Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 193

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

Tributes

Teddy Hughes

R. Leonard

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

PEARL Life Renewal Society

L. Throness

Message of appreciation for care and support after injury

J. Routledge

Canadian Rangers

D. Davies

Esi Edugyan and community award winners

M. Dean

Tri-Cities Women’s Collaborative Hub

J. Isaacs

Addiction awareness

B. Ma

Oral Questions

Legislature expenditures and work of Legislative Assembly Management Committee

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Bond

Use of glyphosate in forest management

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Donaldson

Forest management practices and Indigenous knowledge

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Donaldson

Role of advisers to Speaker and work of Legislative Assembly Management Committee

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

[Question ruled out of order.]

M. de Jong

Legislature expenditures and work of Legislative Assembly Management Committee

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

Ride-sharing services

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. C. Trevena

Hon. J. Horgan

Petitions

T. Redies

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mungall

N. Simons

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Review Police Complaint Process

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner

Membership changes to committees

Rescission of resolution for Agriculture Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 34 — Change to terms of reference for Crown Corporations Committee

Hon. C. Trevena

On the amendment

Hon. C. Trevena

T. Stone

A. Olsen

P. Milobar

A. Weaver

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

E. Ross

On the amendment

E. Ross

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 56 — Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 56 — Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. M. Mungall

M. Bernier

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2018

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: A little later on today, I’m going to be joined by a group of grade 12

students from Maple Ridge Secondary School. There will be 28 of them.

They’re going to be joined by their teacher, Maureen Samujh, who is a social

studies 12 and law 12 teacher at MRSS. So I ask the House to please make

them feel welcome when they join us later today.

Hon. K. Conroy: In honour of Adoption Awareness Month, I’m pleased to welcome several

adoptive families to the Legislature today. We have Nozomi and Alfredo

Franco Cea; Ruth and Trevor Dicus; David Glynn; Heather and Joe Haynes;

Helen and Kevin Hill; Reine and Ian Mykyte, with grandparents Louis Sader

and Catherine Mykyte.

[10:10 a.m.]

We’re also joined by ministry staff Cory Heavener, Connie Epp and

Jonathan Manhold.

These families have opened up their hearts to children and youth in

need of a permanent loving home. Please join me as we acknowledge their hard

work and compassion.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m really pleased to welcome two staff who are in the gallery today.

First of all, my administrative coordinator, Sarah Gotto, who’s been with us

for just a few months but prior to that was with the Ministry of Health and

has worked for the government for 21 years. She does an amazing job for us

every single day. Her daughter is with her today, Hailey Walters, who is

actually an administrative assistant for the Minister of Jobs, Trade and

Technology. I’d ask this House to make them both very welcome — a wonderful

mother-daughter team who serve our government every single day.

A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to introduce a visitor from Nanaimo, Mr. Tony

Harris, who is the intended candidate for the by-election in Nanaimo. He

comes from a family that’s lived in Nanaimo for six generations. I believe

1876 is the number. That’s actually older than this building, which is hard

to believe. He’s come here to see question period. I have encouraged him to

not take it as graphically as it might appear, but I’ve guaranteed him that

today it will be interesting.

Hon. S. Simpson: We’re joined by a number of representatives of the Salvation Army who

are with us today. You’ll all know that the Salvation Army is, obviously, a

well-established and well-known organization delivering services to some of

our most vulnerable citizens globally and certainly here, with over 400

communities in Canada served and about 52 of those communities here in B.C.

They provide a range of services around shelter, detox, housing,

meals.

Joining us today are Lt. Col. Jamie Braund, the divisional commander;

Lt. Col. Ann Braund, the divisional director of women’s ministries; Majors

Les and Tiffany Marshall, who are area commanders; and Patricia Mamic, the

public and government affairs director. Will the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery is a very special guest, Alyssa Morgan. She’s a

fourth-year UBC social work practicum student who has chosen to do her

practicum at my constituency office. I’m so pleased with what she’s bringing

each and every day, especially to create youth resources to help our

constituents in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Will the House please join me in

welcoming Alyssa Morgan.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m pleased to welcome the Ministry of Education’s corporate

communications and stakeholder relations team to the House today. They work

in the deputy minister’s office. There are nine staff visiting the gallery.

They’re responsible for everything from internal communication to our

web-based communication, stakeholder engagement and communications. I want

to thank them for the hard work that they do each and every day on behalf of

the government and the province.

The individuals who are with us today from the communications team are

David Cusack, Meghan Reusing, Cindy Ralph, Mike Sherman, Penny Rosales,

Shaun Lum, Trevor Paul, Edward Gomboc and Michael Tang. I don’t know for how

many of them this will be their first time in the House, live and in person,

but I ask all members of the House to make these civil servants most welcome

here today.

Tributes

TEDDY HUGHES

R. Leonard: I wanted to acknowledge the passing of another Comox Valley

resident and a neighbour of mine. Teddy Hughes — actually, Theodora

Hughes — was 93 years old. She was an inspiration to many. She walked

many miles every day, and she always had a smile on her face, and a

helping hand.

I also want to acknowledge her daughter, in particular, Lee

Hughes, who really exemplified how people should act so that seniors can

live in their homes and have a great quality of life. She gave her

mother many years at home in her little cabin, as well as our other

neighbour who I mentioned previously, who also passed away this year:

Graham Woodward. She continues to serve many other seniors so that they

can stay in their home and have a great quality of life.

We’ll miss Teddy but know that she had a wonderful life and has

inspired many of us.

[10:15 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me pleasure to welcome two constituents of mine, Shawn

Mitchell and Todd Hauptman, who are here with an organization based in my

constituency but known to us all, the Trial Lawyers of B.C. I’m going to

join them for lunch later. I thank them for coming to visit us and inform us

about the work that they do.

Hon. J. Sims: Today I’m feeling as if I’m getting an early Christmas present. I just

heard that my little great-granddaughter Alliya and my granddaughter Emily

will be visiting me around 11 o’clock today, and I’m really looking forward

to that. I’m hoping all of you, if you see them, will make them feel

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PEARL LIFE RENEWAL SOCIETY

L. Throness: On Saturday, I attended a fundraiser for the PEARL Life Renewal

Society in Chilliwack. This faith-based society was established on the

initiative of clinical counsellor Joan Goosen, who leads a team of

dedicated volunteers seeking to reduce human trafficking by offering

non-judgmental support and, ultimately, a way out to young women and

girls who work the street.

The victimization of women and girls is a covert crime ongoing in

all our cities. Studies show that the visible trade comprises only 15

percent of the total. PEARL Life estimates that there are 70 women and

girls visible in Chilliwack, which means there could be up to 700 being

exploited in what has been called modern human slavery. And if it’s true

in Chilliwack, it’s true in all our towns. I want to commend Joan Goosen

and her team for showing the love of Christ to those most abused in our

city.

I also want to thank Cathy Peters, a passionate volunteer from

Vancouver who has presented to more than 180 groups, including police

and educators throughout B.C., on her own time and her own dime. She’s

doing much to raise awareness of these crimes, but much more could be

done.

Our Representative for Children and Youth could undertake a study

into the commodification of sex, particularly as it relates to child and

Indigenous victims. She could examine the extent of the practice in B.C.

and evaluate the progress of B.C.’s office to combat trafficking in

persons, established in 2007, to educate, train and coordinate efforts

to fight the trade.

Finally, the federal government is soliciting input for a review

of 2014 legislation that criminalized various aspects of the sex trade.

Any move toward decriminalization would simply relax protection for

victims, let panderers operate with impunity and lead to an explosion of

human trafficking in our cities, as it did in Germany and New

Zealand.

It’s my sincere hope that our government will take a strong stand

in this matter, renew efforts to rescue women and girls, and bring those

who exploit them to justice.

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION FOR

CARE AND SUPPORT AFTER

INJURY

J. Routledge: July 20, 2018, will be etched in my memory forever. That was the

day I missed a step in the dark and broke my ankle in three places. I

want to thank orthopedic surgeon Dr. Karl-André Lalonde and his team at

the Ottawa Hospital, who spent three hours one evening putting my ankle

back together.

I have so many other people to thank as well. I won’t be able to

name you all. I only get two minutes. But please know you have my

gratitude.

A special thanks to Chad, the night shift nurse who distracted me

from terrible pain with photos of his new dog and photos of his new wife

and thoughtful political discussion.

I owe a big thank-you to my many friends and colleagues who

visited me in the hospital, brought me real food, sent flowers, sent

encouraging messages, researched wheelchair rentals for my return home

or picked me up at the airport.

I will probably never know how much extra work my mishap created

for the staff in my constituency office. Thank you.

I want to thank Footbridge foot and ankle clinic in Vancouver for

taking over my rehab. I want to particularly thank Derek, my

physiotherapist, who gave me killer exercises to do every day and the

assurance that I would get better.

And I am getting better. Just ask all the people I see here every

day in the Legislature and back home in my constituency. You cheered me

on as I progressed from walker to knee scooter to crutches to one crutch

to no crutches. It meant a lot to me. Thank you for opening so many

doors, pulling out so many chairs, carrying my stuff and walking so

slowly so I could keep up. I’m overwhelmed by your support and

friendship.

[10:20 a.m.]

Finally, I want to thank my husband, who was with me throughout

this entire ordeal, who put his own life on hold to be my personal

attendant, to drive me to work every day, even when work was in

Victoria. He did all of this with unfailing patience and

humour.

CANADIAN RANGERS

D. Davies: I, like many rural ridings across this great province, have an

incredible sub-component of the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve members

ready to jump into action on a moment’s notice. I’m talking about the

Canadian Rangers.

The Rangers are about a 5,000-strong force that provide a military

presence in Canada’s sparsely populated northern, coastal and isolated

areas where it would not be viable to have a regular army unit. Formally

established in 1947, a primary role of this force is to conduct

surveillance on sovereignty patrols, as required. Some Canadian Rangers

also conduct inspections, act as guides, scouts and subject-matter

experts in such disciplines as wilderness survival when other forces in

their area are in operations. As well, they provide very important aid

to civil power.

The Rangers are a volunteer force made up of Indigenous and

non-Indigenous members. However, it is a common misconception that the

organization is an Indigenous entity. The ethnic-group makeup of

numerous patrols across Canada is entirely an element of the geography.

While there is a heavy Indigenous membership in many Ranger patrols and

many are made up entirely of Indigenous members, there also exist many

mixed-member patrols as well as some entirely non-Indigenous patrols,

simply due to where the patrols reside.

The Rangers provide a military presence in Canada’s remote areas.

They receive 12 days or so of formal training. However, they are pretty

much always deemed to be on service, observing and reporting as part of

their daily lives.

The 5,000 Rangers are split between five Ranger patrol groups

across Canada, with four Canadian Ranger patrol groups headquartered

right here in Victoria. The patrols themselves are located in various

remote, isolated and/or coastal communities around Canada and British

Columbia. A Ranger patrol is based on such a community that represents

its makeup. Ranger patrols are approximately, on average, 30 members

strong.

I’d like to thank the Canadian Rangers across my riding, in

Hudson’s Hope and in Fort Nelson and encourage all members of this House

who have Rangers in their community to thank them for their incredible

work.

ESI EDUGYAN AND

COMMUNITY AWARD

WINNERS

M. Dean: I am very proud to let this House know that this year’s Giller

Prize winner, Esi Edugyan, is a resident of Esquimalt-Metchosin. Her

latest novel, Washington Black , is a story that follows the

early life of George Washington “Wash” Black, chronicling his escape

from slavery and his subsequent adventures.

Her debut novel, The Second Life of Samuel Tyne , was

published in 2004 and was shortlisted for the Hurston/Wright Legacy

Award. Her second novel, Half-Blood Blues , won the Giller Prize

in 2011, making her only the third writer ever to win the award

twice.

My community is full of award winners I’m very proud to celebrate.

The WestShore Chamber of Commerce recently ran their annual business and

community awards in partnership with the Goldstream Gazette .

Olympic View was the best golf course. Pearson College was the West

Shore’s favourite non-profit. Other winners were Linda Mackie

Photography, Colwood Dental Group and Westshore U-Lock.

Earlier this month the non-profit community social service

organization, Pacific Centre Family Services, was recognized by the

Victoria Real Estate Board for their new Centre for Wellbeing on

Goldstream Avenue in Colwood as greater Victoria’s best new community

institutional building. Meanwhile, in Metchosin, this year’s volunteer

group of the year was the generous Metchosin Sign Team, who redeveloped

the Metchosin sign.

It is very poignant for me to end this recognition with the

Metchosin citizens of the year: Bob Gramigna and the late and wonderful

Moralea Milne. Thank you to everyone across Esquimalt-Metchosin who

build our community and who are all winners to us.

TRI-CITIES WOMEN’S COLLABORATIVE HUB

J. Isaacs: She is smart, talented and generous. This fearless emerging

influencer represents a new generation — that of leaders who advocate

for others and give them a voice.

[10:25 a.m.]

Quite the inspirational wonder woman, she is resilient, strong and

seeks to empower others. As if that is not enough, she is an exceptional

educator. She possesses a big appetite to learn, but her greatest joy

comes from sharing the knowledge with others.

These words are borrowed from Trish Mendewo’s poem for the Women’s

Collaborative Hub unsung hero awards and truly characterize the unique

and unrelenting spirit of the nine outstanding winners and all the

nominees. It was truly an honour for me to be a judge for the second

year.

The Women’s Collaborative Hub is a vibrant organization that works

tirelessly to foster community and collaboration between influencing

women in both the global and local business communities, through

workshops, mentorship programs and networking opportunities. On November

16, 300 remarkable women gathered to acknowledge, honour and celebrate

the achievements of women in the Tri-Cities, Pitt Meadows and Maple

Ridge.

The evening was full of heartfelt speeches that honoured these

women who enrich our communities through meaningful collaboration and

positive influence. It was an amazing experience to see so many

incredible women in one place.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations

to the caring, compassionate and capable women who were award

recipients: Melissa Quinn, Tabitha McLoughlin, Cheryl Zandbergen, Brenda

Garcia, Bernadette Butler, Tina D’Amelio, Vicki Kipps, Karen Roosen, Dr.

Ursula Luitingh and Charlene Schular.

A special thank-you to the Women’s Collaborative Hub, the

volunteers and sponsors, for making such a significant contribution

towards meaningful collaboration among women.

ADDICTION AWARENESS

B. Ma: One in ten. That’s how many Canadians suffer from some kind of

substance use disorder. In British Columbia, 55,000 people live with

opioid use disorder, leading to four people a day in this province who

die due to a poisoned illegal drug supply.

This crisis reaches far and wide, touching the lives of people

across this province, across walks of life, across political ideologies,

across this room, these chambers, this Legislature. Like too many others

across the province, members here today know the pain, the suffering,

the close calls and the too lates.

National Addictions Awareness Week is the time to break down the

walls of silence. It’s time to have courageous conversations with your

loved ones about addiction and substance use. We know that to save lives

being lost to the overdose crisis, we need to address stigma, that

insidious force which can keep people using drugs alone and prevent them

from asking for help.

We know that the causes of addiction are complicated and varied,

that it is often rooted in profound underlying pain or trauma and that

there are social, economic, historical dimensions to all of this. We

know that substance use isn’t a moral issue. It is a health issue, and

it’s time that everyone started treating it that way.

National Addictions Awareness Week provides an opportunity for

British Columbians to take leadership at home, at work, in peer groups

and to create a safe space so people feel comfortable having those

courageous conversations by talking about addiction or asking for help.

Let us all be leaders in this conversation.

A. Wilkinson: I seek leave to move a motion that this House review its decision

of November 20, 2018, to place Mr. Craig James and Mr. Gary Lenz on

administrative leave.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Member. You are requesting leave without

notice.

A. Wilkinson: Correct.

Leave not granted.

[10:30 a.m.]

Oral Questions

LEGISLATURE EXPENDITURES

AND WORK OF LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

A. Wilkinson: Now, the news we’ve received, in the last week, of the hiring in

the Speaker’s office of a number of advisers and lawyers has come as a

bit of a surprise. Of course, the spending authority for this comes from

the Ministry of Finance.

The question goes to the Minister of Finance. Did she approve

these expenditures, and does she accept oversight of these expenditures

in the Speaker’s office?

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me. Attorney General, before you begin, I will ask the

Deputy Speaker to take my place, given I have some sense of what’s going

to be discussed here.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member, the Leader of the Opposition, is a lawyer. He’s been

in this place for a while. He’s heard questions about indemnities

before, about the hiring of lawyers by members in this place.

Now, the Legislature provides indemnities for the public service,

for members in this place. On the Speakers’ side, they have their own

agreements in relation to indemnities. I don’t know why the member would

think there would be any difference in the ability of members in this

place to address those issues.

In any event, as he knows — and as he knew yesterday and as I

repeated I don’t know how many times yesterday — these matters are all

very tightly related to a matter where the police are currently

investigating, where special prosecutors have been appointed, and we

will not be commenting on these matters.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: We’re seeing an entirely new level of obstruction and obfuscation

from the government today in that the question had nothing whatsoever to

do with indemnities. It was dealing with staffing. So I’ll try again in

a different channel.

The Legislative Assembly Management Committee, known widely as

LAMC, has a critical role in managing the accounts and affairs of the

Speaker’s office, particularly in terms of budgets and hiring. That

committee was supposed to meet today at 3 p.m., and that meeting was

unilaterally cancelled by the Speaker.

The obvious question is, given that this room, this House, this

Legislature is committed to accountability and that’s what we come here

for: is it an issue in which the Solicitor General is prepared to weigh

in and ask the Speaker to reconvene that meeting for 3 p.m.

today?

Deputy Speaker: Members, questions related to LAMC are not canvassed in this

House. So that’s….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I’m advised that LAMC questions are better addressed in

LAMC, but if the minister wishes to address that, that’s

fine.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can inform the member that there is, in fact, an actual

scheduled LAMC meeting for the sixth of December. There was a request

for one today, but there was not one scheduled and nor….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m sorry. There is a scheduled LAMC meeting for the sixth of

December.

Deputy Speaker: The opposition leader on a second supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Let’s remember that 87 of us got elected by our constituents —

54,000, in my case — to come here, first of all, to have the government

services provided by the members of the executive council through a $54

billion budget. The rest of us are here for accountability reasons. We

serve our constituents, and we are here to hold the government to

account and make sure that the spending in this facility, authorized by

the executive council, is appropriately handled.

[10:35 a.m.]

Vote 1 goes to the Legislature. We all know that. The Legislative

Assembly Management Committee exists so that there is that degree of

accountability for Vote 1 in this Legislature. More than $70 million of

the public’s money — that has to be accounted for

appropriately.

LAMC has not met this year except to approve minutes. There has

been no accountability from LAMC this year.

The question goes to the Solicitor General. Given that the conduct

of the Speaker’s office is in question in the past week, given that it’s

the leading story in the news for the past week and given that these

events are without precedent, will the Solicitor General join our call

for the LAMC meeting scheduled for 3 p.m. today to take

place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I’m not sure if the member fully understands the LAMC

process, but first, there is a scheduled meeting for the sixth of

December that has been in place for quite some time. Second, as he well

knows, LAMC is not just the LAMC management committee but also the audit

and finance committee, which has met regularly, and he has, apparently,

members on that. Those financial issues are in fact discussed at audit

and finance.

LAMC will meet the sixth of December. That’s the scheduled

meeting. That’s when it will meet, and that’s all I can tell

him.

S. Bond: Well, the Solicitor General needs to correct the record. There was

a LAMC meeting agreed to and scheduled for today.

There are very grave concerns that led to a motion presented in

this House one week ago today, and there is a need for accountability

and transparency. This is a test of our institution. Basic questions

remain about the process, the authority and the costs incurred for

hiring staff, as opposed to what the Attorney General’s question related

to.

British Columbians deserve answers, and in fact, so do members of

this Legislature. The clock is ticking. There are just hours left in

this session.

The Legislative Management Committee needs to meet and to deal

with many outstanding questions. December 6 is simply not good enough.

This is a matter of urgency.

Will the Solicitor General stand up today, take some leadership,

and insist that that previously scheduled meeting be put back in

place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As the member well knows, the scheduled meeting was for December

6. What that member is referring to is a late at the end of the day

release to the media saying: “We’re demanding an emergency meeting.” All

that was ever done…. There was no meeting scheduled. There was a

scheduled meeting for the sixth of December.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It most certainly is true.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let’s have order, please.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is no meeting scheduled for today. There is a regularly

scheduled one for the sixth of December. That’s when LAMC is next due to

meet.

Deputy Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I think it’s absolutely astounding that this Solicitor

General thinks it is acceptable to sit and wait, until this House rises

and for two weeks, to answer important critical questions that matter to

British Columbians and matter to members of this Legislature. British

Columbians are being left in the dark, and apparently, it’s okay for the

Solicitor General and the government to just wait a couple of weeks.

Well, that’s not good enough.

The management committee of this House must be able to question

the Speaker’s use of taxpayer dollars. They don’t belong to the

government; they belong to taxpayers. They hired lawyers and special

advisers. In fact, we’re up to two now. People deserve to know: who

approved the hiring, how much did it cost, and what on earth is the

mandate of not one but two special advisers?

It’s time for the Solicitor General to stand up, to take some

leadership and insist that the LAMC meeting that was scheduled for this

afternoon take place.

Hon. D. Eby: The member made it really clear in her question what this is

about. It’s about the hiring of lawyers. It’s about the role of the

special advisers in the Speaker’s office, which is, as she knows…. A

former AG, she knows that is directly related….

Interjections.

[10:40 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, the question was asked, and the answer is being

provided. Please, let’s listen to that.

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s question asked about the hiring of lawyers. She said

that; I didn’t say that. The question is about the hiring of lawyers.

The question is about the hiring of special advisers, which the member

knows is directly related to the subject matter that’s under a police

investigation, for which there are two….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s their own questions that are saying this. The unprecedented

situation — many of them have referenced it already in their questions

today. They know that this is a collateral attack on the fact that the

government cannot speak about these matters because there’s an active

police investigation and special prosecutors have been

appointed.

They’re being disingenuous about what this is about, and I know

why. They are trying to find a way to get government to talk about

something that government cannot talk about.

USE OF GLYPHOSATE IN

FOREST

MANAGEMENT

A. Weaver: A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development when B.C. would stop spraying

our forests with….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting, as I got interrupted by a member opposite

suggesting that asking about this is not important. Rather, what is

important, it seems to me, is the, frankly, shocking games that I’m

watching going on here.

To the member from West Kelowna who doesn’t think the issue of

glyphosate spraying in British Columbia forests is important, I

continue. Glyphosate kills the species that provide an essential line of

defence against wildfires and pine beetle. In the member’s riding

itself, in the riding of Kelowna West, we have pine and we have wildfire

that he should be concerned about. Maybe he should be spending some time

on this issue.

Glyphosate harms human health and animal health. It’s symptomatic

of 20th-century forest management practices. As reported in Business

in Vancouver last week, B.C.’s forest industry is currently

undergoing falling lumber prices, production cuts and staff layoffs. We

need to change our forest practices now if we are going to have

flourishing and sustainable ecosystems and industry.

Now, I recognize, again, that forestry is not an important issue

for the members opposite, but it is on this side of the House. For that,

I ask the following question of the Minister of Forests, Lands and

Natural Resources. What evidence is the minister still gathering to make

a decision about the ongoing use of glyphosates given that the evidence

seems to be very clear that we should stop now?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question from the Leader of the Third Party. I

welcome the question because it’s of interest to people in rural areas,

and natural resource management is of interest to people across the

province.

We’re committed to protecting the important biodiversity of

forests while ensuring a continued vibrant forest sector. As the member

knows, the herbicide glyphosate is approved by Health Canada for weed

control and is used selectively in northern B.C. to improve survival and

growth of seedlings and young trees.

Recently the ministry started to allow increased levels of aspen

and broadleaf in managed stands throughout B.C., which will lead to a

further decline in the use of herbicides. In fact, in certain

ecosystems, up to 1,000 aspen per hectare are acceptable in conifer

plantations. Overall, the use of glyphosate is decreasing. We will

continue to look at any evidence to improve silviculture strategies in

the province.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

AND INDIGENOUS

KNOWLEDGE

A. Weaver: Indigenous peoples have managed forests for their ecological,

cultural and economic value for thousands of years. There’s substantial

traditional knowledge surrounding forest management, and every recent

report on forestry and fire has highlighted the need for Indigenous

collaboration and leadership.

Another issue clearly not an important question for the member for

Kelowna West is this: UBC has proposed a national Indigenous forestry

school for their Okanagan campus. If developed, this program will

establish a holistic curriculum that integrates Indigenous knowledge to

deal with wildfire and forest health, wealth creation and governance,

and how to maximize the value of our forests.

This concept is a perfect example of reconciliation and innovation

in an era of climate change and, frankly, an issue that I think we

should be discussing here in question period rather than the games that

we’re seeing played opposite.

[10:45 a.m.]

To the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, there are

a multitude of opportunities like the one proposed by UBC. We can and

need to do better now, not tomorrow. What exactly will the minister be

doing in 2019 to overhaul our important forestry industry in British

Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: You know, I haven’t had, in all of this fall question period

session, the ability to touch on the wildfire situation that occurred in

2018. The member used wildfire examples in his question. I would just

like to say and ask all members to join me in congratulating the B.C.

Wildfire Service staff, the contractors and the volunteers who ensured

that not one single life was lost in the entire 2018 season.

The member touched on a number of topics. I’ll be brief in my

answer, but I wanted to first acknowledge the efforts that UBC’s faculty

of forestry is bringing — I met with the dean, John Innes — to create an

Okanagan campus national Indigenous forestry school. I know the Minister

of Advanced Education is aware and eagerly awaiting to receive a

proposal around that.

That’s in order to blend and ensure that Indigenous traditional

ecological knowledge is combined with western knowledge to better manage

the forest sector. That will involve ensuring that the forest sector is

productive and that we’re managing with both First Nations and western

science.

ROLE OF ADVISERS TO SPEAKER

AND WORK OF LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

T. Stone: I’d like to take us back to the previous questions with respect to

the scheduled LAMC meeting that was scheduled for today.

The Solicitor General stood in this House moments ago and

suggested that no such meeting had actually been scheduled. I am holding

two documents here, two emails. One is from the Office of the Speaker,

dated Friday, November 23, and this is sent to all members of LAMC. It

says: “This message is to seek your availability to attend a meeting of

the LAMC committee on Tuesday, November 27, at 3 p.m.”

A second email sent from the Office of the Clerk says…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: …the proposed LAMC meeting is Tuesday, November 27.

A meeting was scheduled for this afternoon, and any suggestion

otherwise is patently false. The Solicitor General knows

that.

Now, on November 21, special adviser Alan Mullen told the media he

was hired to investigate concerns that originated from the Speaker. On

November 24, the Speaker released a conflicting statement claiming

Mullen wasn’t engaged in any form of investigation. The two different

accounts cannot both be true.

Will the Solicitor General today support that LAMC meeting

actually taking place, which was also scheduled today, so that we can

all ensure that these obvious contradictions are addressed?

Hon. D. Eby: Whether the member seeks to discuss the matters that are under

active police investigation or where special prosecutors have been

appointed, in the hallway, in the House…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. D. Eby: …or elsewhere, I hope that…. It’s certainly my advice to all

members of this place to be extremely careful in discussing this very

sensitive matter. The reason why special prosecutors were appointed is

to keep this arm’s length from government. Police are arm’s length from

government. It’s an extremely sensitive matter.

I continue to offer that encouragement to all members, regardless

of which committee they’re in, whether they’re here, out in the halls,

in the community or elsewhere. That advice stands here. Again, I’ll take

my own advice and won’t be commenting on matters relating to these

investigations.

Deputy Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, there are few words to describe what we’re witnessing here

today, but outrageous comes to mind.

[10:50 a.m.]

We have a government that is denying that a meeting was even

scheduled for the LAMC committee for this afternoon. That’s patently not

true. We have a government that shut down any opportunity to debate a

motion that we moved earlier today. We have a government that refuses to

answer any questions about matters that actually relate to the integrity

of this institution — not external investigations and court cases and so

forth but the operations of this building. British Columbians deserve to

have answers to these questions.

Now, just yesterday the Speaker’s second special adviser told CFAX

the Speaker “then asked his assistant to help investigate that with him.

They conducted some form of investigation. They gave the results of that

investigation to the RCMP.”

Now, why does the Solicitor General not agree that having a LAMC

meeting, which was scheduled for today, should be held today to clear

the air on these obvious contradictions…?

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the Attorney General, just again a caution that

question period is supposed to canvass ministerial

responsibilities.

However, Attorney General, continue.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, at least the members on the other side have stopped

pretending that this is about something else.

The member has been very clear that he wants to know about what

material was gathered by the special adviser and provided to the

RCMP.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, a question was asked. We need to hear the

answer, please.

Hon. D. Eby: The member shouts at me that that’s not what he said. He only

wanted to know: what did Mullen do?

I’m afraid I don’t understand the distinction. The issue here is

squarely within what the police are investigating and what the special

prosecutors are looking at.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: I hear the members shouting. They can ask questions and stand up

if they wish, but the answer will be the same. This is a matter squarely

within the police investigation. This is a matter squarely within the

special prosecutor’s remit. The government won’t be making comment on

this, for obvious reasons, and the members on the other side know that

very well.

M. de Jong: A couple of years ago the Government House Leader, in his capacity

then as the Opposition House Leader, reminded all of us that our rules

provide for questions being put to the Chair of House committees. He was

right then, and I verified that authority.

We can’t get any member of this government to accept the

proposition and the role, the importance of the role, that LAMC plays on

behalf of every member of this chamber and British Columbians for the

management and oversight of this place.

So it is with reluctance, but in accordance with the authorities

that I have verified, that I put the question to the Chair of the

Legislative Assembly Management Committee. Will you convene the meeting

that was originally scheduled to take place today at three

o’clock?

Deputy Speaker: That question is out of order.

Next question.

LEGISLATURE EXPENDITURES

AND WORK OF LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

M. de Jong: Well, members opposite seem to be dismissive of the importance of

what is taking place here. They seem to be dismissive of the role that

the Legislative Assembly Management Committee plays.

Look, lawyers are being hired. Advisers are being hired.

Investigations are being commenced. Moneys are being spent, all without

the authorization and apparently the knowledge of the very committee

that is entrusted with the task of overseeing those expenditures. The

government representative refuses to join us in our call to have that

committee meet. The Speaker arbitrarily cancels meetings that have been

scheduled.

We are here. Members are available. These are extraordinary

circumstances, and the answer we get is: “Let’s wait a couple of weeks.”

That is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, and I call upon you to discharge your

responsibilities and your authority to call for the meeting.

Interjections.

[10:55 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members, for your enthusiasm.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I’ll make a couple of observations. It’s interesting that in

terms of talking about the rules, the member wants to go after the

Speaker, which he knows full well is not in terms of questioning the

Speaker….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it’s not, and you know it. You’ve been around this place long

enough.

Second, what is also outrageous is members over there trying to

say that the words “proposed” are in fact “scheduled.” They’re not;

they’re very different. The emails made it clear that it was checking

for the availability and about a proposed meeting. There was not a

scheduled meeting. There is a scheduled….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a scheduled meeting for the sixth of December.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is outrageous.

It is scheduled for the sixth of December. There are audit and

finance committee meetings that are scheduled. Members know that. But

perhaps if some of their members actually showed up sometimes instead of

missing some of the meetings, this might, in fact…. You know, they might

take place.

There’s a scheduled meeting on the sixth of December.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let’s have order. Otherwise, we won’t hear a

question, and we won’t hear an answer. We will be wasting 30 minutes of

valuable time for the opposition to ask questions.

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

J. Thornthwaite: Karen is a constituent of the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale,

very angry about this government blocking ride-sharing. She says: “In

the last three months alone, I have been left on the side of the road

mid-trip because the driver was finished for the night, walked from Kits

to downtown in the pouring rain to make a work function and had a client

miss a flight. This is not putting people first.”

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday the

government, with the help of the Greens, passed legislation that will

not bring ride-sharing any time soon to British Columbia. Can the

minister explain to Karen why she might never get ride-sharing in

British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. The member was actually

participating in the debate that we had about the legislation that we

brought in and we passed yesterday. The opposition had five years to

bring in legislation. They did nothing. Within 16 months, we have

brought in legislation and we have passed legislation that will enable

app-based ride-hailing to operate in British Columbia.

The member participated in the debate. She quoted her constituent

who had to walk home in the rain. We all feel for those people who are

stuck because there is no cab available. We know that it’s problematic.

We know it’s problematic if you get off a flight and you can’t find a

cab or you’re trying to get home from the hospital or you’re trying to

get home from a club.

We know that there are problems. That’s why we acted. We made sure

that we brought in legislation, got legislation on ride-sharing in,

something the opposition didn’t do for five years.

Deputy Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

[11:00 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: If the minister actually cared about all of the people that care

about having ride-sharing, then they would have accepted our bill, and

we could have had ride-sharing by Valentine’s Day.

Megan….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let’s hear the question, please.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Megan is another resident of the North Shore. She writes: “The

current situation puts the population at risk.”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please carry on.

J. Thornthwaite: “The number of female friends that I have that have been

inappropriately touched and spoken to by a cab driver is unacceptable.

The people want and need ride-sharing now.” These

regulations….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please come to order.

Member, please ask the question.

The Members will come to order now. Come on, guys. Let’s have some

order.

J. Thornthwaite: The regulations and roadblocks that this government, with the help

of the Greens, is putting to prevent ride-sharing from coming to British

Columbia is wrong.

Can the minister tell Megan and the rest of my constituents, all

on the North Shore, why she’s blocking ride-sharing?

Hon. J. Horgan: I apologize to my colleague for taking the opportunity to ask the

member on the other side why she didn’t have this indignation in 2012 or

2013 or 2014, ’15, ’16 or ’17. Why, for five years, did those on that

side of the House refuse to bring in ride-hailing? I recall a

by-election that the member from Burke Mountain ran in when that was her

only platform — ride-hailing — yet it fell on deaf ears when that group

was on this side of the House.

What has happened in the past 16 months surpasses everything that

they did in 16 years. It’s not just on ride-hailing. Sixteen years of

ignoring the worst ICU in British Columbia has changed. In 16 months,

we’re building an ICU in Nanaimo, and in 16 months, we brought

affordable, accessible child care to families not just in Nanaimo but

right across British Columbia.

Where was the indignation when housing prices were out of control

and regular people couldn’t afford a place to live in British Columbia?

Their solution was: “Move somewhere else.” Our solution was to curb

demand, bring on supply and build 4,900 new spaces for low-income and

affordable housing.

I appreciate that there seems a desire for a continuation of this

line of answering, but I’ll have to regrettably take my seat and await

another chance in February.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Shh. Members.

Petitions

T. Redies: I rise to present a petition from my constituents relating to their

concerns regarding B.C. Hydro customer crisis fund monthly

charge.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

A. Weaver: I rise to present a petition of 2,550 signatures from the East Shore

Advocacy Society and concerned citizens of Kootenay Lake region. The

petition calls for the Minister of Transportation to halt the current

Balfour improvement project and move the ferry terminal to Queens

Bay.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I rise to present two petitions.

The first one. Constituents in my area, from Laird Creek watershed,

are requesting that the logging in Laird Creek be halted and that an

independent investigation be undertaken to assess the actual long-term risk

to their water quality.

A second petition calls for a halt to logging in domestic watersheds

until the government can ensure that water quality is treated as the primary

value.

N. Simons: I present a petition on behalf of residents of the Sunshine Coast, who

are calling for safety improvements on Highway 101, especially in area

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW POLICE

COMPLAINT PROCESS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a series of motions that I will be moving. They have been

shared with my colleague the Opposition House Leader and my colleague

the House Leader of the Third Party.

By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to conduct an audit

respecting the outcome or resolution of randomly selected complaints and

investigations, pursuant to

section 51.2 of the Police Act

(R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367) and to prepare a report no later than November

26, 2019 on the results of that audit.

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select

Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and

during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and,

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report as soon as possible to the House, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of the following

Members: Garry Begg (Convener), Mike Morris , Adam

Olsen , Ellis Ross , and Rachna

Singh .]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

APPOINT A MERIT

COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously

recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an individual

to hold office as the Merit Commissioner for the Province of British

Columbia, pursuant to

section 5.01 of the Public Service Act

(R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 385).

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select

Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and

during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Ravi Kahlon

(Convener), Dan Davies , Mitzi Dean , Tracy

Redies , and Andrew Weaver .]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MEMBERSHIP CHANGES TO COMMITTEES

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That Adam Olsen be appointed to replace Andrew

Weaver as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Crown

Corporations; and

That Jagrup Brar be appointed to replace Leonard

Krog as a Member of the following Committees:

• Special Committee of Selection;

• Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical

Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills; and

• Select Standing Committee on Legislative

Initiatives.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[11:10 a.m.]

RESCISSION OF RESOLUTION

FOR AGRICULTURE

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That the resolution adopted by the House on May 31, 2018 regarding

the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food be

rescinded.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call Motion on Notice 34. In the little chamber,

Committee A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 56.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 34 — CHANGE TO

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR

CROWN

CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

Hon. C. Trevena: I am pleased to be moving the motion to propose a terms of

reference for an all-party legislative committee which will help to

shape policy advice that the Passenger Transportation Board will

consider when assessing applications for new services.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations be

authorized to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on

regulations regarding transportation network services in British

Columbia;

That the Committee be authorized to meet for up to three days to

hear from expert witnesses; and

That the Committee shall limit its consideration to forming

recommendations on the following:

• criteria to consider when establishing

boundaries;

• appropriate policies to balance the supply of service with

consumer demand, including the application of the Passenger

Transportation Board’s current public convenience and necessity regime

as it pertains to transportation network services; and

• criteria to be considered when establishing price and fare

regimes that balance affordability with reasonable business rates of

return for service providers.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee shall be

empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and

during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee,

and shall report to the Legislative Assembly no later than March 31,

2019, and shall deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of

the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon

resumption of the sittings of the House, or at the next following

session, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative

Assembly.]

In addition, I also move:

[That the motion be amended by adding a fourth recommendation

shown as underlined:

• appropriate classes of drivers’ licences, including but not

limited to ensuring a robust safety regime without creating an undue

barrier for drivers. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Trevena: This government is committed to getting the introduction of

ride-hailing services right for British Columbians, and we are working

collaboratively to make sure that happens. I have to thank members from

the Third Party, the Green caucus, for their very hard work on the file

and for their recommendations for the committee.

[11:15 a.m.]

The terms will now read: “criteria to consider when establishing

boundaries; appropriate policies to balance the supply of service with

consumer demand…; criteria to be considered when establishing price and

fare regimes that balance affordability with reasonable business rates

of return for service providers; and appropriate classes of drivers’

licences, including but not limited to ensuring a robust safety regime

without creating undue barriers for drivers.”

Deputy Speaker: Any discussion on the motion?

T. Stone: On behalf of the official opposition, I just wanted to make a

couple of short remarks with respect to this motion. We did canvass a

lot of issues relating to ride-sharing and the onset of this new

industry in British Columbia. As the official opposition, we made

extensive efforts in that legislative process yesterday and in earlier

days to try to take a bill which we believe is deeply flawed and

provides many obstacles to, actually, ride-sharing coming to British

Columbia.

I will speak first to the specific amendment that the minister has

just moved in terms of adding an additional point of criteria to the

committee’s deliberations — being to look at the driver’s licence issue,

the class 4 and class 5 issue that we had, again, canvassed extensively

yesterday.

At a high level — again, in the context of the amendment but also

at a high level — I will say what we said yesterday, and that is that we

simply don’t understand. We’re speechless, actually, in terms of

understanding why the government is referring matters back to the same

legislative committee, the same issues to the same legislative

committee, to come up, presumably, with the same recommendations that

this committee has already made.

The committee met extensively in January, called witnesses, met

with stakeholders and put together a thoughtful report, which was

endorsed by nine members of this Legislature — four from the government,

four from the official opposition and one from the Green Party. It was a

unanimous recommendation. The recommendations included how the committee

felt based on all of the input that was received and their

deliberations, how the committee felt that the government should move

forward with respect to supply, with respect to boundaries, with respect

to pricing and with respect to the driver licensing issue.

We believe that this referral to the same committee to talk about

the same issues yet again, albeit for three days in January or February,

simply represents another attempt by the government, supported by the

Greens, to drag their feet, delay, delay, the end result being that

ride-sharing isn’t coming to British Columbia any time soon.

I’m not going to support this amendment, and I’m not going to

support this motion, nor is the official opposition.

A. Olsen: It’s my pleasure to stand and speak to this motion with respect to

the terms of reference provided to the Committee on Crown Corporations,

with respect to the newly amended Passenger Transportation Act, which

allows….

Interjections.

A. Olsen: Okay. I’m speaking about the act that was discussed

yesterday.

Deputy Speaker: We are discussing the amendment, Member.

A. Olsen: I understand. Okay.

Just with respect to the addition, of adding licensing, there was

quite a discussion. In fact, it took, probably, over an hour to discuss

the issues around the class of licensing for operators in this new

environment.

[11:20 a.m.]

As well, I see that the terms of reference for this include rates,

boundaries, the mandate of the Passenger Transportation Board, and the

supply. These are all issues which have been raised by the B.C. Green

caucus and raised by the caucus of the official opposition during the

debate of this bill that was passed last night.

I think it’s important to point out that what was attempted in

those debates was to completely change the direction that the government

was trying to take. Now, as I pointed out several times in that debate,

there was an opportunity to have that bill come forward and to be part

of the law, but the choice was clearly not made to do that. Instead, the

official opposition decided to wait for another government to do it, and

then this is what we get.

We now have an opportunity to discuss the regulations in a new

legislated framework. I think that’s a substantial opportunity. It’s one

which the B.C. Green caucus will embrace. We will be there, and we will

be a part of those conversations. We’ll be a part of those

deliberations. We will be a part of listening to the public and hearing

what they have to say on these very important issues — issues that were

raised by all members of the official opposition and the other

opposition party, the party that I represent, as ones which should be

discussed, should be debated and that we should have further information

brought forward on.

We now have a new legislated context which we can put that lens

over top of. So if the official opposition doesn’t want to show up and

they don’t want to be part of that conversation, then I invite them not

to be a part of that conversation. If they don’t want to come to the

committee meeting, then they can choose not to be there, but we’ll be

there.

We’ll be having these important conversations. We’ll be doing it

with the desire to move this forward. We will be doing it with the

desire to move it forward as quickly as we possibly can. That’s always

been our perspective on this, and we’ll do it to try to work within the

framework that we’ve been given.

P. Milobar: I wasn’t going to rise to speak to this amendment, but I feel I

must, because after hearing the last comments, it’s beyond farcical

what’s being proposed here today. It’s almost like, word for word, what

we saw a year ago.

A year ago in this House, the exact same scenario played out when

the government was trying to delay ride-hailing opportunities. They had

already commissioned a report on the taxi industry. They relented and

allowed for a quick report to be generated around ride-hailing at the

urging of the Green Party. It resulted in hurried meetings in January to

get a report ready to this House by February. Most of those were

discounted with this new piece of legislation.

What this motion does is it actually acknowledges, by the

government, that they totally missed the mark with this legislation,

that it’s a totally flawed piece of legislation and that now they’re

scrambling, trying to make corrections to it. Frankly, as someone who

was on that committee, I find it remarkable that we’re back at the same

place a year later and now have the Green Party try to suggest that

three extra days will somehow magically solve all these problems that

have been laid out from the first committee work.

The first committee, I would point out, was not supposed to have

the taxi industry as part of their terms of reference. In fact, we tried

adding those into the terms of reference and were denied. Yet magically,

the taxi industry was allowed to present at those hearings regardless of

that. We were happy to see that happen. But by some magical way, after

voting against allowing the taxi industry to present at those hearings a

year ago, the Green Party and the NDP suddenly thought that was okay,

after voting against that same recommendation.

If you want to talk about game-playing, if you want to talk about

the fact that this is nothing more than a sham — for three days to try

to provide cover for the Minister of Transportation, to try to correct

what everyone has been saying is completely flawed legislation that will

not result in ride-hailing in this province…. Why would we want to

participate and be a part of that when we’ve been totally ignored as a

committee up to this point?

To think that three more days, almost a year later, is somehow

going to come to a different solution, a different end result, is

absolutely ridiculous. It’s totally farcical. It totally highlights the

fact that we have wasted a full year already. Now we’re going to start

the clock ticking again and somehow think that this is magically going

to solve this?

[11:25 a.m.]

The government already knows where the flaws are. The government

knows where it needs corrected measures within this bill. It doesn’t

need three days of the same committee they’ve chosen to

ignore.

It doesn’t need three more days of the same committee that

somehow, unilaterally, without consulting with the B.C. Liberals,

included taxis into the terms of reference suddenly. They were allowed

to present, which we were very thankful for, but let’s remember it was

the Greens and the government that voted against allowing that to happen

in the first place a year ago.

Here we are a year later, with them insisting they haven’t delayed

anything, trying to reconstitute the exact same committee, for three

days this time instead of the eight or nine or 12 — whatever it was —

last year.

It is beyond ridiculous where this is headed. It’s time for the

government just to admit that they totally missed the mark with this

bill, that it is not going to institute ride-hailing any time soon. If

it was, there’d be no need for this group to meet three more days to

provide cover. So it is beyond supportable.

A. Weaver: I rise in support of the amendment that’s before us on the

original Motion 34. I wish to address a couple of issues. One, of

course, is what we passed yesterday in the Legislature is enabling

legislation that sets the framework by which a regulatory environment

will be implemented to allow ride-hailing in British

Columbia.

What government has done here is recall the Standing Committee on

Crown Corporations, a committee that I served on last year, to advise it

on the regulatory environment that should be put in place. As amended

here, there are a few other things that have been added into that

regulatory environment that we felt were critical.

I recognize the member for Kamloops–North Thompson was not in the

Legislature in the last four years. But this is the first time, in my

view, that a legislative committee is being put together to actually

advise on the regulatory environment that should be applied in enabling

legislation. So I’m less cynical than the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson on this.

As a member of the previous committee, I would say that I thought

we did a lot of good work. I know the member for Surrey South was on

that committee. The member for Richmond-Queensborough was on that

committee. The member for Delta North was on that committee.

We did not have a consensus report. We had some consensus

recommendations, but there were areas where there was disagreement.

Those on the committee will recall that in fact my views were, frankly,

a little more similar to members of the official opposition’s views

than, perhaps, the government’s views.

We’ve now got to a situation where we have a framework in place.

This amended motion is tasking the same committee to make

recommendations on the actual regulations that will be in place. I’m

actually quite excited by this, as somebody who’s been working on this

file for quite some time.

Now, I recognize that ride-hailing is not going to open tomorrow.

But we have been in touch with the major ride-hailing companies. I,

personally, and my colleague more recently, have been in touch on an

almost daily basis with these companies. We know, despite what you have

heard here, that they needed and wanted the legislation to pass

yesterday. The reason why is that this is the first time a door has been

opened that they want to enter into.

There were some critical things that had to be put in place for

them to actually want to walk through that door. That critical thing was

what my good friend from Saanich North and the Islands did, through the

introduction of an amendment to the Passenger Transportation Board’s

framework which could have potentially blocked ride-hailing from coming

in. The passage of that amendment has enabled major ride-hailing

companies to walk through the first door.

Now they’ve gone through the open door, the first door. There’s no

doubt there are a number of other smaller doors before them, those doors

being the regulatory environment. As my colleague from Saanich North and

the Islands has indicated, we are concerned that we get good public

policy that will bring ride-hailing as soon as possible to this

province.

We’re ensuring…. We believe this amended motion, particularly the

amendment, enables the legislative committee to ensure that those

secondary doors do, indeed, open. Because as amended, allowing the

discussion of things like class 5 versus class 4 licences….

[11:30 a.m.]

A lot of people get hung up on that. When you actually go into the

area of class 5 versus class 4, there are really certain things in class

4 that I think most people would agree are appropriate for class 5.

Those are the age requirements, health checks, safety of car, etc. But

does it actually need to have class 4 or class 5? This is an issue that

the committee can now look at. This was a critical issue that could’ve

potentially blocked one of those secondary doors opening.

On that note, I think that this is an advancement of public policy

in a fine way. It’s allowing a legislative committee, for the first time

in my recollection, to actually be in a position to advise government on

the regulatory — not the enabling — framework. That was what we did with

the first committee. We advised on the enabling framework. Now we’re

actually advising on the regulatory environment.

With that, I will take my seat as a strong supporter of the

amendment.

Amendment approved.

Motion as amended approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill

40, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

E. Ross: In terms of Bill 40, the idea of a referendum is always a good

thing when we’re trying to gauge what the public wants or is thinking,

especially when the government is proposing something. But for something

as important as democracy, the highest standard of integrity and due

diligence should be paramount. Unfortunately, that is not what we are

seeing in this current referendum on proportional

representation.

In fact, in saying that, my perspective on electoral reform is

that we need electoral reform but not to change the system of who

represents our constituents in this Legislature. I mean, the whole idea

of making every vote count sounds like a noble cause. But that is not

the intent of this bill.

The intent of this bill is more to get more fringe parties into

this House. This is incredibly shortsighted, given how many countries

around the world envy Canada for our freedom of speech, our equality

laws and the ability of anyone to succeed, regardless of

government.

In fact, I know a lot of people will be cynical and take it with a

bit of humour when I talk about the efficiency of this government — the

B.C. government — the efficiency of this Legislature. Other countries

around the world that have proportional representation don’t have this

efficiency. We’re talking about how long it takes government to form

after an election.

We’ve never had that problem here in B.C. until actually this last

election. In fact, previous to this last election…. Since 1952, we

haven’t had a non-majority government, and it took some time for us to

get our act together to get government formed so we could deal with the

matters facing B.C. But apart from that, we had the efficient timelines

in terms of getting government up and running and

functioning.

What would be more effective reform — I’ve said this before — is

reform that speaks to British Columbians and Canadians that take

democracy for granted and do not exercise their right to vote in the

first place. Our complacency to participate in elections is a problem

for other democracies around the world, and other countries have tried

to deal with it. I know, myself, I was guilty of it before I ran for

election for my own band council in 2003.

Not long after that, I realized what a privilege it is to choose

who leads us based on what we as a people want — not what the leaders

want, not what the politicians want, but what our constituents want,

what British Columbians want.

[11:35 a.m.]

Now, in either election, at any level, my candidate may not get

elected, but the process allows for my issues to be front and centre

during the campaign stage and doesn’t go away after the government is

elected, especially in this Legislature, where I’ve been awestruck about

how we represent our ridings’ issues and B.C. in the best way

possible.

I don’t get into government, but I still get to raise my issues in

this Legislature to government as a member of the official opposition.

It’s a great system. First-past-the-post is a great system. It gave us

stability. It continues to give us stability. It gives us

consistency.

Now, there has been talk about how proportional representation

will foster collaboration in this House. Those of us who have been here

for more than a year know that this is not true. I argue that not only

is it not true; it’s not desirable. I don’t think people realize how

lucky we are to have a system like this where we have an official

opposition in this House. We don’t have it at our band council level or

at the community level. The ability for the official opposition…. I’m

even talking about the B.C. NDP for the last 16 years, who did their job

to hold government accountable and fight for transparency. It has

incredible value on behalf of British Columbians.

Collaboration is needed, of course, in key areas. But I don’t

think anybody in this Legislature wants to be a yes-man when it comes to

facing the people we represent — or a yes-person, if you’re talking

about gender equality. That’s not what we’re here for. We’re here to

advocate for the issues and the individuals in our ridings and, more

importantly, to fight for the direction and the future of British

Columbia.

Signing a confidence and supply agreement that dictates that I

must vote with the government regardless of how it affects my

constituents of B.C. is something I couldn’t do. That is what

proportional representation does to jurisdictions all around the world.

Just read the news. Governments under proportional representation fall

or are in danger of falling because agreements can’t be reached or one

party pulls its support from a sitting government because they didn’t

get their way in certain situations. That’s got nothing to do with

looking out for the citizens or the future of their

jurisdictions.

Proportional representation is more about compiling a power base

in this Legislature to gain a certain amount of seats so you can gain

power, so you can form government. It’s done not in this Legislature.

It’s not open and transparent. It’s done in a back room, in exchange for

single-interest parties to get recognized — all this in the name of

power and authority.

Now, when we’re talking about how proportional representation

stalls or falls in other places around the world, the government

dismisses this as fearmongering, even though all the major news outlets

all around the world report on this and show and expose how unstable

these governments are under proportional representation.

We’re fortunate here in B.C. that our current system of

first-past-the-post, regardless of what’s being said about politics or

politicians for that matter…. We’re extremely lucky that

first-past-the-post, our current system, has provided such a stable

government for many, many decades. The rare case of instability mainly

comes from a minority government, where you have to negotiate a

confidence and supply agreement, much like we see in the House

today.

It’s a tough job to maintain a confidence and supply agreement.

We’re seeing it already. Our current government is always balancing the

needs of British Columbians while trying to keep the Green Party members

happy and in line at the same time. The government, so far, has done a

good job, because they haven’t been voted out by the Green Party in a

confidence vote, but the assumption is that all bets are off if

proportional representation is not successful. That is not governing;

that is politicking.

If this is truly the case, where is the responsibility to

represent the interests of B.C. for all British Columbians if we’re just

looking out for our party’s survival in the Legislature? That’s got

nothing to do with British Columbians.

[11:40 a.m.]

This referendum is a condition of the agreement between the Green

Party and the NDP. I didn’t realize this was even an issue, prior to my

coming here, because during the campaign stage, not once did my

constituents bring up the idea of proportional representation — not even

thinking or asking me about changing our system in terms of our

elections.

I didn’t realize that it was a political issue until I got here.

Then I found out that it was actually done twice in the history of B.C.,

with a high threshold of 60 percent, and it was voted down twice. And in

those other two examples, it was done in a very open and transparent

manner, at arm’s length from this Legislature and arm’s length from

government, which is more important.

Apart from how this system fails to provide stable government in

other countries, I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that someone

who is not elected can get appointed to represent a riding. Appointing

someone to represent a riding is not democracy.

People around the world are looking to Canada as a good example of

democracy, and then we turn around and tell them: “Oh no, we’re not

going to elect MLAs anymore. We’re going to appoint them off a party

list.” That is fundamentally wrong when you’re talking about democracy.

The citizens should be able to choose who represents them in Victoria or

Ottawa or at the municipal election or the band council election. There

should be no appointments of any kind when we’re talking about democracy

in Canada.

I talked about this in my last debate around proportional

representation. The example I used is how, if someone from Vancouver

Island got appointed to my riding, they would not support LNG. Now, if

you reverse that, I don’t think people on Vancouver Island would

appreciate any party appointing me to represent Vancouver Island

ridings, given my support for forestry, fish farms, LNG, mining and

especially the idea that I support First Nations engaging equally on

development to address poverty issues.

I don’t think Vancouver Island residents would appreciate me

coming in, as an appointed MLA, actually bringing my own agenda and not

listening or even caring about the interests of Vancouver Island

residents. So it works both ways.

The bottom line is that when we’re talking about democracy, the

citizens vote for who represents them in Victoria or Ottawa. To even

think about the idea that we should be appointing people to this

Legislature instead of electing them — that is anything but

democratic.

Many people have talked about the flaws in this referendum,

including the idea that the process seemed to be made on the fly and is

continuing to be made on the fly. For example, instead of combining this

referendum with an already established vote, in person, the government

chose to do a mail-in ballot with confusing options.

Given all the rules of this referendum and our commitment that our

MLA offices remain politically neutral, it has been extremely difficult

for my offices in Terrace and Kitimat to answer legitimate questions

from citizens regarding the ballot or how they should vote, which is

what we shouldn’t be doing in our offices. We shouldn’t be trying to

influence voters. Outside the office, yes. You talk about your opinions

and whatnot. But we shouldn’t be doing that in our MLA offices. It’s

been stressed to me more than once by my colleagues the B.C. Liberals

that you definitely do not use your MLA offices for political

purposes.

I know some members of this House think otherwise and bend the

rules. But what we’re talking about….

Interjections.

E. Ross: We’re in an MLA office, and we’re talking about referendums. I

really thought we were talking about the integrity of the

process.

Our hands are tied, including my staff, when people come in and

ask legitimate questions. I’m not even sure if I should leave my office

and go out down to the restaurant and actually take the question at the

same time, instead of doing it in my office. It puts my office in an

incredibly awkward position.

[11:45 a.m.]

The question even comes out, in my office: what is wrong with

first-past-the-post, the current system that we’re in? When you start to

explain to citizens what the current system is like, how we get elected

and how we represent people in Victoria, then we have a problem. We have

a problem of ignorance, of apathy.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I think the member for Parksville-Qualicum wants to make

an introduction, if you can take a seat for one second,

please.

M. Stilwell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Stilwell: Above me, sitting in the gallery, are 27 11th grade students from

Ballenas Secondary School in my riding. I greeted them in the rotunda

earlier, with their teacher Olivia Hill. They were informed about the duties

of an MLA here in the building.

We talked about ride-sharing, which we were debating earlier. They

were quite keen to hear that that was going on, and now here we are, going

on about that. I would just like the House to please give them a very

parliamentary welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: The member for Skeena will continue.

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about the MLA’s office and

how we’re having a difficult time trying to explain the confusing ballot

to citizens without trying to be political, without trying to influence

the voter in certain situations, whether it be encouraging them to vote

for first-past-the-post or encouraging them to vote for proportional

representation. Trying to explain this in our MLA office in Terrace, for

my staff as well as myself, without being partisan is troubling. You

don’t want to be seen as political in our MLA offices.

When we’re talking about many of the flawed processes around this

referendum — and we’re talking about the missing information that the

citizens don’t have so that they can make an informed vote — there are

other issues that have come to my office about the ballot and the

package that was delivered to registered voters. The certification

itself has been raised to me as an issue of a false security against

fraud. I have to admit that after filling out my ballot and sending it

in, I have to agree.

The signature line is presented, but it’s not been explained. It’s

not really clear about how each signature will be verified. It seems

easy enough to take a ballot that has been thrown in the garbage — and

there have been many, many ballots thrown in the garbage outside

apartments — take any ballot, vote according to whatever system you

want, then provide a signature and just send it in.

Lastly, I want to touch on the idea of how there’ve been

statements made about how proportional representation will bring

respectful dialogue to this House, which is nonsense. Anybody who has

been in this House for a number of years knows that respectful dialogue

does happen, but not all the time. I understand it will take time for

government to be functional under proportional representation, as

multiple parties go out to lure other parties to prop them up. But if

and when a government forms under proportional representation, the

dialogue will continue as today.

We’ll still have some form of government, a coalition of parties —

three, four. Who knows how many members of parties will make up the

government? And we’ll still have an official opposition. That’s just the

nature of how this place works. But respectful dialogue coming out of

proportional representation? You can’t legislate respect. The dialogue

will continue as it does today, complete with the heckling and

off-the-microphone jabs at each other. Even the facial comments and the

finger gestures — that’s still going to continue.

[11:50 a.m.]

The audience doesn’t see that because the only one that’s on

camera right now is me, but heckling is happening right now. How is that

respectful? In my whole life of working as a blue-collar worker and then

being a public official, this has to be the most disrespectful place

I’ve ever worked in. But I accept it. It’s just the way the system is

set up. I think we go over the line sometimes. I think some of the

comments are distasteful, but I accept it. I think it’s what makes this

place great.

But the idea that respect comes from proportional representation,

that’s not true. Respect is an individual choice. Yeah, it might speak

to your character. It might speak to your integrity. But proportional

representation will not address the respectful behaviour of this House.

I don’t think we really want any legislation or any rules talking about

the respect because most of the time I see some of the heckling and some

of the jabs are actually…. They make this place more

interesting.

I’ve spoken about this before, and I covered a lot of topics

before. But based on the past speech, as well as what I’m finding out

more, I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 40 intituled

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018, be amended by

deleting the text of the motion in its entirety and substituting in the

following:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 40) intituled

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 be

amended by deleting the text of the motion in its entirety and

substituting the following:

“That this House declines to give second reading to the

Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018

because the intent of the Bill to hold a subsequent referendum on

whether to revert to the current first past the post voting system from

a proportional representation voting system, if adopted, is meaningless

when the government has failed to correct multiple deficiencies in the

current electoral reform referendum legislation, including not seeking a

clear majority approval from the electorate on a clear question, not

providing for sufficient and meaningful public engagement, and using a

confusing and complex referendum ballot.”]

On the amendment.

E. Ross: The amendment is mainly about holding another referendum in the

future just in case proportional representation passes. That was how it

was explained to us, but this motion came at a time when the government

felt they were losing the current vote. The polls were showing that it

was dead even. Some polls even showed that the first-past-the-post was

actually edging them out.

This really had nothing to do with the process itself. It had

nothing to do with the flaws. It was just a political statement, to

encourage people that if you did vote for proportional representation

and it did get passed, there’s always a back door to get back to our

current system, which is first-past-the-post.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, everyone that I’ve talked to, especially on this side of the

House, knew and still knows today that this was just a stunt. It was

just a stunt in an effort to sway voters and to get more voters

convinced to vote for proportional representation.

Why it’s a stunt is because everybody in this place knows — not

many people know outside of this place, outside of the House — you can’t

bind future governments to decisions made today, especially political

statements. It’s just another empty promise when we’re talking about the

referendum.

Another broken promise like whether or not the ballot would have a

simple yes-or-no question. We didn’t see that. That’s the biggest reason

why we get so many people coming into our offices in our constituencies

asking about how to vote and whether or not they get voided or whether

or not they’re voting for proportional representation if they vote on

question No. 2. A lot of anxiety. The idea to hold another future

referendum….

Noting the hour, I reserve my place and move adjournment of the

debate.

E. Ross moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 56 — OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 56, Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 56 — OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 56; R.

Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. M. Mungall: I won’t take up much time introducing the bill. We’ve all talked

about it already. I do want to just acknowledge that I have some really

amazing staff in this ministry who have done some incredible

work.

Here we have Richard Grieve, who is the executive director. I

have, to my right, Claire Gibbs, who’s the legislation and tenure policy

lead. Just sitting behind me is Garth Thoroughgood. He’s also an

executive director, tenure and geoscience branch.

With that, I turn it over to the member opposite for

questions.

M. Bernier: I think we’ll just jump right into it, because we’re limited for

time here before the break.

As the minister knows, we discussed this in second reading. There

was some quick dialogue on the importance of this bill and that. I just

want the minister to maybe set the stage here, as we’re going forward,

and start by highlighting why this bill was actually brought forward,

the amendments for the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Hon. M. Mungall: We want to have an equivalency agreement with the federal

government. The federal government is bringing in an initiative for

methane reduction. They’ve also been working very diligently on caribou

habitat protection. If we do not do something of our own here in British

Columbia and therefore maintain our own jurisdiction over these items,

then the federal government jurisdiction would apply. Therefore, we are

doing our own.

M. Bernier: I guess one of the first questions is that there is a lot of

discussion through this amendment around the phrasing of “off-site

environmental mitigation.” This is one of the first bills I’ve seen in a

while where there was no

part 1 added to the bill around definition. To

me, that’s maybe an absence here. Somebody reading this…. Now this is

going to be put into the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

We’ve got all these other

definitions in

part 1, but this has not

been added to it. Was there a thought process or reasoning why this

phrasing, unlike others that are found in the act, was not added to the

definition so people would know what it meant?

Hon. M. Mungall: The

section that the member is referencing,

section 1 of this

bill, is actually adding the definition of “off-site environmental

mitigation activity” to

part 1 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. That’s

the intention.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. Bernier: In that definition, there’s discussion about…. I know the minister

and her staff…. First of all, thank you to the staff, because they gave

me a briefing on this. This is an opportunity maybe just to clarify, on

the record, some of the discussion we had on this.

In the off-site environmental mitigation activity, we talk about

“outside the operating areas.” To me and maybe to a company — or maybe

even to somebody when they’re looking for a permit — “outside the

operating areas” can be very vague. What’s the intention when talking

about an off-site mitigation area? When we say “outside the area,” that

could mean anywhere. So what are the intentions with this act, moving

forward?

Hon. M. Mungall: Under the regulation, we would be drawing areas. They would be

made public so that information would be available to operators. They

would then be able to work with the Oil and Gas Commission and determine

what areas they would be doing their off-site mitigation.

The intention would be that it would less dictatorial by the OCG

and more of a collaborative approach in terms of how we would address,

in terms of our off-site mitigation, specifically the environmental

protection that we’re all looking to achieve.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that answer. I guess the question, then, is: with

those maps, with that information, is that going to be public knowledge

prior to a company applying for a permit, or is that going to be a

negotiated process during a permit application?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes. All of this information would be available, public, prior and

over the course of time so operators would know exactly what

opportunities are available for off-site mitigation.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Bernier:

Section 3, if I understand it correctly, is dealing a lot around

consultation and the process within the actual act. How does the

minister…? Through these changes, has she been having discussions that

she can share with the House? When I look at this as consultation, there

are different facets around consultation.

There is going to be the commitment that the minister has within

her mandate letter around UNDRIP. There’s the commitment within the

public for the consultation with local governments, etc. And then there

are also companies and the stakeholders and the people involved. So

there are a lot of different facets around consultation when we talk

about the act and how we are looking at some of these

changes.

What is maybe the plan, going forward? Looking at this — changes

to the act — there is a lot that’s being left to regulation. That, of

course, leaves a lot of questions because we’re not able to discuss that

today. The minister will say that changes will be made later, such as

the maps or such as other things throughout this bill that’ll be subject

to regulations.

I’m just curious on the thought process, going forward, on the

consultation with the different stakeholders and how she sees that

playing out.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s not a new type of consultation process that operatives would

have to take on. What this

section does is just adding that consultation

around: off-site mitigation would need to be added to the work that they

do, including the work that they do for their permit in general as well.

The consultation activities that they would be undertaking remain the

same.

M. Bernier: Thanks to the minister. So a lot of the consultation is not

changing, I guess, is what the minister is just saying.

The process. One of the concerns that I have, and that I’ve heard,

is a little bit outside, let’s say, of this specific bill, but it goes

to the process, especially if you look at 99.9 percent of the oil and

gas activity that this references is up in the Peace region. There is

also, at the same time, a huge push from the federal government, not

only around fugitive emissions but also around the protection of caribou

habitat, etc. — species at risk that they’re looking at down the

road.

One of the concerns I’ve heard is: how are those going to meld

together? If we’re looking at off-site mitigations outside of the oil

and gas activity, the specific area, how will that be, I guess, somewhat

convoluted when we look at some of the pressures that government has

right now and the relationships that they’re trying to have with the

local First Nations in the Peace region, who also are trying to have

protected areas, which could slow down oil and gas

activities?

This all kind of comes together, even though it’s not quite in

this bill. When we talk about the consultation part, I think it will

actually be very important — even though the minister is saying it’s not

changing — how that’s going to be dovetailed into the other

consultations that are taking place.

I’m wondering if the minister has thought about that.

Hon. M. Mungall: What I’m hearing from the member opposite — and I hope I’m hearing

it correctly — is concern how this will fit into the broader

consultation piece as we move into an era of reconciliation. How would

this work in terms of that broader reconciliatory piece? Would this meld

in? Would this fold in very well, or would this somehow be separate from

that and so on?

We’re just dealing with the act right now, here, on a

permit-by-permit basis. We haven’t lifted this off of the page and

looked at that broader aspect of how reconciliation consultation takes

place and how this necessarily would fit into it. Of course, that work

is ongoing.

[11:30 a.m.]

Right now, for the purposes of this act, we are just looking at

the permitting process and that we would have to include off-site

mitigation into consultation — which, again, is just the same process

that it has always been to date.

M. Bernier: I’m just smirking because the minister knows — I think she and I

both know — the answers to all these questions as we’re going back and

forth. But it’s still important to get them on the record.

Just on the final part, as the minister said, around applications

and permits and consultation. I’ll probably ask it here in

section 3 —

confirmation, again, that the delegation agreement that the OGC has

regarding ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission. I assume that’s all

staying in place.

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

M. Bernier: This

section here is really specifically dealing, now, with the

off-site mitigation. There’s not a lot here in the definition of what

that really means, but I know we’ve talked about this a little bit, and

the minister, in her second reading, alluded to it a little bit as

well.

One of the very definitive things that stands out for me is the

word “must.” Typically, in a lot of these acts, there’s some leeway for

the commission or the people granting permits in most acts around a

“may,” depending on the situation. This one here around off-site

mitigation is very definitive. It says “must” have these steps put into

place.

I’m just kind of curious if that is to meet the obligation that

the ministry is trying to check the box for the pressure from the

federal government around what they need to do around this

area.

Hon. M. Mungall: I think having the word “must” and creating that certainty really

enhances accountability for government, but also for operators, so that

no party in these permits can turn around and say, “Oh, whoops. We meant

over there” or “Oh, we’re going to do it tomorrow instead of today,” and

so on and so forth.

The fact that we have everything laid out very clearly and that we

are obliged, as government, to ensure it is done so, I think enhances

the accountability that’s required of all parties.

M. Bernier: In the discussion on this…. It’s very pre­scrip­tive.

It says “must,” but then a lot of the musts are being left to

regulation. I’m curious if the minister can give some examples. Under

25.1(2)(b), it will “specify in the permit when and how” an off-site

mitigation activity must be under­taken. Just more for this House

— if we can give some examples. When we say “when and how,” what are we

actually looking for — because we haven’t really discussed that yet —

and trying to achieve with these off-site mitigations? What’s the end

goal?

As the minister knows, companies come in. They apply for a permit.

They work through a delegation agreement. They possibly have five, ten

acres of land to do drilling activity. They can amend that permit if

they’re going to expand from a ten- to a 25-well pad. All these

different things take place within the Oil and Gas Commission as these

processes are unfolding in the permits.

Now, with the off-site mitigation, I’m just trying to make sure we

wrap our heads around the end goal. What do we see that looking like

when we say “when and how”?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The reason why we see in (2)(

a) and (2)(

b) different language…. In

(2)(a), we talk about certainty and require that certain mitigation

“must” be communicated in the actual permit. Then, when you look at

(2)(b), certain things “may” be and are not necessarily required to be

in the permit. That’s because some types of activities will…. It’s for

flexibility, as has the member pointed out.

Some types of activities will need to be flexible, depending on

what that ultimate goal would be, what the species need would be. For

example, if we’re trying to restore species habitat, what is the

scientific and best analysis telling us that we need to do?

Just to give an example. Say, if the off-site mitigation activity

that we’re looking at is reducing wolves’ line of sight to caribou so

they would be less inclined to hunt the caribou and we can therefore

improve caribou numbers. There are activities that can take place that

would do that. We need to have that flexibility to allow for that,

rather than being overly prescriptive and not allowing for

that.

Sections 4 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

M. Bernier: This is the section…. I’m trying to jump through, cognizant of the

time here. It’s really getting into one of the big fundamental changes

here around some of the investigations, some of the complaints, which I

appreciate. The minister should know how it’s very prescriptive on who

and how a complaint can come in. Now, I’m acknowledging this is actually

a very good thing — to make sure that it’s a justifiable issue that

somebody might be bringing forward, to avoid some of the

concerns.

The minister has heard me talk about this before. One of my

concerns is making sure that we have legitimate issues and complaints so

it’s not a waste of not only government’s or OGC’s time for

investigation, but it’s also making sure that there are no falsehoods, I

guess we could say, that get spread around the province of what actually

is or isn’t happening in the region.

Maybe if the minister can just quickly, on this one, explain. We

have in front of us the application process in order to have a

complaint. If we can, it kind of goes in the progress reports, etc. How

do we see those complaints being brought in administered? More

importantly, how do we see them being reported out?

I know there’s a process within this bill that says the person

that gets the complaint…. There’s 90-day process, and it can be

withdrawn. I’ve seen all this in here. I’m curious how that could be

publicly disclosed.

[11:40 a.m.]

One of the concerns I would have is that somebody puts in a

complaint and there’s no finding to the complaint, but it still finds

its way on a report somewhere and can be misconstrued or misread as to

what the actual issues are. I’m just curious on how more the reporting

will take place afterwards.

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate the member’s concern on this particular area. I, too,

had a lot of concerns — wanting to make sure we did not open the door

for vexatious complaints and that we also made sure that the

administration of complaints was done in a way that wasn’t going to be

wasting taxpayers’ money with people constantly revisiting the exact

same complaint over and over and over again.

Once a complaint is issued and the OGC then reviews it and

investigates, which they are required to do, if 500 of the exact same

complaint come in the next day, they don’t have to redo the same thing

500 times, for example.

In terms of how things will be reported out, though…. In this act,

there’s no mandate on how exactly the Oil and Gas Commission would be

reporting out to the public. They are required to report out to the

applicant in terms of the results of their investigation.

That being said, while there is no regulation or there’s no

legislation of how the OGC has to report, practice has long been — and

there’s no reason to think that it wouldn’t continue to be — that the

OGC puts things on its website so that it is made publicly available.

They also have a monthly report that goes out to stakeholders. So this

information could be included in that monthly report as well.

M. Bernier: The minister alluded to maybe one of my questions I would have

around the waste of taxpayers’ dollars, because the last thing I would

want to see is the OGC needing to all of a sudden be hiring additional

staff just to be dealing with a whole bunch of complaints that may or

may not come in.

Of course, I just want to highlight. When we’re talking about the

pressure that the government here is feeling because of the reduction

targets that the federal government is making — around a 45 percent

reduction in methane fugitive emissions and methane reduction targets —

it’s just, again, an opportunity.

Right here I’ll highlight that I always want to make sure we’re

not artificially going after one industry that I’ve talked about that

has, possibly, methane leaks that could be taking place. Because we know

and the minister has acknowledged: we have some of the best practices

globally when it comes to oil and gas activity and the strict

regulations that they have to follow.

[11:45 a.m.]

I mean, you look at the methane — a 45 percent reduction. I know a

lot of this will probably be done in regulation afterwards because that

reduction…. From where? What target? Where are we starting at? What

benchmark? If you have to reduce, you need to know where you’re starting

from in order to do that.

The reason why I flagged that is that we know, provincially and

everywhere — landfills from local government, methane from agricultural

production…. So many other areas in our province produce just as much if

not more methane, and I always feel it unfair that we target one

industry, because we figure it’s maybe low-hanging fruit. I don’t

know.

Just cognizant of the time, the minister will probably only be

able to answer this last question, and then we’ll have to run through it

all, right to the end. As the minister knows through my comments, I

support the objectives of what we’re trying to do. This, actually, all

takes place in my area mostly. So I appreciate the fact that we have to

have these regulations and this act modified to meet these

targets.

Maybe in the final comments from the minister, she can could just

try to assist — for the people back home that are going to be

challenging me — in making sure that this is not unfairly targeting an

industry that is the lifeblood of the Peace region and making sure that,

through these changes, industry will actually be able to continue to not

only prosper but grow in the area. This is just to assist them, as well

as government, through policy as we move forward.

Hon. M. Mungall: First, let me say that the member comes from a very beautiful part

of the province. I spent many of my summers as a child in the Peace

region and absolutely love getting the opportunity to tour it whenever I

get the chance now as the Minister of Petroleum Resources. I do have to

put in a little caveat there that the Kootenays still are the most

beautiful part of the province.

That said, I think it’s really important to note here that

industry, the oil and gas industry, has not shied away from this

responsibility. I think it’s really important to say that, because a lot

of people often think that the oil and gas industry is being dragged,

kicking and screaming, to reduce their emissions, to find ways to reduce

their impact on climate change. My experience has just not been that at

all.

In fact, the idea around electrifying the gas fields to reduce

carbon emissions, which would have a huge impact on our ability to meet

our climate goals, is coming from the oil and gas sector. They have been

stepping up to the plate in terms of how they can reduce their methane

emissions as well, because it saves them money. It gives them greater

opportunity to generate a profit, to put that back into the community,

to hire people, and so on, and create good, family-supporting

jobs.

This type of legislation is not meant to be punitive. We’ve

approached it in a very collaborative way with industry so that we can

all get to the same place, which is reducing our impact on climate

change, reducing our methane emissions. And yes, the member is right to

point out that methane doesn’t just come from the natural gas fields in

British Columbia, but it is one of the primary emissions from large

landfilling, for example. So what we can be doing there is really

important.

There are a lot of technologies coming out now to capture that

methane from landfills — and what Fortis is using, which is called

renewable natural gas. All of this is looking at how we, as British

Columbia, as a province as a whole, can be moving forward to reduce all

of our methane emissions. But of course, this legislation is dealing

specifically with our oil and gas activities.

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 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