Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 284

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Curtis Wilson

Hon. C. Trevena

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Bullying Ends Here Kindness Tour and work of Tad Milmine

J. Thornthwaite

Active transportation and use of transit

S. Chandra Herbert

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

L. Reid

Southeast Asian Cultural Heritage Society

A. Kang

Independent schools

L. Throness

Tuition waiver program for former youth in care

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

Agricultural land reserve changes and impacts

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Popham

M. Polak

Labour dispute in Saanich school district

A. Olsen

Hon. R. Fleming

Agricultural land reserve changes and impacts

S. Bond

Hon. L. Popham

J. Rustad

Assistance for ranchers impacted by flooding in Chilcotin area

D. Barnett

Hon. L. Popham

Agricultural land reserve changes and impacts

L. Throness

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2018-19

Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, annual report, 2018-19

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill M225 — Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act

A. Weaver

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill M225 — Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 33 — Securities Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

M. Lee

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

CURTIS WILSON

Hon. C. Trevena: Later today at Thunderbird Hall in Campbell River, there’s going

to be a celebration of life for a person lost far too soon from our

community. Curtis Wilson, whose traditional name was Mulidzas, died

suddenly from a heart attack about ten days ago.

Curtis, who described himself as an avid artist, will be

remembered for, among other works, his inspirational Kwakiutl rendering

of the Canadian flag. His design for the new logo for school district 72

was unveiled just days before he died.

While Curtis was a wonderful Liqwiltokw artist, he was so much

more. He was dedicated to education and to reconciliation. He was an

elected councillor on the Wei Wai Kum First Nation council and was proud

to share Liqwiltokw culture, songs and dances with youth. Curtis,

Mulidzas, still had so much to give. He was only 39, but he has left a

legacy for us now and for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to give our condolences to his wife,

Dayle, and his children, Nalu and Gideon. He’ll be sorely

missed.

Introductions by Members

J. Martin: For his first visit to the precinct, please welcome my brother-in-law

Michael Leduc. I’ve talked several times in this chamber about Bowls of

Hope, a non-profit organization that feeds close to 1,000 children a day at

21 different schools. Every single one of those meals is made by my

brother-in-law. Please make him welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery are students from the University of Victoria, Capilano

Students Union, Kwantlen Student Association, University of the Fraser

Valley Student Union, the Graduate Society of the University of British

Columbia and Langara Students Union. They’re in the chamber. They’re in the

precinct meeting with the Speaker’s office, meeting with members of the

opposition.

Will the House please join me in welcoming their voice to the chambers

and their advocacy on behalf of affordability and better conditions in the

public post-secondary system.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for inviting my guests.

Hon. S. Robinson: Joining us in the gallery today are Mayor Kennedy Stewart, along with

Neil Monckton, chief of staff, Anita Zaenker, chief of staff, and Lauren

Reid, senior policy adviser. The mayor has been meeting with a number of

members of cabinet as well as with the opposition. I want to invite the

House to please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, it’s the greatest day in the Legislature happening today. It’s

B.C. Agriculture Day. We have a lot of people in the chamber that are

representing amazing parts of agriculture, from one end of the province to

the other. I think that our members are excited that they’re here. Everyone

is going to receive a beautiful bag, a token of appreciation from the B.C.

agriculture sector for our support in the House. Treats all around for

everyone. Thanks for bringing those bags in. It’s something we look forward

to every year.

[10:10 a.m.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you can indulge me. I’ve got some names

I’d like to read off. These are guests. There are many people that are

visiting for meetings today. But these people, I’ve been told, are actually

in the chamber.

We’ve got Jen Gamble, Niklaus Forstbauer, Heather Stretch, Glen Lucas,

Deep Brar, Peter Simonsen, Christine Terpsma, June deDood, John deDood,

Mickey Aylard, Holger Schwichtenberg, Sarah Sache, Jared DeJong, Jeremy

Dunn, Emma Bryce, Sukhpaul Bal, Tyrion Miskell, John Bayley, Leo Quik,

Melanie Daischorn, Reg Ens, Cassy James, Malcolm Odermatt, Rick Kantz, Bob

Pringle, Pete Smit, Len Smit, Ray Binnendyk, Jenni Binnendyck and Steven

Falkirks.

Welcome to the Legislature.

C. Oakes: Yesterday the member for Vancouver–West End introduced one of his

former teachers. Well, I’m delighted that I have one of my former teachers

in the gallery today, also a councillor. Her husband was also one of my

teachers. She is here today with the agricultural group, a very strong,

passionate champion for agriculture in our rural communities. Would the

House please help me welcome Lynda Atkinson.

J. Routledge: We also have some guests in the gallery today from the BCIT Student

Association. Stewart McGillivray is the government relations strategist, and

Steven Palfrey is their vice-president, external relations. Both are very

active advocates on behalf of the BCIT students. I hope their time with us

today will hone their strategic skills. Please join me in giving them a warm

welcome.

A. Wilkinson: Joining us in the gallery is Mr. Tek Manhas from the Duncan-Cowichan

community. He is known extensively in that part of the world for his many

interests and great activism — a stalwart of the political process, who is a

person you don’t neglect when you’re in Duncan and North

Cowichan.

Hon. A. Dix: We have guests today from two organizations. I’d like to introduce

first, from Heart and Stroke B.C., Jeff Sommers, Zoey Wells and Mary

Stambulic. They’re here meeting with MLAs and people in the Ministry of

Health. I wish everyone could make them welcome.

We also have, with what was formerly known as the Rick Hansen

Institute, a whole group of people: Dr. Ian Rigby, who is the board chair of

Praxis Spinal Cord Institute; Bill Barrable, the CEO; Dr. Vanessa Noonan;

Penny Clarke Richardson; Linda Bryson; John Chernesky; and Vanessa Gee. I

understand they’re meeting with MLAs, including over the lunch hour. I hope

everyone makes them welcome.

M. Stilwell: Apologies, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has already made

my introduction. So we’ll introduce Tek Manhas again, if you’d like — an

advocate for his community — and welcome him to the House today.

Hon. C. James: I have three guests in the gallery today. First, there’s Cabe Grey,

who is 12 years old and lives in Victoria–Beacon Hill. He’s visiting with

his home school teacher, Duncan Wiscombe. Cabe is currently learning about

municipal, provincial and federal governments. So Cabe and Duncan have

decided to come to the Legislature to witness firsthand a very small portion

of how government operates.

The third guest who’s here today needs no introduction, really, in

this House. She calls the Legislature her second home. Sheenagh Morrison is

a regular visitor to this gallery. She is an employee from Thrifty Foods.

She’s a volunteer at the Beacon Hill Park petting zoo, a Special Olympics

swimmer, also part of their public speaking course. She’s also a great

friend, and I’m very proud to call her one. Would the House please make

Sheenagh Morrison very welcome.

S. Cadieux: I just want to join with the Minister of Health to welcome our guests

from Praxis here today. It’s an organization I’ve had a very long history

with. Many of the folks here today are people I consider friends. I’d like

to also bring the opposition’s greetings to the group here from

Praxis.

[10:15 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BULLYING ENDS HERE KINDNESS TOUR

AND WORK OF TAD

MILMINE

J. Thornthwaite: On October 15, I joined Tad Milmine outside on the front lawn of

this Legislature to kick off the Bullying Ends Here Kindness Tour. Tad

is travelling coast to coast from October through May, raising awareness

on bullying and mental wellness. Tomorrow he visits North

Vancouver.

Since 2012, Tad has dedicated his life to helping those who need

it most. At 22 years of age, he tried to commit suicide. Fortunately, he

was unsuccessful, and happily, he was able to fulfil a lifelong dream to

become a police officer. But when he learned of Jamie Hubley’s suicide,

a 15-year-old LGBTQ youth from Ontario who took his own life because of

severe bullying, Tad sprang into action and swore he would work on

helping all youth and bring awareness about bullying and mental

illness.

Last week, after Tad launched his tour at a high school on

Vancouver Island, right here, he was contacted by a student who was

coping with suicidal thoughts. Thankfully, Tad intervened and connected

him with the supports that he needed. This is just one of the thousands

of texts from students who contact Tad who are struggling and feel they

can’t cope or can’t go on.

The Bullying Ends Here tour aims to demonstrate that no one is

ever truly alone and it’s okay to talk about mental illness and to seek

help. When talking about his own upbringing and encouraging others to

speak up, Tad said: “The truth is that no one ever knew I was locked

down there because I didn’t tell anybody.” This statement is literally

and tragically true and what happened to Tad. He didn’t reach out. He

didn’t think anyone would help him, and no one did until he told

someone.

One of the parents of a young boy said after his presentation that

he stopped thinking about killing himself after he heard him speak at

the school. He now believes he has a chance to turn out to be a good

person as well, so there is no need to die.

I would add that all children should be given the opportunity to

be themselves and deserve to be loved and treated unconditionally. So

let’s make sure that they all feel safe at school, at home and on line.

Bullying ends here.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

AND USE OF

TRANSIT

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I messed up. I made a mistake. Last week was Bike to Work

Week, and I didn’t stand to invite everyone to bike to work. Why was

that? Perhaps it was because I was too busy biking to work. When I’m

here in Victoria, I bike to work most every day. When I’m home in the

West End, I walk or bike to work most every day.

Indeed, maybe it’s because of where I live, in the West End, but

biking to work, walking to work or taking the bus to work is just how

most of us get around. Indeed, 72 percent of constituents in the West

End bike, bus or walk to work. Seven percent bike, 27 percent take

transit, and 38 percent walk to work. It’s how our neighbourhood lives.

It’s one of the great reasons people want to call it home.

Bike to Work Week is one week, but I think that as we move

forward, for more and more British Columbians, it will become every

week. Our government strategy, move, commute and connect, is putting the

groundwork in place, as are our municipalities and communities all

across British Columbia.

I had the pleasure of visiting communities across B.C. to learn

about what were barriers in their path to getting more people actively

commuting, actively transiting around their communities. In some, it was

the snow, and there was no clearing of pathways for parts of the year.

In others, it was just unsafe to be on the highways. The suggestions for

creating more complete streets were very well heard. I think as we move

to strongly fight climate change, move to create a healthier community,

move to save people money and cut congestion, we must be putting a

stronger focus on biking and riding people-powered means across our

communities.

Now, to those who say it’s too hard, try an electric bike. It’s a

lot of fun too.

[10:20 a.m.]

COMMONWEALTH

PARLIAMENTARY

ASSOCIATION

L. Reid: I speak today of the Commonwealth Parliamentary

Association.

The theme for International Day of Democracy 2019 is

“Participation.” It’s an opportunity to recall that democracy is about

people. Democracy is built on inclusion, equal treatment and

participation, and it is a fundamental building block for peace,

sustainable development and human rights.

The universal declaration of human rights, which states that the

will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government,

has inspired constitution-making around the world and contributed to

global acceptance of democratic values and principles. Democracy, in

turn, provides a natural environment for the protection and effective

realization of human rights.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association connects and supports

Commonwealth parliamentarians and their staff to identify benchmarks of

good governance and to promote democracy, and it offers its members a

range of opportunities to enhance their parliamentary knowledge and

networking. I was honoured to chair the Commonwealth Women

Parliamentarians for Canada and vice-chair CWP internationally. Thank

you to women everywhere who put your name on the ballot and, in some

instances, your life on the line.

The CPA provides both established and newly elected

parliamentarians and parliamentary staff with continuing professional

development and encourages them to share experiences and knowledge with

other parliaments, in the wider pursuit of democracy in the

Commonwealth. The 2030 agenda for sustainable development addresses

democracy and sustainable development goal 16, recognizing the

indivisible links between peaceful societies and effective, accountable

and inclusive institutions.

The CPA’s recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures have

been highlighted as an important tool in the pursuit of peaceful and

inclusive societies. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, now in

the 107th year, exists to develop, promote and support parliamentarians

and their staff to identify benchmarks of good governance and to

implement the enduring values of the Commonwealth.

I’d ask you to visit www.cpahq.org for more

information.

SOUTHEAST ASIAN

CULTURAL HERITAGE

SOCIETY

A. Kang: I would like to recognize the good work of the Southeast Asian

Cultural Heritage Society. SEACHS consists of a group of highly skilled

Southeast Asian Canadian artists who have come together to preserve and

share culture through intercultural collaboration. Founded in 2009,

SEACHS is now celebrating its ten-year anniversary.

Over the past ten years, SEACHS has shared elements of the

cultural heritage of the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia,

Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and many more with British

Columbia. This year SEACHS helped TaiwanFest engage the Vietnamese

community in its fourth dialogue with Asia, entitled Riding the Waves

with Vietnam.

SEACHS’s next big event is on November 9, entitled BANYAN, an

intercultural ceremonial performance. This will be a theatrical

representation of ancestral stories and traditional art forms. Artists

will come together to share their ideas, dances, music and stories

informed by traditional performance forms from their homelands and

experiences as settlers on unceded territories.

Last week I had the pleasure of connecting with Montreal-born

Vietnamese actor-singer Thai-Hoa Le and Canadian-based Filipino theatre

director Dennis Gupa, who share their vision of crafting a contemporary

creation story drawn from the respective cultures of the artists. This

production brings together communities and gives voice to those who have

been marginalized.

This is what our beautiful British Columbia is all about, and I am

grateful for the efforts of these artists to highlight the strength of

our diversity. Like a banyan tree, we must continue to express the roots

of our heritage so that we can branch a way ahead together for a shared

future that will endure for generations to come.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

L. Throness: Cardus, a social policy think tank, has just completed an

empirical study on independent schools in B.C. Its findings shed new

light on common misperceptions about this growing movement, a movement

that now claims more than 86,000 students.

Opponents of parental choice like to cast them as schools for the

rich, but only 8 percent of them are elite prep schools. In fact, it’s

middle-class parents who sacrifice a lot to send their kids. Over half

make major financial and life changes to afford the cost of school. Nor

are they all religious. Just over half are faith-based. But 40 percent

are specialty schools, like the excellent James Cameron School that I

toured in Maple Ridge, which focuses on helping students with

dyslexia.

Parents don’t choose these schools out of ignorance. They have

more education than the average parent, and parents of independent

school students are ethnically diverse. Nearly half were born outside

Canada, and they’re more than twice as likely to speak a foreign

language at home.

[10:25 a.m.]

Parents choose these schools because of their supportive

environment, their trust in the teachers, administration and curriculum

and their emphasis on character development. Some have been

disillusioned with a public system that they feel tolerates too much bad

behaviour. But they are satisfied with their independent school. Fully

91 percent are very happy with their choice of school and would strongly

recommend it to others.

Finally, independent schools represent a gift to the taxpayer. The

study estimates that every independent school student saves B.C.

taxpayers $6,600 per year.

Congratulations to Cardus for taking on the task of busting myths

about independent schools. Their study tells us that these schools are

good for parents, students, teachers and taxpayers. We should be

encouraging more of them.

TUITION WAIVER PROGRAM FOR

FORMER YOUTH IN

CARE

B. D’Eith: For many children in our province living in care or aging out of

care, their lives have been about survival, overcoming trauma and

certainly having lives that are more challenging than many other

children in the province. But last weekend I witnessed a real sign of

hope.

The Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks hosted their fall

retreat in my riding at the amazing Zajac Ranch for Children in Mission.

The federation is actually a youth-driven provincial non-profit

organization dedicated to improving the lives of young people in B.C.

who are now or were in care.

The federation invited the Minister of Advanced Education, the MLA

for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and me to attend a special celebration

during the retreat. Early Saturday morning, after an energetic

icebreaker of a game called Whoosh — it was fun — we had an impassioned

and powerful presentation by the Minister of Advanced Education. We

celebrated the 1,119 former youth in care who have accessed the

post-secondary education tuition waiver program. That’s 1,119 lives

transformed, 1,119 young people who have limitless

possibilities.

The tuition waiver program was introduced in the fall of 2017 in

response to a decades-long call for action from generations of former

youth in care, youth advocates, foster parents and youth still in care.

The program is the most robust program of its kind in Canada. Former

youth in care can now enrol in all types of programs — social work,

teaching, nursing, flight training, trades, business administration,

graphic design and many more — in over 25 post-secondary

institutions.

Since the program launched, there has been a 443 percent increase

in the number of former youth in care enrolled in post-secondary over

the 2016-2017 school year. This seme­ster alone over 250 former

youth in care have access to the waiver program.

Last weekend I was lucky to meet several incredible youth who’ve

accessed the tuition waiver program. What I heard from them is that the

benefit of post-secondary isn’t just about a diploma. It’s about

expanding the world around you, making new friends, improving your time

management, developing a stronger sense of self and feeling empowered to

write a positive future for yourself. These young people are doing just

that — writing their own positive future.

Oral Questions

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

CHANGES AND

IMPACTS

M. de Jong: Every week hundreds of volunteers from around the Lower Mainland

gather on a farm in Abbotsford. They sit down at tables, and they chop

vegetables. These are the vegetables that are bruised or otherwise

imperfect. They chop broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrots,

cauliflower, celery, corn and other vegetables, and they turn them into

soup. They feed the world’s hungry. They feed the world’s starving

people.

In 2018, they served 15 million servings of soup — over the years,

hundreds of millions of meals — to the world’s hungry. It’s an

incredible story.

It was going great until this minister and this government came

along. You see, the Gleaners need to expand slightly, very slightly,

their lunchroom to feed their own volunteers. The government amended the

legislation, and now they can’t.

[10:30 a.m.]

Where is the common sense in that? Where is the common sense in

saying to a group that is feeding the world’s hungry: “You can’t

slightly expand your lunchroom so you can feed your own

volunteers”?

Will the minister stand up and pledge to get the government out of

the way and let the Gleaners do what they do so well, which is feed the

world’s hungry?

Hon. L. Popham: I will agree with the member across the way that they’re doing

really great work, and we’ve supported that work that they’ve done. They

are receiving donated produce that would otherwise end up in a landfill.

They’re dehydrating it. They’re making a soup mix, and I think that’s to

be commended. It’s being sent out to other countries, and I commend them

on that.

They were looking to expand their operation on the agricultural

land reserve. As I’ve said many times, I don’t interfere with

applications or decisions that the Agricultural Land Commission makes.

The Agricultural Land Commission made a decision that expanding the

operation on agricultural land would take away from the capacity of the

agricultural land. So their application for expansion was

refused.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister, sadly, does not want to take responsibility

for the amendments that she and her government have made to the ALC

legislation that are responsible for that refusal. She changed the

mandate.

The minister stands up and says: “We support their work.” Well,

perhaps philosophically. The government doesn’t actually provide any

funding. And you know what? The Gleaners don’t want government funding.

They want the government to leave them alone. They want the government

to allow them to expand their lunchroom a little bit into the parking

lot so they can feed their volunteers.

It gets worse. Not only did the ALC, under this minister’s new

mandate, refuse their application; they’re now threatening them and

demanding that they tear down existing buildings that they require to

continue their operation.

I don’t get it. What part of feeding the world’s hungry does this

minister find offensive?

Hon. L. Popham: As I said previously, we absolutely support the work that that

organization is doing. They are operating a processing business on

agricultural land reserve land. They put in an application to the

Agricultural Land Commission. The commission looked at it through a lens

of agricultural production, and unfortunately, they refused the

expansion of that business.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Abbotsford West on a second

supplemental.

M. de Jong: I have to say that the minister has a very odd way of defining

support.

Just to bring this full circle, the Gleaners — this

volunteer-based non-profit organization — also own the land that the

Abbotsford Women’s Centre is located on. Remember them? They’re the

women’s support group, the women’s support home that the ALC, using the

minister’s new mandate, is evicting from their site. Evicting women from

their home, telling the Gleaners that they can’t do what they need to do

to feed millions and millions of starving people around the world….

That’s the minister’s version of support?

We have farmers in the gallery today who heard nothing from this

minister when their homes were invaded by people trespassing on their

property — not a word, until she got in front of them

yesterday.

It’s time this minister stopped simply mouthing support and

actually showed some real commitment to the work that farmers are doing

and the work that volunteers are doing — in this case, to feed the

world’s hungry. When will she do it?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, as you know, I don’t interfere in decisions with the

Agricultural Land Commission. But what I can say is that the application

that was put forward to the Agricultural Land Commission was about

expanding on agricultural land.

The other situation was that the shelter had reached its capacity.

We’re very fortunate that the Minister of Housing recognizes the need

for different types of housing in appropriate locations…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: …and will be addressing that in Abbotsford.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. L. Popham: It’s interesting…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: …how the member tries to frame an issue. He just said that our

government hasn’t addressed the issue around animal welfare and

activism. We’ve been working with the B.C. Agriculture Council on this

for months. We’ve been meeting with law enforcement. We’ve been speaking

to stakeholders. I think last night we had our chance to make it clear

to the agriculture industry…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: …that trespassing on farmland is a serious crime. Now,

it’s….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please allow the Minister of Agriculture to answer the

question.

Hon. L. Popham: I think it’s also important to remember that producing food in

British Columbia is important, and if we continue to take capacity away

from our food-producing lands, we won’t have that opportunity. There are

many things that the Agricultural Land Commission considers when making

an application. The first lens is, of course, agricultural production

and encouraging farming.

M. Polak: When the minister brought forward the amend­ments to the

mandate for the ALC, she claimed that that was all about trying to

increase and improve agriculture. But there’s an example in Langley that

shows exactly the opposite.

There’s a plot of land. It’s about 15½ acres. It’s on the corner

of 16th Avenue and 200th, a spot I’ve driven by many, many times. I see

other people nodding if they live in the area. This land hasn’t been

farmed in 60 years. You drive by. There are lots of grasses. There’s a

building that gets rented out — a house that gets rented out

occasionally — and a run-down old red barn that people can’t use because

it’s unsafe.

Enter Southgate Christian Fellowship, who thought it would be a

good idea to farm that property. They’ve owned it since 2000. They put

in an application where they would build their church and community

amenity building and then farm the rest of the land for the first time

in 60 years. What does the ALC say? No.

Madam Minister, how on earth is that helpful for

agriculture?

Hon. L. Popham: We do have many areas of land that aren’t farmed in British

Columbia right now, and that’s why we’re encouraging new entrants to

enter into the agricultural sector. In fact, this is something that was

neglected for 16 years by the other side.

We have programs that we’ve initiated to get new farmers onto the

land.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: One of them is the land-matching program, which we work on with

the Young Agrarians. That is to match people that don’t have access to

farmland to land that needs to be farmed. We’ve had great success, over

the last year and a half, since we launched that program. Many acres are

coming back into production. That could be a piece of land that a young

farmer may want to farm on.

I’m not going to comment on the particular application that the

member brings up, but what I can say is that when the Agricultural Land

Commission receives an application, the primary lens they use is

agriculture. So perhaps they looked at that application and decided it

would take away from the agricultural production of that land. I look

forward….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: If the member and the members across the way really consider that

agriculture is important, let’s talk about that piece of land and figure

out how to get it into full production.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a

supplemental.

[10:40 a.m.]

M. Polak: Well, actually, the ALC has just that chance on this plot of land.

The minister mentioned the Young Agrarians. In fact, the pastor of the

church, in outlining the plans to council, indicated that it’s the Young

Agrarians that they were working with to get the rest of that land into

production. Council supported the application quite heartily, and just

to make sure that the ALC wasn’t concerned that the land might revert at

some time in the future, the owners even agreed to register a covenant

on the property to ensure that that land being farmed would be farmed in

perpetuity.

Mr. Speaker, when will this minister return the ALC to its

previous mandate and stop these illogical decisions?

Hon. L. Popham: On anything that would have affected that decision, we did not

make changes. Our government did not make changes on that, no. But you

know what? What we can remember is, under this government, what happened

to the agricultural land reserve and the erosion that took place. We had

mega-mansions being built. We had farmland being considered as

speculation. We had fill and garbage being dumped all over the

land.

Mr. Speaker, they do not have a record they can be proud of. It’s

very rich for these members to stand up and say they like agriculture,

on the Day of Agriculture in this House, when we know their record on

agriculture.

There’s one thing that’s clear. Not only do we believe in

agriculture; we know how important it is to this province. We’ve put our

money where our mouth is. Over the next three years, there’ll be $30

million more dedicated to the agriculture file.

LABOUR DISPUTE IN

SAANICH SCHOOL

DISTRICT

A. Olsen: The labour dispute between school district No. 63 and CUPE 441 is

hurting the 500 school support workers — clerical, transportation,

grounds, maintenance and custodial staff — that provide critical

services to the quality of public education in my riding. It also

disrupts teachers, school administrators and the 8,000 students that are

sitting at home this week.

In addition to the disruption to public education, thousands of

families in my riding are scrambling to find child care and manage their

way through this difficult situation. I’m hearing all about the

challenges, Mr. Speaker. The families in my riding need certainty.

Accountability flows to this House, where the government must deliver on

their commitment to families in British Columbia to provide a quality

public education system.

To the Minister of Education, parents in my riding want to know:

what is the pathway for resolving this labour dispute?

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question. I know, in terms of his

constituents, that this is a very stressful situation for parents and

for kids in the Saanich school district. I want to let them know that

the province of British Columbia is, obviously, monitoring the situation

very closely. We have remained available to provide whatever assistance

we can to get the two parties back at the negotiating table and find a

resolution forward.

I would add that we have achieved success 53 other times with

support staff unions right across British Columbia, where we’ve

negotiated successful agreements with support staff unions and workers.

We expect that within the sustainable services mandate, we can achieve

exactly that in Saanich. We want to do it immediately. We’d like a

resolution to the situation as soon as possible. The government remains

available to help the two parties — both the Saanich school district, as

the employer, and the union, represented by CUPE, to do just

that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I thank the minister for his response.

Mediation has not been successful to date. The parties have been

at the mediation table. I’ve met with both sides, and I’ve heard that

everyone agrees that, actually, there’s a problem that cannot

necessarily be solved locally. There are substantial and historic

challenges in Saanich that have gone unaddressed for decades.

From what I’ve learned, the provincial negotiating

frame­work lacks the flexibility the school board requires to

address the situation in our district. It appears to back workers into a

corner with conditions that punish them for advancing their interests.

It forces them to accept the status quo, as they have done for

successive contracts. It also handcuffs the employer, whose

representative was on the CBC this morning highlighting how the

situation impairs recruitment and retention.

[10:45 a.m.]

It appears that it’s on the minister to solve the situation. In

the Times Colonist this morning, the minister rightly states

that the previous government did not address this inequity. However, the

negotiating framework appears unchanged. The situation is on this

government. Only the current minister has the power to do what previous

administrations have failed to do.

To the Minister of Education, the situation is impacting the

quality of education in my riding and the quality of life for the

workers. I’m certain that it’s causing uncertainty for families in

Saanich. How does the minister intend to redress the unmanageable and

growing disparities between workers in Saanich and their counterparts in

the same city in neighbouring school districts?

Hon. R. Fleming: Again to the member, our government is seeking to do what we’ve

done successfully with 230,000 public servants right across British

Columbia. That is to successfully negotiate agreements under a free

collective bargaining framework. We seek to do the exact same in the

Saanich school district. We have done so on 53 occasions with the

support staff unions around British Columbia.

I want to thank the district thus far, and the union, for trying

to work creatively under the sustainable services mandate committee.

It’s not as if the parties are hopelessly far apart. They are close, and

could be closer, to an agreement.

For example, as the member mentioned, we have inherited a

situation where workers in this district have had their wages held down

for the better part of a decade. The parties have agreed already to look

at an 11.7 percent wage increase in a three-year term for educational

assistants. That’s what we’ve been able to offer at this point in time

in the Saanich school district.

We have achieved agreements with 53 other support staff unions.

The same mandate is available to this group of workers. There is no

reason why we can’t be successful. We want to work as hard as we can. We

will offer the resources to get the job done, to get an agreement that’s

good for the workers in Saanich school district and good for kids,

parents and families in classrooms in this district.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

CHANGES AND

IMPACTS

S. Bond: Janet Munson, of Terrace, recently wrote a letter to the Premier.

Janet’s family has owned and operated a working cow-calf-hay operation

since 1990. Her message to the Premier and this minister is similar to

what farm families from across British Columbia have been saying to her.

Janet says: “The recent changes to Bills 52 and 15 have caused us all

serious concern and many sleepless nights worrying about our

future.”

Yesterday the minister dismissed and refused to listen or take any

responsibility at all for the significant concerns that are being

expressed by Janet and other farm families. It’s time for this minister

to set aside the speaking notes, stand up in this Legislature and take

responsibility.

The members opposite can laugh and giggle. This is a serious

matter for farm families across British Columbia. It’s time for this

minister to stand up, get on track here and listen to the farm families

of British Columbia.

Will the minister listen to the concerns expressed by Janet in a

heartfelt letter to the Premier? Will she stand up and agree to repeal

Bill 52 today?

Hon. L. Popham: Again, I appreciate the member’s concern about agriculture today.

It’s always a good time to talk about agriculture. I was up in the

Okanagan this weekend. I was talking to people who grow grapes for a

living.

In one conversation I had with a gentleman who has been growing

grapes for many years in a small vineyard, he said that when he

originally bought his land in the ALR, he had hopes of maybe turning it

into a condo development. Then he said to me, “I’m so glad that your

government is changing legislation in order to strengthen the

agricultural land reserve, because my area…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: …that I live in would look completely different if we

hadn’t…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: …protected the agricultural land reserve,” and how proud he was to

be a farmer.

Those are the stories I’m hearing around the province. I’m hearing

from farmers all the time that are happy that we have an agricultural

land reserve. Without it, we wouldn’t have been able, I don’t think, to

reach a record high in agriculture this year. We have reached $15

billion in the industry.

[10:50 a.m.]

My mandate — which is Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. —

addresses issues that farmers are facing on the ground and is helping to

get new farmers on to the ground farming. We have a bid B.C. policy

which is moving more food through our hospitals and our

institutions.

Of course, we are focusing hard on marketing our products to

British Columbians and around the world with Buy B.C. It’s looking like

it’s working, at $15 billion this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: It’s an interesting answer from the minister, because it isn’t

working. Farm families across British Columbia are speaking out and

sharing their stories.

Those words are cold comfort for Janet. Here’s what Janet had to

say about their farm. “Our farm has supplied beef and hay sales to the

local community for almost 30 years. We have improved, nourished the

land and provided food security. It’s been a good life until this year.”

That rests squarely on the shoulders of this minister and no one

else.

Janet goes on to say: “I don’t just feel discouragement with the

changes to Bills 52 and 15. I feel completely defeated.” That’s the

impact of the changes that this minister made to the mandate of the ALC.

Completely defeated.

Janet has a specific request for this minister. She can ignore us

and dismiss all of the questions. This is what Janet in Terrace is

asking the minister to do. “I am calling on you to repeal Bill 52. Leave

the rules and regulations in regard to agriculture and farming to the

people who know farming, who have particular knowledge of what they need

to do on and off farm to remain viable and sustainable.” That’s Janet’s

request to this minister.

Will she do the right thing and stand up and admit that this is a

mess and a mistake and repeal Bill 52?

Hon. L. Popham: I’m not sure…. I appreciate that the member read out the letter,

but I’m not quite sure what the ask was, what she was trying to do. I’m

not sure what she was asking to do on her farm, but I can tell you this.

It sounds like they have an incredible farm operation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: It sounds like they’re supplying food into the local economy.

Something that we can all be proud of.

If it’s around a housing need, her family farm can apply to have

additional residences by putting an application into the Agricultural

Land Commission. I’m assuming that’s it. If it’s around encouraging

farming or marketing their products, we can help with that. I would say

that I would love to meet with this resident of Terrace. We can talk

about her concerns individually.

I can also tell you that we have a very supportive mandate for

farming. Yesterday, meeting with farmers across B.C., I also heard that

the policies that we’re putting in place are helping.

J. Rustad: One thing that we’ve heard here clearly is that…. The minister has

made sure that common sense has absolutely no place in land use

decisions.

In Vanderhoof, the minister’s new mandate means that a temporary

work camp, which would have housed 900 people in the community, will not

be able to go ahead, despite the support of the Vanderhoof council. This

temporary facility would have been behind the airport and seen

significant both short- and long-term benefits for the

community.

Will the minister do the right thing and ensure that this vital

step for the LNG pipeline is achieved in Vanderhoof?

Hon. L. Popham: I think there’s something in process right now. It’s my

understanding that there is an alternative site that’s being looked at.

There are discussions between local government, First Nations and the

oil and gas company right now.

The one thing that I want to point out, which we’re looking

forward to…. There are a lot of work camps that are setting up around

British Columbia.

[10:55 a.m.]

We’re in contact with the oil and gas companies around where

they’re procuring their food from. There are great opportunities to be

able to supply the work camps with British Columbia grown and processed

food. So we’re looking forward to that.

We know that those discussions are underway, and when they decide

on an appropriate place for the work camp, we’re looking forward to

working with them in their kitchen.

ASSISTANCE FOR RANCHERS IMPACTED

BY FLOODING IN

CHILCOTIN AREA

D. Barnett: We have a government that has no problem telling farmers and

ranchers what they can build, where they can build and how they can

build on their own land. But when these same farmers and ranchers are in

trouble, the government has gone AWOL. Ranchers in the Chilcotin are

dealing with the impact of this summer’s flooding and need assistance

now to help feed their cattle, and many are their pregnant breeding

cows.

To the minister: will you and your government help these ranchers

or not?

Hon. L. Popham: It is a very difficult situation, with the flooding that’s

happened up in this member’s area.

I know that I can always count on this member to bring forward

situations in her riding. She’s an excellent representative of her area,

and I appreciate it. We’ve had many conversations in my office, and

we’ve solved a lot of problems together.

I can tell the House that my staff have been working with the

ranching organizations in her area. I think she knows that. We’ve been

having meetings. We’ve been helping ranchers and farmers get their

applications in order, in order to apply for support and

assistance.

We’ve also been in contact with the federal government. In a

situation like this, which is a natural disaster, we are able to go into

different pots of money with the federal government. So now that their

election is over, we’re hoping to see some progress on that.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

CHANGES AND

IMPACTS

L. Throness: I have to get back to the Gleaners and the women’s shelter,

because what the minister is saying is so unsupportable, so egregious.

You know, the minister’s position is obviously indefensible, but she

continues to resort to her talking points, her clinical talking

points.

Worse than her indefensibility is her heartlessness. This is a

heartless way to approach this. She’s happy to chuck women onto the

street. She’s happy to let elderly volunteers who want to

feed…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Throness: …hungry people in the developing world…. She’s happy to stop what

they’re doing. She’s happy to care about land, but she doesn’t care

about people. And that’s the problem.

So my question is simple.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the question.

L. Throness: Will the minister have a heart and do what it takes to change this

decision — either change the mandate of the commission or pass

legislation to overrule this egregious, unsupportable, indefensible,

ridiculous and unjust decision?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member says “indignation.” You know what? There is a lot of

indignation, a lot of indignation of a government that for 16

years….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you are out of order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You want more? You will get more. You’ll get indignation from

health care workers who saw contracts ripped up. You’ll get indignation

from people on social assistance who had their bus passes clawed back.

You’ll get indignation from people who tried to protect farmland and

watched interference after interference with an Agricultural Land

Commission from a government that didn’t give a rat about it. You will

get indignation….

Interjections.

[11:00 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You’ll get indignation from people who for 16 years were

subject….

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you are out of order. Members, you are totally

out of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will end with this: clearly, the truth hurts.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: I have the honour of presenting the 2018-19 annual report of the

Islands Trust. The report underlines the wide range of activities and hard

work of the Islands Trust and the Islands Trust Conservancy Board in

managing, developing and sustaining communities and protecting ecosystems in

this unique and special part of British Columbia.

Notably, this year the trust conservancy reached an important

milestone of 105 protected places, totalling 1,290 hectares of natural and

cultural values, with the establishment of the Valens Brook Nature Reserve

on Denman Island and the Salish View Nature Reserve on Lasqueti

Island.

I greatly appreciate the ongoing dedication of the trust staff and

elected officials in fulfilling the legislated purpose of preserving and

protecting the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the

benefit of residents and for all British Columbians. They have recently

embarked on an ambitious undertaking to review their policy statement, the

foundational document that guides their planning and advocacy.

I’d like to take a moment to recognize the trust commitment to

focusing its approach for improved relations with the many First Nations

with interests in the lands and waters of the trust area. In seeking to move

beyond formality and having meaningful interactions with First Nations that

are rooted in a sincere and genuine relationship of mutual respect, the

trust is helping to advance reconciliation.

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the Public Guardian and Trustee of

British Columbia annual report for 2018-19.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading on Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2019

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill M225, Ukrainian Famine and

Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL M225 — UKRAINIAN FAMINE AND

GENOCIDE (HOLODOMOR)

MEMORIAL DAY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill M225;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:05 a.m.

Hon. L. Beare: I request leave for permission for the member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head and myself to join the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology to

answer questions together at those seats.

Leave granted.

section 1.

A. Weaver: I’m very excited that we’re moving to committee stage. I suspect,

with a bill that is rather short, it’s quite clear the questions will be

minimal.

I do want to once more acknowledge members of the official

opposition and members of government, including the ministers sitting

beside me — the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology and the Minister

of Tourism — for their support on this bill. I look forward to any

questions that may come during this committee stage.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

A. Weaver: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:07 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL M225 — UKRAINIAN FAMINE AND

GENOCIDE (HOLODOMOR)

MEMORIAL DAY ACT

Bill M225, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day

Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 33, Securities Amendment

Act, 2019.

[11:10 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 — SECURITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 33; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. C. James: I look forward to the questions from the members as we go through

committee stage. I do want to introduce my staff, first, that we have

here: Tim Prisiak, who’s the director of securities; Anita Kataoka, the

senior policy adviser; and Joey Primeau, our executive director from the

department.

Thank you, staff, for the able help. I look forward to our

questions.

S. Bond: On behalf of my co-critic and I, and obviously our colleagues, who

will be asking a series of questions, we appreciate the minister

introducing her staff and thank them for their hard work. Obviously,

it’s been a laborious task bringing forward a bill of this complexity

and length. We’ll be working our way through the sections.

I wanted to begin by looking at the flow of our questions and

where we might start, and I wondered if the minister would be amenable

to having a discussion about the…. It’s something that doesn’t fit

precisely into a section. There are two alternatives here. We can have a

discussion here at the beginning of the committee stage about the

progress, the status, the timelines of the work on a national securities

regulator, or we can deal with it potentially at

section 92.

[11:15 a.m.]

Obviously, it was of significant interest to a number of my

colleagues, and I know that several members would like to ask questions.

I just want to have the minister indicate what her preference would

be.

Hon. C. James: I think, because the questions and the areas that the members were

looking at in second reading certainly impact all of the bill and the

work that’s going on with the bill, my suggestion would be that we start

with that and that the members ask their questions related to that. Then

we can get into the specifics of the bill and the technical pieces of

the bill, if that works for the member.

M. Lee: Perhaps I could just continue on with the points that were raised

by many members on this side of the House in the second reading stage,

including the member for Abbotsford West and myself.

Could we ask: what’s the status of the work that we were speaking

to? The last update in this House, when we had this last opportunity to

speak to the minister, was about May 7 of this year. Since then, if we

could ask the minister, what further work has been done? What’s the

status of what needs to be done in order to put in place the cooperative

capital markets regulator?

Hon. C. James: Maybe I can start with the discussion we had in May. As the member

mentioned, in the estimates debate in May we had a discussion about the

work that was ongoing. I will let the member know that that work

continues to be ongoing and continues to be very complex. I think the

member will remember that a court case was still outstanding, which we

talked about in May, for one of the provinces related to this work, and

there were ongoing discussions.

B.C. continues to be at the table. We continue to be committed to

the project, to make sure that it’s successful, and we continue to be a

strong voice at the table. I think part of the discussion yesterday was

whether B.C. continues to take a leadership role. Yes. In fact, our

staff are experts in this area, are often utilized and play a leadership

role. That’s important to us.

On the timelines, the work was taking a break over the summer, and

then we went into the federal election. As the member would know, the

federal government is also part of these discussions. So there was an

agreement that we would take a break, that we would come back after the

election cycle, when things had finished up. So I’m expecting that we’ll

see a call with the group in the next short while.

I also think it’s important to note…. I know the member and a

couple of members asked questions, really, yesterday around the work

that we’re doing and the changes that we’re making in this act and

whether they have any connection to the work that’s happening through

the capital markets, the cooperative national capital markets. In fact,

yes, they do.

This act was put out for consultation a number of times. We do not

believe the amendments on this work will be a hindrance to the work of

the capital cooperatives market. The draft that went out from the

capital market is informing our work as well. We in fact think it will

be complementary and be a support as we move further along.

I do have to say that this work is going to take some time. This

is not going to be something that’s going to be completed in the next

number of months. There have been changes in government across the

country — Ontario in particular, which, as the member will know, is a

partner in this process as well. Those discussions are ongoing. We

continue to be committed to the work. I expect we’ll have a conference

call shortly, now that the federal election has been completed, and all

the parties will be back at the table.

M. Lee: One of the aspects that we discussed last May and that was raised

again yesterday in second reading is the timeline for when all parties,

with B.C. taking the role that it is, are to complete the work that’s

necessary for a national securities regulator function to be put in

place. Could I ask: what is that timeline at this point?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: That was the last call we had before the summer break and before

the federal election. There was an agreement that the group would

regroup after the federal election. As I said, we’d had a change in

Ontario’s government, as well, during that time period. So there is an

agreement that when we come back together again, we will take a look

again at the timelines and the workplan and adjust it based on the

current timelines.

I should have a report by the time we get to estimates again

coming up, or perhaps before then, depending on when the call is and

depending on the discussion that occurs. I expect this could also be

part of the discussion for the federal-provincial-territorial finance

ministers meeting as well.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. This is the second

opportunity that we can have this discussion in the current context, and

the opportunity.

As members on this side of the House have expressed, we’re quite

concerned that this process is drifting. I appreciate the change in

government and some of the other aspects that the minister raised.

However, B.C. really needs to take that role. It has a history of

leadership in this effort through many years, as we spoke about in

second reading and before.

I would ask the minister: in terms of this government’s view about

the importance of putting in place this cooperative capital market, does

it remain a priority of this government to do so?

Hon. C. James: As I said at the beginning, we are committed as a province and we

are committed as a government to making sure the project is successful.

Yes, the timelines have drifted. In fact, that was a topic of

conversation for all the ministers over this last year on the project

itself, and the importance of setting timelines and, most importantly, a

workplan that is going to be able to carry that out. So I expect, as I

said to the member, that that will be part of the discussion that we’ll

have.

I think it’s important to note again that the work that is coming

forward in this act and the changes that are coming forward in this act

are, in fact, many of them, part of the work that has been informed

through the cooperative capital markets work. So you will see many of

the recommendations. In fact, from our perspective, it inches us closer

to the joint work that needs to occur by making sure that we are making

those changes in our act — not working at cross purposes but, in fact,

getting the pieces done that need to be done to be able to move towards

a cooperative capital market.

Again, the importance of getting this right, the importance of

putting a timeline and a workplan in place that will ensure that this

protects the kinds of pieces of work that B.C. has been known for and

that we need to ensure happen across this country is going to be

critical through this process.

M. Lee: Just looking, if I can, at the aspect around the workplan. Could

the minister please provide an update to this House as to what those

core elements are that remain to be completed?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll just touch on a few of the main pieces and major pieces of

work that are going on.

As I mentioned, the capital markets act is progressing, and in

fact, a fair bit of work has been done on that. It’s fairly far along.

But the biggest piece of work that needs to be looked at now is, in

fact, the regulatory act, the authority that would be in place. That

still has a great deal of work that needs to be done on that

piece.

Then provincial implementation legislation. Each prov­ince

will have to have an implementation, have to have their own legislation

to be able to implement the changes that occur across their acts to

ensure that there’s a common framework across the country. That’s a

piece that is a large piece of work that still has to be done. That has

to be done by individual provinces. That’s work that has to be done by

all the partners as part of this work.

The initial set of regulations. I talked about the regulatory act.

The initial set of regulations went out for consultation. Comments have

come back, so we’re taking a look now at those pieces and those comments

on the first go-round that people have had an opportunity to be able to

look at. Then the last piece, of course, will be the implementation and

how that implementation occurs. So those are kind of the main markers

that work still needs to be done on across this piece of

legislation.

M. Lee: When we had the discussion last in May, the minister made a

comment that it was necessitated, given the delays in the project, that

staff — presumably, B.C. Securities Commission staff and others in the

ministry — would be refocused on their efforts to what would be, and

what we’re seeing today in this bill, Bill 41, in effect. Could I ask

the minister to comment, in terms of the last five months, on where the

focus of that staff has been and where it will be, going

forward?

Hon. C. James: Certainly, as I said in the spring, the staff’s focus has been in

preparing the legislation and getting the legislation ready, making sure

we’re going through the process. That took us through into a portion of

the summer, and now staff are again back focused — other than our

opportunity to go through the committee stage — on the work that they’re

doing with the capitals market. Staff have been having meetings in

preparation for the ministers to re-engage once the federal election is

done.

M. Lee: We have a 75-page bill that has been worked on. That’s a question

perhaps to you. How long has it taken for the government to compile the

work that we’re seeing here in Bill 41? Over what number of months has

this been the effort?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think it’s important to note that even work on the legislation

isn’t full-time work. As the member would know, staff have a variety of

duties that they take on, including work on legislation. I certainly

gave direction and had discussions with the Security Commission in early

2018 about the fine collections and about their ideas and their

approaches that they wanted to take a look at — and the recommendations

that they could bring forward, the ideas they could bring forward to

strengthen our ability to be able to collect fines, to strengthen our

ability to be able to address the challenges that we are

facing.

From that time, from 2018 through to 2019, when the legislation

was being developed, there was continued work on the cooperative capital

market but also work on the piece of legislation that you see in front

of us today. The work continued on, but yes, the staff were also focused

on making sure that these changes came forward.

As the member will know, and as I said through estimates and in

the introduction of this legislation, we felt it was important to act.

We felt, on behalf of British Columbians and particularly on behalf of

people who are victimized through white-collar crime, that it was

critical to bring forward these changes in legislation.

M. Lee: Certainly, we’ll have the full opportunity here with the

co–Finance critics to talk about the nature of the enforcement and other

tools that are set out in Bill 33. Of course, that’s what I meant to say

earlier, when I last spoke. It is Bill 33, Securities Amendment Act. But

my point is really that the level of complexity and the differences

between securities acts in this country…. It’s the reason why there’s

been challenge to harmonize and to bring together a national securities

regulator through a cooperative capital markets forum.

The dedication of resources that this government has put towards

this bill is one thing to note. But it has taken the eye off the ball,

in the view of our members here. There is a window of opportunity here

to get this work done, and as the minister just outlined in terms of the

work plan, there is a lot of work still to be done.

We’re in that zone. We’re in the zone where there is an

opportunity as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision. The

momentum is there, with seven jurisdictions participating. So we are

asking and urging this government to complete that work.

We’re very concerned that first and foremost, with the amount of

effort that has been done over the last ten months, since the beginning

of 2018, on this bill, the government has relinquished its role, its

focus on ensuring that we put in place that cooperative capital markets

regulatory authority.

We will talk about, through committee stage, points that the

minister is suggesting. There are elements that have been consulted on

and that may form part of the uniform legislation.

Let me ask the minister. Is the minister concerned at all, in

terms of the continued amendment of the Securities Act of British

Columbia, that that will pose more challenge to other provinces, like

Alberta, Ontario, other provinces that are part of this effort to put in

place cooperative capital markets — that they will have a challenge

themselves with the amount of change that is going on and is presented

in this bill?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: No, I am not concerned. The member will know that Alberta isn’t

part of this process. Quebec is not part of this process. There are

still challenges across the country when it comes to the

markets.

I think the other important point to note is that Ontario, in

fact, has made changes to their Securities Act every year. They’ve

continued to make changes. We have not, here in British Columbia. In

fact, we are falling behind some of the changes that have been made. So

it’s not accurate to presume that other provinces aren’t making changes.

In fact, they are making changes, and B.C. has fallen behind. That is

why it was so important to ensure that on behalf of the people of this

province, we made sure that we brought these changes forward.

As I mentioned earlier, as well, we took a look at the capital

markets act. Many of the changes, in fact, are mirrored from that act.

We are doing exactly what we need to do to ensure that our act is moving

ahead while continuing the leadership role through the federal national

process as well.

M. Lee: Mr. Chair, I think as we go

section by

section in the committee

review, we will be looking at sections that…. Clearly, B.C. is the only

province in this country that is proposing that level of regulation —

and not a situation where other provinces have already adopted similar

regulations. This is going to be an area of, certainly, great review

here in this process.

The minister did mention a level of consultation that has occurred

with this bill and some of the changes that are proposed in this bill.

Could the minister please describe what that consultation process looked

like to this House?

Hon. C. James: When I mentioned the consultation…. Consultation occurred on the

capital markets act, the work that went on in the capital markets act.

That, again, is mirrored….

I know we’ll have a chance, as the member pointed out, to go

through where they match up and where B.C. is taking a lead. For

example, on the capital markets act, there were two rounds of

consultation: one in 2012 and one in 2015. Again, many of those are

pieces that are reflected in this act.

On the derivatives piece. As the member will know well, this is a

piece where there’s been extensive consultation. In fact, most provinces

have moved. B.C. is playing catch-up on the derivatives piece. That’s a

piece that was recommended and consulted on and moved ahead on by other

provinces. B.C. is playing catch-up on that piece. So that’s been broad

consultation.

Then, obviously, on the collections and the fines, that has not

been a consultation piece. You wouldn’t want to put out to those folks

that you are looking at fining those pieces. That’s part of our act,

where there are some changes, and I know we’ll get a chance to go

through those when we get into the specifics of the committee

stage.

M. Lee: I just wanted to come back to a point that the minister, in her

response, alluded to and to give her the opportunity…. There has been

this level of consideration and discussion on the status, the timeline,

the workplan, the progress being made and the opportunity that’s in

front of British Columbia here.

Could I ask the minister what mechanism there may well be that the

minister could do in order to report back to the House on the progress

that’s being made to put in place this regulator between now and the

next estimates — if there is some opportunity to do that, rather than

having to wait till the next estimates process?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’m happy to meet with the member any time he wants an update. I’m

happy to have a discussion with him and with other members if they want

an update on how the work is going. I’m more than happy to do that.

Members will know that I do that in my office often with members from

the opposition and our own members. So if the member doesn’t want to

wait until estimates…. That’s the natural place, because it’s part of

the ongoing work of the ministry. It’s a natural place to be able to

give an update.

I also think that by the time we get the federal government sworn

in, and by the time you have a Finance Minister in place federally…. I

think it will be some time before that occurs, for us to get the group

back together again and get the work going. In fact, estimates is

probably when we’ll have an update on the work. But I’m happy to meet

with the member any time he wants an update.

M. Lee: Just one other question, if I may, to talk about the current

context. I appreciate the minister’s view on this. As we look at the

focus of this government around enforcement, what is the assessment by

the minister in terms of the ability of B.C. to do it alone, without the

benefit of putting in place the cooperative capital markets regulatory

authority? What is the effectiveness that British Columbia, in what it

is proposing in this bill, will be able to move forward with in the

absence of this prolonged effort that we’re seeing with the national

securities regulator?

Hon. C. James: I think the member will have heard me say in second reading that

our government believes it’s important to act, not to wait. We also

recognize — and I’ve said this often as we have discussions around

white-collar crime, around money laundering, around other criminal

activity — that criminals don’t know borders. They don’t stop at

borders.

We have certainly — in our work that we’ve done on money

laundering, the work that we did through the Expert Panel on Money

Laundering and Peter German’s report and the work that we’ve done on the

Securities Act — called on the federal government to join us in this

work, because this work is critical. We will have much more success if

we are working together, hence the cooperative capital markets work that

we’re engaged in.

It also requires the federal government to be at the table. It

also requires the federal government…. For example, in the changes that

are made, one of the areas where security fines don’t survive is the

bankruptcy process, where if someone declares bankruptcy, the fines fall

off the table. That’s something we will ask the federal government and

have been asking the federal government to take a look at. There is much

more strength for us to work together.

As I said, criminals don’t stop at provincial borders. They will

utilize any and all tools to be able to keep the money and not return

the money to victims. It’s part of the reason we’ve made some of the

changes and amendments that are in this act. So I think the more work we

can do together, the better.

S. Bond: I want to thank the minister for spending some time with us. I

have two quick questions, but I also want to thank the member for

Vancouver-Langara for walking us through the concerns that members on

our side of the House have.

I’m wondering if the minister…. I know that she’s referenced the

catch-up provisions. We’re going to spend some time talking about where

British Columbia is actually going to be leading the country, where we

are on our own — not necessarily a good or bad thing. But we do want to

know what the context means for the work done nationally.

Could the minister tell me…? Did she share her intentions to move

forward on the fines and collection and enforcement side with the rest

of the working group? Were they aware that British Columbia was actually

going to move ahead on the enforcement and fine side?

Hon. C. James: Yes, we did. In fact, we did a thorough briefing as

well.

S. Bond: Is it fair to ask the minister what the reaction of other members

of the working group was? Did they recognize the fact that…? Was there

any commentary or recognition of the fact that B.C. is now taking a step

ahead of the group? Certainly, the minister has described the

enforcement and fine collection piece as landmark. Was there a reaction

from other members of the working group?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Measured response is, I guess, the best way I’d describe it. There

was some interest, obviously, in seeing the specifics of the

legislation. We talked about the policy work and briefed them on the

policy work. They’ll be going through the legislation. There was some

interest in provinces, Ontario included, that perhaps, looking at some

of the changes, they may want to mirror the changes, as well, in their

acts. Good discussion.

S. Bond: Thank you for that response, Minister.

I guess I would like just to ask the minister if she would…. As we

understand it, British Columbia was continuing to co-lead the drafting

project. Would the minister be able to confirm whether British Columbia

is still seen as the co-lead?

Hon. C. James: Yes, we are. B.C. and Ontario continue to be the co-leads on this

project. The work goes back and forth. There are discussions around who

does what work when, depending on the workload of everybody on the work

team. We’re very fortunate to have staff, and all of those provinces are

continuing to do this kind of work as an addition to the regular work

that they do.

S. Bond: Thanks again to the minister and her staff for being amenable to

having that discussion at the beginning of our work as we work our way

through the bill.

With that, for the minister’s benefit and her staff, we’re going

to start at

section 1. There are a lot of sections, but we’ll start to

work our way through those.

Section 1 talks about benchmarks. Can the

minister give us an overview of what the regulation of benchmarks is

intended to accomplish?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: This

section provides a framework to allow the Securities

Commission to be able to designate benchmarks, which then gives them the

ability to create a framework to regulate them to ensure that they meet

standards, to ensure that they fit standards. This fits, again,

international best practice that’s in place as well. That’s what this

section focuses on in the

definitions, as the member can see.

S. Bond: Can the minister now, then, provide examples of which benchmarks

currently provide payments or derivatives for securities in

B.C.?

Hon. C. James: The member asked about designated benchmarks. There aren’t any

designated right now. That’s the purpose of putting together this

framework in this work.

There obviously have been some challenges internationally. LIBOR,

for example, and the challenges that occurred there, are areas that

obviously we want to be prevented, and we want to make sure we’ve got

the protections in place. This will provide better regulations, as I

mentioned, to meet international commitments.

Many provinces have moved on this kind of amendment already, to

provide the framework. That’ll give a chance, then, for the specific

work to occur around designation.

S. Bond: Can the minister confirm, then, that the regulation of benchmarks

is a new process for the B.C. Securities Commission?

Hon. C. James: Yes, this is new, and it’s new for everyone across the country.

This is a new process for everyone across the country but, yes, new for

British Columbia as well. The rule has not been developed yet. There

will be a consistent rule across the country. There’s consultation going

on, on that right now. Many provinces have moved on the framework, which

is what this is doing, and the rule is still to come, which gives the

specifics.

S. Bond: Does the minister consider this, then, one of the catch-up

provisions? Since other jurisdictions have made some advancement in the

area of benchmarks, does she consider this one of the catch-up

provisions?

Hon. C. James: Yes, that’s correct.

S. Bond: With the fact that the whole issue of setting up the framework is

new across the country and specifically in British Columbia, how does

the minister or the ministry intend to work with the B.C. Securities

Commission to transition to the regulation of benchmarks?

[11:55 a.m.]

If it’s new to us and it’s new across the country, how is best

practice developed? Obviously, how resource-intensive will it be at the

B.C. Securities Commission? Maybe if the minister could just paint for

us a little bit of the transition picture as the B.C. Securities

Commission takes on this new role.

Hon. C. James: I think the important point to note in this is that the national

policy gets developed. Each province develops their framework, which is

what we’re doing and what other provinces are doing, but a national

policy is being worked on. That creates a rule. The rule now is out for

consultation, as I mentioned.

In the national work that will occur, Ontario will carry a load of

that. B.C. will certainly be involved, but Ontario will carry a load,

being the largest province involved in this area. They will develop the

rule, and then they’ll develop an implementation plan.

This is quite common through the securities work. They’re used to

coming out with rules. They’re used to coming out with the

implementation plan. Then each of the provinces will implement

it.

I’ve been asked to move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada