Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 228
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2019
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency Kerim Uras, the Ambassador of Turkey to Canada, along with consul general of Turkey at Vancouver, Mr. Anil Bora Inan.
His Excellency is here on his first visit to British Columbia. I just had the pleasure of meeting with him and discussing bilateral trade and commercial relations. This afternoon he will be meeting with the Lieutenant-Governor and later, after that, will also be meeting with you, Mr. Speaker.
Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
Hon. H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce some very special guests in the gallery here today. Along with western regional director Joie Warnock, we have B.C. area director Gavin McGarrigle, along with a number of Unifor members from all across our great province. I look forward to meeting with them today to talk about and discuss how we can make life better and safer for all B.C. workers. I know they will be meeting with the different MLAs here today.
Please help me give them a very, very warm welcome. I look forward to meeting with them.
T. Redies: I, too, would like to welcome the members of various social services agencies today under the B.C. CEO Network. In particular, I’d like to welcome my constituent Doug Tennant, who is also the executive director of the Semiahmoo House Society in South Surrey. Semiahmoo House Society supports people with different abilities, and they’re a wonderful organization within our community. They’ve also contributed to affordable and inclusive housing in our communities.
I’m really, really delighted to welcome Doug and his colleagues here to the House today and would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.
Hon. J. Sims: All of us know how hard-working our public service is, and the work they do every single day makes us look good out in the public. I’m always in awe of their passion, their commitment and their professionalism as they do the work to do the very best for British Columbians, to make their lives easier.
Today it is my pleasure to introduce to the House two staff members from my ministry, from the corporate services division: Shane Hoag, who is the director, project and business services, and Ronda Richardson, who is a senior business consultant. May I ask that all here make them feel most welcome and thank them for the awesome work they do every single day.
S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Katie Currie, who is in the gallery today. She’s here to shadow me. Katie is a fourth-year environmental studies and poli-sci major at UVic, and she hopes to go on to do her master’s in environmental politics, looking for solutions, as we all are, to the global crisis of climate change. Please make Katie feel very welcome.
A. Weaver: Today I rise to introduce the University of Victoria Vikes women’s varsity rowing team, who are in the gallery today. For anyone who might not have seen the front page of the Times Colonist Sunday morning, the Vikes women out-rowed UBC Thunderbirds this weekend at the annual Brown Cup race, much to the embarrassment and shame of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.
The race itself begins under the Tillicum bridge before finishing in the Inner Harbour. The UVic women reached the Inner Harbour nearly ten seconds — that’s almost a lifetime in the sport of rowing — before the member for Vancouver–Point Grey’s Thunderbirds did. Again, more shame and more embarrassment for the member.
The Brown Cup is a UBC-UVic thing. The win for the UVic women extends their all-time Brown Cup record to a dominant — listen to this, Member — 24-3. That’s 24 times UVic has beat UBC on this, and only three times have they lost.
The rivalry between the two programs is intense, and I look forward to following this again next year. I look forward to rising again in the House next year and saying the record is now 25 and 3, and once more pointing out the shame that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey should be feeling.
The names of the winning crew are as follows, and they’re upstairs: Barney Williams, Sam Heron, Lily Copeland, Piper Battersby, Gillian Cattet, McKenna Simpson, Layla Balooch, team captain Larissa McKinley, Adriana Rooker, Kirsten Edwards and Danae McCulloch. Would the House please make this incredibly talented group of rowers feel very, very welcome.
L. Reid: In concert with my Richmond colleagues, I’d like to welcome Janice Barr to this place. The Richmond Society of Community Living is in capable hands. The programs that impact our families in Richmond: supported child development, infant development — hugely important that they continue. Thank you so very much for being here.
A. Olsen: It’s an honour to be able to rise today and acknowledge my constituency assistant, Ryan Clayton, who joins us on Tuesdays in the House and today is joining us. It’s his birthday. I want to raise my hands to Ryan for a couple of reasons. One, because, well, he’s a pretty darn good constituency assistant. In fact, he has a way around government, knowing who to call and when to call and how to call them — and getting answers.
The second is because Ryan spent a decade travelling the province, delivering homophobia and discrimination presentations to our youth in schools, in school districts, school boards, and has been right at the leading edge, at the front edge, of this incredibly important work.
Today it’s an honour to ask that all the members of this House raise their hands to Ryan and the work that he did and help me congratulate him on his 30-something birthday.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 23 — LAND OWNER
TRANSPARENCY
ACT
Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Owner Transparency Act.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. I’m very pleased to introduce the Land Owner Transparency Act. This act addresses the government’s commitment to end the hidden ownership of land, as outlined in our 30-point housing plan.
For years, people were able to use shell companies, trusts and partnerships to hide who really owns property in British Columbia. The act sets out a framework for increasing transparency of land ownership in the province by requiring disclosure from corporations, trustees and partnerships about the underlying owners of land.
To support greater transparency, high-level information will be available for search publicly, similar to how you can search now for information on individual titleholders. More sensitive information will be available to law enforcement, tax authorities and certain regulators to help address tax evasion, tax fraud and money laundering.
This beneficial ownership registry will be the first of its kind in Canada and one of the most comprehensive in the world. We’ve heard clearly from British Columbians, experts and municipalities that they want their government to end hidden ownership, and we are doing just that.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 23, Land Owner Transparency Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL 24 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. I’m pleased to introduce the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019. This bill will help prevent the misuse of B.C. companies for criminal activities, such as money laundering and tax evasion. Currently companies are susceptible to being used for criminal activity, as they’re able to hide the identity of the owners of the company.
This bill will require companies to identify and maintain up-to-date information about true owners in the new record, called a transparency registry. The transparency register will be kept in the company’s records office, and information on it will be accessible to the police, tax authorities and regulators in investigations.
This bill will also deal with bearer shares, which can be used to mask the true owner’s identity. Although B.C. companies have not been able to issue these shares for many years, the amendments contain a mechanism to ensure that any pre-existing bearer shares are replaced with share certificates that set out the name of the shareholder.
Through this bill, our government is meeting two commitments: first, our commitment outlined in our 30-point plan for housing affordability to require companies to collect and hold accurate and up-to-date information about beneficial owners of shares and, secondly, our commitment to the federal-provincial-territorial initiative to improve beneficial transparency across Canada.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 24, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019, 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)
PERISHABLE FOOD RECOVERY
PROGRAM AT KAMLOOPS FOOD
BANK
T. Stone: Fresh fruit, crisp vegetables, milk, eggs and protein — all staples of a healthy diet and common items in most refrigerators but not something usually provided in traditional food banks.
Every month thousands of British Columbians access food banks, and every month farmers, food producers and grocery stores produce an enormous amount of food waste — waste that goes into our landfills. So how do you reduce waste and get food into the hands of those who need it? You get creative, and you forge ahead with an innovative solution, just like the one the Kamloops Food Bank embraced and has proven so successful.
Led by Bernadette Siracky, the Kamloops Food Bank has found success through the community-building initiative of perishable food recovery. Food that is fit for consumption, but not necessarily fit for sale, is a new avenue for food donations. Bernadette and her team have created a system to tap into this by joining forces with local businesses, who donate their very edible, but no longer sellable, perishable food items. This allows those in need to get help and health all at once. Less waste, fuller stomachs and healthier families — three things we can all support.
This endeavour runs on the heels of a number of pilot projects developed by the Kamloops Food Bank. FoodSHARE, Basics for Babies and Empty Bowls are all successful programs started in Kamloops that have now been replicated across Canada. So it is now with perishable food recovery.
The leadership from Bernadette is something to celebrate, and all members of her team deserve praise. Kirsten Beardsley, the chief network services officer, had this to say: “I think what Bernadette does is bring such positive energy and such a sense of leadership. She solves problems, and she builds strong relationships within the community, with retailers and with donors, to do something special.”
It is with pride that I ask, on behalf of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and myself, for this House to please join us in thanking Bernadette Siracky and her entire team at the Kamloops Food Bank for the difference they continue to make in the lives of folks in Kamloops and right across Canada.
AUTISM AWARENESS AND
WORK OF COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS
R. Singh: We are at the beginning of Autism Awareness Month, and today, April 2, is World Autism Awareness Day. I’m hoping all hon. members are wearing their autism awareness pins. The pin symbolizes and reinforces our commitment to families living with autism spectrum disorder and to the selfless professionals who serve them.
Autism, as many of us know, is the most common neurological disorder affecting children and one of the most common developmental disabilities affecting Canadians in general. I understand how challenging it is for a family to raise a child diagnosed with autism.
As in most of the world, the prevalence rates of autism have continued to rise in B.C. as well — from one in every 209 children in 2007 to one in every 45 now. The need to raise awareness about this is as urgent as ever.
B.C., however, I was pleased to find out, is considered a leader in providing autism services and is the only province in Canada that has a no-wait-list policy for families to access funding following a confirmed diagnosis. Families can access support and funding for children at home and in school and may be eligible for a variety of other services, including respite, family supports and early intervention therapies.
The government’s work, however, would not be effective if it weren’t well supported by community organizations. So today should also be the day to acknowledge the tremendous contributions of organizations that work to provide services to families affected by autism.
I hope you will all join me in extending a special thanks to the Autism Society of B.C. and to the Canucks Autism Network, to name just two. I would also like to ask all British Columbians to join me in recognizing World Autism Awareness Day.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF WOMEN IN SURREY
AND WOMEN IN BUSINESS
AWARDS
S. Cadieux: March 8 was International Women’s Day, as this House knows. Every year many organizations choose March to honour women and their achievements. My colleagues from Surrey–White Rock and Surrey-Cloverdale and I did just that, celebrating three local women living quite inspiring lives in our community.
Christina Marcano is the founder and CEO of Silver Icing Inc. She’s a wife and mother to three young children. She founded Silver Icing to provide herself and other women an opportunity to fulfil their entrepreneurial journey.
Louise Tremblay, who works with UNITI and Semiahmoo House Society, supporting people with disabilities to live their best lives, has also just written a book titled Boiled Frogs.
Loretta Hibbs’s passion for helping others has resulted in the development of the City Dream Centre in Surrey, providing an array of services and supports, including free dental service, to those in need in our community.
The Surrey Board of Trade also held their tenth annual Surrey Women in Business Awards. I, along with 400 people, gathered to recognize the success of Surrey’s businesswomen and their contributions to the community.
This year’s winners were: in the entrepreneur category, Santoshi Desai, who is the co-founder of Orange Oranges Technologies; in the professional category, Rupinder Khunkhun, who is a family law lawyer and partner at Grandview Law Group LLP, in my community; in the not-for-profit leader category, Ninu Kang, who is director of communications and development at Mosaic, a woman well known to members of this House; and in the corporate and leadership category, Alison Fuller, who is the senior vice-president of finance at Venturis Capital Corp.
Last but not least, our social trailblazer for the year: Sonia Andhi Bilkhu, a leader in the field of social services and mental health. She’s a registered social worker, a family counsellor and has worked in the non-profit sector since 1987. Sonia founded the Shakti Awards.
I congratulate them all on their achievements, their community service and their awards and wish for the House to do the same.
SUSAN SIMMONS AND SPIRIT ORCAS
LONG-DISTANCE SWIM
TEAM
M. Dean: Fifteen years ago local resident of Esquimalt-Metchosin Susan Simmons was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. This is a condition often characterized by fatigue, motor weakness, spasticity and core balance.
In the years after her diagnosis, Susan’s health declined. Then one day she woke up, became a vegan and began exercising. With tenacity and perseverance, she built up her strength from not being able to walk a block to swimming the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It’s 34 kilometres from Port Angeles to Ogden Point, and she swam it two years ago with no wetsuit. The swim took her ten hours and six minutes, and she did it to help raise funds for a new MS Centre in Victoria.
A project she’s working on now is supporting a team of developmentally delayed young athletes, called the Spirit Orcas, to ultimately swim the English Channel, from England to France. In preparation this year, the team of six will swim Gunboat Passage near Bella Bella Háiɫzaqv territory, in Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest. As she says: “I wholeheartedly believe everyone is worth the effort it takes to be healthy, and for those of us with disease, our first line of defense should be a healthy and fit self.”
Susan is an inspiration in my community and beyond. She’s showing all of us what tenacity, perseverance and daring to push beyond can achieve. Because, as Susan knows, everybody is capable of achieving something great.
DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL
L. Throness: An important public policy issue is a philosophical debate about determinism and free will. What our society believes about this issue affects a wide range of decisions in areas like justice, addictions treatment and social benefit programs. We know that inanimate things are entirely determined by outside forces. But is a person so determined as well, with choice just an illusion?
In the 18th century, the pendulum swung far toward personal choice, with little or no allowance made for a person’s environment. Today the pendulum has swung the other way. The belief that only matter exists means that human behaviour can be reduced to its physical determinants and human thought and emotion reduced to synapses in the brain. The consequence of the materialist view is that people are victims of their circumstances and, therefore, not ultimately responsible for their choices.
One of the reasons for accepting a theory, as Thomas Kuhn relates in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is its explanatory power. The Copernican system was accepted over the Ptolemaic in part because it better explained the movements of the heavenly bodies. With this idea as a guide, our environment does explain much behaviour. But determinism fails to explain a person’s triumph over bad circumstances or poor decisions made under the best of conditions. Free will provides a better explanation here.
The intellectual heritage of Western civilization is that we are at once material and spiritual beings — in retrospect, bound by material causes but, in prospect, still free to choose. In my view, this is the most satisfying explanation. We are deeply affected by our environment, so we must show mercy to those in difficult circumstances. But we are not powerless victims. We can rise above our circumstances, so it is our duty to try.
Public policy makes the most sense when it accepts that our past may be determined, but our future is truly free, and we are responsible for the choices we make.
G.P. VANIER SECONDARY SCHOOL
IMPROV THEATRE
TEAM
R. Leonard: There’s an irony in my spending hours preparing a speech to pay tribute to an improv team, a team of eight high school students who take suggestions and perform a series of four-minute-long improvised skits after only 15-second huddles.
As a regional finalist, G.P. Vanier Secondary’s improv team from Courtenay is one of the top 18 student teams who are in Ottawa right now participating in the annual Canadian Improv Games. Joining the finalists in this theatre sport is another proud B.C. student team from the Gulf Islands, who’ve won a wild card spot in the tournament.
But back to Vanier. Theatre and dance teacher Lori Mazey is obviously a motivating force, as this is not her first team to make the trip to Ottawa. In fact, improv is so popular at Vanier that this year there are 40 students in two junior and two senior teams.
Ms. Mazey explained how part of the rigorous routine of the team is for the seniors to practise with younger students in grades 8 to 10 to become mentors as they prepare for interschool competitions. She has cultivated a lifelong sense of belonging and an ethic of giving back, as alumni are regularly seen returning to the fold. The improv games key into their creativity, teamsmanship and leadership.
The students excel in other studies, and improv helps expand their horizons to go on to success outside of improv. In this year’s cohort, one student does plan to go into the performing arts, perhaps to join the ranks of other Canadian improv alumni, like Seth Rogen and Sandra Oh. It’ll be worth watching the live streaming of the Canadian improv finals this Thursday at 4:30 Pacific Daylight Time.
Go, Team Vanier.
Oral Questions
FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY
SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS
AND WORKER WAGES
A. Wilkinson: Three weeks ago we learned that the Ministry of Children and Family Development has completely surprised the community services sector by essentially rolling out a forced unionization program. The minister has their letters. This is what the B.C. CEO Network of social service agencies wrote: “This decision will have widespread and damaging implications. It is simply unacceptable.”
To the minister, how is it fair to pay non-unionized workers less than unionized workers for exactly the same work in this critically important sector?
Hon. C. James: I suppose I should be pleased that the other side is finally acknowledging that there is a social services sector in this province that matters to the people of British Columbia. Let’s remember that the other side gave zero dollars in 2010 and zero dollars in 2011 for the social services sector. That had devastating impacts on the people that they serve in this province.
We’re funding social service agencies to support fair increases for their employees — 6 percent across, which is the same as union and non-union members are getting. They’re also receiving 0.25 percent for staff and client improvements and service improvements.
We believe in the social services sector. We are supporting them in record numbers when it comes to support for community living and for MCFD contracts for child care, in a way this province hasn’t seen under the old government.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: We see now the Finance Minister standing up on behalf of the real minister, because this is a government that seems to think that righteous indignation solves every question.
The workers this minister is now discriminating against are the lowest paid in the social services sector, and they’re overwhelmingly women. So we can turn to the NDP and say: “Well done. You’ve created a whole subclass of people…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
A. Wilkinson: … who are being treated poorly.” This is a gratuitous, unnecessary move by the NDP to trash a sector of our hard-working public sector that is probably the most deserving of all.
This is what the executive director of Board Voice said last week. “Good and important services…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please allow the Leader of the Opposition to get through his question.
A. Wilkinson: …delivered by caring people who really know their stuff are at risk as never before.” Congratulations to the NDP.
Why are these caring people not good enough to be treated equitably by this government?
Hon. C. James: Well, I think the real question is: why didn’t that side care when they were in government for 16 years? I know they had people in their constituency offices, as we had people in our constituency offices, for 16 years talking about the drastic cuts that happened in social services in this province under that side.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about support for women. Well, let’s actually take a look at some of the funding pieces that have been put in place. We’ve included funding: $109 million for home share — foster parents, adoptive and extended family caregivers. First time in over a decade that they have seen an increase.
We have shown our commitment to the child care field by building an affordable, quality child care system and providing a $1-an-hour increase wage boost for early childhood educators across this province.
Finally, our government has increased supports — again, that wasn’t done by the past government — for ending-violence services in communities across B.C.
We are going to continue to support this sector that contributes so much to the people of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: We have just heard from the NDP that it’s just fine to discriminate against a whole collection of people — women who are working hard in the social services sector — and they can be treated badly. It’s just fine to say: “You’re in the union. You’ll be treated well. You’re a hard-working…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
A. Wilkinson: …not well-paid woman, and that’s tough.” That’s called discrimination, Minister, and you’re doing it.
This is what the NDP has given rise to. This is from Board Voice: “Every day is a fight to stay alive in this sector.” New threats are looming on so many fronts.
Why is this minister standing in this House defending discrimination against low-paid women? Stand up and explain yourself.
Hon. S. Simpson: The B.C. Liberals’ question period epiphany on social programs doesn’t dismiss 16 years of ignoring and neglect for this sector. Let’s be clear here.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we do not want to recess in the middle of question period.
Hon. S. Simpson: That side neglected and devalued these workers. They neglected and devalued the people they serve every day for 16 years. This isn’t the government saying that. Let’s see what the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, the leading social policy think tank in the country, said about the B.C. Liberals’ time in power.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Simpson: “The government’s social program agenda can be summed up as restricted eligibility; income-testing; rate cuts; offloading to families and the community; user fees; withdrawal of home support services; cuts to long-term care beds, hospitals and hospital beds; school closures; program cuts to communities in crisis; cuts to child care; tuition increases; and cuts to legal aid, victim services and programs for youth at risk.”
That’s your record. We’re working with that sector. We’re rebuilding that system. It’s working. We’re proud of that. You should apologize for what you did for 16 years to undermine this sector.
J. Thornthwaite: Mr. Speaker, 50 percent of all social services providers in British Columbia are non-union — 50 percent. Hollyburn Family Services in North Vancouver is under contract with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and they provide local support services to families and children with special needs.
As of yesterday, unionized social service providers are receiving almost three times the level of increase that non-union agencies like Hollyburn are provided. This will severely impact their ability to retain staff and to provide services to vulnerable kids and families. They have been blindsided by this minister.
My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Why won’t she stand up and explain why she’s discriminating against Hollyburn?
Hon. S. Simpson: Well, as we hear the griping from the other side, who now, all of a sudden, have discovered the issues of social programs, for the first time in a decade and a half…. You would think, as they talk about our friends who are here from the CEO Network, that you might recognize most all of those are in this ministry, not Children and Families. But you’d have to pay attention to the sector to understand that.
The Minister of Children and Families and myself have worked with this sector for 20 months. We have worked to collaborate on the…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Simpson: …poverty reduction strategy. We have worked to collaborate on new child welfare initiatives…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Simpson: …related to Indigenous people. We have worked with this sector on Reimagining Community Inclusion on what the future looks like for people with developmental disabilities. That’s the reality.
We understand the importance of people with lived experience at the table, we understand the importance of advocates, and we understand the importance of service providers. We will work with them to build this sector, to make it strong and support the people who need the support, unlike the last decade and a half of the performance over there.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: That’s simply not true. They have not worked with the sector for 20 months. They were blindsided three weeks ago. They just found out three weeks ago, plus the fact that we still haven’t got an answer to our question.
This discrimination is a blatant attempt at forced unionization. This is what Alan Kwinter said, with Hollyburn Family Services. These are his words, not mine: “I don’t understand why the B.C. government thinks that the kids and families served by unionized agencies deserve better services than those served by non-union agencies. This is discriminatory.”
My question, again, is to the Minister of Children and Families. The workers at Hollyburn are under contract with this minister, and they are watching. Why doesn’t this minister think they are good enough for a raise?
Hon. S. Simpson: When the member over there talks about services…. Let’s talk about services. I referenced the Caledon Institute earlier. That was early on in the 16 years of neglect. What happened after that? Well, what did the B.C…?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. S. Simpson: What did the B.C. assisted-living coalition say about the last government? They said: “The budget to Community Living B.C. has flatlined — and that at a time when new investments are crucially needed to keep people off wait-lists. The total lack of vision or new investments confirms that the provincial government’s great goal to build the best system of support in Canada — for persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors — is dead.”
Well, we’re resurrecting it. It’s coming back to life under this government. It started in July 2017. Working with our partners — the service providers, the advocates and people with lived experience — we will build that system to meet people’s needs. They won’t have to fret about going through what they went through for a decade and a half.
LOTTERY CORP. OFFICIALS AND
REGULATION OF CASINO
OPERATIONS
A. Weaver: I must say that it feels like I’m rising midway through an episode of the Twilight Zone here today in this Legislature. Frankly, while last night I was busy trying to prep up on the money laundering going on, it seems like far too many members of this chamber were enjoying casino night a little bit too much and probably are a little grumpy as they lost far too much money there last night.
Over the past eight months, we’ve learned that senior officials at the B.C. Lottery Corp. repeatedly demonstrated wilful blindness to the problem of money laundering in B.C. casinos. Now we know they went further. In fact, they went directly against the regulator’s recommendations and increased betting limits, per hand, to over 1,000 times the maximum betting amount allowed in Ontario. I’ll say that again — 1,000 times larger than you can bet in Ontario.
Now, I can only assume that senior officials and people perhaps in the minister’s or former minister’s office were blinded by the revenue stream. They appear to be singularly focused on hitting revenue targets and bringing in more government revenue with little, if any, concern as to whether the law was being broken or if it was fuelling an opioid or housing crisis.
My question to the Attorney General is this. What controls has he put in place within the B.C. Lottery Corp. to ensure that meeting revenue targets does not come at a price of condoning suspected illegal activity?
Hon. D. Eby: We’ve made a number of significant changes in the just over a year that we’ve been in government to address the issues that the member has been talking about. Some of the most important, I think, are around separating the revenue-generation functions, the revenue-generation piece at B.C. Lottery Corp., from the regulator piece.
Having those under the same roof is obviously an issue. So we have given the gaming policy and enforcement branch authority to regulate and oversee the B.C. Lottery Corp. Giving them this authority and this power is a really important piece and something that was obviously missing. Why was the regulator not overseeing the conduct of the B.C. Lottery Corp.?
Beyond that, the member knows about basic things we’ve done — telling the casinos you’re not allowed to accept bulk cash anymore, that revolutionary idea that immediately ended the practice of bringing duffle bags full of cash into our casinos — after we formed government.
Now, I know the member for Langley East doesn’t like to hear about this. But he was there….
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Hon. D. Eby: If there is a public inquiry, he’ll have his chance.
Now, these are very serious issues. We’ve taken very serious steps. I thank the member for the serious question, and I wonder when the member for Langley East will rise and ask a question about this.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: We have no shortage of questions to ask on this file, and we will continue to do so until we start to get answers through the calling for a public inquiry.
Here’s the next question. In February 2015, after finally contacting the RCMP organized crime unit about possible money laundering going on in their casinos, the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corp. continued to strategically focus on attracting players willing to pay $100,000 per hand. When questioned about his decision, he said this: “We know them very well. We know their source of wealth. We know all their personal information. They need to share that with us for regulatory reasons.” That’s a quote from the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corp.
What we found out through the E-Pirate investigation is that it eventually became clear that these VIPs, the same ones that the CEO apparently knew so well, were part of an organized crime scheme linked to the fentanyl crisis. Yet the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corp. still is there.
My question is to the Attorney General. How can British Columbians have any confidence that those involved in perpetrating money laundering in B.C. are being held accountable for their actions, particularly given the reluctance of this government to launch an independent public inquiry?
Hon. D. Eby: The member knows why we have not yet called a public inquiry. That’s because we have been acting quickly to address the issues that the previous government left for us — the giant, gaping loopholes in our casino industry that allowed this activity to continue up until the point that we actually formed government.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, we will hear the response.
Hon. D. Eby: Now, I hear the member for Langley East saying that there’s an issue with the police. I would say there was an issue with the police when the member for Langley East called the RCMP to criticize a member for going on the news and saying we had a money-laundering problem and causing him to be disciplined. Now, that was a problem.
We’ve taken a number of steps to ensure….
Interjections.
Hon. D. Eby: He also disassembled the policing team that was dedicated to investigating casinos.
Regardless, we’ve replaced the board at B.C. Lottery Corp. entirely. We have confidence in the team at B.C. Lottery Corp. to be a good partner in addressing these issues. We’ve given oversight to the gaming policy and enforcement branch to oversee what’s happening at the B.C. Lottery Corp. to ensure that the public can have confidence. And we’re all trying to move forward on this — well, with some notable exceptions.
FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY
SOCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS
AND WORKER WAGES
S. Bond: Community social service agency representatives are here today because of a specific policy decision made by this government, and it’s a serious concern. This government has decided to provide unionized social service agencies with almost three times the level of funding increase for wages from the non-union agencies.
Now, the minister can stand up. He can brag and yell louder. The fact of the matter is he admonishes about listening. Then maybe he needs to listen to the workers who said this — not members on this side of the House but people who are in the gallery and will be here today — about that specific decision.
Here’s what the B.C. CEO Network wrote: “This inequity in funding will rapidly lead to the destabilization of services for children, youth, families, people with intellectual disabilities, Indigenous people and communities. Agencies where there are both union and non-union workers will be thrown into chaos.”
The minister wants to stand up and bluster. He can. But these workers, these agencies, are concerned about his policy decision. I ask him to stand up and answer their question.
Hon. S. Simpson: And this from a party that when they were government, rolled back the wages of community social service workers — rolled back the wages.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the government side listened to the question. Now please listen to the response.
Hon. S. Simpson: We used a collaborative process. We engaged people in this community.
Interjections.
Hon. S. Simpson: Yeah, it’s a pretty shameful performance over there, absolutely.
We have worked with the sector.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. S. Simpson: The CEO Network, a dedicated group of service providers who are here today…. They’re here, and we will…. We’ve talked to them. I talked to them last week. We’ll be talking more. What they’re here to talk about, something that side might want to learn something about, is…. They’re here to talk about the people who get served.
We have worked with this sector. We have worked with the advocates. We have worked with the stakeholders. We’ve worked with them to evolve and develop a system moving forward that works for vulnerable people who need help, who have been desperate after over a decade and a half.
This system is working. The system works. We’re supporting the system. We will continue to support it, and it will provide the change we’re looking for in people’s lives.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: That answer was the height of disrespect to the workers and the agencies that are here today. He can actually duck, dodge and try to weave, but let’s be clear. They made a decision. This government made a decision. If they’re so convinced it’s the right one, then he should have the courage today to stand up, look them in the eye and explain why certain workers will receive significantly less increases than other workers.
The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. represents over 140 agencies that support vulnerable people in this province. Here’s what they wrote to the government — not me, not anyone on this side of the House. Here’s what they wrote: “There are serious and urgent concerns.” It’s not about anything other than this decision made by this government. They go on to say this: “Agencies will have to reduce services to cover the costs, and the sector is more fragile than ever.”
That’s on this government’s watch. This minister needs to stand up. These agencies deserve an answer to their concerns, not listening to bluster and bragging. Answer the question, Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Social Development and climate change. Sorry, Poverty Reduction.
I guess maybe I’m trying to change the weather in here.
Hon. S. Simpson: This side is proud of the work that we’re doing with people who work hard every day for vulnerable British Columbians. We’re proud of that partnership we’re building with them, and we will build and move that partnership forward in the interests of those organizations and of the people they serve. What we won’t do is take advice from a group of people who ignored, neglected and devalued people every day in here.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
L. Throness: The government is using bluster and applause, of course, to hide its real game. We know what that is. It’s forced unionization.
I want to quote Rick Mowles, head of a non-union social service agency in North Vancouver. Here’s what he said: “We believe that our employees are being punished because they’ve chosen to remain non-union. The government is coercing them to join a union.” These words were not spoken today. They were spoken 20 years ago, the last time the NDP tried to take away equal wages from non-union social sector workers.
Who are these workers? They are the lowest paid. They’re taking care of the most vulnerable, the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally ill. Why would the minister try, once again, to rip them off?
Hon. S. Simpson: The member over there talks about the low-paid workers. The member over there talks about the discrepancies. What the member should understand…. I’m sure he does, if he would read the historical material. We created this situation under your watch. They became the lowest-paid workers because you neglected them. We provided 2, 2 and 2 across the board for everybody in the public service. We settled those collective agreements on that basis. We’re going to move forward with organizations like the CEO Network and their members, like other organizations in the sector.
We’re going to succeed in supporting the people who need that support every day because of their hard work, the government’s initiative and the strong voices of advocates. Together we’ll create the system we’re looking for.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.
L. Throness: Well, in the year 2000, the NDP were, happily, forced to back down in their fight to penalize non-union caregivers. It was the B.C. Liberals who reinstated a policy of equal pay that lasted, sadly, until just three weeks ago. I can hardly believe that the NDP, who love to cast themselves as a caring government….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. We shall hear the question.
L. Throness: The NDP love to cast themselves as a caring government, but they’re totally heartless. They’re being totally heartless in trying to pull this stunt again. The NDP are being totally heartless in trying this stunt again.
How can this government call itself caring when it doesn’t care equally for every caregiver?
Hon. K. Conroy: I’m glad that the member raised what the Liberals did, because I remember it well. I lived through 2001, when they cut the social service sector so devastatingly, so devastatingly. They cut community living. They cut social services.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Minister, if you could take your seat for a moment.
Hon. K. Conroy: That member remembers well the core review and what it did to the social sector. In fact, a number of members in this House remember that well — how they struggled to make ends meet. And now they have the audacity to suddenly remember about the social service sector? Not taking lessons from you.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you are out of order.
Hon. K. Conroy: For the first time in ten years….
Mr. Speaker: End question period. Ring the bell.
The bell ends question period.
Sorry, Minister.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: And now for something completely different.
In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 10. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the ministry estimates debate on the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 10 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; J. Isaacs in the chair.
The committee met at 11:14 a.m.
On section 1 (continued).
The Chair: Calling the committee back to order on Bill 10, Income Tax Amanemdnet Act, 2019, and resuming discussion on the agreement.
M. de Jong: Yesterday we had an opportunity to canvass some of the provisions of the operating agreement and some of the other components of the arrangement that had been arrived at between the Crown, the government of B.C., and LNG Canada. One of the areas that we touched on were some of the assumptions the government is proceeding on the basis of with respect to employment.
We learned that for budgeting purposes, the minister says that she is assuming that 35 percent of the employment labour component will be filled by British Columbia residents and 65 percent by non–British Columbians. They could be other Canadians or international. That, we have learned, approximates with what LNG Canada believes is the case, though the minister also points out that she believes that number will be higher and has identified a best-case scenario where 55 percent of the labour component would be filled by British Columbians and only 45 percent by non-British Columbians.
We learned that yesterday. We attempted, as best we can, to compare that with some of the expectations and demands that the minister and her colleagues had had when they were sitting on the opposition benches. What I didn’t have at the time — and someone kindly this morning provided to me — is a document, a decision note. I’m going to send it over, because I always find it is unfair for me to be referring to something that the minister may not have at her fingertips. So I’m going to send a copy over.
It’s fairly heavily redacted. It’s the product of an FOI. I’m not going to apologize for that because it’s the minister’s government that redacted it, so the fault lies with her.
It is a decision note dated November 28, 2017, prepared for the Jobs Minister and appears — and I’ll go through the relevant portions — to relate to a specific decision that the government has made with respect to facilitating access to temporary foreign workers.
In the first paragraph, she will note the reference to: “Timely access to temporary foreign workers to address labour shortages was considered a key factor in the feasibility of the LNG Canada project.”
On page 2 of the note, at the top, the decision note says the following: “They may still” — they being LNG Canada — “feel that temporary foreign workers” — the abbreviation is TFWs — “are an essential part of project feasibility and would want to have access to an international workforce to address specialized skills not available in Canada.”
There is then reference to something called the “global talent stream, GTS,” of the temporary foreign worker program, a federal pilot project launched in June 2017, coincidentally right around the time the minister and her colleagues took conduct of government. I’m reading again from the note: “Although the GTS is focused primarily on the technology sector, it provides a model that could be considered for LNG and would address both processing timelines and domestic training issues.”
There’s a description of the global talent stream of the temporary foreign worker program, and then in the next paragraph: “In exchange, the employer receives an exemption from the four-week advertising requirement, an expedited application process and an exemption from doing a transition plan for each temporary foreign worker.” So in short, expedited access to temporary foreign workers.
There’s then a quote: “Using the annex would send a public signal of B.C.’s support for the use of temporary foreign workers for LNG projects. To date, B.C. has not used the annex.”
Then the final paragraph on that page — again, I’m quoting: “The final consideration is the implication on the relationship with LNG Canada. The willingness of both the federal and provincial governments to establish such a document was perceived extremely positively by LNG Canada and seen as a signal of support for the project more broadly. A decision to continue that support or to rescind it will be interpreted similarly.”
Then on the final page of the document that I’ve handed to the minister, there’s a signature block. It’s dated December 13, 2017. It appears to be the Jobs Minister who has signed, and the word “approved” is circled.
My question is: with respect to facilitating greater access to temporary foreign workers, what has the government approved?
Hon. C. James: We reiterate again the discussion that we had yesterday around jobs and around the strategy that LNG has in place, around local first, around B.C. first, around Canada as they need further workers in this project. I expect that there will be a number of jobs available.
I’m not going to speak to recommendations that were prepared for another minister, which, the member knows very well from the information that is here, have been redacted for privacy purposes. The member could ask in estimates — a discussion for the Minister of Jobs. In any discussions that have occurred with us, I come back again to the agreement that we have in place with LNG Canada.
M. de Jong: It is precisely that agreement that I am seeking clarification around. There is strong evidence presented in the document received that the government has taken specific actions to facilitate access — speedier access, more ready access — to temporary foreign workers as part of the LNG Canada project. I’m asking the minister to confirm whether that is so.
If her answer is “I’m not going to answer; it’s up to another minister,” she’s going to have an irate critic on this side. Because we went through this yesterday. She has told this committee that other ministers who are in a position to answer questions won’t be made available, because she’s going to answer all the questions.
The question is entirely in order and entirely appropriate. There is a document suggesting that the government has come to a specific or unique arrangement or taken unique steps to facilitate access to temporary foreign workers with respect to the LNG Canada project. Is that the case, and if so, what steps?
Hon. C. James: We had this discussion yesterday. The member may not like it, but we had this discussion yesterday that if the member has questions that he wants to raise with individual ministers, there are opportunities in estimates for the member to raise the individual questions. The issue that the member is raising is not part of the agreement, as I’ve already talked about. The letter that we have in place with LNG Canada outlines the jobs and the direction that they are taking around jobs.
That’s the information that we have presented to the member, and the information around the strategy of local first, B.C. first, apprentices on jobs, contractors bound by those requirements as well, to ensure that the jobs are here for British Columbians.
M. de Jong: You know, I appreciate that the minister and her colleagues would like to persist in presenting this notion to the public that — having come around to accept the value in the establishment of an LNG sector in British Columbia and Canada and having regard for all that they’ve said when they were in opposition — they want to say nothing more than: “Fear not. All of the employment associated with this will be local persons.” That’s what the minister has said. That’s what she wants to continue to say.
We virtually had to drag out of her an acknowledgment of her own ministry’s projections. It is disingenuous in the extreme for the minister to stand and say to this committee: “I want to be able to give you my version of the employment numbers around this, but you dare not challenge those numbers, even confronted by documentation from the government.”
So no, I don’t accept the minister’s proposition: “Let me, as minister, tell you my version of what the employment numbers are. Then when you present evidence that that’s not quite the reality, I’m going to tell you that we’ve had enough of a conversation on this front.”
The question for the minister, speaking for the government on an agreement that she and the government and the Premier have described as the single biggest, most important private sector investment in the province…. She will get no argument from me or people on this side of the House about the significance of the investment, but she has chosen to designate herself as the speaker for the government on this matter. The question is: has the government come to a unique arrangement to facilitate the participation of temporary foreign workers on this project?
Hon. C. James: I’ll come back again to the original discussion we had about bringing forward the agreement, which is not part of the legislation but, obviously, is a big part of this project. That’s why we have an agreement to ask questions around the agreement.
The discussion that the member wants to get into is a program that is administered through the Jobs, Trade and Technology Ministry. The member has the opportunity, as I mentioned yesterday around the B.C. Hydro issue and around the responsibilities that are there, to ask those specific questions with the ministers, under programs and services that they are responsible for, in estimates.
The member is talking about jobs and the strategy that we have with LNG Canada. I have talked about the letter. I’m happy to reiterate that again. But those are the areas that are involved with this agreement and that are part of this agreement with LNG Canada.
M. de Jong: Apparently, there’s more. Look, any veteran observer of these types of proceedings — who, by the way, is alive to the skill of the minister and the experience of the minister as a parliamentarian — knows why she’s not answering the question. They know what the answer is. That’s why she doesn’t want to answer the question. Because they know what the answer is.
Here’s what the minister said to us yesterday. She has included: “Projections around employment are relevant and impact fiscal projections.” I’m with her. Got it. She made the point that she has provided employment projections that she termed conservative and cautious. She’s the Finance Minister. She doesn’t want to overproject.
What is the relevance? B.C. labour pays B.C. income tax. Foreign labour doesn’t. This is directly relevant to her role as Finance Minister. She knows if the government has come to a specific arrangement, a unique arrangement, to facilitate the use of temporary foreign workers. And you know what? It may be eminently defensible. But the fact that the minister won’t answer the question is not defensible — as the Finance Minister who herself said that these numbers influence the very projections that she is laying before the public.
I’m going to ask her again. Has the government initiated a specific, different program to facilitate access to temporary foreign workers for the LNG Canada project?
Hon. C. James: I’ll go back, again, to the discussion that has been had with the member. The member asked questions yesterday about local jobs. The member asked questions about what percentage there was. The answers were provided. We provided the answers around the range for a generic LNG plant, what those would look like for both local jobs and otherwise. We gave those numbers.
The member asked for the estimates that we used in the budget for revenue purposes. We, again, provided those numbers to the member, so the member has the answers around the expectations and the numbers that we have built into the documents that are available to the public when it comes to budget and LNG.
M. de Jong: The minister doesn’t want to say. It’s a yes-or-no answer. If there was no additional agreement or initiative launched, she would stand in this House and tell the committee: “No. The government has done nothing different with respect to access to temporary foreign workers.” I don’t think she can say it, because I think she knows it’s not true.
Well, let me try this. The minister asked the committee to accept at face value the projections that her ministry has developed. What percentage of those numbers, somewhere between 35 percent and 55 percent, are they anticipating to be temporary foreign workers?
Hon. C. James: The member knows the numbers. We talked about the 55-45. We talked about the estimate that was used for revenue. Obviously, the upper number is the local hires. The other number is hires that could be Canadian. We don’t break it down. It’s basically whether people are paying income tax here or whether they may not be, so those are the numbers that the member already has.
M. de Jong: So it follows, logically, that the minister and her team would have turned their minds to the question of what component of that labour — the labour on the project, 10,000 — would be temporary foreign workers. What’s the number?
Hon. C. James: The number includes non-local.
M. de Jong: Is the minister saying to the committee that she and the government never turned their minds to the question of temporary foreign workers on the LNG Canada project?
Hon. C. James: In fact, we had great discussions around local jobs, where jobs may come from and where other companies may have been looking for jobs. That’s exactly why we have the letter that is in front of us that talks about the importance of local hire, that talks about the importance of training and that talks about the investments that need to be made.
M. de Jong: The minister can’t even say the term. She can’t even say “temporary foreign worker.”
How is the committee supposed to take your material seriously if, in the face of overwhelming evidence, the minister stands and refuses to even acknowledge that there was a conversation within government, and steps taken within government, around the issue of temporary foreign workers.
Does she not realize how ridiculous she looks? A senior, experienced parliamentarian.
Hon. C. James: I understand the member doesn’t agree that questions, specifically around an area that is the responsibility of the Jobs Minister, should go to the Jobs Minister. I understand that.
The reality is…. The answer to the member’s question around where discussions took place on jobs is very clear in the letter and the four conditions that were put there by the Premier, which were to look at the best approach that we could have for British Columbians, which meant local hire first, which meant the opportunity for jobs in the community, which meant training in place so that temporary foreign workers weren’t maximized on the worksite.
That’s exactly the reason we have the letter in place. That’s exactly the reason that we have the agreement around the jobs strategy, and it’s exactly the kind of conversation that we had based, as I said, on the Premier’s four conditions, which were very clear.
M. de Jong: Does the minister agree with this proposition? If she doesn’t, she can say so. I’m approaching this conversation on the following basis: that British Columbians, whose resource is very much at the centre of this equation and discussion, are entitled to know if the proponent has a unique arrangement with respect to accessing temporary foreign workers. I think British Columbians deserve to know that. Does the minister share that opinion?
Hon. C. James: I know that the member will have his opportunity, in estimates, to ask the Jobs Minister specifics that are related to his portfolio.
I believe that British Columbians expect the government, their government, to do everything they can to ensure that the jobs are there for British Columbians — locals first, British Columbians, Canadians.
I expect that there will be a number of jobs related. Obviously, the numbers are out there. I think it’s important, from British Columbians’ perspective, to be able to know the estimate that was utilized. We’ve talked about that, and I’m happy to reiterate it again for the member.
M. de Jong: I have great respect for the minister, and I have some appreciation for the burdens and the challenges that she faces in the position she occupies.
With the greatest respect, that is an insulting answer: “You can ask some time later.” We are talking about the agreement. I recognize that it is a part of the agreement that the minister and her colleagues are uncomfortable talking about. They’d rather those forecasts around employment never saw the light of day. But I’m going to ask her again.
On the day the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is considering the merits of an agreement that the Crown has reached with LNG Canada, does the minister believe it is appropriate for British Columbians to know whether or not that contracting party, LNG Canada, has secured unique access to temporary foreign workers?
Hon. C. James: There is no question that, as I said yesterday and will continue to repeat, we as a government are accountable to the people of British Columbia for the work that we are doing around LNG and to the agreement that was put in place. The discussion that the member is having is not part of the agreement.
Let’s be clear. We are talking about jobs that are part of the letter that has come from LNG Canada and one of the conditions. That’s why we’re having the conversation, because I believe it’s important to talk about those jobs. I believe it’s important to talk about the estimates that were both built in for revenue as well as for jobs.
We’ve had that conversation. We can continue having that conversation, as the member has requested. But the letter is very clear about the direction that we have taken as government in maintaining the criteria that was put in place and the four conditions by the Premier, which was to ensure jobs for British Columbians. The letter speaks for itself and, again to reiterate, speaks about local hires, speaks about apprentices, speaks about support for Indigenous workers. And the estimates are very clear for the member.
M. de Jong: What the minister would like and apparently persists in is: “I’ve got some public documents that are aspirational. I’m going to give them to the public, and I’m going to tell the public this is what we aspire to. These are our goals. We think we have a good partner, and we think they’re going to work to try to achieve those goals.” We learned yesterday that what that translates into on the ground is a little bit different than what the minister and her colleagues were telling the public — somewhere between 35 percent and 55 percent localized employment.
“Then behind the scenes, we’ll have a different conversation. Behind the scenes, we’ll talk about facilitating access to temporary foreign workers that surely impact those numbers. But that conversation is off bounds. I’m not prepared to have that. I’ll rely on the aspirational documents. I’ll rely on the tinsel, but no one gets to look behind the tree. No one gets to hear about what else we have done, in this case, to facilitate access to temporary foreign workers.”
Again, I say: does the minister not appreciate how ridiculous that looks and sounds? Maybe more importantly, does the minister not appreciate that the unreasonableness of her position is casting doubt, much wider doubt, on the reliability of anything else that she says?
It’s not a difficult question. I understand it’s an uncomfortable one. I’ll ask it again. Has the government taken steps or come to an agreement that will facilitate a unique type of access to temporary foreign workers on the LNG Canada project?
Hon. C. James: I know the member may not like the answer. The answer has been given, and I’ll give the answer again.
The numbers that we have presented and that we’ve discussed here in committee stage are the numbers that are being utilized. They are the numbers that are built in, for the purposes of revenue, into our budget. They speak to the expectation and the letter that is given to us by LNG Canada to the number of jobs that we are looking for, for British Columbians.
As I said yesterday, I am proud of the work that was done around the negotiations. I’m proud of the work that got this agreement forward, and I believe it will benefit British Columbians.
M. de Jong: Well, she’s doing her best today to drive support away, quite frankly, by her refusal to answer a basic, fundamental and entirely relevant question. I mean, do I have to go back and read what the minister and her colleague said 2½ years ago? They sure didn’t have any trouble saying the words “temporary foreign workers” back then. I mean, we can do that.
I actually had enough respect for the minister that I assumed, confronted by pretty overwhelming evidence, she would say…. Oh, she’s dismissing…. She’s apparently laughing off the document, which is pretty clear what it is. And her colleague, who’s something of an expert at reinterpreting documents, is laughing as well.
It’s a pretty basic question, and the minister doesn’t want to answer it, apparently. She doesn’t think British Columbians should know if her government has come to a unique arrangement with LNG Canada around the provision for temporary foreign workers. She won’t tell this House. Dollars to doughnuts, she hasn’t told any of her friends in the labour community. Maybe that’s the crux of the matter here.
When she, if she, does, her answer today is, I think: “Well, yes, I agree it’s a relevant question, but you should ask it later, after the votes have happened. You should ask it after this Legislative Assembly has passed judgment on the legislation and the agreement that will breathe life into that agreement.”
Does the minister not see how indefensible and ridiculous that is? A senior parliamentarian, the Deputy Premier of the province, saying to the Legislative Assembly, as it considers what she has properly described as the single biggest private sector investment resulting from a negotiation with the government: “I’ll give you the information after you vote.” Shame on the minister.
I ask her again: is there an arrangement in place between the government and LNG Canada to facilitate access to temporary foreign workers?
Hon. C. James: Answered, Member.
M. de Jong: I actually hadn’t anticipated the kind of unreasonable intransigence….
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Well, apparently there are members who, today, think the question of the labour component of the deal is not significant. I don’t know if he or his colleagues….
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The members on this side of the House worked hard. I have, I think, fairly pointed out that one of the key differences between the agreement we’re discussing here and the one that came before the House 2½ years ago is that this one actually gave rise to a final investment decision. That’s a pretty significant difference, and one that the government should and can rightly celebrate.
The previous agreement fell short in that regard. I thought that we had one — didn’t happen. This has given rise to a final investment decision and the good things that will flow from that. Yet the minister today, as we discharge our responsibilities, brings legislation calling for significant tax concessions with respect to the project. There are other facets of the deal — the postponement of PST obligations worth nearly $600 million, all of these things that the minister presents as being components of an agreement to establish an LNG sector.
She is largely speaking to a receptive audience. But that changes when she withholds information and when she behaves irresponsibly.
I’m trying to imagine what this minister’s response would be, sitting on this side of the House, if a minister of the Crown, asking for support for an agreement in legislation on a matter of this sort, said to her: “I’m not going to answer that question. I’m not going to tell you whether the government has a unique arrangement in place for access to temporary foreign workers. You can ask one of my colleagues, but you can’t do it until after you vote on this. You can’t find out until after you vote.”
The minister should congratulate herself for setting a new standard in parliamentary ridiculousness, and that’s a polite term. I’ll give her another chance. Is there an arrangement in place whereby LNG Canada will have unique access to temporary foreign workers?
Hon. C. James: We’ve canvassed this issue. The member knows, as we had the discussion at the beginning, that we are having a discussion on an agreement that is in place. If there are specifics that are the responsibility of individual ministers, they will have the opportunity to be able to ask those questions in estimates of individual ministers — the specifics around the jobs and the job numbers and the estimates.
Government is fully accountable for those numbers. They have been canvassed, have been talked about, have been released. I’m more than happy to continue to have those conversations. Those are issues that we are accountable for. I expect we’ll come back for discussion after lunch.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Dix: Noting the hour, we’ll see everybody shortly. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,
LANDS,
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:09 a.m.
On Vote 29: ministry operations, $508,192,000 (continued).
C. Oakes: What is the budget for the Cariboo Fire Centre?
Hon. D. Donaldson: As has been well canvassed and publicized, the fire response budget has increased from $63 million to $101 million in this coming fiscal year — a 58 percent increase. Rather than waiting…. We’re getting the information for the member’s question around the budget for the Cariboo Fire Centre, but I’ll continue with questions so that we don’t waste a lot of time waiting.
C. Oakes: I appreciate that. I just look forward to the information at your convenience.
In the same line of questioning around budgeting, what is the budgeting around the capital resources for things such as pumps and hoses? I certainly understand, in 2017, where we had a deficiency in actually supplying or having available pumps and hoses on the ground. But I am a little concerned why, at the start of 2018, we actually didn’t have the necessary pumps and hoses and specific types of capital resources necessary to address the 2018 fire season, specifically in the Cariboo Fire Centre.
Can the minister respond to why there aren’t adequate resources to meet the very basic needs, such as pumps and hoses?
Hon. D. Donaldson: In our view, there wasn’t a deficiency in the pumps and hoses that were available to fight fires in the Cariboo Fire Centre. We have two equipment caches for pumps and hoses that we manage on a provincial scale and are constantly adjusting to make sure that equipment is available where it’s needed during the season. We spent $300,000 on new equipment for pumps and hoses in this past year, and $2.2 million on pumps and hoses after 2017. So it’s our intention and belief that we have the pumps and hoses in place when needed.
We also have a scalable ability to bring in pumps and hoses from other provinces through CIFFC, the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. We’re able to acquire those as needed. But we’re not aware of any deficiencies in pumps and hoses to fight fires.
C. Oakes: I think what the minister has articulated is the very challenge that we see continuously on the ground. We canvassed it a little bit yesterday, about all the provincial nature of the funds that are being put forward. It is the very nature of what the ministry is doing that I feel, and the constituents I talked to, is going to create the exact challenges that we’re going to continue to have in communities around wildfires.
The challenge becomes that if there are fires in multiple communities across the province, there is a technique where we prioritize, as a government. We prioritize areas where there are populations. For rural communities, such as folks in the Cariboo, we have found, two years running, that the challenge becomes that, if there are fires that break out in the Okanagan or in other jurisdictions across the provincial government, the provincial assets, the provincial resources and those provincial teams that go in become prioritized into the communities where those populations are.
My constituents are taxpayers just like any other taxpayer in the province of British Columbia, so they wonder why they’re receiving less services than, say, somebody in another area of the province. The reason I’m asking the line of questioning around specific resources for the Cariboo Fire Centre is because unless we understand the need to make sure that we are investing and putting those resources into our fire centres in our communities, I fear that we’re going to continue to be in a situation where we receive calls requesting services….
We are on calls with the fire centre where we hear the challenges firsthand, day after day: “I’m sorry. We do not have the resources to put teams out on those fires because of the prioritization process that we have.” As taxpayers in the Cariboo, we feel that we deserve the same types of services that other parts of the province have.
Speaking, again, on the structural…. I know there are pumps and hoses. I guess I’m responsible for being so specific in that articulation of the gaps. Last year we sent members from the Cariboo Fire Centre to support the floods in Grand Forks. We sent our Cariboo Fire Centre’s hard-working men and women to Grand Forks without the appropriate structural turnout gear to meet the challenges of the flood. Traditionally, a structural fire protection unit would go in with certain masks and certain types of turnout gear. We sent our Cariboo Fire Centre without the structural protection that they need to ensure that they’re going to be safe on the ground.
Again to the minister, where is the uplift in resources to cover capital and resourcing such as structural turnout gear and the supplies that our Cariboo Fire Centre requires to do its job?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll talk to the second part of the statement by the member. The situation and floods…. They were being called upon, under the B.C. Wildfire Service, to respond and have a role in all hazards, beyond wildfires. In this situation, floods. So we’re not limited under a capital program as far as we have $500,000 to purchase specialized equipment, and we’ll access those funds as needed in order to ensure that there is the proper safety gear.
The member typified it as structural turnout gear. Actually, in relation to floods, it’s things like waders and gloves. Those can be purchased and will be purchased to ensure that our staff have the appropriate equipment to deal with situations other than fires, like floods.
As far as the start of the member’s statement, the people in the B.C. Wildfire Service are professionals. They make decisions based on, yes, priorities. Public safety is number one. They’ll prioritize resources where they’re needed around public safety. I do not want to leave the impression, from the member’s statement, that people’s safety will be ignored in any place in the province.
In fact, we have improved the ability to directly fight fires by allotting a 58 percent increase in the direct firefighting budget, which means being able to have crews on earlier, to have them stay later as fire seasons are changing, to have air support on earlier and on later and to increase technology. This is in direct response to the fact that these kinds of initiatives, as has been pointed out through Filmon report and through the Abbott-Chapman report, were not paid attention to by the previous government. So we have public safety as number one.
I don’t want to leave the impression that was left that people will be ignored when it comes to public safety. I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to ensure that people out in the public understand that we have dedicated professionals within the B.C. Wildfire Service that are making public safety their number one priority and that they’ll ensure that people are safe when it comes to wildfires in any part of the province.
C. Oakes: I appreciate that. I think public safety of our hard-working men and women of the B.C. Wildfire Service is paramount, and I will always continue to advocate for their safety and their resourcing needs.
The minister talked a little bit about the needs of making sure all communities are prepared, and we certainly understand. I’d like to applaud the work that is being done around fire-smarting. I think that’s an incredibly important initiative that is being done in communities.
I’ve just finished visiting multiple volunteer fire departments — I think I hit seven last weekend — just to see where communities are on their readiness around responding to fires. I believe that it’s not just the B.C. Wildfire Service; it’s communities, in general, that respond to the changing needs of our communities.
What has been asked for, for the past two years from our unincorporated volunteer fire departments — our fire brigades, our amazing men and women who volunteer to make sure our communities are safe and answer the call and help support the B.C. Wildfire Service in situations such as the fires of the last two years — is…. They require resources. I know that the minister has talked about trying to find avenues, as has the Red Cross.
We’ve waited two years for any kind of capital program to come out to help these volunteer fire brigades to look at…. They continue to require needs such as pumps and hoses. I hear it in every single community we go to — really basic issues. Fire-smarting. We need a mobile wood chipper to address all of the fibre that is being cleaned up around fire-smarting communities.
The third pillar of that is we have many unincorporated volunteer fire departments that want to create fire-smart communities. I know that that’s a program of the government, but they are wondering: how do unincorporated communities access any of these types of resources?
Yesterday the minister reminded me — and, of course, he probably didn’t need to remind me — of the CRI program. The challenge that we have with any of the resourcing that the ministry currently has is that it doesn’t allow for unincorporated communities or areas to access any of the types of services and funds that the government has in play. Municipalities can access it for any kind of interface, for any kind of support to help fire-smart or make sure communities are ready, but there are no programs for remote rural communities that are unincorporated to access the necessary funds to help support their communities get ready for the fire season.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll go backwards through the member’s questions.
As far as unincorporated communities, well, I happen to live in an unincorporated community, and unincorporated communities are within regional districts in virtually every part of the province. There’s one exception in the far northwest corner of the province, in the constituency I represent, but virtually every other unincorporated community lies within a regional district, and regional districts have the ability to apply under the community resilience investment program, a program that has been expanded, under this budget, by another $10 million.
That’s $60 million over the next three years and a program whose criteria have expanded as far as how that money can be spent and the ways it can be spent through the application process. Also, it covers within regional district or municipal or First Nations community boundaries, which also is of benefit, because under the previous program, the municipalities were responsible for two kilometres outside their boundaries. So regional districts can apply, and most unincorporated communities are within a regional district.
As far as volunteer fire departments, we value volunteer fire departments greatly. I’m very familiar with them. The area that I live in is covered by a volunteer fire department in agreement between the unincorporated community I live in and a couple of other communities nearby. We’ve come to a funding agreement where we’re covered by volunteer fire departments.
We are working with volunteer fire departments. under our new programming, in order to provide training for wildfire suppression activities. Volunteer fire departments are often focused on structural protection, so we’re doing some training in that regard. We’re coordinating with the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., which includes representatives from volunteer fire departments.
As far as the capital equipment that volunteer fire departments are looking for and acquire, that capital resource is under the Minister of Public Safety, under emergency management B.C. That question is better canvassed under that ministry, although I believe they’ve got some positive news to contribute once the member asks the question to that minister.
C. Oakes: I know, Minister, that you understand, coming from a rural community, the challenges that we have. So I have a humble request of you, because there still exists a gap. You identified the ability, through regional districts, for these communities to apply for funding. What happens, and the minister knows this, is that in unincorporated communities that have volunteer fire departments, those volunteer fire departments are not taxed through a regional district.
Therefore, that challenge is that any of the flow-through funds that come from the regional district go to the volunteer fire departments that are within the attachment of the regional district. So you’ve got gaps throughout many of our communities. Nazko, Horsefly, Likely, Big Lake — I could go through multiple communities that do not have the ability to apply through the funding that the government currently has and the ministry has. If there is a tool to address that, I think you will see significant results on the ground. So I just humbly put that forward.
I have one final question, because I recognize that many of my colleagues have lots of questions. It’s around the riparian repair and restoration piece. Of course, the fires of 2017-18 were absolutely devastating our communities. It’s incredibly important that we get out and that we’re doing the adequate cleanup.
I’d like to focus on the riparian areas, if I may. I understand that the first funds for riparian recovery out in the Nazko area, which was devastated by the Plateau fire in 2017, came out in January of this year. So fires hit in 2017, and we’re finally starting to see funds coming out the door in 2018. It had to be used up by March 31, and that put some pretty significant challenges on the stewardship groups to do that work.
I guess my first question is…. I am hopeful that we’re able to actually get some of these funds on the ground for restoration a little bit quicker. I was reading the most recent FESBC forest enhancement document. It has $65 million going to Zanzibar Holdings Ltd. for the Cariboo wildfire forest carbon reforestation. I’m just wondering. We’ve got $65 million that has been put over here. I’ve heard from some of the stewardship groups on the ground that they continue to struggle with getting funds out the door in a fashion that will actually help ensure that the needed restoration is done.
Hon. D. Donaldson: It took a little while to gather the information, because there are quite a few funders, quite a few partners and quite a bit going on.
I know the member mentioned $65 million and Zanzibar Holdings in the same breath. Zanzibar Holdings is not receiving $65 million to do the work that they’ve been contracted to do. The $65 million is work mostly funded through the federal government’s low-carbon-economy fund, and that is directly targeted towards activities that are associated with the forest carbon initiative. However, there are other co-benefits that we’re able to leverage, at the same time, around restoration work. Although much of that funding is toward surveys and seedlings and seed prep, we’re also able to leverage that money and do restoration work.
As far as the timing of how things happen, well, we announced $22 million after the 2017 season in the budget in that year, for over three years, for habitat restoration and recovery after the wildfires. So $5 million was allotted in this fiscal year, and $7 million will be allotted in the fiscal year 2019-2020. It does take time to get the proper systems in place before that work begins.
A lot of the work and the restoration is in salmon-bearing streams. I know the member is familiar with that, coming from where she comes from. So to get the permits for workers to work in streams that are salmon bearing, as well as to ensure that the proper advance work is done on archeological assessments and potential impacts, which are high-incidence in the areas described…. It takes time to get those permits in place.
That speaks somewhat to the member’s question about getting funding in place. We’re working on getting the funding on the ground sooner now that these permits are in place. It’ll make the rollout for ’19-20 for restoration work more expedited and get into the areas more quickly.
S. Cadieux: I’m here to raise with the minister an issue related to the cancellation of the cutthroat trout hatchery at the Semiahmoo Fish and Game Club in Little Campbell River. Back in the fall, the hatchery received a notice from the ministry that it was going to be cancelled — not the entire hatchery but the cutthroat piece. At that time, they raised immediate concerns and asked for clarification and so on. Over the next number of months, there have been numerous back-and-forths, or attempts at back-and-forths, with the ministry on this, but with little, I would say, adequate response.
The Semiahmoo Fish and Game Club is a volunteer group that has been providing hatchery operations to B.C. for 30 years plus. They’ve got an excellent record. They do an enormous amount of work in terms of stream restoration and so on. They’re extremely concerned about fish and wildlife and making sure those things continue. The decision to cancel that operation came at great shock to them, given that no one from the ministry ever visited the site nor the hatchery to discuss concerns or to see what was going on.
Apparently, there was no study or examination of what is actually happening in the river itself, but the ministry is now citing research. That research, at least to the knowledge of the fish and game club, is research from Michael Blouin at Oregon State University, who is often cited in these types of reports. In one article from Mark Hume in the Globe and Mail in November 2017, Dr. Blouin states himself that his research shouldn’t be used in the way that the ministry is currently using the research to justify the cancellation of hatcheries. Moreover, it’s one piece of information.
It would appear from conversations that the trout hatchery has had with DFO and their representatives that they don’t see that research as in any way evidence to close the hatchery. I find it totally concerning that the ministry has decided to do this without providing any reasoned rationale, without doing any in-location research and without consulting with the First Nation that this stream and hatchery reside on.
The chief is concerned and has raised that in letters, along with the hatchery itself, to the ministry. They’ve requested meetings with the minister and have heard nothing back. The member for Surrey–White Rock and I wrote more than once to the minister, the last time in December, and it took 2½ months for us to get a response of: “Thanks very much, but we’ve already reached our decision, being guided by research.” Again, none of which has occurred in the actual stream or river where this is happening.
Once again, I would request of the minister that he provide to the Semiahmoo First Nation and the hatchery a thorough explanation of the research related specifically to this river that is being taken into consideration, with no site visits and no testing, to make this decision and to explain why the ministry doesn’t feel it is possible to work with the hatchery and the First Nation with their request, which I think is eminently reasonable, to hold that decision and do the research in the particular area with them, in consultation. Take a look at it, do a study, and then make a decision a year or two hence. I think that that is reasonable.
I would like to hear from the minister why it has taken more than six months for them to, essentially, provide any level of response to the project, and only to then say, “Well, thanks very much, but if you’re concerned about the establishment and improvement of monitoring programs aimed at conserving wild trout, please contact,” and the contact for that.
They’ve been talking about that since November and are asking for the minister and/or appropriate staff to come and take a look and have a conversation about how, collectively, they do that monitoring — not just an arbitrary cancellation of a program which volunteers have worked hard on for 30 years and recently had to raise and invest more than $30,000 into new equipment to do it properly.
I think it’s an eminently responsible and reasonable request from a group that has been doing this work for 30 years. I would ask the minister to make a commitment today that he will at least take a meeting with the fish and game club and the First Nation.
The Chair: Noting the hour, we do have to move adjournment of this committee. If it’s okay with the member, I could ask the minister to respond after we get back from the lunch break.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada