2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ian Hennigar

G. Holman

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Bill M222 — Human Rights Code (Recognition of Gender Identity and Gender Expression) Amendment Act, 2016

S. Chandra Herbert

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Karice Enterprises lighting design company

M. Hunt

Vancouver Public Library

M. Mark

Program for aboriginal youth on Redstone Reserve

G. Hogg

Stewart World Port and wind power project in Tumbler Ridge

D. Donaldson

Underground infrastructure and Dig Safe campaign

D. Barnett

Gladstone Secondary students in robotics competition

A. Dix

Oral Questions

Premier’s income from B.C. Liberal Party

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

Payment of legal costs in Premier’s conflict-of-interest case

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Clark

Water quality in Spallumcheen area

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

Seniors care case in Powell River–Sunshine Coast

N. Simons

Hon. T. Lake

Wait times for surgeries and innovation in public health system

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

Petitions

M. Mark

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016

B. Ralston

Hon. R. Coleman

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

Bill 7 — Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

C. Trevena

Hon. T. Stone

V. Huntington

D. Routley

D. Donaldson

[ Page 12425 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to introduce to the House a number of representatives from the Alliance of B.C. Students, starting with Mr. Sacha Fabry, the chairperson; Harsimran Malhi, from Langara Student Union; Alex Lomelino, from Kwantlen Student Association and also from Kwantlen, Patrick Meehan; and Kate Phifer from the Capilano Student Union.

In addition, we have two outgoing student politicians from the University of Victoria student association, Kenya Rogers and Brontë Renwick-Shields, who have shown themselves to have what it takes to get into the public realm. I expect that we’ll hear their names again.

Please welcome all these student leaders to the House.

G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today is an old family friend of mine from Terrace and Prince George. He’s been visiting MLAs on both sides of the House over the last couple of days. He’s currently the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour. Would members please join me in welcoming Aaron Ekman.

Hon. T. Lake: B.C. emergency health services is the largest provider of pre-emergency health care in Canada and one of the largest in North America. We stood outside the Legislature today to announce the community paramedicine program that allows paramedics in small communities to be part of the health care team within their scope of practice and increase the opportunity for communities to have a team of health care professionals looking after them.

I want to thank the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. Some of their members are here with us today, including the president, Bronwyn Barter. We have Cameron Eby, Corey Viala, Rhiannon Davis and Richelle Cole. I want to thank them for their participation today, and I ask the House to please make them welcome here.

M. Mark: It is my pleasure to introduce one of my constituents in this House. Adrienne Smith is a tenacious human rights activist and lawyer. They graduated from UBC law school and were called to the bar in British Columbia in 2014. Adrienne Smith lives and works in the Downtown Eastside where they’re advocating with passion and tenacity and dedication to reduce the harm which law causes on marginalized communities. Adrienne is in the gallery today in support of transgender rights. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

L. Reimer: It’s a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to introduce my friend and colleague, Ms. Pamela Gardner, a certified orthotist with Burnaby Orthopaedic and Mastectomy and our party region 10 director. Pamela has brought with her today her niece Ms. Kayla Nowbry, a student at Our Lady of Mercy School in New Westminster.

Kayla is very interested in politics, and it was my pleasure to host her for lunch today in the legislative dining room. She’s interested in creating a student council in her school. Would the House please make Pamela and Kayla feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Up in the gallery and joining us at the Legislature today are incredible advocates for human rights — for transgender human rights, gender variant human rights and the human rights of all British Columbians. I would like us to all acknowledge them.

We have Morgane Oger, with the Trans Alliance Society; Tru Wilson, an incredible 13-year-old activist; Harriette Cunningham, also 13 and an incredible human rights activist; her mother, Megan; Marie Little; Joshua Ferguson, Nikki Koutsochilis; Catherine Jenkins; Olivia Toews; Stacey Elizabeth Piercey; my constituent, Rachel Andrews; Aaron Devor; John Yano; Catherine Mateo; Chrys Tei, from Victoria; Oliver Hildebrand; Terti Rey; Christine Lord; Rachel Mason and a number of students from the Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry.

They’re here to watch the introduction of a bill later today. I would like to welcome them to their House, and if we could all make them very welcome.

[1340]

J. Thornthwaite: I have a couple of introductions today. First, I’d like to welcome my friend Roger Proctor and Boris Drubetsky from Genex Capital. We’ve also got a group of youth, as well as men mentors from the Boys Club Network that came to an event, along with the Education Minister, Attorney General and Solicitor General and many MLAs.

I’d like to welcome Laura Neubert, Walter Mustapich and Jimmy Crescenzo, who are the co-founders of the Boys Club Network; Phil Peachey, who is the director, youth justice program support, youth justice for MCFD; Gino Bondi, associate superintendent of schools in Abbotsford; Tony Zanatta, who was a former inspector for the Vancouver police department; students and actors Dzinh Nguyen and Jonny Mubanda; Brad Baker, district principal for North Vancouver school district on aboriginal education and safe and caring schools; Mike Finch,

[ Page 12426 ]

from West Vancouver school district; Greg Kitchen, Dave Robertson and Matt Wood.

They are all here to perform Man Up! , which is a journey from edge of hopelessness and despair to the pinnacle of hopefulness and success, the true story of the Boys Club Network, tonight at Reynolds Secondary school theatre. Anybody that’s available, please go check them out. It’s a great program. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Huntington: I would like to join my friend from Vancouver–West End in welcoming the LGBT community today — in particular, Ms. Lisa Salazar, who is a well-regarded counsellor in transgender issues and who is the author of a fabulous book, which I encourage everyone to read, called Transparently: Behind the Scenes of a Good Life . I welcome Lisa and her group to the House today, and I hope everyone makes them welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m pleased to introduce a guest in the House today. Dylan Armour is the general manager of an innovative manufacturing company located in Surrey called Trexiana Wholesale and Distribution. Trexiana is a B.C.-based company that manufactures and distributes the Flex MSE Vegetated Wall System. They directly employ 75 people in jobs ranging from manufacturing to marketing. I also understand that Dylan served as a page in the Yukon back in 1988. Would the House please make Dylan feel very welcome.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the minister in welcoming Bronwyn Barter and Cameron Eby and the other ambulance paramedics to the Legislature today. They have worked very hard. They negotiated very hard. They’ve worked very hard to bring about the realization of the community paramedicine program today, which will be wonderful for many communities across this province.

I also want to welcome them in the capacity, together with other people who visited with members of our side of the House and will be meeting with government members tomorrow, on behalf of Honour House in New Westminster. Honour House is a home away from home for first responders, for firefighters, for military personnel, for ambulance paramedics. It is located, very proudly, in New Westminster. Our communities come together to support it.

It was awesome today to meet with them and to hear that they’re going on the road to tell communities across British Columbia about an expanded program which will include Honour Ranch, on a donated piece of property in North Thompson.

I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming board members from the Honour House today, including Bronwyn Barter, New Westminster fire chief Tim Armstrong, Al De Genova and Melissa De Genova. Please welcome them to this House and congratulate them for their awesome work for Honour House.

Tributes

IAN HENNIGAR

G. Holman: I want to acknowledge in the House today the passing of Ian Hennigar, who was senior manager of the Panorama Rec centre since 2010. Ian was highly regarded by his colleagues in the CRD and by the Saanich peninsula community. He and his wife, Brenda, started the peninsula’s local speed skating club over ten years ago. He was recently recognized by Speed Skating Canada for his contributions to the sport.

On behalf of the Legislature, I’d like to express our condolences to Ian’s family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.

[1345]

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: I would like to introduce this House to a remarkable constituent today. Mr. Nicholas Blackburn is joining us today from the Comox Valley. Nick graduated from the valley’s very own G.P. Vanier high school, my former place of work and maybe my future place of work down the road. Although I did not have the honour of teaching him personally, he was known for his commitment to excellence in both track and field and involvement in various theatrical productions.

Nick has represented the valley at high-level competitions across the province and nation, including a competition in the United States. He is continuing his education here in Victoria in the area of massage therapy. I’d like to take a minute to wish him success in his studies and would ask all the members to make Nick welcome and welcome him to chamber.

D. Routley: It’s my honour, on behalf of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia, Mr. Paul Fraser, to introduce three guests. Mr. Fraser would like the House to help make welcome his friends from Nelson, Gordon Watt, who is an arborist; his wife, Yvonne Watt, who is a daycare centre operator. They are here to celebrate their son Harris Watt’s completion of his second year at UVic. Can the House please help me and Mr. Fraser to make his guests welcome.

M. Hunt: This week the Foursquare Church of Canada is holding their national convention here in Victoria, and we have eight pastors from British Columbia that are here with us today. We have Anina Simpson, Linea Hanson, Craig Millar, Dan and Jean Houghton, Lisa Wengel, Jason Colony and Quinton Thomas, who all here to watch

[ Page 12427 ]

the peace and love that happens in this wonderful House. I’d ask the House to make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are students and teachers from Archbishop Carney Senior Secondary School, a high school in my riding about a five-minute walk from the house. They’re here to observe the proceedings today. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

J. Martin: I see in the gallery a longtime political scientist from Simon Fraser. Patrick Smith is here. I actually took my very first poli-sci class from Dr. Smith, and I’m not too sure he’s pleased to be made aware of that bit of information.

Hon. C. Clark: I would like to join in welcoming Dr. Smith to this Legislature. I had no idea that he was so old until today. [Laughter.]

I know that for many of us in this Legislature, on both sides of the House, he was a great teacher. He didn’t discriminate against even the Liberals in his class. I know, for many years, he’s really personified what it is to be called to teaching.

I want to say thanks for all of the work he’s done in British Columbia in post-secondary institutions and for all of the support that he’s provided over the years for the programs that are active in this Legislature to ensure that young people really see what happens and understand how this place works.

A. Weaver: It gives me pleasure to introduce to the House Dr. Lisa Gunderson, who is a registered clinical counsellor and passionate educator visiting today.

I’d also like to join my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education in welcoming the chairperson from the UVic student association, Brontë Renwick-Shields, and the director of external relations, Kenya Rogers. They’re both executive directors at UVic.

Finally, I’d like to join the member from Vancouver–West End in welcoming Aaron Devor, a friend and colleague and the world’s first chair in transgender studies at the University of Victoria, where I was prior to sitting in this chamber today.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Shin: Joining us in the gallery today are the members from Korean Canada Tennis Association led by its coach, Mr. Moo Yong So, and president, Ms. Sung Og Kong, who was a former junior national athlete herself.

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and I had fun demonstrating, or at least trying to demonstrate, the first serve for the games last summer. We look forward to the opportunity to do the same this year, cheering on over 1,000 Korean-Canadian tennis players in B.C.

Would the House please join me in welcoming the delegation here today.

Hon. T. Lake: April is Dig Safe Month, and we’re going to hear a little bit more in a private member’s statement about digging safely in the province of British Columbia.

[1350]

We have two representatives of the organizations involved in ensuring that we always call before we dig and stay safe. That’s Dave Baspaly and M.J. Whitemarsh in the gallery. Could you please make them all welcome.

K. Corrigan: Included in the Korean Canadian Tennis Association delegation that was previously introduced are two of my constituents. They are Young Woo Choi and Keon Ho Song. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

B. Ralston: I also wanted to join in the welcome for the Korean Canadian Tennis Association. Each year the association hosts a tournament with over 120 local participants competing and this year is planning a multicultural tournament.

There are a few individuals who I wish to welcome personally: Jung Ja Hwang, Joong Hee Lee, Mu Yong So, Sung Og Kong, Yun Ho Yang and Deborah Yang.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND

MISCONDUCT POLICY ACT

Hon. A. Wilkinson presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time today.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m pleased to introduce this bill, Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

Currently our public post-secondary institutions are not required to have a policy to address sexual violence and sexual misconduct on their campuses. Sexual misconduct is widely defined in the bill to include a range of sexual acts that cannot be tolerated or condoned or ignored.

Unfortunately, a number of these incidents do occur at institutions across the country on a regular basis, and our public post-secondary institutions have reported some of these in recent months.

Premier Christy Clark has stated that there’s more that we can do and more that we should do, and this bill addresses that. This proposed legislation builds upon the private member’s bill, Bill M205, introduced earlier in this session, and the Ontario legislation on this topic.

[ Page 12428 ]

This legislation will require all institutions in our public post-secondary sector in British Columbia to establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy that addresses a wide range of sexual assault, sexual harassment, misconduct and other preventable episodes which require a response. These policies will also be required to set out procedures on how an institution will address these issues and require reporting of these incidents on a regular basis.

The proposed legislation will come into force one year from royal assent. Institutions will have that year to establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy.

The proposed legislation respects the autonomy and diversity of our post-secondary institutions, including our autonomous universities. The proposed legislation provides significant latitude for institutions to set policies that meet the needs of students, including education and prevention, while working to create a safer environment for students to come forward to report sexual misconduct of all types.

Institutions will be required to consult with students on the development of their policy to address sexual misconduct and to conduct surveys on the effectiveness of these policies at the direction of the minister.

Once established, these sexual misconduct policies will need to be reviewed — with student consultation — at least once every three years or more frequently, as directed. The legislation will be supported by a framework that has been developed with the institutions and with the anti-violence sector in our communities to provide guidance for a comprehensive approach to dealing with sexual violence and sexual misconduct.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M222 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

(RECOGNITION OF GENDER IDENTITY

AND GENDER EXPRESSION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Human Rights Code (Recognition of Gender Identity and Gender Expression) Amendment Act, 2016.

S. Chandra Herbert: I move that a bill intituled Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hon. Speaker, Madam Premier, cabinet ministers, MLAs, fellow British Columbians, I rise today to ask you to say yes to human rights, to say yes to adding explicit protections to our human rights code for gender identity and expression, to say yes to joining the majority of Canadian provinces that have listened to transgender and gender-variant people and their allies and legislated explicit protection.

[1355]

This is the fourth time I move this bill, because it matters. When a minority is abused, attacked and discriminated against, the majority must act. Transgender people face some of the highest rates of violence and discrimination in B.C. We can and must end that.

When you read B.C.’s human rights code, it includes protections for race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, political belief, sexual orientation, sex, physical or mental disability, family status, marriage status, and the list goes on. What’s not there, written in black and white? Gender identity and expression.

You can’t end violence and discrimination unless you name it. You can’t fight for your rights unless you know you have them. This bill would ensure that all British Columbians would have no doubt that we in this House stand for human rights equality for transgender and gender-variant people.

Some have asked why I move this bill again when the government has refused to act before. I move it because it will make a difference. Seven provinces and one territory with governments of all political stripes agree. The New Democrat caucus supports this bill. The Green and independent MLAs support it too. Members of the B.C. Liberal caucus have come to me and said privately that, if it came to a vote, they would support it as well.

Today I’m appealing to the Premier, to the House Leader and the cabinet to call this bill for a vote, so that we can pass this legislation and join with the majority of Canada to ensure explicit protections for gender identity and expression. Let’s say yes to human rights.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M222, Human Rights Code (Recognition of Gender Identity and Gender Expression) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

KARICE ENTERPRISES

LIGHTING DESIGN COMPANY

M. Hunt: A company in Surrey is receiving international acclaim for their bright design. Karice Enterprises is a family-owned and operated artisan manufacturer that designs and manufactures custom lighting and metalwork for clients around the world. This month Karice’s

[ Page 12429 ]

Electron, an energy-efficient LED wall sconce, won silver at the largest design competition in the world, the A’ Design Awards in Milan, Italy. It is also one of six finalists in the running for the 40th annual Lighting Design Awards in London, England, which is considered the Oscars of the lighting design world.

The minimalist Electron illuminates from both the inner and outer rings of its innovative and sophisticated design. The inspiration for this design was the electron that we all learned about in science class — the subatomic particle that, at first glance, appears to be a simple design but is actually a complex creation. For both prestigious awards, they have gone up against the world’s best lighting designers and manufacturers and have showcased the excellence of B.C. craftsmanship.

I had the opportunity to tour Karice Enterprises earlier this month, and the company is set apart by its personal touch. Each piece is handmade from scratch at its facility in South Surrey, using advanced engineering and cutting-edge technology. Maurice and Jordan Dery, the father-and-son design team behind Karice, take pride in their ability to tackle challenging designs. They strive to produce designs that are not only creative but practical too.

I wish them all the best at the Lighting Design Awards on May 5 and as they showcase the best of Canadian design and manufacturing to the world from right here in B.C.

VANCOUVER PUBLIC LIBRARY

M. Mark: It is my pleasure to speak about a true social equalizer in our community — the Vancouver Public Library. On a recent visit to the central branch, I witnessed hundreds of people from all demographics — young and old, students and seniors — lining up, waiting for the doors to open.

Some of the people that I talked to were returning books and DVDs. Others from a local men’s shelter were waiting to check their email to see about the status of their job opportunities.

[1400]

Not only is the Vancouver Public Library staying true to its traditional role of ensuring that every community member has equal access to information, knowledge and culture, but more importantly, the library is evolving through the use of new information technology to meet demands in the 21st century.

Their new Inspiration Lab is a perfect example about the importance of staying current in our ever-changing digital world. While I’m not an artsy person by natural talent, many of the youth, millennials and artists throughout Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and beyond its borders truly are.

The Inspiration Lab illustrates how a modern public library can bridge the digital divide across all demographics in an effort to facilitate cultural, social and economic ingenuity. Visiting the Vancouver Public Library offered me new insights into an incredibly important community asset — the community infrastructure that hosts collections in public spaces, free programming and that offers a commitment to equality and access to justice.

If you haven’t visited your local public library recently, I encourage you to do so. I’m sure you’ll be impressed.

PROGRAM FOR ABORIGINAL YOUTH

ON REDSTONE RESERVE

G. Hogg: We are all each motivated by those things which are most meaningful to us. Chief Ervin Charleyboy of the Redstone Reserve in the Chilcotins was motivated by the loss of some of his youths to the wrong crowds.

He wanted options for them. He wanted them to be motivated by positive role models and by sports, and he reached out to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for assistance. We were able to put together a small group — an RCMP officer, a former B.C. Lions player and a recreation specialist, all aboriginals and all with motivational life stories.

We spent two days on the Redstone Reserve speaking to and working with the 50 students of the Tŝi Deldel School. One of the teachers later said that she saw students push themselves to a physical level, get to the breaking point and then push themselves again. She said that it was so important for them on an emotional level, because they learned that if they can do that at school, then they can do it with every goal they have in their lives. This became the subject of many of their class discussions.

She also stated that she saw a spark of a newly formed sense of confidence in many of them. She said that the kids go through things that even adults shouldn’t have to deal with. Despite a great community and supportive parents, their circumstances are so challenging, and they don’t get the support that kids in many cities may get.

We often hear stories and read reports, but until we meaningfully engage with people where they live, until we experience even a small bit of what they experience, I don’t think that we can really understand what they are dealing with. We were honoured, by the people of the Redstone Reserve, that they shared their lives with us and inspired us.

Our thanks to the Chief Ervin Charleyboy, Principal Gilroy, the teachers, elders, parents and especially the students. They taught us much, and they taught us well. The issues that motivated Chief Charleyboy have motivated us, and we thank them all.

[ Page 12430 ]

STEWART WORLD PORT AND

WIND POWER PROJECT IN TUMBLER RIDGE

D. Donaldson: They can be almost 200 feet long, travelling at night, sometimes crawling slowly, sometimes moving quite quickly along the valley bottoms of the northwest. This is not some horror story of a genetically modified organism gone wrong or an invasive species spreading due to climate change.

What we’re actually talking about is a glimpse of what the green economy could really become in B.C.’s north, if given the attention it deserves. Those 200-foot-long sightings are wind turbine blades on specialty trucks on their way to Tumbler Ridge from the newly opened World Port in Stewart to a wind project.

These loads and shorter, heavier ones, the tower sections, require rolling road closures along Highways 37 and 16, so the travel is done at night with the traffic control crews accompanying the trucks along the way and with additional teams leapfrogging ahead to manage the temporary road closure of highway intersections, where the load might have to be steered from a cab at the back as well as the front to make the turn.

It can be a three- or four-day journey, so traffic control is a significant part of the logistics. In the north, those crews are supplied by the Gitxsan Safety Services, so much of the traffic control means jobs for local people. These jobs are another example of ones associated with the green economy.

[1405]

The 61 turbines and their tower blades are destined for Tumbler Ridge from Stewart, with much of their manufacturing done in the United States. These units use copper and steel, so it is another example of a potential blue-green alliance, where blue-collar jobs in mining and steel-making can be directly linked to green initiatives like wind power.

With the right focus from government and the correct regulatory structure, this type of blue-green alliance can mean local jobs spread around the entire province, including in the tech sector.

That’s the approach we have taken with our Power B.C. strategy. If fulfilled, what we see rolling through the night in the northwest might become more of a routine example of green jobs in this province.

UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE

AND DIG SAFE CAMPAIGN

D. Barnett: Hidden from public view and spanning across our province are complex networks of buried electrical, telecommunications and Internet cables; pipelines; water mains; and sewer lines. This infrastructure delivers the essential services British Columbians cannot live without — heat; electricity; water; communication data, including Internet and emergency services.

Each year thousands of buried facilities are needlessly damaged by uncontrolled digging, excavations that occur without first determining the presence and location of underground infrastructure in the vicinity of the digging project.

Interrupted services can lead to injury, death, environmental contamination and economic burdens to businesses. They strain emergency response resources and cause evacuations; property damage; road and construction project delays; traffic congestion and loss of data; disruption to emergency services such as 911; financial institutions, banking and purchasing transactions. These damages are avoidable.

April is Dig Safe Month across Canada. Here in B.C., a campaign reminding us to click or call before you dig is supported by the B.C. Common Ground Alliance. This is a time of year when all B.C. Common Ground Alliance stakeholders come together to communicate how important it is that professionals and homeowners call before they dig and follow the safe-digging protocol to help prevent injuries, property damage and inconvenient outages.

GLADSTONE SECONDARY STUDENTS

IN ROBOTICS COMPETITION

A. Dix: Last weekend, for the ninth straight year, the Gladstone Secondary Robosavages — from my constituency, of course, of Vancouver-Kingsway — led British Columbia schools into the VEX Robotic World Championships held this year in Louisville, Kentucky. Over 15,000 registered teams representing 150,000 players worldwide participate in the world championships and qualifying events — a Guinness world record, no less.

Gladstone is well known as a superpower in robotics, former world champions who, year after year, produce remarkable, imaginative teams. The Gladstone program, founded by teacher Todd Ablett and now ably coached by teacher Paul Wallace, sent three teams to the worlds this year.

Once again Gladstone teams did extremely well in the event. Robosavages’ team Z in the engineering division, for example — comprised of Angela Lee, Neiah Montero, Meredith Yu and Denise Chan — made it all the way to the finals, placing sixth in the world. This team was also one of the few all-girl teams at the event. The third Gladstone team, Robosavages R, were all novice students. They won a community award for their dedication and contribution in helping other teams.

Gladstone’s three teams and 18 students represented their school and province with pride and generosity. The Gladstone program is based on senior students supporting younger students, mentoring for success and for the love of learning.

Participating in Gladstone robotics is a life-changing experience for students. The Robosavages team counts

[ Page 12431 ]

future leaders in applied physics, math, digital and computer programing among its graduates and students.

All hail the Robosavages, who did us all proud in Louisville and showed what great students, supported by communities and parents and great teachers, can achieve in our public school system.

Oral Questions

PREMIER’S INCOME

FROM B.C. LIBERAL PARTY

J. Horgan: Once again big money and big money in politics is back in the news. This morning we learned that, on top of the $200,000 the Premier gets in salary from the taxpayers of British Columbia, she gets an additional compensation from the B.C. Liberal Party.

[1410]

I started to reflect, on my way into the office today: how bad has affordability got…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

This House will come to order.

J. Horgan: …in British Columbia if someone making $200,000 a year needs a top-up from their political party? I was thinking of those that make a fraction — in fact, a quarter…

Interjections.

J. Horgan: That’s it, is it? Pathetic.

…of the salary….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait. Please continue.

J. Horgan: The average salary in British Columbia is a quarter of what the Premier makes. In fact, the average salary in British Columbia is just what the B.C. Liberals topped up the Premier’s salary in the past number of years.

My question is: does she have anything to say to the people that are struggling in British Columbia because of the policies of her government that are increasing costs on virtually every single thing that the government touches? What does she have to say to them while she gets a bonus from the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member says he learned today that there was a leader’s allowance. Let’s see. It was disclosed in 2015, publicly. It was disclosed in 2014, publicly. It was disclosed in 2013, publicly. It was disclosed in 2012, publicly. It was disclosed in 2011, publicly. It was complained about by a former NDP cabinet minister in 1993 when my predecessor had it and disclosed it. It has been written about in newspapers across the province and, presumably, reaching people across the country. Congratulations, Member, you’ve finally learned about it.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: Another day at Yuk Yuk’s for the B.C. Liberals. Another day to take taxpayers’ noses and rub it in — the treatment they’ve been getting over the past 15 years from the most corporate-run government B.C. has ever seen.

It’s not enough for the Premier to give one tax break since the last provincial election — and she gave that tax break to those making over $150,000 a year; in other words, she gave herself a tax break — on top of that, the B.C. Liberal Party said: “You do such a good job of fundraising; we’re going to slide some of that money over to you and give you another $50,000.

British Columbians are paying more for their hydro bills. They’re paying more for MSP premiums. If you are on disability assistance, you’re paying more for bus passes. But apparently, to the people on that side of the House, it’s okay to raise money from the corporate sector and slide it into the pocket of the Premier.

My question: isn’t it past time, hon. Members, to get big money out of politics so that the smear that we saw in the Globe and Mail today doesn’t happen again in the future?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, the member cannot properly call this secret. It has been disclosed for many, many years. It’s not as secret as some of the letters he’s written to CEAA, for example, opposing Petronas — a lot more public than that.

I just want to just say very clearly that what my government, our team, has been focused on every day is to try and make sure that we raise the standard of living of British Columbians across the province. The way we’ve been doing that is by saying yes to projects, yes to development, yes to workers, yes to jobs — all across British Columbia.

[1415]

That has meant that we are projected to probably double the rate of national growth in our economy. It means that we’ve created 72,000 jobs over the last year. It means that 50,000 people, many of them our neighbours from Alberta, have been flooding into British Columbia to try and take

part in this growing economy.

[ Page 12432 ]

We want the economy to grow so that British Columbia workers, British Columbia families can have a better standard of living and better opportunities for themselves and their children. That’s what we’re focused on every day. If the member would like to join us in doing that, maybe he could say yes once in a while too.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, yeah, the only family whose cost of living seems to have gone up lately is the Premier’s; it’s not anybody else in British Columbia. We have the lowest minimum….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I’m sorry. I didn’t know that this was a member’s time for the member from Langley. I was unaware of that. We have….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Excuse me. Members, we will wait.

The Deputy Premier will come to order.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We have the lowest minimum wage in the country. The Premier gets a stipend from her party because of her acumen at fundraising, not by managing the people’s lives in British Columbia. You don’t make kids better by closing their schools. You don’t make health care outcomes better by extending wait-lists. And you certainly don’t get big money out of politics when you’re directly benefiting from it.

My question is to the Premier of British Columbia, who oversees the lowest minimum wage in the country, a tax break for herself, higher MSP — the only place in the country that has MSP — higher hydro rates. Will the Premier join with us today and take big money out of politics? Or is it just too much of a hit on her own personal bank account?

Hon. C. Clark: This coming from the member who takes free suits from his party. This coming from the member who says he’d be happy if someone gave him 50 grand to have lunch with him. This coming from the member who, on the same day, said he wanted to ban corporate donations, then went over to Vancouver for a $2,000-a-plate breakfast with developers. These are the questions coming from that member across the way.

I should note that while he charges $5,000 for a breakfast with the Toronto Region Board of Trade, our Minister of Finance here only charged $69.

We are working every day to make sure that British Columbians have more opportunity by growing the economy — something that the member has opposed every single step of the way. Standard and Poor’s recently came out and said that British Columbia’s financial disclosures are “transparent, comprehensive, timely. In our view, the financial management practices are amongst the best of all Canadian provinces.”

We are very proud of the work that we’re doing. We support workers. What the member should remember is that if you don’t support jobs, you can’t support workers. You can’t say you support working people if you don’t support having them go to work. We support jobs. We support creating opportunities for British Columbians. We’re going to continue to do that in the fastest-growing economy, the healthiest economy anywhere across this great country.

D. Eby: Now, the Premier says she’s been transparent about her stipend or commission or whatever it is that she gets. She says she’s disclosed it. She says everyone has known about it for years. Well, if that’s true, can she rise in this place and tell us exactly the full amount that she’s received from the B.C. Liberal Party through this stipend since she’s become leader of the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I merely point out that the member is now an experienced member of the chamber. He knows that there are rules governing what may be asked in question period, how it relates to ministerial responsibilities. He of all people….

[1420]

You know, I might add that he probably should have told his leader about the disclosure of these matters, since I’m sure that he reviewed them. It would have helped his leader if he had passed that on.

Madame Speaker, the member knows that the question is out of order for question period.

Madame Speaker: The point is well taken. Minister responsibility does not apply in this instance.

D. Eby: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I take your advice.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL COSTS IN

PREMIER’S CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CASE

D. Eby: I see that the Premier has her lawyer defending her here today.

Interjections.

D. Eby: Yes, you get what you pay for.

Now, speaking of lawyers….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just take your seat, please.

Please continue.

[ Page 12433 ]

D. Eby: The Minister of Finance isn’t the only lawyer defending the Premier. She has also hired a lawyer to defend her in the conflict-of-interest complaint that I’ve filed. Here’s the bad news. The lawyer that’s defending her is paid for by the public, by taxpayers. So not only is the Premier taking a cut of every donation made to the B.C. Liberal Party, not only….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Question, please.

D. Eby: Not only does she appear to have taken more than $200,000 in that stipend, not only does she ask for $20,000 to sit down with her at a private dinner to discuss what’s going on, on the government’s agenda, but now she wants taxpayers to pay for the lawyer to explain to the conflict commissioner why this is all okay. The Premier is fine with B.C. Liberal donors paying for her car, real estate, her personal expenses. Why aren’t they paying for her lawyer?

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, there is a whole host of issues. They are important issues. They are issues that confront and involve the lives of British Columbians, that relate to the well-being of British Columbians. They are all legitimate matters for discussion, for probing, for criticism, for investigation in this chamber at this time.

The expenditure of caucus budget dollars is not one of those matters. I think that it is a sign, candidly, of an opposition that is bankrupt of ideas. By the way, that’s okay because if they ever got a chance to govern this province, the province itself would be bankrupt.

M. Farnworth: The questions that the Leader of the Opposition has asked and that my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey asked have related to activities by the Premier in her conduct as Premier of British Columbia. Now, if the government is afraid to answer those questions by trying to hide behind a nonsensical point of privilege, then we really do have a lot of questions to ask about exactly what this government is up to.

When the Premier is sitting down for dinners and you pay $25,000 to sit next to the Premier up in Prince George or you pay $10,000 to sit two persons down from the Premier at a dinner in Prince George and when a complaint has been filed with the conflict commissioner….

[1425]

Those lawyers have been paid for by taxpayer dollars. They can say what they like. Whether it comes from caucus or the party, it has come through taxpayer dollars — whether it’s donations or through this chamber. Then, the Premier should have the guts to stand and be accountable in this House and explain why she will not do that.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please take your seat.

Members. The members will come to order. Members will be reminded that conversation and debate in this chamber are characterized by moderation, temperance and civility. Please take that reminder.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is wrong. The reason that the first set of questions was answered and not the second is because the first questioner had the intelligence to understand that the rules of the House require that somehow the question must relate to the duties of the Legislature. Congratulations, member. He knows the rules.

Second, I don’t know if the member is suggesting that Glen Clark didn’t have, for example, the support of a government-funded lawyer when he was before the conflict commissioner — or any number of other members that that member sat with when they were on the government side of the House. But that is the way it has been done in this House for a long time, and that’s the way it’s continuing to be done now.

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Two weeks ago, government ministries held yet another action plan meeting in Spallumcheen. Following that meeting, three professionally licensed hydrogeologists sent an open letter to government expressing, in their words, “dismay” with a so-called action plan which calls for another year-long study. While the Environment Minister told this House that Hullcar water contamination is not ongoing, these water professionals say that contamination is continuing and the government’s plan will do nothing to protect the aquifer.

When will the Minister of Environment give Hullcar valley residents and the Splatsin First Nation a real action plan that puts an end to the contamination of their drinking water?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct that our staff have continued to meet with the community. They’ve outlined work that they have done to date. They’ve also outlined the plan going forward for additional sampling, testing, studies. They heard concerns from the community. They are responding to those. They’re working within the ministry to try and create a plan that will get us to the right place.

We have about 18 of our provincial staff, across different ministries and agencies, working on this particular issue of importance. While the member can point to people who write reports and study them — I’m sure they’re eminently qualified — what the member ignores is the fact that we have some fantastic people in this ministry who are dedicating themselves to this — people like Jennifer McGuire.

[ Page 12434 ]

Jennifer McGuire has 25 years’ experience with the provincial government, direct experience with agricultural waste management. She makes recommendations to me. She advises me. The member would have me ignore that experience.

We have someone like Dennis Einarson — 37 years of impact assessment and water quality monitoring work in B.C. He’s another person who advises on this file and who’s working diligently on this file.

We will certainly be taking into account all the input we receive from the community and from experts who have sent in their own views. But we also must rely on the trusted civil servants we have in government who dedicate their careers to the protection of our environment.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: The residents of the Hullcar valley and the Splatsin First Nation want this government and this minister to put an end to the contamination of their drinking water. Words and studies won’t do that. They want action today.

[1430]

These three water geologists, between them, have years of experience. They’re well respected. They’re published, and they’re routinely utilized. They reviewed all of the available data related to Hullcar aquifer contamination, and they performed their own tests.

The Environment Minister told this House that the source of the nitrates was not yet determined, but these water geologists say it is their professional opinion that the largest dairy farm’s field is extremely likely, if not certainly, the source of most of the contamination. They go on to say that this government’s actions are not protecting public health or the environment, and they, too, join residents calling for a moratorium on effluent spreading on the field of concern.

How many more years does this Environment Minister expect residents to wait before this government puts a moratorium on effluent spraying and protects Hullcar aquifer water?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll first point out and remind the member that on the field of concern, which is also referenced in the letter that he mentions, there has not been spreading since August of 2015. But while the member quotes or speaks about those who have provided this study of their own, I also receive materials. Again, these are from experienced employees working in the Ministry of Environment.

In this case, Carrie Morita writes in one of the reports: “Given that Hullcar aquifer is unconfined and thus vulnerable to contamination, any uncontained source of nitrogen — be it manure or chemical fertilizer application, septic fields, manure storage feedlots, etc. — has the potential to introduce nitrate to the aquifer.”

I wish, and I know the community wishes, that there was a simple and quick solution to this challenge. There isn’t, and there is further work that needs to be done with the community. We are reaching out not only to other agencies but also other community organizations like the Okanagan Basin Water Board.

I will quote their executive director, Anna Warwick Sears, who said: “I was struck by the strength of the response from the Ministry of Environment. I feel the ministry took the issue seriously and has a plan going forward.”

SENIORS CARE CASE IN

POWELL RIVER–SUNSHINE COAST

N. Simons: I have an 84-year-old constituent who is suffering from dementia. In July, he was hospitalized because his wife finally conceded she was no longer able to care for him at home and the police had brought him back after he’d wandered away on three separate occasions.

Now he’s always sedated and usually restrained in a chair. His wife loves the hospital staff and wonders: what else are they supposed to do? It’s not fair to this man or to his wife or to the staff for this gentleman to be bored, stuck on an acute care ward for ten months. Does the minister believe this is justifiable?

Hon. T. Lake: This is the first time that I’ve heard of this particular constituent’s concerns. As always, I’m willing to work with MLAs to examine the kind of treatment that constituents are receiving in the health care system. I would encourage the member to come and meet with me around that issue.

This is the government that set up patient care quality offices in every regional health authority to make sure that families and patients have the ability to express their concerns and action would be taken, and that is often the case. I would encourage the member to come and meet with me, and we will try to resolve the concerns of the family.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: The minister’s office has been made aware, and it’s over two weeks ago. It’s not safe for this gentleman either. He got loose once, and while he did set off the alarms, he was onto the fourth floor and halfway up the ladder to the roof before security found him. You can’t blame him for wanting to get out. He hasn’t been outside in ten months.

Does the minister think it’s appropriate for an 84-year-old man, or any person with dementia, to be confined inside a hospital, restrained — often restrained physically — and sedated for ten months?

[1435]

[ Page 12435 ]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, I would be happy to work with the member.

Dementia patients pose, of course, real challenges for health care staff in terms of provision of the type of facility that helps to ease their anxiety. There are many different programs around the province of British Columbia. We have invested in 6,500 new spaces for residential care. Many of the newer centres have special dementia wards that will reduce anxiety and that will reduce some of the behaviours associated with dementia in a way that does not rely on the use of medication.

No one wants their family member to be in that sort of state. I understand that completely and am willing to work with the member for this constituent.

WAIT TIMES FOR SURGERIES AND

INNOVATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM

J. Darcy: On Monday, we raised the story of Denise Tessier, a Quesnel woman who has been waiting three years for knee surgery and who says now that her bone is totally bone on bone.

Yesterday a new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that B.C. patients are suffering because the Liberal government has put the drive to privatize ahead of innovation and ahead of patients like Denise. You see, hon. Speaker, they had a successful model for speeding up knee surgeries. The Richmond hip and knee reconstruction project brought wait times for hip and knee replacement surgery down by 75 percent — from 20 months to five months. It was innovative. It was cost-effective. It should have been scaled up. Instead, the Liberal government cancelled it.

Why has this government refused to scale up innovation in public health care and forced Denise to wait years in unbearable pain?

Hon. T. Lake: There were two reports yesterday: one from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and one from the Fraser Institute. Unsurprisingly, they drew different conclusions.

If you look at Saskatchewan, for instance, the use of publicly paid private clinics has reduced wait times in Saskatchewan. We don’t have an ideology about getting people better. In a publicly paid, publicly administered system, there is room for all kinds of innovation.

In terms of the Richmond hip and knee program, it was not cancelled. That is just not true. It was amalgamated into the UBC Centre for Surgical Innovation, and that program is doing more than 1,600 hip and knee replacements a year. It’s been a tremendous success.

We put $10 million more into addressing those that are waiting longest in the fall of this past year. From September to January, an additional 6,000 surgeries have been performed. We are doing a lot of things around the province in terms of surgical wait times — looking at booking strategies, looking at first available surgeon strategies and making sure we have specialist nurses available. All of this will address the wait-time issue.

Madame Speaker: Member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Let’s set aside the reports. Let’s set aside the minister’s rhetoric. Here are some facts. The facts are that wait times…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Darcy: …for hip, knee and cataract surgery in B.C. are the second worst in Canada — the second worst. Those aren’t just statistics. Those are about human beings. Instead of the members opposite cheering, they should be ashamed of this government’s record.

There are excellent examples. In Saskatchewan, a public innovation meant that 99 percent of patients are meeting the benchmark of 26 weeks, when in British Columbia it is only 46 percent.

Madame Speaker: Pose your question.

[1440]

J. Darcy: Why is this government refusing to step up public innovation in order to meet the needs of patients like Denise and thousands of others like her who are waiting in pain as long as three years?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m really glad that the member has endorsed the Saskatchewan model, because many of the things Saskatchewan has been doing are the things that we are embarking upon, including the use of publicly paid for, publicly administered, but privately delivered surgery. So thank you, hon. Member, for making us aware of that. I appreciate that.

The member reminds us that these patients are human beings. I’m very well aware of that, which is why I was very dismayed that a five-year-old patient was used as an example in this House to make a political point yesterday before the member thought that maybe they should come to our office and see if we could help.

In fact, there are surgeons that are available with a shorter wait-list for that patient, but that didn’t suit the member’s purpose. It was all used as a political ploy. These are human beings, and we’re working hard to look after them.

[End of question period.]

M. Mark: I rise to present a petition.

[ Page 12436 ]

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Mark: I present a petition from the B.C. Pet Society with 14,087 signatures to amend the Residential Tenancy Act and related acts to prevent discrimination against tenants with pets.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Transportation; in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 13.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — SAFETY STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

section 1.

B. Ralston:

Section 1 refers to a definition prescribed under

section 88(2)(w.1). In

section 3, that refers to the amendment that is also referred to in subsection 1.

Can the minister explain the interaction of the two sections there? What it would appear to do, to me, is simply to add to the lengthy recitation in

section 88(2) of the Safety Standards Act a further definition or reference to “power plant.” Can the minister just confirm that’s what’s taking place legislatively here?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, before I start, I’ll introduce the staff that I have with me today: Shannon Horner, the director of safety policy at the B.C. Safety Authority liaison office of housing and construction standards — and I thought I had a title; Tricia Daykin, senior policy analyst at the office of housing and construction standards; and Richard Slocomb, the vice-president of engineering, Oil and Gas Commission.

The member is correct. This is a new definition, and “power plant” is added, clarifying that the term is defined in the regulation. The significance is that this addition provides certainty that the defined term set out in regulation also applies to the act.

It is necessary because the amendments use power plants to delineate between the responsibility to the Oil and Gas Commission and the B.C. Safety Authority responsibilities. OGC, which is the Oil and Gas Commission, will have exclusive oversight of pressure piping, except where it forms part of a power plant. The B.C. Safety Authority will continue to oversee pressure piping and power plants because its expertise is needed in that area.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

B. Ralston: This, I would describe, is a relatively brief bill, but this particular

section would appear to be the legislative heart of it.

I’m looking at the definition of what’s called a specified regulated product. What this

section does is remove it from the Safety Standards Act and the jurisdiction of the B.C. Safety Authority and places that with the Oil and Gas Commission. But, for the purposes of this legislative section, it takes it out of the Safety Standards Act.

Can the minister explain the rationale for taking…? I’m looking at — we’ll begin, and perhaps we can do them in turn — “specified regulated product,” which is subsection (a): “gas systems and equipment referred to in

section 2(1)(b)(vi).” When one looks at 2(1)(b)(vi), it says that this act…. I’m looking at

section 2 of the current Safety Standards Act. “This act and its regulations apply to all of the following: …(

b) all of the regulated products as they are defined in the regulations.” And the particular one that’s referred to is “gas systems and equipment.”

That is specifically included in the Safety Standards Act. This amendment would specifically exclude them from the act, in relation to gas systems and equipment.

Can the minister explain the legislative purpose and perhaps also give a short definition of gas systems and equipment as it concerns the legislative objects of this piece of legislation?

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman:

Section 3 is repealed and replaced so that the Safety Standards Act ceases to apply to specified regulated products and regulated work in relation to pipelines and oil and gas facilities and begins to apply to other regulated products and regulated work that were previously exempt.

The existing provision under

section 3(1) exempts all regulated products in relation to mines as that term is defined in the Mines Act. There’s no change to the application of the act in relation to mines.

Subsection (2) exempts various regulated products in relation to pipelines as that term is defined in the Oil and Gas Activities Act. More specifically, it provides that all regulated products are exempt except boilers and boiler systems, electrical equipment, pressure vessels, pressure piping and refrigeration systems and equipment.

The amendments ensure the act does not apply to specified regulated products that are attached to or used in the operation of a pipeline or oil and gas facility. This

[ Page 12437 ]

includes liquefied natural gas facilities. This provision exempts gas systems and equipment, pressure piping and refrigeration system equipment from the act.

These technologies will be overseen exclusively by the Oil and Gas Commission under the existing authority or the Oil and Gas Activities Act. There is one exception with respect to the pressure piping. B.C. Safety Authority’s responsibility will continue when the equipment forms part of a power plant.

Other exemptions are removed so that all other regulated products will be overseen by the B.C. Safety Authority — things like electrical equipment, boilers and boiler systems, pressure vessels, elevating devices, passenger ropeways, amusement rides and other regulated products specified in the Safety Standards Act.

This ensures optimal safety oversight of the technical equipment across the oil and gas sector. Ultimately, the Oil and Gas Commission is responsible for all operations and technologies within the facility. Within the larger system, the B.C. Safety Authority is responsible for safety in specific technical areas, which is…. After consultation, both agencies thought this would be the best way to approach the management of these activities.

B. Ralston: I do have a couple of questions for clarification. I’d understood from the minister’s comments in the House that the purpose of the amendments was to take the regulation of, particularly, the refrigeration systems but also oil and gas systems related to proposed LNG plants from the authority of the B.C. Safety Authority and place them with the Oil and Gas Commission.

What the minister seems to be saying here — and I just want to be clear about that — is that not only would proposed LNG plants fall under the jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas Commission, but existing oil and gas facilities would no longer fall under the authority of the B.C. Safety Authority but would also be regulated by the Oil and Gas Commission.

It seems to me, then, in that sense, to be a more sweeping and expansive regulatory change than was understood or at least explained at second reading by the minister. I don’t say that critically. That may be a failing on the part of myself to understand the scope of the legislation and its subtlety, but perhaps the minister could clarify that.

The Chair: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission seeks leave to make introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: In the House behind me are a class from Thomas Haney Secondary School in Maple Ridge, and teachers. One class is here right now. Another class is somewhere else in the precincts.

It’s a great school, I know. I taught there for three days, and then I went to a full-time position in another school. They come every year. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Interjection.

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. Boy, he opened up the door there, didn’t he? I have no comment on that, though. Welcome, folks.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Coleman: Not only, as we did this, did we want to, obviously, deal with the expertise that would be required in the regulatory framework and management and around things in the LNG plants but to, at the same time, clarify and make the responsibility for technical safety and regulation to pipelines and oil and gas facilities with regard to both authorities — the Oil and Gas Commission and the B.C. Safety Authority.

Basically, the changes apply to equipment that is attached to or used in the operation of pipelines or oil and gas facilities and to any work carried out in relation to that equipment. Now, this has been going on, and this is clarifying what has been going on, to make sure both parties understand.

The B.C. Safety Authority has certain expertise; the Oil and Gas Commission has other expertise. The Oil and Gas Commission has also done the work to understand the operation of gas plants and the integrated relationship with pipelines and the integrated relationship with LNG projects as well. That equipment is subject to the safety standard that is known under the act as “regulated product.”

References to regulated products can also include activities related to products, such as installing and operating the product. These activities under that act are known as “regulated work.” Where the legislation refers to previously regulated work, it means refrigeration and piping equipment. These become exempt, meaning the OGC will have exclusive jurisdiction over them, together with gas equipment, under the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

References to the “previously unregulated product” means the technologies that have, until now, been exempt from the Safety Standards Act oil and gas settings. They will now be overseen by the B.C. Safety Authority, together with technology that the B.C. Safety Authority is already overseeing.

Technologies that are new to the B.C. Safety Authority oversight in relation to oil and gas are elevating devices, such as elevators, passenger ropeways and any other regulated product that may be specified in the regulation. Technology that the B.C. Safety Authority already over-

[ Page 12438 ]

sees with regard to this industry is electrical equipment; boilers and boiler systems; and pressure vessels, as distinct from pressure piping, which falls under the OGC.

That would be the explanation as to the distinction. It really is about identifying clearly who has responsibility for what inspection and management of specific pieces of the industry that the expertise exists with, within each of the agencies of both the Safety Authority and the Oil and Gas Commission.

B. Ralston: I’m not sure that I totally understand the explanation, but I’ll ask a few further exploratory questions.

I’m dealing with, then, in the proposed

section 2, the amendment in reference to subsection 3(1)(a), “gas systems and equipment referred to in

section 2 (1) (b) (vi).” Gas systems and equipment. This particular aspect of the operation of an oil and gas facility, as I understand the minister’s explanation, is at present inspected and regulated by the B.C. Safety Authority. Presumably, since they’re doing it, they have the expertise now, and have ensured and enforced safety standards in oil and gas facilities throughout the province.

Can the minister explain, then, why it is felt necessary to take that expertise — which is obviously, I would assume, working — and transfer it to the Oil and Gas Commission? There’s reference made to superior expertise in the Oil and Gas Commission, yet it has resided in the Safety Authority for some time. They clearly must have the personnel, the systems, the inspection protocols to do this job properly. So why is it felt necessary to transfer it?

[1500]

Hon. R. Coleman: The OGC has always had gas systems and equipment pressure pipe refrigeration under their purview as well as the Safety Authority. The challenge that was identified by the agencies as we came through there with regards to the oversight is the specificity of that, where the expertise laid and what we were doing.

For instance…. I’ll try this, and the member may have more questions. The B.C. Safety Authority will continue to oversee electrical equipment, borders and pressure vessels and elevating devices and passenger ropeways. The division of duties here, though, makes technical sense, ensuring the right codes and standards are applied to the right equipment. It also allows a safety authority to apply its technical expertise in key areas.

The type of refrigeration used in LNG plants is inherently different than what is addressed by the Safety Standards Act. They would be dealing more with things like refrigeration units for ice rinks and arenas and cold storage. Where LNG plants process refrigeration for liquefaction, the latter is addressed in the LNG facility regulation under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. These agencies have worked together to come to this definition of where.

The new reference to “facility” clarifies the intention for

section 3 that has always been to address all pipelines in oil and gas facilities, including large facilities like LNG plants. The act looks to the Oil and Gas Activities Act for

definitions of “pipeline” and “facilities.” The definition of “pipeline” includes references to facilities, but the amendments refer to both terms individually in order to provide certainty.

The confusion of what pipes and facilities were when they’re actually interconnected into the same system is being clarified by accomplishing this and making sure that the expertise which will lie with the Oil and Gas Commission on LNG-type facilities for the refrigeration side — which is different than an arena or a cold storage facility and those types of things, which would be under the Safety Standards Act — can be coordinated through both parties in such a way that they each apply their expertise where it’s required.

B. Ralston: The minister is making explicit reference to subsection (c), “refrigeration systems and equipment.” Notionally, the difference between an ice plant and a hockey arena and an LNG plant, and its massive requirement to cool natural gas down to a very, very low temperature, obviously makes sense.

My concern was in (a), “gas systems and equipment.” The regulation appears to be administered now. Since the paramount concern in the act should be — or seems to be, at least nominally — safety, I can see that there may be some functional wish that wants bigger facilities to go to the Oil and Gas Commission and smaller ones to stay with the Safety Authority.

I guess my concern is the consequence for the administration of and creation of a safe work environment. At the present time, is there any deficiency or any perceived weakness or errors or something inherently wrong with the way in which the B.C. Safety Authority is administering the safety standards that are required to properly run gas systems and equipment, which appear to be separate from the new refrigeration system that’s contemplated for an LNG plant?

[1505]

I think the minister had conceded that “gas systems and equipment” referred to the operation of existing oil and gas facilities. That’s a lot of facilities throughout the province right now that are under the authority of the Safety Standards Act and the B.C. Safety Authority and are now going to go to the Oil and Gas Commission.

I’m wondering what the…. Other than some kind of industry functionality division, what’s the benefit, in terms of public safety, of making this division?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe the confusion is that nothing’s actually changing with regards to the management of gas systems in British Columbia. They are already under the purview of the management and regulation of

[ Page 12439 ]

the Oil and Gas Commission. They do that now — gas systems and management and safety, etc.

What this does is clarify some pieces within that — that the Safety Authority will have oversight of things like elevators and rope lines, that type of thing that would be standard for them. But in British Columbia today, this doesn’t change the fact that the OGC actually oversees the gas aspect of this. They will continue to do that.

B. Ralston: What the act says presently in

section 2 is: “This Act and the regulations apply to all of the following…(

b) all of the regulated products as they are defined in the regulations…(vi) gas systems and equipment.”

The minister says: “Well, it’s being administered by the Oil and Gas Commission now.” With what legislative authority is it being administered, given that it says right in the Safety Standards Act, prior to this amendment, that that’s who the responsible authority was?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ll try and take a run at this one.

Basically, under the present act, all activities with regards to the Safety Standards Act are exempt from the Safety Standards Act. The section, as written, is confusing, so we’re trying to clarify, which is evidently causing confusion.

In order to continue on where the Oil and Gas Activities Act takes authority over all the activities in the oil and gas area, we are basically adding pressure piping, refrigeration — and gas is already in there, with regards to an activity — under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, which means the Oil and Gas Commission has responsibility for it.

Basically, the way the act is written under the Safety Standards Acts, it says a regulated product “other than products referred to in section” such-and-such-and such “is attached….” The Oil and Gas Activities Act “does not apply to the regulated product or to a person who does regulated work in respect of that regulated product.”

Right now, all the oil and gas activities come under the Oil and Gas Commission, under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. What this is doing is clarifying that added to that now is pressure piping and refrigeration. It will all fall under the Oil and Gas Activities Act for regulation.

While we’re doing that, we’re also identifying some things that may be in an LNG plant, like an elevator or those types of things. Some pressure vessels would still be allowed to be regulated under the Safety Standards Act and agreement. With this act, the changes will allow those to be regulated.

Today, oil and gas is actually exempted from the Safety Standards Act. The responsibility sits with the Oil and Gas Commission.

B. Ralston: Once again, I understand the desire, for perhaps functional reasons and for industry operation, to have everything concentrated in the Oil and Gas Commission. I suppose the legislative concern would arise that when you have a Safety Standards Act and a B.C. Safety Authority that has an independent jurisdiction focused on safety, that is somewhat different from the ordinary regulation and licensing of the commercial operation of oil and gas facilities. One wonders whether that is the best choice for the safety of the plant and those who would work in it.

Apparently, the legislative wish of the government is that everything be administered by the Oil and Gas Commission. One could reasonably foresee, within that legislative scheme, conflicts arising between regulation, and the administration of regulations applying to oil and gas facilities, and the operation in a safe manner.

When both are regulated by the same authority, is the minister not concerned that that may lead to the wrong priorities — that is smooth operation, if I could put it that way, being given priority over safety standards? That seems to me to be a legitimate question, given some of the problems that have arisen in other industries. I’m thinking particularly of the forestry industry, the operation of mills, where there certainly was a separate jurisdiction. Nonetheless, problems arose.

I’m just wondering. My concern is protection of the public and safety standards for those working in those plants, and those in surrounding communities that might be affected by, if there were — one would hope that there never would be — any escape or disaster that might result from inefficient or faulty safety procedures.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the Oil and Gas Commission has been monitoring oil and gas activities in British Columbia for decades. They do it from a perspective of, primarily, safety of the operation of the plants. They have an extremely high safety record and what have you.

[1515]

All this does is we move into other plants. The Safety Standards Act has not applied to oil and gas for some time. It is the Oil and Gas Commission and the Oil and Gas Activities Act that takes part of this. But as we came through the consultation process with regards to future plants like LNG, there were some activities that would be different that could be something the expertise of the Safety Authority could be added into to help with some expertise. Elevators are a good example, some pressure vessels and that sort of thing.

Basically, we’re actually allowing the Safety Authority in on some things with more safety, because the expertise exists with the Safety Authority. But the other aspects of the operation of pressure piping and gas lines and gas plants have been with the OGC, under its oversight in the activities act, for a long time.

These amendments with pressure piping and refrigeration will be also overseen by the OGC, because they were

[ Page 12440 ]

given a mandate to go and do the research, send the information to the integrated gas systems so that they’d be able to have that expertise in technical standards put in place with regards to how these would come together so there’d be no confusion for stakeholders.

To even suggest for a second that we would be taking the safety standard aspect out of the monitoring of these things would be unfair. But some things, like the elevating devices that I mentioned, will now be subject to the Safety Standards Act, because there’s no sense in going and finding new technical expertise on something that exists within the province. The expertise on the technical management and safety management of gas plants exists with the OGC.

This just allows — or brings back in under one of the sections of the act, basically — some of the things that would be available, because we think the Safety Standards Act would be helpful on those. It also clarifies that pressure piping and refrigeration would be part of the total exemption that’s existed in the oil and gas industry for a long time now — be added into that so that they would be able to deal with the integrated operation and safety aspects of a plant because they will have that expertise.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can assist in this way, then. The minister referred to letting the B.C. Safety Authority in. Are there specific people and a specific program with the Safety Authority that would deal with gas systems and equipment that will now move from the administrative jurisdiction of the B.C. Safety Authority over to the Oil and Gas Commission? Those people, those systems, that inspection protocol — will all of that be moved to the Oil and Gas Commission, if I can put it that way?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t think the member understands it. The gas systems are exempt today — will continue to be exempt and are exempt. Basically, what happens with the Safety Authority is no different than any other aspect.

If I have a building in Vancouver with an elevator, there’s an inspection protocol that the Safety Authority has in place with regards to the elevator. Well, they’ve put the same safety, but we’ve identified that if there’s an elevator in an LNG plant, they would also deal with those inspections and standards, like they do every elevator in B.C. Why would you have a commission, the Oil and Gas Commission, spending time learning how to do the maintenance and oversight of the safety of an elevator when you already have the expertise within government?

This is what we are allowing to happen. It’s that piece. The Safety Standards Act applies to the oil and gas sector with respect to specific technologies, including elevators and those sorts of things, but gas is under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, so they have been overseeing these for some time.

Basically, as you came along and added what could be a future activity in British Columbia and you looked at, let’s say, an LNG plant, there are some lifting devices and some boiler pressure vessels that are there that, given the expertise of the Safety Authority….

We need to put that amendment in to allow them to do that inspection and work under the act and under regulation, while continuing to allow the expertise — through the Oil and Gas Activities Act and the commission, which has been overseeing the safety of the oil and gas sector for a few decades now — to continue but to identify….

As you see the changes in technology and things taking place with regards to new industries, you want to get the technical piece; you want to ensure that the right codes and standards apply to the right equipment. This allows the B.C. Safety Standards Act to apply in technical expertise in key areas, so they will actually complement each other.

[1520]

B. Ralston: Well, I’m just looking at

section 2, and these are the explanatory notes in the bill. The minister says that this regulation and inspection routine is already being done by the Oil and Gas Commission and this has been done for decades. That’s what I took him to be saying.

But the legislative amendment here — and this is the explanation offered; this is the official explanatory note — says the Safety Standards Act “ceases to apply to specified regulated products relating to pipelines and oil and gas facilities and to regulated work done in respect of those specified regulated products.” And then there are specified here gas systems, pressure piping, refrigeration systems.

If this has already been done for decades by the Oil and Gas Commission, why is this amendment necessary? This particular provision in the act doesn’t appear to have been followed — and for decades.

Hon. R. Coleman: The significance of

section 2 and

section 3, as described in the

section notes that I have, are that basically the Safety Standards Act “ceases to apply to specified regulated products relating to pipelines and oil and gas facilities and to regulated work done in respect of those specified regulated products.”

Basically, right now the specified regulated products would be gas and pipelines, and we’re adding pipeline facilities and refrigeration as being specified regulated products to clarify that those are under the purview of the Oil and Gas Commission. So far I’m getting a nod.

[1525]

The amendments ensure that the act doesn’t apply — I’ll try this — to regulated products that are attached to or used in the operation of pipeline oil and gas facilities. This includes a liquefied natural gas facility. This provision exempts gas systems and equipment, pressure piping, and refrigeration systems and equipment from the

[ Page 12441 ]

act. These technologies will be overseen exclusively by the OGC under the existing authority, the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Pressure piping and refrigeration, under “specified regulated product,” are being added with regards to that responsibility. There’s an exception to that, and that’s where the B.C. Safety Authority’s responsibility will continue where the equipment forms part of a power plant. The other exemptions that are removed for all other regulated products will be overseen by the B.C. Safety Authority — electrical equipment, boiler and boiler systems and, just so we’re clear, pressure vessels.

In their act, they also have elevating devices and passenger conveyors, passenger ropeways and amusement rides. Obviously, there are no amusement rides in LNG plants. All of those are considered to be elevating devices so, therefore, have to also be identified as a product that’s specified under the regulations with others.

Basically, this is to ensure optimal safety and oversight for technical equipment across the oil and gas sector. The Oil and Gas Commission is responsible for all operations or technology within the facility — pipelines and all of those. Within that larger system, the B.C. Safety Authority is responsible for safety-specific technical areas.

B. Ralston: I think the legislation, when reading it, was clear in the sense that prospectively — that is, in the future — the refrigerated systems that would be part of an LNG plant, for example, would be included in the jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas Commission. The pressure piping, with the exception of a power plant, the unique requirements of an LNG plant, would fall with the Oil and Gas Commission.

I suppose where I find difficulty understanding the minister’s explanation is…. The statement that was made is that oil and gas systems and equipment have been regulated by the Oil and Gas Commission for decades and have not fallen under the authority of the B.C. Safety Authority, when the legislation clearly says that it does and this amendment is necessary to end that.

Perhaps the minister can get the assistance of his staff on this. Was there, effectively, concurrent jurisdiction in the sense that the Oil and Gas Commission was administering the safety aspects, falling under the Safety Standards Act, of oil or gas systems and equipment, regardless of what the legislation said, in the last decade or two? I know the Oil and Gas Commission is a creation of an NDP government back in the 1990s — a very visionary step, as I’m sure that the minister will be quick to acknowledge.

From that time forward, was the division of labour really a functional one — I’m not terribly worried about the legislative purview of the Safety Standards Act — and for administrative convenience all those functions were administered by the Oil and Gas Commission? Is that what is being said? This is simply finalizing that or recognizing that legislatively, what was the effective internal administrative arrangement that the Oil and Gas Commission operated under. That seems to me what the minister is saying. Perhaps he can confirm that.

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: When the Oil and Gas Activities Act was written, it exempted gas systems and equipment used in the realm of pipelines and oil and gas facilities. What we’re doing is we’re adding pressure piping and refrigeration into those exemptions in the Safety Standards Act. Right now the Safety Standards Act actually exempts oil and gas activities. That’s from the beginning, when the legislation was brought in, as the member correctly pointed out, back in the 1990s.

The Oil and Gas Commission oversees those technical areas within the broader facilities today. But because of the addition of some of the activities that could come from LNG, like pressure vessels and refrigeration that would be included in a plant, we’re adding those exemptions to the Safety Standards Act so that that’s clear.

While we’re doing that, at the same time, we are adding, in relation to oil and gas activity…. There are technologies that the B.C. Safety Authority already oversees in this industry. That would be electrical equipment, boilers and boiler systems, and pressure vessels — distinct from piping, which falls under the OGC. All we’re adding is elevating devices under the B.C. Safety Authority oversight in relation to oil and gas. Elevating devices are the only thing we’re adding.

We also have in there the catch-all phrase, because we do this when we do legislation, that any other regulated product may be specified in regulation. There’s nothing there now, but that’s there in case there’s something that were to be identified as we move through to new technologies in oil and gas or new technologies that may affect an LNG plant that we feel should be added for the B.C. Safety Authority oversight. It gives the ability for government to do that under future regulations.

The reality is that the Safety Standards Act is not being changed for any of its authority relative to the oil and gas system, because the oil and gas systems and equipment have been exempted from the time the act came into place. What we’re adding is, because there’ll be some new activities, the pressure piping and the refrigeration piece.

While we’re doing that, we’re also identifying at the same time that there could be something else that the Oil and Gas Commission does not want to…. Or through discussions with the Safety Authority, it feels elevating devices such as elevators and passenger ropeways should be inspected by the B.C. Safety Authority oversight. So we’re adding that in as a technology that they will oversee, in addition to electrical equipment, boilers and boiler systems, and pressure vessels. That’s basically all we’re doing.

[1535]

[ Page 12442 ]

B. Ralston: There’s a reference in proposed subsection (2): “This Act does not apply to…(

b) a person who does regulated work in respect of a regulated product described in paragraph (a).” That reference to (

a) would be, in this context, I would think, the mine. But perhaps the minister can explain: who is the person that’s referred to in 2(b)?

Hon. R. Coleman: We’re not changing anything with regards to mine under regulated product in this act. We’re not making any changes there. When we’re talking about regulated work, same thing. There’s no changes there. That’s already in the act as it is today — under the Safety Standards Act — when you talk about a person with respect to regulated work on a regulated product.

Outside of that, though, we’re not changing with regards to the subsection the member is talking about. But if you had a person that was doing work on an elevator, the Safety Standard Act applies to their licensing work as well as the elevating product. That’s what that refers to.

B. Ralston: Well, what the regulation says very clearly, or this proposed section, is that this act does not apply to that person who does regulated work in respect to a regulated product in a mine. Can the minister give…? Perhaps sometimes it’s easier to understand these proposals if an example is given. What would be the circumstance in which this would be necessary or this legislative clarification is necessary?

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s really not up for discussion in this legislation. That’s how it exists today. That’s how it’s written today, and it has nothing to do with this legislation. That

section the member is reading is not being changed. It exists today, and it remains the same.

B. Ralston: With respect to the minister, the idea that legislation would be passed that changes nothing — has no force and effect — is contrary to every principle of legislative

interpretation. Legislative

interpretation would say that if something is passed by the Legislature, there’s a purpose for it, and it must be either remedial, or there must be a purpose for it.

To say that it’s in the act but it changes nothing and it serves no purpose is just contrary to every principle of legislative

interpretation. I don’t mean to be difficult, but I don’t follow the minister’s explanation. It just doesn’t make sense.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t want to get into the debate with the member either, but the

section is being repealed and is being replaced with the amended section, which leaves in place exactly the language with regards to that subsection the member talks about as it was in the previous section.

But when you change a section, it doesn’t mean you’re amending the entire section. You’re putting amendments into a section, but you’re changing the

section because the ordering can be differing, the numbering can be different or whatever the case may be. But that particular language in that

section which is being changed, repealed and replaced with the new

section is the same as it was in the previous

section within the act.

B. Ralston: In subsection (3), there’s a further qualification about subsection 4. It says that this act does not apply to specified regulated product attached to or being used in the operation of a pipeline or…. It’s similar to the previous subsection (2). Can the minister give an example of where this would be required and the legislative purpose in this particular section?

[1540]

I’m referring to, in proposed section (2), subsection (3), which reads: “…this Act does not apply to (

a) a specified…product attached to or being used in the operation of a pipeline or facility.” Can the minister explain the legislative purpose of this subsection?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Safety Standards Act, as the member knows, doesn’t apply to gas activities now. Basically, the specified regulated product that is being used in the operation of pipeline or facilities…. This is where the rub comes in, where we’re changing to pressure vessels and refrigeration, and they’re a specified regulated product, in addition to the other oil and gas activities that are already exempted from this act.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

B. Ralston: The title heading for this

section and many of the subsequent ones is “Transition.” Presumably, that’s the transition between the jurisdiction of the Safety Standards Act and the delegation to the Oil and Gas Commission.

Can the minister explain, broadly, how transition will work legislatively? And what would be…? We can probably add some questions about what the effective dates would be. I presume they’re by order in council, in

section 11. Perhaps just explain the process by which legislative transition will take place.

Hon. R. Coleman: Sure. It basically sets out the

definitions of the transitional provisions. The significance is that these

definitions apply to the transitional provisions that govern practical aspects of how the change to oversight will proceed.

Basically, “previously regulated product” refers to pressure piping and refrigeration. They become exempt and will now be regulated exclusively by the OGC, as we discussed earlier. And “previously unregulated product” now comes in, which refers to the various technologies

[ Page 12443 ]

that are currently exempt and will now become subject to the act. The most significant are the conversation we had about elevators and passenger ropeways earlier.

B. Ralston: The process of transition, which the minister has offered an explanation of…. Can the minister explain, in

section 4, the operation by which “authority” is defined? It refers to the “administration of provisions of the Safety Standards Act and regulation under that Act is delegated under

Part 12 of the Safety Standards Act.” And turning to

part 12, it is “Delegation of administration.” Can the minister explain how that will work in relation to this particular transition of authority?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is pretty standard. Basically, under the Safety Standards Act, they have the ability. The authority has already been delegated, for instance, to the B.C. Safety Authority. The reason we use “authority” versus the actual “B.C. Safety Authority” is because that authority, with administration, could change in the future.

That means a person to whom administration of the provision of the Safety Standards Act and regulation, under the act, could be delegated under

part 12 of the B.C. Safety Standards Act. The authority could change. Basically, the authority exists…. We do this all through government. I know the members opposite would know this. We actually give delegates authority for the operation and the implementation of

an act or a regulation, and that’s a delegated authority.

This basically says that right now, the person that administers that provision is under

part 12 of the Safety Standards Act. It happens, in this case, to be an agency called the B.C. Safety Authority. That could change in the future, but they could still be delegated. So you don’t identify the necessary authority by name. You identify that there’s an authority, and then you delegate that.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

B. Ralston: This is another transitional provision, referring to installation permits and operating permits.

Can the minister explain how, in the process of transition, there will emerge no regulatory gap in the sense that permits issued under previous authority would be seamlessly transferred to the new authority? I’m assuming and perhaps…. I think the minister might just wish to confirm for the record that there will be no regulatory gap in the sense that existing operating permits will continue in existence in a legal sense without any gap in authority.

Hon. R. Coleman: The provision terminates the B.C. Safety Authority, so the Oil and Gas can become the exclusive oversight of the refrigeration in oil and gas settings.

The facility permit covers these. As a result, we’re covered through the Oil and Gas Commission. Relevant permits are those related to refrigeration systems equipment. There are no permits related to pressure piping. The provision authorizes, also, that the Safety Authority can refund fees paid to them in relation to permits and applications that are cancelled by this bill because they’re now caught in the facility’s permit, in the general permit of the operation of the facility.

B. Ralston: Just dealing with the issue, then, of not only transitional permitting but new permitting, in the very brief debate that we had at second reading, the minister referred to the expertise that he viewed as residing in the Oil and Gas Commission for, prospectively, LNG plants.

I did pose a question about, in the permitting process, what international experience or authority from existing LNG plants the Oil and Gas Commission was going to draw on in creating a new set of regulations to regulate the commissioning and the operation of new LNG plants.

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: There is expertise and experience with smaller LNG facilities in British Columbia today. We’re drawing on that. We have an LNG engineer on staff, as well, at OGC as well as consulting engineers helping us with that work.

Our folks have also been to Bintulu, where there’s a nine-train, multi-million-tonne LNG plant that’s having its ninth train built now with regards to LNG. They brought in experts to train the staff, and its engineers have travelled to operating plants here in B.C. and overseas. It currently has experts on staff, which is the engineer I was mentioning, available. We have consulting engineers who have expertise that are also helping to train our staff.

B.C. Safety Authority has also sent personnel overseas to learn about LNG. It has highly trained people experienced with complex pressure vessels, which is the boiler piece and the electrical systems we talked about earlier.

The work has been going on to prepare and to be able to have the regs and the standards in place. They’re working on that now as they work towards, hopefully, a final investment decision.

We have, actually, smaller operating LNG plants in B.C. with that expertise. Even though they’re smaller, the systems are very much the same, just on a scalable difference. Whether it be the one in Delta or the one on Vancouver Island, there is expertise here that we’re drawing on as well.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. I’m familiar with the Fortis plant in Delta. I’ve been invited and had a look at that particular plant.

The minister mentioned a nine-train facility. I didn’t quite catch the name. I wonder…. Just for the clarity of

[ Page 12444 ]

the record, perhaps you could express that once again and give the geographical location of that particular plant.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t have all the locations some of these folks may have gone to. But the nine-train facility, which is just about to commission its ninth train, is in Bintulu, in Malaysia. It’s in Sarawak, actually. It’s been operational since…. It was one of the first LNG plants built in the world, back in about 1968, and has continued to add to its capacity. I think the first shipment went out in about…. I’m going to say around 1970, somewhere in there.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

B. Ralston: This

section is entitled “Information-sharing with Oil and Gas Commission.” The explanatory note talks about “the sharing, between the ministry of the minister responsible for the administration of the Safety Standards Act…and the Oil and Gas Commission, of personal information that relates to regulated products.”

Can the minister explain briefly what type of information is being referred to here? Would that be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t think it would be because I don’t think there’s any commercially sensitive information in this particular provision with regards to this. Basically, what it is, is that the ability to share information will be crucial to ensuring a smooth transition.

The B.C. Safety Authority will need to provide records related to pressure piping and refrigeration so the OGC can ensure nothing is missed in the transition to their oversight. Similarly, the OGC may need to share information with the B.C. Safety Authority facilitators in their oversight responsibility in oil and gas settings, primarily with the elevating devices that we mentioned earlier. I’m not sure how many elevating devices would actually exist in our existing facilities. I think that really refers to larger plants in LNG.

Some of these records may contain personal information, but that would be basically redacted, as I understand it. Basically, it would be the qualifications of the contractor associated with the permit — those types of things. They would be subject to the FOI. But the actual information relative to the sharing of information and what’s being transferred from one entity to another, I think, is pretty straightforward.

[1555]

We think that there may be small amounts of personal information, such as contractors’ qualifications, on a permit application. The amendments ensure it can be shared as needed for optimal safety oversight. The details have been reviewed with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The office has expressed it has no concerns. The collection and use of the information are authorized by FOIPPA, and the amendments provide express authority for disclosure. Basically, the records would only include business contact information.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SAFETY STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 13, Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage on Bill 21, intituled the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 3:59 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

[1600]

G. Heyman:

Section 3 is, I believe, pretty transparent. Sections 79 and 80 of the act are repealed because this amendment act actually replaces, in considerably more detail, what was addressed in terms of spill response in the Environmental Management Act.

Could the minister indicate if anything of substance was omitted; if so, the rationale for that; and what she con-

[ Page 12445 ]

siders — in a descriptive form, not necessarily a detailed form — the most substantive additions or amplifications to spill response that will replace sections 79 and 80?

Hon. M. Polak: We aren’t able to think of anything of note that has been omitted or removed from the old sections. As the member noted, really, this is about adding all the new pieces.

As far as what I think would be the way to describe the most substantial changes here, it’s probably easier to describe that in the overarching approach that this represents. We’re moving away from a system that was pretty much entirely focused on just cleanup of a spill and, instead, broadening that focus to require preparedness; prevention activities; cleanup, of course, as we always have; and then also moving beyond that into reclamation and remediation.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Heyman:

Section 4 is not going to pass for a while, because that’s where all the substance of the bill is.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As we noted in second reading, we will support this bill. But I think it’s important in committee stage to explore a number of aspects of it, get them on the record, clarify how some of the things left to regulation were, in fact, left to regulation, and some of the parameters that will be placed around the filling in of the gaps, if you will — and also to clarify, for the public, how this might work in a number of areas.

I will also have a limited number of amendments to propose in areas that interest groups have indicated could, in their opinion, be strengthened and given more transparency and public accountability. We’ll see if the minister shares their views, or my view, in that regard.

In terms of the

definitions. We have a definition of “area response plan,” and then further on, we have a definition of the “geographic response plan.” Can the minister tell us how this differentiation will be applied, why it exists and clarify exactly what those differences will look like or if that is, at this point, conditional on other factors?

[1605]

Hon. M. Polak: The difference between the two is that the area response plan is strategic,

whereas the geographic response plan is tactical. The area response plan is more of an overview. There could be one for the entire province. There may be three for the province.

A geographic response plan is one that would be ordered specific to a space that represented a high degree of sensitivity. Typically, we’d expect those to be focused on rivers and streams and shorelines — things of that nature.

G. Heyman: If I heard the minister correctly, the area could be the whole province and would be tactical. Geographic would be strategic, with respect to a particular geographic area or a particular sensitive ecosystem, like a stream or a river or a particular habitat for a species — perhaps a species at risk.

My question is, therefore: will all of B.C. be covered, in one manner or another, by a geographic response plan?

[1610]

Hon. M. Polak: The area response plan — be it one covering the whole province, or maybe it would be a number of them, two or three — would provide the overarching guidance, the strategic approach. Within that, in a given region, there may be areas that have a high degree of sensitivity, very many hazards. You would then designate, under a geographic response plan, that specific area as one where one could say there are special instructions to follow in the case of that smaller area.

I was messing around in my head with a layperson’s description. I thought maybe the easiest one is to think of the instruction manual for your model of car. Now, depending on which options you get on your car or which model you have, while the instructions for operating the entire car are pretty much the same for every model that you’ve got, there will be specific differences, such as where the button for opening up your trunk is located or whether or not you have a specific air-conditioning switch or it’s automatic or not.

The overall car — they all operate pretty much the same. So there’s your area response plan around the province or around certain regions; you have a general approach. Then in specific areas there are differences within that.

Those would be individually ordered based on an assessment of their sensitivity and the level of hazard that’s represented there, such as the difference between a river or stream where there’s just nothing going on and no industry for miles versus a very, very highly trafficked sort of river, like the Thompson where you have lots of industry. You have rail and many other hazards. You might take a different approach there.

G. Heyman: To extend the metaphor beyond cars, would this be akin to the quick start-up instructions versus the detailed manual?

Hon. M. Polak: That’s a better explanation than mine.

[1615]

G. Heyman: And it’s free.

Just to pursue this a bit further, would every area of the province have at least a minimal geographic response

[ Page 12446 ]

plan in addition to the area response plan, but some would be more detailed, address more potential pollutants or hazards and be more complex? Or would some areas of the province simply be covered by the area response plan and nothing further?

Hon. M. Polak: The geographic response plans would be ordered based on the assessment of a specific area and its risks. While I couldn’t say with absolute 100 percent certainty that every area response plan area would also have within it some spaces that were designated under a geographic response plan, I think that given the nature of the province and the geography, it would be highly unlikely that you would find an area that did not have within it those spaces that are designated for a geographic response plan. It would be highly unlikely that that would occur.

G. Heyman: I’ll accept that the minister says it’s unlikely, which may mean this next question is difficult to answer. Can the minister or her staff think of any situation which might, in their opinion, exempt a particular region or pocket of the province from a geographic response plan, and how that might be determined?

[1620]

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll just say to the member that I’m not in any way trying to be cagey about it, but just accurate.

The designated areas are expected to be bodies of water; sensitive ecosystems; archaeologically, culturally, historically, socially or economically sensitive areas. As you look across the entire province of B.C., you’d be hard-pressed to find an area that isn’t going to require some level of GRP within their area response plan. That’s why I say it would be unlikely.

We know that water is typically where we see these utilized the most. For example, if we look to the south of us, I was advised, if I’m remembering correctly from a few seconds ago, that pretty much their entire shoreline is designated under a model like the GRP.

Again, if you think about the province and the lay of the land here, you’d be hard-pressed to find an area in the province that doesn’t contain some of those values and, therefore, would require us to be designating a GRP.

G. Heyman: I think the minister and I have had a number of discussions in this chamber about water recently. I assume that when the minister said “designated area,” she meant a designated area that would be covered by a geographic response plan.

I will add that onto my other question, which is: assuming that every part of the province might be covered by a geographic response plan, is it conceivable that different designated areas to be covered by a geographic response plan might not be contiguous but be covered by the same geographic response plan? Or could there be categories of geographic response plans for lower-risk areas but areas that have sensitivity and should have some additional amplification to the area response plan?

Hon. M. Polak: Each GRP would be tailored to respond to the unique features that would be under the designation in that space. So the latter, really, to the member’s question, could be contiguous, might not be.

If you take the Fraser River — for example, a GRP down in the area of Richmond-Steveston outlining the tactics that would be required to respond…. Those would look different than the GRP that would be up at Hell’s Gate on the Fraser River. Each GRP would be tailored to those individual circumstances.

[1625]

You may see GRPs all the way along the course of a river, or it may be that you go for ten kilometres and then maybe there are five kilometres where, really, the information, the strategy and the area response plan are sufficient, but then, further up, there’s something else that requires a GRP. So all of that would be open for a designation in any of those ways.

G. Heyman: I took it from that last answer — and I’ll just ask the minister to correct me if I’m wrong — that there might be pockets that are only covered by the area response plan.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes, that’s correct.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there ends up being only one area response plan, just for the ease of my illustration. If you picture a map of the province, and we’ll colour the area response plan green, then the entire province is coloured green. If you had the areas that have a GRP, then all across the province, in different places, you’d see spots of red for those GRPs popping up and telling you that this particular area needs some special attention, special tactics, when there’s a response that is needed.

G. Heyman: I’m not attempting to just pick away here. Initially, the minister said that while it was possible, she didn’t think it likely that there’d be any parts of the province that weren’t covered by their own GRP.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: I’m just going to sit and let the minister answer.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize if I did not get the point across clearly.

It would be unlikely that you would have anywhere in the province…. Let’s use the three area response plan scenario. If the province was covered by three different area response plans — because you divide it up into three

[ Page 12447 ]

regions — within each of those regions, it would be really unlikely that any of those would not contain some GRPs. I would say virtually impossible, although I’ve learned in this House never to say that because you don’t know how something will unfold in the long run.

As we’ve discussed, the nature of the GRPs and where they would be designated…. Very difficult to imagine an area of the province that wouldn’t require some GRPs. The idea behind them is to develop, with the strategic vision of the area response plan, a second layer that is tactical and that’s specific rather than general provisions of response and how to approach that.

G. Heyman: I think I’m getting this now. It’s not that every part of the province will be covered by, first, an area response plan and then a geographic response plan, but that every area of the province will be covered by somewhere between, say, one to three area response plans. There won’t be gaps between the area response plans.

Hon. M. Polak: That’s correct. There wouldn’t be any part of the province that wouldn’t be covered by an area response plan. The geographic response plans would be designated on specific spots where we’ve identified a need for a tactically specific approach.

G. Heyman: Say there is a spill in an area that does not have a geographic response plan. Will the area response plan have enough specificity to deal with a spill in that particular location?

[1630]

Hon. M. Polak: First, it’s important, I think, to just go over and understand the role of the area response plan. The area response plan is there to guide the planning that individual operations need to make to be prepared to respond. It also is not tactical. We have people who are qualified to respond to spills of different types, and depending on that spill, they would respond accordingly, using their expertise.

The point of the GRP is, in the case of a particularly sensitive area, then we would want those responding to have that additional information ahead of time. Those tactics are already established specific to that one stream or that lake or what have you — or maybe a culturally sensitive site — so that there’s a much quicker means of response, instead of time being taken away from response by having to evaluate and plan the response.

It would be much clearer in those cases where we know that there is a sensitivity or a high degree of hazard. So based on risk, based on sensitivity, but the area response plan is not intended to be tactical.

G. Heyman: I take the minister’s point, but if the area response plan is going to dictate the plan of attack, if you will, for cleaning up spills in areas that haven’t been deemed to require a geographic response plan — because there isn’t a particular body of water or there’s not the cultural sensitivity or the habitat that are outlined later in the bill as the criteria for a geographic response plan — any response that entails a spill cleanup or management of a hazard requires some level of tactics.

Just to clarify, I assume that the area response plan will have general tactical approaches applicable to any spill, and the geographic response plan would have tactics tailored specifically to the sensitivity of the area that was governed by the geographic response plan.

That’s actually a statement, not a question, but I will assume the minister can treat it as a question and clarify if I’m understanding this correctly.

[1635]

Hon. M. Polak: The implied question is: “Well, if it’s not happening in the ARPs, where is it happening?” The ARPs — I’ll just give you a sense from the descriptive notes — provide general information on the risks present as well as an inventory of response resources available within the area it covers. They are prepared at the provincial level. It’s higher-level planning, and it lays out the process and procedures for notification, activation and response for all spills that would occur within that area.

Where we would expect to see the tactics generated would be in a few different ways that would integrate. Certainly, we expect that qualified professionals would be designing tactics for an individual operator. There are tactics that would be employed by those responders based on their professional training and qualifications. Those would find their way into an incident command where those tactics would be determined and executed based on the individual situation.

In that case, in responding to a spill, if it was noted that within that incident location there was also a GRP, then that would be taken into account as well.

G. Heyman:

Section 91.11(1)(

d) states that “the spill contingency plan demonstrates that the regulated person has the capability to effectively respond to a spill.”

Can the minister tell us what criteria would be placed around what exactly needs to be demonstrated and whether there would be a kind of template of questions that would be asked in every case or if it’s more general than that, or if this will be set out in regulation at a later date, or if it will be determined dependent on the particular hazards that the regulated people might be responsible for?

[1640]

Hon. M. Polak: This will be developed further within the regulations. What I can say is that we are considering a few different factors, one being that there will, of course, already be some operations that have contingency plans in place that may in fact be sufficient. With new

[ Page 12448 ]

operations or new plans, we will want to certainly see a consistent standard across the province, recognizing that there will be some individual differences depending on the type of operation that’s involved — but then, that will be spelled out in regulations.

The biggest ch