Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 112
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. S. Fraser: In a previous parliament, at the very last of the spring session in May, the last week, tempers were getting frayed in this House. We were all tired. We were in opposition at the time. When it came time for introduction of bills, I stood up, and I said: “I’d like to introduce two Bills today, hon. Speaker.”
I looked down, and our House Leader and leader were looking at each other, going: “What’s he doing? There’s nothing on the order papers.” I proceeded to introduce Bill Barisoff, the Speaker, and Bill Routley, my seatmate. Then people did laugh, and we needed that to break the ice a bit.
As I sat down, the member for Kootenay East, who was sitting right across from me, said: “What am I, chopped liver?” I forgot to introduce Bill Bennett. So today I’d like to make that up to the former member for Kootenay East and introduce Bill Bennett, a longtime member of this place.
Hon. H. Bains: I’m pleased to welcome my long-term friend, a community activist, a good neighbour — I say good neighbour because he walks his dog every day by my house, and he does clean up behind it — Amrik Mahal. Also joining him are two guests, Michael Salman and Elroy Hall. Please help me welcome and give them a warm welcome to the House.
R. Kahlon: Today in the Legislature, we have 40 students from Burnsview high school, which is a school in North Delta; their teacher, Ms. Khangura; and two adult chaperones. I’m not sure if two adult chaperones are enough for this group of 40 young people, but I’d like welcome them here in the Legislature today.
D. Clovechok: I, too, want to introduce a guest in this House today that’s absolutely no stranger to this House. He spent 16 years serving the province of British Columbia and, of course, his constituents in Kootenay East. One of the most colourful gentlemen you’ll ever want to encounter, as you all know. It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce Minister Bill Bennett, my friend, from Kootenay East. If this House would make him feel welcome.
N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to introduce a former member of this House who’s joining us on the floor — my former roommate, the record holder for most penalty minutes in the university hockey league in Ontario, a former Mustang with the University of Western Ontario, MLA from 2005 till 2013 and a fierce advocate for ferry-reliant communities. The fruits of his labour came later, but they came along. So we’re pleased about that. Would the House please join me in welcoming Gary Coons back to the House.
Hon. J. Sims: I also have the privilege to welcome to this House what I would call a blast from the past. That is Gary Coons, who is sitting here. He was the president of Rupert teachers at the same time that I was president in Nanaimo. Both of us faced, together, in many different battlegrounds, the onslaught on public education, as the collective agreement was stripped, class sizes got larger and support for special needs students was taken away.
I’ve heard an adage that retirement is as good as a facelift, and I think Mr. Coons is a prime example. He looks 20 years younger now than he did before.
I would like all of you to join me in welcoming Gary Coons.
J. Rice: It’s kind of unfair. He’s my former MLA. While the member from Sunshine Coast may have been his roommate, Gary Coons was my landlord. I rented a room from Gary when I first moved to Prince Rupert, close to over a decade ago — close to 18 years ago — and I have to say that my first foray into political life was because of the discussions that we had as landlord and tenant. And if you haven’t noted…. Anyway, I was going to make a residential tenancy statement, but I’ll leave it at that.
I just wanted to say thank you. If I could just have that on the record — that I was really grateful for the mentoring that I received from the former MLA, Gary Coons.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 12 — TENANCY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 12, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 12, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018. The bill amends the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act.
Our government, in both the throne speech and Budget 2018, made a commitment to strengthen protections and provide greater security for renters in British Columbia. This bill delivers on that commitment and builds on the actions already taken by government to date, where we strengthened protection from unfair rent increases by closing what is known as the fixed-term-lease loophole and eliminating the geographic rent increase clause. And $6.8 million in new funding to the residential tenancy branch to reduce wait times for tenancy disputes and to establish a new compliance unit to take action against landlords and tenants who are repeat or serious offenders.
Today we have proposed changes to provide much-needed support and better financial compensation for tenants of manufactured home parks who are displaced by redevelopment. These changes are modelled after several private members’ bills that were introduced while we were in opposition. The first was more than ten years ago.
Sadly, people who live in manufactured home parks have been left waiting for more than a decade for a government willing to take action to protect them. With these changes, we are taking action. We’ve also taken some first steps in the complex issue of how to protect tenants against evictions for renovation and demolition, while continuing to encourage landlords to maintain and upgrade their properties. This bill also introduces stronger sanctions for landlords who evict tenants but have no intention of following through on their stated plans.
These amendments reflect our commitment to make housing more secure for renters in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 12, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL 14 — TAXATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2018.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2018. This bill is largely technical in nature and amends several taxing statutes. The Income Tax Act is amended to reflect the changes made to the federal Income Tax Act and to maintain the policy intent of existing British Columbia income tax–related programs.
The bill ensures that we have consistent rules between personal tax credits, and it also repeals a program that no longer pays benefits. The Insurance Premium Tax Act and the Logging Tax Act are also amended to ensure the proper application of regulations required by amendments enacted from spring 2017.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 14, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
SHRINERS FUNDRAISING AUCTION FOR
SICK CHILDREN IN
CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN
D. Barnett: I rise today to tell you about an important event that happened in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin on Saturday, April 7. The Big Country Shrine Club No. 50 held their fifth annual auction to raise money for the transportation needs of sick children in my community.
The Shriners are a philanthropic organization who have created and maintained Shriners children’s hospitals across the continent for nearly 100 years. They provide free-of-charge or greatly subsidized hospital treatment for children without prejudice or barrier.
As the nearest hospital to us is across the border, the Shriners fundraised to pay for the transportation, so that children and their families can travel to their treatment.
The Shrine Club’s king crab and prime rib silent and live auction grossed $44,000, a significant amount by any measure. I was the auctioneer of this happy event and worked alongside the potentate, Harold Wallace, and the community’s five active Shriners. The event was organized by President Glen Clancy, his amazing wife and others.
Events like these rise above their initial celebration. For every person who had a wonderful dinner or who bid at the auction, their participation went beyond the walls of the event. Because of their generosity, the Shriners auction will fund the travel of sick children in our communities who need specialized treatment. The evening also raised funds for families to travel with children so that no parent should have to send their sick child off by themselves.
It is with great honour today that I stand here to remind us all that come what may, there will always be people like Shriners.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
TO CARDIAC ARREST
J. Rice: Cardiac arrests can happen to anyone, anywhere, any time. Every 13 minutes someone across Canada suffers from cardiac arrest. In 2017, B.C. Ambulance Service paramedics responded to over 7,000 cardiac arrest events in British Columbia alone. Without fast action, there is virtually no chance of survival.
Today I wish to speak about two very important proclamations made this week. The first one declares this week as Emergency Service Dispatchers and 911 Awareness Week. The second declares today as AED Awareness Day. It’s no coincidence that these two proclamations are made at the same time.
Our emergency medical dispatchers are vital lifelines. They will help instruct bystanders on how to perform CPR. They will direct them to the nearest registered AED and provide instructions on how to use these life-saving devices. Bystanders play a critical role in the survival of someone having cardiac arrest. Unfortunately, while 81 percent of Canadians say they would perform CPR if they saw someone collapse, in actuality, British Columbian bystanders only follow through 25 percent of the time.
PulsePoint might help boost those numbers. PulsePoint is an app that was recently launched by B.C. emergency health services. It crowdsources CPR and AED use so that the closest available person trained in these life-saving skills is notified and can attend to someone having cardiac arrest before first responders arrive.
With all these resources available, I encourage everyone in this House and every single British Columbian to be ready, willing and able to respond to a cardiac emergency. You don’t have to be an expert; you just have to act.
If you see someone suddenly collapse, phone 911 and shout for an AED. Push hard and fast in the centre of the chest and use an AED as soon as it arrives. They are safe and easy to use. And 911 emergency medical dispatchers are also there to be the voice that tells you exactly how to do CPR and use an AED.
Seconds matter. Don’t wait for someone else to step in. Choose to act, and you are giving that person their best chance of survival. You can’t do harm. You can only help.
MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS AND
WORK OF PATHWAYS
SOCIETY
R. Sultan: I bring good news. Mental illness is treatable.
A close relative of mine took to living under his trailer, rather than inside, convinced that danger lurked outside. Now, thanks to medication and a team from Vancouver Coastal and family counselling from Pathways Society, an innovative organization in my riding, my relative leads a more normal life.
Pathways, formerly the North Shore Schizophrenia Society, began 23 years ago as a largely volunteer, charitably-funded organization based in West Vancouver and serving Whistler and the Tri-Cities, educating and advising families about available treatment for their loved ones — over 700 families last year.
What illnesses are we talking about? A quarter are schizophrenic. Others suffer from anxiety, depression, bipolar, borderline personality disorder, OCD and PTSD. They range from police officers to politicians to the mail carrier in my own family — anybody. At some stage, one in five of us will experience such medical problems, just like measles or a broken ankle.
One of Pathways’ goals is to destigmatize mental illness. They steer families and individuals in the right direction to the Carlile Centre, our HOpe Centre or to Vancouver Coastal’s recently opened Foundry for young people.
Welcome to our new world. Mental illness seems to be growing, can happen to anybody and can be treated.
ANNIVERSARY OF
WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING
R. Kahlon: Seventy-five years ago this spring, a group of young adults staged an uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. By April 1943, they had already seen 260,000 of their neighbours, friends and family members taken from the ghetto to Treblinka death camp.
In an act of defiance, self-defence and resistance, they armed themselves with pistols and homemade bombs. When the Nazis arrived to take them away, they launched their attack. The German response was swift and unforgiving. They began to systematically set buildings on fire, turning the ghetto into a fire trap.
Seven hundred young Jewish women and men, against great odds, held off Nazi troops for a month. Word of the uprising spread quickly through other ghettos, war camps and death camps, inspiring more uprisings.
Last night marked the beginning of Yom HaShoah, which is a Holocaust remembrance day. It is also a day to honour heroism and to recognize the tremendous bravery of those who fought, resisted and persevered in the face of great evil.
Today at noon, in the Hall of Honour, we will be joined by 40 Holocaust survivors. They will be on hand to share their experiences and lessons that we, as individuals and as a society, need to learn from.
I, for one, will be honoured to attend with my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview, whose grandmother, Esther Ellisberg, escaped just prior to the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Also, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, whose father was just seven when he fled with his family from Germany.
As we are now on the 75th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, it should not be lost on us that the Holocaust survivors who remain are also aging.
I invite all my colleagues to join with the survivors today. Together we will remember the six million Jews and other minorities who were systematically murdered by Nazis during the Holocaust and ensure that the stories of these survivors will live on. Then we can truly say: “Never again.”
COWICHAN GREEN COMMUNITY
LOCAL FOOD
INITIATIVES
S. Furstenau: Cowichan Green Community, lovingly known to locals as CGC, is a non-profit society and charitable foundation in the Cowichan region. CGC’s mission is to cultivate food, community and resilience. Their tireless crew works to improve food security through education and action and, by working with local food producers, to promote urban and rural food production.
CGC relies partly on grant funding and partly on social enterprise initiatives like the Cow-Op, an on-line local food hub, to sustain a long list of community projects. Last year they received a provincial gaming grant, food futures, which allowed them to continue delivering programs like the free family cooking classes and the ever-popular FruitSave, which, in one of their most recent seasons, rescued over 18,000 pounds of locally grown fruit that would have otherwise gone to waste. All that fruit was redistributed to people who needed it most.
The impact of the FruitSave program is significant on the Cowichan community. For example, CGC provides free canning workshops to teach community members of all ages how to make apple jelly and apple sauce for the pantry. Many pounds of the harvested apples go to Alexander Elementary School students, and a large portion of the FruitSave goes to the Cowichan Valley Basket Society, our local food bank. Windfall fruit is picked and distributed to pig farmers in the region for feed.
As one of their FruitSave volunteers exclaimed after a fruit pick last season, “I can’t think of a more beautiful thing to do for my community — harvesting fruit from a local tree to benefit someone who truly needs it.”
The next time you are visiting our beautiful region, pick up a Cowichan Green Community food map and take a self-guided tour to taste for yourself why our local food industry is doing so well. The Cowichan Green Community has played a big part in making it so.
JERSEY DAY IN SUPPORT OF
HUMBOLDT BRONCOS HOCKEY
TEAM
G. Begg: Today is national “wear your jersey” day to support victims and families affected by the fatal bus crash in Saskatchewan. A group of parents here in British Columbia, in Langley, are the organizers.
Hockey is a beloved Canadian pastime, a rite of passage for our kids, the heartbeat of our small towns, an economic engine in big cities and a source of patriotic pride, so much a part of our culture that it has rightly been called a national obsession.
Many of us, if not most of us, have been a part of that obsession. Or, perhaps more appropriately, that obsession has been a part of us. We have rode the buses, made the long road trips, formed the bonds and dreamed the dream that all of us had. We, too, one day, would get our big break. We would play in the big leagues.
The game is truly a part of our Canadian psyche, our national identity, our true north star. It has helped shape our values, our culture, our determination, teamwork and spirit. So it was, too, for this team in Humboldt, Saskatchewan — the Broncos.
The boys, hair bleached blonde for the playoffs, spent their Friday morning laughing and talking during a team breakfast. Then they piled on the bus. The team wound their way through the prairies for the just-over-two-hour drive from Humboldt to Nipawin, the location of that night’s game.
Travelling north on a lonely stretch of highway, through snow-blanketed fields as far as the eye can see, the Broncos bus approached the rink in Nipawin. It was just after five, still a few hours before sunset. The boys, as usual, had been playing cards, watching movies and listening to music, whatever ritual or practice they needed to prepare themselves for the big game. Then, for whatever reason or cause, there was an accident with a transport truck, and young lives were violently taken.
The very next morning another most-Canadian thing happened. A Langley mother and several other moms of young hockey players put out a call on Facebook for kids and adults alike to wear sports jerseys today to show they stand with the crash victims and their families.
In this House today, as the final services begin for those so tragically taken, we honour those mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, friends and teammates.
Stay strong. We are with you.
Oral Questions
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES
J. Johal: Gas prices are the highest we’ve ever seen. The NDP has already raised gas taxes, and now the NDP government in Alberta is threatening to turn off the taps because of the Premier’s inappropriate and unlawful actions. The headlines last night say it all: “If You Think Gas Prices Are High Now, Just Wait.”
I ask the Deputy Premier: what is the Premier going to tell the Prime Minister on Sunday to end this before British Columbians have to pay even more at the pumps for his mistake?
Hon. C. James: I would say to the member across the way and to all members on the other side that what would be unlawful is if Alberta proposed to move ahead by actually cutting off the gas supply. That would be unlawful. So I would say to the member and all other members on the other side: join us and stand for British Columbians, stand for protecting British Columbians and say no to an unlawful act by Alberta.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: This government’s actions are impacting real people. Energy analysts say you will see prices starting at $2 per litre, if you’re lucky enough to even find it. The headline in the Vancouver Sun says: “We Could be Paying $120 for a Fill-up if Alberta Turns off the Taps.”
To the Deputy Premier, when the Premier meets the Prime Minister on Sunday, will the Premier finally back down?
Hon. C. James: Well, it’s incredible to hear the other side and the rhetoric that is coming forward. British Columbia is doing exactly what a lawful jurisdiction does, which is asking for the jurisdictional issue to go to the courts to be decided.
Alberta’s direction was, in fact, to withdraw their unfair trade measures when we announced that we were going to the courts in February. I’ll just read you a quote. At the time, Premier Notley said: “B.C…is abiding by the law, and this is a good thing.”
We are abiding by the law. If Alberta does move in this kind of direction, we will take action, and we would expect the members on the other side to stand up for British Columbians.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a second supplemental.
J. Johal: As this government continues to delay and deflect, the impact is real on British Columbians. Shutting off B.C.’s oil supply means $2 per litre gas prices, higher food prices and serious economic consequences for B.C. families and businesses. And 72 organizations representing job creators from British Columbia and across Canada are standing up today, asking the Prime Minister to put an end to this Premier’s unlawful actions.
How is the Premier going to answer for his unlawful actions when there’s a Prime Minister asking the questions on Sunday?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. James: Well, I think this just says everything this morning. When Alberta may be taking unlawful action against British Columbia, who is the other side standing up for? Certainly not for British Columbians. We are going to continue to stand up for British Columbians, we are going to continue to stand up for our economy, and we will take action if Alberta moves ahead in this unlawful direction.
Mr. Speaker: Member, you are reminded to direct your question through the Chair, please.
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE
AND
IMPACT ON BUSINESSES
S. Bond: I haven’t even started, but I will.
Yesterday we learned, courtesy of the Environment Minister, that the Premier has known from his first day in office that his threats to stop the Trans Mountain project are outside his jurisdiction. In fact, even when talking about it, it would be — not our words, the Environment Minister’s words — “both inappropriate and unlawful.”
Let’s be clear. It is his actions that will hurt British Columbians if gas prices go to $2 a litre. At this very moment, job creators are gathered in Vancouver, demanding that the Premier “clear the way for this project to proceed.” So what does the government have to say to these 72 groups that include the B.C. Council of Forest Industries, the B.C. Construction Association, the B.C. Trucking Association? The list goes on.
To the Deputy Premier, these British Columbians want an answer. The Premier is finally going to meet with the Prime Minister about his mess. Will he listen to British Columbia’s job creators and end his attempts to stop the project?
Hon. C. James: The Premier is doing exactly that. He is listening to British Columbians and standing up for the people of British Columbia and our economy and our coast.
I hear the other side talking about investment. Well, I’d like to say: you know what is bad for investment? It’s an out-of-control housing market left to us because of the other side.
What is bad for the economy is a government that ignored the rising costs of child care and leaving families and employers without an ability to recruit and retain. We will continue to stand up for the economy on the coast, to stand up for British Columbians and to ensure our economy continues to boom. I’m happy, in the next response, to talk about some real strength in British Columbia that continues under our government.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: There are some words from some British Columbians that I’m sure the Deputy Premier will be interested in hearing. Let’s review. British Columbians could face gas prices that go beyond $2 a litre because of this Premier’s reckless actions. That will also hurt businesses, large and small. A letter released today, sent to the Prime Minister and signed by 72 organizations….
The members can be as disrespectful to those organizations as they choose, but this is what they wrote, in blistering terms…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
S. Bond: …about this government’s approach. Here’s what job creators in British Columbia are saying to this government: “The continued obstructionist position of the current government of British Columbia calls into question whether an agreement can be reached where the rule of law will prevail and commercial enterprise can, with confidence, build and operate a business in our country.” Not my words, the words of thousands of British Columbians.
Job creators are demanding the Premier fix his mess. He has the chance to do that when he meets with the Prime Minister.
Will the Deputy Premier commit today to listening to the voices of thousands of British Columbians and tell the Prime Minister that they will end their attempts to stop this project?
Hon. C. James: If I was part of the other side, I certainly wouldn’t be talking about listening to British Columbians, because it’s not anything that they have experience with or that they did for 16 years.
The member talked about facts. Let’s take a look at the facts. I am always happy to talk about British Columbia’s economy. According to private sector forecasters, B.C.’s real GDP is expected to grow by 2.5 percent in 2018. Let’s take a look at March and our unemployment rate: 4.7 percent, the lowest in Canada. Let’s take a look at retail sales: a 6.2 percent…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. C. James: …year-to-year increase in January of this year.
I could go on and on, and I’m happy to as the questions come. But I do have a question for the other side, and that is: if Alberta takes this unlawful action, is the other side going to stand up for Alberta or stand up for British Columbians, as our government is doing?
TRANSITION TO LOW-CARBON ECONOMY
S. Furstenau: This interlude from Kinder Morgan, brought to you by the B.C. Greens.
Government data presents a shocking trend in B.C.’s economy. While our gas extraction has doubled in the last 15 years, revenues to the province have plummeted by 90 percent. The resource belongs to the people of British Columbia, and we can only use it once. We are selling out our future generations. We’ve given away their wealth and their future ability to use these non-renewable resources strategically.
This is a lose-lose-lose for the people of B.C. There is another way. My colleagues and I are challenging the ministry to do better.
To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, can the minister please identify what strategic advantages B.C. has that will help us transition to a low-carbon economy, and when will she start acting on them?
Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question. I couldn’t agree more that British Columbians deserve to get a fair rate of return on their resources, and that’s exactly what this government is determined to do.
It’s one of our prime commitments to British Columbians — that we need to ensure, with the resource industries we have that are so prosperous and so beneficial to this province, British Columbians are getting the best rate of return that they possibly can. That’s exactly why when we put forward our four conditions, which we’ve had in place since 2011 on the LNG industry, we included that very fact. We are looking at a variety of tools to make sure that that is the case, including with the LNG industry and with the natural gas industry, which the member mentioned.
Going forward, one of the things that I think differentiates us even more than making sure that we have a good, fair rate of return for our citizens in this province is that this government is dedicated to ensuring that we are also meeting our climate targets. We have a climate action secretariat in place for that, and the biggest difference between us and the former government is that we’re actually going to listen to their recommendations, and we’re going to implement them.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Saying things and doing them are fundamentally different things. We’d like to see evidence of how these climate targets are going to be met with an actual climate action plan, and we’d like to see a change in how we are giving away these resources. We have a $3.2 billion credit deficit on the books right now.
Yesterday my colleague for Saanich North and the Islands asked the Minister of Energy if she thinks we have any responsibility for the well-being of future generations in terms of the quality of the environment that we leave behind. The minister, in response, said natural gas heats a lot of homes in B.C.
Let’s try again. In her mandate letter from the Premier, the minister is tasked with reinvigorating the innovative clean energy fund “to boost investments in groundbreaking new energy technologies and climate solutions.”
To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: what concrete measures is your ministry taking to ensure that B.C. is embracing transformation while rapidly transitioning to a low-carbon economy?
Hon. M. Mungall: There’s a variety of programs going on in my ministry. For example, in the zero-emission vehicle program, we are promoting a shift from carbon-based fuel to electric fuel for our transportation sector. Considering that’s our largest contributing factor to our climate emissions, I would say that is a very important, very concrete activity that this government is taking, and we are taking it very proudly.
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE
AND
RULE OF LAW
M. de Jong: Three days ago the Environment Minister told a committee of this House the following — and these are the quotes: “We,” the new NDP government, “learned that the authority to say yes or no to a pipeline rests with the federal government, and that is their jurisdiction. We accept that.”
He went on to say that “when we took office as government…. It became clear, through listening to legal advice, that we did not have the authority to stop a project that had been approved by the federal government within its jurisdiction.”
Finally, he had this to say. The Premier “…was very clear that as part of transition, he had been given the legal advice that stopping the project was beyond the jurisdiction of B.C.” and would be “inappropriate and unlawful.”
In this forum today, does the Minister of Environment confirm and stand by those comments?
Hon. G. Heyman: I have spent many hours answering questions from the member for Abbotsford West in spending estimates. I’ve done countless interviews on the subject. I’m quite prepared to say in this House that the Premier, I and every member of our government are absolutely clear on the law.
Only the courts or the company can stop this project. That is exactly why we intervened in the federal court case with respect to the National Energy Board process, decision, and the federal government decision. We believe and continue to believe that that process failed to adequately consider the impacts on British Columbia or the impacts of a heavy oil spill on our coastline. That’s our position.
In the meantime, we understand that we have the right, under the constitution and under decisions of other courts, to regulate to protect B.C.’s environment, our economy and our coastline. That is precisely what I’m doing, that’s precisely what our government is doing, and that’s precisely what the Premier is committed to doing.
Mr. Speaker: Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: Let’s recap what we’ve learned over the course of the last few days. We learned, first of all, from the Transportation Minister — and she confirms — that railroads are a federal jurisdiction, and she and the government can’t do a single thing to limit the volumes of oil that are going up along railroads in the absence of additional pipeline capacity.
We learned from the Environment Minister — and he has again confirmed — that on the day he and his colleagues took office, he and the Premier got legal advice that they “…did not have the authority to stop a project that had been approved by the federal government within its jurisdiction.” Despite that, the minister, on January 30, issued a press release threatening to do just that by restricting any “increase of diluted bitumen transportation.”
Where are we today? Today B.C. stands isolated. We are facing sanctions and retaliatory measures from governments across Canada.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: Our reputation as a jurisdiction — where people and investors can come and make those investments, confident that they will be treated fairly and according to the rule of law — stands in tatters.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.
M. de Jong: Will the Minister of Environment confirm that he and his government have quite clearly put politics ahead of sound public policy and respect for the law and that British Columbians will be left paying the price for their political manipulation?
Hon. G. Heyman: What our government is committed to doing is putting British Columbians before politics — the exact opposite of the last 16 years.
Perhaps the member should refresh himself about the presentation from the government he was once part of to the National Energy Board hearings when they said the province submits that the effectiveness of these techniques has not been proven, particularly in British Columbia’s rivers, with respect to cleanup of diluted bitumen.
We’re clear. There’s a risk to British Columbia, and British Columbians expect us to exercise every inch of the jurisdiction given to us in the constitution and by court decisions to protect our environment, our economy and our interests, and we’re going to do just that.
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
TRANSPORT OF OIL BY
RAIL
T. Redies: Yesterday it became clear that the Premier has been pretending for the last eight months that he can stop the Trans Mountain expansion project when, in fact, he knows he can’t. Let me now speak to another federally regulated infrastructure.
On January 8, the Premier responded to safety concerns I’ve raised about a rail line through my home riding of White Rock and South Surrey. He wrote: “As the line is a federally regulated railway, consideration of railway safety impacts resides with Transport Canada.”
To the Minister of Transportation, do she and this government stand by the Premier’s written statement that railways are a federal responsibility?
Hon. G. Heyman: The member should know, as we know, that railways are a federal responsibility. But impacts off the rail line, from carrying of goods, can be regulated by the B.C. government, have been regulated by the B.C. government and will continue to be regulated, as appropriate, by the B.C. government. That’s exactly why the regulations that we put out for consultation address transportation by rail and by pipeline.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Redies: The Premier’s letter confirmed he believes safety concerns that federally regulated rail lines are outside B.C.’s jurisdiction. This is consistent with what his Transportation Minister said last month: “I’m not in a position to talk yes or no, whether the federal government should be allowing certain products on the line. There is a federal regulation.” Yet in question period earlier this week — and the minister just confirmed it — the Premier says he is consulting with British Columbians on the transport of oil by rail.
To the Minister of Transportation, why is this government misleading British Columbians and pretending to consult when they know they have no authority to limit oil by rail?
Hon. G. Heyman: Hon. Speaker, I’ll leave it to you to determine the appropriateness of language used in this House.
Let me state clearly. This government is clear about our rights to regulate environmental impacts, to protect our environment, to protect our inland rivers and lakes, to protect the coastline under our jurisdiction, to protect the interests of British Columbians and to protect our economy. British Columbians want people in this House to stand with them, to exercise our jurisdiction appropriately. What they’re not interested in is an opposition that is more interested in standing on the side of Texas billionaires and another province than our own interests.
P. Milobar: According to this government’s own Environment Minister, the Premier has known for eight months that he doesn’t have the authority to stop the Trans Mountain project.
Today we’ve learned that since at least January 8, the Premier has known and acknowledged that there is nothing he can do to limit oil by rail through British Columbia on federally regulated rail lines.
How long is the Premier going to persist in his charade of sham consultations? Will the Deputy Premier confirm that the Premier knows he can’t legally stop the pipeline or the transportation of oil by rail?
Hon. G. Heyman: Apparently, after several days of estimates, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson still doesn’t understand exactly what we’re proposing to do. So let me, perhaps, help the member understand what British Columbians expect us to do.
British Columbians expect us to regulate to protect our environment from harm. When we protect our environment from harm, we protect tens of thousands of jobs that are at risk from a spill. Whether it’s by rail, whether it’s by tanker, whether it’s through a pipeline, tens of thousands of British Columbians who have jobs today, good jobs today, see their jobs at risk.
We are asserting our jurisdiction where that has been contested by Alberta and the federal government. We’re doing exactly what responsible people should do. We have referred it to the courts.
A month ago the Premier of Alberta said that was a good thing, that the courts were the place to settle the dispute. The only thing that’s changed is a decision by a company based in Texas to question whether they’ll proceed with a project.
We will continue to assert our jurisdiction, and we’ll let the courts define the limits of that when it’s contested. What we won’t do is threaten, coerce or attempt to intimidate any government or any individual into doing anything other than asserting their rights in the courts.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: I’m starting to think this time in the day should be renamed to “deflection period.” The government needs to acknowledge some facts here.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
P. Milobar: Energy production in Alberta is going up, and oil shipments are increasing. The increase is coming by rail or it’s coming by pipeline, both of which are exclusively federally regulated activities.
When will the minister just admit there isn’t a thing he can do to limit the volume of oil travelling on federally regulated lines?
Hon. G. Heyman: Once again, we believe that there is much that we can do to protect B.C.’s environment and our economy, and we are testing anything that’s contested in the courts, which is the reasonable and responsible thing to do.
We also are concerned about jobs in British Columbia, so let’s talk for a minute about some of those jobs. So 19,000 tourism businesses in British Columbia employ 133,000 people here in B.C. and generate $17 billion each year — $17 billion. And 895,000 people are expected to pass through Vancouver on cruise ships. Vancouver is the portal for tourism businesses in the rest of the province.
When the President of the United States entertained and announced discriminatory, punitive, unlawful sanctions against B.C.’s lumber industry, the Leader of the Official Opposition stood up, as did his entire caucus, to urge us to stand with British Columbians.
Today I urge the opposition to stand with British Columbians, stand with us to defend the jobs of working people in British Columbia that would be destroyed by a spill and help us protect against that eventuality.
J. Tegart: In January 2017, a 29-car Canadian Pacific Railway freight train derailed near Ashcroft. The derailment spilled coal into the Thompson River. Had this train been transporting oil, the outcome would’ve been disastrous for our iconic B.C. salmon- and steelhead-bearing rivers.
In light of this, why is the Transportation Minister choosing to increase oil by rail through my community, rather than expand pipeline capacity?
Hon. G. Heyman: We’re concerned about the environmental impacts that would occur from a spill of heavy oil. It doesn’t matter if it’s transported by pipeline. It doesn’t matter if it’s transported by rail. It doesn’t matter if it’s transported by truck. That is the role of us as a regulator — to look at all of these things, to look at the science and to put in measures that are within our jurisdiction to protect British Columbians’ interests.
Maybe the member doesn’t want to listen to my words. Perhaps the member would like to listen to the words of former Premier Christy Clark. She said, in January of 2017: “It’s a federal decision, and they made it. What our job is, is to stand up for British Columbia. It’s to fight to make sure our coasts, our land base, our communities are protected.”
That’s what we’re doing. When will the opposition do it with us?
[End of question period.]
Petitions
J. Rustad: It’s an honour and a pleasure to introduce a petition signed by 3,175 people who are concerned about conservation and public safety being part of hunting and fishing. The petition calls upon the government to call Bill M211, The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Amendment Act, 2018, for second reading and debate in the 41st parliament.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 13. In Committee A, I call the continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — PUBLIC SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 13, the Public Service Amendment Act, 2018, be read a second time now.
In April of 2017, the Ombudsperson issued the Misfire report after reviewing the 2012 Ministry of Health employment terminations and related matters. I’ll speak in a moment to the specific recommendation that came forward with this bill, but I think it’s important just to take a moment — as I think we should for all of the issues that come forward around the Misfire report — and remember the situation that brought us here.
Now, 2012, when the Ministry of Health fired the employees, may seem like a long time ago to people listening or to all of us in this House, but as the Ombudsperson’s report pointed out, the individuals that were impacted by the dismissals, including their colleagues and including their families, suffered significantly. This was a major, significant action that changed their lives forever.
In fact, as we all know in this House, one life was lost: Rod MacIsaac lost his life. His sister, Linda Kayfish, I think, again, is important to recognize for the extraordinary work that she did ensuring that this issue did not get swept away — that there was a public report, an independent review and action taken to try and ensure that this never happened again.
I think it’s important that we remember, as I said, the seven other researchers as well, whose lives were changed and whose reputations were attacked through this entire process. It’s important to speak about them and to remember, when these recommendations come forward, that we should be doing everything we can to make sure that a situation like this never occurs again.
The Misfire report made 41 recommendations, and the recommendation we’re speaking about today in Bill 13 is recommendation 27. Recommendation 27 of the report called for the Office of the Merit Commissioner to assume a new responsibility for the review of just cause dismissals in the public service. What this bill does is it amends the Public Service Act to assign that function to the Merit Commissioner, as recommended by the Ombudsperson.
Just for context, people who are listening, or others, will wonder: how many just cause dismissals are there, on average, in the public service? In a typical year, there are approximately 25. So not huge numbers, but I think what was pointed out so clearly in the Misfire report is that there are improvements that can be made, there are lessons that can be learned and that independence and that systemic check on those dismissals is another way to be able to help ensure that this doesn’t happen again.
What does this legislation do? The legislation will give the Merit Commissioner the responsibility to, first, provide oversight, to ensure that the public service’s practices for just cause terminations are consistent with government processes and standards — an important piece. The second area that it takes on is that it will give responsibility to the Merit Commissioner to conduct independent reviews of public service just cause termination processes, to ensure adherence to government practices, policies and standards and, again, to identify any systemic issues.
I think that this is an important piece of the legislation. This is not asking the Merit Commissioner to go and review every independent just cause dismissal and check and see whether it was done for the right reasons. As the Misfire report said, these reviews should only take place once the completion of all opportunities for that individual to challenge the just cause have occurred.
The completion of labour relations issues, whether they have a grievance or otherwise, or any litigation processes or proceedings that are related to terminations, where the person is looking for a remedy…. All of those have to expire before the Merit Commissioner takes on a review of a systemic approach to taking a look at the just cause dismissals.
Once the review has been done, the Merit Commissioner will publicly report the aggregate results of these reviews, without disclosing individual personal information. They’ll also make any kind of recommendations around improvement to the just cause termination processes that the reviewer considers appropriate in the circumstances.
Again, I think it’s just important to note that it’s not the commissioner’s mandate to grant a remedy in individual cases or to determine whether a dismissal met the legal standards for just cause. They’re reviewing the dismissal processes and practices. Were they done in accordance with what is in place? Were they done following the existing procedures that are in place?
One other piece I just want to want to mention before I wrap up is that recommendation 27 — if you go back and you take a look at the Misfire report — set a timeline of March 31 for the introduction of this legislation. We’ve been in discussions with the Ombudsperson, and we’ve been granted flexibility to that timeline. The Ombudsperson understands that we have to go through the legislative calendar and ensure that we bring in legislation as it’s drafted. So he was fine with us bringing in the legislation on this date, as long as it was brought forward so that we had time to pass it in the spring session. That’s certainly our intent of bringing it forward.
Around when this would take place…. Under this legislation, any just cause dismissals that take place on or before April 1, 2018, will be eligible for the review.
I’ve had people ask: “Will this ensure that all just causes are done properly?” I think no one can say for certain, but my hope is that this will give some comfort to the families, to the researchers, to recognize that we have moved ahead, that we are doing everything we can when it comes to systemic reviews, to ensure that this kind of tragedy, this kind of dark mark on the public service, does not occur again and that the checks and balances are in place. I hope that will bring, as I said, some comfort and some support to the researchers, to Rod’s family, in the work that we’ve done ahead.
S. Bond: I want to, first of all, thank the minister for the outline that she has provided, and I also want to express my appreciation for the context that she provided. This is not an easy discussion to have, and I know that there are implications of what happened here that have caused significant damage. We know that it is important.
The Misfire report laid out a very clear path in terms of dealing with the issues that were faced by the public servants. I want to reflect a little bit on the process and talk a little bit about how the report was received. I think it is important — in the same vein that the minister has laid out, and included very thoughtful remarks — that the report was received by the government just previous to the writ dropping. It was received on April 6.
I think it’s an important statement to reflect on the fact that at that time, all of the recommendations were accepted by the then head of the public service, Kim Henderson. At that time, she expressed the feelings that so many had about the impact of what happened. I want to just quote from a statement that the then deputy minister, Kim Henderson, released. In the same way that the minister laid out the context, I think it is important.
She said at that time: “On behalf of the B.C. public service, I acknowledge and apologize for the harm caused by the investigation and decisions that resulted, including the employee suspensions, employee discipline….”
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, can you hold for a second, please.
I ask all members to keep their voices down, please, while the other member is speaking. Thank you.
Member, continue.
S. Bond: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.
Let me continue. “…including the employee suspensions, employee discipline and terminations, contract suspensions and terminations and unwarranted data suspensions.”
I think this is the critical piece: “There may be no way to fully repair the damage that was done. As the head of the public service, I take responsibility to ensure government establishes and carries out a plan to address the recommendations, to help to ensure that events like these do not happen again.”
At that time, the government then engaged the Hon. Thomas Cromwell, former Supreme Court of Canada justice, to actually administer a reparation process and to look at the report that the Ombudsperson had prepared.
As the member noted, the government accepted all of the recommendations.
I want to express my thanks to the current government for the ongoing work on the Misfire recommendations. I recently read recently a letter that came, actually, from Thomas Cromwell that complimented the government on the work that it had been doing in terms of the progress on implementing or giving effect to the recommendations in the Ombudsperson’s report.
I quote from that letter in saying that: “In summary, government has done a great deal of work to move forward on the Ombudsperson’s recommendations. All officials with whom I have dealt in carrying out my duties under the terms of reference have been models of professionalism, helpfulness and candour.”
I think that this is an important set of recommendations for the public service. It’s important that the momentum continues.
Now, I should point out that Hon. Cromwell also pointed out that he had some concerns about some of the specific recommendations, and he laid that out. But he did it in the context of reminding all of us that…. I would like to quote one of his final paragraphs. He said: “I strongly endorse your commitment” — referring to the government — “to keeping the victims of these events top of mind as government moves forward with implementing this and all other recommendations.”
I do want to reflect that context as we talk about these very serious recommendations, so I appreciate the bill that the minister has brought forward. I also, though, want to put in context the magnitude of the challenge we’re facing. In the Misfire report, there’s actually a quote that I think gives us a sense of why this is so important. I’m just going to quote from it.
It says: “It is important to emphasize that no individual decision and no single person is responsible for what occurred. This investigation uncovered a number of systemic problems, many of which contributed to the outcomes that occurred.”
This is, in essence, the next step. This is one of the next steps in working through the recommendations that were laid out in the Misfire report. We would certainly concur with the minister on the point of the following through, the independent monitoring, which I think is a very sound approach. We’ve certainly seen a thorough representation to the government, as I said, from the Hon. Thomas Cromwell.
It brings us to this place where recommendation 27 is very much…. I think the minister did a very capable job of outlining what it actually does. In committee stage, I hope we will have a thoughtful discussion about some of the details. One of the questions asked of me earlier, actually, as my co-critic and I were discussing this, was: how many firings are there with just cause? Those are the kinds of things that I think need to be clarified, but they’re certainly not showstoppers when it comes to the legislation that’s been tabled.
This is a new responsibility for the Merit Commissioner. So we’re going to, I hope, be able in committee stage to walk through what that does in terms of the office, the ability to manage through those things, the resourcing that would be required to make sure that the process is put in place in a way that is going to be helpful and to work appropriately.
It is very important to point out that the Merit Commissioner, through this legislation, may not make a determination about whether the dismissal met the legal standard for just cause dismissal. So there are parameters that are being laid out in the bill, and I think those are important.
The bill also ensures that the Merit Commissioner will not be liable for damages relating to dismissal reviews — a variety of things that are very common in the course of protecting those individuals who do that work. In essence, this will allow the Merit Commissioner the authority to conduct those reviews. It became clear through the Misfire report that we had some systemic issues. I think all of us recognize that having an additional level of oversight, put in an appropriate context, is to the benefit of the public service.
With those brief remarks, I did want to thank the minister for bringing forward and following up, continuing the momentum of the work that has been laid out by the Ombudsperson.
I think that the advice of Thomas Cromwell, to remember to put people at the front of this agenda, remembering the impacts that it had…. I think that, hopefully together, we can agree that this will move the public service to a better place, that we will deal with some of those systemic issues, and most importantly, we will honour those individuals who were impacted by continuing to carry out and bring each one of those recommendations to completion.
Again, I do very much respect the government’s work on this and appreciate the fact that this legislation has been tabled. I look forward to having some questions at committee stage.
M. Dean: Today I am going to take just a little bit of time to talk in support of this bill, as it does represent important steps in a long process that has impacted the public service sector as well as a family in my community. Indeed, it’s a real honour to be a part of the solution and the remedy of this long process in spite of the fact that the traumatic impact cannot be undone.
Let’s take a little bit of time to review the history and the process that has led us to this position today. I do this with honour and respect for everyone and their families impacted by what happened that has led us to this bill, because of course, this arises in direct response to recommendation 27 of the Ombudsperson’s Misfire report of 2017.
The Ombudsperson was asked by a legislative committee to investigate the Ministry of Health terminations in 2012 and related matters. His investigation found that an initial complaint in the Ministry of Health that incorrectly suggested wrongdoing quickly gained momentum without proper assessment, and a resulting investigation grew in scope. Key decision-makers acted on the information from the investigation team and believed that the conduct of the employees under investigation was sufficient to support dismissals for cause, which was wrong.
The Misfire report, which was the result of the Ombudsman’s investigation, was completed in 2017, with the Ombudsman concluding that “flawed investigations and rushed decision-making resulted in key government officials taking action that had far-reaching and harmful consequences.”
This investigation into the 2012 Ministry of Health dismissals found that the affected individuals did not deserve the significant personal, financial and professional harm they suffered. The investigation also found that senior government officials suspended or terminated a number of ministry contracts without adequate reason for doing so, and as a result, many people associated with ministry research had their livelihoods seriously impacted.
By examining the negative effects on these people’s lives and careers, as well as the underlying problems in the public administration, the Ombudsperson’s investigation led to 41 recommendations in order to try and address the harm done to individuals and strengthen B.C.’s public service. Of these, recommendation 27 focuses on an amendment of the Public Service Act, which brings us to today’s bill.
In response to recommendation 27 of the Misfire report, these amendments assign a new responsibility to the Merit Commissioner. The commissioner will be responsible for the oversight of a new dismissal review process. The commissioner will have the new responsibility to independently review just cause dismissals in the B.C. public service. The purpose of this is to ensure that there is proper adherence to government practices, policies and standards. In doing so, we help make sure public servants’ workplace rights are respected and that there are no more mistakes or rushed decisions with harmful consequences.
The commissioner is intended to serve three primary functions. These are consistent with the recommendation from the Ombudsperson’s report. One, provide oversight that the public services practices for just cause terminations are consistent with government policies and standards.
Two, conduct independent reviews of the practices followed in public service just cause terminations to ensure adherence to government policies, standards and processes and to identify any systemic issues. As per the Misfire report, such reviews are only to take place following the completion of all labour relations or litigation proceedings that are related to terminations where the time for seeking a remedy has expired.
Three, publicly report the aggregate results of these reviews without disclosing identifiable personal information, along with whatever recommendations for improvement to the just cause termination processes the reviewer considers appropriate in the circumstances.
The goal of conducting the dismissal reviews is to enhance accountability and for the employer to learn from any issues identified by the commissioner, identify trends and make any adjustments needed to improve termination practices, policies and standards.
The commissioner’s mandate isn’t to grant a remedy in individual cases or determine whether a dismissal met the legal standard for just cause. The terminations to be reviewed by the commissioner are those just cause terminations that fall under section 22 of the Public Service Act. These are just cause terminations. These ones include terminations for culpable and non-culpable conduct.
The legislation provides for a review of any just cause dismissals that occur on or after April 2018. Given the provision to allow for other potential dispute remedies or legal actions that need to be exhausted first, that means that it could be as early as November 2018 that the commissioner could review a case.
Now, in a typical year, there are about 25 dismissals that would be considered eligible for review. Even though this is a small number, the proposed approach explicitly requires that the public reporting of the commissioner does not include information that could identify an individual dismissal.
At the same time, there may be instances where it’s important for the B.C. Public Service Agency to have more specific details from the commissioner to help act on recommendations. The commissioner must report annually, and no later than May 31, to the Legislative Assembly concerning the results of the dismissal process reviews. The first annual report can be expected in 2019 or 2020.
This bill and all of these actions that will result clearly promote increased accountability and transparency that provides for higher standards and greater assurances that they will be met. Our government is committed to improving services and accountability in order to ensure that all British Columbians are confident in the public service and in the systems and standards under which our public service operates.
Of course, this bill is instrumental in helping us move forward, and it can’t change the pain and the harm of the past. It’s impossible to say whether any of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations could have prevented the events that did take place before. As my colleague in the community says, we do need to find ways to prevent the “enormous trauma that had been and can be caused.”
What this role will do is help ensure that the public service consistently applies and follows the processes in place around just cause dismissals. Where the commissioner deems it appropriate, they can provide recommendations for improvements to the dismissal practices and processes and thereby support continuous improvement. Our hope is that this brings comfort and reassurance that the system will be improved and that individuals are treated properly and fairly.
Consistent with the Ombudsperson’s recommendation, this role is not designed to grant a remedy in individual cases or determine whether a dismissal met the legal standard for just cause. There are other avenues for dismissed employees to pursue in that regard. However, the role is intended to provide a systemic, process-level review to hold the B.C. Public Service accountable and to support improvements, where needed.
What the Ombudsman wanted to see, from his Misfire report’s 2017 recommendations, was that government take the opportunity “to close this dark chapter by implementing the recommendations” made in this report. The terrible process of the misfirings happened under the watch of the previous government, and this bill proposed by our government will help ensure it doesn’t happen again under any government.
I support this bill in order to at least achieve this aim and to also improve services for all British Columbians.
A. Olsen: I rise to make some brief comments on Bill 13, the Public Service Amendment Act. My colleagues and I are supportive of the efforts to implement the recommendations provided to the government by the April 2017 Ombudsperson’s Misfire report.
This report contained 41 recommendations aimed at addressing what was a failure of government to respect its own processes and the rights of its workers. It is recommendation 27 that this bill seeks to fulfil, providing the Merit Commissioner with new powers to conduct reviews for just cause dismissals.
The minister, in introducing this bill, spoke about the need for checks and balances in the process, and I’m incredibly supportive of this notion. However, I and my colleagues do want to ensure that, beyond fulfilling a recommendation provided to government, the changes we are proposing in practice address the fundamental gap that the Ombudsperson was highlighting in the report.
In reviewing this legislation, there are some questions that come to mind about how these new provisions will work in practice. First, it is noted in a media report that there are around 25 dismissals of public employees for just cause each year. Given the responsibility this legislation would give the Merit Commissioner to potentially review all of these dismissals, I think it is important to look at whether the adequate resources exist within the office to fulfil the job as it is intended.
Second, I’m interested in hearing from the minister whether or not she feels that the process would have changed what occurred back in 2012. We just heard that this would ensure that what happened will never happen again. I’m not sure that we know that, and I think that we can explore that a little further as we get to the committee stage of this bill.
Will the changes to this act provide a general check on the policies and the procedures? Or will it be able to highlight specific issues with specific dismissals? I ask this question particularly in light of section 5.14(4) — that the Merit Commissioner’s review is not to make a determination “whether the dismissal met the legal standard for a just cause dismissal.”
Finally, it’s unclear to me in the legislation how exactly these reports will be handled, who the commissioner will be providing the report to, who will be responsible for taking actions on the problems identified. These are all questions that we can seek further clarification on at the committee stage of this bill. I look forward to getting some clarity on them, and I thank the minister for bringing them forward.
T. Redies: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this important bill. I want to also express my sincere appreciation for how the Minister of Finance introduced the bill. I think this is about getting better and ensuring that the terrible circumstances that generated this report and its recommendations don’t happen again.
As my colleague from Prince George–Valemount noted, the deputy minister to the Premier at the time and the head of the public service provided an unqualified and comprehensive apology to all who were adversely affected by these matters that were detailed in the Ombudsperson’s report. The previous government also indicated that all recommendations would be implemented going forward. So I very much appreciate the fact that the new government, or the not-so-new government anymore, has brought forward this specific recommendation, No. 27.
I also would like to express appreciation — I think for all members in the House — that the new government is currently working to make sure all the recommendations are adopted. I think British Columbians expect that their government and public service leaders and employees act with integrity. We have to ensure that there’s confidence and trust in the processes, particularly when we’re dealing with such an important event in an individual’s life.
As the government, we have to ensure that people are treated with respect and dignity, and putting this legislation in place is the right step forward. We need to make sure that there are measures in place to protect workers in these situations and that we, importantly, learn from past situations so we can get better. I think this legislation will also place a higher standard on the public employer to ensure that proper standards and processes are in place when making these life-changing decisions.
I appreciate the clarification that the Minister of Finance provided that this will apply only to situations where all other remedies have been exhausted. As we get to committee stage, we have a number of similar questions that our colleague from Saanich North and the Islands just spoke about.
One area that I am interested in is: what are the processes in place to make sure that this information which is highly private remains that way? That will be very important, I think, to ensuring the integrity of the process.
Again, I’m not sure how the balance of these recommendations in the Ombudsman report are going to be dealt with. But I think, at some point in time, it would be beneficial to all people in the House to understand how those recommendations are being taken forward by the government so that we all know what the standards are and the processes and that these recommendations are being fulfilled.
There’s more to come in committee stage. But again, I want to express my appreciation to the government that they are acting on these recommendations, and we will go forward from there.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.
Hon. C. James: Thank you to all the members who spoke on the bill. I think, as we heard in the discussion that we’ve had, there will be more questions and a bit more discussion around the specifics as we get to committee stage. But I think it’s very clear that moving these recommendations ahead is something that we all agree on in this Legislature — that making sure that we do everything we can so a tragedy like this doesn’t occur again is something that we can all agree on in this Legislature.
Certainly, we can take a look at the balance of recommendations and just bringing some information forward. They obviously cover a number of ministries. We have some pieces of them, but there are many other pieces that are in other ministers’ responsibilities as well. We can talk a little bit about that as well. I know that the Minister of Health has moved in some areas as well. So more to come.
I appreciate the members also raising the issue — and I think it was in the letter that was read out — of making sure that we remember the families and the people who have been impacted by this. No one will forget this. This will have a permanent impact on these individuals and their families and their colleagues. Legislation is not going to change that, but hopefully, as I said at the start, it can bring some comfort that we are doing everything we can so that this tragedy doesn’t happen to anyone else.
I think that really is our obligation as legislators, across all sides, and I think that’s the opportunity that we have in this legislation today. I look forward to the questions and the discussion when we get to committee stage.
With that, I move second reading of Bill 13, the Public Service Amendment Act, 2018.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 13 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 13, Public Service Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. A. Dix: I call Bill 5, which is the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, for committee stage.
I recognize that we want to make sure that the critic is here to start, so we may need a few minutes’ break, and we’ve only got a few minutes before the lunch break. We want to make sure the member for Chilliwack-Hope is here with us, as well, because he may well be in the House in the other place dealing with estimates.
Deputy Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.
The House recessed from 11:39 a.m. to 11:43 a.m.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 5 — COMMUNITY CARE AND
ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:43 a.m.
On section 1.
Hon. A. Dix: I just wanted to introduce staff here today. We have Sue Bedford, the director of community care licensing and assisted living, and Katherine Thiessen-Wale, director of legislation. We may also be joined later by Sharon Stewart, the executive director of senior services.
On section 1, I’ll leave it to my esteemed colleague.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
L. Throness: I have a question about this one. Subsection (2) of 15.1, says that a medical health officer is not required to publish the address of a licensee’s community care facility under certain circumstances, which suggested that that medical health officer must publish the licensee’s name.
I have a question about the name and about personal information. I’m wondering if the minister has consulted with the Privacy Commissioner, Michael McEvoy. I’m wondering if the Privacy Commissioner has commented on publishing a person’s name without their consent.
Hon. A. Dix: The short answer is yes. We’ve reached out to Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Mr. McEvoy is only recently in this position. Obviously, we went through this process earlier than that — to the office and, obviously, the Ministry of Citizens’ Services as well.
What section 2 does is allows licensees, under certain circumstances, an exemption to not have the address published. The member would know that that might apply under certain conditions where a facility might be targeted in some way or, alternatively, there’s a requirement for safety. So the opportunity to apply not to have the address published is there, and that’s the purpose of this subsection.
L. Throness: I assume that the Privacy Commissioner has approved the publishing of someone’s name without their consent. Did he do so in writing? How was that approval given?
Hon. A. Dix: I don’t think the issue is publishing anyone’s name without consent. The requirement is to publish business information, which would include that. So that’s what’s being published here.
L. Throness: Confirm that personal names will not be published, only business names?
Hon. A. Dix: No. As you’d expect under any business, it’s the name of the operator and the business name. If you’re operating under the act and you’re applying for licences, then it’s not a question of without consent. You’re making the decision to do so, and so that name will be published along with appropriate information available to the public.
You want to know who’s responsible, right? Often in other things that are not connected to this, people have concerns when numbered companies come into play and you’re not sure who’s responsible. In this case, the person making the application, the person on the licence who is operating the facilities, is there.
I think it’s not a question of them doing it without consent. I think they would, in that case, wish to have their name associated with their business.
L. Throness: I’m not sure how to raise this or when to raise this. I asked in my speech to this bill that the government insert a clause here, an extra clause, allowing licence-not-required facilities to voluntarily be posted if they wish.
I would point out that the government, in section 15.3, will publish reports against an unlicensed facility if there’s an investigation or inspection that is against them. Should we not give them the concomitant right to be voluntarily posted?
I would point out that this would be of benefit to parents and families and children by showing the availability of a licence-not-required facility.
Hon. A. Dix: I take the suggestion seriously. It’s not the purpose of this legislation, I would say.
I mean, I understand. I think the member, at second reading, talked a little bit about the opportunity that that might provide people who are unlicensed because they’re operating within the law, two or fewer children, to make known the services that they’re providing. That’s not really the purpose here of this legislation.
In fact, the Ministry of Children and Family Development can register people who are operating in such a way now and does, in some circumstances, provide funding. They could add this information to the child care map, which is in another ministry and in other circumstances, if they wish to. But we don’t have jurisdiction in that regard. It would obviously make this a different initiative than it is, at additional cost.
That having been said, I think it’s an interesting idea and something that the member may wish to pursue with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
L. Throness: Well, it seems to me that this government prefers licensed providers over licence-not-required providers, and this is simply an indication of that. I think that’s a disappointment for our side. I think this shows a lack of esteem in the value, the very real value, that the licence-not-required providers offer to parents and children in this province.
I’m not going to force a vote on it, but I would ask that the government give serious consideration to allowing them the right — just as they must suffer, under section 15.3, the legal liability of a report against them, they would also have the right — to voluntarily post their information, which would serve an important commercial purpose for them and a purpose for the availability of daycare sites for parents who lack the sites. Because, of course, this whole registry is going to serve an important purpose of having you understand the market for the availability of daycare spaces for parents. That’s an important thing.
Hon. A. Dix: I would say that I simply disagree with the assertion of the hon. member. The situation today, as the member quite rightly noted in his speech when he talked about what hadn’t changed and what the legislation wasn’t doing and then what the legislation was doing….
It has always been the case, in fact, that one can’t, with more than two children, operate a facility without a licence. That’s always been the case, and that isn’t changed by this legislation. I think, given that that was the case over the last many, many years, the member would agree that that’s an appropriate application of the law.
There’s no effort here to excessively regulate anybody in the sector. We fully respect people who provide services in this area. I think all people, whether they’re people who are operating legally but unlicensed, because they have two or fewer children, or others…. We’re fully respectful of everyone who does this incredible service for our children and our community. We want to act in that way.
I would say that the purpose of this legislation is, essentially, to be a tool for the public — for people who are seeking child care services — to learn about inspection reports formally, which are done by health authorities through the authority of this act. They’re intended to provide that information to the public. The primary purpose here is not marketing. The primary purpose here is providing information to the public, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
The member may well say…. I think it is the possibility for people who aren’t licensed to participate — who aren’t licensed not because they’re not following the law but because they have two or fewer children.
We understand that there may be people operating without a licence. They’re a matter of concern, obviously, to everyone, but that’s never been allowed — to operate with six or seven or eight children and to operate without a licence. Sometimes people in those circumstances are not knowledgable about the law. The provision under those circumstances is obvious.
If a complaint is made or comes to the attention of an inspector, one of two things will happen, really. There are some actions that can be taken. One is that they come into compliance with the law, or alternatively, they become licensed. But that’s not new. That’s the way it has been for a long time, and that’s the way that it should be.
I take the member’s suggestion, but I think the fundamental change of regulation of people with two or fewer children is not — I don’t think — what the member is seeking. He’s seeking more information about child care opportunities, and I think that’s interesting.
But if he’s suggesting that we should in fact be inspecting, on a regular basis, people who are operating in compliance with the law, because they have two or fewer children…. I don’t think that’s really what he’s seeking in this exchange, right?
I take the suggestion he made. There are some opportunities, I think, through the child care map to take advantage of that. I encourage him to pursue that and those avenues.
The Chair: Shall section 2 pass?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Chair: So ordered.
L. Throness: Sorry. I was thinking of section 15.2, but I guess this is section 2, right? I do have a continuing concern about sub 15.2(3) — if I can draw attention to that, Chair: “A medical health officer must promptly remove information respecting investigations, published under this section, once 5 years have passed since publication.”
I would simply point out to the minister that five years is a long time. You have a legitimate business that is a very good operator. They slip up once. They incur a minor fault, and that is a blot on their record for the next five years.
The government ought to realize the power that it wields in this section, which is a threat to a legitimate non-profit or a marketplace child care provider. This clause represents a lot of power and could actually harm their viability, as parents look to that investigation and say: “This is a minor thing, but I’m not going to go there.”
I wonder if it would be possible for the minister to introduce a distinction between a minor violation and a major violation — to define a “minor violation” and a “major violation” — and to allow a health officer to remove that information in a more timely way in the case of a minor violation, and also to allow the appeal of a provider to a more senior medical health officer should they disagree with a medical health officer’s decision not to remove that information, which could be commercially damaging either to a non-profit or to a market-based provider.
Hon. A. Dix: We’ll have the opportunity. We’re going to note the hour, even though, as I say to my friends opposite, we always like to be very efficient here and use every possible moment.
Nonetheless, I’d just say this. We’ll come back to the broader question because I think the member will have more questions about the issue of five years. We’ll have a chance to have an exchange on that after lunch. I would say that if you disagree with a report, there are means to go to a manager or to go to a health authority medical health officer. The issue here is simply the transparency of what happens when a report is made. We’ll have a little bit of discussion, perhaps, about the five years, after lunch.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 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 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 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:12 a.m.
On Vote 22: ministry operations, $133,949,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I’d like to call the committee into session. We’re here with Committee of Supply, Section A, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy estimates. Of course, I thank the Lekwungen-speaking peoples for having us on their traditional territories to do the work we do.
J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to continue on with a few questions in the lines that I started yesterday. I updated my printout that I had yesterday from marinetraffic.com and got my staff, again, to print out all the marine traffic that’s outside our coasts. I was absolutely stunned to learn that the red dots are all oil tankers in the world. There are quite a few on the coast here.
The Chair: Member, there is not to be any use of props, as the member well knows.
J. Thornthwaite: No props, okay. I’ll just count them, then.
That’s the world. But right now, at 9:30 in the morning, we discovered that around Vancouver, Surrey, down to Bellingham, across the way from Victoria, Port Angeles and around the southern coast of Vancouver Island, there are currently, four tankers. Right outside in the open water, we count 11 tankers. Right near the coast of Bellingham, there’s another one.
Yesterday, when we were canvassing questions, the minister said, with regard to a question that I had of whether or not he was concerned about the ocean protection plan that the federal government announced: “We have no reason to think that the commitment of the federal government to spend that money to protect the Pacific coast of Canada is at risk. No, I’m not concerned.”
Today I discovered we have a new concern. As published in the Alberni Valley News today: “New spill response bases are now on hold as the pipeline is paused. Future of six new bases, 125 jobs, on Vancouver Island in limbo over Kinder Morgan decision.”
Michael Lowry, who’s the manager of communications for Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, says they’ve halted all capital investments on six new spill bases at Sidney, Becher Bay, Ucluelet, Nanaimo, Richmond and Port Alberni.
They go on to say — and this is a quote from the Port Alberni Port Authority’s CEO, Zoran Knezevic: “We’re disappointed that Kinder Morgan has halted their decision, and that subsequently put on hold the development of the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation project here.” He said the spill response base in Port Alberni would have employed 22 people and five or six vessels.
They are making it “a significant loss to the west coast marine community. These bases were going to be for any kind of spill. They will be a significant loss if they don’t go forward.”
My question to the minister, then, is: doesn’t the minister think or agree that the loss of these bases is actually increasing our oil spill response risk?
Hon. G. Heyman: The member, apparently, is confusing the ocean protection plan with the west coast marine response centre, which is the organization that she is referencing in her statements. The west coast marine response centre is industry-funded. They are working on $150 million of improvements that are planned for all marine traffic up and down the coast, but it is not funded by the ocean protection plan.
J. Thornthwaite: No, I’m quite aware of that. This is funded by industry. These funds and these bases and this intense increase of oil spill response are dependent on industry. The construction of those bases and the ability for British Columbia, at least, to be able to bump up their oil spill response is dependent on the Kinder Morgan project. That was my point.
What I worry about is not so much the tankers that are in British Columbia waters. It’s the number of tankers that are actually not British Columbian. They’re American, and they are in or around British Columbia’s waters. We all know that it doesn’t really matter whether or not it’s Canada’s waters or United States’ waters. It’s water. And if there’s a spill on their side, it’s coming over to our land and vice versa.
My other question to the minister is: does the minister know how many oil tankers travel from Alaska to American states per month?
Hon. G. Heyman: First, I’d just like to, for the record, correct…. I referred to the west coast marine response centre. It’s actually west coast marine response corporation. Everything else about the answer is correct.
I’d like to say to the member that I appreciate that she is concerned about any threat of any spill from any tanker that could affect B.C. waters, because the waters don’t know the border. She’s quite correct. That’s why I would invite the member to join us in assuring that we have the greatest protection possible.
Perhaps what the member could do…. I’m sure she has a relationship with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Environment Minister of Canada, Jonathan Wilkinson, an MP on the North Shore, and she might want to have a meeting with him and urge him to ensure that there is no tailing off of the federal government’s commitment to the ocean protection plan and impress upon him how important this is to British Columbia. I think British Columbians would all appreciate that.
Historically, there’s been about one tanker a day coming down the west coast from Alaska. The member for Abbotsford West, I think, referenced that in an earlier discussion. But there has been some tailing off of production. So there may be a reduction in the number of tankers, in fact, and we will get that information and provide it to the member, or at least to the record, when we have it.
J. Thornthwaite: Yes, but the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation — I wish they would get a different acronym — operates on funding by the industry and is regulated by the federal government. I’m aware of that.
These new bases, the vessels and the spill response equipment that I referred to earlier were part of the conditions of the pipeline’s approval by the National Energy Board. And $150 million was earmarked for a spill response plan and was expected to provide 125 jobs, but they have said that money will not come from industry, and the new bases will not proceed because of the uncertainty with the Trans Mountain issue that’s going on right now.
My question, getting back to the other tankers, regardless of what’s going on with regards to Trans Mountain currently or when they twin the pipeline, if that does get built…. My concern is the amount of tanker traffic that is occurring today, now. That’s why I looked on the website, this world tanker traffic website, and was astonished to see how many tankers are there outside our waters today at 9:30 in the morning. That’s why I asked the question about whether or not the minister was familiar with how many were going by every month. Certainly, it’s a lot, and we should be concerned.
The minister has said that he’s committed to the protection of B.C.’s coast. We all are, which is highlighted by the opposition to Kinder Morgan. Has the minister, then, been in contact with his counterparts in the United States to talk to them about whether or not they would reduce their traffic of oil tankers outside of our waters?
Hon. G. Heyman: I share the member’s concern about the potential risks from tanker traffic, and that’s precisely why I and many British Columbians are concerned about a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic in the Salish Sea.
I have not personally had any discussion with counterparts in the state of Washington, but as I entered into the record in response to two or three questions yesterday — it’s in Hansard — officials from the ministry work regularly with officials from Washington state and other Pacific states on oil spill prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. There are joint planning exercises and drills, and we work very closely on those matters.
J. Thornthwaite: Does the minister have confidence right now in the current oil spill regime?
Hon. G. Heyman: Could the member clarify whether she’s referring to land or water?
J. Thornthwaite: I’m talking about the oil spill regime response on our coast, in the water.
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, the simple answer to the member’s question is: no, we don’t think the response is adequate, and neither did the previous government. That’s why they passed new authorities under the Environmental Management Act which we have picked up and carried forward through phase 1 and now phase 2 of the spill control regulations.
We think it’s important to ensure that we have geographically appropriate response plans and that we have response times that actually get resources to an area of a spill in time to ensure that there is a chance to effectively clean up the spill — in fact, a high probability and likelihood. We’re out consulting on those details at the moment.
There are other aspects, as the member knows, to the phase 2 regulations, including the extension of B.C.’s regulatory authority to marine applications, where a spill can wash up on our shoreline, which I assume is what the member’s talking about.
The federal government, in turn, also doesn’t believe it’s adequate. That’s why they’ve designed a $150 million ocean protection plan for Canada’s three oceans. They believe, clearly, that protections are inadequate all over. But technology’s changing, and knowledge is changing. That’s why they’re spending $45 million on research into the behaviour of heavy oil and what are appropriate measures to prevent a spill and what are appropriate measures to respond to and recover from a spill.
We have ongoing conversations with the federal government around that research. We’re on the advisory panel that is deciding how to focus and target that $45 million. They, in turn, have been giving us input on terms of reference for our scientific advisory panel to look at existing and new research.
I think it’s in everyone’s interests that we continually work to improve our oil spill response and recovery capacity as well as measures that can prevent the necessity to use them at all.
J. Thornthwaite: If the minister currently does not have faith in the current oil spill regime, I have, then, two questions: Why is he allowing any tankers anywhere in Canadian waters? Why isn’t he advocating for the United States tankers to stop going up and down our coast? And why is he putting at risk this new $150 million earmarked for a spill response plan from the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation that’s there, that’s contingent on this project?
Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I think I misspoke myself earlier. The ocean protections plan is $1.5 billion for three oceans. The B.C. share of that is $450 million.
The answer to the question posed by the member is that it’s not the jurisdiction of British Columbia to stop tanker traffic off the B.C. coast. Certainly, we have expressed concerns. Certainly, as we develop these regulations and talk about the marine application of them, we will be concerned and will discover….
British Columbians will bring forward, as will First Nations, a number of concerns about a range of transportation mechanisms of petroleum products, how far off the coast they are, whether they’re in shipping lanes, how near to the coastline or dangerous waters they are, and we’ll certainly continue to communicate our concerns to the federal government.
J. Thornthwaite: I guess, closing down my questions…. Would the minister, then, not agree that expanding the spill response rate, which is offered with the new ocean protection plan — the minister has clarified that it’s $450 million for British Columbia waters — as well as the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation increased investment and plan with these bases and vessels is a good move to help protect British Columbia waters from an oil spill?
Hon. G. Heyman: I think the member has stated some points with which, hopefully, we all agree. There’s a concern about the risk to our coasts from tanker traffic, and we should take every measure that we can to prevent a spill and then to be prepared in the hopefully unlikely event one happens. The way to ensure that that event is unlikely is to ensure that everything that can be done is done to prevent a spill in the first place.
What the member is stating is, essentially, that there’s a $150 million private sector investment at risk, to protect B.C.’s coast, which I would agree is inappropriate. But to ensure that that small amount of money comes forward, we should say nothing or do nothing to take measures to prevent risk and be prepared to respond and recover oil in the event of a spill, I think, doesn’t resonate with me. I don’t think it resonates with British Columbians, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Sorry. It was $125 million, not $150 million. Oh, it is $150 million. I’m getting notes as we speak.
In terms of the 122 jobs that are, I assume and I hope, temporarily suspended from the slowdown in the activity in the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, the member has, numerous times, in the Legislature, spoken about how important the film industry in B.C. is. I agree with the member.
The truth is that one of the things that brings films to British Columbia is our reputation and the reality of our beautiful environment, our coastline. It features heavily in many films. And the film industry supports more than 60,000 direct and indirect jobs.
That’s a concern to me as well, and I assume that it’s a concern to the member and that she would agree that we should continue what the previous Premier, under her party, urged us to do, which is to stand up for British Columbians. That’s what we’re doing.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada