Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 242
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
B.C. Utilities Commission, annual report, 2017-18 | |
Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2018 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Members of the House will know that today, April 30, is Journey to Freedom Day. This reflects the trip to Canada, the struggle to Canada of Vietnamese Canadians — Vietnamese-Canadian refugees — which involved enormous numbers of Canadians, of course, who welcomed them, and the terrible sacrifice and loss of life on the part of people fleeing Vietnam.
On Saturday, I was joined by our colleague from Vancouver-Langara and my colleague from Delta North in a recognition event, by the province, of that day. Today in the gallery the president of the Vietnamese Cultural Heritage Association, a constituent of my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, Hop Phan is here. I’d like the House to make him welcome.
Hon. J. Sims: I rise today to recognize Mitch Muir, a building technology adviser in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. He is in the precinct.
On February 21, Mitch rushed to the aid of two boys who had fallen into an icy Coquitlam lake. He grabbed his ladder and ran to the beach and, with the aid of his neighbour, spread the ladder out onto the lake and shimmied out to get the struggling boys. They pulled the boys to safety and got them to shore by the time the first responders arrived. They were then taken to the hospital to be treated for hypothermia and shock.
Mitch performed this selfless act without regard for his own safety, kept a cool head and, in the process, saved the lives of two children. May I ask all those present to help recognize the bravery and courage exhibited by Mitch, who demonstrates the best in all of us.
T. Redies: We have 39 grade 10 students from White Rock Christian Academy with their teacher Mr. James Mace and a few parents attending the Legislature today. I would ask the House to join me in making them all feel very welcome.
Tributes
WAYSON CHOY
Hon. G. Chow: I stand today on B.C. Book Day to recognize and honour Wayson Choy, the acclaimed Canadian writer who died last weekend at his home in Toronto at the age of 80.
Wayson Choy was born and raised in Vancouver. He’s best known for his first novel, The Jade Peony, which won the prestigious Trillium prize. It tells the story of a family of Chinese immigrants in Vancouver during the 1930s, through the eyes of their three children.
Drawing on many of Choy’s own experiences, The Jade Peony was published in 1995 and was pioneering in portraying the life and culture of Chinese Canadians. He went on to write more award-winning works and had a long teaching career. In 2015, he won the George Woodcock Lifetime Achievement Award for his contribution to literature in British Columbia.
As a young gay man, he was told by his elders that he would die alone. The exact opposite was true. Wayson Choy was loved by his family, his friends and his readers in Vancouver, Toronto and across the country.
Please join me in sending our condolences.
Introductions by Members
L. Reid: I’d ask the House to join me in welcoming today to the chamber Bev Gutray. She has been a hero and iconic leader in the area of mental health forever, for absolutely forever, and I’d ask the House to join me in wishing her the very best.
Hon. H. Bains: I notice that in the House, I have real good friends up there. Steve Hunt, area director of district 3 of my old union, United Steelworkers, is here; along with Jennifer Whiteside, a secretary–business manager for the Hospital Employees Union; and Mike Old, coordinator of policy and planning. They are strong advocates on behalf of the working people. Join with me in giving them a warm, warm welcome.
Hon. L. Popham: Often I stand up in this House and speak about all things agriculture in the province, but today I have the pleasure of introducing some guests on one of my absolutely favourite non-agricultural days, B.C. Book Day.
Joining us in the gallery today are Heidi Waechtler, executive director, Association of Book Publishers; Jennifer Gauthier, president, Association of Book Publishers, marketing director at Greystone Books; Evelyn Gillespie, chair, B.C. Booksellers Association; Andrew Wooldridge, publisher, Orca Book Publishers; and Ruth Linka, publisher, Orca Book Publishers.
I hope all members will join us for B.C. Book Day at the downstairs rotunda over lunch.
J. Isaacs: I’d also like to welcome Mitch Muir to the House today. Mitch and I are neighbours. I live at one end of that lake, and Mitch lives at the other end of the lake. Just a week before this incident, there were probably 40 or 50 people out playing hockey on the lake, which we’ve done for about 30 years. Thankfully, Mitch was home that day — it wasn’t normal for him to be home on that day — and was able to rescue these two boys, who are just ten years old.
Mitch has a kayak. He goes back and forth every evening on the lake. I was talking to him about a week ago, and I said: “How did they thank you?” He said: “They wrote a letter, and one of the boys said, ‘Thank you, sir, for saving my life.’” Very honest and enduring.
Thanks and welcome, Mitch, here today.
Hon. C. Trevena: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today my counterpart from Manitoba. The Minister of Infrastructure for Manitoba, Ron Schuler, is in the gallery, along with his assistant Bruce Verry.
Ron is here for the WESTAC conference, the Western Transportation Advisory Council, which is holding its spring meeting here in Victoria. B.C. is the chair of WESTAC for this year, but obviously, because we’re in session, the chair is sitting at her place here.
The Minister of Infrastructure for Manitoba is anticipating a very lively question period, so I hope we will show what B.C. can provide.
M. Dean: It’s a real pleasure for me today to introduce a number of students and their parents who are in the gallery with us today, some grade 5 students from Wishart Elementary School. Jennifer Neufeldt, Carter Hutton, Addison Foulis and Maddie Kimola are here with their parents Geoff Hobson, Susan Neufeldt and Kristin Shipway.
We also have 13-year-old Rebecca Wolf-Gage and ten-year-old Colm Wolf-Gage with their parents, Andrew Gage and Grace Wolf.
We are also joined by Emma-Jane Burian and her mom, Amy-Lynn Burian.
Would you please give them a very warm welcome.
J. Rice: Daniel Smith is here today. Dan is the tribal manager for the Wuikinuxv First Nation. For those that don’t know where Wuikinuxv is, that’s in Rivers Inlet on the central coast. It’s about 500 kilometres northwest of Vancouver.
Dan has a long history working with the federal government, including with the B.C. Treaty Commission as a commissioner, DFO and other departments — Indian and Northern Affairs, now called ISC. Anyway, Dan is here. I’m happy to have a constituent from so far away. Would the House please make him feel welcome.
Hon. S. Simpson: I’m really pleased today to have the opportunity to welcome my wife and life partner, Cate Jones, who’s here visiting with us today. As we all know, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to our partners for the work that we do, and Cate is certainly no different. Please make Cate welcome.
Mr. Speaker: Deputy Speaker.
R. Chouhan: Finally. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to be recognized.
In addition to the introduction made by the Minister of Labour, I also would like to introduce two of my friends, Laird Cronk, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and Sussanne Skidmore. She is the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour.
I also wanted to introduce Steve Hunt — because I promised him that every time he comes, I’ll introduce him, but the minister has already done a wonderful job — and my sister, Jennifer Whiteside, and Michael.
Please join me and welcome them all.
S. Sullivan: We have a very special guest who now lives in West Vancouver, Julia Zhou. She is here to visit. Please make her welcome.
Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the member opposite in welcoming Bev Gutray to this House. Many members in this House will know her as the CEO of CMHA B.C. — Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. — for 26 years. She’s certainly spoken with all of us many times. She has really been, in so many ways, the grassroots voice of mental health in the province.
Bev is retiring after 26 years. Hard to believe. I don’t think if you ever looked up Bev’s name in the dictionary, you’d find “retiring” next to it. She will come back advocating in some other way. She’s been an amazing partner to our government and to the government previously, just initiating so many really, really important programs for children, for adults, in the workplace, in the community, and so on.
If the House would please join in welcoming and wishing a wonderful retirement to Bev Gutray.
S. Furstenau: I’d like to introduce Rachel McMillan, who’s here to shadow me for the day. Rachel went to high school in Kelowna, but she just finished her fourth year of political science at UVic, where she looked at global security and Canadian foreign policy. But most interestingly, she wrote an honours thesis on the impact of heckling on women in houses of parliament across Canada, which I’d be delighted to share with anybody who’d like to see it.
Rachel is a competitive soccer player. She played centre-back. She continues to play recreationally. She coordinates all the travel for her friends. She’s considering law school. Today she’s here to learn more about what happens in the B.C. Legislature.
And a quick shout-out and hello to Rebecca Wolf-Gage. It’s great to see you.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a young man, Steven Adams, who’s visiting the precinct today. He is an Oak Bay–Gordon Head former constituent. I had the great, distinct honour of coaching him in soccer, with his father, for a number of years. He’s an avid traveller, graduated from Mount Doug and just completed his first year in history at Camosun College. Would the House please make him feel very welcome as he learns about the Legislature here today.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 30 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019.
Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am honoured to introduce Bill 30, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019. The changes made by this bill will ensure better protection of collective bargaining rights for workers in British Columbia and will promote more harmonious labour relations for employers and unions. The bill acts on the recommendations provided to government by a panel of special advisers who undertook a comprehensive and public review of the labour relations code throughout the spring and summer of 2018.
Highlights of this bill include maintaining the current secret ballot vote for union certification but improving the certification process with shortened timelines and better protection against illegal interference in employees’ democratic right to union representation, protecting union certification and collective agreement rights for employees in specified sectors who are affected by contract re-tendering and enhancing mediation and arbitration provisions to ensure timely and efficient resolution of labour relations disputes.
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 30, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS
M. Stilwell: We see the power in sport every day. Stories of our athletes inspire us. Canada’s teams unite us. Sport teaches us lessons on and off the field. It creates opportunities and promotes healthy, active living. There are many benefits of sport, and I am incredibly proud of the champions and initiatives we have here in British Columbia that are helping to improve access, safety and inclusion in sport in my riding specifically like KidSport, PacificSport WheelKids and the Parksville Golden Oldies Sports Association, also known as PGOSA.
KidSport has more than 40 chapters in B.C. and is helping to ensure kids are not sidelined from sports simply because the costs are too great for their families. I have long been a supporter of the organization. I am incredibly excited to welcome the charity to Parksville-Qualicum, where a new chapter has opened.
PacificSport Vancouver Island has partnered with Nanaimo-Ladysmith public schools, the Nanaimo Child Development Centre and Let’s Play program for the WheelKids program. It’s helping kids learn the fundamentals of playing sports using wheelchairs.
We can participate in sport nearly our whole lives, and PGOSA in Parksville-Qualicum is creating opportunities for seniors to get out and be active in social and sport activities like hockey, slo-pitch and walking soccer.
These programs are just a few examples of what’s being done to ensure people of all ages and abilities have the opportunity to access sport, develop skills and tap into the lessons that sport has to offer like fair play, goal-setting, teamwork and perseverance. Nelson Mandela said it best: “Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does. It speaks to youth in a language they understand. Sport can create hope where there was only despair.”
We have much to celebrate in sport, but we lack a sports strategy in B.C. We underfund sport in this province. It’s time to make sport even better, safer and more inclusive by championing sport and allocating funds to make it a success. After all, we know the power of sport.
JANINE FULLER
S. Chandra Herbert: I’m sure we’ve all decried a time when we’ve missed an opportunity to say thank you or that we appreciate someone. Well, I’ve made a commitment to try to thank people and appreciate them more often, and here’s a good one.
I want to wish a very happy birthday to a constituent of mine, Janine Fuller. She’s an incredible neighbour — a leader, an artist, a playwright, a freedom-of-expression champion, a champion of books and culture, of LGBTQ human rights and, in her words, an “accidental activist.”
Janine is well known in my community of the West End for always being there. She’s the one that I know young people would go to if they were in trouble, visiting her while she managed the Little Sister’s bookshop for help with housing, if they needed a job. If they needed to deal with the aftermath of homophobic violence, she knew what to do. I know many LGBTQ youth that she helped pick up and connect to a better life.
She’s the one who puts on parties and then, on the spur of the moment, gets all of her guests to empty their wallets, their purses, whatever they happened to bring with them to donate to refugee groups; theatre companies; medical research on Huntington’s disease, which she is living with; legal action for freedom of speech. The list goes on. She is always giving, an example of humility, who never puts herself first but puts the community first — something that I think we should all work to emulate more often.
She’s well known for helping lead the fight against censorship from Canada Post against Little Sister’s bookshop. She’s less well known for starting the campaign, with her neighbours, against renovictions. “Renovictions” is a word that didn’t exist until she and her neighbours put a pinpoint on what, I would argue, are illegal actions to kick people out of their homes just so you could slap a coat of paint on, jack the rents up and gouge people for more money. She’s targeted it, and now we’re acting to end that practice.
Thank you, Janine and everyone at Bay Towers, for taking the lead on that.
Janine turned 61, and she was quite proud of it, when I talked to her. You know, our neighbourhood should be quite proud that she’s a citizen in the West End — a neighbour, a loved one.
Happy birthday, Janine. We all love you.
PALS AUTISM SOCIETY
AND SCHOOL
PROGRAM
L. Reid: In July of 2007, five mothers opened the PALS Autism School in a converted office space in East Vancouver. PALS quickly gained the support of like-minded individuals who recognized the need for a year-round, independent school in British Columbia for children with moderate to severe autism, from the ages five to 19. The school utilizes the most up-to-date, evidence-based best practice and technologies throughout the educational, therapeutic and recreational programs.
In 2010, PALS recognized the need for continued learning and established the adult program for transitioning young adults with autism, ages 19 and older. With its twin goals to continue learning while supporting full community engagement, the adult program offers job training; functional, academic and life skills; on- and off-site employment; and social and recreational opportunities.
PALS’s adult program is the only autism-specific program in British Columbia that offers young adults critical speech and language interventions that target social, thinking and communication skills, supported by a speech-language pathologist.
The PALS young adults are all currently employed in either paid or volunteer work, and several are also employed in PALS Social Enterprise. The Social Enterprise is currently in its second year of operation, and it has expanded its service to include custom candle making, manual assembly and packaging services.
PALS Autism Society believes that a positive and supportive learning environment is key to strengthening and empowering students and young adults.
On March 1, 2019, the PALS school program moved into its new location in the Queens Park neighbourhood of New Westminster. It’s located in a three-storey, 10,000-square-foot heritage building, with surrounding expansive green space and playgrounds. PALS staff and families worked around the clock in one weekend to facilitate the move into their precious new home.
Currently PALS students commute daily from all parts of the Lower Mainland, including Coquitlam, Ladner, Burnaby, Richmond, New West, North Vancouver and Vancouver. Within this centre relocation, we anticipate that new families will consider PALS school for providing a safe, compassionate and intensive learning environment, supporting their child living with autism.
I welcome them to their new home, and I’m forever grateful for the support they offer to British Columbia families.
To Katy Harandi and her magnificent team, good job on your 12th annual event. You have done some wondrous work on behalf of British Columbia families.
ANIMAL SHELTERS AND PET ADOPTION
R. Leonard: Today is also National Adopt a Shelter Pet Day. Having a pet to love and to be loved by unconditionally is a special gift that lasts a lifetime. Finding that pet in a shelter makes for an extra-special bond.
The Comox Valley SPCA is a mid-size shelter with one manager, six workers and up to 40 dedicated volunteers. Staff member Jed McPherson told me they handle about 700 animals at our shelter every year, with about 450 adoptions, including cats and dogs and a hundred other animals, like a bearded dragon, snakes, a pot-bellied pig and other farm animals. You can even foster kittens and puppies.
Forty-four B.C. SPCAs across the province support each other to care for thousands of animals. When there’s a big seizure, like when 120 cats were retrieved from one double-wide trailer, they are shared amongst many shelters. They share their donations too.
Sick and injured animals are nursed to health before being put up for adoption. Tooth care eats up most of their medical budget. With their updated model of care, the shelter is more home-like with larger kennels, communal space for the cats inside and large play areas for the dogs outside. The animals are less stressed and show better, resulting in fast turnaround — so fast that their website is updated every 45 minutes and stays have dropped from 40 to ten days.
Adoption fees save families hundreds of dollars compared to getting animals elsewhere. It includes the spay or neuter, vaccines, pest control, a free vet exam, a trial bag of food and six weeks of pet insurance. Cost: $173 versus about $700 for a female cat, and only $354 for dogs.
My shelter dog and cats brought me life-lasting joy. Bring joy to your life by visiting a pet shelter today.
STATUARY IN LEGISLATURE
L. Larson: While I know we all pay close attention to everything that happens in this assembly, occasionally our eyes and thoughts may wander. I will admit to my own lack of attention a few weeks ago, when I gazed up to the last tier of this beautiful chamber and noted that each window was embellished with a female statue.
I was curious as to why what seemed to be a Grecian or Italian female statue, nude from the waist up, was wearing what appeared to be a grass skirt. Perhaps there wasn’t a dress code policy at the time. Not sure why a seemingly Hawaiian or Polynesian theme would be featured in these hallowed halls, I decided to do a bit of research on the figures in this chamber.
The very stern male faces looking down on us were thought to represent great thinkers, like Plato and Aristotle — perhaps meant to inspire those of us in this chamber. But when the staff in the library did some research on the female statues, they could only come up with a mention in an article in the Victoria Daily Colonist dated February 10, 1898: “Halfway to the ceiling, a gallery runs around the hall, smaller marble pillars reaching to the roof from there, while away at the top, veiled in the dim light of the roof, are female figures, one on each side of the roof windows.”
There does not appear to be any explanation in the archives for these graceful forms, except perhaps a whim of Mr. Rattenbury during construction. Perhaps someone knows if there is a story behind the half-Grecian, half-Hawaiian figures, but for now it will remain a bit of a mystery.
EARTH DAY AND STUDENT ACTION
M. Dean: Last week it was Earth Day on April 22. I rise today to speak in honour of some amazing work that young students have been doing in our community that supports the concept of Earth Day, like Rebecca. She’s a 13-year-old who started to lead climate strikes here in Victoria. She’s joined in her action by her ten-year-old brother, Colm, and many other youth in the community.
She says she was inspired by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden, who started the movement of striking every Friday. Rebecca says she’s on climate strike because she wants people to know that her generation cares about the climate crisis. “As children, we can’t vote or run for Parliament,” she says. “But one of the things we can do is strike.”
This Friday, May 3, is the next national school strike, and there will be activities here at the Legislature.
I also want to highlight the work of Carter Hutton, Maddie Kimola, Jennifer Neufeldt and Addison Foulis, who are grade 5 students at Wishart Elementary School in Colwood. When the Premier and I visited the school earlier this term, we met the whole class, and we were presented with a petition that these students had collated. They have 145 signatures of B.C. residents against logging of old-growth forests.
I’m impressed with the commitment and determination of these students. They’re keeping themselves informed, they’re looking to the future and they are taking effective action. I thank them for their work and their leadership, and I look forward to continuing to find ways to support them.
Oral Questions
ACTION ON GAS PRICES
A. Wilkinson: Well, yesterday we canvassed the issue of the Premier’s quote from March 21, 2018, where he said: “We are monitoring gas prices, and we will take steps if necessary. We have talked about a range of options.”
To the Finance Minister, what are the options?
Hon. B. Ralston: It’s good to hear the Leader of the Opposition on this point, but let’s talk about the so-called plan that he has put forward, which would do nothing to provide relief to drivers and would give a giant subsidy to oil and gas companies. His proposal that we take one or two cents off the motor fuel tax would mean that gas companies would simply increase the tax and pocket the difference. Meanwhile, the result would be the slashing of services that British Columbians depend upon.
It’s not a plan, and it won’t help British Columbians. That’s the solution he’s put forward, but it’s not supported….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may hear the response.
Hon. B. Ralston: I know the Leader of the Opposition is interested in this point.
Werner Antweiler, a professor at the UBC Sauder School of Business, said on the plan: “I’m quite astonished by this proposal, because it defies any economic logic. Any such measure would just be an incentive for oil companies to raise their prices to absorb that reduction in taxes. So it wouldn’t really change the prices, but it would boost the profits of the oil companies, and it would do absolutely nothing for consumers. It’s a completely ineffective proposition. It makes no economic sense.”
That’s the Leader of the Opposition’s so-called plan.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Well, this is a very simple question, and we’ll look for an answer here in question period.
The question is, given the Premier’s quote, “We have talked about a range of options,” 13 months ago, can anyone on the government benches tell us what they were and what they are?
Hon. B. Ralston: It’s interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition on this point, of course, because a few months ago he was extolling the fact that the private market should be left alone to determine gasoline prices. That’s what he said. He also said this: “I don’t see any need to change the carbon tax plan at this point.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. B. Ralston: The Leader of the Opposition has had a number of positions — a serial position-taker, I suppose — and his current so-called plan defies economic logic.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: We’re seeing a new standard met today for the complete non-answer to an important issue.
So 12 months ago, the Premier said he had a number of options at that time. On April 8 of this year, about 20 days ago, the Premier said: “We’re going to monitor it and make sure. If we’re in a position to provide relief, we’ll do that.”
What relief was the Premier talking about? Perhaps we can get an answer from anyone on this government bench.
Hon. B. Ralston: It’s clear that the Leader of the Opposition has finally discovered that gas prices are going up. What people maybe don’t know is about how he discovered this. Apparently, I’m told, his chauffeur advised him while they were….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.
Hon. B. Ralston: This conversation took place while they were motoring to the West Vancouver Yacht Club.
J. Johal: Before I ask my question, I remind the member that the only person with a chauffeur in this room is the Premier.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, order, please. We shall hear the question.
J. Johal: On March 21, 2018, the price of gas in Vancouver was $1.53 a litre. On that day, the Premier said: “We are monitoring gas prices, and we will take steps if necessary. We have talked about a range of options, and we will look at those options should prices remain high.”
Today gas prices are $1.70 a litre. What options did the NDP government look at a year ago, and when will they give British Columbians the relief at the pumps that they promised?
Hon. B. Ralston: There’s no doubt that in the Lower Mainland and throughout the province, people are suffering the burden of rising gas prices. In fact, in the last three months, gas prices in greater Vancouver have increased by 40 cents, but only one cent of that increase was due to an increase in taxes.
What the opposition doesn’t want to talk about is the other 39 cents. Oil companies are taking advantage of British Columbians to pocket huge profits. Unfortunately, there is no simple fix. The Premier, as he has said publicly, has directed his deputy minister to review regulatory options that might be available, and we will work with the federal government to determine if the Competition Bureau can address this outrageous gouging.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: British Columbians are tired of sky-high gas prices. I remind the minister again that it was the Premier who said a year ago that he looked at a range of options. Those were his words. He promised relief.
I ask the minister again: what are those options?
Hon. B. Ralston: Our side of the House is committed to making life more affordable here in British Columbia.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Minister, you can proceed when you feel you can speak without being interrupted.
Hon. B. Ralston: Well, that may be a little bit too much to ask for, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate the sentiment.
We have eliminated MSP premiums — $900 for a single person, $1,800 for a family. We have reined in Hydro and ICBC rate increases. Under our government, taxes have gone down for all British Columbians, except the top 1 percent. In contrast, the opposition’s so-called plan would not bring relief to drivers but would be simply a gift to the oil industry. So if the so-called plan were adopted, can the Leader of the Opposition explain which service he would cut? Would he cut the SkyTrain in Surrey, would he cut the Broadway extension, would he cut road repairs, or would they cut health care and education?
Research shows that the oil companies are gouging British Columbians by an extra $800 million in extra profit every year, and the opposition doesn’t want to look at that. They just want to give people a subsidy. That’s what they stand for. On this side of the House, we will stand on our record of affordability for working families here in British Columbia.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
STATUS OF LEAKING GAS WELLS
S. Furstenau: I can’t help but reflect on how the young leaders who are up in the gallery are experiencing this conversation right now as they gather for climate strikes every Friday.
In 2013, the preliminary gas migration project was initiated by the Oil and Gas Commission in order to obtain an initial understanding of the extent and causes of gas migration. That is the flow of gas outside of the surface casing of a well, or leaking gas. At that time, the report indicated that it did not have an accurate understanding of the total number of wells with gas migration. However, it did find 144 confirmed instances of leaks and speculated that there could be more than 900 leaking wells in just one small operating area in the northeast of B.C.
The government did not release that report to the public until 2017 and only then because a copy was obtained by a media outlet.
My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It is now 2019. Does she know exactly how many wells in B.C. are leaking right now?
Hon. M. Mungall: I thank the member for the question. I think her question also highlights the changes being made under this government, compared to the past government, in terms of our responsibility as regulators of the oil and gas sector.
The past government did not do their job very well. We’ve come in and have hit the ground running. This past January alone we introduced new regulations to reduce methane emissions from upstream oil and gas operations, and we did that with input from both environmental organizations as well as industry. As a result, we were able to design improved leak detection and repair so that we can address this issue and, of course, be the regulators that government is supposed to be.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: I’ll try again. Shortly after the report came to light in 2017, a resident in northeast B.C. requested information on the status of those leaking wells. She was told by government that only ten had been repaired.
Under the current regulations, any decision to force companies that own leaking wells to fix them is done at the Oil and Gas Commission’s discretion. The commission may allow leaks to go unaddressed on the grounds that the leaks pose a “low risk to the environment and human health.”
My question is again to the minister. Can the minister please confirm how many wells are currently leaking gas; what, if any, plans she has to see those wells cleaned up; and if the Oil and Gas Commission has deemed many of the leaking wells to be “low risk,” how the commission reached that conclusion?
Hon. M. Mungall: Addressing the issue of methane emissions and leaks, gas migration, is all very much a part of our CleanBC plan. By 2025, our plan will see a reduction in methane emissions by 45 percent. That is very, very important in terms of meeting our overall goal to reduce our impact on climate change.
In terms of how we’re going to get there, what happens on the day to day, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission performs about….
Interjections.
Hon. M. Mungall: More nonsense from the official opposition, I hear. If they would like to be patient and allow me to answer the question, hon. Speaker, so that British Columbians can actually know what’s going on — something that they did not want to actually happen in terms of ignoring their obligation as regulators when they were in government….
The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Mungall: I’m about to give one, if you’ll stop heckling.
The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission performs around…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mungall: …4,000 to 5,000 inspections per year. We are doing our level best to ensure that we are reducing our methane emissions. We’re also studying the issue around gas migration by supporting four projects — three at UBC and one at Queen’s University — so that we can strengthen the technical requirements and the data collection, so that we are doing the job as regulators of this industry.
ACTION ON GAS PRICES
S. Bond: Here’s what we know. Today British Columbians are paying the highest gasoline prices and gas taxes in North America. The Premier and now this minister stands here every single day and refuses to answer a straightforward simple question. So let’s remind the minister or any minister on that side of the House what the Premier said, the Premier’s own words. A year ago, March 21, here’s what he said — not what the Leader of the Opposition said, not what anyone else said but what the Premier said: “We are monitoring gas prices, and we will take steps if necessary. We have talked about a range of options.”
A pretty straightforward question: could the minister name one option for the House today?
Hon. B. Ralston: The opposition continues pursuing their so-called plan that will lead to subsidies to oil companies, and it will increase their profits. Denounced very categorically by the UBC Sauder School of Business’s Professor Antweiler, it defies economic logic. That’s their position.
On this side of the House, we’re committed to making life more affordable for people here in British Columbia. The fact is that working- and middle-class families in British Columbia are paying lower taxes today than they did under the old government. With Budget 2019 changes, compared to the opposition’s plan, an average family of four — this is not the top 1 percent, mind you; this is people earning $60,000 a year — will see a 60 percent net reduction in their taxes. A family earning $80,000 will see a 43 percent net reduction in taxes. A family earning $100,000 will see a 22 percent net reduction in their taxes. In addition, we are more than doubling child benefits for hard-working middle-class families.
We made a historic investment of over $1 billion over three years in affordable child care. We made the biggest investment in affordable housing in B.C.’s history, $7 billion over ten years. That’s our agenda for affordability here in British Columbia. We’re proud of it, and we are moving forward on that agenda.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, what’s blatantly obvious from that non-answer is that this minister cannot provide one single option to British Columbians who are feeling pain at the pump — not one single option.
It is time for this minister or the government, anyone on that side of the House, to stand up and tell British Columbians what the Premier meant when he said that he was going to monitor prices, that he would actually look at potential relief.
Let’s try it again. The minister can turn every page in his briefing book. Let’s turn to the page that says “Options” and read one of them, just one of them — one option today.
Hon. B. Ralston: It’s always an experience to feel the jab of the finger from the member from Prince George.
It is frustrating to see gas prices shooting up while the price of oil stays flat. We know and they know — maybe they know, but they don’t want to acknowledge — that gas prices are impacted by a low Canadian dollar, refinery maintenance and other market forces. We’re also seeing gas company refining margins in British Columbia are much higher than the rest of Canada.
In the last three months, certainly in the Lower Mainland, prices have gone up 40 cents. Of that, one cent is due to an increase in tax. The opposition, the members opposite, don’t want to talk about the other 39 cents whatsoever. Oil companies are taking advantage of British Columbians to pocket huge profits.
There is no magic bullet; there is no quick fix. The Deputy Minister to the Premier, the senior public servant in the government of British Columbia, is investigating and will report back to the Premier and to the cabinet with regulatory options very soon.
We are advancing our affordability agenda. I’ve talked repeatedly about what we are doing for British Columbians, whether it’s reducing the taxes…. A family earning $60,000 income will see a 60 percent net reduction in taxes. We are advancing an affordability agenda here, and it’s working.
J. Thornthwaite: Nobody believes the Premier or this minister. It was the Premier who said he was looking at options, but so far he’s done absolutely nothing to give people the relief that he promised.
My constituents pay the highest gasoline prices and the highest gasoline taxes anywhere in North America.
What options has the Premier looked at, and when is he going to take action and give people a break at the pumps?
Hon. B. Ralston: As I’ve said, our government is committed to making life more affordable for British Columbians. Let me list once again…. I think the opposition doesn’t like hearing about this. With the Budget 2019 changes, compared to the opposition’s plan, an average family of four earning $60,000 will see a 60 percent net reduction in taxes. An average family of four earning $80,000 will see a 43 percent reduction in taxes. A family earning $100,000 will see a net reduction of 22 percent in their taxes.
We are doubling child benefits for hard-working, middle-class families. We’ve made a historical investment in child care. In fact, in my own riding, I’ve gone out and talked to child care providers. The costs for child care in the three-to-five category — dramatic reduction. A real boon to people who have children in child care, something that the previous government never did in 16 years.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.
Hon. B. Ralston: We’re eliminating MSP premiums. I could go on, as you might expect, Mr. Speaker, but I’ll sit down.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: I just do not understand how this government can talk about affordability when we pay the highest gasoline prices in North America. The Premier promised…. These are the Premier’s words: “If we’re in a position to provide relief, we’ll do that.”
When will the NDP give British Columbians a break at the pumps?
Hon. B. Ralston: It’s surprising to me that the member’s outrage is confined very narrowly and expresses no concern about the fact that 39 of the 40 cents in the increase in the Lower Mainland in the last three months goes to the oil companies themselves, not to the government. It goes to the oil companies. So it’s a very selective kind of outrage that we’re witnessing here today.
In fact, the so-called plan that her leader, the Leader of the Opposition, put forward would be a gift to the oil companies. That reduction in tax would be eaten up by increased prices by the oil companies. That’s why Professor Antweiler called it “a completely ineffective proposition. It makes no economic sense.”
That’s their policy. On this side of the House, we’re fighting for affordability for British Columbians as we go forward.
ACTION ON GAS PRICES
AND ROLE OF PIPELINE
CAPACITY
P. Milobar: Let’s try this one more time. On this side of the House, we’re trying to get a simple answer of at least one option the Premier was talking about…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question.
P. Milobar: …so that the public could actually understand what the Premier was talking about. It’s not just this side of the House that apparently has no clue what the Premier was talking about, because no one in the cabinet knows what the Premier was talking about either.
The Premier knows perfectly well what would reduce gas prices: a cut in taxes and getting a pipeline built. Gas prices in Vancouver — they’re 50 cents higher than they are in Calgary right now. The longer-term solution of the pain at the pumps is definitely the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
In fact, on April 25, 2007, the now Premier said: “I want to talk about” the Trans Mountain pipeline “in terms of our ability to reduce the cost of gasoline in the Lower Mainland and across the province. I’m assuming that pipeline capacity improvement would be a start in that direction.” That was the Premier then. We know that last year the Premier was talking about exploring a range of options to bring relief for the pain at the pumps.
We are asking a very straightforward question. What exactly were the options? Just one — if the minister could answer just one, even, that would be a relief today for people to know that the Premier was actually following through on his words over the last year and not just now starting to explore options. What options over the last year was the Premier talking about, and what action has been taken to relieve the pain at the pumps?
Hon. G. Heyman: I’ve listened for the last 25-some-odd minutes, and apparently the opposition wishes to focus on one narrow aspect of affordability and completely ignore that every single remaining part of their policy would make life harder for British Columbians, not easier, and would make life less affordable for British Columbians, not more affordable.
I wish the members on the other side could simply deal with facts instead of fearmongering. I wish….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: It would be a relief if the members on the other side would stand with members on this side to support true affordability for British Columbians through all of the measures that they have said they would repeal, which are making life better for British Columbians every day.
As to the member opposite’s comment about pipeline capacity, let me….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: I’d be happy to answer the question if the members opposite would be happy to listen.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m coming to a close. If they would like the answer, I’m happy to give it.
Let me tell the members opposite what Trans Mountain, the pipeline company, told the National Energy Board about capacity for refined product in the pipeline if the pipeline was twinned and expanded. They said that there would be no increase in refined product shipments as a result of the expansion project — zero, none. It will make no difference to British Columbia gas prices. It will risk tens of thousands of jobs for no relief at the pump.
[End of question period.]
Point of Privilege
Hon. D. Eby: I rise on a point of personal privilege that I reserved in relation to a speech made by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie in the House yesterday morning. These are some of the remarks that I object to. For the full speech, I encourage members to refer to Hansard.
The member for Prince George–Mackenzie began that a lot of this speech “is based on my 32 years in the RCMP, much of it as a senior manager, up until I retired.”
He said that the Attorney General was privy to a briefing “with respect to ongoing issues. He was privy to the contents of a confidential report, and he released that report in September of 2017…. Because of the release of that information, it compromised” an anti-money-laundering investigation, and “it compromised the prosecution of, or the ability to prosecute, that particular case.”
The Attorney General doesn’t have the confidence of the police forces and many other agencies involved in anti-money-laundering investigations “because he just so indiscreetly released information that jeopardized the ongoing investigations that the police forces across Canada were involved in, dealing with money laundering in British Columbia.”
The report the member was referring to was authored by a third-party business firm called MNP, which was commissioned by the previous government to look into the general practices related to anti–money laundering in a Lower Mainland casino. I released this report to the public in September of 2017.
The investigation the member is referring to is the investigation into the alleged activities at a money service business called Silver International, which has been described as one of the biggest anti-money-laundering investigations in Canadian history. The federal prosecution of that file collapsed in December 2018, as described by the member. The publicly known code name of that investigation was E-Pirate.
The core of the member’s stated concern is that the MNP report was confidential. He says that my release of this report was done carelessly at best, at worst over the objections of police and the regulator and that, as a result, I compromised the E-Pirate investigation and ultimately caused the collapse of the federal prosecution. He says he knows a lot of this because he is a former senior RCMP member and, one presumes, because he has connections with that police force and has heard these things from the RCMP or other regulators or police officers that he knows from career experience.
For the record, before releasing the MNP report, of course, my ministry was very careful to clear its release with both the gaming policy and enforcement branch and the police, through the Ministry of Solicitor General. Sections of the report were redacted as harmful to law enforcement based on the feedback we received.
Similarly, and quite opposite to what the member is suggesting, the gaming policy and enforcement branch regulators did not wish to keep the issue of money laundering in B.C. casinos secret to support ongoing investigations. The issue of money laundering was notorious in their shop and the illegal activity ongoing, as of my briefing. They were not happy about that situation. It was my clear impression that the regulator was profoundly concerned about what was happening in our casinos and wanted direction to stop it. It was my belief, based on their comments, actions and support, that they hoped we would expose this activity to British Columbians and end it.
I don’t expect the members here to find it sufficient that the report was actually redacted, based on recommendations from law enforcement and the regulator, to believe that its release did not somehow compromise the E-Pirate investigation, so I will point to objective and verifiable external facts. It is simply not possible that the release of this MNP report tipped off the subjects of the Silver International investigation to anything of which they were not already fully aware in relation to police interest in them.
First, the report itself concerned general practices and procedures at casinos, not the criminal investigation of Silver International and its principals. It was on an entirely different topic and contained no information related to E-Pirate, except that both involved the broad issue of money laundering.
Second, the subjects of the Silver International investigation were well aware that they were under significant police scrutiny as part of a very large investigation into their activities almost a full year before the MNP report was released. I can know this with certainty because the subjects of the E-Pirate investigation faced not one, not five, not ten but 13 separate police searches executed at their residences and places of business in 2015 and 2016.
These searches were conducted while the member was Solicitor General. He had personal knowledge of these searches. In fact, he said he knew about these searches during his speech. But even if he didn’t have personal knowledge of these searches, these matters were facts in the public realm for at least a year before the release of that report. The details of these 13 searches and the investigation of Silver International and its principals were canvassed in a public B.C. Supreme Court judgment from 2016 involving Canada Revenue Agency. A lengthy affidavit from the RCMP was tendered as a public exhibit in that proceeding.
The principles alleged to be involved in these illegal activities were represented at this hearing by two lawyers who received and made arguments on that very detailed police affidavit which concerned the E-Pirate investigation; the police search warrants; what was found during the searches, including millions of dollars in cash; and the allegations, which included money laundering through gaming activity.
In short, the subjects of the investigation had extensive personal knowledge of this investigation targeting them. They did not have this knowledge as a result of a government-commissioned report on anti-money-laundering practices in a B.C. casino released almost a full year later by this government.
I understand that the member has a legacy as Solicitor General he is rightly concerned about, given the activities that took place while he was in that post. The member should indeed defend his legacy, but he must do so based on something resembling the truth. His comments were reprehensible, demonstrably false and attacked the core of my ministerial responsibility as Attorney General, which includes maintaining the confidence of an array of agencies, regulators and public servants on a host of very serious issues.
This attack on my integrity, without any proof and, in fact, with readily available facts that refute these attacks, compromises my ability to work with law enforcement, regulators and others. This attack was especially problematic because the member cited his authority as a former senior RCMP member in making this attack, an authority that would cause a reasonable member of the public to believe he had some sort of inside information.
In other words, the member’s speech was not part of the cut and thrust of debate in this place. It was calculated to undermine our government’s efforts to attack money laundering in our province by telling police and regulators not to trust the Attorney General.
I take no issue with the member being able to raise concerns about my ability to maintain confidence if he has information grounded in fact to believe I have breached confidence. That is certainly not the case here.
On the issue of whether I compromised the federal prosecution, although it barely merits a rebuttal because it is so preposterous, as I have said, the principals in Silver International had personal knowledge of this as result of a detailed RCMP affidavit.
Nobody, save for the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, has ever suggested — ever — that there is any connection between the collapse of the federal prosecution and the release of the provincial government report on casino practices in B.C. He simply made it up. It is as absurd as it is offensive. He should retract his false statements.
I believe he is better than this. On many occasions in this house, I have respected statements that he has made and his good intentions representing his constituents in his role. This speech was not one of those moments.
Mr. Speaker: Attorney, I’ll take this under advisement.
Meanwhile, does the member wish to make a response?
M. Morris: I’d like to reserve my opportunity to make a response at a later time.
Tabling Documents
Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the B.C. Utilities Commission annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, and the 2018 Annual Report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 28, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. In Committee A, I call Bill 4, Witness Security Act, continued debate on that. In the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations.
M. Dean: I seek leave to present a petition.
Leave granted.
Petitions
M. Dean: I have the honour of presenting a petition against old-growth logging on behalf of students at Wishart Elementary School in Colwood.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 28 — ZERO-EMISSION
VEHICLES
ACT
(continued)
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. Obviously, I’ll be speaking in strong support of it.
Before I begin, please let me summarize the irony of what I heard during question period today. Question period, when we had a discussion, a discussion emanating from members of the opposition, questioning about the price of gas in British Columbia. We had suggestions from members opposite that one of the ways that we should deal with the price of gas is to bring in a price cap. That was a direct quote from the Leader of the Official Opposition.
You know, what we should have been talking about here is actually the opportunity that’s afforded us now, given the gouging that’s going on. We know that the price of gas in British Columbia, the 40-cent increase, is largely because of refinery margin, which in British Columbia is more than twice what it is in other jurisdictions in Canada. That’s what the real question is. So I could actually answer the question very simply that the members opposite asked in question period.
Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.
A. Weaver: We’ll keep to the bill, but it’s really important to recognize that the Zero-Emission Vehicle Act…. Why it’s relevant to this bill is that we’re talking about bringing in legislation to move towards 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Right now we’re also, in question period, talking about gas prices. What is remarkable is the disconnect between these two.
What we know, and what should have been said and what I was wishing government would have said, is that we do have a role for the B.C. Utilities Commission. Perhaps the B.C. Utilities Commission might start to look at this refinery margin that exists in British Columbia. That is something government could do, and perhaps they will do it in the fall, but now is not the time to be discussing that in detail, because of course, we’re discussing the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.
In this act…. It’s emerging from CleanBC, which is part of the government and, in collaboration with us, a commitment to reducing emissions, but it’s not really a commitment just to reduce emissions. It’s an economic agenda. This is a flagship proposal in a larger economic vision to position British Columbia as leaders in the new economy.
What happens in this bill, of course, is it builds upon the structure of the pathway towards getting zero-emission vehicles by bringing in place new requirements for car sales in the province of British Columbia. What’s important in doing the car sales is creation of an additional wrapping-around credit-debit system — a ZEV unit, so to speak — and a whole accounting system, mirrored after what’s being done in California, which is being done to ensure compliance and enforcement and allow uptrading and penalties for companies that are having some difficulty meeting the ZEV standard. They can work with other companies that perhaps have less difficulty.
The bill talks about provincial targets. At least 10 percent of all new light-duty vehicles sold in British Columbia must be zero-emission by 2025. By 2030, that rises to 30 percent, and by 2040, that rises to 100 percent.
That’s the essence of the bill. The details, the important details and where the meat of the bill actually lies, is with respect to the ZEV units which are being created — ZEV, meaning zero-emission vehicle — to allow for the compliance of new car dealers in the province of British Columbia.
This is a very aggressive pathway to ZEV adoption. It’s one that we’re very supportive of. It’s one that is much stronger, in my view, than some of the other jurisdictions that have ZEV standards out there. It’s one that’s mirroring what’s happening elsewhere around the world, whether it be Netherlands or the U.K. or India or China, which are moving towards the rapid adoption of non-emitting vehicles and the elimination of gas as a fuel for such vehicles.
Therein lies the irony, which is why, again, coming back to the debate earlier today, it’s important to relate the two. Here we see, around the world, car companies as well as consumers are moving away from emitting vehicles. They’re not there now, but they’re moving away towards it. Here we have, in British Columbia, an ironic debate, as we’re moving away, as we’re seeing oil companies gouge us with the refinery margin in B.C. that is more than twice the refinery margin of other jurisdictions in Canada.
There is a role for the BCUC to look into this, and perhaps we will look into this. But frankly, for us, in this place, to be debating the lowest-common-denominator politics — the lowest common denominator — talking about introducing price caps…. It’s the wrong conversation. The public…. Both sides of this House should be saying, “Enough is enough,” to these oil companies.
Now, I recognize that they’ve just been given one of the greatest handouts of corporate welfare in Canadian history, through the LNG generational sellout that this government, supported by opposition, has moved forward. Now, I realize that they’re licking their lips at that corporate welfare, but enough is enough.
While this bill is important in taking us to the pathway towards zero-emitting vehicles, what’s equally important is that the public recognize that now is the time for us not to respond to this oil company gouging. Rather than playing on their terms, let us take this opportunity to British Columbia to join the rest of the world and show leadership by saying we are not going to play that game. We are not going to play that game of price gouging.
Maybe we’re going to carpool less. Maybe we can’t afford a zero-emission vehicle. They’ll be coming down in price because of this bill, I can tell you that, because of the requirement to bring here, and there’ll be lots of capacity. The secondhand market is already flowing in British Columbia. Maybe they can’t go with that because they can’t afford it.
But what people can afford is, perhaps, carpooling. They can afford, perhaps, transit. They can afford, perhaps, riding a bike. In the market of supply and demand, if we reduce demand and there is the same supply, that’ll put less pressure on price.
Opposition’s response is to somehow have a massive market intervention by government — to somehow not deal with supply, not deal with demand, but put in a price cap — which is one of the greatest incentives you could give to an oil company to increase prices, because the government is on the hook for any price increase. Outrageous. But that’s what we’ve come to expect.
In British Columbia, right now we are leaders in terms of zero-emission vehicle adoption, particularly in the metro Victoria region. One of the most common cars you will see on the road in Victoria is, in fact, the Nissan LEAF, a car that I own, a car that my friend from Saanich North and the Islands owns — he actually owns two of them, a new one and a secondhand one — and one that many, many people are owning. In fact, I now own two EVs. We just bought a new Hyundai Kona, which is a 415-kilometre-range non-emitting vehicle. It hasn’t arrived yet because there’s so much demand. We will have no more gas cars in my household.
Yes, we drive all over B.C., and we drive all over the place. We do so without range anxiety. The reason why is that no one should have range anxiety. Let me say this to you, hon. Speaker. If you’re driving in the interior of B.C., where infrastructure charging is not as good but is growing and you run out of gas, you’re in trouble. You’ve got to walk perhaps miles or get towed to a gas station.
If you’re driving a zero-emission vehicle and you see that you’re getting low on electricity, you don’t have to worry about a gas leak. That’s not going to happen in a zero-emission vehicle. Electrons don’t leak out of the battery per se. But if you’re getting short and it’s desperate, just go to a farmhouse and say: “Hey, can I give you five bucks or ten bucks for a bit of electricity? I’m going to run out.”
Interjection.
A. Weaver: Or you can do jerry cans, sure. But you have to hope that the farmhouse has gas in the back. They might.
Interjection.
A. Weaver: Well, they might, but they might have marked fuel, and that would be a problem if it was marked fuel. Marked fuel you can’t put in a car.
To the member for Peace River South, I’m dealing with the issue of range anxiety. Range anxiety is really artificial. It’s being created by people who are afraid that they need to have a big thing to charge up. You actually don’t. You can charge up at home on 120 volts. It takes a little longer, but you often don’t need to charge up for 12 hours. If you’re getting close, you plan your destination. It’s no different from planning where the gas stations are. If you’re going to drive on a big highway and you notice “last gas station for 300 kilometres,” you check your gas gauge and say, “Nah, I’d better not go” or “I’d better fill up now.” It’s no different with an EV.
What has been happening in British Columbia, what is important to do, and what I’m pleased to see is being done is that if you’re going to bring in a ZEV mandate — like we have here, an aggressive one — you must match it with a growing and increasing infrastructure. I’m very pleased to see that happening.
Particularly, I’ve experienced that on Vancouver Island with my Nissan LEAF’s 170-kilometre range. On the highway, you don’t quite get that. If you drive a little over 90 — on the highway on Vancouver Island, you can go 110 up by the Parksville area — it’s not as efficient. However, we now have charging stations at Buckley Bay, multiple fast chargers there. We have them in Courtenay, Comox. We have them in the Ucluelet and Tofino area. We have them up and down the Island. The infrastructure is coming in, and it’s being done at a very methodical pace that’s keeping up with demand. In cities like Victoria or Vancouver, there are so many charging stations that access to electricity is not a problem.
The problem that government is going to need to deal with in a shorter time frame than perhaps it’s thinking about is the fact that there are still far too many charging stations giving the electricity away for free. The reason why that might sound like a good idea is that it’s an incentive to get your electric vehicle. That’s one thing.
The problem with giving away electricity for free is that as more and more EV adopters get into the market, many of them haven’t got the experience of recognizing the culture, the etiquette, the social norms that have been developed by longtime EV users. That is, you don’t park in an EV parking space and use the electricity just because it’s a convenient parking space. You park in a parking space and use the electricity because you need it, because if you don’t have it, you won’t go anywhere.
This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. I call them freeloaders. They’re there, charging up electricity, not because they need it but because it’s free. That’s a problem, because it then takes up a perfectly good EV charging station from somebody who needs it. This is very problematic with the high-voltage DC chargers.
It’s imperative that government bring in, now that we’ve got new BCUC analysis of this issue, a more rapid transition to charging — for all EV stations on Vancouver Island and the rest of B.C. — in order to ensure that they’re used when they’re supposed to be used. When you’re paying 35 cents a kilowatt hour, which is the price that you pay at, say, a Greenlot station — the original Greenlot stations, a few of them that were installed. One’s at Wal-Mart; there’s one in Duncan, for example. You pay 35 cents a kilowatt hour. It sounds like a lot, but it translates to a little over 2 bucks to go from Victoria to Nanaimo. That’s not that expensive.
People have no problem paying 35 cents per kilowatt hour — which is more than three times the retail rate of electricity in British Columbia — to actually charge their vehicles, because it’s insignificant, and because of the fact that you have no moving parts. You have no oil and gas filter. You have no radiator. You have no exhaust system. You have no moving parts. You have no maintenance.
My 2015 Nissan LEAF, bought in 2014, has had maintenance precisely zero times. I was required, under warranty for the battery, to take it in and have the battery tested — it’s still at 100 percent, no loss at all, and it’s still looking good — because I had to for the warranty. But there has been not a single thing, apart from windshield wiper fluid change — not a single piece of maintenance that has needed to be done. No oil and filter, no changing transmission fluid, no worrying about radiator, no worrying about coolant. It’s just windshield wiper fluid.
This is the way of the future, and this legislation is positioning us there. I recognize, too, that the single most frequently purchased vehicle in British Columbia is the Ford F-150. I recognize that. In phase 2, as we move forward, we’re also seeing an enormous opportunity there. As battery technology continues to improve, as demand continues to grow, it makes sense to initially target the urban markets, where we’re driving, in Victoria, a maximum of 50 kilometres a day. That’s a lot in Victoria. In Vancouver, even if you drive from Abbotsford to downtown and back, you don’t need anything other than an EV.
Metro Vancouver and metro Victoria — both of these areas are set up, ideally, for the widespread rapid adoption of electric vehicles. This legislation is, essentially, enabling legislation that ensures that, if you want to sell new cars in B.C., a certain percentage of those car sales must be zero-emitting vehicles — 100 percent of which must be that by 2040. It’s 10 percent by 2025, while 2030 will be 30 percent. Given that we’re about 4 percent now, anyway, they’re very meetable targets.
In fact, the problem is not meeting the targets. The problem is trying to get a car when you go on the lot, because there are none on the lot. The Hyundai Kona I just bought…. Well, I shouldn’t say I bought it. My wife bought it; it’s her car. The one she just bought, she bought a month ago, but we’re not getting it till June, and that’s lucky. We’re lucky we’re getting in June — three months’ wait. Others, a much longer wait.
I know the member for Vancouver-Langara drives a Volt, another excellent EV. I’m sure he’s very pleased with that, although I haven’t seen it on the precinct as often as I used to see it. The Minister of Environment drives an Ioniq, a Hyundai. I think that’s what he drives. I know that my friend here drives LEAFs.
It used to be I was the only person in this Legislature driving an electric vehicle. Now I can’t get in on that EV charging, which is probably a good thing, because I can charge at home, and I know the member for Vancouver-Langara probably has more important need for the electricity than I do here. So I haven’t been using it. It’s been free, quite often, for you.
Coming back to the CleanBC initiative that led to this ZEV mandate, as well as the timeline for the actual requirement of new vehicles to be zero-emitting vehicles, it’s being coupled with the infrastructure rollout, which is going well. I’m very pleased. It’s very well done. It’s really good to see it. In the Buckley Bay station, for example, there are two high-voltage, level 3 chargers, as well as the level 2 chargers, as well as a Tesla charger. You’ve got lots of options there.
As it’s rolling out, the government is also, as part of CleanBC and the CEV for B.C. program, putting point-of-sale incentives that are up to $5,000 for new electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. And we’re seeing a lot of people, especially with the gas prices…. This is coming back again, coming back to what we had earlier, the discussion in question period. We know for a fact that the price of gas is the single biggest driver of adoption of plug-in, hybrid, zero-emission-vehicle cars. The single biggest driver. We’re seeing that.
You just have to talk to any car dealer. Go to the Hyundai dealer in Victoria. They’re flying off the lot, the Konas, as people come and say: “I’m done with these gas prices.” And you know what? Isn’t that a way to actually drive change, if there are more and more people in British Columbia who say: “I’m done with paying these prices. I’m going to switch over to a non-emitting vehicle”? That reduces demand on the existing supply, and that’s a downwards price driver.
We know the price is going to come down in the fall anyway. The reality of the price of gas right now is that it’s become outrageous. But it’s become outrageous because we know we can charge outrageous prices. We don’t have to blame the little guy, the retailer. It’s not them. We know, again coming back to the refinery margin, that it’s twice as much in B.C. relative to the rest of the country. The question the BCUC could and perhaps should be asking is: why is that?
Perhaps there is a role for the BCUC at some point to say: “You know what? That’s a problem.” But certainly the carbon tax is something that cannot be touched, and it’s something that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians don’t want to be touched. It’s one cent, but it’s one cent increasing by one cent every year, and that price signal is a critical driver of innovative change.
Just yesterday I heard the mayor of Langford, Stew Young, being interviewed on the radio, discussing an industrial park, several hundred acres that have already been zoned, looking to attract, based on this legislation and based on seeing the innovative change that’s happening, electric vehicle manufacturing in Langford. In particular, there’s a company that wants to build trucks in Langford. This is exactly what legislation like this incentivizes. It incentivizes others to want to be part of this direction, this new economy, and it creates opportunity in areas that we historically did not have.
Electra Meccanica in Vancouver, a small…. To declare everything, Jerry Kroll was a former candidate of ours in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. He’s the CEO of Electra Meccanica, an electric vehicle car company. They’re going to be building elsewhere. They wanted to build in B.C., but government in B.C. must now recognize that as we bring in these innovative programs that are driving change, there is a role for government to work with local government — that is, the provincial government work with local government — to ensure that we capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation brings forward. That is actually what we need to do next — capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation incentivizes.
You know, British Columbia already has the highest per-capita adoption of zero-emitting vehicles in Canada. There are over 17,000 of them in B.C., on the roads, and about 4 percent, as I mentioned, in 2018 were that. The typical driver of an EV saves…. I mean, the notes I’ve been given here suggest $1,500 a year. I can tell you it’s an awful lot more than that. Say you’re charging a car once a week, and let’s suppose you’re driving a four-cylinder car and you’re paying, say, 60 bucks a week. That’s not an F-150. Say 50 bucks a week. That’s 3,000 bucks a year in gas right there, and you’re paying zero for it because there is no gas.
But not only that, you’ve got to do an oil and filter every six months. You’re looking at 200 bucks there. You’ve got to start doing tune-ups and all that stuff — transmission fluid checks, all that stuff, moving parts. None of that’s there. So in fact, the argument about electric vehicles saving money and paying off rapidly is often not including the additional savings that come from no maintenance.
There’s a reason why we need such standards. Dealers historically have been very reluctant to sell EVs. Not all, but many. The reason why they’re reluctant to sell EVs…. I mean, you can look at the famous documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car? as an example — a very good documentary.
You don’t want to sell an EV because as soon as you buy your EV…. You pay your money, you buy the EV, you drive off the lot, and you’re never seen again. You’re never seen again until you buy your next car. That’s a little tougher for the kind of standard business model that some new-car manufacturers are operating under today. However, those manufacturers and those dealers that recognize the opportunity that’s afforded us here by this legislation will be the ones that are going to thrive and move forward as we enter…. I’m pretty sure that Campus Nissan in Victoria will be one of them. They can’t keep Nissan LEAFs on the lot.
A lot of people think you have to buy a new EV too. Sure, you have to buy a new EV to get some of these incentives, and sure, this legislation only applies to the sale of new cars in British Columbia. However, the secondary market also gets improved by introducing legislation like this. The reason why is that many of the fleets…. The rental fleets in California, for example — we’re starting to see these emerging into electric. Or there are lease vehicles. More and more people are leasing electric vehicles. As these start to build, the secondary market of lease vehicles and rental vehicles, etc., starts to develop as those get sold on the secondary market.
You can get a secondhand Nissan LEAF, the LEAF that I bought, for about $10,000 to $15,000. It’s a lot. I admit it’s a lot, but if you think of investing, let’s say, $14,000…. You can easily get a 2015 LEAF for $14,000 on the secondary market. Think about it. With $14,000, you save $3,000 a year in gas right there. Boom. So you’ve completely paid that off in 4½ years.
However, you’re actually going to have no maintenance as well. And most batteries…. People worry that the batteries decay with time. Again, my 2015 LEAF, which I’ve been driving since 2014, still has 100 percent battery. I’ve done 70,000 kilometres on that in five years, zero CO2 emitted and still 100 percent battery, going all over British Columbia. You can do this. And it’s fun. It’s zippy. They’re fast. The technology in these cars is amazing. I’m very excited by this legislation moving forward.
That was articulated in the media release that my office put out, where we were quite thrilled when the government introduced the bill. On April 10, we put out such a release. In fact, I’m quoted in the release as saying: “I’m thrilled that B.C. is adopting a rigorous zero-emission vehicle mandate.” Again, there were lots of discussions with the Environment Minister as we were developing CleanBC, and I would suggest that the level of bold adoption that you see here is something that we were quite persistent on.
The reason why is that 40 percent of emissions for the average household in British Columbia come from transportation. The average person has a difficult time reducing emissions without dealing with transportation. This gives them a means and a way to go to zero in transportation relatively rapidly. We also know that without an aggressive ZEV standard, we won’t get the cars on the lots in B.C., because they’ll appear on the lots in California or Quebec instead, where ZEV standards exist.
With China, India and other jurisdictions moving this direction, essentially we know, I suspect, that these targets will end up being moot. If we’re at 4 percent already, getting to 10 percent in 2025…. You put the cars on the lot, and we’re going to be there. No question.
I would suggest that we’re probably well above 4 percent now with new-car sales. I don’t have the data, but with the price of gas at a buck-70 in Vancouver, why would you buy a new car that is not electric? Why would you not consider it? But they need to be on the lots to allow you to buy it in the first place. We know that within a decade, trucks, other cars, vans will all be zero-emitting. That is the direction we’re heading in.
I look forward to exploring the details of this further in the actual committee stage because there are complexities in the unit accounting for compliance. There will be questions that will need to be addressed there.
I congratulate government on this — in particular, CleanBC and the Minister of Environment, whose work in this area has been quite well received. And I look forward to the rollout implementation in the weeks, months and years ahead.
R. Glumac: “Our house is on fire. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.” Those are the words of 16-year-old Greta Thunberg when she spoke recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Her plea was to leaders around the world to take action on climate change.
Greta is just one voice, one of the voices of children all over the world. There are so many more. In fact, this Friday, on May 3, hundreds of thousands of children across Canada are going on a climate strike. Their message to us is that they want to be excited about the future, not scared. They want people like us to step up and start treating the climate crisis like the emergency that it is, because it is an emergency.
According to the IPCC, we are less than 12 years away from not being able to stop a 1.5 degree increase of temperature globally. And 1.5 degrees is that cutoff that will forever change the world. It will change their world — our children’s. Not so much ours, but their world.
It’s in this context, the context of a future that our children can be excited about, not scared, that I stand here today. I want the children to know that I hear them. I know there’s so much more to do, but today we’re taking one very important step in the right direction after so many steps in the past in the wrong direction.
Transportation is the source of nearly 30 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. With this legislation, automakers will be required to meet targets for sales of zero-emission vehicles: 10 percent by 2025, 30 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040. This legislation will increase the supply of zero-emission vehicles in a variety of makes and models and help lower the price for all car buyers. Until that price comes down, we will also be offering purchase incentives and home and workplace charging incentives under the clean energy vehicle program.
We need to be able to move around. We need to have choices in how we do that. Investment in public transit and active transportation are critically important, but we know that some people can’t use these options because of where they live or where they work. We need alternatives.
I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of going to the gas pump and being held hostage to pay the prices that I’m being forced to pay. I’m also tired of the rhetoric around this. I’m tired of hearing from B.C. Liberals that this increase in gas prices is somehow the fault of government. This is a simplistic view of things and certainly not true.
The gas prices have gone up drastically. We’ve recently applied a one-cent tax, a carbon tax, on gas. What about the 20-to-30-cent markup from refineries? What about the $2.4 billion of excess profits to refiners between 2015 and 2017, according to the Navius research report that came out recently? People don’t want to talk about those runaway profits for some reason.
We have to talk about this situation — about the gas, about climate change. We have to talk about it in truthful terms, not in fearmongering terms, because it is something that is critically important. We have to be able to have a conversation about it that is based in fact. People are rightly upset about gas prices. But we shouldn’t be using this as a political opportunity. We should talk about the real cause of the problem.
With regard to zero-emission vehicles, this legislation will be joining many jurisdictions around the world that have targets already. This includes Quebec and ten U.S. states, including California. It’s estimated that a third of the North American market now is subject to some zero-emission vehicle standard. This is the future. This is the global trend.
This legislation will ensure that the people and businesses in B.C. are not left behind, because the economy of the future is a low-carbon economy. If we’re going to stop the rise in global temperatures, we have to fully embrace that low-carbon economy. For too long, politicians have been taking the easy political road, looking for the easy answers, the short-term wins, much like the simplistic answers that we’re hearing about gas prices. But the answers that cherish our children’s future are not simple. They require us to look beyond the short term. But we can find those answers, we can do the right thing, and we can do it by strengthening our economy today and in the future. All it takes is leadership.
This legislation is one small action we can take as a government out of respect for our children’s future. In the words of Greta Thunberg: “The one thing we need more than hope is action. Once we start to act, hope is everywhere.” So instead of looking for hope, look for action. Then, and only then, hope will come.
M. Dean: I’m very proud to stand in the House today and support this new legislation, Bill 28. I’m particularly proud of this legislation because it’s contributing to helping reduce climate pollution by phasing out gas-powered light-duty vehicles. It makes zero-emission vehicles more available and more affordable for British Columbians.
We’re moving to a future where new vehicles produce no air pollution at all, and to get there faster, we’re helping people afford cleaner cars and save money on fuel with incentive programs and making it easier to charge or fuel those cars. We’re going to speed up the switch to cleaner fuels at the gas pump and build new, cleaner transportation technology and infrastructure. This means new economic opportunities and less time in gridlock, which is good for families and businesses. It’s good for quality of life for British Columbian families. It’s really important for small businesses and for local economies as well.
Just over 20 years from now, every new car sold in B.C. will be a zero-emission vehicle. We’re making sure that people are more able to afford to purchase a zero-emission vehicle. People could be eligible for up to $6,000 on their purchases. Their incentives are $5,000 for the purchase or lease of a new battery-electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and up to $6,000 for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Together, these initiatives will bring down our carbon pollution by six million tonnes by 2030.
So many British Columbians want to contribute to reducing emissions. So many want to switch to zero-emission vehicles. However, price and availability can be barriers. With this legislation, it will become easier, because this will require all new light-duty vehicles to be zero emission by 2040.
Now, this needs the collaboration of the sector — new-car dealerships, manufacturers — as well as commitment from British Columbians. The legislation encourages automakers to make zero-emission vehicles more affordable and accessible across British Columbia. It’s a market-transformation tool that will ensure all new light-duty cars and trucks sold in B.C. will run on clean electricity from batteries or hydrogen fuel cells just over 20 years from now.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
This legislation builds on successful examples elsewhere, and it was informed by consultation with British Columbians, manufacturers and key stakeholders. Currently automakers don’t provide enough ZEVs to meet the strong demand in British Columbia. They also don’t offer a lot of zero-emission vehicle options in the compact sport-utility vehicle and pickup truck classes, which would likely make ZEVs a more viable option for rural residents of B.C.
Thinking of my constituency, for example, from urban Esquimalt all the way along the coast to rural Metchosin and Scia’new Nation, we need a range of options. For people living in downtown Esquimalt, doing mostly urban driving, their needs will be met by a range of small vehicle options.
However, people who live in more remote communities, where there’s no transit, for example, need to have much more robust vehicles that can serve all of their needs, from shopping to dumping garbage, as well as being able to function in all weather conditions. For example, during storms, there’s often a lot of debris on the road. In the winter, our roads are covered in snow. Our rural residents need many more options to be able to make the switch.
The legislation will ensure automakers address the lack of ZEV supply, progressively meet the increasing demand for ZEVs in a variety of makes and price ranges and provide regulatory certainty for achieving our CleanBC targets. The act will benefit all British Columbians, as they will have more zero-emission vehicle options to choose from at various price ranges to help them make that switch to a clean energy vehicle.
While ZEVs currently do have higher purchase costs, we’re addressing affordability through these incentive programs under the clean energy vehicle program umbrella — notably, this point-of-sale incentive, as well as home and workplace charging incentives. It will be an incremental approach: 10 percent of sales by 2025, 30 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040.
As we all know, B.C. is required to meet legislated greenhouse gas targets. The introduction of ZEVs on B.C.’s roads is one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles within the province. As a province, we want to make sure that there is an adequate supply of ZEVs for B.C. consumers to purchase and make that switch.
This is part of the CleanBC strategy, which invests $902 million over three years for programs to reduce our emissions, making B.C. the leader in Canada in tackling climate change and protecting the province’s clean air, land and water. CleanBC puts our province on a path that powers our future with clean, renewable energy and reduces air pollution.
B.C. already has the highest per-capita adoption of zero-emission vehicles in Canada, with over 17,000 ZEVs on the road. They averaged 4 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in 2018. We also have one of the largest public charging and hydrogen fueling networks. British Columbians who purchase e-vehicles typically save about 75 percent on their fuel and maintenance costs, which can add up to about $1,500 a year.
To finish, zero-emission vehicles use cleaner energy, improve air quality and cost dramatically less over time to fuel and operate.
M. Dean moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 4; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:18 a.m.
On section 9 (continued).
R. Coleman: Since I know the minister has obviously gotten some overnight notes and what have you, rather than ask any more questions, I’ll let him start out with his explanation about section 9.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Member, for the question yesterday. I think this will help.
Before I start this, I’ll also preface that our legislation is also modelled on existing provincial witness protection, witness security programs that exist in other jurisdictions.
In terms of the process for decision-making of a director, committee and panels…. The committee will be a roster of individuals who’ve been selected because they have extensive experience dealing with the facets of organized crime and high-security-risk cases. In terms of the decision-making process and who is privy to information contained in an application to the program, I’ll use a hypothetical example involving a gang member somewhere in the Lower Mainland.
The first step would be that a sponsoring law enforcement agency such as the Vancouver police department identifies a witness that’s needing protection because, for example, let’s say they’ve witnessed a gangland murder. The sponsoring agency assesses whether the federal or the provincial program would be most appropriate for the witness’s needs. The sponsoring agency determines….
Say they determine that the provincial program would be most appropriate because, for example, the witness is a member of a prominent B.C. gang, has an opioid addiction or has a close relationship with a non-gang family member, for example, who lives in the Lower Mainland.
The next step, then, would be that the sponsoring agency contacts the director of witness security about the witness and submits an application package and submits an application package to the director that includes the need for security services and addictions treatment. The next step would have the director determining that the witness is eligible for the program, that there is a risk to the witness’s health and security and that the B.C. prosecution service believes the witness’s evidence will be significant to the murder case.
After this, the next step then would be that the director submits the eligible application to the chairperson of the witness security committee, who then convenes a panel of three or five members of the committee. After that, the panel will then decide whether it agrees with the director’s eligibility assessment and accepts the application.
Assuming that takes place, then the panel decides on the contents of the service plan — that is, the services to be provided to the witness — and the statement of obligations, which is, in essence, a code of conduct that the witness has to agree to in order to be in the program.
After that, the designated agency, which is the police force designated to run the operational aspects of the program, and the sponsoring law enforcement agency make payment arrangements to pay for the service plan. The witness acknowledges and signs the statement of obligations and then enters the program.
After this, the designated agency provides or arranges for services for the witness, which may include things like a safe apartment rental, rehab for the opioid addiction and secure transportation to and from court. The designated agency recovers costs for these services from the sponsoring agency. After that, the witness successfully testifies in court.
Finally, the program facilitates the witness entering a gang-exiting program upon leaving the witness security program, because they’re now in recovery and want to get back on the straight and narrow. That, in a nutshell, is how it will work.
The committee is appointed, obviously, by the ministry, but it is from that committee that the panel that will be doing the examination is chosen.
R. Coleman: Thank you for the explanation. Now it leads me to a number of other questions.
First of all, you talked about how the committee members…. In the legislation, it says four people are on the committee plus the chair. It is not a roster of people, I would suspect. It’s actually four people that are the roster of that.
As I heard the explanation and as I thought about this overnight, I thought: “This is going to take some time.” You have a witness in a murder case who’s decided to come forward on a case that’s probably tied into gangs and organized crime, and you don’t have time for a referral, a decision, like a director to send to a committee who then decides they’re going to go to a roster of people to make a decision that comes back and says: “We’re going to do this.”
I’d like to know: have you put behind this a timeline that’s necessary for this to work? I do know, from having been in the minister’s position and not having the same experience as others in policing, that time is of the essence when you have a significant witness or a situation where you could breach undercover information if the witness is out there, because they might know something else pertinent to the case, or put somebody else’s life in danger.
So from beginning to end, is there a timeline that’s required by you for them to actually get somebody into witness protection?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand where the member is coming from. What I’ll do is I’ll make these comments around that.
There isn’t, at this point, a specific timeline within the legislation, in terms of what the member is talking about. However, in an urgent situation — it has been determined it is urgent that we get someone in — we do have the power, in the legislation, under section 25, to be able to get someone into the program. Additionally, as the legislation is enacted and the policies and the regulations come into force, we may, in fact, look at issues such as timelines further down the road.
R. Coleman: Having said that, as you prepared this legislation…. Knowing that you have a director that you’re hiring to run this program, why the need for a roster of four people, a director and all this process around it? When you have a referring agency and you have a director that’s competent, why not go directly to the director, have him make the decision and move the person into whatever form of witness protection you’re looking for?
The Chair: Member, if I just might remind you, comments to come through the Chair as opposed to directly to the minister. Thank you, Member.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The legislation and the model that we’re using are based on what has been successfully done in other provinces, most notably Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The reason it is not just a single individual but, rather, a panel is…. Because it’s administered by the province, there does need to be oversight, which having more than one individual will allow to take place.
Also, by having a broader group of individuals on it, you bring a different perspective, from different backgrounds, in terms of the development of the plan that’s required. So it’s not just the one individual, the director. Rather, the panel is instrumental in developing the plan that’s required for the security of the witness.
R. Coleman: My conversations with some folks in those two provinces are that they think it’s a whole different dynamic in British Columbia relative to our form of crime, relative to a port city and the size of our organized crime structure versus others.
My biggest concern around this is knowing, in the past, how some complex investigations have had people embedded, people that had to go into witness protection and people that there could be no chance whatsoever of any piece of information getting out that could compromise either the investigation or the individual’s safety.
As I go through this and listen to your answers…. You have a panel of people. There’s somebody you want to put in…. Let’s use the VPD as an example, like your example in the beginning. If a gang person that is providing evidence with regards to a murder and a gang killing somewhere in Vancouver…. They are looking for witness protection for this individual, because should it get out in any way whatsoever that this individual is going to testify, we know the consequences for the individual could be dramatic.
Having said that, at the same time as that’s taking place, if you’re going through a process of establishing a code of conduct, if there are any interviews in context with the individual that might be going into witness protection….
You’re going to establish a code of context for an individual who’s actually, at the very beginning of this process, putting their life on the line. If they’re in a process, where do they go in the meantime? Where do they go in the short period of time, or the lengthy period of time, it gets to get to the decision?
They’ve come to the place and said: “I am prepared to testify. I’m prepared to give you this information, but I need to be protected.” They say: “Well, we’ll put this in, and we’ll decide whether it’s federal. We’ll decide whether it’s provincial. We put in a process here, and while we’re doing that, maybe you should leave town.” Even the virtue of somebody getting out of town actually tells the people in the network of organized crime that this guy might be up to something.
My concern is timing, like I said, and this process. In that circumstance, you say the director could immediately put this person in witness protection. So why not take the bureaucracy out of the middle of this and actually protect the people by having the police agency, or the agency that’s referring, go directly to the director, who has the ability to make a decision?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. What I can tell the member is that those situations are already currently dealt with by the police. They would not, for example, identify an individual to a director if there was a danger of that person not feeling comfortable. We already deal with those situations. Section 25…. If there needs to be someone go right into, that’s in place.
The other point I’d make, as well, is that this legislation is also intended and will be able to deal with not just those at a high level — let’s say high profile, potentially gang-related — but also at a lower level, as well as a mid-level, where they may be witnesses to a different range of criminal activity that’s taking place. So we have confidence in the system that we’ve got and in terms of the legislation being developed with what has definitely been working in other jurisdictions.
R. Coleman: Earlier you said that when a person was through and rehabilitated after the court case, and they’re rehabilitated, they could go. In a case like we described at the beginning of this, would they not need to be in the program for a lot longer than just the period of time of that because subsequent to this, it would become apparent to the people that were affected by their testimony or information that they had turned on them? What are you going to do with them after they get through what you referred to as a rehabilitation and the end of the court case?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I just want to make it clear. The plan for an individual entering the program is based on the circumstances of the case that they are involved in, the seriousness of that case. It may require a plan that is developed and is in place for quite a length of time. Some individuals may well be able to testify and move out and resume a normal life.
Others, because of the circumstances and the nature of the case and the nature of the individuals involved, may require a new identity. They may require a relocation. They may require a host of different services. That may continue for quite some time, quite a long time.
All of those aspects are taken into account, in terms of the development of a plan, how that plan is implemented and the length of the plan, after the testimony has been given in the court case.
R. Coleman: To that, let’s use another circumstance; let’s say Vancouver. Now we have somebody that needs to be in witness protection. They’ve been referred. They’ve gotten protection. The committee has given them, as you referred to, a code of conduct decision and what have you.
These all come with some costs, whether it’s relocation to an apartment or to another place, finding somebody a job, if it’s long term or if it’s short term. Who’s the payer relative to a particular case? Let’s say there was one from Surrey and one from Vancouver. Who’s the payer of that witness’s piece of the cost?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It operates the same way as the current federal program does. The province would be responsible for the administrative costs of the program. Then the sponsoring agency…. Using the example you’ve said — let’s say Vancouver, the VPD — it would be Vancouver that would be responsible for the service and for the plan costs themselves, and they would be on a bill-back basis. The expectation would be that as rehabilitation takes place, those costs would decline over time.
R. Coleman: I’m not quite sure the minister is correct on the comparison between the federal and a provincial program. If I’m not mistaken, the RCMP — and you can correct me, if I’m wrong — administers and runs the program federally. They don’t bill back a municipality for somebody that goes into the federal program. The cost does not flow back to the municipality but stays with the federal program, which is funded federally. Is that not correct?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is, in fact, billed back to the local police agency.
R. Coleman: Just for clarification. Is that the local city police agencies or all RCMP agencies? My understanding was it doesn’t get billed back to contract communities.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Both. Both RCMP and contract police.
R. Coleman: What if it is a federal unit, CFSEU, funded federally with federal units, that is actually doing it? And let’s say the particular witness is from a particular community, but it’s not actually a case handled by the local PD, whether it be the RCMP or city police. I would assume that does not get billed back.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the case of CFSEU, which is primarily provincially funded, and they put someone into…. It would be….
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay. First off, it’s highly unlikely that the federal program or that the feds would use CFSEU, the provincial program. Assuming that they did, those costs would still be picked up by CFSEU, which would be provincially funded.
R. Coleman: What if the case goes across multiple communities, which is not unusual in a complex case? Which community is picking up…? If the witness is from Kelowna but is actually giving information on an investigation that affects Nanaimo, Victoria, Vancouver and wherever, where does that fall to?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In that kind of situation, there would be a lead agency and one long-term coordinated plan. CFSEU would be involved. That would be provincially funded, and it would come out of those provincial funds.
R. Coleman: So it would be funded directly by the province, not by the municipality?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be primarily the province. There may be a component that might be chipped in at a local level, but the vast bulk of that funding would be through the provincial component.
R. Coleman: We have a committee of four — I’ll come back to the other piece, or my colleague might — who are selected after there’s a director. You go and get a chair of the committee, four people. Are their names public?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to make sure we’ve got a clarification that there will be a chair, a vice-chair and at least four. Okay? With the passage of the act, then, of course there will be regulations and further policy in place, but I can tell you that in the other jurisdictions, those names are not made public, and I would not expect them to be made public here.
R. Coleman: Thank you, Minister.
Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dean in the chair.
The committee met at 11:27 a.m.
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $48,163,000 (continued).
Hon. S. Fraser: If I may begin. To my counterpart, I want to thank him for yesterday’s beginning of estimates. I’m glad to be back here.
I had a look over Hansard, at the beginning of our session yesterday, and I just wanted to clarify something for the record. This is around the questioning from my critic regarding the role of the executive assistant that I have — Jolleen Dick, as I mentioned. I just want to clarify. The assistant works on ministry business only and is funded by the ministry’s office budget. I think the member was asking…. After reviewing the question, that was the nature of his question. I did not answer it that way.
It was initially thought that the member was inquiring about constituency staff in the constituency office. Anyone in my constituency office who is doing constituency work is not funded by the ministry budget. I’m just making that clear. But like all political staff, just as the previous government, the executive assistants do the government work for the ministry. So correcting the record, she’s funded through the ministry budget.
D. Ashton: Thank you. Please accept my apologies, Minister, and to your staff and to my peers here. It was my understanding something else was going to be taking place. I’d asked the minister for five minutes and got delayed downstairs and ran up when I found out it was wrong, so I do apologize.
To get back to the questions, regarding agreements and signing in progress at this point in time, are all the agreements posted on the ministry’s website that are signed up till now or are in the process? Is that website up to date?
Hon. S. Fraser: We do our best to try to keep the information up to date on the website. There are exceptions. Sometimes, there’s still work being done within the nation or working with adjoining nations. The information may not be complete, so we do hold off then. But we try to get the information up as timely as possible.
D. Ashton: There are some that are outstanding. If staff can help out, when are we up to date as of fiscal? When are the last agreements that are published publicly…? When is that point in time? How many are outstanding beyond that — i.e., coming forward?
Hon. S. Fraser: Again, thanks to the member for the question. There’s no point in time where we try to catch up. We’ve always tried to be as accurate as possible. But there may well, at any point in time, be agreements that have been signed that have still…. The work has not been completed, say, in the nation itself. That may be in the process of being put up on line. There may always be some that are in that process.
D. Ashton: If there are some that are signed by both parties and they’re not posted, is there any other opportunity for the public to assess that information, other than being posted on line?
Hon. S. Fraser: As part of the process of arriving at an agreement with a nation, there’s a larger process that happens, working with stakeholders in local communities, as far as consultation goes, and getting their input. None of these agreements that we sign are done in a vacuum. They’re all done with the full knowledge of local communities and stakeholders.
There is a process that we involve them in during the leading up to the signing. There is information always out there. Then the completed version — we get it up as quickly as possible on the website.
D. Ashton: Can the minister tell me how many agreements the province has signed in 2018 with the First Nations?
Hon. S. Fraser: I might need to get a little more specific. Yes, I’ll explain that.
We have a number of agreements we work on — treaty agreements, non-treaty agreements, reconciliation agreements. But with First Nations, there are many other agreements too. There are forest and range agreements. There are ECDAs that are for mining. There’s a whole range of different agreements that are happening that do not necessarily…. They span other ministries is what I’m saying. Is the member asking for…?
Also, then there are agreements that are being amended. There are agreements that are being renewed. We could tally those things up, but I don’t think we’d be able to have the information here.
[N. Simons in the chair.]
But if the member is looking for all agreements, then it gets into other ministries. It might be possible to figure out all that, but it would take some time.
The Chair: Member.
D. Ashton: Chair, nice to see you.
Maybe I can help the minister, then. I’ll just read it into the record. Maybe staff can…. There are some specific questions around, first of all, incremental treaty agreements. I understand there’s just one posted on line. But questions, I have about six of them — forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements, strategic engagement agreements, economic and community development agreements, First Nations clean energy business fund revenue-sharing agreements, reconciliation agreements and natural gas and LNG benefit agreements.
If I could just leave that with the ministry. Then, maybe if we could just get access later on, and so on.
Hon. S. Fraser: That’s perfect. We’ll get that information for you.
P. Milobar: Just one or two questions for the minister.
In the Kamloops area, I’m sure the minister is aware of the day scholars lawsuit that’s going on between 101 different nations across the country and the federal government. I recognize this is a federal government area, but the main signatory to the lawsuit is the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc band. Jo-Anne Gottfriedson is their point person for this and spearheading it for all 101 nations.
I had a good meeting with Mrs. Gottfriedson over the two weeks we were away. She’s really hitting a wall with the federal government. The day scholars was supposed to be negotiated with the federal government. The court action was put on pause for that to happen. It’s kind of stalled out over the last year or so. There are 18 B.C. school areas that have been certified within this suit, as well, that would be impacted through this.
Really, at the core of it is that when there was the resolution and restitution made around residential school survivors, day scholars that went to those same schools were not treated equitably to that same agreement. So there’s been a back and forth.
I guess, really, at its core, after the conversation, we all recognize that it is federal. But the ask, I guess, to the minister, and since we’re coming up…. I would convey this in a public venue to get it out there and maybe try to get things moving along again.
More importantly, Mrs. Gottfriedson was hoping that the minister and his staff would be open to having some meetings to see what type of provincial supports might be able to be brought to bear with this stalemate and try to maybe see if there’s not something that the province can do to try to help move the federal counterparts along to get some conversations going.
I’m just wondering the minister’s thoughts on this situation and what potential actions may be able to be undertaken by the minister.
Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. Yeah, the day scholars suit is an interesting one. I think it’s very limited as to what I would be able to do as minister. My understanding is that it’s before the Federal Court now. The amounts have been wrestled with. That is all resting with the court.
It’s not like I can go to my federal counterpart and say: “Hey, can you speed up this process?” I don’t think we can influence that process as it stands right now, but we’d be happy to hear from Ms. Gottfriedson, should she wish to talk to us. If she has any ideas, we could see. We’d be willing to try.
P. Milobar: Thank you for that. I do recognize that it’s always tricky when things are within the courts. I guess at its core…. Is that, then, a firm commitment from the minister that a meeting sooner rather than later can be set up between the minister and Ms. Gottfriedson to at least have those conversations and, if nothing else, have the minister brought up to speed in a face-to-face conversation around what’s going on, within their view of what’s happening?
Hon. S. Fraser: I think we’d have a staff person do this much quicker while the House is sitting. It could wait till afterwards, but the calendar is pretty busy. I’d certainly want to be involved. I don’t believe we’ve had any request from Ms. Gottfriedson to meet, but we can have ministry staff meet with her much quicker, I think, and expedite that process.
D. Ashton: Minister, thank you very much. We’ll see you after lunch.
Hon. S. Fraser: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Chair: It’s unanimously passed. We stand adjourned.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada