Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 238
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2019
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Today, as members of the House will know, is World Parkinson’s Day. Visiting us today in the Legislature…. I know many members of the House are affected in their families by Parkinson’s disease and will be joining members of the Parkinson Society over the noonhour.
I wanted to introduce Chris Olsen, a person living with Parkinson’s disease; Harold Olsen, spouse and caregiver to Chris; Richard Mayede, a person with young-onset Parkinson’s disease; Gina Lupino, a person also with young-onset Parkinson’s disease; Bill Peterson, who’s living with Parkinson’s disease; Paul Lavoie, Bill Peterson’s caregiver; Doug Dalquist, living with Parkinson’s disease; Donja Dalquist, Doug’s spouse; Leslie Davidson, living with Parkinson’s disease; Dr. Tara Rastin, a movement disorder specialist; Jean Blake, who’s the CEO of the Parkinson Society of British Columbia; Caroline Wiggins and Jovana Vredic, who work for the Parkinson Society; Dr. Chris Honey, who, many people will know, is a neurosurgeon who performs a procedure called deep brain stimulation, which provides hope to many people with Parkinson’s disease; Nancy Polyhronopoulos, who’s a registered nurse and supports the deep brain stimulation clinic; and Mini Sandhu, who’s a registered nurse who also works for the clinic.
I’d like to ask everyone in the House to join us over the noonhour and to wish all of our guests welcome.
T. Shypitka: I would like to follow up the Minister of Health’s introductions. I thought I’d let him tackle all those names. There are a couple tough ones in there.
We’re here for lunch today. We’re here to celebrate the introduction of another neurosurgeon to assist Dr. Honey in deep brain stimulation, and we couldn’t be happier. I’d like to thank the member for Shuswap, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and also the Minister of Health for working together and collaborating in bringing another neurosurgeon to the province.
Would you please welcome once again the folks from the Parkinson Society.
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency Maeng-ho Shin, the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Canada. The ambassador is meeting the Premier and a number of my colleagues during his visit. I’m pleased to meet with him later this morning. Would the House please welcome and make the Ambassador of Korea feel very welcome here.
G. Kyllo: This coming Monday is the Boston Marathon. We have a couple of our colleagues that are actually going to be going there. Shane Mills, executive director of policy and communications for our side, will be attending, as well as Ms. Kate, our lovely Clerk. I just wanted to bring that to everybody’s attention and hope that we can all give them a great round of applause and wish them success in the Boston Marathon on Monday.
L. Reid: Seniors care in British Columbia is in wonderful hands. B.C. Care Providers have joined us today. We have Daniel Fontaine. We have Mike Klassen. On behalf of the official opposition, I’d like everyone to give them the warmest welcome. They are the folks who care for each of the ones that we love in our lives, and they do an outstanding job.
R. Singh: I have some guests in the gallery today. I have Kamaljit Thind from Mehak Punjab Di TV; Sahib Thind from Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation; Parshotam Dosanjh; and also, last but not least, my husband, Gurpreet Singh. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to recognize our friends from the Christian Labour Association. They are here to meet with me about mental health issues. Could the House please make them welcome.
Statements
EASTER
L. Throness: We’re rising later today for our Easter break, so I just wanted to say a word about Easter, which is the most important holiday on the Christian calendar.
In addition to relaxing and having family over as I will do, every Easter, Christians around the world gather to remember the resurrection of Christ as physical proof that believers too can hope for a life beyond the grave, as well as the eventual reconciliation of heaven and earth. That’s what makes Good Friday good, and that’s a pretty good reason to celebrate.
Would the House wish all Christians across our province a joyful Easter weekend.
Introductions by Members
S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce not one but two young women who are shadowing me today. Hannah Estabrook is originally from Halifax, but she’s in her third year at UVic, studying environmental studies and geography. In the summer, she’s going to be working up at Strathcona Park Lodge teaching outdoor education to young people. Hannah gave an incredibly inspiring speech at the climate strike on March 15, after which I approached her and suggested she come and spend the day here. We need more young people like Hannah here.
Another young person just like Hannah is Nerissa Kassis, who’s in first year at UVic, studying biology. Nerissa is originally from Vancouver. She’s going to go home and teach young people swimming in the summer.
These are two really terrific young women. Nerissa was also at the climate strike on March 15. She wrote to all the MLAs. When I got her email, I was most delighted to invite her here for the day.
Would the House please make these two young women most welcome.
M. Hunt: Throughout this morning, there are going to be three waves of students coming from Adams Road Elementary, when Mr. Kori Langston will be bringing 74 students. Now, for the Minister of Education, I’m sure that doesn’t mean they’re all one class and this is an oversized class in Surrey. But they’ll be here. The first wave of them will be coming during question period and then throughout the morning. I’d ask that the House please make them all welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 18 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2019.
Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 18, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2019. The bill expands the definition of firefighters who will be eligible for three workers compensation presumptions currently available to firefighters — that is, the presumption for certain cancers, for heart disease and heart injury, and for mental health disorders.
This change ensures that the fire investigators, forest fire fighters and firefighters employed by First Nations, band councils and other Indigenous organizations are included in these presumptions. These amendments will make British Columbia a leader in recognizing the important, dangerous and sometimes traumatic work that firefighters do every day to keep British Columbians and their properties safe.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. H. Bains: 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 18, Workers Compensation 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.
BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2019
Hon. D. Donaldson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 2019.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the amendments to the Forest Act be introduced and read for the first time now.
Today I introduce changes to the Forest Act to give government more oversight of the forest sector. The changes will support a vibrant and diverse forest sector by allowing for more opportunities for participation of First Nations and others.
We want all British Columbians to benefit from the forest industry, large and small — First Nations, workers and communities. The previous legislation governing the disposition of Crown tenures limited government’s influence. With the proposed changes to the Forest Act that I am announcing today, forest companies will now need approval from government before they dispose of or transfer a tenure agreement to another party.
To approve the transfer, we will first want to understand how it will help the people of British Columbia and encourage diversity in the forest sector. First and foremost, the forests of this province are a publicly held natural resource, and any dispositions of Crown tenure needs to keep this fact at the forefront.
We are making these changes because we want to restore public trust in how our forests are managed, and we want more say on behalf of all people of B.C. in how forest tenures are transferred between parties.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the Forest Amendment Act be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill 22, Forest 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.
BILL M210 — VULNERABLE ADOLESCENTS
PROTECTION FROM
E-CIGARETTES
(VAPE) ACT, 2019
T. Stone presented a bill intituled Vulnerable Adolescents Protection from E-Cigarettes (VAPE) Act, 2019.
T. Stone: I move that the bill intituled the Vulnerable Adolescents Protection from E-Cigarettes (VAPE) Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read for the first time.
E-cigarette use, otherwise known as vaping, is quickly becoming an epidemic amongst the youth of British Columbia. A recent Canadian estimate suggests that a third of students in grades 10 through 12 are vaping, outpacing tobacco at an alarming rate. The U.S. Surgeon General recently declared e-cigarette use as a public health epidemic. These products are addictive, and they’re deliberately made attractive to our youth.
But canvass most British Columbians, and it is clear that the dangers of vaping for our kids are not clearly understood. Many teenagers have shared stories with me about their friends who are addicted to vaping, about being fearful of encountering clouds of vapour in their school bathrooms, about their peers using Juuls or other discrete vape pods in class or vape pits adjacent to school property. Simply put, this is not okay, and what is clear is that more needs to be done.
This bill contains amendments to the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act which are focused on doing more to better keep these addictive vaping products out of the hands of our children. Specifically, these amendments include banning the sale of flavoured vapour products; limiting the supply and accessibility of e-cigarette products through stricter retail controls; restricting the sale of products to adult-only tobacco stores, vape stores and approved pharmacies; and enacting tougher penalties for non-compliance.
Alongside these amendments, we also need to provide the resources required in every middle and high school across B.C. to implement evidence-based vaping awareness prevention and addiction support programs. Parents, teachers, administrators and all of us legislators must come together to better protect the health of our kids. It is my hope that amendments contained within this bill will help us work towards that objective.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
T. Stone: 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 M210, Vulnerable Adolescents Protection from E-Cigarettes (VAPE) 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)
VAISAKHI CELEBRATIONS AND
BAL AND SARJ
SABHARWAL
S. Cadieux: For many thousands of years, spring has been a time when farmers have celebrated the coming of a new year. Since 1699, the Sikhs have had a further reason to celebrate this time of the year, as it has become a holy day to mark the birth of the Khalsa fraternity. Now, more than 300 years later, halfway around the world, Canadians of Indian descent carry on this tradition with much colour and enthusiasm and parades.
The Surrey Vaisakhi Parade has been held in the streets of my community for the past 17 years. The celebrations in Surrey will likely be the biggest in North America once again, the second-largest outside of India. You’ve seen the aerial photos, and you’ll certainly be hard-pressed to find any other event in the Lower Mainland that draws so many people.
When up to 500,000 people converge on the streets of Newton this year to enjoy the festivities and the free food, that means thousands upon thousands of plates. Last year two brothers, Bal and Sarj Sabharwal, decided they would champion the greening of the Vaisakhi celebrations. They worked with the city and businesses to promote their vision for a foam-free Vaisakhi. Last year they estimate that over 130,000 plates were replaced with greener options. They’ll continue their quest this year, hoping to continue to educate and raise awareness about the value of changing our habits.
These two are two of the most active volunteers in our community. They’ve been involved with the multicultural and environmental committees at the city. They are members of the Surrey Board of Trade and the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce. They were instrumental in the development of the hugely popular Fusion Festival, held annually, and they sponsor countless charitable events each and every year, including, most recently, the Coldest Night of the Year walk.
They certainly exhibit the concept of seva, or selfless service, in the Sikh faith. It is, I think, most fitting to recognize them today in Volunteer Week, knowing how much time and love they’ll be giving our community over the next few weeks with Vaisakhi celebrations. I’ve been privileged, as an elected official, to get to know them and to learn much about the Indian culture and people. I share in this celebration with my community and encourage everyone to celebrate the spirit of Vaisakhi this month.
PARKINSON’S DISEASE AWARENESS
A. Kang: Today is World Parkinson’s Day. Many people don’t understand the severity of Parkinson’s disease. As well, people with Parkinson’s disease have expressed that they don’t feel understood.
Parkinson’s disease is caused by a loss of dopamine in the brain and is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder, after Alzheimer’s disease. Both motor and non-motor symptoms may be experienced, such as tremor, rigidity, slowness of movement, difficulty with speech, sleep disturbance and mood disorders. There currently is no cure.
In 2016-2017, there were around 13,000 British Columbians living with Parkinson’s. According to Parkinson Society British Columbia, while most people living with Parkinson’s are over the age of 60, 20 percent are diagnosed before the age of 50, and many are in their 30s and their 40s. Michael J. Fox, a Burnaby-born actor, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s at the young age of 29.
On this day around the world, efforts are made to increase public awareness and education of this disease, and countless good work continues on by organizations around the world to improve the lives of those affected by Parkinson’s. Locally we have Parkinson Society British Columbia, which supports services, programs and advocacies that ensure that everyone touched by Parkinson’s is not alone in this journey.
Early this year our government announced an action to provide improved access to treatment and medication for people living with Parkinson’s. I am hopeful that the solutions will make a real difference in people’s lives, but we do not do it alone. There are also everyday champions in our communities who plan, participate or donate to a local fundraising event in support of the society. To those humble heroes, I offer my appreciation.
On this World Parkinson’s Day, I encourage members of this House to think of how they can help constituents affected with Parkinson’s they know and let them know that they are not alone.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS
ON NORTH SHORE
R. Sultan: What do these organizations have in common — 50 cultural organizations, from the Ferry Building Gallery to the J.P. Fell Pipe Band; 50 helping organizations, from Rotary ShelterBox to the Lookout shelter; about 75 outdoor recreation organizations, from Ramblers to HUB cycling; a dozen or so organizations who will help in emergencies, from North Shore Rescue to North Shore Amateur Radio; about 50 environmental stewards, from the streamkeepers to Friends of Cypress; probably 50 PACs, from Pauline Johnson to Cleveland school; about 65 churches, from the Salvation Army to the Ismaili temple; at least 200 sport teams, from the Otters Swim Club to Hot Flash hockey?
Every week is a festival, from Coho to Nowruz. Add it all up, and it’s easy to identify maybe 600 to 800 things happening in North and West Vancouver. What they all have in common is that they’re run by unpaid volunteers.
Now, many in this House, including my colleague, have already acknowledged National Volunteer Week. I want to as well, and thank the thousands in the communities which I represent who dedicate their time and expertise.
The West Vancouver Seniors Activity Centre is a prime example — seniors helping seniors, 5,000 members and 1,000 quiet volunteers. They teach language classes or lead walking groups day in and day out, all year long. They enrich our community without recognition, without compensation.
I sing to these unsung heroes. They make life on the North Shore compassionate, uplifting, healthy and fun.
VAISAKHI AND
JALLIANWALA BAGH
MASSACRE
R. Singh: For the first time yesterday, we celebrated Vaisakhi at the B.C. Legislature. As we are gearing up to celebrate the birth of Dal Khalsa and Vaisakhi this coming weekend, I would like to take a moment to remember close to 1,000 people who were killed in a firing by British troops on a peaceful gathering of demonstrators who had assembled in the city of Amritsar to protest against draconian laws and the arrests of the leaders of the passive resistance movement against the foreign occupation of India.
The bloody incident happened on April 13, 1919, at Jallianwala Bagh, a public park that has now become a national monument. This weekend marks 100 years of the tragedy that remains permanently etched on the memories of Indians all over the world.
I myself grew up listening to the tragic story repeatedly told to our generation by our community elders and teachers. The history of the Jallianwala Bagh episode has been kept alive in Canada as well, by organizations like Mehak Punjab Di TV, the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation, the Dareks Ghill Society, the Committee of Progressive Pakistani-Canadians and the Indo-Canadian Workers Association, to name a few.
While Mehak Punjab Di TV has been organizing annual vigils and exhibitions in the memory of those killed, the Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation has been tirelessly campaigning to get a formal apology for the incident in the British Parliament.
Recently the province has proclaimed April 13, 2019, as the Commemoration of the Centenary of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre Day. Such recognitions are not only important to decolonize our minds but also to understand the relevance of such historic incidents under current circumstances. While we must keep our history alive, we also need to stand up against state-sponsored brutality anywhere in the world.
The birth of Dal Khalsa also signifies the importance of fighting against injustice. The linkage between the two parallel historical events, one being auspicious and the other being tragic, reminds us of our collective responsibility to carry forward the struggle for a fair and just society.
USE OF INDIGENOUS
TERRITORIAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A. Olsen: I acknowledge that this legislative precinct is still in the territory of my relatives, the Lkwungen-speaking people. We hear territorial acknowledgments a lot these days. Some people even put it at the bottom of their emails. “This email was written in the territory of the such-and-such people” or “This statement was written in WSÁNEĆ.”
Acknowledging Indigenous people and territory is an important step forward in our society, but what does it mean? Is it a permission slip? Is it an obligatory tip of the hat, a minor detour just before we get back to the colonial business as usual? Has it changed anything?
Well, it’s an admission that our province and our country stand on a questionable foundation and that we are on a path to recovery. But what is the effect of mindlessly reciting a script? Does that undermine and erode the meaning of the words?
As a community leader with a foot in two worlds, people often ask my advice on territorial acknowledgments. I encourage them to speak from the heart, to reflect on the beautiful place and the powerful cultures that have endured the most challenging circumstances. I ask them to give themselves permission to stumble and make mistakes, to honour our past and embrace positive, compassionate relationships with Indigenous people and communities.
Hayden King, an Anishinaabe writer, educator and academic, discussed this on the CBC show Unreserved. I echo his challenge to institutions just like this one. It’s time for people in positions of power to level up. It’s time to grow from passing references to illuminating our meaningful actions.
I am TSUNUP, and I stand in this beautiful territory of my relatives. I attempt to speak our languages and tell our stories to animate our debates and decisions with the hope that they will be infused with the ancient wisdom of these lands and our surrounding waters.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
VOLUNTEERISM BY VICTORIA GARDNER
B. D’Eith: As has been said, this week is National Volunteer Week, and while we should always take the time to thank and celebrate volunteers, it’s wonderful that we actually have a week dedicated to acknowledging how they help to improve our communities. In fact, this year’s theme is “The volunteer factor: lifting communities,” which I think is wonderful.
Today I’d like to highlight one of the many volunteers in my community. Victoria Gardner is a grade 12 student from Garibaldi Secondary School. She’s a long-serving member and volunteer with the Garibaldi ME to WE team. Actually, Victoria joined the team in grade 8, so she’s a veteran.
Her team helped to build a school and water well in Ecuador and is now raising funds to provide health care in Kenya. ME to WE is a social enterprise enabling people to do good with their everyday choices. It was founded in 2009 to provide economic opportunities in WE village communities. ME to WE has grown into a global force for good, and Victoria has been a big part of that.
But Victoria didn’t stop there. She volunteered with the Special Olympics bowling; the Pirates special needs softball team; Pitt Meadows Elementary after-school programs; and Ridge Meadows Hospital, providing company for seniors.
Recently Victoria was recognized for all of her hard work and community service by being awarded the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers. The medal recognizes the exceptional volunteer achievements of Canadians from across the country in a wide range of fields and pays tribute to the dedication and commitment of volunteers.
I really want to congratulate Victoria Gardner on this fantastic achievement at such a young age and thank her for her dedication to our community. Along with that, I would like to thank the thousands of volunteers in my community who help lift us up every day.
Oral Questions
E-CIGARETTE REGULATION
AND VAPING BY
YOUTH
T. Stone: Vaping use amongst our youth is far outpacing tobacco use. Recent estimates indicate that over one-third of all British Columbia students in grades 10 through 12 are engaged in vaping at some point during their school week. Parents are obviously gravely concerned about this. Teachers are concerned, and administrators. Lots of youth, as well, are concerned.
In declaring a public health epidemic in his country, the U.S. Surgeon General had this to say: “We must protect our children from a lifetime of nicotine addiction and health risks by immediately addressing the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use.” So as we did with our approach, the approach we took to the measles challenge, we believe that we need to work together to develop and implement effective strategies to keep our kids safe when it comes to vaping.
My question to the Minister of Health is this: will the Minister of Health take aggressive steps to protect our children from this dangerous addiction and emerging public health issue with respect to our youth?
Hon. A. Dix: We should be clear about what the circumstances are now. I listened to the hon. member. I’m very interested to see and review the legislation that he tabled this morning and to work with him on these issues. I want to say that first of all.
We should be clear now that vaping is not allowed on school grounds. That’s an enforcement issue. It’s not allowed now. So when we raise issues around these questions, we should be clear about the laws now, and we should not permitting it now on school grounds.
The member is quite right. There are significant health concerns around vaping that have been expressed in other jurisdictions. It’s an emerging issue. I’m happy to work with the hon. member and all members of the House to address these issues.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: As a society, we have made tremendous progress at reducing cigarette smoking, particularly with respect to our youth. We must do the same with respect to vaping. And yes, a number of initiatives or regulatory requirements and rules were brought in by the former government, I believe in 2016, which laid out a very strong foundation.
But the reality is — and I say this as a legislator; I also say this, frankly, more as a dad — that these vaping products are still getting into the hands of far too many of our kids, particularly in or adjacent to our schools. So we do believe that we need to greatly expand awareness and prevention programs in our schools and tougher retail regulations and enforcement.
Perhaps the strongest measure to keep these products out of the hands of our kids would be a ban on kid-friendly flavouring. The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends restricting flavours attractive to youth.
Again, my question to the minister would be this: is the minister prepared to ban the sale of flavoured vape juice to better keep these vaping products out of the hands of our kids and do as much as we possibly can to focus on their health?
Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that for many years, my colleague from New Westminster led the fight on the issue of flavoured cigarettes. I also want to say this is clearly an evolving area of law. We, as a legislature, addressed this area in 2016. This is not a criticism of the previous government; it’s just a fact. It may be that the regime that we set in place was not adequate to the circumstances. It’s an evolving circumstance. We were all in the Legislature. We all spoke to it at that time.
I think what I said to the hon. member is that I think we have to work together and that we should include, in the school system, young people, principals and vice-principals, the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory committees and local communities and students themselves, most importantly, to start to address these issues together.
I’m very interested in that suggestion. That’s consistent with our view, in general, on flavoured tobacco products, which we think provides the wrong incentive. I’m very interested in considering that option but also working with all the stakeholders, as I’m sure the hon. member is, to provide a better public response to an evolving area.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a second supplemental.
T. Stone: Certainly, when it comes to the health and well-being of our kids, this is an area where all of us in this House and all British Columbians can unify and come together and get behind strategies which will do more to protect the health of our children.
Vape juice is increasingly highly addictive because most vape juice now contains highly addictive nicotine. A lot of this vape juice also comes in, as I’ve mentioned a few times now, kid-friendly flavours like cotton candy and bubble gum and gummy bear, to name a few. The devices are easy to conceal. There’s no noticeable odor associated with the use of these devices. For all of these reasons, vaping is uniquely attractive to the youth in our province, to our kids. Its popularity is expanding exponentially with them.
The Canadian Cancer Society has this to say: “We are very concerned. We certainly don’t want kids to get addicted to nicotine.”
Again to the minister, I would ask this question: is the minister prepared to tighten the rules and the penalties associated with the sale of vape products to keep these addictive products out of the hands of our children?
Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s a real achievement in British Columbia, over a long period of time and over multiple governments, that we’ve reduced the tobacco use in our province. It’s good for our health. It’s good for our society. It’s something we’ve done together. One of the most significant changed moments in that, it seems to me, was when young people were put in charge and directed advertising campaigns and public awareness campaigns directed towards young people.
We cannot leave the people involved out of the equation here. We have got to work together and involve people. As the member will know, the new curriculum addresses issues of tobacco use and others. Again, what we have to see here, because we passed laws and regulation in 2016, is whether our existing system is adequate to address an evolving problem.
I think that we have to involve everyone in that discussion. I’m open to the ideas put forward by the hon. member and to many other people who addressed this problem. But we have to involve young people, have to involve educators, have to involve health professionals, and we have to involve everyone in the discussion to ensure that the issue of vaping doesn’t become an issue for a new generation, which tobacco was for a previous generation.
D. Davies: E-cigarette aerosol often includes substances with side effects that include increased heart rate and blood pressure, lung disease, chronic bronchitis and insulin resistance. Youth and their parents are generally unaware of the health risks that are associated with e-vaping.
My question is to the Minister of Education. Will he commit to providing the resources needed in every middle school and high school across B.C. to implement evidence-based vaping awareness and prevention and support programs?
Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for his question and the member who has just introduced legislation that I think all members of this House will want to look at very carefully.
I think members of this House are aware that vaping is an issue. We all probably have a number of anecdotal stories about the use in middle and secondary schools, for example. Tobacco companies have always tried to find a way to exploit young people and create new markets for addictive, harmful products, and that is a concern.
As the Minister of Health has said, it is up to all of us as legislators to make sure that the law follows the evolution of these new enticing products for young people. Having said that, I know that it’s not just members in the House that are aware that this is an emerging and current problem. It is organizations like the B.C. superintendents association and organizations like the B.C. Teachers Federation and the parent advisory councils. They are looking at the current prohibition on vaping products and also the usage rates that are reported amongst students and at how government can better and more effectively respond.
I would say we have an additional tool in the school system, and that is around our new physical and health education so that teachers are actually involved in some of the reality-based, emerging evidence-based conclusions around addictive substances like vaping. That is something that is taught to kids throughout their school careers at the very youngest of age.
I do want members to understand that there are serious efforts going on in every corner of the province and in every school in British Columbia. Whether we take additional steps or not after we review the legislation, it’s something I think we should all consider.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.
D. Davies: Like my colleague with Kamloops–South Thompson, I, too, have a daughter that’s in middle school, like I’m sure probably many in this House do, and we certainly hear about this issue and how big it is becoming.
We know that targeted educational initiatives can work to protect kids. Parents and educators are calling for more resources to launch prevention programs across the entire province. In fact, there’s a drug prevention pilot program called Preventure that has been running in the Vernon high schools to identify and support students that are vulnerable to vaping addiction.
Again, my question to the Minister of Education is: will he provide the additional resources specifically needed for targeted prevention and support initiatives like Preventure in every school, middle school and high school in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Fleming: I mentioned in my previous answer around the opportunity, in terms of real class time and real learning time each and every day in British Columbia that is helped by having curriculum that specifically addresses mental health and well-being — healthy living. The physical and health education curriculum gives us an avenue to have students learn and discuss their own kinds of things that they confront in their own lives, and that includes things like the vaping issue that we’re discussing this morning. Teachers are supported, in that regard, to lead lesson plans and to have discussions about what’s going on in their lives and what kinds of things to avoid.
The program that the member has cited in Vernon is just one of many. School districts have been leaders, in terms of having the kinds of discussions and deploying strategies and programs. It’s not just one district that is tackling the problem of vaping in British Columbia. It is virtually all of them.
Certainly, in terms of the Ministry of Education and our willingness to support the district efforts that are ongoing, we will do that. We are doing that. We will work with health authorities and others who can bring the kinds of resources that’ll get in front of kids so that they make the right choices in their lives and so that we can stem any trend towards new harmful addictive substances that companies are trying to push upon them.
B.C. TECH ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS AND
SUPPORT FOR
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I must say it is a kinder and gentler question period in the Legislature here today.
On that note, I will note that on February 5, 2018, the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology announced the appointment of B.C.’s first innovation commissioner. The announcement was at B.C. Tech’s Cube. This was widely celebrated as a significant step forward for innovation in our province. I was present at the announcement.
Just two weeks ago at the B.C. Tech luncheon, the minister and I met some B.C. leaders in the tech sector, companies that have grown and thrived thanks to the programs and services provided by the B.C. Tech Association.
My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Is the minister aware of the critical services and programs provided by B.C. Tech at The Cube and at the Hub in Vancouver and the positive impact they have on our innovation community?
Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. I, too, share his optimism about the growth of the technology sector here in British Columbia. Certainly the augmented and virtual reality sector, which The Cube is a start-up laboratory for, is a very strong one. It’s a very strong sector — in fact, globally leading.
Since we have the ambassador for Korea here…. On a recent trip — the Minister of State for Trade and I — to Korea, we met with companies that are well aware of the opportunities here in British Columbia. In fact, there are exchanges, business exchanges, between the Gyeonggi Content Agency in the sister province to British Columbia and the sector here.
The B.C. Tech Association has provided leadership in that sector. I’m well aware of the opportunities that The Cube has provided. Indeed, our government, in December, provided the sum of $500,000 to assist them in preparing as they move to a new funding model.
The initial funding for The Cube came largely from the federal government, from the western diversification fund. They underwent a review of their funding of these incubators and have decided they are heading in a different direction. As the organization works out its approach, we have provided that money to assist the transition.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: Thank you for that very, very comprehensive answer.
The programs and services provided by B.C. Tech help people to take their ideas and turn them into companies. They help existing companies bridge what’s commonly known as the “valley of death.” That is, they help them manage the hyper-growth these companies often encounter.
Programs and services are an essential engine for innovative growth in our economy, and they rely upon government and industry funding to be able to continue. But in the absence of provincial funding, these programs could be at risk.
Once again, my question is for the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Supporting innovation in our economy is a critical priority for the B.C. Green caucus. Is the minister equally committed to ensuring the programs and services provided by the B.C. Tech Association at the Cube and the Hub are able to continue?
Interjections.
Hon. B. Ralston: I wish the answer were that simple.
The member has referenced the appointment of the innovation commissioner. In a recent report to the Legislature, he set out what he thought were important directions for government policy in the future. He recommends an economic and technology strategy that supports increased business investment in research and development, developing talents at post-secondary institutions and scaling up small businesses with huge growth potential. He’s suggested three different kinds of clusters, whether they’re regional community clusters; emerging technology clusters; or scale-up, market-driven clusters.
Certainly, the B.C. Technology Industry Association is a strong leader in providing policy advice to the government. I think they have adopted and would recommend very similar solutions to those that the innovation commissioner put forward, particularly in relation to scaling up companies, taking companies from the start-up environment and building big companies here that are global leaders. And there are lots of opportunities to do that, given the strength of our sector here.
I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about those policies, and I look forward to developing those policies with all members of the Legislature in the future.
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SITES AND
CONCERNS OF MAPLE RIDGE
RESIDENTS
J. Johal: On April 4, the Minister of Housing wrote that crime has not increased at NDP-imposed housing sites in Nanaimo. Her letter reads: “There has been no increase in crime.” The minister’s statement is patently false, and for her to be unaware of the facts shows a shocking level of incompetence. Nanaimo police have reported a 250 percent increase in crime at one project, and a 66 percent increase at the other.
The people of Maple Ridge do not want this imposed on them. How can they have any confidence in the Premier when his minister doesn’t even know what she’s talking about?
Hon. S. Robinson: I think we need to remember how we all got here, right? We got here — to significant tent cities all around the Lower Mainland, tent cities in Nanaimo and a tent city in Maple Ridge — because the previous government did not pay attention. They neglected the most vulnerable in our communities, and as a result, they were left to their own devices with no shelter, with no supports and with very little opportunity to get ahead.
Our government has made some significant commitments to make sure people had the supports they need, and that included a house, a home, a place to rest your head. I’m very proud of our government opening up over a thousand homes in the last 18 months.
There are a thousand people around this province who, before, did not have a home. They lived in a tent, and they now have a home. So we are continuing to work with communities right around the province, including Nanaimo, to make sure that people have the supports they need so that they can get ahead.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: Now, without wraparound support, the government is simply warehousing people. We’ve heard nothing but crickets from the NDP MLA for Nanaimo, but fortunately, somebody is speaking out.
The minister’s former colleague, the now mayor of Nanaimo, said: “There were significant issues…security, criminal behaviour, all sorts of problems.” No wonder the community of Maple Ridge rejects the Premier’s top-down plan for temporary housing in the wrong location without the right supports.
Will the Premier listen to the people of Maple Ridge and put together a proper program that includes real access to services?
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I have to tell you, frankly, how tired I am that the members of the opposition would mislead the public. They would prefer to create division in communities rather than to support people who need it most in communities right around this province. So for the record, let me tell you exactly what we are doing.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.
Hon. S. Robinson: Every single one of the supportive housing projects connects people and supports people where they have a home — every single one. In fact, we are making sure that people can get to appointments. We are making sure that they can find medical supports. We’re making sure they have somebody there 24-7. We have professionals on site making sure that people have what they need when they need it.
J. Thornthwaite: It’s the people from Maple Ridge that are tired with this minister. The minister is ignoring the concerns of neighbours and locally elected officials in Maple Ridge and disregarding the real need for recovery and treatment options.
Unlike the MLAs for Maple Ridge–Mission and Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who are missing in action on this file, their former colleague is speaking out. The new NDP mayor of Nanaimo: “We have a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. I think they need to try harder, to be quite blunt about it. The citizens in my community are losing their sympathy.”
Will the minister stop railroading the people of Maple Ridge and start providing real services to the people that need it?
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I wonder when the opposition is going to stop misleading the public. Every….
Interjections.
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, they’re wanting to talk to the mayors, so let me tell what you the mayors are saying.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Robinson: Mayor Henry Braun of Abbotsford says: “Abbotsford has committed to a housing-first approach to meet our goal of becoming a city where everyone has a home. These new facilities will enable us to better respond to the immediate housing and support needs of our community.”
Wait. I have another one, Ken Popove from Chilliwack. “We have been working towards supportive housing for many years. This new…building, in combination with the integrated case management team, will provide hope to 46 people in Chilliwack and make a…difference in the lives of our vulnerable population.”
But hold on. Wait a minute. The members from Kamloops might like to know what their mayor has to say, Ken Christian. I think they might really like to know what he has to say about this. “Kamloops city council welcomes Spero House supportive housing. Far too many people in Kamloops, and other cities, are homeless. Projects like this one give people a chance to regain their health, wellness and lives.”
But wait. Perhaps the members from Kelowna would like to hear what their mayor has to say. “We are really happy to see Hearthstone open. We appreciate the investment B.C. Housing is making in our community and helping us address our need for more housing for those who are most vulnerable in our city.”
I wonder if the members opposite think that raping and pillaging is the appropriate perspective to have on people who are homeless.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: Well, the people of Maple Ridge want this minister to stop misleading the public. One rotating nurse split between three sites is not wraparound care. The problem is the lack of comprehensive on-site support services being made available to people who need real help. The people of Maple Ridge need a plan that values local input and public engagement.
Instead, we have two NDP Maple Ridge members missing in action and a top-down plan from the provincial government for temporary housing in the wrong location without the right supports.
When will the minister stop misleading the public and stop ignoring the people of Maple Ridge?
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I have to say we wouldn’t be in this place if the previous government had done its job. We have been cleaning up messes since we took office. I want to remind everybody what was going on in the Whalley strip. I know that there are some members on the other side…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Robinson: …who remember the Whalley strip. I remember that there are some members on the other side who remember the Whalley strip — 160 people living on five blocks of sidewalk. That’s the legacy left by the previous government. That’s their legacy.
I am very proud to say…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Robinson: …that with our hard work….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister.
Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I’m very proud of the work that we did, together with the previous mayor of Surrey, Linda Hepner. We worked together over a number of months, and we made sure that every single one of those 160 individuals got moved off a sidewalk and into a home.
I think it’s only fitting that I share with the House what the former mayor of Surrey, Linda Hepner, had to say about the work that our government has undertaken. “With the new accommodations available, we are now able to offer those living in deplorable conditions on a sidewalk suitable housing that will have the necessary health and social supports. We are restoring dignity to these individuals by offering them proper shelter and care.”
For the record, I think it’s also important to acknowledge what services we are delivering from Fraser Health, along with the support services of people who go to work every day to support people who are homeless, those who’ve been most marginalized, who have been left to sit in a tent city.
I think the members wanted to know what supports were available. We have intensive case management, nurse practitioners, mental health services, psychiatric services, Alouette Addictions Services. I can go on.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 25, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, and in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
T. Shypitka: I’d like to rise to present a petition.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Petitions
T. Shypitka: It’s a petition on behalf of 33 people from Sunshine Meadows. The petition is to allow stratas to continue to restrict or prohibit an owner from leasing and renting their units.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 25 — COASTAL FERRY
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
Hon. C. Trevena: I call second reading of Bill 25, entitled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2019. I move that the bill now be read a second time.
It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 25, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act. The bill is in response to recommendations in the report on the coastal ferry service review, which was released in February. That review was conducted to help government consider what changes could be made to support an affordable ferry service that meets the needs of coastal communities.
B.C. Ferries has a long history in this province. It was really instigated as a Crown corporation by W.A.C. Bennett, who realized that communities needed ferry service and that ferry service had become, potentially, a political football. So he created the Crown corporation, which evolved over the years.
As B.C. Ferries evolved and grew in service, communities developed around the marine highway, anticipating service of that marine highway. It was symbiotic. B.C. Ferries grew; communities grew — establishing routes, establishing service. But it was political and always was political. One would always hope that a ferry service would be apolitical, because it is part of our highway, but it soon evolved that this was going to become a political football. The ferry service, as I say, evolved — grew a number of routes, grew in service. Communities grew around it.
Then the former government, in 2001-2002, decided to transform the Crown corporation to what I describe as, using the British acronym, a quango — the quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization. Which means it’s an arm’s-length body from government, although still has link to government. This was a political decision. And all things that came from that, I put down to a political approach which has really hurt those people who live and work on the coast, whose communities have grown up on the coast. It really has been very problematic.
There has been a very strange governance structure over the last number of years. There have been two boards running B.C. Ferries — an authority board and a services board. The services board has the oversight over the corporation of B.C. Ferries. The authority board holds the government’s share, but the authority board has had very limited authority in that position. It has an ongoing relationship with the services board, and the services board is the one that dictates how B.C. Ferries will operate. So the level of oversight has been very difficult over the last number of years since the former government decided to give this quasi-privatization to B.C. Ferries.
I think everybody can remember, in those days when we had the shift from the Crown corporation, the Million-Dollar Man, the first CEO. We’re now on the third CEO. The first CEO, David Hahn, came from the private sector and was earning $1 million. This was at the same time that communities were seeing their services cut and individuals were seeing their fares rise. This had a dramatic impact, both on people who were living in communities, people working in communities and businesses — the absolute rapid rise in fares.
We had, I know, on some routes in my own constituency…. I represent absolutely ferry-reliant communities, whether it is the Campbell River over to Quadra, where I happen to live, to Cortes, up-Island or some of the more major routes in the north. We saw, in some of those routes, 140 percent increase in fares and the cutting of service and the removal of the seniors rate through that period.
We also saw the shift in the procurement and construction of B.C. Ferries, where ferries were no longer being built in B.C. We had ferries built in Germany, in Poland and in Romania.
The development of the amenities within those ferries…. I do hear, and I have said in this House, and have heard comments from many people that the ferries have been evolved like cruise ships. We’re talking about short journeys for the most part, from the south Island over to the Mainland. We’re talking about an hour and a half.
The only really long journeys are the Inside Passage, which is sold as a cruise ship experience and not sold as a ferries route, and the very important link between Haida Gwaii and the mainland, to Prince Rupert. Those are really the long journeys, where there is the need for better capacity for users — realizing that what ferries are, essentially, are the ability to get from A to B.
The other issue we’ve seen is political decision-making. We’ve seen the issue in the fares, in the reduction of services — which, as I say, devastated communities — and also the removal of specific routes. I’ve talked about that. We lost route 40. That was where the Queen of Chilliwack had had $15 million spent on it, leaving communities stranded. Indigenous communities — from Port Hardy through Bella Bella, right up to Williams Lake — were impacted by this. Then, on the eve of the election, the former government, in fear of losing one of their ridings, decided that they would demand that B.C. Ferries reinstate a route there. B.C. Ferries was scrambling to get a ferry and had had a very costly refit.
Now a year late, a much smaller vessel than the original Queen of Chilliwack will be going into service, serving that route. Really, the loss of the route and the reintroduction of the route was done on a political whim, rather than a sound business case. That is one of the problems. The previous government had no desire to really look at B.C. Ferries, look at it as part of our marine highway and develop a vision for B.C. Ferries. That is something that we are going to do.
In the short term, we as a government have reduced fares on minor routes. We’ve frozen fares on the major routes. We’ve reintroduced the free seniors rate. We’ve reintroduced those routes that were cut by that former government. This is all an evolution, as we move to really rebuild and give a commitment to this marine highway. The next stage is this bill, which I’m talking about, Bill 25. Then, subsequent to that, will be the visioning — working with B.C. Ferries, working with communities about that long-term vision of how B.C. Ferries should evolve. That is what has been missing for the last 16 years.
In Bill 25 there are amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act, and they’re consistent with the recommendations in the ferry review to ensure that the public interest is at the forefront of decision-making. That was lost in the last 16 years — that sense of public interest and of making sure that that was at the heart.
The Coastal Ferry Act requires that the regulator of B.C. Ferries, the B.C. ferries commissioner, regulate according to certain principles. The consideration of the broader public interest — that which was lost — will now be a requirement for the commissioner when regulating ferry service. The commissioner, whose role is bolstered through this, will also be explicitly required to consider the province’s greenhouse gas emission targets, to further the important public policy objective.
The principle that ferry operators adopt a commercial approach to service delivery is being eliminated, and we are looking at the public interest. This doesn’t mean that the commissioner will no longer consider B.C. Ferries’ financial viability when making regulatory decisions, but it won’t be the primary consideration. It will be the needs for communities, the needs for the economy on the coast, the needs for our province that will come first when we’re looking at the public interest. The commissioner will still be required to encourage ferry operators to be innovative and to minimize costs without affecting safety.
The legislative amendment proposes a new section to the act, to enable the commissioner to pay all or part of the costs incurred by consumer advocates to make submissions in the regulatory process. This is something that again comes from the report and comes from conversations that I think all members who represent coastal communities have heard. For those groups that want to advocate but have trouble navigating the system, it will facilitate greater consumer advocacy and participation. It will enhance accountability through stakeholder engagement.
The section of the act relating to the alternative service providers, or ASPs, is being removed. When B.C. Ferries was made independent from government, the idea was that it would contract out services on routes, in an effort to reduce the cost of delivering those services — sort of that private model — and just sell off routes.
Despite a number of attempts, that never actually happened since the act was brought into force in 2003. So it is redundant, and it just makes no sense still having that section in the act. Removing this section of two ASPs, which is redundant, won’t limit B.C. Ferries’ ability to subcontract with another ferry operator if the need or the opportunity arises.
Consistent with another of the report’s recommendations is the increasing of the number of provincial appointments on the B.C. Ferry Authority board — as I say, the shareholder of B.C. Ferries, which holds the government’s share. That’s going to increase from two to four. The additional two appointees are going to replace the two community at-large members. The change isn’t going to result in a majority of authority members being appointed by the province — it’s still a nine-member board — but I think it will ensure that the authority represents that broad public interest perspective when undertaking its role as the shareholder, which is responsive to the needs of the public and responsive to the public interest.
One of the responsibilities of the authority is to appoint members to the B.C. Ferry Services board. The proposed amendments also ensure that the authority will be required to limit the terms for appointments to the B.C. Ferry Services board, oversee the strategic direction of B.C. Ferries and report annually on the authority’s activities with respect to overseeing the strategic direction of the corporation, all very important for accountability — making sure that B.C. Ferries is responsive to that public interest.
Finally, the definition of an executive at B.C. Ferries has been changed to include all vice-presidents, not just executive vice-presidents. I think there has long been a question — I know in my own community and other coastal communities — about the number of executives, how the executive works. So this really will just provide greater transparency and oversight of executive compensation.
All these changes, the number that there are, may seem small, but I think that they really will have a great impact because they do build in that concept of public interest within the Coastal Ferry Act. They are, as I mentioned, one of many ways our government is supporting the provision of affordable ferry service that really does meet the needs of coastal communities and the travelling public in British Columbia and, by doing that, meets the needs of the economy of British Columbia and people who live and work on the coast.
I thank you for this, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
M. Hunt: I would like to introduce to you and have the House welcome students from….
Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, hold it.
Is leave granted?
M. Hunt: I’m sorry. I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. Hunt: I am so thankful for my friends opposite wanting to so eagerly support my introduction.
Introductions by Members
M. Hunt: It’s my pleasure to introduce the second wave of students from Adams Road Elementary that are with us this morning. There is a total of 74 students, with Mr. Kori Langston being the teacher. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Debate Continued
J. Sturdy: While I wish I was able to say that I am pleased to stand to speak to this Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, unfortunately, I cannot.
This act, which proposes, as the minister suggests, a seemingly innocuous change, is nothing less, frankly, than a stealthy return to the dismal years of the ’90s for B.C. Ferries. I’m not generally a big fan of referring back to the ’90s. I think if you looked at my Hansard record, you’d see that I haven’t done that in the past. But in this particular case, I cannot help it, because the initiative very much looks like that is the objective. The act is aimed at gaining government and cabinet majority on the B.C. Ferry Authority board.
This is about giving that board undefined powers to mandate strategic direction and public interest without definition or limitation. This is about creating a complexity of governance, a complexity for the authority, a complexity for the board, a complexity for the operator and a complexity for the commissioner.
This is about creating a complexity of governance, a complexity for the authority, a complexity for the board, a complexity for the operator and a complexity for the commissioner. This is about dropping the imperative to operate in a businesslike manner, to contain costs, to keep fares sustainable and allow the corporation to keep investing and keep improving the service. This is about eliminating the Ferry Commissioner’s mandate that “ferry operators are to be encouraged to adopt a commercial approach to ferry service delivery.”
The real question is: how will this support a robust and resilient ferry corporation that will weather the ups and downs, the changes in the operating environment? Will these changes set the Ferry Services operator up for success or for failure? All I can say with certainty is that the idea that politicians are better able to manipulate the levers of control of this organization, through majority appointments to the board, alarms me.
The only limitation on government, of this stealth and indirect return to government control, is that they must, I am sure, be aware that the Auditor General has been alive to the concern. As much as you say you are not directing the company, if the Auditor General believes that government is telling the ferry company how to do their job, then it’s one of those walks-like-a-duck scenarios, and she will roll the debt back onto B.C.’s books, into the province’s books, and further limit opportunities for government.
Is this where we’re going? Are we going back to the ’90s? Is this back to that terrible decade where B.C. Ferries was run from the cabinet table, where everything from routes to schedules to pricing was fiddled with by politicians for their own purposes? It was a decade of labour problems, of aging fleets, of crumbling infrastructure and a political football heading for the rocks. Then, of course, in the ’90s, I can’t resist suggesting, they decided to go at high speed onto the rocks and ended up with an organization mired in debt, a disaster of demoralization, with little pride in the fleet and little vision as to where they were going. Something clearly had to change.
A new structure was created that was at arm’s length from government, that got the politics out of the operation, that had a mandate to manage the debt in a sustainable way, to operate with a commercial lens, knowing that the shareholder was the taxpayer — to run it like a business. This organization, over the course of the last — yes — 16 years has made tremendous strides. B.C. Ferries has the largest fleet of vehicle ferry vessels in the world.
B.C. Ferries is internationally respected. B.C. Ferries has regular inquiries into whether they would be interested in managing other services outside of the province, because they are so well respected, because they do such a good job. B.C. Ferries has had regular inquiries into how the model works and how the model works so well: “Can it be replicated?” B.C. Ferries is one of the biggest and the best operators in the world, and the NDP want to restructure it back to the cabinet table — because, you know, the NDP does know best.
In the meantime, B.C. Ferries has, over the last number of years, over the last 15 years, reduced the age of the fleet. They have a capital plan for more. One of the pieces of the capital plan going forward that I’m pretty excited about — and I hope the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is as well — is to replace an existing large vessel with two smaller vessels and, rather than having a single sailing every couple of hours, to have a sailing on the hour.
These are not inexpensive directives; these are not inexpensive to do. They need to be well financed in a solid organization. There are many other initiatives that the ferry corporation has — like simplifying the rate classes. Instead of having 17 different styles of ferries, we’ll bring it down to three, four or five different styles that allow for interoperability, that allow these ferries to operate into this terminal or that terminal. It’s actually picking up on the airline model, for example, with WestJet, where in that case they have a limited number of aircraft that simplify the maintenance plan, that simplify the training or crewing and that allow for interoperability, all the while making the organization more efficient.
B.C. Ferries has renewed much of the terminal infrastructure in the province. They have more work to do, and clearly, Horseshoe Bay is one of them. The organization is out there right now doing consultation with the community, as the district of West Van looks at a new neighbourhood plan for Horseshoe Bay: how does the ferry operate or fit into that community, and how does it best serve the province of British Columbia and the people of the coast?
They’re on their way to lower-emission vessels. They have put in place — as we all know, I think — a cable ferry, which is an innovative device that has reduced emissions. Basically, what it does is that it pulls itself back and forth across the channel, reducing cost, reducing emissions and embracing innovation. It has brought in place LNG and electric-drive ferries. Some of the new ferries that are coming into the system will be fully convertible to full electric drive as battery technologies and the hydro-servicing infrastructure improves.
This is a globally leading company, but it seems that this minister and her ideologically driven big-government-knows-best mantra is going to erode — or is working to erode — the foundations of this organization. They want to complicate the governance to a point where nobody really understands the structure or mandate. I wonder if the minister is doing it just for the sake of doing it. As I’ve said and as is well documented, B.C. Ferries is an internationally well-respected and domestically well-respected organization. It rates extremely well in customer satisfaction. It has great on-time performance metrics.
It is an internationally award-winning company for public safety, for crew safety. It has been awarded numerous awards because it’s a great place to work. It has demonstrated that it has excellent labour relations. This is a company that is where it needs to be. As I said, it has a robust capital plan. It has voluntarily reinstated sailings and covered the cost of those sailings with its own-source revenues, all within an acceptable 2.3 percent cap on fares and taxpayer support for the next — proposed, anyway — performance term that is out right now, put out by the Ferry Commissioner, for consultation.
I think all of this is at risk. This government intends to fiddle with this proven model. This government can’t resist: “Well, if it’s working, let’s fix it.” The plan seems to be trying to indirectly control B.C. Ferries without rolling the debt back into the government and taking on that responsibility. It’s a stealth move.
B.C. Ferry Authority is the shareholder, on behalf of the public. The plan is to gain control through majority appointments to the authority. The NDP plan is to fire the directors at large, who have been recruited for particular skills, replace them with NDP appointees — again, majority control — and expand the role of the authority. The authority currently has the responsibility of appointing directors to the B.C. Ferries board and to set executive compensation. But going forward, this same NDP majority board in the future will have expanded authority to not only appoint the operations board but to oversee strategic direction in support of the public interest.
Do they define this? No, they don’t define it. What does this mean? What are the implications of this? I suppose what it means is whatever the NDP appointees want it to mean. Does it add complexity? No question. Does it add uncertainty? Undoubtedly. Will it improve the operation? Unlikely. Will it simplify governance? Not a chance. Will it make the operator better? Frankly, I don’t see how.
The other big change is to repeal the commissioner’s mandate that “the ferry operators are to be encouraged to operate in a commercial approach to ferry service delivery” and replace the mandate with — wait for it — nothing. No discussion of how you’re supposed to operate. Don’t operate in a businesslike fashion, though. That’s been removed. Don’t have a commercial approach. Have an NDP approach.
This is a disaster in the making. Obviously we’re concerned with this return to political fiddling at every opportunity. How this NDP-appointed board will define and implement “strategic direction” and “public interest” is completely unknown. Strategic direction and public interest could be interpreted to mean anything. It could be right down to fiddling and dictating the price of hamburgers or identifying the size of the parking spots.
Where I think this is probably going is looking at a mandate for domestic shipbuilding. I think it’s worthwhile to look at this and examine the option for a moment. Currently the corporation sources the best ships they can at the best price they can from suppliers around the world. The imperative is to get the best deal for the ratepayer and keep prices down.
So if government demands, as they have indicated that they may well wish to do, that there be a requirement that ferries are built in British Columbia, which is not something that we currently require…. Not only do we not require ferries to be built in B.C. at any cost, but we don’t require all the cars in British Columbia to be built here. We don’t require all the buses to be built here. We don’t require all the trains to be built here. Why do we demand that ferries be built here? It doesn’t make sense.
If government wants to expand shipbuilding in British Columbia, well, that’s fair enough. That is fair enough. We have done that with other industries, haven’t we? We’ve expanded and supported the digital film and animation sector. We’ve supported the sector by providing the sector with incentives. We don’t say that all the films you watch in British Columbia need to be made in British Columbia. We say: “How can we set the table so that the film industry is competitive and thrives?” That model has worked for a variety of reasons in a variety of industries, and that model could work with shipbuilding.
We could support the shipbuilding sector with tax credits or other incentives and then let them compete in the market. But to require that the ferry corporation builds here doesn’t build a resilient industry or a resilient ferry corporation. All it does is mess with competitive procurement and create weak industries that, in the long run, can’t compete and are doomed to fail. I’m concerned that this is the direction this government is going with this type of unclear strategic direction mandate.
Honestly, though, I understand where this government wants to expand B.C. Ferries services to coastal British Columbia. I believe that that is a common goal. But there are other levers that government has, rather than direct fiddling with ferry operations. Government could decide to offer additional funds to the corporation and ask them what they would do to change or improve the service if they had additional resources and then make a decision about additional taxpayer investments. They could do that, but that’s not what they’re doing. They’re trying to bring political control back to the cabinet table. It is unfortunate and naive to think that politicians are better operators than this company. I see where this Coastal Ferry Amendment Act is going, and it scares me.
We are exploring this at committee stage. We will be exploring it further in committee stage, but at this point, it’s hard to imagine how this bill sets the B.C. Ferries corporation up for success in serving the ferry users of coastal British Columbia. I am disappointed in what the minister has brought forward, but I must say I am not surprised.
M. Dean: I’m very proud to stand up and speak to Bill 25 on behalf of everybody across the province of British Columbia, and especially my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin.
This is a bill that brings us into modern times. This actually brings us up to speed into 2019. It puts the public interest first. That has been missing for far too long.
Now, in my community and across the province, we know that ferry services, ferry routes and capacity on the ferries were cut under the previous government. We know that fares went up, and that made B.C. Ferries inaccessible and unaffordable for members of my constituency and people right across British Columbia. People, indeed, were left stranded. We’ve heard stories of people who were left stranded because B.C. Ferries was cut back so far that the capacity couldn’t take people back to their homes at night in coastal communities.
I am extremely proud of our Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. She lives in a coastal and a ferry-dependent community. She understands these matters. This bill is designed for people who live in coastal communities. What it does is put those people at the heart of the future of planning and designing for B.C. Ferry Services as well.
I want to tell you about my constituency, Esquimalt-Metchosin. It’s beautiful, and it’s all coastal — from Esquimalt through DND on to Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, View Royal, Colwood and through to Metchosin and Scia’new, or Beecher Bay, First Nation. All of our communities have access to the coast, and all of our communities have a long history of travelling on the water.
Even myself. I can tell you that when I first came here, and I lived in Victoria and Esquimalt, I lived on a boat. I voyaged around the south coast. I went around all of the islands and all of the ports and inlets and anchorages. I saw our beautiful province from the perspective of the water. I know it’s a privilege. I know it’s an honour.
Of course, today you wouldn’t rely on a sailing boat if you needed to get to an important appointment, if you needed to get to a sporting commitment, if you needed to get to a family event or a business meeting. You would, of course, use a reliable source of transportation for that. Now here on the Island, we use our highways, yet those of us living in Esquimalt-Metchosin are also living on an island, and we need to get off our island and get from our island to other destinations. So then, of course, our highway is the sea, and here in the province of British Columbia, B.C. Ferries are our source of transit on these water highways.
So many people in my constituency rely on B.C. Ferries to get to important events and appointments. A young woman I know has to get to Vancouver to see an eye specialist. She has a condition that cannot be treated here locally. Families from my community have to travel to other islands as well as the mainland, not only to visit with family but also to attend important family events like weddings and funerals. Members of Indigenous communities have relatives across British Columbia and travel to keep in touch and keep cultural ties strong. I received an e-mail this morning from a woman in my community who was in the ferry lineup yesterday. She got there at 5:50 a.m. because she had such an important medical appointment to get to in Vancouver.
I’m very proud that Bill 25 introduces amendments that will strengthen the Coastal Ferry Act to serve the needs of people living in coastal communities that rely on the ferry service. As the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure said: “People living in coastal communities depend on the vital service provided by B.C. Ferries, but for many years, they experienced service cuts and climbing fares. Our amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act will put people at the heart of decision-making.”
In particular, the legislation will require the B.C. Ferry Commissioner to prioritize the public interest when regulating ferry services. It facilitates the participation of consumer advocates in B.C. ferries commissioner’s regulatory processes to consider the needs of people in the review of ferry services. That means the needs of coastal communities, like the one that I serve, will be taken into account. It means the local economies of our coastal communities will be given due consideration.
I’d like to remind members and the critic that the ferries are the highway for coastal communities. People living in my constituency need to be able to run their businesses, attend specialist appointments, build networks and attend to family needs. All of these demands on them need to be considered when regulating and reviewing the ferry services on which they rely.
Adding public interest to the description of the role of the commissioner is intended to put the needs of people at the heart of decision-making and reinforces the view that ferry service is an integral part of B.C.’s overall transportation network. Ultimately, we want to better integrate ferry services with the broader transportation network. We know this will better serve British Columbians, and it’ll certainly help families and businesses in my community of Esquimalt-Metchosin.
The amendments also ensure that the B.C. Ferry Authority oversees the strategic direction of B.C. Ferries, in support of the public interest, including safe, reliable and affordable coastal ferry services in British Columbia. These are services that families and businesses in Esquimalt-Metchosin rely on. We need to make sure that their ideas, their experiences and their expectations are heard in future planning.
Another change to make sure that all British Columbians will be included is that the B.C. ferries commissioner will have the authority to pay all or part of the costs incurred by a consumer advocate. Many consumer advocates don’t have the resources to prepare submissions and engage in consultation processes, so this new allowance will actually help with their cost of report-writing and research. Ultimately, this will facilitate greater consumer advocacy participation in regulatory decisions made by the commissioner.
The amendments also include ensuring the consideration of the province’s greenhouse gas emission targets. With CleanBC, we are striving to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation is a key component of that. People in Esquimalt-Metchosin want to know that when they use the ferry, they’re also doing their part to contribute to our protection of the environment.
I would also like to comment that while the B.C. Liberals might not like to see new ferries being built in British Columbia, I would like to see them being built — being built in the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin and the constituency of North Vancouver–Lonsdale. These legislative amendments are one of the many ways that our government is working to improve ferry services to keep them affordable…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
M. Dean: …and ensure they meet the needs of coastal communities and people in British Columbia.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Member, take a seat.
M. Hunt: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. Hunt: You’ll see in the gallery right now we have the third wave of students from Adams Road Elementary in Surrey that are here with us. I ask that the House would join me in making these students welcome.
Debate Continued
M. Dean: I was talking about the many ways that our government is improving ferry services already. For example, we’ve restored sailings on the majority of ferry routes that were cut in 2014, so that will see over 2,700 additional round trips added to schedules on ten minor and northern routes. We’ve provided funding to B.C. Ferries to reduce fares on the smaller and northern routes by 15 percent. Freezing fares on the major routes — fares will continue to be frozen this year.
We reinstated the Monday-to-Thursday 100 percent discount for seniors passenger fares. I can tell you that there are many seniors who enjoy and appreciate this discount. There was a grandmother in my community who actually stopped seeing her grandchildren on the mainland when this discount was terminated, because she couldn’t afford to go over and visit and help take care of them.
Another senior couple I know use this discount to meet regularly with friends and to enjoy socializing and catching up — on a round ferry trip, getting out and about.
So I just want to reinforce my support for this bill. Putting the public interest at the heart of B.C. Ferries services will better serve families, businesses and local economies in Esquimalt-Metchosin, coastal communities and the province of British Columbia.
A. Olsen: I rise today to speak to Bill 25, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, and appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to this bill — indeed, important amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act.
I just want to acknowledge the impact that the ferries have on my riding. Indeed, the Saanich Peninsula is connected to the Lower Mainland and the rest of the world through Swartz Bay, as Vancouver Island is connected by the B.C. Ferries. But as well, I represent a number of ferry-dependent communities in and throughout the southern Gulf Islands — amazingly vibrant, creative places that require the ferries in order for them to be able to be connected not only to Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay but also, again, to the rest of the world.
A lot of the economic activity that’s generated on the southern Gulf Islands comes through those ferries, either in the form of tourists that come and visit through the summer months and purchase the amazing creations of island residents but, as well, through products that are made and need to be distributed to the global economy.
So it’s important that I take a moment to take the highlighter and draw attention to the very important work that I think that this House is responsible for — ensuring that B.C. Ferries, the marine highway system, is indeed resilient, reliable, convenient for people who are dependent on it on the southern Gulf Islands and all up and down the coast of British Columbia.
It’s not lost on me that slightly over a third, I think it was, of the economy of British Columbia is impacted, and coastal communities are a third of the provincial economy, roughly. So they are connected by that marine highway network. Many of the members in this House represent ferry-dependent communities and recognize and understand the impact that they have.
I think that it’s important that we stand up and acknowledge that as often as we possibly can. There has been this perception, I think, that has overwhelmed this place that we can do without those important aspects of our economy — that we can let those communities fall behind, that we can let them lag behind in their transportation and connectivity. I think that it’s important we stand up and defend not only the physical connections through the ferries, but also the digital connections, and that we remain emotionally connected to these very, very important communities that are often the life of our province.
I think that it’s important to note that the Redlin report that was commissioned by the government over a year ago now and that has informed and inspired aspects of this bill has 38 recommendations with respect to the public interest. I was on a panel last week at the College of Applied Biology, talking about defining the public interest, and I wrote about it recently, actually, on my blog — about the public interest.
As someone who has been around the political tables and been around the political discussion for the last decade, it’s not lost on me that that is fundamentally the job of what we as elected officials do. That’s to try to define the public interest. It’s an ever-morphing, ever-evolving, ever-changing target that is nearly impossible to hit because the public interest is ever morphing and ever evolving.
It’s that pursuit of the public interest that I think defines the work that we do in this place on a daily basis — the diversity of opinions and the diversity of thought. Indeed, we’ve heard some here. We do hear it on a regular basis in this place, that diversity. It’s important that these Houses, that this chamber, are reflective of the diversity of interests in the public and that the public interest is defined as broadly as possible, recognizing that only we, collectively, are going to be able to achieve even coming somewhere near….
I often say that I represent 50,000 different opinions in my riding and that as many people that love the decision that I make will be equally not so loving of the decision that I make. Just as many people that thought I made a good decision in June of 2017 think I made a poor decision in June of 2017. What it comes down to is the ability to be able to have a mature conversation with people and to meet them in their space and to say we have to do our best to balance, in the public interest, the 50,000 opinions.
I think that it is important to highlight the governance aspect of this. Indeed, I’m on the record, and I have no problem saying that I was disappointed that the governance aspects of B.C. Ferries was taken out of the terms of reference as a focus for Mr. Redlin in his report. It’s not lost on me that it comes back that 38 recommendations about the public interest are actually talking about the governance aspects of this critically important service and corporation. It is a part of our highway. The ferry system is a part of our highway system. It is an important part of our highway system, and it need not be lost on that.
In the interest of time, I’m just going to cover two more issues here and then take my seat. I think it’s important to point out that under the current governance model, some of the important aspects that we find important and that I think that….
I’d like to thank the leadership at B.C. Ferries, who’ve been very generous with their time with me, as someone who is not only the critic for Transportation but also has ferry-dependent communities. The leadership at B.C. Ferries has been generous with their time. I really appreciate the efforts that they take on behalf of the public interest; although, I think it is important that we highlight here, at this point in time, that it is our responsibility to be providing transportation services that are equitable across the province, that are accessible to all British Columbians, that don’t hamper aspects of our communities and of our province.
When it comes to the impacts of climate change and when it comes to the impacts of noise — the pollution aspects of this — I know that B.C. Ferries is working towards trying to make their ferries quieter to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible on wildlife and that they’re trying to have the lowest possible impact with their emissions. They’re, indeed, in a transition. I would like to suggest here at this point that it’s not soon enough, fast enough. It’s not quick enough, fast enough.
Transitioning from one fossil fuel to another fossil fuel at this point in time, when we know that Canada is warming at twice the rate…. We’ve known that for 20 years. This is not new information. We need to be moving to those electric drives as rapidly as possible.
Finally, with respect to the shipbuilding industry in this province, I recognize that it would be desirable for us to have a very vibrant shipbuilding industry in this province and that we could be building our ships, the vessels for B.C. Ferries, in this province. We could be, indeed, competitive on a global scale with shipbuilding. Government is going to have to make that a priority, not just to build the 11 or 14 — or whatever the number is — future vessels but that we’re going to have to be competitive on a global scale. That number of vessels is not enough in order for us to keep, over the long term, those investments in a shipbuilding industry and the kind of skills and labour force that we need to do that. That is a specific focus that the government is going to have to have.
With that, I would like to rest my comments on that. I’m getting the “let’s keep this moving, Member,” so I will get moving to lunch. I’d like to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this and the Minister of Transportation for beginning the important work of keeping our ferry system reliable, convenient and, indeed, world-class.
Noting the hour and the long-windedness of the speaker who just sat down, I’d like to move adjournment of the debate.
A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
On Vote 23: ministry operations, $192,734,000 (continued).
M. Lee: I’d just like to continue on from the last part of this estimates discussion from my colleague’s questioning to the minister — that is, my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano — on the Professional Governance Act and the questions relating to implementation, schedule, budget as well as some other considerations, recognizing that there is going to be quite a process here of regulation-making over the next few years.
If I could just do a follow-on from yesterday’s questioning regarding the joint recruitment and decision-making, both by the Minister of Environment as well as the Attorney General. The minister mentioned yesterday that it was an internal posting and that that posting is going to be concluding next Tuesday.
Can I ask specifically the breadth of the recruitment process, in terms of the external posting process as well as whether candidates are being considered and recruited from abroad outside of Canada, inside Canada, other provinces? Geographically, where are the candidates stepping forward from?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I’ll correct one thing that the member said. The posting actually closed two days ago, this Tuesday, so it is closed.
The decision was made to do an internal posting consistent with B.C. government normal hiring practice for the reasons that…. The qualifications, which I outlined yesterday, that were being sought were familiarity with B.C. government and B.C.-specific legislation and policies; familiarity with government structures, in terms of establishing an office within government; familiarity with the interaction between the government and the regulatory bodies, the colleges, that are currently conducted under a number of other acts.
Of course, we believe that there is ample talent, knowledge and skill and ability within the B.C. public service. Should, of course, a review of the applicants and the process determine that there wasn’t an outstanding applicant, we would then consider looking outside.
M. Lee: I appreciate that clarification on timing as well as the pool of candidates that would be coming forward. Yesterday the minister just summarized a bit more in terms of the kinds of qualifications and experience that this individual or candidates for this posting may want to meet.
Could I just ask, in terms of the regulatory oversight experience in the province of B.C…. Recognizing that this individual will not be a member of one of the five professional organizations to be regulated by the superintendent, what kind of regulatory oversight experience, in terms of the job description, will they be seeking this individual to have?
Hon. G. Heyman: From our perspective, the ideal candidate would have experience in how professional regulatory bodies regulate their members. This qualification is a preference rather than a mandatory requirement, but for example, the candidate could be a member of a professional body that is different than one of the five professions regulated under the act. For instance, they could be a lawyer. They could have been responsible for working with a regulatory college under the act through their role in one of the ministries that currently oversees those regulatory bodies.
The superintendent of professional governance will be responsible for regulating and administering the Professional Governance Act. Because this is a unique role in B.C., we are continuing in an advisory relationship that’s been established with an international expert during the initial phase of establishment of the office.
M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Perhaps I could just also ask for a clarification, in terms of the timeline on implementation. With the hiring decision to be made, expected by the end of the month as the minister indicated previously in the assessments process, what will be the next steps on the implementation timeline for this current year and beyond?
I do note that, on the intentions paper, in terms of the regulatory-making process, there is indication of several years. Recognizing that with the five regulatory bodies that are in place with the professions, that is going to be an exercise which will be taking place over a number of years. Could the minister please provide some clarity on immediate steps of timing, say, over the next 90 days to that 12-month period and beyond?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. As much as possible, I’ll indicate an implementation timeline. It is, of course, subject to a number of things.
I think the first thing we’re trying to do is hire the superintendent, and that would be as soon as possible. But of course, as I indicated, we’re expecting and hopeful that the internal posting procedure will produce a successful qualified candidate. If we have to go outside, then, of course, that will extend the timeline for that. We are preparing to hire office staff. Postings will be out any day now. That’s the office of the superintendent.
We intend, later this spring or early summer, to transition the Professional Governance Act to the Attorney General’s ministry and bring in regulations for council elections and requirement-based processes — again, later this spring, early summer. For work on regulations to bring into effect some of the authorities of the superintendent, we’re hopeful for late spring or summer for that. And eventually, the five professional association statutes will be repealed, as provided for in the act, once the superintendent is in a position to oversee the bodies. The timeline, however, for that will be determined by the superintendent.
M. Lee: Well, thank you for that basic summary. Obviously, I’m mindful in terms of the shift of responsibility from the Ministry of Environment to the Attorney General’s ministry, as the minister just mentioned. Just coming back at this, when we look at the reliance on the superintendent to implement these changes…. We had some discussion about it when we were doing the bill.
I ask this question in the context of the hiring decision which is taking place in the next few weeks. We’ll come on, in a moment, to more budget-related items. Is there any expectation that this superintendent, or candidates for the superintendent role, would have any subject-matter expertise in the areas being regulated, namely forestry, agrology, applied biology, engineering and geoscience? Or would this person be primarily focused only the on the regulatory function from a governance point of view, as per the act?
Hon. G. Heyman: The emphasis will be on the latter point, because it’s not the job of the superintendent to regulate the professionals. The job of the superintendent is to ensure that the regulatory bodies are exercising proper oversight, that the requirements of the regulatory bodies meet the expectations that the public have, as will be outlined by the superintendent. So the focus is on expertise and regulatory oversight, not the actual work of the professionals themselves. We’ll leave that to the regulatory bodies.
M. Lee: I guess that’s where the nub of the issue will be, in terms of the actual implementation schedule and the reliance on the superintendent. The intentions paper, of course, speaks about issues relating to practice rights of professionals, regulation of professional firms in a corporate capacity, declaration of competence and conflicts of interest.
I appreciate that the overall framing is of a regulatory nature, certainly. But there will need to be — given the parallel nature, potentially, of the superintendent’s regulatory functions over top of these professional organizations — some appreciation and understanding of, you would think, the subject matter for which these professional organizations are regulating in those particular sectors.
As the Ministry of Environment and the Attorney General Ministry go through the actual selection process, is the minister concerned about that risk, in terms of how the superintendent will be able to work through all those regulatory areas?
Hon. G. Heyman: As the member knows, the Professional Governance Act is built around modernizing and strengthening the role of the regulatory authorities to ensure the issues the member raised — competency, addressing ethics and conflict of interest, ensuring that people doing particular specialized work within a profession are qualified to do that work and a range of other matters….
The role of the superintendent in addressing issues such as practice rights or any of the issues that have been raised by some of the associations as particular problems, I think, will be to hear from the parties, to hear them talk from their own position of expertise about what problems need to be addressed or where there may be potential overlaps or conflicts or concerns.
So what we want in the superintendent is somebody with the skills to dig into the information they get from these subject-matter experts in the field, the regulatory authorities, not to take over their role. And of course, the superintendent will have the ability to retain independent subject-matter expertise if he or she believes that is helpful or necessary.
M. Lee: Thank you for that. In terms of the intentions paper itself, it says at the back, in terms of providing comment, that there would be some inclusion of a — what we heard — summary. Can the minister update as to when that report on that summary of feedback to the intentions paper will be released? It says spring of 2019. Is there any update on that timing?
Hon. G. Heyman: Yes, it will be this spring. In fact, it’ll be very soon.
M. Lee: In terms of what the minister said previously in response to the previous question about potential further consultation, is there expectation by the Ministry of Environment or the Attorney General Ministry as to when the consultation process…? What are the milestones which the superintendent will be working with to get through the various stages? It sounds like it’s late spring, summer. These are the time frames for the initial steps. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Heyman: My ministry staff, as well as staff from the Attorney General’s ministry, have been meeting with the professional regulatory bodies regularly, on a schedule that’s about every four to six weeks, to work through the different issues of regulations as we go through the process of hiring the superintendent. Once the superintendent is in place, they will also be part of setting milestones or timelines for further development.
M. Lee: With that in mind, in terms of the general description of the implementation timeline, what is the expected allocation within the budget relating to the implementation during this year of this Professional Governance Act, including the appointment of the superintendent?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Questions relating to allocations in the Ministry of Attorney General budget toward establishing the office of the superintendent of professional governance and activities related to that should be directed to the Attorney General’s ministry.
In terms of our ministry, we have an uplift in the sustainable environment fund for a range of activities. Within that, about $300,000 is dedicated to our support for the Ministry of Attorney General and the transition work to both consult and help establish the office of the superintendent.
Noting the hour, Chair, 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 © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada