the work as party leader, which I am also obliged to do. This is something that has been disclosed and has been happening in British Columbia since at least 1993 — all properly done.

The members, when they talk about commissions, I think, should be very careful. It’s wrong, it’s not true, it doesn’t happen, and to my knowledge, it never has happened. To my knowledge, it is also…. I’m going to seek the advice of the Attorney General on this, but my view would be that would also be currently very much against the law and against the conflict-of-interest act already.

Madame Speaker: Port Coquitlam, on a new question.

M. Farnworth: We’ve seen the Premier when she was initially asked about this. She said, “I don’t know. I don’t know how much I’m getting,” and, you know, it’s $45,000. People expect better than that from the Premier, in terms of knowledge of what is taking place when she’s asked questions like that, particularly when she knows the answer.

Madame Speaker: Member, I have clearly stated: executive and ministerial function.

M. Farnworth: I have not finished my question. My question is really simple. Because of the problems that have occurred in other provinces, they have banned such practices and have introduced legislation to that very point — that the only compensation the Premier receives is by that specifically outlined by legislation in their respective provinces.

Why will the Premier not follow the leads of openness and transparency that occur in just about every jurisdiction in the rest of this country, come in line with the 21st century and be as transparent as she says she’d like to be and ban extra payments to the Office of Premier that are not in line with existing legislation?

Hon. C. Clark: There are no payments to the Office of the Premier in British Columbia. There are no commissions. None of the things that the members have raised….
[ Page 12495 ]
I mean, many of the things the members have raised are just plain wrong — things that if they said outside this House, I think they might find themselves in legal trouble.

What they’re saying today…. The things that they are alleging today are very, very serious allegations. We can have a debate about laws in British Columbia. We can have a debate about the economy if the opposition would ever love to do that. We can have a debate about the conflict-of-interest act.

[1105]

But for the members to stand up and level these kinds of allegations suggesting criminal activity on the part of the government is just simply wrong. It is unfair, and I think it’s unworthy of even that member, that long-standing member, of this Legislature.

HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION ON
GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION

A. Weaver: Yesterday was a very fine day in British Columbia, as the government introduced the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. I was very pleased to see the government introduce this, and we’ll be debating it further.

Yesterday was also an important day, because another bill was brought to the Legislature, a bill entitled Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act. In that bill, ten words and a comma were proposed, ten words and comma which will have enormous implications to the acceptance — telling British Columbians that we are an accepting society. It’s essentially putting forward changes to the Human Rights Act.

Madame Speaker: Member.

A. Weaver: Yes?

Madame Speaker: The bill is before the House currently.

A. Weaver: Correct.

My question to that, with respect, hon. Speaker, is as follows. Will the Premier consider…?

Madame Speaker: Member.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, my question, then, is this: will the Premier introduce legislation along the lines of allowing changes to the human rights code to identify gender identity and expression as reasons not to have discrimination in British Columbia? This will send a signal to British Columbia, an important signal to British Columbia that we are an accepting society.

Madame Speaker: The bill is before the House. Next question; new question.

A. Weaver: I understand, hon. Speaker, in this House that, at times, personal allegations are hurled back and forth, and at times it’s very difficult to actually want to bring forward good legislation and rise above the partisanship. However, when good ideas are brought to this House, surely we can all rise above this partisanship.

Yesterday we had a good idea brought to this House. The good idea that was brought to this House was to say to the people of British Columbia that we will not discriminate against gender identity and gender expression.

My question to the government is: will the government consider introducing their own legislation to actually add words with respect to gender expression and gender identity in the human rights code to ensure that they are not discriminated against?

Madame Speaker: Member, the bill has been received, and first reading has been sent down for second reading.

Next question.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY
PENALTY SYSTEM AND REVIEW

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to thank my colleague.

Last year, we asked the Minister of Housing to fix serious problems with the Residential Tenancy Act’s penalty system, problems that have let bad landlords and bad tenants get away with breaking the law again and again.

The government has never collected a single penny in fines under the administrative penalty system and only imposed a single penalty in the last decade. The minister said he would act. He said he would do a review and make sure it would work.

I’d like to ask the minister…. Can he tell this House what recommendations were made in the review that he had done on the administrative penalty system?

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member would just look to a recent case that was just ruled on by the residential tenancy branch, where penalties were levied to a landlord with regards to the behaviour of a particular landlord with particular residents, he would have picked up on the fact that they are much more focused on this. They are moving on it — and actually being focused on how we can improve that.

I’m glad the member opposite didn’t just get up and say there are bad landlords, though. He also mentioned there were tenants of questionable behaviour too.

This is an act that actually manages housing for about 500,000 households in British Columbia. Probably 96 percent of them all have a decent business relationship with a landlord and a tenant, where they have a tenancy agreement in place and work through their difficulties under that tenancy agreement.

That’s when the act was rewritten in the early 2000s — what it was to accomplish. It does that for the most
[ Page 12496 ]
part. There are always challenges with a few actors on either side of this equation, no matter whether the act was in place in the 1990s or today. It’s an ongoing piece of work.

Today we try and work to improve how we get outcomes on arbitration, where a new director is working on how to speed up that process, how we can move it into more ability for these tribunals to be more effective for people that do have to go into this particular aspect of it.

[1110]

But I think the work we’ve done in the last year since the member asked me this question…. The outcomes that are coming back in residential tenancy are an improvement to where they were. They will continue to improve as we work with landlord and tenant groups to try and find a balance between these two groups.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, what the minister fails to mention is that his review didn’t contain, when released, a single recommendation to fix the system — the system that was broken, that didn’t lead to any fines, any real penalties for bad landlords or bad tenants, that clearly needed to be fixed. His own staff acknowledged that. The review had zero recommendations for cracking down on bad landlords and bad tenants who break rental agreements.

This is bad for everybody. We’re having a rental housing crisis. There isn’t enough of it, and those that provide it sometimes break the law and get away with impunity. Those who try and go into housing sometimes, again, break the law with impunity.

We filed a freedom-of-information request to find out what was really going on in the minister’s office. What did we find out? An October 19, 2015, email from the review’s author: “The recommendations need a bit more work. What is the end goal that we are making recommendations to work toward? What are the options, and what is recommended?”

Recommendations did exist, but the minister’s staff deleted them, or he did himself — something pretty common on that side of the House. My question to the minister: why did he delete the recommendations that his staff provided him?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, before I answer the question, that’s an obnoxious, untrue comment made by the member about what I may have done with an email. It’s absolutely not true. I did not do that, so don’t get up and make an accusation about my reputation in this House when you don’t have the facts to back it up.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Minster.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks, Madame Speaker.

The fact of the matter is this member and the members opposite know that, going back decades, this House …. People on that side of the House have failed to encourage investment in rental properties in British Columbia. They had an act in place in the 1990s that totally, totally discouraged any investment….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who I get the greatest kick out of when he laughs about housing…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …in B.C., is the member that’s upset that maybe the First Nations might develop the Jericho lands where there would be rental property for residents in the province of British Columbia.

DERELICT VESSELS

G. Holman: Recently, several derelict vessels sank in the Deep Bay area, putting at risk shellfish operations that are so important to the local economy there. This is just one example of a litany of derelict vessel problems on the coast of British Columbia. There are over 250 such vessels on the coast of British Columbia.

The provincial government has a key role to play regarding derelict vessels since it owns the seabed on the south coast and has jurisdiction over the intertidal zone and fisheries such as shellfish. The shellfish industry, concerned citizens and elected officials have been urging the province to take its responsibilities on the derelict vessel issue seriously.

Through you to the Minister of Environment: what is your government doing to resolve this long-standing issue?

Hon. T. Stone: This is, for the most part, a federal responsibility. It is an issue, however, that I know the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has had some discussions on. I would be happy to take the question on notice for the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES FOR
WOMEN ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

M. Karagianis: The B.C. Liberal government has consistently refused to ensure that women can serve their prison sentences on Vancouver Island. This leads to profound inequities for women who are in custody.

[1115]

Most recently, we have seen that Judge Arne Silverman has said that the failure to ensure women have safe, properly equipped prison facilities on the Island is shameful, discriminatory and profoundly unfair. West Coast LEAF says it results in a grave violation of women’s right to equal treatment. I’d like to ask the government: what are they doing to rectify this situation?

Hon. M. Morris: The safety and the custody of the prisoners that we have across the province here are of the utmost importance to us. We have invested, as government, a lot of money into facilities specifically designed for women — in the Alouette Centre and in the Prince George Regional Correctional Centre as well — and we’re investing heavily into the Okanagan correctional centre.

The prisoner count on Vancouver Island for female prisoners does not warrant a full female facility in that particular location. We’ve invested in these locations. They’re areas that are geographically centred to accommodate the female prisoners that we have throughout the province.

We have to remember that we have a large geographical area to cover in the province here. We also have to keep in mind that prisoners — it doesn’t matter whether they’re male or female — are placed in custody in the correctional centres because they pose a risk to the province, whether they’re under charge or they’ve been convicted. We’ll maintain these centres in Alouette, Prince George and the Okanagan for these purposes.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have a petition on behalf of constituents, from my constituency and a number of others, suggesting alternative revenue streams for road infrastructure.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly, I call continued committee stage of Bill 21; in Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. R. Coleman: As this is my first opportunity, I’d like to reserve my right of privilege as to some comments that were made by the member for Vancouver–West End.

[1120]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 11:21 a.m.

On section 4 (continued).

Hon. M. Polak: When we left off yesterday, there was a question pending. I’ll provide the member with the answer.

It is correct that a regulated person would not have to undertake investigations or tests or surveys or whatnot if there are no regulations to apply to that person. The reason for that in the legislation is we need to recognize that in some cases, the regulated person may already be required to undertake those kinds of activities under other legislation.

However, in a case where those regulations were not up to the standard required through this act, we would be enabled to apply additional regulations and requirements.

G. Heyman: At this point, I’d like to move an amendment to section 91.11(1)(d).

[by adding the following text highlighted by underline:

91.11 (1)(d)

(d) the spill contingency plan demonstrates that the regulated person has the capability to effectively respond to a spill, according to standards for effective spill response set out in the regulations, following public and expert consultation, and]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, that is the way that regulations are developed. We’ve already been doing that through two and now three intentions papers. As I mentioned yesterday in debate, we certainly intend to continue that in the development of the regulations following, if the House wishes to pass this into law. So I will not be supporting the amendment.

G. Heyman: On the amendment, I appreciate the comments of the minister. But this is a critical piece of legislation, and it relates to some very critical issues facing British Columbians, particularly those who live on the coast, those who make their living on the coast, those who are concerned about the effects of spills.

I understand this is about land-based spills, but spills on land do find their way to the water, whether it’s directly into a stream, directly into a lake or through the movement of waters and rivers and streams to the ocean.

I have done some extensive consultation on this bill, which, as I’ve said, we will support. But we support it be-
[ Page 12498 ]
lieving that it could be improved and it could give more assurance.

I think the government and the minister have indicated that they believe that this bill will help get to one of their five conditions, and that is that there be world-leading spill response. I realize that that’s not entirely in the hands of the provincial government. A significant amount of this depends on the actions of the new federal government.

[1125]

But having said that, it’s one thing to talk about world-leading spill response. If the world-leading standard isn’t particularly high, world-leading doesn’t get you to “effective.” I appreciate that the word “effective” is in here, but what does “effective” mean?

“Effective” to one person means one thing. “Effective” to another person means something else, which is why this government has introduced a bill and says that much of the detail of the bill will be developed by regulation.

My reading of the bill doesn’t say that, at any point, the definition of the term “effective” will be set down in regulation. I think it’s important that it be set down and that it be an objective standard and not a subjective standard, in particular when we’re talking about some of the hazardous substances that are proposed to be transported across land in British Columbia and, despite the fact that this is land-based, could find their way into the ocean.

It’s particularly with respect to diluted bitumen, a substance with which there is not a lot of experience with respect to spills. But where there is, people believe that this is unlike any other substance in terms of cleanup. It is, I was told as recently as yesterday, virtually impossible to clean up a spill of diluted bitumen — that it will sink quickly if it’s in water.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: I understand that. I understand that the minister is saying that this is about land-based, but things find their way. They may be crossing a stream. They may run into a stream. The stream and river may carry substances into the ocean. We’re not dealing with compartmentalized differentiations between land and water here. They’re contiguous. Things move, particularly substances.

It is very, very important that every opportunity be taken in this act to raise the bar for protection of B.C.’s environment and communities. I will say and I will acknowledge that much in this bill purports to do that and has the potential to do that, which is precisely why we’re supporting it.

I’m raising this amendment not to be obstreperous and not to be difficult. I’m raising it in the spirit of constructive debate, based on conversations I’ve had with people in environmental groups and elsewhere who spend their days thinking how we can best protect British Columbia’s environment.

The feedback I got is that there may well, ultimately, be an objective definition of “effective” that has meaning, that’s strong, that raises the bar to a very high level and really challenges the preparedness and response organizations, the industry and others to really take things to the highest possible level.

We can have a debate in some other forum about whether the highest possible level with respect to a substance like diluted bitumen or some other substance that may be spilled is actually full protection, but we will do that in another forum.

In terms of this bill, we are told that the contingency plan must demonstrate that “the regulated person has the capability to effectively respond to a spill.” The government has talked for at least the last two years, if not longer, about having world-leading spill response. It is important that effective not be a euphemism for world-leading, because world-leading, essentially, doesn’t have adequate meaning in terms of environmental protection, if the other standards around the world….

Frankly, the other standards about spill response around the world are not where we need to be. What we need is effective, but we need to know what effective means. We need to know what the objective tests of effectiveness are. That has to be spelled out.

[1130]

The minister has said in the House — and that does have value, that she said it in the House — that it will be done by regulation. She has said that regulations are developed in all instances by public consultation and expert consultation. But with greatest respect to the minister, I have not experienced…. If I did some research, I could find a number of regulations that were developed without any public consultation or openness whatsoever. There may have been consultation with experts, but without knowing who those experts are, it’s impossible to determine if that was an adequate consultation in which the public can have full and complete confidence.

This amendment is really quite simple. In fact, this amendment simply states in legislation what the minister herself has said is her intent. That leads us to the question: if that is in fact the intent, why not reassure the public of British Columbia, reassure future legislatures, reassure future bureaucrats and, most importantly, make it absolutely clear to industry in the legislation that what is going to be developed to test effectiveness will be done in an open, public process, with appropriate consultation as well as with consultation with experts?

Both are important. You should not substitute expert consultation for transparency. You should not substitute expert consultation for ensuring that the public has their say. Nor should you, frankly, rely solely on public consultation without also hearing from people who have spent their academic careers, their experiential careers and, in many cases, a lifetime working on solving problems through a variety of means, whether they’re engineering
[ Page 12499 ]
or otherwise, in dealing with the mechanics of what’s possible, what isn’t possible and how to develop technologies that raise the bar.

That also takes us to the point that we could set a definition of “effective” today. In five years time, it might be important to set a different definition of effective, because technology has changed. What was not possible one day will be possible some day in the near future or the mid-distance future or perhaps the distant future, and therefore, public acceptance of what is truly effective will change.

If the minister says, as she said in response to this amendment, that the amendment isn’t necessary because this is what we always do — which I’ve challenged — and this is what we intend to do, and therefore, she will not support the amendment, my retort to the minister is: if you intend to do it anyway, why not make that absolutely clear by adding these few simple words as an amendment to section 91.11(1)(d)?

I fail to see…. I understand why the minister isn’t including a definition of “effective” in the legislation at this point, absent the necessary consultation. But if this is the intent, to develop it effectively, then why not say yes? Why not let us say: is there some way we can make this bill a little bit better by stating in the legislation what we intend to do in any event so everyone knows what our intent is?

Everyone doesn’t have to take our word for it. They can see it clearly in the legislation, and they can understand that the methods for developing the standard of effectiveness and the definition of effectiveness will be developed in an open and public way with public consultation as well as with the consultation with experts.

There are a variety of ways one can define effective. We know that. The minister knows that. The minister has stated, because of that, that regulation will cover this. That is, as I said, not apparent in the legislation.

[1135]

That is why the amendment proposed says it will be done by regulation but also says that the regulation will be done in an open way, in a transparent way, in a public way, in a way that considers the opinion of experts and in a way that says to future ministers, to future deputy ministers, to future bureaucrats and to future people who are doing business in British Columbia — whether they come to this province at a date in the future or whether they’re already here but enter into an industrial process that would make them a responsible person under this act — that there is a clear test for effectiveness.

It is set by regulation. It is not set by regulation in an arbitrary manner. It is set by regulation in a manner that involves public consultation — so that people who believe the test must be different, must be higher, must include more factors have a chance to have their say — and also by including experts in that determination.

I could go on, but I won’t. I think there may be one or two other speakers to this amendment.

But this is an important point to make. If, as the minister has said, it is her intent, then I would say to the minister that it’s not a requirement of good governance or good legislation to get things perfect the first time.

Obviously, we all aspire to that, but there is a reason we have committee stage on a bill. It is to examine each clause in the bill. It is to think about whether the clause is clear. And it is to put forward amendments, which the government itself does from time to time, to add clarity, to add assurance, to ensure that things aren’t left to speculation or interpretation or misinterpretation.

If the minister really intends to do exactly what this amendment says, then I would ask the minister, with the greatest respect…. There is nothing wrong with adding a few words to state exactly what you intend to do, exactly what you’ve stated you intend to do, even if it is suggested by the opposition spokesperson.

With that, I will be voting for this amendment, obviously, and I will take my seat.

Hon. M. Polak: I appreciate the member’s good intent on this, but I just do not believe that this belongs in the legislation. Rather, I would look to the great deal of evidence with respect to this legislation: the two intentions papers; many, many public meetings, workshops and symposia with experts, First Nations, communities. In fact, the third intentions paper just went out two weeks ago. We’ve already had one public workshop with around 300 people. We will be proceeding, as we have done with the first two intentions papers, around expert symposia, etc.

Contrary to the member’s assertion that there may be some doubt as to what we may do in the future, in fact, the evidence is there that we have done what the member is suggesting in an amendment. In fact, we are continuing to do so even as we speak. For that reason, I don’t believe that the amendment is necessary to accomplish what it is the member has in terms of his intent.

S. Chandra Herbert: I stand in support of my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview’s amendment because I think it’s effective. “Effective” is a word which…. I think we need to be very clear about what that means. We need to be very clear that effective today won’t be effective tomorrow, necessarily, if we figure out new technologies, new ways of dealing with spills.

Right now the government and others across the world say an oil spill that leaves 85 percent of oil in the ocean…. Well, that could be effective because, some argue, it’s world-leading to collect 15 percent of the oil in an ocean, leaving the rest to pollute, fall to the ocean floor, kill creatures, etc. Now, that’s not effective to me, but some in the industry think that’s very effective.

While I understand the minister says that the intention of public consultation is very clear and that there will be intentions papers and so forth, I’d like to see it in
[ Page 12500 ]
law. I’d like to see public consultation and expert consultation in law.

Sometimes politicians say one thing, and then something changes, and then they do another. Sometimes words mean different things to different people. “World-leading” to one is not “world-leading” to another. “Effective” to one is not “effective” to another.

[1140]

Sometimes people argue: “We will consult with you — absolutely.” And when the rubber hits the road, there may be some initial consultations, but after that, things change. “Oh, we want to approve this oil pipeline” or “We want to ram this project through, so we’ll just say it’s effective, for political expediency,” as opposed to actual legitimate consultation with experts.

When it comes to the challenge of dealing with spills, whether it be toxic spills, oil spills, chemical spills, spills of all sorts, you need to ensure that we’re continually improving. I know that the minister, when I questioned her about what a world-leading response is, said that it is “always, always getting better” — that “world-leading” means that every time we do this, it’s going to be improved. We’re always going to be aiming for the top.

While I like that idea, I’m not so sure that this legislation is going to lead to that each and every time. If you set a standard today and a year from now another project comes forward, maybe it won’t be this minister. Maybe another colleague will step in.

While she may be very truthful that her intent is that good consultation happens, if a future minister comes in, they may not have that same goodwill. Maybe another colleague takes her place on her side, and they decide: “No, we don’t need consultation. Forget the experts. I want this thing through. I’m just going to say that it’s good, that this spill response plan is world-class, world-leading, effective. I’m going to buy a gazillion ads to promote it and say that everything is a-okay.”

That’s why I think this amendment is important. It makes sure that today, tomorrow, five years from now, ten years from now, if we are going to be looking for effective spill response, there has to be legitimate consultation. We can’t just say we’ve done consultation: “Yes, we’ve listened to the experts, but we won’t tell you who they are. We won’t list their recommendations. We won’t let you see them.”

That has happened with some other ministers and this government with other legislation, where they make you sign confidentiality clauses to not tell anybody you’ve been consulted. So if the legislation or the regulations that are brought forward are contrary to your points of view, you can’t speak out. That’s what other ministers have done in this government. That’s why I think it’s very important that effective spill response set out in the regulations come from following public and expert consultation.

It’s a legitimate amendment. The minister has said her intent is to follow the amendment, so it’s redundant. Well, if that’s the case, I would make the case to her that she should just embrace this amendment. If she says she already intends to do it, let’s make it law. Let’s put the amendment into the bill so it’s absolutely clear for all to see — for future ministers and future governments to know that we, as a House, believe consultation with the wider community and with experts in this area is something we expect.

That’s the standard that we set, as opposed to: “Well, I’m going to consult. You can trust me. I’m going to consult.” While the minister, I know, has done consultations on this already, there is no guarantee that any future minister will do the same. And really, I think it’s incumbent upon us to think about the future, to plan for the future, to plan for safety, to plan for good government for all. That means consultation.

I’m happy to support this amendment to this bill.

[1145-1150]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

G. Heyman: Subsection (3) indicates that “(a) records respecting investigations, tests and surveys referred to in subsection (2) are prepared and kept for the prescribed period.”

The Chair: Member, the minister has to wait for the staff. Can you pause a moment?
[ Page 12501 ]

G. Heyman: The staff weren’t necessary to vote to move on, on the motion?

The Chair: Thank you.

Hon. M. Polak: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 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 progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak 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 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Yap in the chair.

The committee met at 11:23 a.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $843,349,000 (continued).

M. Farnworth: I know we don’t have a lot of time, so I’ll skip the usual preamble stuff and get straight into the questions.

In this year’s budget, the government chose to highlight that it’s giving $1 million to emergency management B.C. for planning and outreach, yet this million doesn’t translate into a $1 million lift in the ’16-17 budget. Instead of the budget being $15.437 million if you had that lift in, it is $437,000 short of the amount. Why is that lift not reflected in the EMBC budget? Is the money being shuffled out to other areas?

[1125]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Just before I start, I’d like to introduce my deputy, Becky Denlinger; acting ADM for EMBC; Ian Lightbody; and Nancy Bain, EFO. I will endeavour to keep the discussion between myself and the staff as short as possible, to get through this time.

To the question the member opposite asked, the increase of $1.5 million actually is in the blue book, but it is split between the EMBC and the executive support services within MOTI. So it’s in there, and if you would like us to go through and break it down for you, we can do that as well.

M. Farnworth: I guess the point I want to make is that while the government announced $1 million additional for the lift, the $1 million that we’re talking about being reflected here in this budget — if the member says it’s $2 million, I’d be interested in that — part of that is for administrative services as opposed to the full amount going to full program services.

[1130]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: That $1.5 million lift that the member opposite references is made up of $602,000 that’s accorded to programs at EMBC. The balance has been allocated, and I’ll just give you the numbers. It’s $119,000 for my minister of state office. There is $685,000 for the deputy minister’s office. It’s not just her office, but all of the supports that are required as well. Then $85,000 is for finance and management services. That’s EMBC, the IT and finance support services required, so it’s all rolled into that. When I say administrative or the other support services, they support programs that are really important with EMBC as well.

M. Farnworth: A quick question. What was the budget last year for emergency measures, and what’s the budget this coming fiscal year?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I believe the member is asking about the core services of EMBC. If you look at last year’s, it was $14.437 million, and this year $15.039 million.

M. Farnworth: I think next time we’ll be able to get into more detail in that. I know we are limited in our time today, so I think what I’d like to do is to focus on to some of the issues that were raised in the Renteria report and the Office of the Auditor General so I can get some questions out that the minister is able to answer and get a sense of what things are taking place.

In the Renteria report, one of the issues raised was that there seemed to be a feeling of, almost, unanimity on the part of the local government that EMBC was, basically,
[ Page 12502 ]
doing earthquake preparedness on the side of its desk because it had so many other demands facing it — you know, floods and fires. There was a lack of readiness for a major seismic event and a sense that a lot of this had been shifted to local governments and that the agency needs more resources, which was clearly one of the critical areas outlined in the report.

As the minister well knows, a major earthquake is not a local event. It is a provincewide event that will impact the entire province. Of course, if it’s big enough, it’s a national event.

Local authorities are doing their part to complete their own plans, but they need the province to develop and communicate its overarching plan. That’s critical, because that plan has got to be in place before local governments are able to finish their plans.

Can the minister tell us exactly: what is the status in terms of that recommendation? What has been done? Notwithstanding what we’ve done in terms of best practices in the existing regulations…. I mean, the last time, for example, the hazard, risk and vulnerability analysis, which would be a key part of any overarching plan, was done was in 1997.

[1135]

There’s a lot of work that needs to be done. So what has happened? Has, for example, the high-risk analysis, last done in 1997, been done? What’s the status in terms of those issues raised by the Renteria report?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’m trying to respect the member opposite’s time. I think what I would like to do is, generally, give you the highlights of what we’ve done to respond to Renteria’s report, but offer another briefing. Or if you’d like to give us some questions in writing, we’ll be happy to respond to them, because it does take a little bit of time.

M. Farnworth: That’s fine.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: One of the things that we’re really proud of is actually the B.C. Earthquake Immediate Response Plan. That report came out last year — very, very comprehensive, the first of its kind in Canada. It focused on targeted planning, specifically on earthquakes.

We are actually in the process of finalizing the last-minute details for our first ever full-scale response to a major catastrophic earthquake, and that’s happening in Port Alberni June 7 to 10. I’d be happy to let the member opposite know what we’re doing there.

Since the Renteria report has come out, we have added six additional provincial duty managers to the EMBC team. We’ve also added four logistics staff. We are building on excellence now. We consider ourselves to be leaders in emergency preparedness in Canada, but we should be, because we are in the highest-risk area in Canada for an earthquake. We have learned from the earthquake in Japan in 2011 and New Zealand, also, in the same year. We really have taken significant strides in improving our preparedness.

Probably the one thing that I think is proof or evidence of the recognition of how important it is, is the creation, frankly, of the office of Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness. We’re the only jurisdiction in Canada that actually has a minister just solely responsible and focused on emergency preparedness.

Again, we have done a lot, and you can see it as evidenced in the increase in the budget lift that we received. Our attention is focused on identifying risks: floods, earthquakes — obviously, not just earthquakes — and other things. But it is much too comprehensive of a plan to go through in detail now, but we’d be happy to follow up.

M. Farnworth: I will be taking the minister up on that offer. In the meantime, in the time that we do have left, one of the key components of that, of course, is a critical infrastructure list that EMBC is developing. The strategic plan said that this inventory would be completed before March 31, 2017.

Are we on track to have it completed by March 31, 2017? And can the minister give us an update on the current status?

[1140]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We do not have the fellow who is actually in charge of that project, the critical infrastructure list inventory project, here right now. I will endeavour to follow up with the member opposite. I can tell you that I believe, yes, we are on track. I can’t tell you the specific things that we have done without him being here. The fellow’s name is Gord Sharpe. He is working with all the utilities, the telecoms, the financial institutions — the critical infrastructure owners — in the province to do just that.

M. Farnworth: What I will do, then, in light of our time, is read a number of questions. I guess on top of this, in terms of when we are able to talk about this, critical infrastructure is not just…. There’s local critical infrastructure, which local governments are clearly going to have to identify and take into account in their plans. Obviously, there is the provincial infrastructure that is critical, and that covers a wide range. But then there’s also the private sector, particularly around telecommunications, particularly on communications and the ability, when a disaster hits…. Clearly, the coordination of the province’s overarching plan is very much involved with that.

What I would also like to know is what steps have been taken in that area. What meetings have been held? How has the private sector been involved? And if they are involved in the development of the provincial list, I would appreciate the minister getting back to me on that.
[ Page 12503 ]

The Renteria report also recommended that the provincial government augment EMBC’s resources for critical infrastructure coordination. Has the government followed through on that? What sectors have been at the table in this development? What sectors have not yet been at the table, and if they haven’t, will they be invited?

How many public structures in the SUCH sector require seismic upgrading? The Minister of Transportation, who works with this minister, was required to provide an update of the facilities requiring upgrading for earthquake readiness by the end of this past fiscal. Has that been done? If not, when will it be done?

How many ministry and Crown emergency plans has EMBC reviewed in the past year and the year before? Is EMBC able to systematically review the plans, and when will all the plans be reviewed?

[The bells were rung.]

B.C. is party to different agreements on emergency management with other jurisdictions, which reflect in part that our province is part of the interdependent economic regions. Can the minister explain what B.C.’s role is in the Pacific Northwest emergency management arrangement, and what work is being done in that area?

With that, I may as well move that the committee rise. We are, in fact, I think, complete at this particular point.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: The emergency section is complete, yes. But I will be taking the minister up on her offer for the detailed briefing on the rest.

The Chair: Division has been called.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 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