Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 116
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
|
Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Holding Pattern: Call Wait Times for Income and Disability Assistance, April 2018 |
|
|
B.C. Utilities Commission, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2017 |
|
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. D. Eby: Joining us today up in the gallery…. Christine Harris is here. She is the mother of Lindsey Longe, who died in supportive housing at age 30 in 2012. She’s hosted Lindsey’s Legacy for Life, a barbecue in the Downtown Eastside, for the last five years and does a lot of advocacy around standards in supportive housing. She lives in Red Deer, Alberta, and has come here to observe our Legislature today. She’s working in adult education and is a full-time student. She’s a busy lady and a great advocate. Would the House please join me in making her feel welcome.
Hon. M. Mark: It is not Groundhog Day, but I would like to introduce a delegation from Simon Fraser University who are with us in the House.
Joining us today are Andrew Petter, the former MLA for Saanich South, elected from 1991 to 2001, he’s now the president of SFU; Fiona Robin, the chair of the board of directors for SFU; their staff, Sobhana Jaya-Madhavan, Nicole Rogers, Ashley Fraser and Heather Sanders; and, most importantly, the students. Larissa Chen is an undergraduate student in the health sciences. She’s a student senator. She’s a 2018 RADIUS fellow and former SFU Student Society president. Melissa McGregor is a graduate student, the director of external relations and an SFU Graduate Student Society alumnus.
SFU, as you know, is a valued post-secondary partner with amazing campuses in Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby. I’m an alumnus, so I have a bias, 2006 criminology. Go, SFU, go. Go, Clan, go. They’re doing great things in this province. They’re moving the dial on truth and reconciliation in action.
Would the House please join me in welcoming their delegation.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, you have a great degree from a great institution.
S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce two grade 12 students from Claremont who are here today, Myrika McDonald and Elyssa Sunray. Myrika and Elyssa, you may have seen in the media, were here in March on the steps of the Legislature making the case for lowering the age to 16 for voting in B.C. These two young women are very interested in politics and in how they can make a difference, and it’s really wonderful to have them here today. Will the House please make them feel welcome.
Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a pleasure to introduce a group of grade 10 students, 19 of them, from a social studies class at Reynolds High School in my constituency. I think that all members of the House will be pretty familiar with Reynolds secondary by now. We’ve had a lot of introductions from that school in this House. Members were enthralled by the students who performed at Pink Shirt Day recently on the steps of the Legislature.
They have distinguished alumni, some of whom sit in this very chamber, who frequently talk about Reynolds secondary. I want to add that it is a truly magnificent school with a tremendous culture in the school around social responsibility, a tremendous sports school with an award-winning soccer academy, great arts programming, music and….
Interjection.
Hon. R. Fleming: Pardon me?
It truly is the best high school in the southern region of Vancouver Island. So I would ask members of the House to make Ms. Alecia Jones, their teacher, and all the students who’ve joined us in the gallery most welcome here today.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Today I’d like to introduce three of my most favourite constituents from Stikine, who have travelled over 1,000 kilometres north of here to come to be with us today in the gallery: one of my constituency assistants, Shelley Worthington, who’s part of the Smithers constituency office; her husband, Dr. Don Chinnick, who runs a chiropractic practice in Smithers — both of them lived in Driftwood, just outside of Smithers; and my wife, Anne, who’s down from Hazelton today. Would the chamber please make them welcome.
J. Rice: It’s my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a visiting delegation from the parliament of Kenya. The Senate Committee on National Security and Foreign Relations is visiting British Columbia to learn about disaster reduction and preparedness.
The members of the committee joining us in the gallery today are Sen. Johnson Arthur Sakaja, Sen. Moses Wetangula, Sen. Fatuma Adan Dullo and Sen. Anwar Loitiptip. Accompanying the senators are Dr. Imbenzi George, honorary counsel general, and Ms. Rose Moody, secretary to the delegation. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Today, as part of National Volunteer Week, we are joined by a number of Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer award winners that have distinguished themselves through their extraordinary contribution to the communities.
I’d like to introduce to members Carolyn Miller for her work with emergency social services; Dave Merritt, our Search and Rescue award winner; Nick Tarasiuk, who is here to accept the award for his wife, who sadly passed away, Babs Tarasiuk; Larry Joe, our emergency radio communications winner; Brian Brinkhurst, the winner of Road Rescue; and Linda Anhillard and his daughter Anne Spray, along with Andrew Spray, for the Lifetime Achievement winner.
I’d like to ask members of this House to join me in recognizing the great sacrifices that B.C.’s public safety lifeline volunteers and their families make each and every day. Please extend them a warm welcome.
A. Olsen: It’s my pleasure to stand in the House today and introduce a friend and a family member, a relative. We share a nephew together. Travis Hall is a councillor for the Heiltsuk Nation in Bella Bella and also electoral area B director of the Central Coast regional district. We’re welcoming him to the great Lekwungen and Saanich territory. Could the House please make him feel very welcome today.
A. Weaver: I, too, would like to join the member for Victoria–Swan Lake and welcome a school, Reynolds, to this Legislature. I, too, recognize the importance of Reynolds High School.
One of the things that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake did not mention is that Reynolds has a long tradition of fundraising in the Tour de Rock, and every single year — year after year after year — they beat Oak Bay High School in that fundraising challenge. I wish to congratulate Reynolds yet again this year, raising over $75,000 for cancer in their Tour de Rock performance.
I welcome them to the House. I, too, am pointing out that Reynolds is the high school of our Premier.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 10 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE
ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018. This bill makes needed changes to improve the effectiveness of support enforcement by granting authority to the director of maintenance enforcement to direct the cancellation of the driver’s licence of someone with significant child or spousal support arrears. The bill also eliminates a requirement for the filing of sensitive information contained within a family law agreement or order in the land title office.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 10, Family Maintenance Enforcement 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)
VOLUNTEERS
J. Tegart: Sue, Kiara, Joyce, Phyllis, Andy, Carol, Tom, Vicky, Karma, Ben, Josh, Richie, Peter, Jerry, Alice, Robin. The list could go on, well beyond the two minutes that I have available to me to speak today. These names are but a few of the volunteers that are celebrated during National Volunteer Week in Fraser-Nicola.
ASK Wellness, Tiny Tots, Rotary, Lions, PACs, health and wellness committees, elder councils, foundations, friendship centres, Communities in Bloom, first responders, coaches, seniors groups are just a few of the organizations that make our communities a place to call home.
We all know them, those quiet unsung heroes that step up and volunteer hours of time to make things happen, often not even asked, just there. In times of trouble, filling sandbags. In times of joy, cheering on the hockey team. In times of celebration, putting out the chairs, baking the goodies, serving the drinks and then staying to clean up the hall.
They are our neighbours, our youth, our seniors, our community leaders. They understand community service. They give unconditionally, and they make our communities a better place to live.
Please join me today in thanking the volunteers in our communities that keep the heart of community strong and caring. I urge all members and everyone listening today to take some time during National Volunteer Week to say thank you to a volunteer near you.
YANA ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT FOR
FAMILIES TRAVELLING
FOR MEDICAL CARE
R. Leonard: As we know, it is National Volunteer Week. I would like to highlight just one of the volunteer organizations in Courtenay-Comox that operates with an awfully huge heart: YANA. It stand stands for You Are Not Alone.
It was founded in 1986 by Sandra Williams, after her family’s journey with the grief of separation as it dealt with their daughter Roberta’s health problems, which took her far away to Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. She and her family and friends were determined to help others, in the belief that when a child is ill, the whole family needs care.
Fast-forward to today. Sandra is gone, but a strong board of volunteers and only two part-time staff, Marcie Dumais and Ocean Varney, continue to grow YANA beyond expectations. Last year they helped 161 local families, up 28 percent over the year before, with nearly 400 medical stays in their four fully furnished apartments close to Children’s Hospital or in accommodation funded in Victoria, Nanaimo and elsewhere.
At this year’s jam-packed annual fundraiser, the Big Love benefit, one family’s story was highlighted. This family suffered the loss of their first-born and subsequently had twins that also needed medical care away. Sadly, one of the twins didn’t make it. But after seven months, always together, both parents brought home a healthy child — a long, tough journey made bearable with YANA’s support.
In the past 30-plus years, You Are Not Alone has been there for thousands of such families, with accommodation and an allowance for living expenses, thanks to the hundreds of volunteers and our very generous community. Many of its volunteers have themselves been helped by YANA, proving that giving brings its own gifts.
SPARWOOD AND DISTRICT
FISH AND WILDLIFE
ASSOCIATION
T. Shypitka: A couple of weekends ago I was given the honour and privilege to attend a banquet for the 100th anniversary of a collection of some of the greatest wildlife and habitat conservationists in the province of British Columbia.
In 1918, a group of fish-and-wildlife-minded folks got together and formed a conservation group called the Michel-Natal Rod and Gun Club. Their goal and values were to work with local businesses, organizations and government agencies in order to protect, maintain and enhance the wildlife, fisheries and environment in their backyard of the beautiful Elk Valley.
In 1966, the club changed their name to the Sparwood and District Fish and Wildlife Association. The name had changed, but the values didn’t budge.
The banquet also incorporated an awards ceremony that recognized members for their personal hunting accomplishments and celebrated youth achievement in fishing, hunting and conservation.
This group, like so many other rod and gun clubs in my area, improves our habitat, cleans up campgrounds and riparian areas. The list goes on and on. This club’s newest initiative is an elk migratory study that will help their survival in an effort to reclaim higher population numbers. A shout-out to Dave Beranek for his coordinating efforts.
Make no mistake about it. Hunters are conservationists, and they put their money where their mouth is. While some people that are geographically removed from these beautiful areas and our province make uneducated decisions on what hunters are and what they do for wildlife, I can assure you that these people are the boots on the ground that we need to make the best decisions when it comes to an all-inclusive wildlife and habitat enhancement plan. These stewards of the land put more time into wildlife and habitat recovery in one week than most of us will do in a lifetime.
Congratulations to the Sparwood and District Fish and Wildlife Association for 100 years of successful conservationism and making our back country a better place to be.
BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR
R. Singh: This past weekend a towering South Asian social justice activist, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, was remembered by my constituents. Many of you may know of Dr. Ambedkar, as the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds had previously acknowledged Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions in this House.
Dr. Ambedkar was born on April 14, 1891, in Maharashtra, India, in a family of an oppressed community. In a caste-ridden society, he had to endure discrimination as he grew up. Despite many challenges, he was able to complete his education and went to the U.K. and the U.S.A. for higher studies. His hard work earned him the reputation of a well-read scholar who rose to become a law minister and the architect of the Indian constitution.
Throughout his life, he continued his struggle against caste-based oppression and became an undisputed leader of the so-called untouchables. Nevertheless, he also raised his voice for gender equality and denounced sexism within Indian society.
The values for which Dr. Ambedkar stood make him relevant in this part of the world too. Dr. Ambedkar’s legacy has been celebrated and acknowledged in the UN. A museum has been created in London, U.K., and his busts have been installed at Columbia University, the London School of Economics, York University, Simon Fraser University and many other parts of the world.
On his 127th birthday anniversary, I want to commend his followers for keeping his legacy alive in Canada and request the House to join me in acknowledging Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to social justice.
HAROLD ZINKE
J. Martin: Each and every one of us, so privileged and so fortunate to serve in this House, have in our respective ridings outstanding constituents who make significant contributions to their community in their own unique and special manner. In Chilliwack, we are blessed to have such an individual in Harold Zinke.
Harold is one of Chilliwack’s most recognizable faces, a person who was formerly on social assistance and once on the verge of homelessness. Harold is Chilliwack’s street ambassador and a familiar sight downtown with his trusty wheelbarrow and an ever-present, friendly smile. For almost 20 years, Harold has kept the streets of downtown Chilliwack spotless, and he routinely assists with the setup and the takedown of Downtown Chilliwack Business Improvement Association events.
His contributions to the community, which I am proud to represent and I am proud to call home, have not gone unnoticed. Harold was recognized as Employee of the Year at the 2007 Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards. He was also named the Citizen of the Year by the Optimist Club of Chilliwack that very same year.
Affectionately known as the mayor of downtown Chilliwack, whether he’s keeping the streets clean, washing windows or watering outdoor plants, Harold Zinke is just one more reason that Chilliwack punches above its weight.
Will the House please join me in recognizing one of Chilliwack’s very finest, Harold Zinke.
SHIPBUILDING AND
INDUSTRIAL MARINE
SECTOR
M. Dean: Esquimalt has been home to shipbuilding and ship repair since the Royal Navy first established a dry dock in the Esquimalt Harbour in 1887.
The current facility, the Esquimalt graving dock, was built in 1926 and is the largest non-military, hard-bottom dry dock on the west coast of the Americas. Owned by the federal government and used by a variety of private industrial marine companies, the facility contributes an estimated $183 million to the local economy and supports an estimated 1,350 jobs providing good, family-sustaining wages.
Seaspan’s Victoria shipyards is one of the main companies operating out of the Esquimalt graving dock, with a full project pipeline through to 2021 and expected to employ between 600 and 1,000 workers. They deliver on projects that require the use of cutting-edge technologies and demonstrate the long-term benefits from the B.C. industrial marine sector, both through individual projects and under the umbrella of the national shipbuilding strategy. Overall, the industrial marine sector is an important component of the B.C. economy, contributing over $880 million to provincial GDP.
This week shipbuilding and the industrial marine sector are in the spotlight in Victoria, which is the host city for the 2018 conference of the Canadian Institute of Marine Engineering. This event attracts participants and exhibitors from across North America and Europe and provides an opportunity to highlight the depth and breadth of B.C.’s thriving industrial marine sector.
I wish to welcome these visitors to our province and to highlight the important work of B.C. companies in support of the national shipbuilding strategy and our province’s vibrant industrial marine sector.
Oral Questions
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES
A. Wilkinson: In Ottawa on Sunday, the Premier met with Premier Notley and the Prime Minister. Nothing came of it.
Yesterday the House of Commons held an emergency debate about the Trans Mountain pipeline. In Edmonton, the NDP introduced legislation to restrict the export of petroleum goods to provinces, including British Columbia. In Saskatchewan, the government has promised similar legislation to cut off roughly 300,000 barrels of refined petroleum products coming to British Columbia from Saskatchewan.
It’s clear that the Premier accomplished nothing in Ottawa. He’s increasingly isolated as the western provinces effectively gang up on his agenda. So when will this Premier accept that negotiation is the way we do things in Canada, and it’s much more effective than running things through the courts?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question today. We did go to Ottawa. We did speak with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Premier of Alberta about a range of issues.
The member is quite right that Alberta has introduced legislation in their Legislature as recently as yesterday, which was characterized by the Calgary chair of resource law at the University of Calgary as: “I can’t for the life of me understand why Alberta would want to do this. It’s a ‘shoot yourself in the foot’ proposal, I think.” I would be inclined to agree with that, and I’m surprised that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Once again, we see the Premier dodge the issue. He’s created this problem, and now he’s relying on obscure professors from Calgary to defend his position.
British Columbians shouldn’t have to pay for the Premier’s political ambitions. Our neighbours and our most important trading partner are introducing legislation that will have dramatic, damaging effects on British Columbia, and the members opposite make fun of this. We’ll see when the members think it’s funny when fuel prices take a jump in British Columbia.
The Premier knows that the little plan that was announced today by the Attorney General to sue Alberta for discrimination would take years to make its way through the courts, if it ever proved to have any merit at all. In the meantime, British Columbia businesses, British Columbia individuals and British Columbia families have the sword hanging over their heads of a dramatic boost in fuel prices. What is the Premier going to do to solve that problem today?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would diminish experts in the field. I’ll throw another one at him — not an obscure expert but Andrew Leach, energy economist to the government of Alberta until he took up a position at the business school at the University of Alberta.
He said the following. This is an Albertan now: “I’m pretty sure that the only things this bill will do are (1) set a dangerous precedent, (2) fail to pass any challenge before the NEB, (3) cause chaos for Alberta shippers, refiners, traders, etc., in the interim.”
I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t want to join with the Green Party and the NDP to support the interests of the people of British Columbia, but surely to goodness, he would understand that even the people of Alberta see this as a cockamamie way to do business by cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: It is hard to contemplate a Premier who has the Prime Minister of Canada, the official opposition federally, the Saskatchewan conservative party currently in government, the Alberta NDP and the Alberta United Conservative Party ganging up on his misplaced agenda, and the best thing he can do is quote some obscure Albertan about how this is their fault.
Premier, come to your senses. You’ve got to recognize…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
A. Wilkinson: …that you’re talking about discriminating against Albertans on the speculation tax, and woe is British Columbia. Suddenly we’re the subject of discrimination from Alberta.
Solve this problem. You created it. Get on your feet, and solve the problem that you’ve triggered with governments across Canada.
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the member on the other side wants to call other people obscure and diminish their credentials on matters that he believes he’s superior on. That’s fine. That’s his opinion.
Again, I’m going to stand with British Columbians each and every day. If I’m being supported by energy experts in Alberta as well as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who have said, “At first glance, it could have economic consequences on our industry and Alberta’s economy, including potential employment….”
If I’m getting support from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers about discriminatory legislation, if I’m getting support from Alberta academics and not the Leader of the Official Opposition in British Columbia when I stand up for British Columbians, I think that’s passing strange.
J. Johal: Without Alberta’s energy, B.C.’s economy would come to a standstill. About 80,000 barrels of gas and diesel are imported from Alberta each and every day. Energy analysts predict gas prices starting at $2 a litre if the Alberta NDP use their new legislation to turn off the taps.
The Premier created this crisis. Will he fix his mess before gas prices hit $2 a litre?
Hon. J. Horgan: On Saturday of last week, life was carrying on in British Columbia. We were in court, as civilized people will be, with a dispute between parties. That’s a reasonable place for the government of British Columbia to be.
On Sunday, we had a press release from Texas, and chaos ensued. It was not a press release issued by this government. It was not provocative action by this government. We have not introduced legislation restricting the transmission of goods between provinces — whether it be wine, whether it be gas, whether it be petroleum products. It’s the government of Alberta that’s done that.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, please.
Hon. J. Horgan: We have not introduced legislation. The member knows it. To have a consultation with British Columbians is something that’s foreign to those people on that side. That’s why they’re over there.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
J. Johal: This government caused this problem. It’s everyday British Columbians that are being affected. Gas prices are already the highest they’ve ever been, and now the Premier has picked a fight that will mean higher prices for groceries, gas for the car and other basic necessities.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
J. Johal: I ask again: will British Columbians have to pay $2 a litre for gas before the Premier admits his mistake?
Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t know if the member’s point was better made by yelling it, but I continue to hold the position and I continue to believe that the government of British Columbia has every right and, in fact, an obligation to defend the interests of British Columbia, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
RESPONSE TO ALBERTA LEGISLATION
A. Weaver: I find it remarkable that I sit here and listen to the official opposition defend the interests of Alberta over the interests of British Columbia.
Yesterday we saw the Alberta government, as was mentioned, introduce legislation intended to directly punish British Columbia for trying to protect our country’s coastline and coastal communities from a threat of a diluted bitumen spill. If that was used…. Members opposite should know this. It would be illegal if used to raise the price of gas. Constitutional lawyers have ruled on this. It would be illegal for them to do this, and the liability that Alberta taxpayers would take upon that would be unbelievable.
Frankly, the same Albertans should realize…. Where do they get their natural gas from to actually power the oil fields? They get it from northeastern British Columbia. They should know better than to do this. This latest move was precipitated by Kinder Morgan’s imposition of a May 31 deadline to achieve certainty before going ahead with the Trans Mountain expansion.
In response to the legislation, the Attorney General said yesterday….
Interjections.
A. Weaver: If you let me actually ask it, I would. Thank you very much, members opposite.
This is what the Attorney General said: “If there is anything in this legislation that even suggests the possibility of discrimination against British Columbians, we will take every step necessary” to protect the interests of British Columbians.
My question is to the Attorney General. Given the Premier of Alberta’s previous remarks suggesting that this legislation was intended to give them the tools to target B.C., can you please specify what specific actions you’re planning to take in response?
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his question and for his commitment to British Columbians.
We’ve reviewed the bill. We believe it’s unconstitutional and illegal, on its face. It’s especially so, if that’s possible, given the context of the comments of members of the government of Alberta about the purpose for which the bill was introduced.
There are three options available to our….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: There are three options available to our government in terms of responding to this. One is, before the bill passes, we could refer it to our courts. After the bill passes and receives royal assent, we could challenge it in court as unconstitutional. In the incredibly unlikely event that the government of Alberta actually thought that they had the authority under the law to use this act, we could be in court on an injunction to stop them from doing so and to challenge it and to sue the government of Alberta.
We think that they are very unlikely to use this, given the analysis, and we think they know it. It is a bill for political purposes only.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE
AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
A. Weaver: I want to build upon this in light of the fact that members opposite are putting at risk our natural gas production in northeastern British Columbia that goes to Alberta. I’d like to pick up on that.
In addition to the development and discovery of new shale oil deposits, we’ve seen profound technological shifts and the rise of renewable energy in markets around the world, not least in Asia. And what are the supposed targeted markets for this pipeline?
Kinder Morgan is playing one jurisdiction off against another. I reiterate: our natural gas producers in northeast British Columbia have the single-largest buyer of their natural gas being Alberta. Members opposite are putting that at risk with their rhetoric supporting Alberta’s illegal behaviour.
One week since they issued their ultimatum, they’ve managed to secure taxpayers to prop up their government. Commitment….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
Leader, proceed.
A. Weaver: One week since they’ve issued their ultimatum, they’ve managed to secure taxpayer dollars to prop up their project, commitments that the federal government will steamroll community and First Nations opposition and further punitive legislation that sets a dangerous precedent for interprovincial trade. Canada needs a leader right now who is not going to let Kinder Morgan play one jurisdiction against another.
To the Premier: despite Alberta’s posturing, will you assure this House that you won’t get dragged into a tit for tat with Alberta where nobody wins?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. It is not my intention nor is it the intention of my government to be provocative with other parts of the country. That’s not what I believe how cooperative federalism works. I happily went to Ottawa at the request of the Prime Minister to meet with him, his Finance Minister as well as the Premier and leader of the government of Alberta. We had a candid discussion and discovered that we had a difference of opinion.
In Canada, that’s okay. It may not be okay to the members on that side of the House to disagree periodically, but the Canadian fabric will not be torn because we don’t have the same points of view from day to day to day.
I believe that the important thing for us all to do is to stop with the yelling, stop with the bluster and hope that cooler heads will prevail. I believe, also, that the courts are the appropriate place for this action — not political posturing and not grandstanding but making sure that reasonable people can put their points forward and have a determination by a third party, rather than reckless politics like we’re seeing from the other side.
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES
P. Milobar: On March 12, the Environment Minister dismissed my questions about Alberta’s threat to drive up gas prices as “fearmongering…about events that clearly will not take place.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
P. Milobar: Yesterday he said: “Don’t worry; we’ll take Alberta to court.” This from a minister who takes months just to decide what court to go to.
To the minister, how many months or years does he feel it’s appropriate for consumers in British Columbia to have to pay $2 a litre for gas?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I believe it’s irresponsible for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to come and to suggest that we’re paying $2 a litre for gas. We’re not. The Premier of Alberta has said she does not want to proceed with the legislation. I believe she shouldn’t have tabled it in the first place. We disagree. That’s okay, because this is Canada, where we — I would hope — would be civilized in our discussion and our debates around issues as contentious as this one.
I don’t believe we’re aided in any way whatsoever when members on the other side of the House put fear into the minds of British Columbians when what we’re doing is standing up for British Columbians and ensuring we have the right and ability to protect them should there be a catastrophic diluted bitumen spill. That’s the root of the issue, and that member is being overly provocative, just like many others on that side of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: Myself and our caucus are going to keep standing up for B.C. families and businesses, who shouldn’t have to pay $2 a litre. We will continue to stand up for B.C. families and businesses, who shouldn’t have to pay $2 a litre for gasoline. This will mean higher prices for gas, higher prices for groceries and other basic necessities.
The Premier and this Environment Minister created this mess. When will he fix it?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the member is just incorrect. I find it passing strange that the people of British Columbia do not have the support of the official opposition. But we can count on, apparently, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, which said: “We’re concerned that the measures being considered in Bill 12 could have long-term unintended consequences for industry and the public at large.”
That’s a reasonable thing to say when a government introduces provocative legislation with the sole express purpose of hurting another jurisdiction. Why in the world do the people on that side of the House not get that?
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
TRANSPORT OF OIL BY
RAIL
J. Isaacs: Oil by rail through B.C. is increasing because pipelines are at capacity. Yesterday Premier Notley said she will use her new legislation to send more oil by rail: “It will still be shipped. It will just be not as safe and more expensive.”
Does the Minister of Transportation really believe that a pipeline is less safe than oil by rail?
Hon. G. Heyman: It’s disappointing that the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain wasn’t listening or paying attention when we elaborated in this House and in the media that we intend to protect British Columbians’ environment and economy from the risk of spills of petroleum products generally, by whatever mode of transportation they’re carried. The specific regulations that are out for consultation now address shipment by pipe, by rail, and earlier regulations covered other matters.
The point of our regulatory regime is to protect British Columbia’s environment, our economy and our interests from the threat of a diluted bitumen spill. That’s a real threat. The federal government has acknowledged that. That’s why they’ve committed $45 million to research to look into the behaviour of oil in different aquatic environments, to the best ways to prevent a spill and to the best ways to recover.
The opposition would have us give up our rights to protect British Columbians’ interests. That’s not surprising. We saw that for the last 16 years.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.
J. Isaacs: The Minister of Transportation and the Premier are clearly on the record that the province can’t limit the transport of oil by rail. Blocking the Trans Mountain expansion will only increase the volume of oil that travels by rail through communities like Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody.
Again to the minister, why is he choosing to support oil by rail through these communities instead of expanding pipeline capacity?
Hon. G. Heyman: Again, we’re determined to exercise every inch of our jurisdiction under the constitution to protect British Columbia’s environment and economy and interests from threats, from pollutants, including petroleum products. The opposition apparently is only too happy to give up rights to protect our interests.
The old government for 16 years said nothing when oil-by-rail shipments grew to a peak between 2012 and 2014. In fact, the former government gave up British Columbians’ ability to control rail when they sold off B.C. Rail after promising in an election that they wouldn’t do so.
It’s fascinating to me, but I would say it’s disappointing to British Columbians, that the opposition has suddenly taken an interest in the risks posed by the transportation of bitumen by rail now, but they did nothing about it when they had the chance to do so.
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
EXPORT OF LUMBER BY
RAIL
C. Oakes: B.C. softwood lumber exports to the United States are down 20 percent from last year because our mills can’t get their product out by rail. The Minister of Jobs knows this is a problem.
Here is what he wrote to the federal government: “Lumber mills and other industries…are being seriously impacted by the lack of rail service.”
To the Minister of Jobs, in light of his own comments, why is he choosing to support an increase in oil by rail shipments rather than expanding pipeline capacity?
Hon. B. Ralston: I met with members of the northeastern chambers of commerce — from Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Fort St. John — and they expressed real concern about the shortage of railcars that was damaging their ability to export grain from that region. In addition, I also toured — in Prince George recently, last week — the Canfor pulp mill, where they had a six-month supply of pulp in their yard due to the shortage of railcars.
There is a serious crisis in CN Rail. In fact, the president of CN Rail resigned, and the company issued an unprecedented apology for their inability to deliver railcars.
I’m concerned, as the minister responsible for trade, about the damage to our reputation in terms of on-time delivery of the basic commodities that British Columbia produces in such abundance. That’s why I wrote to the president. That’s why I wrote to the federal Minister of Transport.
I’ve since had a meeting with a senior official at Canadian National Railway who has assured me that they are taking very determined remedial steps to bring back the on-time delivery of B.C. commodities, which is important for the health and strength and future prosperity of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: Cariboo North on a supplemental.
C. Oakes: Well, yes, I would agree that we have a serious crisis. Why are you making it worse? Furthermore, you talk about reputation. What are you doing in this government to make the reputation of British Columbia worse?
Let’s see what other people are saying about this minister’s choice. Here’s a media headline from April 6, 2018: “Outrageous Hypocrisy as B.C. Minister Calls on Ottawa to Solve a Rail Bottleneck While Fighting an Alberta Pipeline.”
Again, to the minister, why has he chosen to support oil by rail when he knows his choice hurts B.C. forest-dependent families, their communities, softwood producers, and it’s an important part of British Columbia’s economy?
Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for her question. I’m surprised that a member coming from a forest-dependent community such as Quesnel would minimize the impact of the shortage of railcars on the forest industry — those exports that come from the mills in Quesnel.
Certainly, Canadian National Railway has recognized the problem. They made a change at the top. The CEO resigned. The company made an unprecedented public apology, and they are taking steps to bring back the kind of on-time rail service that’s necessary. They’ve leased 200 locomotives from other jurisdictions. They’ve changed their logistics system.
That’s really important for on-time delivery of B.C. commodities, which the resource economy, which is so much a part of our prosperity, depends upon, and that’s why I was committed to make those suggestions to the federal Minister of Transport. I’m pleased that CN Rail is acting on that.
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
EXPORT OF GRAIN BY
RAIL
I. Paton: Rail shipment delays are also causing difficulties for B.C. grain producers trying to get their product to market. Pipelines that carry oil are at capacity, and the increase in oil by rail takes space that could be used by our farmers.
Against the best interests of farmers in this province, why has the Minister of Agriculture chosen an increase in shipping oil by rail instead of expanding pipeline capacity?
Hon. B. Ralston: The grain industry is really an important part of our agricultural economy here in British Columbia. When I met with those chambers of commerce in northeastern British Columbia, they certainly stressed that. Grain does not get transported in oil cars.
CN, at the urging of many affected parties, including the federal Minister of Transportation, is taking the remedial steps, leasing more locomotives, changing the logistics system of the turnaround time for their railcars. Also, they’re hiring more staff at Canadian National Railway to deliver the kind of service that’s expected for the important trade that goes from British Columbia to Asia, ports around the world. That’s something that I’m working on, and I’m very proud to have pushed the government to action on this file.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.
I. Paton: Well, grain producers have no other options than rail to get their product to the market, but we do have safer alternatives for oil. The Trans Mountain pipeline would free up rail capacity for increased grain shipments.
Again to the minister, why has she…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, Delta South has the floor.
I. Paton: …chosen to support oil by rail when she knows her choice hurts B.C. farmers?
Hon. B. Ralston: The problems in the grain industry are being addressed by CN Rail. Certainly, they’re taking a number of remedial measures, under tremendous pressure across the country — from the federal Transportation Minister, from the federal government, from chambers of commerce in northeastern British Columbia. They are all asking for remedial steps to be taken by CN.
They have begun a process, back in October, of leasing more locomotives, obtaining more railcars and hiring more staff. The winter was a particularly difficult one, yet that’s not the place that they’re looking to, to assign blame. They have reviewed their procedures, and they are taking steps to develop and to expand the rail network which we depend on. That’s really important for the growth of our economy.
What we’re doing here on this side of the House is not serving the 1 percent of the population that the previous government did. We’re serving all British Columbians in all industries, in all parts of the province, building prosperity. That’s just what we’re doing.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled Holding Pattern: Call Wait Times for Income and Disability Assistance from the Office of the Ombudsperson.
Hon. D. Eby: I rise to present the British Columbia Utilities Commission annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.
Hon. G. Chow: I would like to ask leave to make a brief introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. G. Chow: I’d like to ask the House to welcome a group of grade 10 students from David Thompson Secondary School, one of two secondary schools in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. They are led by teacher Mr. Chris Ascher and volunteering parents. I’d like to ask the House to make them feel welcome.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, continued debate on committee stage of Bill 13 and, in Committee A, continued — continued, continued — debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 13 — PUBLIC SERVICE
AMENDMENT
ACT, 2018
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:02 a.m.
The Chair: Calling the committee on Bill 13 to order. I understand yesterday members had some difficulty hearing the questions and answers. Maybe I’ll ask Hansard to raise the volume of the Minister of Health’s microphone.
On section 3 (continued).
T. Redies: We were talking about some of the issues around privacy with respect to Bill 13. We’d like to continue that line of questioning for a little while.
Could the minister please explain to us what internal processes will be in place within the Merit Commissioner’s office to make sure that private information is protected and not released in any way?
Hon. A. Dix: Just to say that this is part of what the Merit Commissioner does already. The Merit Commissioner has a lot of experience is this area because the merit reviews done by the Merit Commissioner require the similar need to protect confidentiality. This will be up to the Merit Commissioner, but the Merit Commissioner is very well placed to ensure the privacy of individuals.
T. Redies: I asked what specific processes were in place. I understand the Merit Commissioner is very capable, but I guess I would like a little bit more colour around the specific processes in place to make sure that private information is protected.
Hon. A. Dix: I think, specifically, the Merit Commissioner, as I say, engages in this now. So when an act very clearly states that personal information is not to be released, and it’s the purpose of the act to do a broad policy and practice review of just dismissals in the province of British Columbia, the Merit Commissioner is well aware of that. In fact, this is the guiding principle of that. I would assume that the Merit Commissioner would set up — as she does now, in the case of merit reviews — similar processes to ensure that private information is not released.
Really, it’s the purpose of the legislation, and the Merit Commissioner knows this well. It was the purpose, as presented by the Ombudsperson, that this not be reviews of individual cases but reviews of broader government policy. That is what the reports will be about. That’s how the Merit Commissioner is being directed. That’s something that the Merit Commissioner is well familiar with, because she and her office do this already.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Will anybody other than the Merit Commissioner be reviewing these sensitive cases?
Hon. A. Dix: It would be just the Merit Commissioner, of course, because the review of individual cases…. The Merit Commissioner might well be in discussion with, for example, deputy ministers and so on about circumstances in the scope of her review. But it’s the Merit Commissioner, and the Merit Commissioner alone, who’s responsible under this act and these changes to do these broad reviews. The Merit Commissioner is obviously reviewing, in this case, an average of 25 individual cases, if it was an average year, and doing practice and policy recommendations to government based on those reviews.
That would involve her, of course, discussing potential issues with members of government. For example, you could imagine a particular matter was the subject of a deputy minister’s responsibility. The deputy minister would not be the subject of the review, but it would be the actions of the government that would be reviewed by the Merit Commissioner. It’s the Merit Commissioner doing the review as an independent officer of the Legislature.
T. Redies: Just to clarify that further, I understand that, obviously, they would be speaking to the ministers who would be involved in the case. But will there be anybody else within the Merit Commissioner’s office who will be reviewing these files, or is it just solely, as the minister said, the Merit Commissioner that will look at these files?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, clearly, staff under the direction of the Merit Commissioner…. It wouldn’t be the Merit Commissioner personally, but her office, for which she is responsible, who would be doing it. The Merit Commissioner is appointed, of course, by the Legislature. Then her staff, which she is responsible for, would be conducting these reviews with her, just as they do in the current merit process.
The Merit Commissioner has a staff. I think we discussed yesterday that the budget is between $1.1 million and $1.2 million. She has a staff that assists her in her duties, but it’s the Merit Commissioner who’s responsible and her office that does the work.
T. Redies: Will the Privacy Commissioner be reviewing any of the reports prepared by the Merit Commissioner under this act?
Hon. A. Dix: The Privacy Commissioner would have no special authority under these actions. This is another independent officer of the Legislature. The Privacy Commissioner always has authority, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to protect the privacy of individuals, but in this case, they have no specific authority.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister. We have talked a little bit about the Merit Commissioner’s capacity, that there are approximately 25 cases per annum. Do we know if the Merit Commissioner will be hiring any dedicated information-and-privacy-focused staff to help prepare the reports?
Hon. A. Dix: As I think we discussed a little bit yesterday, the Merit Commissioner will be determining what the work involves. Should it require additional resources, as we discussed yesterday, the Merit Commissioner will make the case for those resources, as you do within government.
The Merit Commissioner, because the Merit Commissioner deals with matters of personnel in government and the merit process within government, already has many of those obligations around privacy and is very well experienced at it. That’s at the core of the Merit Commissioner’s function, as it stands now. I would expect that to continue.
With respect to new resources, that will be an issue for the Merit Commissioner to determine as the legislation is enacted.
T. Redies: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I appreciate his patience with us asking about these questions. I think, for all of us, the important issue here, other than having the process in place, is to make sure that the private information of people is protected in these very sensitive situations.
I had another question. The bill says the report will include “references to particular instances.” However, it then says that personal information related to non-compliance and the identity of the ministry of agency must not be included. I guess what we’re trying to understand is how one would list a breach of procedures without specifying who it was, what they did, who the agency or ministry was and what the result was. How do you make the report with sufficient information to be relevant?
Hon. A. Dix: First of all, the questions have been excellent. I think this process is important not just for members of the House, but it’s important for people who are going to be dealing with and looking at this legislation in the future that the issues are clarified. I very much appreciate the questions that the member is asking.
With respect to this issue, this is the core balancing act of the recommendation of the Ombudsperson, of the legislation, which is, of course, that the Merit Commissioner has to report out on specific issues or specific cases — for example, when appropriate practices and policies of the government haven’t been followed — but to do so in such a way as to not identify — for example, that it would be, for the sake of argument, the Ministry of Transportation or whatever ministry it would be which conducted that — that process so as to affect the confidentiality of people involved.
The process is that you’re reviewing, let’s say, 25 cases. The Merit Commissioner is reviewing those 25 cases, looking at whether practices and policies were appropriately followed and then identifying issues when they were but has to identify them in such a way — and this is the balancing act of the legislation of the recommendation — as not to identify the individuals or the ministry involved.
T. Redies: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I just want to clarify a little bit about the scope here, because I still am a bit confused by what the Minister of Finance said when she introduced the bill and what we’re talking about here.
If I may, I’d just like to quote from the minister’s Hansard file. What she said is that “these reviews should only take place once the completion of all opportunities for that individual to challenge the just cause have occurred.” Then we’re also talking about kind of a broad report about multiple cases and recommendations coming out of that. I guess from my perspective…. Is it both individual cases and broad recommendations, or is it just broad recommendations?
Hon. A. Dix: As we discussed in section 2, and we had a little bit of the discussion under 5.13, the purpose is to say that the investigations can’t start until, essentially, the grievance process has ended. Right? So they’re not a second grievance process or an alternative to the grievance process. This is a review that would lead to broad recommendations by government about the way in which government’s practices and policies are followed — or what those practices and policies should be in the case of just cause dismissals.
Of course, the Merit Commissioner is looking at individual cases. That’s the evidence. But the Merit Commissioner is making broad recommendations to government about the process that’s followed. It’s not a second opportunity to litigate individual cases. There are processes for that that are both legal and internal, in some cases, to collective agreements. On the one hand, it’s not that. But what it is, is a broad review of how the government deals with just cause dismissals, in order to ensure that the absolute best practices are used by government.
T. Redies: Sorry to belabour this point, but are we talking…? If an individual’s case does come to the Merit Commissioner after all the other proceedings have been exhausted, which I appreciate, will the Merit Commissioner be tabling a report on any individual case, or will that case just become part of the overall, broad recommendations?
The reason I’m asking this is because, if it’s an individual case that is tabled, it’s quite easy, oftentimes, to understand who actually is involved and that. That’s where I’m going with my questioning.
Hon. A. Dix: The Merit Commissioner won’t be bringing forward reports on individual cases, but the Merit Commissioner will clearly be looking at individual cases, because that’s the sum of the evidence, and making recommendations about them. The Merit Commissioner might say that in a case, the proper procedures for investigations were not followed, and that these changes need to be required. So that’s the sum of the evidence.
The member is absolutely right to focus on this point. It’s the main challenge, the main balancing act, faced by the Merit Commissioner — the main balancing act, recommended by the Ombudsperson — which is not to create a new process to deal with individual cases but to have the Merit Commissioner look at what government is doing as a whole, the sum of the cases but also the individual cases, and make recommendations with that.
The member is absolutely right to make this point, which is that this is the key balancing act of the legislation. It will be a challenge for the Merit Commissioner, but we’re confident that the Merit Commissioner, based on the Ombudsperson’s recommendation, will be able to follow through on it.
T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that, finally, for me.
In terms of the report itself, will this report be tabled in the House like other annual reports?
Hon. A. Dix: The Merit Commissioner currently tables a report on merit. This report will be synchronized with that and tabled at the same time.
T. Redies: Who will be responsible for implementing any recommendations that arise from these reports? Will that be the Minister of Finance? How will the implementation of the recommendations be monitored for progress and completion?
Hon. A. Dix: The principal responsible within government would be the Deputy Minister for the Public Service Agency. So yes, the Minister of Finance, as an extension of that.
There would be annual reports. Clearly, if the government was not responding to the Merit Commissioner’s report, they would be hearing from the Merit Commissioner — and others but the Merit Commissioner, in particular.
S. Bond: Just to confirm that…. I appreciate the minister’s responses. It is a balancing act. It is about trying to protect incredibly personal information and do the review at the same time.
Today we want to make the point and have the minister acknowledge that there will be a very disciplined approach and that, in fact, when we look at that balancing of privacy, it will be a significant priority as this process is designed.
Hon. A. Dix: I think the member makes a very important point. It is that as part of this process, there are no remedies for employees. This makes the privacy consideration even more important, because an employee who has lost their job for just cause…. Obviously, however one might feel about that — I’m sure as an employee, you wouldn’t feel good about that — we have to ensure that their rights are especially protected here.
This process is designed to improve what government does going forward, but it doesn’t provide remedies for a particular employee. So that makes the point that the member is making around privacy all the more important in this case — to ensure that the privacy rights of employees are protected.
That’s why in the legislation, there are specific provisions around personal information — for that very point. The member’s point is an excellent one and one that the Merit Commissioner will be taking very seriously.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
S. Bond: We thank the minister for the responses. Make no mistake about it. We recognize that improvement undoubtedly is needed. I think the issue is a measured approach, especially in the beginning, as we look at both protecting privacy and the other issues.
On section 4, we just have a few questions as we move through, just to make sure that we have clarity about the necessity for some of these other changes. In section 4, this allows specified individuals to have access to information from boards, commissions, agencies. Could the minister describe for us who these specified individuals might be anticipated to be?
Hon. A. Dix: What this states is…. These are the same organizations that are covered by the Merit Commissioner’s existing authority, which is everywhere where the Public Service Act applies — all of those organizations. It gives the Merit Commissioner the ability to seek the information and access to records on all of those agencies, boards and commissions where the Public Service Agency applies.
This is easy for the Merit Commissioner because these are the very same agencies that the Merit Commissioner does her other work on.
T. Redies: Just a clarification. The new substitution allows individuals to access information from boards as well. Are we talking about the boards of Crown corporations? Could you just maybe give us some colour as to what type of board you’re talking about there?
Hon. A. Dix: What we’re talking about are the boards to which the Public Service Act applies. Examples of those are the Agricultural Land Commission, the B.C. Review Board, the B.C. Coroners Service, the B.C. Farm Industry Review Board, the B.C. Pension Corporation, the Forest Practices Board, Islands Trust, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
T. Redies: Again, to clarify, this will not have any — what’s the right word? — reach into the Crown corporations.
Hon. S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I’m sorry to interrupt the proceedings here. I’m wondering if could have leave to make an introduction, please.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. S. Fraser: I’ve got a great class from École des Grands-Cèdres, from Port Alberni. They travelled all the way this morning from Port Alberni. I was able to get them in my office just a couple of minutes ago, out on the balcony. There are four chaperones, teachers and parents also, that are along for the journey. Would this House please join me in making them feel very, very welcome.
Hon. A. Dix: On vous souhaite la bienvenue ici.
Debate Continued
Hon. A. Dix: The member is entirely correct. It’s just those agencies. The Public Service Act doesn’t apply, for example, to B.C. Hydro. So it doesn’t apply to them.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
S. Bond: We certainly do want to welcome classes that visit. It’s a great opportunity for them to see how public policy is created and debated in a constructive way, and we appreciate that opportunity this morning.
Section 6 talks about immunity protection. It’s an important concept for independent officers like the Merit Commissioner. I’m wondering if this simply extends current immunity provisions to cover the additional work that the Merit Commissioner will take on as a result of the changes — the creation of this process.
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, the member is correct. It extends the immunity to this new work.
S. Bond: Maybe just, again in the same way, inadmissibility and the fact that the Merit Commissioner cannot be compelled to give evidence in a grievance procedure. Again, I think it’s important just to reflect, because if someone reads that, they’re wondering: “Is that a new provision?” Of course, there are individuals that are protected in that way, so they’re able to do their work.
Once again, in terms of inadmissibility and the ability to prevent the Merit Commissioner from being compelled, those are extensions of the current situation for the Merit Commissioner?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes. It also ensures, under these new responsibilities, that…. One of the reasons why we wait until the period after the end of grievance procedures is to ensure that this doesn’t interfere in other processes. In other words, the Merit Commissioner’s work is not brought into other processes that would affect the rights of employees in general.
The purpose of this is, as we’ve noted before, for the Merit Commissioner to do these reviews, and therefore, her work won’t be brought into grievance processes or other processes. That’s the purpose of this. It’s to ensure that, in fact, there’s clarity between the Merit Commissioner’s role and the existing processes that protect employees and provide legal arrangements.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
S. Bond: Well, I had to get up and ask a question about this. I can remember that, certainly in my tenure as a minister, there would be numerous members on the other side of the House, when we added reg-making power or the ability to make regulation, because it’s done not in the public eye….
I’m wondering. Here Section 7 allows Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — which, of course, is code for cabinet — to make regulations respecting any matter for which regulations are contemplated in this act. That’s a pretty…. When we add reg-making power, it covers wide swaths of potential.
Could the minister provide, perhaps, an example of what types of regulation might be contemplated and why it’s necessary to include the reg-making power here?
Hon. A. Dix: As the former minister and the member will know, what we try to do in life is continually learn, and we’re all learning new things on both sides of the House, in this period. The member and other members are learning the value of question period, and we on this side of the House are learning the advantage of sections like section 7.
We don’t anticipate that there’ll be need for further regulation, but it may be that the Merit Commissioner or the government sees that there’s some regulation in the future that might assist in the way the act is applied, so they’re giving the power to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do that.
We don’t see any need for that at the moment, but need may develop. Need may arise that would benefit from a regulation of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that wouldn’t require, for example, us returning to the Legislature and bringing legislative changes. That’s the purpose of this provision of the act.
S. Bond: Yes, the minister is extremely accurate about what we’re learning from one another. I know that, to be honest — and I’ve said this to him — he has learned very well on this side of the House and is carrying on his responsibilities on the other side.
I want to just accentuate the point, though. When we build in reg-making power, it does cause questions about: is there something not being covered in legislation that the government is anticipating building through legislation?
What I’m hearing the minister say today — and maybe he could just confirm for me — is that at this time, there is not an apparent need to build regulation, but just in case, the power is being enacted here so that the government wouldn’t have to come back and do that.
Hon. A. Dix: That’s right. There’s nothing anticipated at present.
I find myself learning every day and appreciating in new ways the responsibility of previous Ministers of Health. Today I was asked a question outside the House by the media about rabid dog saliva. One learns new things every day about these responsibilities and new appreciations, as I say.
In this case, though, there’s nothing anticipated by the government in terms of changes. The intention, as we will see in section 9, is to bring the act into effect on royal assent. We’re not even requiring the act to be brought into force by regulation but rather by royal assent. So we don’t anticipate any changes.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
S. Bond: First of all, that is a question I was never asked as a minister, which the minister just got. That is new. That is new territory, and I appreciate him sharing that.
I think that this is a significant response to a circumstance that there are many, I’m sure, regrets about and the need to improve this process.
Can the minister perhaps address section 8 for a moment? I know in some…. I remember a particular instance where we built in a five-year review. Could the minister just speak to the thinking behind creating this special committee?
It will be a significant task. This basically requires the Legislative Assembly to set up a special committee to look at this, to see: did it work? Is it working? What can we do differently?
This is a very significant way of putting that in place when we put it in legislation rather than just committing to it. Maybe the minister could just walk through, briefly, the thinking behind the five-year review. And then I’ll ask my other question about sub (b) in a moment.
Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s important…. Sometimes when we pass legislation, we have these debates in the House and we say that all other jurisdictions are doing it and B.C. is joining those. In this case, British Columbia is doing something that all other jurisdictions aren’t doing. We are the groundbreaker.
It’s a response to a very important set of circumstances and, I think, an outstanding report by the Ombudsperson, Jay Chalke, who recommended this. He’s recommended and he supports this five-year review. Since we’re doing something new, and I think there’s real value in it, as a very appropriate response to the events described in the Misfire report, I think it’s very important that we look at this — that we look at its value over five years.
It may be, in fact, in the interim period, that other jurisdictions will follow British Columbia because the value of the work will be shown. But I think it’s a useful process for a parliamentary committee to look at this after five years to both assess its utility to see the progress that’s been made and potentially make recommendations about that process.
We thought, and I think the Ombudsperson agrees and other people agree, that this would be a good way to look at this and approach this, given that this is a small but groundbreaking process of government — for us to review it as a Legislature in five years.
S. Bond: Thank you for that. Certainly, the Ombudsperson, I think, was thoughtful about that. Not that we have disagreement about that. It is just a very substantive way of reviewing a process. I can understand the jurisdictional implications if others are contemplating looking at a model like this.
I guess, having said all of that, sub (b) then talks about a year. So, from my perspective…. We’re talking about a five-year period where the Merit Commissioner basically begins this new process, looks at approximately 25 just cause cases. I wonder why the long timeline. The Ombudsperson did, and took a very extended period of time to look at the inherent issues and challenges that we were trying to address….
Does the minister have any concerns that…? It does say “within one year,” but I’m assuming there would be…. If there are any concerns about the process and how it works, that is a long time for a legislative committee to be basically discussing: is this working?
Are there any concerns? And would the minister be working to move that forward much more quickly than a year?
Hon. A. Dix: I think the member makes a good point. Of course, that would be the authority of the special committee itself. It’s partly — what’s the right term? — the idiosyncrasies of B.C. legislatures. Sometimes, if it’s an election year, things get pushed back. So this gives a year, but it doesn’t say it has to be a year. It’s within a year. Clearly, the special committee would take its charge from the legislation or from the Legislature and then do the review in the time that the members of that committee see fit. But that would be within a year.
I think the member is quite right that that could be a one-month review or two-month review. But it would be a maximum of a one-year review, giving the committee sufficient time not to be in some way jammed by the law if other circumstances intervene. That’s really the purpose of it.
S. Bond: I certainly thank the minister for that response. I think we understand the need for some flexibility.
I’m sure the minister probably agrees with me on the fact that I don’t think we want to see a royal commission on a process that’s been in place for five years. It’s really a touch-base to say: “Is this working? Does it reflect not only what the Ombudsperson recommended but what British Columbians expect to see with this kind of change?”
I think if there’s motivation to move it more quickly, that would hopefully be the case. I did want to, on behalf of my co-critic, thank the minister and staff for their response to this. As we both mentioned in our opening comments, we recognize the importance of this and thank the government for pursuing it and know there are other recommendations that still require work.
We look forward to seeing the outcomes of those in the days and months ahead, but we do appreciate the process to date and bringing this bill to the House. We think it’s important, and we do appreciate the answers that have been provided to us.
Hon. A. Dix: I thank the critics for the opposition for their questions. I’ll say, just on the final point, the substantive point the Finance critic for the opposition made, that I absolutely agree with that point. I think that the special committee would act promptly and wouldn’t take excessive time to review that, nor would they be required to. This just gives them the flexibility to do their work on their own timetable.
Saying that, I support the passage of the section.
Sections 8 and 9 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be reported complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — PUBLIC SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Bill 13, Public Service Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 9.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:46 a.m.
On section 1.
Hon. H. Bains: Before we start, I’d like to introduce my staff. Trevor Hughes, my deputy minister, is to my right. Michael Tanner is on my left, director of labour policy and legislation. We also have John Blakely in the back here.
J. Martin: Good to be back again, and happy to spend some time with the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018. I don’t have an awful lot of inquiries of the minister and his staff, but there are a few areas where I would like to seek clarification.
The first for the minister is the discussion around “eligible occupation.” I’m sure the minister, like myself and probably many other members of this House, has received an awful lot of correspondence from constituents and stakeholders about who actually qualifies under the eligible occupation. I know there’s going to be some further inquiry about that from my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.
I’d like to begin by asking the minister to discuss the process that he and his team went through when they were selecting those that would and would not be identified as an eligible occupation under this act.
Hon. H. Bains: Thank you for the question from the critic. The eligible occupations, as is described in this bill, are the first responders, as you call them. They would be included as correctional officers; emergency medical assistants, which captures paramedics; firefighters; police officers; and sheriffs.
We have the ability in this bill…. Other occupations may be prescribed by regulation at a later date. I want to assure the member that we were ready to go with these ones. This is just the beginning; this is not the end. We couldn’t wait any longer, so I thought that we would proceed with these occupations immediately.
Those are the ones identified here in the bill, and we will proceed with them. We have the ability to add others. I will be engaging other groups of members who, every day, go to work and face similar challenges that these first responders face.
First responders. Why we’re moving so quickly on this…. As you know, they face these traumatic incidents every day as part of their job — every day. Not to say that others don’t, but these are the ones that we’re proceeding with right now and leaving ourselves enabling language in here to add other occupations.
I will be meeting with them soon, after we finish here. We will sit down with them, see how we can make sure that the Workers Compensation Act and the Workers Compensation Board provide them the support that they need when they need it, whether it’s a mental disorder, mental health disorders, or for the traumatic incidents that they face in their workplaces. We will be identifying those. Many are quite obvious; others may not be as obvious.
We will be working with many, many groups and their representatives, because at the end of the day, my goal is to make workplaces in British Columbia the safest in the country by having strong enforcement regimes. Then treat these members, the workers, if they are hurt at workplaces, if they develop illness at workplaces — that they get the support that they need. That’s my goal, and we’re going to move quickly to make sure that every worker gets the support that they need, gets the help that they need for workers compensation.
J. Martin: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister please go through the criteria that will be employed, if some of these other groups are going to define themselves, in determining that they are within the identified eligible occupations, what the decision-making process is going to be and how public that process will be?
Hon. H. Bains: Good question, again. Like I said, as soon as we leave here or we pass this bill, I will be consulting with many of those groups. They have the expertise, because they live and work with all of these traumatic incidents in different areas. I don’t have all of that information, so I will be relying, largely, on those groups who will be presenting their cases to me. As we move along, as we collect all that information through consultation, we will be developing, perhaps, criteria — or see if some groups need to be added and at what time.
Again, I want to assure everyone, all those workers: you are not lost on my mind. This is just the beginning. We have all the information about these groups. I’m collecting more information by talking to many of those groups. I have some meetings already scheduled with many of those groups who would be like to be included.
Through those discussions, we will develop a pathway. How do we help all those workers who go to work and face traumatic incidents at their workplaces?
Noting the hour, I ask that the committee rise and report progress and ask permission to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 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: At 11:57 — we left a couple of minutes on the table there this morning — I move that the House do now adjourn.
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 11:56 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 11:07 a.m.
On Vote 22: ministry operations, $133,949,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I’d like to call Committee of Supply, Section A, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy estimates, to order.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, Chair, and good morning.
P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for kicking off yet another day of estimates. I have a couple of quick follow-up questions, and then I’ll be turning it over to my colleague for some more regionalized questions until the lunch break.
Just seeking some clarification on something the minister said in question period today. The minister indicated that there has been an increase — we’ve canvassed this extensively, even yesterday and previous days, and even four weeks ago now, when we were in estimates — in oil shipments by rail. The minister, up until question period, had been quite insistent, including yesterday, that there is no data that the government has for the increase in shipments of oil by rail.
I’m just wondering if the minister could maybe shed some light on where the information was received, between yesterday’s estimates and today’s question period, that he was confident enough to stand up in question period and indicate that there has been an increase in rail from 2012 to 2014.
Hon. G. Heyman: On May 6, 2014, the Vancouver Sun reported that the number of railcars transporting crude oil and petroleum products through British Columbia increased 200 percent from 2012 to 2013.
P. Milobar: Yesterday at about 4:10, according to Hansard, the second paragraph of the minister’s answer to me was:
“The second point the member said is that there’s a steady increase of transport by rail. Again, as I’ve stated previously in the House, we’re unaware of any steady increase in rail traffic or rail transport. We simply don’t have the information on increases or decreases, because we didn’t have the regulatory authority until last fall. Now that we have it, we’re obtaining the information, and we will be able to know.”
That was at 4:10 to 4:15 yesterday afternoon. Then today, we now have sources cited as being from the Vancouver Sun.
Is the source of information that we can now count on — that the government will be relying on — the newspaper articles? Or is there more in-depth information going to be being brought forward?
Hon. G. Heyman: No. Certainly, we wouldn’t rely on reports in the Vancouver Sun to bring forward figures on rail transport to a process like spending estimates.
As I mentioned yesterday, we now have the regulatory authority to gather the information that we didn’t have previously, and we’ll be exercising that. We can look forward to some fact-based figures being released, either in estimates or on request or to the public, some months down the road when we’ve had a chance to review and analyze.
P. Milobar: Sorry, a follow-up to that, then. Is the minister saying, in estimates, that we’ll await more science-based or regulatory-based reporting numbers, but for question period — which I think we can all agree probably the vast majority of the public and, certainly, the media pays much more attention to — answers and comments will rely on information sources from anywhere, as opposed to the same information bases we can expect for answers in estimates?
Hon. G. Heyman: I don’t see any inconsistency or conflict between the answer given in question period, the answer given a moment ago and the answer given yesterday.
I have no reason to believe that the journalists who reported figures that I just read out, in response to the member’s question, didn’t do their due diligence. But the member had previously asked a question that had to do with long-term trends. I stated, accurately, that we don’t have the information, that the previous government did not put in place the measures that enabled the government to gather the information that would accurately answer his question over a longer time horizon.
We’re not going to rely on whether or not journalists pop up with the information over a longer time horizon, so we’ve now given ourselves the tools to gather the information on an ongoing basis. Obviously, we won’t have a long time horizon until some period of time has elapsed, going forward, but we will be in a position to show and analyze trends over time, using the new tools that we have at our disposal.
D. Barnett: Minister, on the questions that I’m going to ask, you may have addressed them in some form, but I haven’t been following the estimates.
The decision by your government, with your Green partner, was made to ban grizzly bear hunting. What scientific evidence was used?
Hon. G. Heyman: The member is welcome to put that question to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. It’s that ministry that grants licences for hunting of wildlife.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, but I understand it was a cabinet decision. So I would like to get your response, if I may, as to what scientific evidence you used to make the decision.
Hon. G. Heyman: If I could clarify, Chair. If the member is asking me to release and talk about the content of material that was used by cabinet to make decisions, I believe she knows that it’s inappropriate for me to do so. It would be a violation of my oath of office.
D. Barnett: Thank you for the clarification, Minister. I believed that the decision for the grizzly bear hunt was through your ministry, but as you have said, it was not. So I will take that question up with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources.
I do have a couple of other questions that, hopefully, are within your ministry. We should know where these things are, but as you know quite well, they’re here, there and everywhere in the dirt ministries.
Back to the new water regulations. I understand they are in your ministry. Am I correct?
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m sharing some of the member’s amazement. Despite the fact that we work with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations on policy development and despite the fact that the former Minister of Environment handled some of the questions in committee stage on a bill that was introduced by Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, it is their act and their regulations.
D. Barnett: Thank you for the clarification. I have one more question. Hopefully, it’s within your ministry. I believe it is.
Tweedsmuir Park in the Chilcotin — it’s a very sensitive issue out there with the Ulkatcho First Nations and with the communities. For many years, there were forest fires continuously in Tweedsmuir Park. The Ulkatcho and the community have discussed this many, many times with the staff within the region. They are very concerned about this coming fire season.
My question is: is the ministry for parks working with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources on doing some fire mitigation in this park?
Hon. G. Heyman: B.C. Parks has hired a registered professional forester who is leading the work on identifying fuel mitigation strategies in all B.C. Parks. That forester is working closely with Forest, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development’s wildfire branch to ensure that we identify high-risk areas and that we are working together to introduce new measures to mitigate the risk.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. Tweedsmuir Park is very isolated yet is a very important part of the Ulkatcho — wildlife and things like that. Is there going to be some consultation with the Ulkatcho and the community through this process of mitigation?
Hon. G. Heyman: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that we are consulting and engaging with First Nations on virtually everything we do in this ministry, as well as across all ministries.
B.C. Parks has been, I think, quite exemplary in reaching out to First Nations on a range of parks-related issues as well as any issues on which we have influence or are considering taking action or taking actions that impact on First Nations rights, title and well-being.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for that. Will you also be discussing it with the local community at large?
Hon. G. Heyman: I can’t give the member specifics about how the community outreach and consultation will be conducted, but the answer is: yes, we will be doing that.
D. Barnett: I have one other topic. You can tell me if it’s not with you. I’ll understand.
A lot of the mining water discharge permitting decisions used to be with the Ministry of Environment, under our government. What part of the permitting process for long-term water discharge permits for mines is within your ministry?
Hon. G. Heyman: Nothing has changed. We permit all discharge of effluent from mine sites under the Environmental Management Act.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that. Since July of 2017, have there been any new processes or regulations put in place dealing with these long-term water discharge permits for mines?
Hon. G. Heyman: There are no new regulations, but we’ve been working to modernize permits, including mining.
One of the ways we’re modernizing is to make sure that they actually have enforceable conditions. We’re also requiring permittees to post reports, and we’re working toward an eventual outcome where all permits and information — for instance, inspection reports — are publicly and transparently available on our registry.
D. Barnett: I understand that there will be a stronger compliance through your ministry. Has your budget increased? And to what amount has your budget increased for greater compliance and checks on mines?
Hon. G. Heyman: The environmental protection budget has increased by $4.7 million.
D. Barnett: Please clarify for me, Minister. Is it your ministry or is it Forests, Lands and Natural Resources — I know it used to be your ministry — that has the authority over the surface water licences for ranchers?
Hon. G. Heyman: It’s Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for your time.
I think what would be really good for us is if we had a chart of who’s got what in which ministries. But thank you.
P. Milobar: Just to pick up on some of the questions from yesterday around the six stations that have now been put on hold for spill response on coastline protection, has there been any discussion within the ministry, since that decision has been made, to fund the continuation of those sites?
There’s obviously been an identified demand and need for them. If the pipeline was to proceed through court proceedings — finishing up in all of those issues — the pipeline company would still be expected to reimburse the government, but at a minimum, the government would have, indeed, enhanced spill response for the coast.
Hon. G. Heyman: Vessel-based spill response is the responsibility of the federal government, under the federal government’s legislation. They have arranged for a private corporation to implement the aspects of vessel-based spill response that are necessary to comply with their legislation. So it’s a federal responsibility.
The federal Minister of Transport has also stated publicly that the federal government’s commitment to the ocean protection plan stands and that they’re going to continue to implement it. I would expect, if there’s a short delay in building infrastructure that was intended to deal with vessels flowing from a pipeline, the corporation may be waiting to see if there’s any move in the completion date.
Regardless, we’ll be advocating very strongly with the federal government that they meet their commitments to British Columbians and Canadians and direct the corporation to proceed with building the installations and capacity that were promised.
With that, noting the hour, 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