Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 154

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Fire Prevention Week

S. Cadieux

Homelessness Action Week

M. Elmore

Lorraine March

G. Kyllo

DIVERSEcity Community Resources Society in Surrey

R. Singh

Saanich Peninsula and Gulf Islands housing

issues

A. Olsen

Experiences of women and Me Too campaign

B. Ma

Oral Questions

Debate on LNG Canada project in Legislature

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Community benefits agreement and workers

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

LNG Canada project and jobs

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mungall

Community benefits agreement and workers

G. Kyllo

Hon. C. Trevena

Softwood lumber negotiations and trade with U.S.

J. Rustad

Hon. J. Horgan

D. Barnett

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3),

2018 (continued)

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mark

I. Paton

Hon. L. Popham

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2018

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll start the morning with a fun fact. People may not be aware of

this. My good son Nate studied in Freiberg, Germany, for a year and, also,

couldn’t get an internship here at the Legislature, but he did at the German

Bundestag.

Why that’s relevant is that joining us today in the members’ gallery

is the Hon. Stephan Weil, the minister president of the state of Lower

Saxony. He is joined today by a delegation that includes Gabriele Andretta,

Hillgriet Eilers, Jörg Hillmer, Anja Piel and Uwe Santjer.

They’re here as part of a delegation with the minister president to

talk to legislators here about a range of issues, from climate action to oil

and gas development to how parliament works in a minority situation and how

coalitions can come together. It’s going to be a great opportunity for us to

have genuine dialogue.

Also joining us is the new consul general, Mr. Klaus Schmidt, who’s a

resident now in Vancouver. He will be here, again, keeping relationships

between our two countries strong.

The members from Lower Saxony are delighted to be here on a sunny

Victoria day. Would the House please make them very, very

welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, following the Premier’s interesting fun fact, I’ve got one

myself this morning.

In 1967, we emigrated from the U.K. to Canada. At that time, my

parents were weighing two employment offers, one in New Zealand and one in

Canada. They made the decision by flipping a coin. Heads, we go to Canada;

tails, we go to New Zealand. So I’ve always had a soft spot for New

Zealand.

In the gallery today, we are joined by the Hon. Kelvin Davis, a member

of the New Zealand Parliament. Minister Davis is here on his first official

visit to British Columbia. He’s accompanied by the High Commissioner of New

Zealand, His Excellency Daniel Mellsop, and two staff members.

The delegation will be meeting with myself and other government

ministers throughout the day.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend of mine, Brett Kirby,

who is visiting us today on some business, from New Westminster. And he

outdressed me today. Please welcome Mr. Kirby.

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate being called to make the introductions.

I have got a number of guests in the gallery today who I would like to

welcome and hope people will help me welcome them. They are from component

10 of the BCGEU. This is the group that represents highway maintenance

workers, with numerous employees right across the province.

We have, in the gallery, Rory Smith from Chilliwack. He’s a purchasing

agent. Kelly McDonald from 100 Mile is a grader operator. Darren Feltren

from Hope is also a grader operator. John Cantlon from Hudson’s Hope is a

road foreman. Earl Haward from Smithers is a grader operator. Scott Bumphrey

from Duncan is a mechanic. Shea Morgan from Galiano is a road foreman; Danny

Campbell from Parksville, a grader operator.

Michelle McKenna from Merritt drives truck and is an equipment

operator. Mike Turley from Penticton is a mechanic. Randy Sandburg from

Cranbrook is a mechanic. Walter Chernoff from Grand Forks is also a

mechanic. Curtis Biech from Prince George is a grader operator. Tyson Burge

from Powell River is a mechanic. They’re joined by Frank Anderson and Erik

Hoibak, who are BCGEU staff members.

[10:10 a.m.]

We all know the hard work of the people who fix our highways, who work

for the construction contractors. We all rely on them to build and

rehabilitate and maintain our roads. I think everybody will want to welcome

them for that.

Also, I know that it’s a wonderful sunny day here in Victoria, but

snow is falling in many parts of the province. I’m sure I speak for many of

us in the House who really value the work of all the people in the gallery,

all their colleagues and/or contractors, in keeping our roads clear and our

drivers safe. I would like the House to make them all very

welcome.

Hon. S. Fraser: We’re going to make some history today.

In the gallery, joining us…. I’m delighted to welcome guests from the

shíshálh Nation visiting us here today because they’re about to sign a

landmark agreement with the province, an agreement that we have worked on in

the true spirit of collaboration and respect.

I am honoured to welcome to this House Chief Warren Paull, Coun.

Selina August, Coun. Corey August, Coun. Keith Julius, Coun. Alvina Paul,

Jasmine Paul, Roseanne Kyle, Larry Fedorkie. I would also like to send my

best wishes to Christopher August, who could not be with us today. He has

taken ill, and I know we all wish him well.

To all our guests who have joined us today for this historic day in

the Legislature, would everyone please make them feel so very

welcome.

A. Olsen: Today I’m pleased to stand and introduce some members of the beautiful

Saltspring Island community, members of the Salt Spring Island Chamber of

Commerce.

Li Read is an award-winning real estate agent on Saltspring for over

20 years and has been president of the Salt Spring chamber for the last four

years. Deborah Osborne serves on the board of the chamber. She’s a media

executive, project manager and trainer of Terrier Marketing. In 2016, she

was the recipient of the Crystal Award for mentorship of women in film and

television. Murray Nurse served for six years on the chamber, and he’s a

volunteer at the visitor centre on the island.

They are here in the House today to discuss workforce housing. I very

much look forward to having that conversation. Would the members of this

House please welcome them here today.

G. Begg: It’s a great pleasure for me today to introduce to this House Chris

Flood, a former member of the Irish Parliament. He was the MP for Dublin

South. Chris was elected to parliament in the 1987 general election and

retained his seat until retiring in the 2002 general election. In February

1991, he was appointed Minister of State for Department of Health. In June

’97, he was appointed Minister of State for Department of Tourism, Sport and

Recreation and held that position until his retirement in 2002. Will the

House please join me in making Chris Flood welcome.

Hon. L. Beare: I have the great pleasure today of introducing my new executive

assistant, Jeff Hannah, who is in the House with us. He is currently the

lesser known of the Hannahs in these halls, and I hope that after today,

he’ll be the more widely known Hannah.

Thank you for joining us.

Please make him feel welcome.

J. Rustad: I also want to take a moment to welcome the members from shíshálh. It

was a tremendous amount of work that has been done over a number of years,

obviously through two governments. I’m just so very pleased to see that work

come to fruition, and the signing. I look forward to the ceremony that’s

coming up on Saturday. We welcome you to the House and thank you for being

here today.

Hon. R. Fleming: In the gallery today is Travis Aylward’s grade 10 class from the great

school called Reynolds Secondary in my riding. As members of this House will

know, because Reynolds students are frequent visitors to the legislative

chamber, this is a school with highly engaged students who do amazing work

in the community, working on regional environment projects; an incredible

track record of raising funds for charities like Cops for Cancer;

award-winning programs, including the near and dear soccer academy at

Reynolds, a school of excellence.

[10:15 a.m.]

Amongst the more notorious achievements of Reynolds Secondary is, of

course, the former class president who sits in this chamber. He is, of

course, the Premier of British Columbia.

I would ask all members of the House to welcome these students from

Reynolds Secondary.

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to introduce two very special guests that we have

today in the gallery. We have Marvindar Kaur Chahal. She comes from a town

known as Bathinda, where I come from originally. She’s visiting, for the

first time, this country. She’s also joined by Nirmal Nijjar, who is from

Edmonton. She was originally from Winnipeg, where I actually landed for the

first time when I came from India. I ask the House to please make them feel

welcome.

N. Simons: They’ve been introduced already by the former Minister of Indigenous

Relations and by the current minister. They’re my friends, and they’re from

shíshálh, and I’m so honoured to be in the House to witness this very

historical occasion, actually.

Shíshálh was the first nation to achieve self-government. They led the

way. They took some flak for it, but they showed other people around the

country what they could do. They’ve been successful. They’ve been integral

parts of all of our lives on the Sunshine Coast. They’re well loved. I think

of the elders who I knew, who gave me a name, kwémémus, which of course

means Red Face.

It’s just a historic day to have my friends Keith, Alvina, Selina,

Warren, Jasmine, Corey and their counsel. It’s a very exciting

day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to welcome

them.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

S. Cadieux: Look. Listen. Learn. Be aware. Fires can happen anywhere. That’s

the message fire departments across Canada are going to promote during

Fire Prevention Week 2018.

Starting Sunday, Fire Prevention Week provides awareness about the

dangers of fire, how to prevent it and how to keep your family safe by

having and practising an escape plan. It’s important that our

communities engage in Fire Prevention Week. Unfortunately, we’ve seen a

number of devastating house and apartment fires around B.C. over the

last year.

As members of this Legislature and leaders in our communities,

let’s use Fire Prevention Week to bring awareness to the dangers of fire

and how best to be prepared. Focus on the fundamentals.

Look. The Surrey fire service’s HomeSafe program continues to

remind citizens to look around their home and ensure there are no fire

risks. Things like combustible materials should be kept clear of

appliances and heating elements, as the highest percentage of

residential fires result from cooking. It seems simple.

Listen. Listen to your smoke alarms. Make sure that they’re there

and that they’re working. Working smoke alarms save lives. The Surrey

smoke alarm campaign has improved the number of working smoke alarms

found in residential fires by 116 percent, and it has decreased the fire

death rate by 53 percent. It works.

Learn. Learn how to keep your home safe from fire. Help with this

is available in my community to Surrey residents through the HomeSafe

and free smoke alarm installation programs. It’s not difficult, but it

matters.

I’d like to thank all the firefighters and first responders who

work hard to keep our communities safe. Your courage and public service

do not go unnoticed.

HOMELESSNESS ACTION WEEK

M. Elmore: Next week is Homelessness Action Week in British Columbia. Since

2006, communities throughout B.C. have taken action during this week to

help increase awareness of the challenges of homelessness and work to

find local solutions.

More and more we hear about the crises that people in our province

are facing, from precarious housing to rising costs to tent cities. Year

after year we’re seeing increases in the number of people who are

experiencing homelessness. These challenges are real and shouldn’t be

happening in a province as wealthy as ours.

[10:20 a.m.]

Homelessness affects all of us as British Columbians, and the need

to take action also rests with all of us. That’s why, increasingly, the

province is partnering with local governments, Indigenous communities,

non-profit groups, business and individuals to build solutions. This is

key. We must work together and take swift action to address the root

causes of homelessness in B.C.

During Homelessness Action Week, I encourage members of this House

and all British Columbians to get involved. See what local events are

being held in your community. Lend a hand at a local soup kitchen or

shelter. As individuals and as a society we have a responsibility to

each other, and if we work together, we can all be part of the solution

and make life better for everyone in our province.

LORRAINE MARCH

G. Kyllo: It is with a great sense of loss that I rise in the House today to

pay tribute to the life of Lorraine March, who passed away last Saturday

at her home in Sicamous, surrounded by the love of her family and

friends.

A resident of Sicamous for 34 years, Lorraine was passionate about

her community and was active in many roles — as a reporter and editor of

the Eagle Valley News , past president of the Eagle Valley Arts

Council, past board director of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district

and past director and president of the Sicamous Eagles Junior B Hockey

society. As mayor of the district of Sicamous from 2005 to 2008,

Lorraine left an enduring legacy during a period of rapid expansion in

the community.

Lorraine touched the lives of so many, both within and beyond the

community’s borders. Words cannot fully express the sadness and deep

sense of loss of the community of Sicamous. Lorraine was an extremely

thoughtful, kind and caring individual and beloved billet mom for close

to 20 years, supporting the hockey dreams of over 100 Sicamous Eagles

Junior B hockey players by providing meals, rides, comfort, caring,

motherly advice and, on occasion, some firm discipline when

needed.

Born on April 13, 1948, Lorraine is survived by her best friend

and loving husband, Wayne; her son, Steven; her daughter, Kimberly

Brant; and loving grandchildren.

I heard many years ago a wise saying that I believe is so fitting

of Lorraine — that in this life, “it matters little the amount of money

you accumulate, the size of the home you live in or the value of the car

you drive, but the true measure of the success of one’s life is that

you’re able to make a difference in the life of a child.” On this

measure, Lorraine was rich beyond means and truly made a significant

impact on the lives of many.

To my friend Wayne, I am so sorry for your loss and only hope that

you find comfort in knowing how truly loved and respected Lorraine was

by so many.

DIVERSECITY COMMUNITY RESOURCES

SOCIETY IN

SURREY

R. Singh: Two weeks back I, along with my colleagues, had the opportunity to

attend the 40-year celebration of an organization that has been, since

1978, working tirelessly for the communities in and around Surrey.

DIVERSEcity is a not-for-profit organization that has, for years, been a

centring institution around which many newcomers have founded their

lives and gone on to become thriving Canadians.

Their services range from settlement and community programs to

language training to employment services, and they even provide programs

for children and youth. Their programs continue to expand and change to

reflect the unique needs of the diverse community they continue to serve

with passion and dedication.

Their mission is to “build and strengthen diverse communities by

delivering the broadest range of services that embrace cultural

inclusiveness and that celebrate the strengths found in our

differences.” Those, Mr. Speaker, for me, are the kind of guiding

principles and objectives that build healthy and prosperous communities,

where everyone — whatever one’s ethnicity, gender, faith; whatever one’s

story or journey — is welcome.

I hope you and the rest of the House and all present will join me

in congratulating DIVERSEcity for 40 years of excellent service to the

community.

SAANICH PENINSULA AND

GULF ISLANDS HOUSING

ISSUES

A. Olsen: It’s been more than 16 months since the 2017 election. In some

respects, I’m finally feeling like I’m not a foreigner in parts of my

riding.

[10:25 a.m.]

Despite living my entire life in Saanich North and the Islands and

regularly visiting my Gulf Island relatives, I did not have the benefit

of truly understanding the communities of the Salish Sea. These complex

communities are beautiful, creative, vibrant and unique. It’s what draws

us to them.

Unpacking the social, economic and cultural intricacies of the

Gulf Islands has not been easy, and we’ve still only scratched the

surface. The decisions that governments make are amplified on the Gulf

Islands, and it has certainly been true for issues like the speculation

tax, short-term vacation rentals and fixed-term leases. Today I’m having

lunch with the leadership of the Salt Spring Island Chamber of Commerce,

and we are continuing our conversation about how the housing shortage is

affecting business in the community.

Workforce housing has been an ongoing concern on the Saanich

Peninsula since at least the 2008 election. It was a ballot box question

then, and it’s still a ballot box question ten years later. Workforce

housing on Saltspring is also a growing challenge and is affecting

quality of life on the island.

To give an indication of what we’re facing on Saltspring, I met

with a business owner who, for the first 30 minutes of the meeting, was

strongly advocating for the strict regulation of short-term vacation

rentals. They cannot staff their business because their staff cannot

find housing. But the conversation changed when I asked who their

customers were and where they stay. The business relies mainly on

tourists who stay in short-term vacation rentals.

It’s just one example of the challenges and why conversations like

the one we’re having today with the chamber and other groups — the

community services and the upcoming discussion with Salt Spring

Solutions — are so critical.

Despite the lack of certainty in so many areas, one thing is

certain. There are incredible people taking the struggle head-on, and

for that, I am grateful. I raise my hands to the effort and look forward

to continuing to work alongside you.

EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN

AND ME TOO

CAMPAIGN

B. Ma: I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I believe it, because there’s

nothing here that is difficult to believe. It is the story of so many

women, after all — so many women who know what it feels like to be

judged by their appearance, to be underestimated, seen as lesser, to be

touched without consent, to feel pressured or coerced, assigned value to

their being for attributes that should never be used to define anyone,

to be shamed for being sexy yet criticized for being uptight, to feel

unsafe walking home alone late at night, to watch legislative frameworks

placed upon their bodies and reproductive rights by parliaments made up

predominantly of male legislators.

How many of our mothers and grandmothers had to fight for the

right to even be seen as a person — to vote, to own property, to hold

office, to have or keep a job or decide to leave a marriage? “Can’t she

take a joke?” She learns to laugh it off. “Oh, boys will be boys,” they

say. She learns to let it go.

How many of us have stories we would rather not tell of treatment

by men who normalize behaviour that should never be seen as normal or

perhaps even being a tool of our own oppression as we, too, normalize

behaviour that should never be seen as normal?

How many of us watch Dr. Ford in quiet or vocal admiration,

grateful for a boundless courage that fills the vacuum of our own

silence in a time where so many women have come forward only to be

dismissed, with no wonder why so many others have still not yet found

the time or space or way, who are now just finding a moment to turn to

their sisters and say in breathless whisper: “Me too.”

Oral Questions

DEBATE ON LNG CANADA PROJECT

LEGISLATURE

A. Wilkinson: It’s a fairly rare occasion when question period is the source of

near unanimous applause. But this week we had a positive final

investment decision, and that was made on the largest industrial project

in Canadian history, which will come to fruition right here in British

Columbia.

[10:30 a.m.]

Almost everyone in this House agrees on the benefits of this

project and that this is in the public interest, but it also calls for

some transparency and some accountability. We heard yesterday, in the

media, that the Premier has decided that in terms of disclosing the

nature of this $40 billion transaction to the people of British

Columbia, there’s no apparent need to bring it before the Legislature,

which raises the question: why do we have a legislature?

The Premier says he may or may not do that, in a fairly capricious

exercise of executive power in a skin-of-its-teeth minority government.

Why is the Premier reluctant to show the details of the LNG Canada deal

to the elected members of this assembly when 90 percent of the House are

firm supporters?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. Had he been paying attention

in March when we laid out our fiscal framework for LNG, he would know

exactly what we’ve done and exactly what was agreed to and why we have a

$40 billion investment in northern British Columbia.

Unlike the previous government, we assume that industries, when

they come to British Columbia — whether they be in the gas sector,

whether they be in the forest sector, whether they be in the mining

sector — and when they’re purchasing electricity from our Crown utility,

would pay the same industrial rate. That’s what we’ve done. It’s very

transparent, and the member should have known that.

The approach on the other side was to say that this particular

company, this particular sector, would pay more than anyone else in

British Columbia for electricity. We rejected that. We’ve done that. We

talked about it in March. I’m happy to talk about it again

today.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It sounds as if the Premier is prepared to play one-card Monte and

show the deck one card at a time, unlike proportional representation,

where he has completely stacked the deck.

Now, we should….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question. Thank you.

A. Wilkinson: We should review a bit of the history of this matter. Back in

2015, today’s Minister of Environment said: “It’ll be hard enough to

meet our legislated greenhouse gas emissions targets. With LNG, it’ll be

virtually impossible.” At that time, the now Minister of Energy had the

wisdom to say that this is the biggest sellout in British Columbia and

that this isn’t good for anybody in this province.

It’s apparent that there has either been a dramatic change of

heart on the government benches, and perhaps the Green Party is kind of

falling in line as well. Or perhaps the Premier can explain: why doesn’t

he bring these matters before the House? Perhaps it’s because some of

his ministers would be inclined to leave the room.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition’s charity

lasted about 35 seconds. Nonetheless, he did demonstrate some earlier

today, and the laugh line was pretty good as well, so I’ll give him full

marks for that.

Look, we’ve worked diligently since we came to government to

ensure that we could land a significant investment decision that will

benefit British Columbians right across the north and, in fact, in every

corner of the province. I would have thought that would been a time for

celebration. Indeed, it is a time for celebration.

Are there challenges? Of course there are. The focus of our

government is going to be to make sure that we address those challenges.

We have tabled targets for GHG reductions for 2030 and 2050, and we’re

going to meet those targets.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I think the pattern is starting to emerge: the biggest transaction

in Canadian history, entirely within British Columbia, taking British

Columbia gas to tidewater for export, and the government of the day,

hanging on by the skin of its teeth, doesn’t want it brought into this

House. There is overwhelming support in this House for a good deal on

LNG.

What is the Premier hiding? Why is he reluctant to bring it

before the House? What is the accountability to this House, or is this

an executive Premier who has decided that he is above the law created by

this House?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: One level of accountability that springs to mind immediately is

that we’re having a fall session of the Legislature to have these very

discussions. Again, if there’s a requirement for legislation to

implement this, the legislation will come before this House. There’ll be

full and comprehensive debate, and we will proceed with the largest

private sector investment in Canadian history.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

T. Stone: Restricting employment on public projects in British Columbia to

NDP-approved unions is just not right. LMS Reinforcing Steel regularly

performs work on public transportation projects just like those that the

Minister of Transportation has made NDP-union exclusive. LMS Reinforcing

Steel doesn’t want their employees blackmailed by this minister into

joining one of the 19 NDP-approved unions. In fact, the company can’t

bid on these public projects.

To the Minister of Transportation, why is she discriminating

against this highly qualified company and, more importantly, against

their employees?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the former minister is flatly wrong. Any company in British

Columbia can bid on any project. That has always been the case. It will

always be the case.

The challenge we have in British Columbia is we have a red-hot

economy now. We have a $40 billion investment that was announced earlier

this week. We are going to need skilled people to do the work. Wherever

I go, I talk to employers, and they say: “I can’t find enough people to

keep my business going. I can’t find enough people to expand my

business.”

I would have thought that the people on that side of the House

would have read some of the material that was presented to them over the

years in government. One example is a report that they commissioned in

2014. The fundamental finding in that was the following: “The government

should consider having a minimum number of apprenticeships on public

infrastructure projects because we don’t have enough skilled workers in

British Columbia.”

So what did that side of the House do? They ignored it. They

ignored it. They ignored it.

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: We believe community benefits agreements will train the next

generation of workers and make sure that local people get hired and

local businesses can bid. We are going to see prosperity in every corner

of the province, not just the top 2 percent, which is the people that

they report to.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: News flash — it’s not just the 19 approved NDP unions that do

training in this province. There are thousands of British Columbians

trained every single year by organizations other than the 19

NDP-approved unions. Simply put, restricting employment to less than 15

percent of the workforce cuts out thousands of qualified workers, like

the employees of LMS Reinforcing Steel.

LMS happens to be the largest employer of female ironworkers in

British Columbia. They’re based in Surrey, and they work on big projects

like the Golden Ears Bridge. The only problem, Mr. Premier, is that

their workers are members of the Canadian Iron, Steel and Industrial

Workers Union, which is not one of the 19 NDP-approved

unions.

This NDP requirement is offensive and discriminatory. To the

Minister of Transportation, can she please explain to the employees of

LMS Reinforcing Steel how they benefit from this NDP-approved union-only

policy, and how does the company benefit as well?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I don’t know why, after 16 years in government, the people

on the other side didn’t read some of the material that came their way.

When we were looking at trying to make sure that apprentices had

on-the-job training, they failed year after year.

As recently as 2014, they received the following report.

Some….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Do you want to hear it, hon. Speaker?

What I’ll do is I’ll mimeograph this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll use some old technology and send it over to them by fax

machine, because that’s the generation they’re living in.

We need to train the next generation of workers so that there can

be prosperity in every corner of British Columbia.

LNG CANADA PROJECT AND JOBS

A. Olsen: I wonder how LMS Reinforcing Steel feels about the federal

government exempting LNG Canada from steel tariffs.

Anyway, three years ago Premier Horgan said: “…the people of

British Columbia should see the primary benefit from an LNG industry”

and “We need to make sure that jobs go to British Columbians….” He’s

quoted in Hansard as saying that if 70 percent of those 100,000

jobs were going to come from somewhere else, one has to pause and ask

why we have been putting so much energy into doing something if it’s for

somebody else.

According to the B.C. NDP’s LNG framework from earlier this week,

LNG Canada will create 10,000 jobs during construction and 950 permanent

jobs once operations are underway. On LNG Canada’s website, it states

that they’re not hiring employees directly during construction. Instead,

they’re hiring a prime contractor who will hire implementation

contractors who will hire subcontractors. The latter two will hire

workers.

To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, LNG

Canada has committed to helping local residents take advantage of

employment opportunities, but they will not be the ones hiring workers.

How many of the LNG employment opportunities can be guaranteed to go to

British Columbians, and how many will go to temporary foreign

workers?

Hon. M. Mungall: I understand why the member would be concerned about who is

getting these jobs, because the previous government, when they were in

charge of this file, were signing blank cheques. They were letting

projects go forward without any commitment for local hire. When we

became government, we were adamant that we had four

conditions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, may we please hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. M. Mungall: One of those conditions was that jobs have to go to British

Columbians, first and foremost, and we have to see training

opportunities in the construction phase as well as throughout the

permanent jobs. LNG Canada has committed, and they have signed contracts

with their contractors, that there’s a local-hire-first

policy.

Just as an example, they have contractually required their

engineering and procurement company to follow this policy, and that is

across the board. They have signed 20 impact-and-benefit agreements with

First Nations. First Nations will be at the front of the line for these

jobs. What does that mean? That means prosperity and benefits to the

north, from well to tidewater.

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

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Actually, the minister’s reading of my concern is misplaced. I’m

concerned that the program on this side of the House is looking very

much like the program from that side of the House.

The idea of having conditions associated with development isn’t a

new idea. Former Premier Christy Clark’s five conditions were often used

to obfuscate her government’s position on the Trans Mountain

pipeline.

I think it’s critical, if the NDP are choosing to use a similar

tactic of having conditions, that these conditions should be shown to be

substantive and actually mean something. One of the NDP’s four

conditions, as the minister highlighted, for LNG development is that it

creates jobs for British Columbians.

My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. We know that LNG Canada will be using contractors to conduct

most of the hiring. What specific — I repeat: what specific — oversight

systems has this government put in place to ensure that jobs on this

project are not simply given out to temporary foreign workers but that

British Columbians are actually the people benefiting from this

project?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: One of the things that we wanted to see was not just words but

actions. We not only saw LNG Canada’s commitment to a local-hire-first

policy in writing with their contractors, but they’ve already invested

$2.85 million on workforce development in the north. So they’re already

investing in people in the north.

Just to give you a sense of what this means for people in the

north. I represent small communities. When we gain six full-time,

family-supporting jobs in our communities, we’re ecstatic. When we lose

those jobs, we’re disappointed, so can you imagine what 950 means? It’s

exactly why Mayor Phil Germuth from Kitimat was ecstatic and was smiling

ear to ear on Tuesday morning when LNG Canada made their

announcement.

It’s not just mayors from well to tidewater or First Nations

communities from well to tidewater who are happy about this.

Let me tell you what Kristi Leer has said about this. She’s a

young woman. She doesn’t hold any formal position other than that she

needs to work for a living, and she’s from Fort Nelson. She had to leave

Fort Nelson because she couldn’t get a job there. The economy in that

community has been depressed as a result of a downturn in natural gas in

past years.

Well, this is what she said about LNG Canada’s announcement: “It’s

huge. My town has just been saved.” And Kristi is on her way back to

Fort Nelson so that she can get a job. When people like Kristi are

heading back home so that they can get work and be a part of their

community, that’s a good thing for British Columbia.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

G. Kyllo: All qualified workers and companies in British Columbia should get

a chance to build public projects without being forced to join

highly-partisan NDP unions. Michele of Maddocks Construction writes:

“This agreement undermines the role of employers, both union and

open-shop, in order to artificially bolster the power of a select

few.”

Does the minister really think that it’s okay to discriminate

against hard-working family businesses in order to pay off political

favours?

Hon. C. Trevena: The opposition clearly doesn’t listen. We’ve been talking about

this all week. We’ve been talking about this since July. This community

benefits agreement is open to any contractor who wishes to bid. Any

contractor who wishes to bid.

I’ve got to say I find it really disappointing that the opposition

has given up on the people of British Columbia, because that’s clearly

what they’ve done.

We have — the Premier just cited — known for years there is a

skills shortage. Community benefit agreements allow us to deal with that

skill shortage. They allow us to build up public projects that have

apprenticeships, allow women and Indigenous people to work, and increase

those numbers of apprenticeships.

I’ve got to say I’m extremely excited about this. I think this is

a wonderful opportunity for everyone — that anyone, any contractor, can

work on this, and that we have….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ll sit down.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.

G. Kyllo: I take the minister’s comments as extremely offensive, and it

truly shows her lack of understanding of the way the labour laws in this

province actually work.

Companies across British Columbia that may choose to already have

agreements in collective bargaining with other unions are precluded from

actually quoting on these projects because the NDP have handpicked a

select few unions, and if you’re not a member of those specific unions,

you do not have an opportunity to work on these projects in British

Columbia. There should be no discrimination when it comes to which

British Columbian companies get the opportunity to build public projects

in B.C.

[10:50 a.m.]

Maddocks Construction is a B.C. company that has been around since

1965. They pay their taxes and their employees, and they’re hard-working

British Columbians.

Again to the minister, why is settling political debts with their

union allies more important to this minister than the rights of Michele

and the employees of Maddocks Construction?

Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I’ve got to say that I find it offensive to be

lectured by an opposition whose history on labour relations is so

offensive. For 16 years, they ignored labour relations, they tore up

contracts, and they worked for their own friends and

insiders.

We are working on behalf of the people of British Columbia. The

member is wrong. Any contractor can bid, whether they are union or

non-union, and people….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: The members obviously don’t want to hear the answers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: I mean, I sat down the last time. Nobody actually really cares

about the answer. None of the opposition care about the

answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, if you would take your seat for a moment.

Members, if we may hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. C. Trevena: We are not shy about the fact that yes, the community benefit

agreements will be open to both union and non-union contractors. It will

be a union worksite, at which people are expected to join the union if

they work there 30 days. We’re very pleased about that. Union worksites

provide great benefits to people.

I don’t know who they’re listening to, but the people that I’m

listening to are very excited about our community benefits

agreements.

I’d like to quote Ashley Duncan, who is an insulator from

Coquitlam. She said: “When you’re a construction apprentice, it’s

difficult to find a job, and it’s even worse for women apprentices.

That’s one of the reasons we have trouble retaining women in trades. A

community benefits agreement is a game-changer. Under a community

benefits agreement, apprentices, tradeswomen and Indigenous workers will

finally have the same opportunities as everyone else.”

We are working on behalf of Ashley. We’re working on behalf of

every single person in this province to ensure that when we invest in

community benefits, we’re investing in communities, in people, in

infrastructure and in the future of British Columbia.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER NEGOTIATIONS

AND TRADE WITH

U.S.

J. Rustad: Beyond LNG, there was more good news this week for Canada, as we

have reached a replacement trade agreement with the United States and

Mexico. The federal government spoke at length about standing up to the

U.S. on social values in Quebec, the auto sector in Ontario and even the

oil and gas interests in Alberta.

Softwood lumber is critical to British Columbia and an important

export industry to Canada, yet despite this, there wasn’t even a mention

of softwood lumber by the federal government. Clearly, B.C.’s interests

were not front and centre on Canada’s national agenda. There has been a

failure of leadership by this government to support our forest

communities and workers who are faced with punishing U.S.

duties.

Why has the Minister of State for Trade let down the

forest-dependent families and communities that depend on softwood lumber

trade?

Hon. J. Horgan: Either the member on the other side thinks this is a serious

issue, or he doesn’t. The first order of business when we were sworn in

as government was that I travelled to Washington to raise our concerns

about softwood lumber. The minister responsible for forestry has been

diligently working with COFI and other providers here in British

Columbia. We’ve been working with the ambassador in

Washington.

[10:55 a.m.]

I would have thought that the members on that side of the House

would have known that softwood lumber has never been part of NAFTA, nor

was it ever contemplated to be part of NAFTA.

We continue at every opportunity to raise with the federal

government, to raise with those in the United States who are blocking

free flow of access to softwood lumber…. That’s having a negative

impact, I would argue, on the U.S. consumer, who’s paying more now as a

result of those tariffs.

I welcome the intervention from the member on the other side. I

appreciate he understands, coming from a forest-dependent community, how

critical this is to British Columbia. But to mock and ridicule the

efforts of successive governments to try and knock some sense into the

United States is unhelpful. I thought that we were working together on

this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: I find it interesting. I thank the Premier for his response. The

Auto Pact wasn’t part of NAFTA either, yet that was a focus of the

Canadian government in those discussions with the Americans. Why was

softwood lumber not on the agenda? It’s pretty clear it did not make it

to the stage because it has not been raised by this government for a

long period of time.

B.C. represents more than 50 percent of the Canadian exports to

the United States. It is the government’s responsibility to fight for

those interests in Ottawa, not just make excuses. The reality that we’re

facing on the ground is that these punishing duties have been in place

for many months. Now lumber prices have dropped down by 33 percent just

in the last five months alone. Concern is rising, and this government

has done nothing.

What is this Minister of State for Trade going to do to step up

and actually deliver — or perhaps the Premier can answer this — on the

promises that he made over a year ago?

Hon. J. Horgan: On the road to Damascus, yet another conversion. A hundred and

fifty sawmills closed on the watch of the people on that side, 150

mills. Forty thousand jobs evaporated on your watch, and you have the

audacity to come in here and say that because we’re dealing with an

intransigent U.S. administration that every ten years brings forward a

softwood dispute…. It’s as if they thought this just happened

yesterday.

Where was that government when the last agreement failed? Where

was that government when all the jobs were fleeing out of British

Columbia? They were sitting on their hands waiting for a real estate

bubble to pay everybody off.

D. Barnett: Last year the Premier said: “I’m going to directly involve myself

in the softwood lumber negotiations and make sure that we get a deal.”

There are 140 communities that rely on the forest sector in our

province, including my own.

My question to the Minister of State for Trade: where is the deal

that the Premier promised?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member asked when the Premier was going to get directly

involved on the softwood lumber dispute. It was on the first day that I

was sworn in. That’s when I got involved. The former occupant of this

office did not go to Washington, did not meet with the Secretary of

Commerce, did not meet with the trade ambassador, did not meet with the

Canadian Ambassador in Washington — instead, kept cash and cheques from

developers, as the property values went up.

You can’t run an economy on a housing bubble. You need

resource-dependent communities. And while that member saw mills closing

in her community, I was hopeful she might have talked to the former

Premier about doing something about it. I guess she didn’t have the

time.

[11:00 a.m.]

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage continuation on Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act.

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I just ran out in the hallway to talk with the students who were up

there in the audience witnessing question period. This is a group of 25

students who came here from Willows Elementary, a fine school in my riding

with a rich history and tradition. They were accompanied by their teacher,

Penny-Jane Peters, and a number of parent chaperones. Would the House please

make them feel welcome, because they will be watching this later on

TV.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 3), 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 36; L. Reid

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

section 1 (continued) .

A. Weaver: Yesterday we left off with a question that the minister had

suggested she would be able to provide the answer for: the question I

had asked as to what other provinces in our country have boards that are

comprised of more order-in-council appointments than those elected by or

participating in the institutions. I’m hoping she has the answer this

morning to share with us.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member for the question. There are a few examples

in other provinces where, like British Columbia, LGIC appointees have a

majority over non-appointed members. But across the country, the number

of government appointees to university boards generally do not exceed

the number of non-appointed members. For example, the University of

Manitoba has 12 appointed members, three of which must be students, and

11 non-appointed members. At Memorial University of Newfoundland, they

have a majority of 21 appointed members, four of whom are students, and

nine are non-appointed members.

A. Weaver: I appreciate the very few examples that exist. It’s interesting to

note in those examples that exist that the appointed members are,

indeed, also comprising students. So British Columbia is rather unique

in the number. As the minister pointed out yesterday, in the colleges

act there is a board made up of one elected faculty member, two elected

students, one staff elected, one president, one chair of the education

council and at least eight appointments through

order-in-council.

My question to the minister is: does she believe that students are

in a conflict of interest if they are on a board, in light of the fact

that it is the board that determines tuition fee increases, yes or

no?

Hon. M. Mark: The response is no, but there are bylaws and measures in place to

address any conflict of interest. Again, through the board, there are

some institutions where students are allowed to participate in the room;

there are institutions where they’re not. But the test of conflict of

interest is always being measured. Again, the law, the act, states to

act in the best interests of the institutions.

A. Weaver: Every college and every university in the province has students on

its boards. Those students are elected, and those students are governed

by conflict-of-interest proceedings and regulations, as outlined by the

minister. So I very much appreciate that answer.

In the same vein, of the staff and faculty that are on all boards,

everyone, as is noted by the minister, is elected. The question I then

have is: how are order-in-council appointments made? Who actually makes

those appointments?

Hon. M. Mark: Orders-in-council are approved by cabinet at the recommendation of

the minister. As the member knows, there are hundreds if not thousands

of appointments that are made across all ministries throughout

government.

A. Weaver: On these boards, some of the institutions…. We’ve had some leeway

in these discussions, because sections 1 to 3 are virtually identical in

scope. They just apply to three different things: College and Institute

Act, Royal Roads Act and University Act. The official opposition and I

have been a little loose across the references, but it’s all bearing on

the same theme.

My question is: how is a chancellor appointed at a university, and

how does a board appoint a chancellor?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. Under the University Act,

“chancellor,” defined under

section 11,

part 5: “There must be a

chancellor of each university, who is to be appointed by the board on

nomination by the alumni association and after consultation with the

senate or, in the case of the University of British Columbia, after

consultation with the council.”

A. Weaver: The chancellor is the public face and the representative of an

institution. The chancellor, as noted by the minister, is elected by the

board. The government appoints the majority in British Columbia on all

boards of colleges, Royal Roads and universities.

Does the minister believe that there’s a potential conflict of

governance if it is the government, ultimately, through its appointments

that, in dominance in all of the boards, actually determines the voice

of an institution? This is unique in British Columbia, unlike any other

province in our nation — that the government appointees make up

dominance of the boards, who then select the chancellor, who is the

public institution. This is why we’ve had scandal after scandal in

British Columbia, most recently at the University of British Columbia

and also UNBC, with respect to appointments.

My question to the minister is this. Is she concerned that the

conflict of interest that actually arises in the appointment of the

boards in British Columbia is not through the elected people who are on

the board but rather by the potential for government to influence the

academic governance of a board by stacking the boards with their party

elite? Does this concern the minister at all? And the subsequent

question: is this an issue that she believes could lead to conflict of

interest with government?

Hon. M. Mark: I do agree with the member that elected members are not in a

conflict. However, the broader discussion of an appointment of a

chancellor is, with all due respect, out of the scope of the discussion

today with the amendments that we have on the floor. I am happy to

discuss the bigger picture of the amendments, which I am aware — which

the member opposite has raised — need to be changed.

I’ve heard from other stakeholders what areas might need to be

changed under the University Act or under the College and Institute Act,

but with respect to what is on the floor today, we are proposing

amendments to

section 59, part (8) about the eligibility of appointed

members to the board that are elected faculty or staff.

A. Weaver: I’m fine with that answer, actually. I’ll come back to that. I

have two more questions.

[11:15 a.m.]

The first question to the minister is this: to what extent do

these proposals conflict or agree with similar legislation that exists

in every other province across this nation?

Hon. M. Mark: The only other province that has similar legislation currently is

Alberta. Through these amendments, the only province that will have

those rules in effect will be Alberta. So we will be bringing ourselves

in line with every other province in Canada.

A. Weaver: That concludes my line of questioning, and I very much appreciate

the response from the minister and her staff.

To summarize what has happened here is that we’ve realized and had

a full discussion as to the makeup of these boards, how there are

certain elected members, which is comparative to other provinces. In

fact, where we differ is we have so many order-in-council appointments

here,

whereas they have the majority on each and every board.

I appreciate that the minister pointed out that this is not the

subject of today. But what I’ve tried to point out through this line of

questions is that the amendments that are put forward here are not

actually controversial. They’re in place already across the nation in

virtually every other province except Alberta.

Alberta is also quite different from B.C., because in Alberta,

they do not have order-in-council appointments dominating the boards. So

B.C. really is an outlier in this. We have, I would suggest….

I’d like to discuss this further with the minister, and I look

forward to those discussions. If there is any conflict of interest in

the boards, it’s not with the elected students. It’s not with the

elected faculty. It’s not with the elected staff. It’s actually with the

order-in-council appointments wherein government can actually have its

agenda imposed on an institution by appointing the board, both in terms

of the selection of the chancellor, who is the public face, as well as

the governance within the programs in the institution.

That is very dangerous in a democratic society, where we rely on

the free exchange of ideas, and British Columbia is unique.

I support this

section wholeheartedly, as somebody who spent a

lifetime in universities, as somebody who served as a chief negotiator

for the faculty association, as somebody who couldn’t do that and be on

the board — because there’s no time — as someone who supports the

electoral process that puts students, faculty and staff on the boards,

as someone who supports the governance of institutions in a free and

democratic society.

I actually have very real problems with what is happening, again,

in British Columbia, the Wild West, where order-in-council appointments

dominate boards, potentially leading to — and in some cases,

demonstrably leading to — decisions being made that are

government-related that actually impinge upon the academic freedom of an

institution.

With that, I thank the minister and her staff for the attention to

the questions that I put forward.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Shall

section 5 pass?

Some Voices: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

I. Paton: Can I speak to

section 5, or has it passed? You caught me off

guard.

It’s okay. A small amendment. No need to speak. Thank

you.

The Chair: Minister of Health.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: It’s on

section 5 that the member has questions. With the consent

of the House, I think it would be reasonable just to return to

section 5

to allow the member to ask his questions.

section 5.

I. Paton: Thank you to the Minister of Health for making this exception for

me.

Based on the comments of the Attorney General, I’m reading into

this Milk Industry Act…. Under the miscellaneous statutes amendments:

“The amendments to the Milk Industry Act modernize the definition of

‘dairy plant’ by eliminating the outdated and archaic parts of this

definition and creating a new authority to exempt, by regulation, places

or activities from the definition of ‘dairy plant.’ This will eliminate

unnecessary regulatory burden, as requested by the restaurant industry,

without compromising food safety.” It goes on to quickly say: “The

exemption authority will be used to develop a future regulation that

will identify places or activities where dairy products can be

manufactured without a dairy plant licence.”

We’re amending the term of the wording “dairy plant,” and I’m just

wondering if we could first define the terminology of dairy plant and

why we are making this amendment change to eliminate the term of dairy

plant to certain businesses and restaurants, etc.

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks to the member for Delta South for the question. I’m glad we

didn’t skip past it, because we’ve both been waiting hours to do

this.

I’d like to introduce my staff who are joining me here today. Wes

Shoemaker is my deputy minister, and Arlene Anderson is the manager of

policy and legislation at the Ministry of Agriculture.

It’s a great question. The definition of “dairy plant” basically

defines a place where milk is processed. What this legislation would do

is exempt restaurants. There would be an exemption for restaurants so

that restaurants would be able to process milk products on location in

their premise without having to do the paperwork to become a dairy

plant. So they would have an exemption of a small space in their

kitchen, and they would be able to make products like yogurt or paneer

to be served specifically in the restaurant, not for retail or resale in

their restaurant to the public as a stand-alone good.

I. Paton: Thank you for that answer. We’re not going to take a whole lot of

time here. I’d just like to say for the record that I’ve milked a few

cows in my life.

[11:25 a.m.]

My grandfather shipped milk to a dairy plant called Palm Dairies,

and my father as well. I shipped my milk to Foremost and Lucerne before

the end of that part of my life.

One thing I learned about on a dairy farm, such as my own dairy

farm, was inspectors. The Ministry of Agriculture had very thorough

inspections of our dairy farms. They would go through my milking

facilities. They would go through the dairy where the milk was received.

It went into receiver jars. It got pumped from there into the main bulk

tank. They would take apart every connection and filter to see if any

sort of bacteria was building up.

My biggest issue with the term “dairy plant” is the fact that

inspectors were always there, as part of the terminology of “dairy

plant,” to inspect any facility that is considered a dairy plant for the

very perishable product of milk. We all know that with milk, if it’s not

held at the right temperature or not properly looked after, there are

several milk-borne diseases that can affect our population.

My biggest concern is the inspection. If we take away the

licensing and permitting of restaurants and facilities that were making

use of these milk products, will there be proper inspection from the

Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Health to make sure, now that

they are no longer considered a dairy plant, that they will also be

inspected to make sure of the cleanliness, proper use and proper

temperature of milk products?

Hon. L. Popham: That’s a great question, because I think we’re all concerned about

health and safety. So that it’s very clear: restaurants are inspected

regularly by regional health authority staff, and this will continue.

Staff will apply the same food safety principles for overseeing the

making of dairy products as are applied to other aspects of food

preparation and service within the restaurant.

The Ministry of Health and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control

will provide additional training materials once the changes come into

force, ensuring that our inspectors have the most current and up-to-date

information available when carrying out their inspections. I think that

is covered off. I think it’s an excellent question, but I think we’ve

covered it in this legislation.

I. Paton: Just a couple more questions. One thing that’s very important for

me. We do see, from time to time, groups in this province that like to

come forward to promote raw milk. We all know that, based on the Milk

Industry Act, all milk in British Columbia must be pasteurized to a

standard that is acceptable, of course.

We want to make absolutely sure that the inspectors that are

inspecting these milk plants that are no longer considered milk plants,

with lesser regulations, will certainly be looking out for any milk

that’s brought into a restaurant or a shop that may be considered

unpasteurized and may have come from a dairy farm as raw

milk.

Hon. L. Popham: That’s exactly the sort of information that the health inspectors

would be looking for — the source of the milk. I just wanted to say on

record, also, that currently raw milk is illegal for sale in British

Columbia.

I. Paton: Just two more questions. By adding in subsection (

y) and (z),

there’s some terminology that I’m not quite familiar with, “a class of

places” and “a class of persons.” Based on the amendment to the Milk

Industry Act, can you explain to the House the terms “a class of places

or buildings” or “a class of persons”?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: The addition of these

definitions is really put in to reduce the

regulatory burden that may be the case if we don’t make these

changes.

If you were to refer to “a place or building,” it would be more

specific to an individual restaurant address. So it could be John’s

Place. But if you change that to “class of places or buildings,” we can

talk about the restaurant industry or restaurants.

As well, when we go down to “persons,” changing it to “a class of

persons”…. It would be not just specifically Joe who works in a

restaurant, but it would be people who work in restaurants.

I. Paton: I think one final question. We do have associations within British

Columbia, the B.C. Dairy Association and the B.C. Milk Marketing Board.

I’m just wondering if your staff had contacted them to discuss this

small amendment change to the definition of “dairy plant” and if they

have had any comments back to you from those two

associations.

Hon. L. Popham: The answer is yes, there was consultation done. I can let the

member know that the ministry consulted with the Western Dairy Council.

The Western Dairy Council, I’m sure the member is aware, represents

approximately 20 member companies who process more than 96 percent of

all milk in the four western provinces.

They did have some questions. But once it was shown that the

capacity for this legislation to take away from other processing

facilities in B.C. that process milk, which is extremely important, and

we need them to do that…. The impact on those is very minimal, and the

fact that the restaurant would have to produce these products for

immediate consumption and not for resale made them feel confident that

this was okay.

I. Paton: Sorry, one more question. For instance, a friend of mine, Glenn

Smith in Milner, has a small goat dairy, and they make their own cheese

on the goat farm. Would they still be considered a dairy plant and

adhere to the normal inspections of a dairy farm or of Island Farms or

Dairyland?

Hon. L. Popham: In that case, they would still have to get a dairy plant

licence.

I. Paton: In closing, thank you to the Minister of Agriculture for her

comments and answers, and thank you to the Minister of Health for

stepping in and letting me continue on with those questions.

Section 5 approved.

The Chair: We’re heading into

part 3, consideration of Attorney General

amendments. We’ll allow a moment for staff to arrive.

section 6.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. Lee: Just a brief question to the Attorney General. In terms of someone

who has been a medical practitioner, one question I wasn’t able to

address during the briefing because I hadn’t considered it at the

time….

If the Attorney General could just perhaps give some further

guidance in terms of a person who has retired, who has been a medical

practitioner and can serve on these review panels. Is there any

consideration about the length of service that that person has provided

and the length of experience that that person has in order to serve in

that capacity?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll just introduce the staff who have joined me for these

sections: Alanna Valentine-Pickett, who’s the director of strategic

transformation, and Kristine Parker Hall, who’s a program and policy

analyst, both with our tribunal transformation and supports office in

justice services branch.

The Administrative Tribunals Act permits an appointment for the

initial period of two to four years and then, following that initial

appointment, renewal for up to five years at a time. You can renew for

less than that, but a maximum of five years. Then those renewals can

continue to happen for individuals who are appointed. But they come up

for approval every five years following that initial appointment

period.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

M. Lee: I wanted to ask, in terms of the scope of the forms of

telecommunication that may produce a writing, if the Attorney General

can just describe again for the record what types of forms of

telecommunication would be expected to do that — whether any digital

electronic communication would meet that requirement.

Hon. D. Eby: I think we’re into

section 7 with respect to this question. As

long as we can pass

section 6, then I can get the right staff in to

answer the member’s question.

Chair: Hon. Member, we did pass

section 6.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m glad I was here for that, hon. Chair. I just was testing you.

You passed. Wonderful news for all of us.

Let me get the right staff in here. Thank you.

[11:40 a.m.]

I wonder if the member could just review his question again so

that staff hear the full context.

M. Lee: Sure, happy to do that. It’s just to say that I appreciate the

briefing that the Attorney General’s office arranged for me and other

colleagues on this side of the House relating to this misc stats bill —

the briefing around this particular section.

I wanted to ask the Attorney General if he could explain, for the

record here, in terms of the clarification around the “any means of

telecommunication that produces a writing” language in subsection

13.1(1), how extensive the manner in which telecommunications would

occur that would meet this test to produce a writing, in terms of with

extent to digital or other electronic forms of communication.

Appreciating that there’s an existing

section in the Criminal Code that

does provide for something similar, in the context of this particular

Offence Act, what types of telecommunication would meet this

test?

Hon. D. Eby: Currently, just in terms of practice, faxing is the preferred

method of transmission of government documents. That’s what’s used for

tele-informations. I’m advised by a senior official at court services

branch that the process of using fax and phone calls is very secure.

That’s why it’s preferred, even though it is a more dated

technology.

There are concerns about ensuring security with relation to email.

There’s nothing in the section, as we understand it, that would restrict

the use of secure email communication technology, encrypted or

otherwise. If that’s what the member’s concern is, we don’t believe

there’s any restriction in this in terms of the wording

“telecommunication that produces a writing.” Just for his information,

the current practice is, and remains, fax for these types of

applications.

M. Lee: Thank you for that explanation. It just raises another point. In

terms of the method of telecommunication, both security and reliability,

what I’m hearing is that the facsimile is the best way to do that. Are

there other considerations, besides security and reliability, that might

be considered here for the form of telecommunication that would produce

this writing?

Hon. D. Eby: I neglected to introduce a staffer who is with me here. Art

Hargrove is the deputy director of policy and justice services for the

B.C. prosecution service.

There’s an element of convenience in a fax. You don’t require a

log-in and additional processes. It’s point to point. But the

overwhelming consideration here, in terms of the use of the fax for this

particular use, which is tele-information, is that it is the most secure

way to do it. In terms of other technologies, they just simply haven’t

proven to be as secure as sending a fax, without bringing in additional

burdens that bring inconvenience to law enforcement. The point of this

was to try to make life more convenient, while maintaining

security.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

[11:45 a.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate that this section, as I understand it, codifies the

roles and responsibilities of the current chief justice and has been

done as a result of consultation.

I’d just like to walk through, again, for the record here the

nature of specifically subsections (5) and (7). The provisions say that

for the approvals to be placed in writing by the chief justice in subs

(4) and (6), the chief justice must consult with the Attorney

General.

Perhaps I’d ask what the nature of that consultation is that would

occur and what’s contemplated within these provisions in subs (5) and

(7).

Hon. D. Eby: I can tell the member that as far as (5) and (7), the act doesn’t

propose to change anything related to these. But the history, as I

understand it, and the intent is just to ensure that both the chief

justice and the Attorney General are….

Ultimately, it’s the chief justice’s decision, but the Attorney

General could potentially raise issues of coverage across the province

if that was something that there was a concern about, just to make sure

that there was sufficient representation of judges, masters, registrars

and district registrars in areas where they were needed across the

province.

This bill does not propose to amend either (5) or (7).

M. Lee: I appreciate that response. Thank you for that

clarification.

I would just ask then to what degree? When the Attorney General

and the ministry are looking at coverage around this province for

judges, masters and registrars for the purpose of the good

administration of justice in our province, what ability proactively will

the Attorney General have through these provisions to initiate potential

geographic allocations, let’s say, of these individuals in the roles

that they play?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill doesn’t propose to amend anything in terms of how the

various administrators or judges are sent around the province. But I can

advise the member that the discretion about where judges, masters,

registrars or district registrars sit is entirely within the

jurisdiction of the chief justice. Although there is a requirement for

consultation, the final decision around coverage for these various roles

resides within the office of the chief justice.

[11:50 a.m.]

Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

M. Lee: Just in terms of the way this

section is being added, subsection

18.1(1) states, of course, that the Attorney General has responsibility

for “the provision, operation and maintenance of court facilities,

registries and administrative services.” Looking at that particular

subsection first, is there a need for any authority to be provided in

this provision to delegate any of that responsibility to

others?

Hon. D. Eby: The

section here that is proposed to be added is actually a

word-for-word replication of the old

section 10. There is no change to

the

section except for the

section number, which is now 18.1 instead of

section 10.

The system, as it has existed for many years, is such: “The

Attorney General is responsible for the provision, operation and

maintenance of court facilities, registries and administrative

services.” We have a court services branch and an ADM that provides

those services for the government under the supervision of the Attorney

General’s office.

M. Lee: Thank you again for that clarification. I would like to ask,

then…. In terms of the existing language which has been there — and now

this repositioning, let’s say — within the act, when one looks at the

chief administrator’s role in sections (2) and (3), the chief

administrator has the responsibility to carry out the duties assigned to

the registry. Also, in sub (3), and that’s the provision I was actually

more focused on: “the chief administrator of court services must direct

and supervise registries and administrative services for the

court.”

Is that an example of a sharing of responsibility there between

the Attorney General and that chief administrator in terms of how

registries and administrative services are supervised at the court

level?

Hon. D. Eby: Our court services branch is responsible for ensuring that the

registry staff and the support services for the courts are there. It is

critically important work and is done very ably by our ADM for court

services. She does have authority and responsibility to do that. This

section enables her to do that work on behalf of the public in British

Columbia.

Sections 17 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

M. Lee: On

section 31, I don’t know if any other colleagues in this House

would like to ask any questions about that section, but seeing none

right at the moment, I just wanted to ask: in terms of the scope of the

minister’s powers here, do we need any…?

Interjection.

M. Lee: Okay.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee report progress and seek leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 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. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada