Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 182
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
R. Kahlon: It’s my great pleasure to introduce someone who is very special to me. This amazing woman immigrated to Canada in the early ’70s. She didn’t speak much English. Well, she spoke no English, actually. Her first job was washing dishes in a restaurant, and the owners, a wonderful Greek family, happen to be the in-laws of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. This family adopted her, gave her huge opportunities. I wasn’t going to get emotional about it, but I’ll keep going.
After I was born, she sent my sister and me to India for four years. When my son was born, I said: “How is it possible that you sent your child away to another country and not see them for four years?” She said: “I knew I was trying to give you a better life.”
This woman is so amazing that she, 30 years later, ended up buying that restaurant that she used to wash dishes at and ran it for 12 years quite successfully. The funny part is that when she went away on a holiday after we finally convinced her to go, we sold the restaurant because it was just destroying her and she wasn’t getting some time with her family.
I want to recognize my mom, who’s here in the Legislature today. I wouldn’t be here without her. It’s a special day for her to be here to witness something very important to our family. I won’t steal her thunder, but it’s very important.
She brought with her, her bodyguard, my brother, Sunny Kahlon, and his fiancée, Sharon Walia. Please make them welcome as well.
Tributes
MILITARY SERVICE BY
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS
STAFF
J. Isaacs: I couldn’t help but to notice that many of our secessional members are proudly wearing their uniform dress ribbons this week, and I’d like to take a moment to recognize them. The Sergeant-at-Arms staff has 24 secessional members who were former Canadian Armed Forces members, and nine Legislative Assembly Protective Services special provincial constables who are former Canadian Forces military policemen.
All three branches of the Canadian Forces — the navy, the army and the air force — are represented here by SAA staff members. While serving, these individuals were involved in operations such as Canadian sovereignty; emergency response and prevention; assistance to law enforcement; fisheries patrol and surveillance; peace support; counter-insurgency; training and assistance to partner forces in international security and stability, including overseas tours; and participation with the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia, Haiti, Cyprus, Afghanistan and Somalia.
Some members of the SAA staff who are with us today served in noteworthy command positions. Jan Davis was the first female coxswain of a Canadian Forces warship. Kim Davis was the chief petty officer for the Canadian Forces navy. Randy Naylor and David Bliss were fleet chief petty officers for Canadian Fleet Pacific. Paul Boynton and Peter Ford were CFB Esquimalt base chiefs.
They, together with Randy Ennis, were appointed as members to the Order of Military Merit, the second-highest order administered by the Governor-General-in-Council, which was established to recognize members of the Canadian Forces who have demonstrated dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty, achieving conspicuous merit and exceptional military service.
This week we remember and honour the great men and women who have selflessly served our country. They are the unsung heroes who truly inspire each of us to hold strong the principles of liberty, equality and freedom.
Would the House please recognize and welcome all of our Sergeant-at-Arms staff. [Applause.]
Introductions by Members
Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome the new mayor of Vancouver to the chamber today. I’m not sure where he’s sitting. I know that Kennedy Stewart is here to meet with various ministers. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with him already. I know he’s going to be meeting with other ministers to talk about housing, child care and a wide variety of issues. I would ask every member of this House to make the new mayor of Vancouver very, very welcome.
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m pleased this morning to announce a special guest in the gallery, the 2017 Conservation Officer of the Year, Len Butler.
Len has been a conservation officer for 38 years and started his career as a fish and wildlife officer in Alberta. He joined the B.C. conservation officer service in 1991 and now works out of Williams Lake as an inspector for the Thompson-Cariboo region. He’s known for a strong work ethic and for extensive knowledge. He has worked with the special investigations unit and is one of the three leads for the team that responds to human-wildlife encounters and conflict.
He’s also responsible for putting together the agency’s defensive tactics program, which teaches arrest-and-control tactics to new recruits, as well as existing officers. The program has become one of the best training programs in Canada.
Len is joined today by Chief Conservation Officer Doug Forsdick and Deputy Chief Conservation Officer David Airey. I’d ask the House to please join me in giving all three a warm welcome.
J. Martin: If anyone in the House has ever wondered who it is that makes those awesome videos on my Facebook page, well, wonder no more. He’s in the House. A good friend of mine, Matthew Hawkins, is joining us. With him is his beautiful wife, Debbie, and their three kids, Keon, Annia and Kiefer. Please welcome them to the Legislature.
Hon. C. Trevena: In the gallery today are some friends from Quadra Island. I’m very pleased that they are here. Carole Yole and Ian Williamson are here to witness democracy in action through question period. Then they are going to be having a nice tour of the Legislature, including some behind the scenes of some places that the public don’t often get to go to. Then I’m going to have the pleasure of having lunch with some friends from Quadra. I hope the House will make them very welcome and show them how our democracy truly works.
S. Chandra Herbert: I noticed a former member of this chamber, an MLA. He was an MP. He was a minister of film, tourism and other things. He has written a couple of novels. He has just got a political memoir out there. He probably wants us all to buy a copy. I want to recognize and welcome Ian Waddell and a number of his guests to this chamber.
Hon. J. Sims: I want to add my words of welcome, and I hope the House will join me in welcoming into this House a colleague of mine. We spent four years travelling across the country together and often spent a lot of time together in Ottawa, as well, while we were MPs. He has recently been elected, as we all know, as mayor of Vancouver.
I wish my colleague success in his new venture. I want him to enjoy the roller coaster ride he’s going to have.
Please help me welcome Kennedy Stewart.
D. Barnett: I, too, would like to recognize Len Butler, the conservation officer from Williams Lake. Len was instrumental in having the last conservation log cabin removed from way out in the Chilcotin and preserved at the 108 heritage site just outside of 100 Mile House. His dedication to our communities and to conservation is second to none.
Congratulations, Len, and welcome.
R. Singh: They’re not here yet, but 40 students from David Brankin Elementary, a school in my riding, are going to join us. They are accompanied by their teacher Lisa Hutchcroft. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 47 — HEALTH SECTOR
STATUTES REPEAL
ACT
Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act.
Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.
The Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act repeals two laws: the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, known as Bill 29 in 2002, and the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, known as Bill 94 in 2003. It repeals both bills in their entirety.
The passage of Bills 29 and 94 led to the layoff of more than 10,000 health care workers, the largest layoff of women workers in Canadian history. While some provisions were struck down after being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007, both laws remain in force today.
In repealing these two acts, Bill 47 will help improve the lives of seniors and all patients by enhancing the quality and continuity of care. For example, a single care home has been involved in six incidents of Bill 29–related contract flipping, disrupting the lives of countless people in care.
To this day, Bills 29 and 94 continue to deny health care workers basic rights available to all workers in British Columbia. Repealing them will help ensure that all health care workers are treated with respect as full members of the health care team at a time when team-based care is a necessity at every level, from the hospital to the care home to the community.
Finally, we need to support our current team of skilled health care workers and recruit a whole new generation to do this critical work in the future. To ensure this, we need to celebrate health care workers — members of the Hospital Employees Union, the BCGEU and others — and we need to recognize the fundamental value of their work to all those in our province who need care and to all those who love them.
We are repealing these laws because they are inconsistent with the needs of patients, of seniors, of caregivers and of health care in 2018.
I ask all members to support this bill and move first reading.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Dix: 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 47, Health Sector Statutes Repeal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
100th ANNIVERSARY OF WWI ARMISTICE
AND BELLS OF PEACE INITIATIVE
S. Bond: At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, an armistice was signed that ended World War I. November 11, 2018, marks the 100th year since that memorable day.
The war took a horrific toll. The total number of military and civilian casualties was estimated to be around 40 million people, including more than 66,000 Canadians and Newfoundlanders that were killed and another 172,000 that were wounded. As fighting came to an end a century ago, bells in churches spontaneously rang out all around the world, including in Canada.
To honour the 100th anniversary of the signing of the armistice, the Royal Canadian Legion has launched the Bells of Peace initiative. At the setting of the sun on November 11, churches, legions and other community locations will ring their bells 100 times. Bells will ring across our country beginning in St. John’s and ending on Vancouver Island.
In the words of the Legion — Dominion president: “This powerful sound symbolizing peace from coast to coast will allow Canadians to stop, remember and feel the joy that the end of the war brought after so much death and destruction. It will also be a reflection of the deep respect we hold for our many veterans who served in the First World War and for those who continue to serve our country today.”
As I stand in this place, I am profoundly grateful for the gift of freedom that we have been given. It came at enormous cost. Today, as we should every day, we should honour and remember those who serve on our behalf, especially those who paid the ultimate price.
At the going down of the sun and at the ringing of the bells and in the morning, we will remember them.
CHINESE CANADIAN MILITARY MUSEUM
A. Kang: I stand in the House today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Chinese Canadian Military Museum, which was established in November 1998. The passion and the vision behind its establishment was its founder and their first president, army colonel Howe Lee, who is also a constituent of Burnaby.
With the upcoming centennial anniversary of the armistice, marking the end of the First World War on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, it is important to remember and recognize the efforts and sacrifices that all our Canadian veterans made over the last century, including Canadian veterans of Chinese heritage descent.
Early Chinese immigrants arrived in British Columbia between 1858 and 1874. They typically worked as low-paid labourers. They were forbidden to vote in B.C. until after World War II, and they were subjected to a head tax.
When World War I was declared in 1914, it is estimated that approximately 300 Chinese Canadians fought in the Canadian expeditionary force. During World War I, they volunteered in all three branches of the Armed Forces, and some were even seconded to the British forces. They fought on land, sea and air, and some made the ultimate sacrifice.
However, despite their courage and patriotism, there are few official displays dedicated to Canadians of Chinese heritage and their participation in both wars. The role of the Chinese Canadian Military Museum Society is to research, collect, record and preserve stories, artifacts, memorabilia and photographs that help illustrate this important part of Canadian history. Today they also work to educate a new generation of Canadians on the role Canadians of Chinese heritage played in our country’s history.
I would like to take this special opportunity to thank all of our veterans and the Chinese Canadians who served and are currently serving in our Canadian military and wish the Chinese Canadian Military Museum Society a very happy 20th anniversary.
DIABETES AWARENESS
J. Isaacs: Diabetes is a chronic disease that affects one in three. The disease has a significant impact on the lives of those who suffer from it. Diabetics must regularly test their blood sugar levels, keep track of how much sugar and carbohydrates they consume and plan their lives around meticulous eating and exercise schedules.
These behaviours are necessary in order to mitigate the symptoms and the complications of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. If left untreated, complications can be severe and, in some cases, life-threatening. Some complications include the development of cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart attack, kidney failure requiring dialysis and non-traumatic lower-limb amputations each year.
The risk of blindness in people with diabetes is also up to 25 times higher than those who are not diabetic.
Education about the disease is vital to prevention and treatment. The month of November has been declared National Diabetes Month, and November 14 is World Diabetes Day. Diabetes Canada has worked tirelessly to develop an awareness campaign that helps to educate the public and examine the misconceptions that surround type 2 diabetes.
Canada has the proud history of being on the forefront of diabetic treatment, beginning with Dr. Frederick Banting’s role in discovering insulin. Diabetes Canada continues to forge a path for a cure and prevention by helping the 11 million Canadians with diabetes live healthy lives and educating those that are at risk for developing the disease.
On World Diabetes Day, sites across the globe, including this Legislature, will be lit up in blue to commemorate and recognize those living with diabetes. Please join me today in support of Diabetes Canada in their ongoing efforts to raise awareness and work towards a cure.
WEST SHORE TRANSITION HOUSE
M. Dean: One day at home ten years ago, Shelly’s partner, the father of their two daughters, forced her to sit on a chair. He went to the garage, he took out a hunting rifle, and then he held it to her head. She didn’t know if it was loaded. One of their girls, Ella, ran in, saw the situation and screamed. He stormed out of the house, violence averted for the moment.
Shelly was already in a Stopping the Violence counselling program. She had told her counsellor about being hit and choked and had the cuts and bruises to show for it. After the rifle incident, she talked again with her counsellor about her options.
The nearest women’s shelter was so many miles away. If they left home, her girls would have to change schools, they’d be away from their aunts, and they’d be isolated. Shelly felt forced to stay and create a safety plan.
Fast-forward to this year as we mark November, nationally, as Domestic Violence Month. Women like Shelly will soon have more options to make safer choices. With the announcement of funding for transition houses, Shelly and other women and children in my constituency will have a refuge nearby that will provide immediate safety.
The home on the West Shore, to be operated by the Victoria Women’s Transition House Society, will provide a safe shelter for women and children to heal with the supports and services they need — essential to creating safe, supportive communities and ending gender-based violence. Soon women and children will have more and local safe places to regroup, rebuild and reclaim their lives. It will make a difference soon.
KEN CURRY
AND RAID ON DIEPPE
A. Olsen: Ken Curry is 96. He lives in Sidney now, but in 1937, he was a 15-year-old kid growing up in Stoney Creek, Ontario. That was when he joined the reserves with the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry Regiment. Ken was 17 when the Second World War broke out. Because of his age, he had to get the blessing of his mother to sign up for active duty. It took some convincing, but she finally relented.
On August 19, 1942, Curry was on a ship on his way to Dieppe. As we all know, Dieppe was a disaster. Out of the 6,000 men, mostly Canadians, who raided that French beach, over half of the men and boys either died or were imprisoned. Dieppe was Canada’s costliest day of the Second World War.
I’ve had the honour of hearing Ken personally recount the stories of the time that he spent on that beach — the rain of bullets, the pounding of mortar shells. As he describes it, it was really just hell. The water was red with the blood of dead and dying Canadians.
Under an evacuation order, he boarded a boat that was immediately hit, so he had to abandon ship as it started to sink. He swam underwater, aiming for some cliffs, hoping to reach the French lines. He was greeted by the enemy.
Ken spent the next three years of his life as a prisoner of war in Germany, routinely beaten, manacled, malnourished and interrogated. It was a long and challenging testament to Ken’s endurance. At the end of the war, tired, hungry and his knee joints destroyed from being marched over 1,000 miles by the Germans, Curry was eventually released by Canada’s advancing Allies.
Despite his disastrous day in Dieppe and as a prisoner of war, Ken Curry stayed with the military, eventually retiring as a major. Ken has lived in the town of Sidney for the past 20 years. He is now the only remaining member of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry that took part in that raid on Dieppe.
Today I stand in honour of the courage, the sacrifice, the horrific and haunting memories that Ken Curry has carried on behalf of all of us. As we go home to our communities to solemnly honour Ken and those that were not so lucky, at Remembrance Day ceremonies around our province, I say to Ken and to all those who served and serve our country: I am humbled by you. Thank you. HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ORGANIZATIONS IN FRASER
VALLEY
B. D’Eith: Recently I participated in a volunteer clean-up day on a section of the Windebank Creek in my riding, organized by the Mission Environmental Stewardship Society and the Fraser Valley Conservancy. Windebank Creek is an important salmon habitat that was acquired by the conservancy after a fisheries violation in 2008 involving illegal logging of the streamside. Since 2012, the conservancy has been working to restore the habitat, and I’m pleased to report that because of their work, salmon are returning to the area.
We were joined by a number of dedicated staff and volunteers to pull and cut back invasive plants, clean and remove garbage and replant vegetation native to the creek and the area. Of course, I only got a taste of the ongoing work that’s being done to revitalize this important habitat, but I’m amazed by the dedication from everyone involved.
This is a constant battle to ensure that the creek is suitable for salmon runs. It’s important to acknowledge the hard work of executive director Joanne Neilson of the Fraser Valley Conservancy, her staff and board in their quest to promote the acquisition and preservation of areas with ecological and historical value to the Fraser Valley.
The other organizing group, the Mission Environmental Stewardship Society, has operated the Mission adopt-a-block program for 24 years. They tackle littering and illegal dumping in the community. I’d like to thank Sophie Thomas, the executive director, and her staff and board for all their hard work. I’m proud to be adopting a block in Maple Ridge and Mission, and I encourage everyone in the House to do so in their communities. If we all pitch in, we can make our neighbourhoods, communities and local ecology areas thrive.
Environmental and heritage conservancy can only happen through strong partnerships, education and action. Both the Mission Environmental Stewardship Society and the Fraser Valley Conservancy are great community leaders and an example to all of us of what needs to be done to maintain our important habitats in British Columbia.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT USE OF EMAIL AND
STAFFING OF CONSTITUENCY
OFFICES
S. Bond: Well, another day, another breach. Yesterday we learned that taxpayer-funded NDP issues management staff are using private Gmail and B.C. NDP email accounts. But they’re not the only ones.
On September 6, 2017, Maura Parte, a supposedly non-partisan public servant in the B.C. Public Service Agency, or PSA, emailed Layne Clark in the Premier’s office and someone using a B.C. NDP email account — none other than B.C. NDP provincial director Raj Sihota.
Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain this use of B.C. NDP email accounts?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for the question today. It is important for the public to have confidence that their government is managing records properly and they are following the processes.
All employees are required to keep and dispose of records and to use the emails according to the rules that exist. As mentioned before, we have provided extra training, and it is important that rules and best practices are followed. Our government is committed to that.
If the members have any additional information to share, they can provide it, and we will look at it. If there’s an opportunity to improve, I’m always interested. But the opposition has been taking things out of context all week. I will look into the issue she has raised today.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: It’s very hard to take out of context the fact that there are NDP emails being used, along with government employees’. Pretty straightforward, Minister.
Maura Parte was formerly the B.C. NDP president and is described in internal documents as the Premier’s office PSA person. Layne Clark was formerly the B.C. NDP director of operations, and according to internal documents, her role in the Premier’s office was coordination with the party. The subject of their emails, sent to the party account of the NDP provincial director Raj Sihota? It was about staffing of non-partisan constituency offices. It doesn’t get much clearer than that, Minister.
Why would the Premier’s office and the PSA work with an official from the B.C. NDP to staff what should clearly be non-partisan constituency offices?
Hon. J. Sims: As I said yesterday, it’s very hard to sit on this side of the House and listen to the sudden concern that we hear around use of emails and record management from that side. As I have said previously, I will look into this, and I will report back to the member.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, I think it would be about time the minister looked into it. Let’s look at September 5. The Premier’s chief of staff, Geoff Meggs, emailed Maura Parte and directed her to hire political staff for constituency offices — a clear breach.
The next day he emailed Layne Clark, telling her…. Here’s the quote. The minister may want to write it down. “The idea was to put someone out there to work on politics, not on case work,” in non-partisan constituency offices.
Later that same day Maura Parte emailed Layne Clark and B.C. NDP provincial director Raj Sihota about the specific issue, the partisan political staffing of non-partisan constituency offices. Hard to get much clearer than that.
Why is the PSA working with the B.C. NDP to politicize constituency offices at the direction of someone no less than the Premier’s chief of staff?
Hon. J. Sims: The government communications and public engagement department provides communication support for government, as it did under the previous administration. That hasn’t changed. Broad communication materials are provided to CAs and EAs on government initiatives. As I have said previously, I will look into the specifics, and I will report back.
I want to remind people sitting across the way that we are a government that is willing to look at what has happened and take remedial action if and when necessary. We are a government that is committed to openness and transparency, unlike the government previously of quick wins, triple deletes and hide at all costs and then have charges laid.
P. Milobar: Please forgive our cynicism, seeing as the minister said she’d look into this six months ago and still has no answers for us — how hard she’s actually looking into this.
Let’s look at 2013, when the Premier said: “Whenever you’re blurring the lines between partisan, political and government, then you’ve got a problem.” Layne Clark did far more than blur the lines when she worked with the PSA and the B.C. NDP to staff constituency offices. This is wrong.
Let’s look at another Clark email with Geoff Meggs, the chief of staff. “Meetings would include all political staff, GCPE and constituency assistants” — both of which are supposed to be non-partisan.
Does the Deputy Premier really consider constituency assistants and government communications employees political staff?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. We are distinguishing between the work of political staff and the casework of non-partisan constituency assistants.
Like all political staff, executive assistants do the political work of the minister. That includes dealing with the political inquiries that find their way into the constituency offices of ministers. This ensures the constituency assistants can focus on their job of providing support to constituents.
Constituency assistants interact with the public and need information so that they are able to answer questions for people about their government. That practice of sharing that general information has not changed since that side sat on this side.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: I look forward to the day where I could thank the minister for an actual answer to the question, but I don’t think that’s going to be today.
It’s not just Layne Clark. It was Marie Della Mattia that wrote about “GCPE folks that are doing political stuff” and referred to “all political staff — constituency assistants, in particular.”
The pattern is very simple. It’s very clear here that the NDP is not adhering to the rules. Multiple staff using private Gmail and B.C. NDP emails; government communications, even the PSA, politicized; and constituency staff and offices treated as partisan resources. Constituency offices exist to serve the public in a non-partisan way. They do not exist for the Premier and his party.
Again, to the Deputy Premier, when will they take accountability and order a full review?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Sims: If you want to hear an answer, here it is.
The government communications and public engagement department provides communication support for government, as it did under the previous administration. That practice has not changed.
That includes broad communication materials provided to CAs and EAs on government initiatives because, as they do their work in the constituency, they are often asked about the work of government. That practice was in place when that side sat on this side of the House, and it is the practice today.
We pride ourselves on the fact that we’re working on improving transparency and accountability. We’re not going to apologize for that, and we’re going to take no lessons from that side of the House after their dismal record for 16 long, long years.
OVERSIGHT OF MINING OPERATIONS
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
IN ELK VALLEY WATERSHED
S. Furstenau: In 2014, the B.C. government agreed to a water management plan that allowed Teck Coal Ltd. to expand its coal operations, despite concerns expressed in both B.C. and the United States that the Elk Valley watershed was being poisoned by selenium and calcite releases.
Initially, the Minister of Environment denied a permit for the expansion, which extended into the westslope cutthroat trout habitat, a species listed under the federal Species at Risk Act, but cabinet approved it anyway.
The then Minister of Energy and Mines sold the plan as a way to keep Teck profitable while also solving the pollution problem. Two years later Auditor General Bellringer said the government had ignored risks to the watershed and was failing to protect B.C. from rising selenium levels.
Last week in its third-quarter news release, Teck Coal Ltd. boasted $1.3 billion in profits. It also makes passing references to possible pending charges under the federal Fisheries Act in connection with discharges of selenium and calcite from coal mines in the Elk Valley.
To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, it looks like the company has indeed been able to continue making money, but the potential federal charges indicate that pollution of the watershed remains an ongoing issue. The poisoning of the Elk Valley and Koocanusa reservoir is now happening under her watch. What is this government doing about it?
Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for this very important question. Just a year ago, actually, I was touring the Line Creek operations in the Elk Valley. Part of that tour included a tour of the Line Creek Active Water Treatment Facility, which is the treatment facility to address this very issue that the member brought up about the selenium pollution that is going on in the Elk Valley.
What the member may not know is that B.C. is actually leading the world in terms of trying to address this problem. Not a lot of other jurisdictions in the world are taking selenium pollution as seriously as we are. That being said, it’s proving to be a lot more difficult than we anticipated, and we’re learning a lot as we go along.
As we go along, we continue to work collaboratively with the Ktunaxa Nation, with Teck and with the community at large, because, of course, this watershed is critically important to those of us who live in the Kootenays. We want to make sure that it’s protected and that our pollution numbers are being reduced and that we’re going to be able to meet that Elk Valley water quality plan and make sure that we’re meeting its targets.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: It would appear that the federal fisheries are concerned about the ongoing pollution, so maybe the treatment plant isn’t working as hoped. To quote further from Auditor General Bellringer’s 2016 report on the mining sector:
“Lack of sufficient and effective regulatory oversight and action by the Ministry of Environment to address the environmental issues has allowed degradation of the water quality in the Elk Valley. Coal mining, which has been underway in the area for 100 years, has resulted in high concentrations of selenium in the water system. As selenium accumulates up the food chain, it can affect the development and survival of birds and fish and may also pose health risks to humans.
“For 20 years, the Minister of Environment has been monitoring the selenium levels in the Elk Valley and noted dramatic annual increases of the chemical element of the watershed’s tributaries. MOE tracked this worsening trend but took no substantive action.”
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Mining activities and ongoing resource extraction will continue to impact the environment far into the future. How and when can we expect to see concrete action to protect B.C.’s polluted rivers and the fish that rely on them for their survival?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The member, like all British Columbians, cares about what happens to our land, our air and our water and takes the pollution of water and the impacts on fish and other wildlife very seriously. So does this new government.
Let me say, first of all, that with respect to selenium levels from Elk Valley, in the past four years Teck has paid over $600,000 in fines for environmental violations. Teck has worked with our government and the Ktunaxa Nation council to implement an Elk Valley water quality plan, which includes the construction of water treatment plants, including the one that my colleague has referred to.
We have dedicated staff in the East Kootenays overseeing Teck’s operations and a compliance plan to ensure that we are doing due diligence, including inspection frequency and audit sampling.
We’re conducting regular compliance verification inspections, on-site inspections and data reviews. We’ll continue to monitor the Elk Valley to make sure the rules are followed, as well as the ongoing Environment Canada investigation and the conservation officer service investigation.
The West Line Creek Active Water Treatment Facility, following a shutdown by Teck, began a recommissioning on August 30, under the auspices of the ministry and in accordance with our conditions. We expect it to be fully on line by December 28 and expect a reduction in selenium levels in fish prior to the spawning season.
COVERAGE OF EXPENSES FOR
GOVERNMENT
MINISTERS
M. Stilwell: Yesterday the Advanced Education Minister said she was aware of the policy on miscellaneous travel expenses, which is very clear that dry cleaning is covered in per diems. She has now had a day to think about her near $500 in dry-cleaning expenses in less than a year.
Will the minister admit that she inappropriately claimed these expenses and repay the taxpayers?
Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the follow-up question from the member opposite. The member raised it yesterday, and I committed to taking action to locate the policy. After question period, I immediately asked my staff to locate the policy that I referred to. They’re here. I know we’re not allowed to refer to props in question period. But the claims that were made are in line with core policy that exists for all members, and that goes back to 2008. That goes back over a decade.
The same policy that the member raised yesterday has been in place for the last decade. I’m happy to provide the documents to the member after question period.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.
M. Stilwell: The Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Reduction announced that she would repay expenses after being caught yesterday — and, I think, probably rather embarrassed — for profiting from her welfare food challenge.
We’re still waiting for that clear answer from this Minister of Advanced Education if she intends to repay that $500. I’m not sure of the document that she is referring to.
Will the minister today do the right thing — admit she inappropriately claimed these expenses and repay the money to taxpayers?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have in my hand here the ministers’ salaries, benefits and expenses policy. It is not a prop; it is a document of this House. It is a document that outlines what are allowable expenses and how they’re to be claimed.
The member can sit there all she wants and shake her head, but it’s clear that the member’s expenses are very much in line with the policies outlined by this government. More importantly, the policy was in place, in this document, in April of 2017, when that side of the House sat on this side of the House.
My question really would be to that member. If she’s so concerned about violations of a policy that was in place in April 2017, why on earth is she not wanting to go back and check her own members’ records when they sat on this side of the House and ask the same question then?
The fact of the matter is the policy isn’t clear. It has been in place since 2008, for the nine years that they sat on this side of the House and had this same policy that they used.
If they have any further questions after question period, they can review this document. This is the official document of this place, governing the expenses for every member of the executive council on this side of the House or when they were on this side of the House.
J. Thornthwaite: It’s not just the Minister of Advanced Education who thinks taxpayers should pay for her dry cleaning. In less than a year, the Minister of Energy has also stuck taxpayers with her dry-cleaning bills that should have been covered by her per diems, and it is to the tune of almost $800.
Will she, too, do the right thing and repay this money to taxpayers?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It seems that members on the other side want to change a policy by a process of what’s call gotcha politics.
If they want to change the policy, that’s fine. There are forums — LAMC, for example — where they can bring forward a recommendation to change a policy. But to stand in this House and try and do gotcha or smear members and give an impression that they are somehow doing something that is not allowed, when they have been abiding by the specific policies that were in place for over a decade — from when they sat on this side of the House — is absolutely reprehensible, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: The ministers know, and this government knows, that it’s clearly wrong to be charging the taxpayers for their dry-cleaning expenses. Your colleague, the only one that seems to have some integrity here — the Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Reduction — quickly realized that the public had no appetite for her food challenge profiteering.
When will this government stop taking taxpayers to the cleaners?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear cries of indignation and self-righteousness. I understand the opposition likes to do that, but the fact of the matter is — let’s be clear — they have been trying with these questions to give an impression to the public that members have been doing something illegal, that they have been doing something wrong, and that it is something that they have never done.
What’s clear is there is a policy in place. Policies are put in place so that members know what they can do and know what they cannot do. This policy has been in place since 2008. They sat on this side of the House. That policy was in place and not once did they ever say: “Oh, we’ve got a problem here that we think needs to be addressed.”
No. They sat here and didn’t say a word. Now they want to say: “Oh, we think the policy changed, but we’re going to do it by playing gotcha politics.”
That says everything. The member uses the word “integrity.” Well, that says so much about why they are sitting there and why the public is fed up with the games that they are playing.
If they want to change the policy, that’s fine, but do it on the high road, not the low road.
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS
ON GOVERNMENT
EMAILS
J. Johal: The Minister of Citizens’ Services has admitted to the use of her own personal email account and this week defended the use of private email by Marie Della Mattia.
On May 16, the official opposition submitted FOI requests for 36 personal email accounts to determine if they’re being used to conduct government business, in direct violation of the law.
What is the minister trying to hide by stonewalling these requests?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. I am kind of…. I very rarely get speechless, but I am wondering if my colleague across the way was actually sitting and listening to the responses I made yesterday.
The very fact that they have those emails means that the FOI process is working. This particular employee ceased being an employee, became a contractor, and just as was the practice when they sat on this side of the House, most contractors use their personal emails. They become part of the records, and that’s why they’re available to you.
My colleagues across the way have spent all week trying to project that something underhanded is going on. I’m saying to them: if you have issues, bring them to us. This is a government, from the Premier down, that is interested in getting this right, and we’re going to do it. We’re going to continue working to make sure that the FOI process works and our employees follow the processes that exist.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: For six months, government lawyers have blocked attempts to pursue a legitimate inquiry into this government’s use of dozens of personal emails. The public is being denied the records of ministers, NDP political staff and senior government officials. Yet all we hear from this minister is sanctimonious, self-righteous NDP nonsense.
Will the minister tell her lawyers to stop fighting the public’s right to know?
Hon. J. Sims: To hear the word “sanctimonious” coming out of that member is really, really rich.
We are committed to being open and transparent and making the FOI system work. And it’s working. That’s why they have those emails.
I want to tell you — and let me be very, very clear — that the civil service has indicated that there has been a large volume of requests that is beginning to impact our ability to provide timely FOI service. One applicant submitted a request that would require government to process more than 850 individual FOI requests, at a cost that could exceed $2 million. That is why the civil service asked the Office of the Information and Privacy….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Minister, continue.
Hon. J. Sims: Thank you.
That is why our hard-working public service took a section that exists in legislation, and they went to the Privacy Commissioner for advice. And you know what? That is what they’re supposed to do.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee on Bill 49, Professional Governance Act.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
ACT
(continued)
T. Shypitka: It gives me great pride to continue the debate on Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act, 2018, on behalf of the southeast corner of our province, the gateway to the U.S.A. and Alberta and the home of the fun-loving and hard-working people of Kootenay East. To finish where I left off yesterday….
Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second.
The member for Parksville-Qualicum.
Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)
M. Stilwell: I reserve my right on a point of personal privilege.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
The member will continue.
Debate Continued
T. Shypitka: To finish off where I was yesterday, I want to summarize what I was speaking to.
We live in a resource-rich jurisdiction, one of the richest in the world. Our strength as a province is to provide the essential materials in a safe, responsible way to those that don’t have them. This is evident just by merely walking in the hallowed hallways here of the Legislature. We look at the architecture inside the building here, and we see the four cornerstones of our economy: fisheries, agriculture, forestry and mining.
We have come a long way in our short 147 years as a province, and we have seen an evolution on how we do business and the good work done so far on sharing prosperity with our First Nations, with well over 500 economic and reconciliation agreements. That being said, we need to continue this great work. The task will never, ever be done.
As I understood, across the province, from various stakeholders associated with the mining and energy industry, they’re not opposed to regulation — far from it. They are not opposed to due process. What industry needs are six crucial things. They need clarity, certainty, consistency, consultation, competitiveness and cash. I call these the six Cs of the industry.
This bill in front of us right now does nothing to address these critical pieces. Without these critical pieces, industry stalls and slows down. To put it short and to simply state it: time is money. When we slow down the process with unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, we attack the seventh most crucial thing, and that is confidence.
Without confidence, investment dries up and disruptive technologies go by the wayside — technologies that will move us forward to a low-carbon economy. In mining, some of these disruptive technologies are smart shovel technology, blast hole sensoring, 3D mapping and virtual reality — seeing into the future of a mine’s lifetime, reclamation that is needed and what the cumulative impacts are.
We all move forward to a low-carbon economy. We need steel. We need copper. We need precious metals in order to launch us forward to a greener planet. By slowing down our process, not only do we drive industry to other jurisdictions, but we lose our economical partnerships with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people of our province.
There are some communities in this province that suffer from 60 to 80 percent unemployment. These communities need industry, and they need industry to move in a timely, seamless transition in order to facilitate these high unemployment numbers. This bill does nothing to do that. It adds more bureaucracy, more red tape, more uncertainty to the industry, and therefore I cannot support it.
I’d like to see this debate go forward. The member for Kelowna West is coming up next, I believe. I look forward to this debate.
In short, this bill is adding more layers of bureaucracy to the process that we already have — a process that we’ve seen evolve over many, many years, a process that has incorporated good partnerships between industry, government and First Nations. This process, I fear, with this bill, is going to impede that natural, evolving process.
With that, I do not support this bill in any way, shape or form, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
B. Stewart: Well, first of all, I rise to speak today on Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act. I think about the importance of this act and getting it right and why it is so important.
British Columbia is a rich, prosperous province. The people of British Columbia are some of the most talented and hard-working people in the world. They go to work every day to build better futures for their families, their communities and their province. So many of those hard-working British Columbians, whether they’re working in our coastal forests or northern gas fields or in a downtown Vancouver office tower, are working to make the most of our bounty of natural resources and their responsible development.
It’s important that we move forward to develop natural resources for the benefit of all B.C. families and we do it in a way that protects the environment, in a way that ensures increased Indigenous involvement in shared decision-making. We believe that this is the right thing to do, and we believe that this is what we want to do to have prosperous First Nations and prosperous British Columbians.
We believe in the opportunity for all of B.C., because we know that the opportunity leads to prosperity, prosperity builds better lives for people, their families and their communities.
When we were on that side of the House, we delivered on that vision year after year with First Nations. Together we completed final agreements with the Tsawwassen First Nation, Maa-nulth First Nations and Tla’amin. We put our goal of shared prosperity into action, with more than 500 economic and reconciliation agreements with First Nations.
We were relentless in pursuing LNG as an opportunity for First Nations, the north, our province — for our people that are on the docks, working in all aspects of industry in British Columbia to build better lives. We’re glad that the opposite side of the House has come to recognize our accomplishments — and many of them, Site C, LNG — and the continued responsible development of resources in the province of B.C. But there are aspects of what’s in front of us, in Bill 51, talking about a change, fundamentally, in the way that we see environmental assessment.
This is a process that not only has taken a lot of work on both sides, the federal government and the provincial government, in making certain we worked to streamline a process to provide certainty. Certainty so that people that are in British Columbia, that have investments here, and communities have certainty — that businesses that are in their community providing jobs, income, taxes, have an opportunity to make certain that there is certainty around what they can do.
I think that a lot of the issues that we see in Bill 51…. It’s the fact that we have created a high level of uncertainty. Rather than providing the clarity that I think communities and investors are looking for, it’s heading in the opposite direction.
We talk about red tape. We talk about the burden of having increased regulation. I had the opportunity to serve and work for the government of British Columbia in trying to work with our partners that invested here in British Columbia over decades, generations. Many of those investors counted on a direct link with government to make certain that they were able to understand the toughness of our environmental regulations, the fact that we were not the easiest jurisdiction to necessarily do things in, but we provided certainty.
We provided certainty around the fact that once you had invested in consultation and making certain that First Nations — economic benefit agreements, the fact that every aspect of trying to improve life for people that are in an area where resource development is going to have an impact in their community, make certain that the consultation is thorough and comprehensive….
Once that was accomplished, then there was a process, under the environmental assessment office, that allowed for people to have certainty, to know that the people that are staffing that office have all of the right information before you start the countdown to a decision. That countdown to a decision was 180 days from the time you delivered all of that information. That was certainty — the fact that after a decision, a recommendation, went to the minister, was another 45 days.
This new act talks about all sorts of uncertainty — the fact that there’s a potential for, essentially, consultation that has no timelines, consultation that can literally take not just weeks or months. It could be years. It could be used under the guise of essentially stalling out resource development of any sort, any type of development on the land. The bottom line is that that is not what we were trying to do. We were trying to build up communities.
We heard the member for Skeena talk about the benefits to his community. When he became chief councillor, he moved his community by having the opportunity, not just money. There was an opportunity to train and take on those jobs because of the skill sets that were needed to help manage and improve the process all the way along. Whether it had to be LNG or whether it was mining or forestry operations, the fact is that we are learning through the fact that our institutional knowledge grows every day.
This document here doesn’t say one iota about what we learned in terms of how we did it. It’s about increasing red tape, regulations. It leads to more uncertainty. And it’s not just the people that are helping bring the opportunity, maybe, to British Columbia. It’s leading to the fact that it’s uncertainty for communities, the fact that they are already on tenuous ground based on all of the tragedy that they’ve faced, whether it’s forest fires or the fact that there has been a lot of discussion around uncertainty in their communities. This document doesn’t lead to one more iota of crisp, clear understanding and certainty around what it is that communities can expect.
Where does it leave First Nations, who often are more removed? The fact is that their communities are the ones that are often wanting to be a part of this success. We saw that recently, a process that took years, a decade, of review. The National Energy Board was involved. It was a system where there was a collaboration between our environmental assessment office…. We had the National Energy Board involved. The process was essentially worked to where there was consultation and numerous community benefit agreements. I know that that’s under review at the present time, but the point I make is that the fact is that over a decade, we do improve things.
When Gordon Campbell, who was the Premier, went to Kelowna and signed the Kelowna accord, the idea was that we were going to empower and make First Nations more successful through education, through certainty. The bottom line is that what we’re doing here is creating that uncertainty by the few that are maybe lacking in understanding, lacking in the capacity to understand. But the bottom line is that it’s our responsibility and your responsibility as government to make certain that this act helps bring those communities further ahead.
What it does is it throws numerous roadblocks and uncertainty in front of First Nations, let alone the development. But the fact is that their futures are going to be stymied by the fact that the act that’s in front of us, Bill 51, is not providing the clarity that I think we were all expecting. Of course we want to improve things. We want to make certain that it’s a seamless process from the environmental assessment office, the Oil and Gas Commission, you know, the things that we’re talking about with the Agricultural Land Commission. They’re all linked together. How do we make it so that we don’t add more rules and legislation?
Then on top of that, in the background, we create numerous regulations which are ill-defined. Nobody knows what the regulations are going to be. The fact that many people are sitting there wondering…. Or based on how something happens in a community, a regulation will change, and all of a sudden we’re going to have something that was unexpected in a process that could have taken as long as the Trans Mountain pipeline that we talk about. That was over a decade in the making.
When the rules start out and they keep changing and whatever, it means that investors look at a province like British Columbia as being a jurisdiction where there really is no certainty. The fact is that all we end up doing is creating this kind of cycle of people investing, and they finally just throw up their hands and say: “You know what? We’re done. We cannot come to a jurisdiction where the rules continue to change and there’s less certainty and the fact that we don’t have timelines.”
It costs a lot for these companies. I’ve met with them, as I said. Whether it’s Japan on LNG or simple things about just getting their product, grains, to the port, the bottom line is that there are huge investments, generational commitments here in British Columbia by these companies — Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Idemitsu, JAPEX.
The fact is that they are counting on British Columbia as a partner, not just some place to take resources and do that. They want, more than anything, to know what the rules are so that they can live up to that expectation.
When we look at other nations — Korea — the companies that are there doing responsible investment have put up with changes in the environmental regulations that the province has put up, but they continue to invest here and do business because of the fact that we have continued to try to work with those nations to get to certainty. Take the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Just in itself…. I mean, the trade was up a massive amount, double-digit growth, over what we had seen over years. It’s about these trading relationships, which help us in our diversity, to make certain that communities….
Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second.
The member for Surrey–Green Timbers has a point.
R. Singh: Mr. Speaker, I want leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
R. Singh: As I mentioned before, a school group from my riding, David Brankin Elementary, with 40 students, is here, along with their teacher Lisa Hutchcroft. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
Debate Continued
B. Stewart: Well, it’s good to see that there are young people here in the House who are here to learn about important things that are going to affect their future. We do want to give them the right tools to make certain that we guide them into the future.
Getting back to the partnerships that we were trying to develop. Everybody here in this House is celebrating the first investment in LNG here in British Columbia. It will not be the last. It could be if this act goes ahead, because in that act there are stipulations about the fact that there is an emission bucket that British Columbia will have to live underneath.
I don’t disagree that we should have targets that are set in motion, but the point about it is that we have entire parts of this province — the northeast, the northwest — where they’re wanting to make certain that responsible resource development gets the tidewater.
We need to make certain that we don’t handicap ourselves so much by being naïve to think that a dozen new LNG receiving terminals being built on the coast of China over the last three years are not there to receive cleaner-burning LNG. They know that they’re polluting. They’re using thermal coal to power their electricity — the fact that it’s operating their heating systems, their district energy systems. They want a cleaner alternative.
Now look at Japan. They’re the largest importer of LNG in the world. The fact is they’re not a growth market, but they still see the reliability of supply, so important, from a place like Canada. Our competitors over in the Middle East, etc. — Qatar and other ones like that — are not as reliable. They’re certainly not as close.
We can walk away from that opportunity and not have the people in the north or the northwest enjoy that benefit, of the fact that we have natural gas that is way cleaner burning than other fossil fuels. It’s head and shoulders above thermal coal. Those CO2 emissions — methane, etc. — are coming across the ocean in about eight days. I’m sure the minister would know more about those details than I do.
What I’m trying to say here is that when we revise something, we should be looking at how we streamline. How do we make acts so that they increase performance, efficiency?
We worked with the federal government, as I mentioned earlier, on an idea about a joint process of environmental assessment. We used to duplicate it. Our old system was one where the clock started — stop, stop — and it went on like that. People that were doing resource development never really knew how long it was going to take. The idea of working with the federal government on a joint environmental streamlined process was to remove the impediments that we were creating because we had a bureaucracy that was set up to take its time or whatever.
Time is money, and we find that…. Let’s go back to affordability. We talk about housing and about what it takes for a community, a developer, anywhere in British Columbia to actually get to yes to develop his property. They’re sitting there for years on development where municipalities or local government, maybe the provincial government, cannot give them the certainty.
That’s where this is a step backward. It is essentially stepping back, adding time, adding regulation, and the bottom line is that this document doesn’t lead to one more new deal coming to British Columbia. In fact, it’s probably going to turn dozens away. If this document passes in this House — and I will not be supporting it — the bottom line is that this document is going to turn deals off, whether it’s China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, India. They will not come here. They will not invest here.
They are going to look to Australia, New Zealand, other places where their standards of certainty are why they get business. We need to make certain that we’re competitive in that. I think that’s one of the things we need — to make certain that we don’t give up our opportunity, make certain that we’re working towards providing those economic opportunities for people.
We want to make certain…. We do want to invest in climate change. Almost 70 percent of the CO2 emissions in this province — I don’t know if the members opposite realize that, the situation — is emitted from transportation and the built infrastructure.
What can we do about that? We can continue to focus on the use of wood in buildings. Look at Brock Commons at UBC. It’s 18 storeys high and essentially an all-wood-frame construction building. Look at the emissions that it’s putting out. It goes to show that in a seismically active area, we can build buildings out of wood. We don’t have to have concrete and steel. That’s how we can reduce things even in the built environment — and the changes in terms of what we’re using, the technology, whether it’s insulation or the glass, the glazing, etc.
I think the bottom line is that there are countries, like China, that are looking at British Columbia as a leader in these things, in how they reduce CO2 emissions. But this act doesn’t do anything to help improve that. It doesn’t mean that there’s going to be one more Brock Commons building built. It means that people are going to be sitting there and looking at other jurisdictions to invest in because: “You know what? We’ve got all these rules in British Columbia. Why would we want to consider developing a mine or why would we want to build a pellet plant?” It’s got a good outcome, but why would they want to do that when we make it so that the process of setting up something is actually far from certain? And that’s the whole point.
Actually, if this was really properly understood, I think that many First Nations, which was mentioned many times in here, are going to be…. The consequence of this act on them is going to mean a lack of opportunity for them. I think when it comes to First Nations — as I go back to mentioning Gordon Campbell and Prime Minister Martin, at the time, signing that accord — it was about providing certainty for First Nations, British Columbians.
That’s what it’s all about. We want certainty on the land base. We want to make certain that those children that are disadvantaged, that don’t have that opportunity, not only improve their educational outcomes but have the opportunities for economic development.
We’ve done lots, and there’s lots to be done. The bottom line is…. I still think this is something that has been developed around people sitting around in coffee shops drinking lattes in Vancouver and have no clue about what it’s really like to have to develop something — out in the forest or the mountaintops or in the northeast, in the Peace River district — being able to try to develop constructive, positive projects that actually work for the benefit of British Columbians.
We’ve seen all sorts of improvements in environmental standards in terms of the way that things are done. It doesn’t mean that we have it perfect. But by creating months or years of uncertainty with new regulations, new legislation that is going to tie the hands of not only the people that are trying to bring economic opportunity here but First Nations that would like to benefit from it…. And the fact is that people, even in the Lower Mainland that are drinking those lattes, etc., just want to know that it’s being done in a responsible way.
I had that privilege of selling that message to people. They said: “Your environmental rules are so tough, so impossible.” I had an opportunity to work with the former Premier and the Minister of Natural Gas Development on bringing people to the table to convince them that it was not an impossible task. The fact is that, although it was tough, we worked very hard at making certain that people valued British Columbia’s pristine environment.
We were not willing to give that up just for the sake of a deal. We wanted to make certain that they understood that they had to work hard at it and that they needed to make certain that First Nations were a big part of that, not just the consultation, but they needed to benefit from it — the jobs that are there.
You know, you look at a community like Smithers. It’s one of the places that’s not well known — the fact that it trains more of the people that run mining, the drilling rigs, than anywhere else in North America. It’s a mining capital. And the people that run those drilling rigs, etc. — most of those are First Nations. They have a school dedicated to that that’s up there training people locally in those communities to be able to do that exploration.
The bottom line is that these regulations are written with the idea that we can improve everything with a document, rather than real-life experience. What does it take for somebody to actually get out there in the bush and clear a road, after the geologists or the people that have gone out and done the prospecting have identified something?
The fact is that from the time that the prospector is out there in the environment, finding a possible lead, what we’re getting to is the fact that they bring back the results and they do the core samples. Of course, they’ve got permits to get to that point. And then what happens is that they start to develop. They have to go around the world to talk to investors about: “Here’s an opportunity in British Columbia.”
Well, first, we have to make certain that they know that British Columbia is not somewhere — and another one of the Commonwealth names that’s a British name. The bottom line is that we want them to know that it’s in Canada, a place of law and order. Certainty would be helpful. And the fact is that we want them to be able to do their fundraising, whether they’re in Vancouver or Hong Kong at the mines and metals show.
These are the types of people that have to do the hard work to make certain that those opportunities from the prospector turn into a reality. Once they get the resources and they have people that they are somewhat confident in, then they start that slow process of building out a plan, going through the environmental process. It doesn’t always mean that you get to yes.
I know that there’s a mine that we turned down, when I was in government, near Granisle. Basically, it didn’t meet the requirements. It was a tough, tough decision. But the bottom line is that the ministers and the environmental assessment office did their job in making certain that the environment came first. We were not just going to approve something that was going to be without any kind of…. You know, throw the risks out the window and pursue something.
I think that, more importantly, one of the things that our government is looking for when it comes to revisions in the Environmental Assessment Act is: how do we provide the tools to the people that are working in that office to be able to collaborate to make certain that they get the right answers? What technology is out there?
Rather than just throwing roadblocks up…. I think that what’s important is that people that are working to develop their investment here in British Columbia are looking at the opportunities with this idea that there’s collaboration. I mean, what have we learnt in the last 100 and some years here in British Columbia?
I think that probably one of the things that we want to talk about is: how do we change this act to empower First Nations, to give them the opportunity that they can be a part of the decision process in a positive, constructive manner?
I think that one of the things that we will hear more about is the fact that some of the suggestions in this act lead to the fact that First Nations may not necessarily be empowered but actually lose their ability to help empower making things happen where overlapping jurisdictional issues with First Nations ends up meaning that they won’t get to certainty. They’ll have disputes amongst themselves.
Who’s going to resolve that? There is no body that is higher in the province than this government right here. But for First Nations, there’s no dispute resolution between them if they have overlapping claims or uncertainty. That’s why they need certainty in this.
They need to know that the consultation has been done thoughtfully, to make certain that their opportunities are not necessarily taken away by somebody else that maybe doesn’t feel that some overlapping jurisdiction leads to the inability for what should be a positive decision for British Columbia, for all First Nations involved. It should mean that we’re getting to the point where this is moving ahead.
I think that when I talk about cost and investments here, I talk about a prospector going out, finding a claim or staking a claim, developing that. You think about what it takes to get to yes in an investment like the LNG Canada facility. It’s over $40 billion. That is the number that’s labelled at it. Why would we want to not have other follow-on investments? We build that first, the improved gas line getting to the coast.
The investment in all of the people that we’re training in our trade schools, whether it’s at BCIT, Okanagan College — all of those opportunities for those people that have trained to be the best people in the business to help get LNG Canada off the ground…. Why not have the other opportunities that are so close being behind that? Why would we want to have that trapped under some sort of cap of greenhouse gas emissions when we know that the displacement of greenhouse gas emissions in Asia is something that really matters to our environment both here in British Columbia and Canada, and in Asia?
I think it’s shortsightedness on the part that we’re going to train up a generation of workers that are highly skilled. We’re going to have the opportunity for those workers being able to build other projects. We want to make certain that we do everything possible to attract future projects here in British Columbia. Unfortunately, Bill 51 does not get us closer to that mark where we’re trying to build confidence and certainty, reduce cost and make certain that we are the place where people are wanting to come to — so that there are jobs for everyone.
That’s really something we should be thinking about. Whether it’s the Lower Mainland and people are sitting in a coffee shop, they should be able to think about the opportunity of the jobs that are going to be created out in…. Whether they’re doing the work, whether it’s on an assessment or a project or actually physically working out there….
I think that probably this House knows where I stand on that, on this project or Bill 51. The fact is that I don’t think that it’s going to lead to further development of our resources. I think that there are many things in here that could be improved.
I look forward to committee stage, where we can talk about the individual components of this and find out how the minister and his staff have seen fit to make it so that these new regulations will streamline and improve environmental assessment here in British Columbia. I look forward to hopefully making the improvements that I think this act needs.
R. Sultan: It’s a pleasure that I offer a few additional comments on Bill 51. As a preface, I would indicate I’ve had some personal experience permitting large resource projects in British Columbia and across Canada. I’d refer explicitly to a very large lead-zinc mine in the Yukon, which I permitted environmentally. I was CEO of a very large fibreboard project in Williams Lake with an American partner. Through delays, partly, the American partner went home, and that was the end of that project.
I played a lead role in the permitting of a large mining project in the Fort Ware district above Williston Lake, and finally, I played a senior officer role in a conglomerate with operations in Manitoba, Alberta and Arizona. In all of these settings, I’ve had an intimate exposure, and, in fact, leadership responsibilities, in making sure that environmental standards were being fulfilled and project standards could be lived up to. With that background, I read with great interest the provisions of Bill 51.
Let me begin by acknowledging a couple of laudable attempts in the bill, at least, to (a) provide some very specific timelines, which is advertised as perhaps creating certainty in the permitting process. Although, as I will subsequently observe, I don’t think the brave effort is successful, at least the motivation should be applauded.
Secondly, in a similar fashion, it does try to add some certainty to the role of the First Nations in what can be a very confusing area for proponents, particularly those not used to how we conduct our relationships with First Nations here in British Columbia, as they try to come to grips with what is required to get a project off the ground, particularly a resource project in British Columbia.
I applaud the efforts, if not the results, along those two efforts — the timeline and First Nations resources dimension of Bill 51. Unfortunately, standing back and looking at this bill in the broader context of the work that we have been engaged with in this Legislature, I see a certain tendency in the mass of legislation that we are asked to consider that is not to be applauded.
I would mention, first of all, the tendency among our friends on the other side of the aisle to introduce legislation which concentrates and elevates power and authority up the line, eventually into the cabinet room, where, no doubt, politics plays more than a small measure of decision-making authority in what one would hope would be more of an objective exercise in what is truly in the best interests of British Columbia from an environmental point of view and other dimensions. This concentration of power, I think, is not in fact going to be a healthy phenomenon, but we see it riddling many, many aspects of legislation presented in this House in the past several weeks.
The second phenomenon in many pieces of legislation, including Bill 51, is an excessive — I would say almost mind-numbing — reliance and faith in process and rules and the sublime confidence that if a law says something should be so, it will happen. Unfortunately, that’s not quite the way the world works, but nevertheless, we see it over and over again. “Thou shalt do this. Thou shalt not do that.” Sometimes I wonder whether I’m actually in church on Sunday morning.
Then the third dimension that riddles and permeates much of the legislation we see is a tendency to secrecy, opaqueness, suppression of dissent and the muzzling of contrary opinions — indeed, to the extent of requiring participants to sign confidentiality agreements. As an aside, I read journalist reports. This is even extended within the NDP party itself. I find that a little hard to believe.
The bills I would refer to, aside from Bill 51 itself, are the proportional representation act, which certainly represents these three tendencies to the maximum, and the proposed law on the agricultural land reserve imposing provincial authority, cabinet-level authority, over what should be, essentially, municipal rules.
Thirdly, the act on professional governance being debated in committee stage in the little House, as we speak, creates what I would call an über-super, an über-superintendent, who will decide all things professionally. I hope that I have a chance to meet this super person when appointed.
The community benefits agreement relegates into the cabinet the decision of who can be hired on major public works projects and which unions pass the loyalty test and which unions do not.
Then Bill 51 itself has similar tendencies, particularly its faith in process and its concentration of ultimate authority backed up by modest fines, which can be levied to individuals, ranging from the low end, of $1 million, up to $2 million per person. I hope they get a lien on their house.
This is an unfortunate tendency, in my opinion. And why do we observe this in this bill and elsewhere in this government’s agenda? It is, I have to conclude, driven by some desire to install what in other contexts might be called a command-and-control economy: “We know what’s best here in cabinet, and we are going to shape this economy, this culture, this working place, this environment to suit what we know is good for British Columbia. We’re certainly not going to leave it up to the messy decision-making of the marketplace.”
Unfortunately, we have seen this experiment in command and control elsewhere. I have seen it played out in places such as Cuba, East Germany and Myanmar, in the extreme. I’m not suggesting that these folks actually plan to install a similar degree of command and control in British Columbia, but they are drifting in that general direction.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
The target, in this particular legislation, is the resource industry. Those rascals who dare dig holes in the ground and drill for oil and gas and do other things which disrupt the natural environment. I fear for the impact of this mindset and this legislation upon, in particular, rural B.C., which is still heavily dependent on resource industries. I don’t see Microsoft eager to relocate its software facilities up to Williams Lake. At least, it hasn’t been mentioned that I’ve noticed.
Rural B.C. is still very much a resource-driven place. And I would caution my friends across the way that…. While we have our skew — our, shall we say, disproportionate representation outside of the large metropolitan area — they have the same handicap being excessively focused, in terms of their membership, within the large membership, within the large metropolitan area. Therefore, they may not be as sensitive to the realities of life in places like Williams Lake.
The consequences of Bill 51 are not particularly favourable, in my opinion. Rather than define and shorten the assessment process, I think the chances are it will lengthen it. I think the expectation that the role of First Nations will be clarified, unfortunately, removes strength of claim as a requirement for Indigenous involvement. Fees for the entire paper-driven process will be passed on to the claimants.
Many details are not defined and await regulation. The sweeping new powers of the new officer in charge bring to mind the über-superintendent envisaged for the professions. And finally, I think that delays, uncertainties and added costs, the added red tape, will certainly not accelerate resource project development in British Columbia but, in fact, could slow it down, if not eliminate it entirely.
On that basis, unfortunately, I must say I will not be supporting Bill 51.
R. Coleman: Noting the time, I rise and reserve my time to speak this afternoon, after lunch.
R. Coleman moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Introductions by Members
J. Brar: I see a class just came in. I know we are just going to finish the work here today, but I would like to welcome every student.
I don’t know what school you are from, but I would like to welcome every student who is here today and all the teachers and the parents who are with you. Welcome to this House.
I will ask the House to please make them feel welcome.
Hon. G. Heyman moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 49 — PROFESSIONAL
GOVERNANCE
ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 49; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
On section 1.
S. Furstenau: In terms of defining “conduct unbecoming a registrant,” can the minister explain who sets the methods or principles that are the foundation of the professions? Will these principles, if they’re determined by the respective professions, be approved by the superintendent’s office?
Hon. G. Heyman: Before I answer the question, I just want to take the opportunity to introduce the staff who are here with us today. On my immediate left is Jennifer McGuire. She’s the assistant deputy minister, environmental sustainability and strategic policy division, and is acting deputy minister today. On my right is Peter Trotzki, director of legislation in the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Behind me is Jesse Baltutis, who is the policy analyst on the professional reliance review team.
Thank you, Member, for the question. The definitions of both “professional misconduct” and “conduct unbecoming a registrant” are embodied in the legislation itself. There are cross-linkages to sections 22, 63, 65, 66, 70, 75, 76, 110.
It’s expected that the associations, because these are very specifically defined in the act, will use these definitions. That’s the expectation. Of course, the superintendent would act if, for any unbeknownst reason, they weren’t applied as strictly defined in the act.
P. Milobar: I wasn’t sure whether to dive too deep into definitions or not. But I’m just wondering if the minister can explain….
All through this act, whenever we see minister referenced, it’s the Attorney General, which means the Attorney General will be the administrator — for lack of better phrasing, I guess — of this act once it’s enacted moving forward. I can totally understand that there are two or three different ministers that oversee various associations right now that would come under this act. But I’m wondering if the minister can explain the thought process as to why it was the Minister of Environment spearheading this development and environmental staff versus the Attorney General and the Attorney General’s office staff, given that they will have to be the people that actually oversee this act once it’s enacted.
If we can get clarification on why the minister defined is Attorney General and not Environment.
Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is that my mandate letter directed me and my ministry to review the professional reliance model and to bring reforms to it. As a result of that, we commissioned an independent review which took place. We also consulted with all of the associations, with industry and with other stakeholders. The reviewer did that during the process. We did it after the report was tabled and made public.
We also consulted across ministries and ministers who have had and currently have a responsibility for the associations that are going to be regulated. In the course of that, we had a discussion about where the best place is to situate the office, because we’re taking the responsibility of several ministries and streamlining and consolidating it for more consistency and efficiency in one ministry.
The general consensus was that it was best placed in the Ministry of Attorney General. We consulted with the ministry and the Attorney, and they agreed. So I continued to carry out my mandate and bring forward the legislation they were actively engaged in developing. But I can assure the member that all ministries affected, including the ministry that will ultimately have responsibility for the superintendent, were consulted throughout the process, and that is how we got to where we are today.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
S. Furstenau: Section 3 establishes that a firm may only be registered in a regulatory body if the Lieutenant-Governor has, by regulation, authorized it or it is included under this act.
The question is: does the LG-in-Council have to separately authorize each of the regulatory bodies to register firms?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. It’s not that each firm will have to be named, unless…. I may have misunderstood the question, but as each regulatory body is prepared to recommend a specific regulation for regulating firms which employ professionals whom they regulate, they will develop and work with government for the regulation that will implement that regulatory authority for firms within their jurisdiction.
P. Milobar: I think when many people would read “Application to firms as registrants,” they automatically jump to an engineering firm or a forest professional firm — those types.
Can the minister explain how this section is going to work and apply, with how broad this bill has become with the five associations under it, specifically the technician side of things? There are lots of various firms in there that don’t have a natural resource sector type of bent to them, but they would be caught in this legislation. So how are those firms going to be handled in terms of registrant? Will they have to go through all the same processes?
Hon. G. Heyman: The ability to regulate firms was a power that was requested by the regulatory bodies’ associations themselves, and the reason, quite simply, was to ensure that while they were responsible for enforcing ethical and practice standards on their professionals, they had the ability to address issues of a conflict that might occur between one of their professionals upholding their ethical and practice standards versus their employment. So the engineers are the furthest along this road, in terms of developing policies that will lead to regulation of firms within their jurisdiction.
I can’t give express detail to how this will look in all the associations, because as I said earlier, those regulations will be developed once the act is passed by the associations, through consultation processes. By that time, the superintendent office will be being established in the Ministry of Attorney General, and I would expect that the superintendent may choose to provide advice and guidance and support. But the details have to be worked out through regulation, and the consultation process about how best to apply it will be conducted by the associations themselves.
P. Milobar: I’ll touch on this in section 4 as well, but my understanding is the superintendent would have the power and the authority…. So if a regulatory body chose that they did not want firms to have to be registered under this because they’re on some of the new associations that are coming under this legislation, that regulatory body if it chose to say that those firms don’t have to, the superintendent can say: “I don’t really care what you think. I’m mandating that the firms need to be registered as registrants.”
Is that not the case: that the superintendent, under this bill, has the ultimate power to be able to actually decree, whether a regulatory body agrees with them or not?
Hon. G. Heyman: The question is asking me to speculate on some hypothetical matters, but what I can tell the member is that the Engineers and Geoscientists Association was the most actively interested in having this power. Therefore, they’re the furthest along. They advocated for it. I think B.C. and Quebec are the only provinces where engineers do not have the ability to regulate firms.
Other associations expressed some early interest in potentially using this enabling authority under the act, and it will be up to those associations, which ultimately have the regulatory authority, to decide whether they want to exercise this provision. I expect they would do that with consultation and feedback from their membership to see if the issues that faced engineers are also issues facing them.
The ultimate authority, as the member refers to it, of the superintendent is an authority that is there on all aspects of the act simply to ensure that, through oversight, the spirit and intent of the legislation is being upheld in all cases. If there is no reason to think that it is necessary to regulate firms in a particular area, I would expect the superintendent to not act.
If there was evidence that there was some reason to do so, and associations were reluctant to, the superintendent might act. But there is no overriding directive in this act to exercise that enabling authority to regulate firms that was in response to specific requests and submissions made by engineers and geoscientists for whom the issue is very real. When discussed with other associations, they wanted to give it more thought. That’s why the provision is enabling rather than directive.
P. Milobar: Let me try this again, because I don’t think we really got an answer to the question.
The question is, regardless of the intent of this…. I fully recognize that this is meant to enable the regulatory bodies and the associations to govern themselves. But the question is, in spite of that, if the superintendent feels that firms should be registered, does the superintendent have the power, under this bill, to enact that? Conversely, if a group wants to have firms registered, and the superintendent feels it’s not appropriate, do they have the ability to block that?
It’s a fairly straightforward question around the powers of the superintendent to be able to override section 3 or not. I’m not interested in the intent. Frankly, ministers come and go. Opposition critics are going to come and go. Superintendents are going to come and go.
The intent of how it was written by the people who drafted it and what the minister may intend for this…. I would point out it will actually be interpreted by the Attorney General, not the minister whose staff drafted this bill, so there is already going to be a different interpretation with intent on this bill.
It’s a legal power. This bill provides for the legalization of the powers of the superintendent and how these organizations will interact and work moving forward. I’m just simply trying to ascertain, not the intent, but what is the legal authoritative power of the superintendent in relation to section 3? Can they override and either institute the registration of firms or actually block the registration of firms if a body was choosing that?
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I did answer the question, but I’m happy to answer it with a bit more specificity, even though we haven’t got to the section yet.
Section 11(1)(c) states: “for any matter the superintendent considers necessary in the public interest with respect to professional governance, including a directive that is (i) consistent with any guidelines established under section 9, or (ii) necessary to address issues arising out of an investigation or audit under section 10.”
That’s the superintendent’s general and broad authority to act in the public interest. However, in this case, it’s constrained by section 3, which says: “A firm may only be registered as a registrant in a regulatory body if (a) the Lieutenant Governor in Council has, by regulation, authorized the regulatory body to register firms in the regulatory body as registrants.” So until there is a regulation, the superintendent could not do that. Once there was a regulation, the superintendent could do that.
Then the second part of 3 is: “the council has made bylaws under this Act to enable or to require the registration of firms as registrants.” So again, the bylaws would have to be made by the council, but the superintendent could direct the council to make bylaws.
P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I recognize that we’re going to have to move around a little bit on some of these because there are so many forward-and-back references in terms of sections. So there is going to be some overlap.
In (b), though — the minister referenced 3(b) — “the council has made bylaws under this Act to enable or require the registration of firms as registrants.” Is it not the case that the superintendent has the ability to create and impose a bylaw on the council, whether or not the council agrees with the bylaw? Is that not also a part of the superintendent’s powers — that they are able to unilaterally impose a bylaw they feel is missing or needed?
Hon. G. Heyman: My answer to the last question is a perfectly good and sufficient answer for this one.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
P. Milobar: Well, I think we’re getting into the area of the superintendent and the powers, and it sounds like they do indeed have the ability to override and insert any bylaws as they see fit. Just, again, in relation to the office of the superintendent being established. Could the minister clarify…?
It appears that this will be a purely internal government political decision by the Attorney General and/or cabinet input, but it’s not intended to be an all-party appointment. It’s not intended to have any more input than whoever is currently in government. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Heyman: The superintendent will be a member of the public service, hired through a merit-based process under the Public Service Act.
P. Milobar: Then item (6) says: “The Public Service Act does not apply in respect of a person retained under subsection (4).” That’s not referring to the superintendent. That’s referring to any “…persons the minister or the superintendent considers necessary to enable or assist the superintendent to exercise powers or perform duties, including investigations or audits, of the superintendent, or the office, under this Act.”
Those will be strictly contractors that this section applies to, in terms of not being part of the public service? Or will the staff of the superintendent not be part of the public service? I don’t think so, but I just want to make sure I interpreted that properly.
Hon. G. Heyman: Just contractors. Other staff will be, again, hired under a merit-based process pursuant to the Public Service Act and the Public Service Agency guidelines.
P. Milobar: So the office of superintendent…. It sounds like it’ll be through a merit-based process, through the Public Service Act. That means that things like termination or tenure, length of service will all be standardized and not at the whim of a minister coming in or out?
Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is yes.
M. Lee: I wanted to ask, in terms of section 4(1), if the minister could just walk through the rationale for why the office of the superintendent is established under the Ministry of Attorney General, as opposed to his ministry.
Hon. G. Heyman: I answered that question before the member entered the room. It’s on Hansard.
P. Milobar: Perhaps the minister can give a little more detail on how this office of the superintendent was established through the consultation. My understanding, in talking with various associations that are impacted by this legislation, is that there is an unease about the overall power and overarching abilities of the superintendent in general and a concern around spreading out that expertise over five different agencies — and potentially more being added in, which we’ll get to in later sections.
Was there any push-back from any of the five associations, the people, that are being impacted by this legislation around the creation of the office of the superintendent?
Hon. G. Heyman: There certainly was some initial unease from a number of the associations. We consulted with them extensively and continuously, including workshops to walk them through the legislation. Some of their unease was founded on misinterpretations of what the superintendent’s role would actually be, what their powers would or wouldn’t be and what we were intending to do under the act.
Their unease diminished considerably as they came to understand what actually would happen in the act. They also made a number of very helpful suggestions about the things that were causing them some unease. We made some changes to the legislation to address those concerns. In the end, all five of the associations endorsed the legislation, including providing support in the news release that accompanied the legislation.
The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara, we’ll do one more question, as we’re almost at time.
M. Lee: Given the nature of that, in terms of the consolidation under the Attorney General’s office, is there not a concern regarding duplication and a lack of understanding as to how the superintendent will report to the Attorney General on areas that are not specifically in the areas of expertise within that ministry?
Hon. G. Heyman: Actually, the answer is no. The member is incorrect. In fact, we’re taking different forms of governance and different oversight responsibilities from four separate ministries and streamlining them into one, under a superintendent whose area of expertise will vary specifically…. It’d be governance, which we discovered, in reviewing how the different associations are currently overseen by four different ministries, was not necessarily a core competency of those particular ministries.
We are moving to ensure that the core competency of overseeing governance is with a subject matter expert in one ministry. But the associations themselves retain full regulatory authority and may get suggestions and work with the superintendent. It is intended that they exercise their function, but we streamline and consolidate the oversight.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada