Second Session, 41st Parliament (2017)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 58
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business | |
E. Foster | |
B. D’Eith | |
S. Bond | |
M. Elmore | |
A. Olsen | |
R. Kahlon | |
T. Redies | |
Hon. J. Horgan | |
S. Cadieux | |
A. Olsen | |
Hon. J. Horgan | |
S. Bond | |
Hon. J. Horgan | |
J. Tegart | |
Hon. D. Donaldson | |
C. Oakes | |
Hon. D. Donaldson | |
M. Polak | |
Hon. J. Horgan | |
T. Redies | |
S. Furstenau | |
J. Tegart | |
Orders of the Day | |
Hon. D. Eby | |
L. Throness | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
Hon. S. Robinson | |
T. Stone | |
J. Thornthwaite | |
S. Bond | |
J. Rustad | |
D. Barnett | |
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2017
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. R. Fleming: It’s my pleasure to introduce some honoured guests who are with us in the Legislature today, in the gallery. The Ministry of Education has partnered with an esteemed group of professionals from some of our key partner associations to create something called the leadership development framework that enables students, educators and school communities to thrive through skilled and effective educational leadership. These organizations are providing training programs to support professional development, and the framework focuses on collaborative efforts to focus the school system on better student success for all students.
I’d ask the House to please welcome — I’ve got a few names to introduce here — Mr. Tom Longridge, who is president of the B.C. School Superintendents Association, and Claire Guy, executive director of the superintendents association. Patti Dundas, who is president of the B.C. Association of School Business Officials, is here. Mr. Kevin Reimer is here, president of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. Kit Krieger is the executive director of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, and Peter Froese is the executive director of the Federation of Independent School Associations of B.C.
Also, it would please me to introduce Mr. Paul Squires, who is the acting assistant deputy minister of international education, independent schools and partner relations. I’d ask the House to join me in welcoming all these esteemed guests who are providing great leadership in our school system….
Interjections.
D. Davies: It’s not very often I get to rise in this House and welcome some of my constituents down from Peace River North, where it is a balmy minus 20 and snowing right now. I’d like to welcome Lexie Pomeroy and Carla Cowger, the parents of their daughters Eden Pomeroy and Courtney Cowger, who are both attending the Western Canadian Irish dance. Would the House please make them feel welcome.
Hon. K. Chen: Every single day that we’re working in this beautiful building, we need a lot of people supporting us to help with our scheduling, with our appointments and sometimes even with our meals — to look after us. I’m really happy to see, in the House today, that I have my administrative assistant, Cherie Wilson, along with her good friend Kate from the Minister of State for Trade’s office. They’re both here joining us for question period.
Hon. J. Sims: It gives me great pleasure today to add my voice to welcoming a past president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, Kit Krieger. I hope you’ll all help me make him feel welcome.
Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a former member of the House, the former member for Cariboo North. Now we have to refer to him as His Worship, as he’s the mayor — he’s shaking his head no — of Quesnel. He’s an outstanding advocate for all things up north, especially for the community of Quesnel. Please join me in welcoming Bob Simpson.
B. Ma: We have representatives with us here today from the First Nations Financial Management Board. Brian Titus currently sits on the First Nations Financial Management Board as vice-chair. I can’t quite see all the way into the gallery, but I believe he is here with Scott Munro, who serves as the director of standards and certification; and someone we all know and love, Sue Hammell, former member for Surrey–Green Timbers.
Brian Titus is a veteran leader of First Nations companies and organizations across British Columbia and Canada. He is also the BC AFOA chapter president, a Chief Isaac Inc. board member and adviser for the CCAB and Camosun College. It is an honour to have him here with us today, along with his guests. Would with the House please join me in making them all feel very welcome.
Hon. G. Chow: I would like to welcome Kate Duncan. She is the admin assistant in my office of the Minister of State for Trade. She really wanted to see what we do here in the House, and she’s curious. I said: “Come down. We also do trade, too, but it’s trading our conversations.”
R. Singh: It is my honour to introduce a very dear friend and, I’m sure, a very dear friend of many of us in the House, Sue Hammell, former MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers. Would the House please make her feel very welcome.
L. Krog: In addition to the guests introduced by the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale — and Sue Hammell, my old colleague — is one of the province’s leading intellectuals and commentators, I believe. He’s certainly in the building this morning, if he’s not in the gallery. That’s Will McMartin. Would the House please make him welcome as well.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to add my welcome to that introduced by the Minister of Education. In the gallery is Tom Longridge, the superintendent of school district 72.
School district 72 has long been a leader in progressive education in this province. It’s got a great reputation. It continues to have a great reputation, and that takes leadership. I think the whole school district is extremely lucky and proud to have Mr. Longridge as the superintendent. He’s been there for eight years, and I hope he’s going to be there for a number of years more so he can continue to guide and work with the board so we continue getting the high quality of education in school district 72. I hope the House will once again welcome him.
A. Olsen: It’s a great pleasure today to introduce a few members of the campaign team that helped get me into this place — Linda Brown; Marcus and Marilyn Redivo; Laura Parker; Thomas Toyvin; and my mother, Sylvia Olsen, who keeps showing up in this place to keep an eye on us. I just want to say that the love and passion that they showed for democracy in our province flowed out during the months leading up to the election, and I have a great deal and amount of love and respect for them. Would this House please make them feel welcome.
Speaker’s Statement
BOOK OF CONDOLENCE
FOR JOHN
DAVIDSON
Mr. Speaker: Members, if I may, before we go further, just call your attention to the fact that we’re compiling a book of condolences for the family of slain Abbotsford officer John Davidson. The pages are located in the Hall of Honour, and members are invited to leave a message for the family.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
OBSERVANCE OF REMEMBRANCE DAY
E. Foster: Almost a century ago the guns fell silent over Europe, and the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. The first Great War was finally over. In four years, millions perished, and the world would change forever.
In 1918, it was proposed that we adopt a two-minute moment of silence to remember the sacrifices of those who fell in service of our country and our values. The first minute is to remember the near 20 million people who died in the war, and the second minute is dedicated to those who were left behind.
We remember not only to mourn for the lost but to remind ourselves to be better — to work earnestly to stop conflict and promote peace wherever possible. In the 11th month on the 11th day at the 11th hour, we remember the courageous men and women who have served, and those who continue to serve, our country in times of war and times of peace — men and women who fought bravely, many giving their lives, so that we wouldn’t have to.
These are not faceless individuals but our grandparents, our parents, our aunts and uncles, our sisters and brothers. Many of us here in this House have had family members who have fought and died in the service of their country on distant shores.
Let us never forget their bravery or the atrocities that they worked so hard to right. Let us continue to strive to be better. We shall remember them.
LOUIS RIEL DAY AND MÉTIS NATION
B. D’Eith: As this is the last day the House sits before it takes a short break, I’d like to draw your attention to a significant event next week. B.C. will mark Louis Riel Day on November 16. Louis Riel is an important figure in Métis and, indeed, Canadian history. He was a political leader, a champion of Métis rights and culture and a leader of rebellions. He was hanged by the federal government in 1885 for high treason.
Now, for the Métis and many others, his killing was a grave injustice. Each year they honour the significant place he holds in their hearts and minds. However, Louis Riel Day is not only a day when we remember this important figure. It’s also a day when we acknowledge the importance of the nearly 90,000 Métis people of British Columbia. Recent census figures tell us that the Métis population has grown nearly 30,000 in the last ten years alone, and they make up a great and valuable contribution to the rich cultural fabric of our province.
We are working closely with the Métis leaders on priorities that will make life better for Métis people across the province, and the Métis Nation relationship accord between British Columbia and Métis Nation B.C. outlines our shared commitment to improving health and housing, education and economic opportunities, children and families, justice, wildlife stewardship and information sharing. All of these things I’m sure Louis Riel would, if he was with us today, be very proud of. These are priorities that we all care about.
Next Thursday we’ll be proclaiming November 16, 2017, as Louis Riel Day, and we will fly the Métis flag on the front lawn of these parliament buildings at sunrise. Madam President Clara Morin-Dal Col of the Métis Nation B.C. and representatives of the Métis Nation B.C. executive will join the Deputy Premier to honour the Métis flag and this proclamation.
Now, whether you are able to attend or not, I would ask that members take a moment on November 16 to mark Louis Riel Day and to honour all Métis people, who contribute so much to British Columbia.
DARREN FITZPATRICK AND
OBSERVANCE OF REMEMBRANCE
DAY
S. Bond: As I waited in the departures area of the Prince George airport, something happened that would change the way I look at Remembrance Day forever. As we waited for our flight, a large commercial airliner arrived and parked in front of our departure gate. It was unusual, but the reason for the arrival would become painfully apparent.
We watched as people disembarked and began to gather on the tarmac rather than entering the airport. Before our eyes, the underbelly of the aircraft opened, and the flag-draped casket of a young Canadian soldier emerged. We had become unexpected participants in the ramp ceremony of a 21-year-old soldier who had served with the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. No one said a word, but one by one, my fellow travellers stood up, silently paying our respects to this young hero.
Cpl. Darren Fitzpatrick was on foot patrol with Afghan forces, west of Kandahar city, when he was badly wounded by an improvised explosive device. He was flown home to Canada and died surrounded by his loving parents, Jim and Colleen, and brothers Michael and Sean Fitzpatrick.
Fitzie was the first born-and-raised soldier from Prince George to die in combat since the Second World War. I have come to know the Fitzpatrick family since that fateful day and am inspired by their strength through indescribable grief and loss. Last year Colleen was honoured as the National Silver Cross Mother, in Ottawa. Colleen said: “We’ve been asked so many times if our loved one going overseas…. Was it worth it? Was it in vain? I always say: if you value your freedom, it’s not in vain.”
Thank you to the Fitzpatrick family for reminding me that our freedom comes with a price, a cost that is unimaginable to most of us. As we gather in services of remembrance on November 11, I hope that you will remember Fitzie and thousands of other young people like him who serve on our behalf and pay the ultimate price.
FAMILY PHYSICIANS
M. Elmore: The week of November 6 to 11 is Family Doctor Week in Canada, which recognizes the contribution of family doctors in our health care system. The 5,400 members of the B.C. College of Family Physicians are not only the centre of health care for B.C. patients; many are also teachers of family physicians of the future, through the UBC medical school sites and the family practice residency program, located at four sites across the province.
This year a B.C. member is receiving a national honour, the College of Family Physicians of Canada B.C. Family Physician of the Year award — Dr. Joy Russell. Dr. Joy Russell has been a family physician in Vancouver for 33 years. Since 2014, her practice has been located at the UBC Health Clinic, where she’s also a preceptor, teaching family practice residents, nurse practitioner students and undergraduate medical students.
The college is also very active in advocacy. They issued a B.C. report card listing five health care indicators that they are prioritizing: a family doctor for every British Columbian, addressing mental health and addiction, Indigenous health, rural and remote care, and support for the patients medical home.
They also advocate a poverty tool, a clinical tool for primary care providers. They distribute that throughout to all physicians across British Columbia to identify poverty as a risk factor, and one of their key principles and strategic priorities is to empower family physicians to address the social determinants of health. They are also active with Walk with the Docs 2017. It’s a global movement to make history towards accessible, quality primary care for all, and they’re advancing family medicine globally.
I hope I can ask all of us here to please join me in thanking family physicians and recognizing them. They are such an important part of our primary care in British Columbia.
SAANICH NORTH AND
THE ISLANDS
CONSTITUENCY
A. Olsen: Saanich North and the Islands is home to amazing communities, great schools, abundant food-producing land, the Saanich Inlet and the Salish Sea. We’re home to Swartz Bay, the primary connection between Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland. The award-winning Victoria International Airport connects us to the world beyond, and we have some of the last remaining industrial land in greater Victoria.
The New York Times named the southern Gulf Islands one of their 2016 top 50 places to see. Central Saanich is home to the world-famous Butchart Gardens and Boulders Climbing Gym, a world-class rock climbing facility. In North Saanich, the Panorama won the 2015 Kraft Hockeyville and finished fourth in the 2017 MoneySense Best Places to Live list. The town of Sidney is a jewel seaside village and the commercial heartbeat of our riding.
I’m excited about the future of Saanich North and the Islands. Our limitless intellectual capacity, investors, entrepreneurs and risk-takers have produced a long list of successful change-making enterprises, leaving us well positioned to be leaders in the disruptive and innovative 21st century economy.
The world is rapidly changing. We are rethinking everything from how resources are extracted and refined to how products are manufactured and how they’re sold and purchased. How and where we live, move, work and play are in transition.
Next week I’ll visit a group of manufacturing companies on the Saanich Peninsula. I’m excited to connect with them. Their success is all our success. But we have some work to do. Housing, skilled trades and labour force and transportation provide stiff challenges. In early December, I’m hosting a community dialogue to discuss this further. I hope the community attends.
I look forward to working through this time of change with the business community in my riding, and I look forward to working with every one of you in this House to make this a forward-looking, agile Legislature — visionary, not just leading Saanich North and the Islands but every riding in this great province.
ANNIVERSARY OF Kristallnacht
R. Kahlon: “Early in the morning, we suddenly heard a loud banging on the door, then shouts and boots stomping up the stairs. We didn’t know what was happening, but it was clear — something terrible. We closed the shutters facing the street and sat on my parents’ bed at the end of the corridor. We hugged each other and trembled with fear. Then we heard the noise of furniture being thrown from the top floor to the street and then a terrible shout and a thud. They threw our neighbour, Mr. Ulfelder, out the window, and he was killed.” This is the story of Daniel Heiman. He was describing November 9, 1938.
When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, he immediately began implementing policies to ostracize the Jewish population. By November 9, 1938, he had so stoked hatred against Jews that mobs of Nazis, stoked with hatred, roamed the country, torching hundreds of synagogues, destroying thousands of Jewish homes and businesses. They murdered almost 100 people that day. Streets of Jewish communities were left littered with broken glass from vandalized buildings, giving rise to the name “night of broken glass,” or Kristallnacht.
These words are from another survivor, Ervin Staub: “What I will remember is not the perpetrators but the bystanders. Bystanders can exert powerful influence. They can define the meaning of events and move others toward empathy and action, or in their passivity, they can affirm the perpetrators.”
As we mark this day, we note seeming increasing intolerance and hatred in our society. May we all commit today to taking action against it and ensuring that we are not passive bystanders in this world.
Oral Questions
SITE C POWER PROJECT AND
ELECTRICITY
RATES
T. Redies: Yesterday this government rushed out an announcement just before question period, a question period where they knew they would face questions about a $4 billion write-off of Site C and a completely unnecessary 10 percent shock in B.C. Hydro rates. This government was caught in yet another broken promise, a 10 percent rate shock instead of a freeze.
They didn’t want to admit to this broken promise, and perhaps they realized that the public had lost patience for their endless reviews. So they pretended they’d done something that they hadn’t and issued a misleading news release.
Will the minister confirm it was the Premier or his office which ordered the misleading news release to cover up a 10 percent rate shock if they terminate Site C?
Hon. J. Horgan: It’s hard to keep track of the line of questioning. Some days they say we’re not keeping our promises, and then when we do keep our promises, they complain about that.
Over the past 16 years, hydro rates have gone up and up and up as the B.C. Liberals used B.C. Hydro to fund their budgets and used B.C. Hydro to build projects that inevitably would go over budget. For the member to now say that by keeping our commitment to freeze hydro rates, we’re somehow misleading anybody is completely wrong.
We made a commitment during the election campaign to do a review of B.C. Hydro after 16 years of mismanagement. We made the commitment to freeze the rates. We’ve asked Hydro to do that. We’re doing exactly what we said during the campaign. Again, I don’t know whether they want us to push forward or step back. We’re going to push forward.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Redies: It appears that the Premier doesn’t understand the process for how rates are established with B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro has to make a rate application through to BCUC. The minister’s testimony this week made it very clear that writing off $4 billion would result in a 10 percent rate shock to British Columbian ratepayers.
The $150 million announcement yesterday associated with the rate freeze is incorrect because it’s not guaranteed. This is creating confusion for British Columbians. Should the government choose to terminate Site C, the $4 billion write-off would create an immediate liability that has to be amortized and expensed.
Can the minister explain how the Utilities Commission could possibly approve a zero percent rate increase in light of the fact that B.C. Hydro could be facing a revenue shortfall of $400 million?
Hon. J. Horgan: Before the 2013 election, the B.C. Liberals intervened in the rate hearing at the Utilities Commission and said rates would not go up. “We’re going to shut this down. There will be no rate increases.” Then, after they were re-elected, rates went up 28 percent.
If the member on the other side, who, if I’m not mistaken, was a member of the B.C. Hydro board from 2014 to 2016…. If she doesn’t understand how the process works, perhaps she could take some advice from the Leader of the Opposition, who intervened in a rate hearing and then jacked the prices up 28 percent for ratepayers.
We ran on a campaign to freeze hydro rates. That’s exactly what we’re doing.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member, the question will go to the member standing.
The member for Surrey–White Rock.
T. Redies: It’s very interesting to me that this government, which has spoken out longly about the importance of the independence of the BCUC, is now dictating a rate freeze without getting proper approval. The government can try and deflect, and they can try to blame others and past history, but it is this government that is contemplating a completely unnecessary $4 billion write-off and a 10 percent rate shock.
The Minister of Energy confirmed that Site C was on time and on budget as of June 30, 2017. She confirmed that B.C. Hydro was actually performing above budget expectations. Within four months, this government has completely bungled this file.
My question is for the minister. Will she come clean with British Columbians on how much they will have to pay, as ratepayers, to pay for this government’s mismanagement?
Hon. J. Horgan: Normally, I would say “for the member’s information” because she wasn’t a member of this House. But as a member of the B.C. Hydro board, she oversaw the approval of a project, which did not go to the Utilities Commission, that could put us billions and billions of dollars behind, on her watch. So if there’s any blame to be apportioned, it’s right over there.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. J. Horgan: The B.C. Liberals exempted the smart meter program, a $1 billion expenditure, because it was convenient to do so. The B.C. Liberals exempted the northwest transmission line — it went $400 million over budget — because it was easy to do so.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: In 2005, we had deferred debt accounts at B.C. Hydro to the tune of $182 million — $182 million, with an “M.” In 2011, that number had risen to $2.2 billion. While that member was on the audit committee of B.C. Hydro, it went to $5.7 billion. I will take no advice from a person on the other side who increased debt by that much.
S. Cadieux: Is the Premier really calling into question the accuracy of the statements made by his minister yesterday, when she confirmed that, in fact, the B.C. Hydro Site C project was on time and on budget as of June 30? Or is he saying that she misled the House? Or is he misleading the House with his statements today?
The government needs to come clean to British Columbians. The facts simply don’t match their claims. They are contemplating a $4 billion write-off that would mean a 10 percent rate shock for B.C. Hydro customers. Nowhere in the news release does the government acknowledge that the decisions on setting rates are entirely up to the independent BCUC. Instead they have prejudged the outcome. Despite all their rhetoric, once again, it’s “say one thing; do another,” with this NDP government.
To the Premier, why did he issue a news release that prejudges the independent B.C. Utilities Commission? Will he retract it and apologize?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. She will know, as she’s been a member of this place for some time, that B.C. Hydro was increasing rates year after year, after the previous government ran on a campaign to make sure that didn’t happen.
We ran on a campaign to make life more affordable for British Columbians, and that’s exactly why we’re doing it. That’s why we removed tolls, the only tolls in British Columbia, on the Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges. That’s why we’re cutting MSP premiums in half. That’s why we’ve made sure the people that needed a raise in British Columbia, the lowest-paid workers, got an increase in the minimum wage.
We’re focused on people. You’re focused on headlines. Good luck with that.
Mr. Speaker: The Member for Surrey South on a supplemental.
S. Cadieux: I think the headline that the Premier is looking for is: “Hypocrisy Starts with a Capital H.” The government is choosing to double down on their defence of something that’s clearly wrong. Even the Third Party leader knows this is wrong.
The news release is misleading, and they’re disrespecting the independence of the Utilities Commission. They’re saying one thing and doing another. When asked what would happen if the B.C. Utilities Commission turns them down — the members and the Premier may want to listen to this — the minister said and could only say: “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.” Now, “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” isn’t a plan. It’s a symptom of this government’s complete bungling of the B.C. Hydro file.
To the Premier, will he retract the misleading news release about a rate freeze and issue a formal correction?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall…. Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I know there are bridges we’re going to be crossing without tolls in the Lower Mainland. That’s what people here care about.
Now, I appreciate the members on the other side had 16 years to drive B.C. Hydro in the ditch, and we’ve only had 16 weeks to try and pull it out. Our commitment is to make…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: …sure the people who pay the bills in British Columbia get a break for a change. They were used as a cash cow, an instant teller machine by the B.C. Liberals. Our commitment is to the people of B.C., making life more affordable.
For the member for Surrey–White Rock, of all people, to point fingers after she saw a $3 billion increase in deferred debt is hypocrisy in the highest order.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
GOVERNMENT ENERGY POLICY
A. Olsen: This week in the House, British Columbia’s energy policy has been canvassed in great detail. In doing so, we’ve spoken a lot about the legacy of the B.C. Liberals, a government that let industry set the energy agenda for B.C. Those companies determined how many wells, pipelines, roads and water dams were needed and where they’d go.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please. We shall hear the question.
A. Olsen: Even Site C is a clear industry connection. For the Liberals, it was all about politics. The problem is we’re now seeing the same approach to energy policy from the new government.
This week questions were dodged or avoided altogether. A B.C. Hydro rate freeze was announced with short-term political gain in mind, not responsible energy policy. This approach will simply saddle us and our children with additional costs. No different than the last government. The NDP government claims at every turn that they’re different than the B.C. Liberals, yet we’re just seeing more of the same.
My question is to the Premier. According to Moody’s, B.C. Hydro’s financial position is among the weakest of any Canadian utility. Now, how is freezing hydro rates doing anything different than continuing the B.C. Liberal legacy of putting politics before good public policy?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I do agree with him that the disastrous record of the people on the other side of the House deserves attention.
I also know that by working cooperatively with the Green caucus, a fully recognized political entity in this Legislature, we can come up with better policy for the people of British Columbia. We ran on a platform to freeze hydro rates while we did a thorough review. I expect B.C. Hydro to find those savings, not at a cost to taxpayers, not at a cost to ratepayers. We are going to get the job done. I welcome the member’s participation in that work.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Member, please be seated until you can hear yourself speak.
The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: We are rapidly approaching a crossroads. We can continue to follow the B.C. Liberals’ path of fiscal mismanagement, or this government can be better by developing our energy policy in a way that is fiscally sound, environmentally sustainable and respectful of First Nations.
The opportunity in front of us is a generational one. This government has an unparalleled chance to set the course for 21st century energy policy in this province. Failing to take advantage of this moment will see this government’s legacy become just another chapter in the sad legacy of the B.C. Liberal energy policy.
My question is for the Premier. In order to rise to this opportunity, we have to do more than say the right words. We need to take clear, bold action that takes us into the 21st century. Mr. Premier, are you prepared to do that?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the question has been directed towards the Premier.
Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you for the question from the member for Saanich North and the Islands.
I think that it’s interesting to watch the response from the B.C. Liberals when you have a former board member at B.C. Hydro who knew full well they were proceeding down the wrong track on Site C, a board member who knew that the deferred debt was going up by $3 billion.
For them to heckle a legitimate question about a generational opportunity not just in energy policy but in the decorum of this place, where legislators from across British Columbia can come to one location and build a better British Columbia…. It’s questions that want to inspire people that are appreciated in this place, not the crap that comes from the other side.
In anticipation, I withdraw that last comment. However, the challenges that the member from Saanich North has laid down for this government and for this Legislature are real challenges. I think all members of British Columbia want us to act responsibly as we go forward.
Hon. Member, we are where we are, we found what we found, and it was a big, stinking pile. We’re going to do the best we can to fix it.
Mr. Speaker: Premier, if I may ask you again to withdraw that comment.
Hon. J. Horgan: I unreservedly withdraw the comment.
CONFIDENCE AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT
SECRETARIAT AND
ELECTRICITY RATES
S. Bond: Well, I am incredibly surprised that the leader of the Green Party didn’t leap to his feet today to continue his animated and very passionate line of questions about the B.C. Hydro rate freeze news release. Yesterday, in his questions to the Energy Minister, we got a little more insight into the confidence and supply agreement, so let’s do a little refresher.
This government is billing taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars every year for a political secretariat to manage the NDP-Green coalition relationship, but we know this relationship counselling office isn’t, apparently, working. The confidence and supply agreement is supposed to be “founded on the principle of good faith and no surprises.” Well, the leader of the Green Party wasn’t the only one surprised yesterday. Imagine our surprise when we learned that the press release touting a hydro freeze was apparently completely contrary to discussions held at the $1 million secretariat.
Let’s look at what the Green Party leader had to say yesterday, referring to a hydro freeze: “The only message we took from our no-surprises, good-faith confidence and supply agreement discussions about this issue.... This is a surprise — that we are not actually freezing hydro rates.”
Can the Premier tell us when this item was on the agenda and exactly how the conversation in the secretariat was different from what the government announced yesterday?
Hon. J. Horgan: As the member would have known if she’d paid attention, we ran on a campaign of freezing hydro rates. That’s exactly what we’re doing.
S. Bond: I can assure you that this member does pay attention. What I heard from the members opposite, non-stop, was the fact that going to the BCUC before announcing a project is a pretty important principle. What happened yesterday?
Let’s look at what the NDP’s coalition partner has done. He’s been alternatively shocked, outraged or disappointed by the government’s failings on everything from ride-sharing to affordable housing, tolls, NDP fundraising, and so the pattern goes.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question, please.
S. Bond: Yesterday the leader of the Green Party said the government had broken their promise of the no-surprise, good-faith confidence and supply agreement. On his blog, he wrote: “So imagine our collective surprise during budget estimates debate for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources when we found out that in fact this isn’t yet confirmed.”
My question to the Premier is this: exactly what discussion took place at the $1 million secretariat? What led his government to break the no-surprises, good-faith principle and send out a press release about a hydro rate freeze that hasn’t even been approved by the BCUC and that was a complete surprise to his coalition partner?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, we campaigned to freeze hydro rates. B.C. Hydro is asking the Utilities Commission just that. We’re fulfilling our commitments to the people of British Columbia. I know that’s anathema to the people on the other side. They don’t understand that concept. But we’re doing exactly what we said we would do.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may get to the next question.
STEELHEAD PROTECTION
IN FRASER-NICOLA
AREA
J. Tegart: The Thompson and Chilcotin steelhead run is threatened and perilously close to extinction. Steelhead returning this year may not exceed 240 fish. This is truly alarming when 30 years ago there were 10,000.
I know the Minister of Forests is aware of the concerns of the B.C. Liberal steelhead caucus because we wrote to the minister and his colleagues over a week ago. I’m talking about fish today, and I’m hoping that the minister will answer in a way that talks about what we need to do today.
My question to the minister is: what immediate actions will this government take to protect the steelhead so it does not face total extinction during our time in this House?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question on steelhead from the member. We have fairly healthy steelhead runs in my part of the province. I appreciate the importance of steelhead, not from a biodiversity aspect for the ecosystem health but from an economic aspect as well. In my area of the province, the steelhead fishery generates a significant amount of money for local people in local areas — money that’s recycled within the communities.
As far as the steelhead runs the member mentions, they are perilously low in numbers, just an unbelievable lack of fish returning to the river systems in her part of the province. We have worked with Fisheries and Oceans, which has ultimate responsibility for the fishery on the Fraser that impacts the steelhead. We are emphasizing conservation. Fisheries and Oceans has taken our concerns into account in the way they’ve managed the fishery this season on the Fraser.
HARVESTING OF TIMBER IN
AREAS IMPACTED BY
WILDFIRES
C. Oakes: Families in the Cariboo are worried. Thousands of families rely on the forest sector to feed, clothe and house their loved ones. After this devastating wildfire season, these families know all too well that the fires ripped through and destroyed the fibre needed to keep industry running. They also know that the hope for Christmas paycheques relies on access to this fire-damaged wood.
The burnt fibre has a limited shelf life. We got messages, during estimates, contrary to what we saw yesterday released in press releases. After the leadership of the MLAs on this side of the House, the government conceded that 21 permits have been issued for salvage.
For the families in the Cariboo, can the minister confirm that these permits were indeed for standing fire-damaged timber to support keeping industry operational and not — I repeat not — part of permits required for fencing, roads, fireguard, cleanup or other permits? And can the minister tell us what that volume of released permits is?
Hon. D. Donaldson: This government is investing in our forestry sector and protecting jobs here in B.C., unlike what members on that side did when they were in government, when 30,000 jobs were lost in the forest sector.
It’s very surprising to me, the line of questioning from MLAs in the area impacted and the former Minister of Forests this week. I’m surprised because it seems to me the theme is calling into question the hard work and dedication of staff in the areas affected to get the permits out.
I visited those areas frequently this summer. I witnessed the staff working hard. It’s the same staff now in those areas who are working on salvage permits, working on this topic. In many cases, they were working on the wildfire situations, evacuated from their own communities. They went straight from that into working hard on this topic as well. I just want to recognize their outstanding efforts.
The logging of burnt timber under pre-existing permits is underway, and that dedicated staff is working hard on the approval of additional cutting permits for salvage logging. The member is right. Due to their hard work, they’ve already had 21 permits approved, and more are in process. To date, well over one million cubic metres' worth of new cutting permits have been issued.
KINDER MORGAN PIPELINE PROPOSAL
AND RESOURCE SECTOR
JOBS
M. Polak: Day after day in this House, we find ourselves longing for a government minister, any government minister, who would defend resource sector jobs in this province. Finally, a hero has arisen, a champion, someone who is going to fight for British Columbia jobs in the resource sector. It’s Rachel Notley, the NDP Premier from Alberta.
She says: “I’m a mouthpiece for the tens of thousands of British Columbians who also lost their jobs when the price of oil went down.” She goes on to say: “What I’m a mouthpiece for is the view that we need to always be focused on ensuring that working people have jobs to go to in the morning so they can bring paycheques home in the evening.”
While we have the Premier of Alberta defending resource sector jobs, we have a government in British Columbia in court fighting the Trans Mountain pipeline that could bring thousands of jobs for British Columbians here in this province.
When will the government do its job, defend British Columbia jobs instead of fighting in court to take those paycheques away?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her impassioned comments about this side of the House standing up and defending jobs right now in the Lower Mainland, right now that affect our marine environment. I’m sure the member will know…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: …one of the first things I did when I was sworn in as Premier is I went to Washington to defend forest workers by standing up for the softwood lumber agreement. I just came back from the north coast, where I visited the AltaGas site, where 600 people are working right now, developing resource industry jobs.
I appreciate that we’ve only had 16 weeks to get things moving in the right direction, making sure all British Columbians benefit from the bounty and splendour of this great province. But after 16 years of focusing on the people at the top, the people that wrote the cheques, which they can’t write anymore.... Thank goodness for that. After 16 years of all that, there’s a new government in town. There’s a new government focused on the interests of British Columbians, making sure people benefit from the bounty of this great province.
[End of question period.]
Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)
T. Redies: I rise on a point of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: So moved.
Petitions
S. Furstenau: I rise to present a petition to the House. Last week I met with Shawnigan RCMP, three Cowichan Valley regional directors and representatives from South Cowichan Community Policing, who presented me with a petition signed by nearly 1,000 residents. They’re advocating for the Shawnigan RCMP detachment to stay in the South Cowichan region. There was agreement from federal, provincial and local government to keep the RCMP detachment in South Cowichan.
J. Tegart: I rise today to present a petition from South Green Lake volunteer fire department, signed by over 175 residents — doesn’t seem like much, but it’s everyone who lives there — asking government to work with them to institute a forest fire hazard prevention program within Green Lake Park B.C. boundaries.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call debate on Bill 8. In Committee A, I call estimates for debate of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2017
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:02 a.m.
Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to recognize the two staff members who are here with me today — Renee Mulligan, legal counsel, justice services branch; and Julie Williams, legal counsel, justice services branch — to assist me in providing members with the information they need about this proposed legislation.
Before I begin, I’d just like to take a moment to thank all the members for their comments and interventions on this legislation in second reading.
The main goal of this bill is to introduce a new two-year prohibition on lobbying for all former public office holders, which runs from the date the individual ceases to hold public office. It adds a new registration requirement for lobbyists who are lobbying a person on behalf of the staff of a minister or MLA in order to influence the minister or MLA. In this situation currently, the act only requires that a lobbyist disclose the name of the minister or MLA on their return. With this bill, lobbyists will be required by law to disclose both the name of the staff person and the name of the minister or MLA on their return.
Now, as I’ve had the opportunity to say before, this is just the first step in a longer process of review and reform of the lobbying regime in British Columbia. What we want to do is end the revolving door between government and lobbyists.
To assist members in understanding the context of our committee stage here, I wanted to let them know that this is just the beginning. We’ll be doing a comprehensive review of the Lobbyists Registration Act, including the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists’ mandate, to ensure that our democratic institutions and the interests of British Columbians are adequately protected from the influence of special interests.
We’re going to start that in early 2018. We expect further amendments, through a more detailed bill, to be introduced by the fall of 2018, which will include…. You’ve heard the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists call for, and this bill will include, a mandatory five-year review of the act as well as a 30-day reporting requirement for all lobbyists.
I hope that that context helps members direct their questions during the committee stage.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
L. Throness: I have a number of questions for the minister. I’d like to preface my questions with a couple of remarks.
As the minister knows very well, former staff of cabinet ministers are directly affected by this legislation. They were caught unaware by it. The election took place on May 9. The government was not formed until July 18. The bill was introduced on October 2. That was a five-month period. There were about 120 who were let go from the Legislature. Some staff, not being independently wealthy and needing to work, found jobs in the industry which is the subject of our bill today, and they’re working right now in it.
I want to question the minister, in terms of legal questions and in terms of fairness as well. The employment which is legal today may be illegal tomorrow. So my first question for the minister is: was this legislation flagged green, yellow or red, in terms of the Charter or other legal risk, by legal advisers?
Hon. D. Eby: For the member’s information, staff do not flag legislation with any type of flag like that. That’s for regulations. Even if they did, that would be solicitor-client advice, anyway.
L. Throness: Could the minister comment on the possibility of a legal challenge and how he would approach a challenge?
Hon. D. Eby: I think the member is asking if we’re introducing legislation that we either know or reasonably anticipate is in some way illegal or unconstitutional. The answer to that, obviously, is no. As Attorney General, I have a responsibility to ensure that legislation that’s introduced, especially legislation in my name, complies with the laws of Canada, the constitution and the rule of law in the province and the country. I can assure the member that the legislation that is being tabled here is no exception to that principle.
L. Throness: Certainly, the minister knows that…. Employees may have known in broad terms that legislation was coming, but they had no idea of its contents or its timing.
If the minister won’t comment on how he will approach a legal challenge, will he admit that this legislation is grossly unfair to former staffers? I do think that the minister ought to care about former employees of this place, of whatever political stripe they are.
Hon. D. Eby: I understand the concern that the member is raising. There are a few points that I can review in response to his concern with respect to the fairness issue that he raises. I do want to underline, though, in terms of the context of his question, that it’s not that I’m not commenting on the litigation risk. People might sue the government on any piece of legislation.
What I can advise the member is that the proposed legislation that we’re putting forward here, we believe, is constitutional, is legal. People might still sue the government, but they won’t be successful. It’s not designed to be in that way. It’s just that we put forward lawful legislation for this House to consider. So I’m glad to comment on that. I mean, if he doesn’t accept that, then that’s fine, but I feel that I’m commenting on his question.
With respect to what has been incorporated in the bill to try to address the fairness issue. First of all, the prohibition on lobbying is not a prohibition on employment across the board for individuals. It’s a very specific type of prohibition on a very specific type of activity. Former public officers can still find other employment in many different areas.
It’s a very specific restriction to a very specific activity, and it only applies to former public officers who become paid lobbyists. It restricts their ability to be paid to communicate the concerns of others to government, and it’s time-limited. It’s only a period of two years post-employment. That doesn’t restrict a person from interacting with government, generally, in order to express views or restrict their freedom of expression at all.
The intent behind the bill is really directed at levelling the playing field for a lobbyist. There might be a lobbyist coming from government with information that they obtained through their role in a minister’s office, and they are competing in the industry with people who don’t have that inside knowledge. So that’s one piece.
It also reassures the public that people aren’t using the information they gained through employment to benefit certain interests that can afford to pay them for access to that inside knowledge of how things work within government. It’s really intended to prevent doubts or suspicions rising on the part of the public.
Currently, as far as we know, there are only two former public office holders in the registry who will be caught by the prohibition once the amendments come into force, which we anticipate to be in the spring. It doesn’t mean there aren’t other people out there who might contemplate going into this kind of work — we don’t know — or maybe who haven’t self-disclosed on the registry, as they are required to do, that they’re former public office holders. But I can tell the member that there are only two that we know of.
The bill was introduced October 2, 2017. It’s not going to come into force for five months. It goes through the full process of first reading, second reading, committee stage, like all bills do. So there will be a significant amount of time, before the prohibition is brought into force, for a person who’s engaging in this activity to address the new legislation and ensure they’re compliant with it.
The final note. There might be a particular circumstance where, in the public interest, the registrar deems it appropriate to allow somebody, despite the prohibitions in the bill, to move from government to lobbying within that two-year window. In the bill, there’s a proposal, if it passes, that will give the registrar the discretion to exempt individuals from prohibition if the registrar is satisfied it’s in the public interest. We chose the public interest as the test because that’s what we believe the test should be for engaging in this kind of activity: is it in the public interest that it take place?
L. Throness: Let’s talk about intent for a moment. We agree about future employees. The problem is about past employees who have been surprised by this legislation. I’m not sure that the number of people is relevant. Those people matter. Given that any former government employees who received jobs in the industry in the past five months would not be lobbying a friendly government and therefore the prospect of undue influence would not exist, why would the government think it necessary to capture them in this bill?
Hon. D. Eby: I don’t agree with the member’s premise. I think that the member understands how government works. He was here when his party was in government and understands the vital and important role of public servants in discharging the duties of government and the knowledge that people obtain through those roles.
The goal, the intent, of the legislation is not to single people out for some kind of punishment. The intent of the legislation is to protect the public interest. They have access to this public information. They have access to this inside information. And they should not be permitted to sell that information when they leave the public service in terms of leaving a minister’s office, leaving the board chair of a Crown corporation and then going into the private sector. They shouldn’t be able to sell that information.
It seems totally appropriate to us that there be this prohibition. I understand the member is questioning it. I don’t know how he’ll vote on it. But in any event, he’s questioning the need for the two-year prohibition. It could have been much longer, but the intent wasn’t to punish people; it was to recognize that probably within two years that knowledge is sufficiently dated that the person could then engage in lobbying quite easily.
It could have been shorter, but our concern was that if you get shorter than two years, you still have that concern about the relevance and the currency of the information that that person has access to.
We tried to strike a balance with this legislation, but the intent of it is clear. It’s to restrict and prohibit this type of activity. Yes, it will prevent people from engaging in that kind of activity. Certainly, there are lots of opportunities for former public servants, with the skills that they develop in government, to serve in any number of public or private sector entities. But this very specific activity of selling for money, representing private individuals to government, is being restricted for a period of two years.
L. Throness: Does the minister think that it would be in the public interest that people who are caught in this situation would receive an exemption under section 2.3 of this bill? I would point out that the minister, if he were to express an opinion, would not be prejudging any individual case or interfering with the work of the lobbyists registrar, but it might help to inform his opinion.
Hon. D. Eby: It’s my understanding that the registrar will be preparing a policy to guide the registrar’s decisions around what the public interest is in relation to this exception and how the registrar will be exercising this discretion. I don’t wish to restrict or direct the registrar in determining that. I think it’s up to the registrar to determine that — the guidelines and the characteristics.
If we had wanted to direct the registrar in that way, we would have put, in the legislation, specific directions and guidelines, and so on. We felt that the public would have more confidence in a process where the registrar is the one who determines the application of the public-interest test to a request from any particular person who is lobbying or who wishes to lobby and who is caught by the prohibition and wants to be exempted under the public-interest exemption.
L. Throness: I’d like to move on to a different subject. This is a more technical question now. Section 8 of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act relates to lobbying by former executive council members and parliamentary secretaries. I’m not sure if it does or not, and I would like to have the minister’s opinion, if there’s any overlap between that bill and this one — section 8.
The Chair: Member, we are still on section 2.
L. Throness: I’m still on section 2, Chair.
The Chair: Okay.
Hon. D. Eby: The short answer for the member is that both acts have a two-year cooling-off period. The Lobbyists Registration Act prohibition is a broader group of people, which includes within it ministers, former ministers and former parliamentary secretaries. The Members’ Conflict of Interest Act speaks strictly about former cabinet ministers and former parliamentary secretaries.
The Lobbyists Registration Act, similarly, has a broader definition of lobbying and of activities than the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act — which, in addition to having a more restricted group of cabinet ministers and former parliamentary secretaries, also has a more restricted group of prohibited activities, specifically from accepting or trying to influence government about awarding a contract or a financial benefit. So no taking government contracts and no trying to influence government about awarding contracts.
It’s important to note that under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has no authority to enforce compliance with that prohibition, but the Lobbyists Registration Act does provide, under the proposed amendments going forward, the ability for the registrar to enforce compliance.
L. Throness: If a former public office holder — that is, a member covered by the conflict-of-interest act — lobbies and is charged under the Lobbyists Registration Act, could that person appeal to the conflict-of-interest act as a defence, given that it is narrower in scope?
Hon. D. Eby: It’s not our understanding that you could use the narrower scope of one act as a defence against the more broad application of another act. You could potentially have a situation where a complaint is filed under both regimes, with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and with the registrar of lobbyists. And those processes would run in parallel, the key difference being that post employment, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner does not have enforcement powers; but post employment, the lobbyists registrar does.
A concerned member of the public might file complaints with both. There would be separate processes under separate rules and separate procedures. Under one, with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, even if there was a finding of conflict, there would be no direct consequence. There might be political consequence, but there wouldn’t be direct consequence. Under the other, the proposal that we’re putting forward here in this bill, the registrar for lobbyists actually would have enforcement powers to restrict that kind of activity.
L. Throness: I would simply point out to the minister that there is a potential for great legal confusion there in the future, and I’m sure the courts will sort that out.
I’d like to move on to subsection (c) now. According to the Public Service Agency’s human resources policy No. 13, which is entitled “Post-Employment Restrictions for Senior Management in the B.C. Public Service” — it’s dated April 12, 2016 — senior managers, once they leave the public service, are banned from lobbying for one year, not two years, and that one-year ban can be reduced by the head of the Public Service Agency, given special circumstances.
I assume that this legislation will trump the public service policy, and the public service policy will be changed. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct on both of his assumptions, yes.
L. Throness: Did the government consult with the head of the Public Service Agency, Lori Halls, in the crafting of this legislation?
Hon. D. Eby: Yes, we did.
L. Throness: Are any union staff captured within this bill?
Hon. D. Eby: Apologies for the delay in response. We were just trying to think through whether there might be a specific example.
The bill is not written with the intention of capturing either union or non-union employees. It is certainly possible that staff in a minister’s office could become part of a union, for example, and they would still be captured by the act. It’s not a consideration in the bill.
I can say to the member’s question that for the categories of employees who are generally described, the intention is to capture the political staff — and they tend not to be unionized — or the chair of a board or a senior decision-maker in a Crown corporation.
I take the member’s point, in terms of the question — that it tends to be that this bill captures employees who are not part of a union. But it isn’t a requirement. If in future, for example, ministerial staff did unionize, they would still be captured by the bill. It’s not a factor for the bill’s consideration.
L. Throness: I’m simply wondering if the minister or the government consulted with public service unions about this change.
Hon. D. Eby: No, I don’t believe that we did.
L. Throness: I’m wondering if the government has consulted with the lobbyists registrar concerning the contradiction between the public service policy of one year and this legislation with the two-year prohibition. If so, what did the registrar say?
Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that we did consult with the registrar, not on that specific point.
I can also advise that the prohibition that was in the public service requirements was there because there was no other prohibition anywhere else, so it’s intended to create restriction in the absence of another policy. This will overtake that, and the member is correct that the public service agreements will be updated to reflect the bill, should it pass.
L. Throness: What problem is the government trying to fix by adding another year onto the ban for lobbying for senior executives? For example, has there been a problem identified among senior executives lobbying earlier than 24 months after leaving the public service?
Hon. D. Eby: There is a five-year prohibition for individuals at the federal level. There are other jurisdictions that have similar prohibitions which are shorter: Saskatchewan, a one-year prohibition for cabinet ministers and six months for other positions; Quebec, two years for former public officers and their executive staff; Newfoundland and Labrador, 12 months for cabinet ministers and members of executive staff.
The two-year proposal is the same as Quebec and a little bit longer than Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. It is significantly less than the federal prohibition, which is five years. I say that by way of just helping the member understand where we fall within the national framework around the attempts to regulate this kind of activity.
Here in British Columbia, we have the two-year prohibition under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. I agree with the member to the extent that there’s no magic that happens at one year and 364 days that changes at two years and one day between what the member knew or what the public’s impression is of what they knew. In that sense, I take his point.
The two-year prohibition brings this bill in line with the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. It is in line with other jurisdictions. It is reflective of the public concern around the activities of lobbyists and how they are regulated. And it gives the registrar powers that we believe should be there to enforce this.
Ultimately, we believe that two years is the appropriate solution for B.C. to reflect public concern but also to provide people with the opportunity to return to this kind of work once their knowledge has passed the point of freshness. That’s a legal term.
L. Throness: I would just like to point out that the minister is not making an evidence-based decision here, because he has presented no evidence on which he based the decision. Instead, he’s sort of playing a provincial game of keeping up with the Joneses. It’s a political decision. We just need to be really clear about that.
I want to move on to sub-subsection 2(c)(iii) and ask a few questions about that. I’m just wondering what sort of thing is being contemplated here. For example, could the minister give an example of any position that has been added by cabinet in the past?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m glad the member raised this issue, because this a significant improvement over the existing legislation.
Currently it’s very difficult for people to understand, if they’re part of external government, whether they’re captured or not by lobbyist prohibitions because the way the act works is that if you’re a part of the government reporting entity which is under the Budget Transparency Act, then you are caught by the rules around reporting your lobbying activity. There is not a definitive list anywhere, though, where someone can go and find out whether they’re part of the government reporting entity.
The intention of this section is to provide the ability for government in council to have a definitive list for people so that they can govern themselves accordingly. If your organization isn’t on the list, then you know that you’re not captured by the act. But if it is, then you know that you are. It’s something that we’re hoping will assist people in governing their conduct accordingly.
I can give the member a couple of examples of organizations where it might not be immediately intuitive to people that they’re captured by this. For example, they might join the board of a local college, like Douglas College, they might be part of an organization like the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. or they might be part of the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council, and they’re currently captured under the act, but they might not realize it.
We think that by providing a list under this section in the regulations so that people can find it, so the registrar can point to it, and that will assist with general compliance with the act. So I appreciate that the member raised that.
L. Throness: I can see, Chair, that there might be some benefit to that.
Just one more question on this part. I would point out that this section would give cabinet the power to name regular MLAs as former public office holders who are not captured right now under the law — who are not cabinet ministers, who are not parliamentary secretaries — without going through the statutory process that we are conducting right now. Does the minister think it would be appropriate for cabinet to add an MLA in using this section?
Hon. D. Eby: It took us a second to work through that, because it’s certainly not the intent of section (c)(iii). The intent is to capture what’s happening under the current act, under the government reporting entity and create the ability to have a list that’s easily accessible for people to understand whether or not they’re captured.
This, in conversation…. We think that, technically, you might actually be able to add MLAs through that as a group of people within an entity. It would be a bit of a stretch of the powers, for sure. I’m sure that there would be some interesting debate in the Legislature about that.
I think that, technically, the member is right. It’s certainly not the intent of this section. The intent of the section is to maintain the government reporting entity prohibition and to make it easier to understand. I also note that it’s a prescribed position in a provincial entity. So you couldn’t, for example, provide a list of names in the regulation of John Smith and so on, that are former MLAs, for example, who are now prohibited from lobbying. It has to be a prescribed position in a provincial entity. So you’d have to say, “Member of the Legislative Assembly within the prescribed entity,” I guess, “of the Legislative Assembly of B.C.”
If the member is interested in including MLAs, you could certainly make a proposal around an amendment. The appropriate section would probably not be to do it through regulation but to do it through the sections that relate to defining a former public office holder under section (a) more likely or a separate subsection as opposed to trying to do it through a regulatory change like that.
L. Throness: I want to move on now to just ask a few general questions about this section. The minister said publicly that he was patterning this bill after the federal Conflict of Interest Act, which includes the transition team of the Prime Minister.
I want to read section 2(3) of that act — the Lobbying Act federally: “(3) Any person identified by the Prime Minister as having had the task of providing support and advice to him or her during the transition period leading up to the swearing in of the Prime Minister and his or her ministry is subject to this Act….”
This bill before us does not include the transition team. Why did the government omit the transition team from this bill?
Hon. D. Eby: The individuals that the member is asking about were hired as contractors to provide short-term advice. There were many people hired by government as contractors to provide short-term advice to government. There were many people under the previous administration. There are and will be many people under the current administration hired in those kinds of roles.
Essentially, this was a line-in-the-sand drawing exercise about who do you include and who do you not include. MLAs, for example, which the member just asked about — backbench MLAs and opposition MLAs are not included, and third-party MLAs. Similarly, people who were on short-term contract on the transition team are not included, either in the current government’s administration or in the transition that took place following the 2017 election on the opposition side of the House.
The decision was made not to include these various groups of people simply because of the fact that these are short-term contracts, not the long-term relationship-building process of working in a ministry office. Any individual who took on these kinds of jobs after transition, obviously, would be caught, and I can advise the member that we’re not aware of anybody that is a registered lobbyist that took on one of these responsibilities.
L. Throness: Well, the minister’s stated intent of the bill is to target those with insider information who want to, as he said, sell that information. So I want to ask a few more questions about the members of the transition team to find out about their access to that kind of insider information. Did transition team members take an oath or affirmation of office or of secrecy or of confidentiality when they signed their contracts?
Hon. D. Eby: I don’t know the answer to that question that the member has raised, and to be totally honest, I don’t understand what it has to do with the bill.
L. Throness: What kind of powers did the transition team have? Did they have direct or indirect contact with potential ministers, deputy ministers, other senior public servants and appointees? I think this is important, because we’re trying to find out about categories of people who have insider information, which is what this bill is all about. So we’re just trying to establish whether this could be another category.
Hon. D. Eby: I’ll try to be as helpful to the member as I can. I’m afraid that I did not bring a bunch of details about the government’s transition team, as I just didn’t anticipate that this was particularly germane to the text of the bill.
In any event, as far as I understand, the transition team was on short-term contracts, which were complete, in many cases, before ministers were appointed. Some people went on to work in ministers’ offices. Those people would be captured by the bill. So trying to be helpful, but again, I’m not sure how it relates to the bill.
L. Throness: I would point out to the minister that if the transition team were to be included, it would include former and future B.C. Liberal transition team members as well as NDP ones. Probably the transition team would have access to what kind of legislation might come forward; budgetary decisions, the timing and content of those; input into the Premier’s staff; possible appointments to major Crown corporations and so on. So I do think that they would have access, and premium access, to insider information.
Now I want to go on to talk about the confidence and supply agreement. Under that agreement, regular meetings, it says, will be established between the Premier and the B.C. Green Party leader — consultations on major policy issues, budget parameters, access to key documents and officials. I would suggest to the minister that that kind of access is equivalent, at least, to the access that a parliamentary secretary would enjoy, and in some cases, far more.
I would ask the minister: why were members of the Green Party, and their employees who are signatories to the confidence and supply agreement, not included in this legislation?
Hon. D. Eby: I know that many members of the opposition have already taken advantage of briefings with staff. Members of the opposition should take advantage of that. I know that the members of the Third Party, as well, both through confidence and supply and also through requests for briefings and so on, also take advantage of that. There certainly was a discussion — do we include MLAs who are either government backbench MLAs or that are opposition MLAs, Third Party MLAs? — and the decision was not to include these individuals, because they don’t have the same level of access to information as parliamentary secretaries and ministers do.
I understand that the member, through his question, is testing whether we should draw another line. It was a different line that was drawn in this proposal. I would encourage, actually, if the member, or members of the public or others — members of the opposition or of the Third Party — are of the belief that these groups should be included in the bill…. As I said in the sort-of contextual remarks that I made at the beginning, we’re engaging in a larger process of reform around lobbying. It going to start early next year. We hope to have it conclude with a bill before the House in the fall of 2018. It’s a great time to talk to the registrar about that, to put that proposal forward in the review process that we’ll be having.
There was a line drawn in this bill. That line was ministers and staff of ministers’ offices and parliamentary secretaries, similar to the conflict-of-interest legislation. Backbench MLAs, MLAs from the Third Party and opposition MLAs were not included.
L. Throness: I would further point out that employees of the confidence and supply secretariat are not included in this legislation. But they work out of the Ministry of Finance. They’re very closely connected in one of the most powerful ministries. They work with Premier’s staff and so on.
We, on this side, would like to include several new categories. To that end, I would like to propose an amendment to Bill 8. I wonder if I could give that amendment to the Chair.
[SECTION 2 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:
2 Section 1(1) is amended by adding the following definitions:
“former public office holder” means
(a) a former member of the Executive Council and any individual formerly employed in the former member’s former office, other than administrative support staff,
(b) a former parliamentary secretary,
or
(c) any individual who formerly occupied
(i) a senior executive position in a ministry, whether by the title of deputy minister, chief executive officer or another title,
(ii) the position of associate deputy minister, assistant deputy minister or a position of comparable rank in a ministry, or
(iii) a prescribed position in a Provincial entity;
.
(d) any individual employed or otherwise contracted as a member of an incoming government’s transition team,
(e) any individual formerly employed in the Confidence and Supply Agreement Secretariat, or
(f) any former members of the Legislative Assembly, or any individual formerly employed in the former member’s office, who may have had access to inside government information or otherwise been informed of government business through the Confidence and Supply Agreement Secretariat.
“transition team” means any individual identified by the Premier or a member of the Executive Council as having had the task to support and advise the Premier, a member of Executive Council, or a person employed in an Executive Council member’s office during the transition period leading up to and after the swearing in of the Premier and Executive Council.]
Would it be an appropriate time, if all members need a few moments to read the contents of the amendment that I’ve suggested, to call a recess and then, perhaps, come back after lunch? Would that be appropriate?
Noting the hour, I would suggest that the committee rise, report progress and beg leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND
HOUSING
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
On Vote 36: ministry operations, $244,539,000.
The Chair: Does the minister wish to begin with an opening statement?
Hon. S. Robinson: I do, Mr. Chair. I want to thank everyone who’s here, and I particularly want to thank and introduce my deputy minister, Jacqueline Dawes, and my assistant deputy ministers, Greg Steves, Tara Faganello and Kevin Volk. Greg Steves is responsible for housing, Tara Faganello is responsible for local government and Kevin Volk for community and legislative services. I also have with me here today Tracy Campbell, executive financial officer and management services.
I want to just take a moment to say how impressed I am about these experienced professionals, who are really key to the ministry’s work. Certainly as a new government coming in, I’m really appreciative of their expert counsel and guidance. I’d like to thank all of the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their dedication to serving the people of our great province. When we do work together, when we can come together, we really can do some amazing things. I know that we have a strong team and strong leadership that will help us make progress.
My ministry has a significant role to play in improving the daily lives of ordinary people throughout the province. My ministry is responsible for providing British Columbians with access to more affordable, safe and functional housing through policy, programs, technical codes, standards and services for landlords and tenants.
We also work with British Columbia’s 189 local governments to support communities throughout the province. We help them to thrive, and we help them to deliver the best service that they can to the people that they represent. I’m also really proud to be working with the Mayors Council to support the ten-year vision for Metro Vancouver transportation.
Just after a short time in government, I’m proud to say that we have hit the ground running with decisive and meaningful actions to address many of the issues facing British Columbians. With Budget Update 2017, we’re just getting started on delivering on our comprehensive strategy to make housing more affordable for people in need. We are looking at the full scope of affordability, not just bits and pieces here and there.
We have a much broader mandate and a greater commitment to effectively deal with the housing crisis facing this province than previous governments did. I just want to provide an example of bringing together local government with Housing and TransLink to make sure that we’re working in coordination with each other, that each of these pieces adds to the affordability of people’s lives.
We’ve also set a target of working with our partners to build 114,000 units of housing over the next ten years. We’re working together with our partners to create conditions for a mix of housing to ensure that everyone has access to a safe, affordable place to call home — housing for families, seniors, students, workers, people with low incomes and certainly the people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
To tackle the serious issue of homelessness in this province is a key piece that is really challenging, especially as we’re heading into the darker, colder, wetter months of the year. We’re seeing more of it. I’m proud to be working in partnership with the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to develop a homelessness action plan. I think we can all agree we can’t do this work alone. It’s going to take a whole number of us, with concerted effort, to address this serious issue.
Whether it’s people living on the street or families struggling to find housing, we want to ensure that all people have a safe and affordable place to call home. As part of the plan, we will soon be conducting a provincewide homeless count so that we have a better understanding of what the situation is in our communities.
We’ve already taken some concrete steps to improve services for renters and landlords by providing $7 million over the next three years to increase resources to the residential tenancy branch. It’s an integral part of the work that we do, to make sure that the relationship between landlords and tenants is a good one, a healthy one, that everyone’s working together, playing by the same rules. Everyone knows what their responsibilities are. They also know what their obligations are. I’m really pleased that we’re supporting that important piece of the work that we do to facilitate those kinds of relationships and facilitate housing.
We’ve also introduced legislation to close the unfair fixed-term lease loophole that is hurting renters by allowing landlords to bypass rent control. We know that of the 1½ million renters, many of them have been struggling for too long to find suitable accommodations, especially given our very tight vacancy rate that we have in many of our communities across the province. By closing this loophole, it will give tenants the security they deserve when signing a rental lease, and it will protect them from unfair rent increases.
In addition, our government has committed to $208 million to support the construction of more than 1,700 new units of affordable rental housing in communities right across the province. We’ve committed $291 million to build 2,000 temporary modular supportive housing units for people who are homeless. That comes with more than $170 million over three years to provide 24-7 staffing and support services so that those people can be supported and successful in this kind of housing. It’s really important to make sure we are getting the people who are the most vulnerable in our communities the help that they need so they can move into more structured housing, more permanent housing.
Just a few weeks ago, as part of this, we announced the first $66 million of that funding towards 600 units of modular housing that will be situated on land provided by the city of Vancouver. We’re working with many other communities right across the province to do that. We expect 1,000 units to be operational by early next year. That will make a difference to many who are the most vulnerable.
I will continue to meet with local leaders, city planners, developers, non-profit housing providers and tenant groups to identify partnership opportunities that will help us deliver on our commitments. We know that when we work together — when we’re all, as my colleague the minister for post-secondary says, pulling on the paddle in the canoe and moving in the same direction — we’re more likely to get to where we need to go.
I’ve had some very successful meetings at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention that will inform our housing conference that we are planning for December, bringing together experts and providers and people who are already doing this work — bringing these housing leaders together from right across the province so that we can start and enhance these partnerships that already exist so that we can continue doing the great work that people are doing on the ground and doing more of what works.
I want to make meaningful connections between the province, local governments and key housing sector stakeholders. We want to share ideas and make sure that we have a path forward, that we continue to move to make housing more affordable for British Columbians right across the province.
This is just the beginning. This work will continue to inform our government on our comprehensive housing strategy that will make housing more affordable for those who are looking to raise their families in the communities where they work, the communities that they were raised in. We need to address this housing affordability crisis, and our comprehensive housing strategy will help us achieve that goal.
Now, earlier I mentioned my meetings at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention, which was an opportunity to hear directly from local government officials from across the province on matters that affect their communities. What we heard is that local governments really have been on the front lines doing a lot of the heavy lifting on the issues that affect their communities. I just want to take a moment to thank those people who put their names forward for local elections. When you’re in a public hearing and you’ve got community members coming to you and being really clear about what their preferences and hopes and dreams are, you have to be responsive.
I just want to take a moment to express appreciation for the work that they do. I know that the member opposite did his role, and others who are here in this little House with us have done that work. I have great appreciation for the ways in which they serve their communities. Historically, though, I have to say that those on the front lines, those local government leaders, haven’t had the support from the province that I think they deserve and should have. My government is committed to doing it differently.
We’re going to work in partnership with local governments to make life better for people — together, because we can make life more affordable for British Columbians. We can deliver on the services that people count on, and we can build a strong, secure economy that works for everyone. We need to be doing that with our local government partners.
Now, our government is focused on communities and investing in the services that people need. That’s why we continue to support community programming through the community gaming grant program, which provides $140 million to about 5,000 not-for-profit organizations each year. Not-for-profits, I think we can all agree, do a significant amount of work in our communities that really makes us all better for it. I’m very proud that we continue to use the gaming grants to support these non-profits.
The gaming grants go to a wide array of organizations that do make life better for all of us, whether it’s cultural groups, sport groups, environmental groups, public safety, human and social services and parent advisory councils. The gaming grants really help them deliver on the things that matter most in their communities.
Starting this year, community gaming grants is investing $5 million per year in capital projects that cost more than $20,000. By doing this, we’re helping not-for-profit organizations invest in facilities, infrastructure and major acquisitions.
We want local governments to know that they have a voice with this government. We want local governments to know that we are committed to working with them so that together we’re working for the people of this province. That’s why one of our first actions was to ban union and corporate donations, not just at the provincial level but also recognizing that campaign financing reform was desperately needed at the local level. All people should be at the heart of our politics, not just those with deep pockets.
We heard loud and clear from British Columbians right across the province that they wanted their democracy back, and it’s a goal that we all share — the province, local governments and the British Columbians we serve. They want to have successful, fair elections, free of the influence of big money. And I’m very proud of the fact that we had a unanimous vote yesterday in the Legislature. That made me very proud. But I continue to be disappointed that it had to wait this long to actually make that happen. It should have happened sooner.
Now our government is reforming this, just in time for the 2018 elections. So we will be sure…. I look forward to getting royal assent, which will be the final indication that in fact we will have fair local elections for 2018.
Part of this legislation is not just to ban union and corporate donations. It’s also to put reasonable limits on individual contributions and to ban out-of-province donations at the local level. Contributions for the election campaign of a candidate or electoral organization will be limited to $1,200 per donor per year, and these amendments will go to strengthen local democracy in our province.
I want to say just how proud I am of that and, again, thank all members of the House for supporting the bill, recognizing how important it is.
I just want to make a mention of my responsibility for TransLink before we continue on. I know that communities in Metro Vancouver have been waiting for a very, very, very long time for a government that cares about the needs of working with Lower Mainland mayors, making sure we can get people moving. It’s been unacceptable they’ve had to wait so long.
Our government’s commitment to the people of Metro Vancouver and those who visit the region is to work in partnership. And you’re going to hear, Mr. Chair, that this is a government that’s about partnership, because we recognize that we need to work together in order to deliver. So we’re working in partnership with TransLink and with the Mayors Council to develop lasting, effective and fair solutions for the region’s transportation needs.
We’ve committed to investing in the mayors’ vision to make transit more accessible for the millions of transit riders that rely on that system. We also need good, safe roads, so people spend less time in their cars. No one ever said they want to be in traffic, and people really do want to spend more time with their friends and family and doing the things that they really want to be doing. No one says, ever: “I want to be in traffic.”
We will be working closely with the Mayors Council and TransLink to increase the movement of people and goods in the Lower Mainland, while we’re also working to make life more affordable for British Columbians. Our government is committed to funding 40 percent of the capital cost of the mayors’ vision, and that’s a commitment that I think the mayors have been waiting for, for a long, long time.
We’re committed to working in partnership with all levels of government to have these projects underway as soon as possible. This commitment of 40 percent is a significant improvement — it’s a significant improvement — in how we partner with the region.
Another key priority for our government is the importance of handyDART program and the steps that can be taken to work with the Mayors Council and TransLink to move forward with the actions under the ten-year vision to expand this vital service, ensuring that seniors and people with disabilities, those who need the handyDART service, can get it when they need it.
We look forward to moving ahead with the important transit projects that the mayors have envisioned, over their ten-year plan. It will improve the daily lives of the Metro Vancouver residents and visitors. I just want to say we are just getting started. We are just getting started, and our ministry is excited to forge ahead and continue to take strides towards making B.C. better.
I’d like to, once again, as I conclude my remarks, thank the staff for preparing all the binders — the many, many, many binders — making sure that we have the information at our fingertips.
I also want to acknowledge that there are other people, besides these here and those sitting in the gallery that get me prepared and ready for these estimates — my constituency assistants, Linda Asgeirsson and Laura Gullickson, who are back at home keeping things going there.
I have an exceptional team here in Victoria: my senior ministerial assistant, Craig Ashbourne; my ministerial assistant, Daniela Gardea; my executive assistant, Matt Djonlic; my administrative coordinator, Christine White; and my administrative assistant, Lisa Grant. I couldn’t do this without them.
With that, I’ll take my seat.
T. Stone: First off, I just would like to thank the minister for a very detailed, thorough summary of the ministry. I would remind the minister that we only have 5½ hours, I think, to do estimates here and we’re half an hour in now. We’ll try to keep our questions tight and short, and perhaps she could commit, as well, so that we can cover…. It’s a big ministry. There’s lots going on. I think we all want to be thoughtful. This is an important part of the process, the budget process — allowing the opposition, affording the opposition an opportunity to ask questions of the minister in detail about the operations that she’s responsible for.
All I’m going to say at this point are two things. One, it is a terrific ministry, loaded with exceptional professionals. I had the privilege of working with a number of the staff that are surrounding the minister now in a previous ministry, and they are true professionals. I do thank them for the briefings that have been provided to the opposition to this point, which have really enabled us to sharpen…. Sharpen is the wrong word. It’s to focus our questions on what this ministry is all about.
I do want to acknowledge the many elected officials at the local level across the province, whether it’s school board officials, local officials, special purpose bodies and others who step up in an effort to want to do good by their community. That’s what people in this sphere are all about. It’s about serving your community. People want their community to be as liveable, as safe, as healthy as possible. That’s what the elected officials are all about in local government, and that’s what the ministry is all about, working in partnership.
In terms of estimates, we’re going to have a number of opposition MLAs ask some regional questions in what’s left of the time before we break for lunch today. We’ve got about 35 minutes for that, maybe 30 minutes. And then in the afternoon, we’re going to come back and focus on housing and then TransLink and then some other local government questions after that. I did provide the minister with a heads-up on that yesterday.
So without further ado, I’m going to sit down. I believe my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour has some questions.
J. Thornthwaite: My question for the minister is about the four-legged protesters out on the lawn on behalf of their furry friends and their two-legged loved ones. It pertains to the petition to amend the Residential Tenancy Act. My constituent actually has a small Corgi. She wrote me that this little dog is very well trained. She wants to change her rental situation in North Van, but she can’t afford to move because in any of the places that she can afford, the landlords have said: “No pets allowed.”
According to the BC SPCA, over 1,700 domestic pets were surrendered to shelters in 2016 due to “No pets” rental restrictions. Animals surrendered by their human guardians make up nearly one-third of all animals taken in by shelters. And of course, this is related to the housing crisis. Of the nearly 400,000 rental houses in B.C., there is a vacancy rate of only 1.3 percent. One-third of the tenants occupying these units have pets, yet only 9 percent of the advertised rental units actually allow cats, and 3 percent allow dogs. Anyway, half of all homeowners have pets.
I guess my question is, to the minister: moving forward in her work as the new Minister of Housing: would she be considering a change in the Residential Tenancy Act to allow for animals to be co-located with their owners in rental facilities and perhaps investigating the law that is currently in use in Ontario that would also protect landlords?
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question. It’s a good question. But I think it’s important for the member to understand that the Residential Tenancy Act does not state whether pets are allowed in rental units. It’s not a law. There is nothing in the act that prohibits pets. Landlords have the freedom to choose to allow them or not. There’s nothing in our Residential Tenancy Act that says that pets are not allowed, so there’s nothing for us to amend on that perspective.
I do think that the member raises a very significant point around the challenge to find housing. With such a low vacancy rate, it really speaks to the fact that in this province, there hasn’t been a particular lens or a particular focus to make sure that we have affordable rental. That’s the focus of our government. It’s to make sure that we have affordable rental so that we can get a healthier vacancy rate.
We know that when there’s a healthier vacancy rate, landlords want to make sure that there are people living in their units. So they’re more likely, then, as a result, to make sure that there are tenants in there. They’re more likely to perhaps permit the loved ones on four legs to join them, their two-legged masters, in their home.
The other thing that I think is really important to consider in the risk of taking a stronger stand is that landlords are not going to…. The appetite to have more rental stock could be diminished, because we do know from landlords that it’s a significant investment. So trying to find the balance, recognizing that we love our pets, and it’s a really difficult situation.
Our government is focusing right now on getting some affordable rental supply, making sure that we’re getting that. At the end of the day, having a healthier vacancy rate will provide the freedom that those with pets who want to move or who are looking for a place have the opportunity to do that — to live with their beloved furry friends.
J. Thornthwaite: Just a follow-up question. Would the minister consider not allowing a blanket “no pets allowed” rule in the tenancy act so that it would at least give landlords the option, obviously, to properly screen their potential tenants, but also, it would put a stop to the blanket statement that all these landlords could just say “no pets”?
Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you for the question. I do want to add one more thing, because there are some provisions in here that speak to pet policy. The act was updated and brought into force in 2004, which I think is important, because it was when her government was in power.
One of the things in there that I think is really important to get on the record is that there are provisions around pet damage deposits that were included in the act at the time to encourage landlords to be more accepting of pets and to provide them with extra protection for potential costs associated with allowing pets in their building. So there’s already something existing in the act.
I do think the other part of this that’s really important that our government has done is increase the resources to the residential tenancy branch so that there are some more education officers, because I don’t know that landlords know they can do that. I don’t know that landlords know you can accept pets and you can have extra damage deposit — that idea of making sure that they know the risk is covered by that extra damage deposit.
I know that people with fur-loved friends will act on that if that’s available to them. I don’t know that landlords know they can do that. So by increasing resources to the residential tenancy branch…. What we’ve done is hire additional education officers so that landlords and tenants understand better what the opportunities are. I’m hopeful that that will also help ease some of these challenges.
S. Bond: The minister is definitely surrounded by a great team of people, many of whom I, as well, have had the privilege of working with.
I just want to ask a question, cognizant of the short time that is here and the number of colleagues. I had sent a letter to the minister a number of weeks ago, asking about community gaming grants. Obviously, I would love to be able to have confirmation of the grants for my community, but that’s not why I’m here today.
On behalf of a number of organizations, but particularly Big Brothers Big Sisters…. They do an incredible job in Prince George and, obviously, across the province — certainly an exceptional organization. I want to confirm that Big Brothers Big Sisters applied by the application deadline of August 1, as the program requires. I just want to confirm that the review process is underway and that successful applicants will receive their funding at the regular time because, as you can imagine, organizations like Big Brothers, and literally dozens and dozens of other organizations, require that funding to continue their services.
I just want to know that the review is underway and that grants will proceed to flow at the normal time for these organizations to continue their work.
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for her questions.
Yes, to the letter. We received it, and it’s making its way through the system. Yes, the review is underway. Staff have been working diligently the entire time that we’ve been sorting out government. They’ve continued to adjudicate. Yes, to normal timelines.
I want to say that one of the changes I have made is that all MLAs, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, will get notified of the grants in their communities, which have been allocated, so that they can congratulate their community organizations for the great work that they’re doing.
S. Bond: I want to thank the minister for that answer and for the fact that it’s on time. I do, as I’m sure other members do, appreciate receiving notification about our successful grant applicants.
I appreciate the minister’s time and her staff’s today.
J. Rustad: Three quick questions, Minister. Can the minister confirm the level of funding going out for gaming grants and whether or not that level of funding will be increased this fiscal or going into next fiscal?
Hon. S. Robinson: As I said in my opening comments, government is committed to providing $140 million in community gaming grant funding for not-for-profit organizations that deliver programs to benefit their communities right across the province. This is a $5 million increase over the previous year. That is for the new capital money. So that’s new. That was in the February budget.
Going forward, we’re going to have that conversation, I guess, in estimates next year, to talk about that budget.
J. Rustad: Can the minister confirm that the commitment to provide gaming revenue to First Nations is something that is being worked on this year for implementation for next year?
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member opposite that eligible First Nations are certainly able to apply and participate in the community gaming grant’s application process.
J. Rustad: I’m a little confused by that. I was led to believe by this government that gaming revenues would be something that would be shared with First Nations.
First Nations have always been able to apply, like any other group across the province, but there was a specific allocation that they were asking for and was promised to them, which is why I’m asking these questions as to whether or not those negotiations are going on and whether they’d be implemented.
Further to that, if there is going to be a set allocation to First Nations, which First Nations have come to believe will be forthcoming from this government, what other organizations will that money be coming from in order to be able to provide that kind of an allocation?
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the clarification that the member provided. I thought he was speaking about the gaming grant program that my ministry is responsible for.
What he’s talking about is a revenue-sharing arrangement, which is different than the gaming grant program which is what we do out of my ministry. Given the nature of his question, that’s a more appropriate question for the Minister of Finance, because that’s a revenue-sharing arrangement as opposed to administration of the gaming grant program.
D. Barnett: Thank you very much, Minister, for having us here today.
I have two questions. One is around our favourite topic, wildfires. Small unincorporated communities need assistance for many things. Are there any funds or anything dedicated in your ministry to help these small unincorporated communities through what they need, such as water and other things, because of these wildfires?
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for her question. She’s done a great job representing her constituents and making sure that everyone in British Columbia, not just people that work in this House, understands what the impact has been in her community.
Our hearts certainly have been there, and I have been in regular contact with the area directors, particularly Al Richmond, to find out what’s happening on the ground so that I can certainly be informed and find out what the directors, and any of the mayors and councillors, would need from our government.
Going forward, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is taking the lead on the fire recovery. In order to make sure that we’re efficient as a government, everything is being run out of that office. I would really encourage the member to approach the minister for a meeting to identify, very specifically, the challenges that those smaller unincorporated communities are facing and work collaboratively to identify the ways that they could get the support that they need.
The Chair: Minister, you have to note the hour. I can’t get in trouble with Mr. Speaker.
Hon. S. Robinson: Noting the hour, I move we rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada