Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 55

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

B.C. Agriculture Day

Hon. L. Popham

Introductions by Members

Ministerial Statements

John Davidson

Hon. M. Farnworth

R. Coleman

A. Weaver

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Agriculture and farmers

I. Paton

Salish Sea emergency preparedness exercise

J. Rice

Franchise businesses

C. Oakes

Business award recipients in Burnaby

A. Kang

Coast Salish welcome pole project at North Vancouver school

district

J. Thornthwaite

Agriculture and farmers

B. D’Eith

Speaker’s Statement

Parliamentary language and role of Speaker

Oral Questions

Harvesting of timber in areas impacted by wildfires

D. Barnett

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

Oil and Gas Commission and oversight of industry

activities

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Child care plan and funding

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

Funding for services to children and families

J. Isaacs

Hon. K. Conroy

Child care plan and funding

J. Isaacs

Hon. K. Conroy

Potential change to Family Day and impact on tourism

industry

S. Thomson

Hon. L. Beare

Petitions

S. Furstenau

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, annual report, 2016-2017

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Mungall

S. Bond

A. Weaver

M. Bernier

C. Oakes

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

Hon. D. Eby

A. Wilkinson

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Statements

B.C. AGRICULTURE DAY

Hon. L. Popham: It is my pleasure to say that today is B.C. Agriculture Day in the

Legislature. We have more farmers roaming the halls than we normally do.

I am so proud of everybody who partakes in the agriculture sector. We

are having meetings all day today. I’ve already talked about grain, I’ve

talked about eggs, and I’ve talked about chicken. I look forward to more

great conversations.

I know that members from both sides of this chamber support our

agriculture sector. We come from communities that depend on that as

economic drivers, and I look forward to making sure we do even more with

agriculture over the next four years.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: Two introductions in two weeks for my riding of Kootenay East is truly

an honour. Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House a

friend and co-worker of mine when I was a financial adviser.

Kori is a founding member and first chair of the Cranbrook Pride

Society, starting in 2013, which has steadily grown under his leadership.

Kori has served several terms as a director for the AIDS Network Kootenay

Outreach and Support Society, which lately is at the forefront of trying to

deal with the fentanyl and carfentanyl crisis in the Kootenay region. Kori

is proud of the LGBT2QIA+ community he represents and is recognized for his

work in supporting the community and youth in Cranbrook.

Will the House please welcome my friend and former colleague Kori

Lancaster.

C. Oakes: I am truly delighted today to introduce to this House a member from

the Cariboo. Lynda Atkinson is here today with the agricultural group. She

also is a participant and sits on the Horse Council of B.C.

Lynda is a tireless champion for agriculture in the Cariboo. She has

been bringing forward extremely strong support and ideas following the

wildfire season that we’ve had and working towards an agricultural centre of

excellence for the north Cariboo. I should also say that Lynda and her

husband, Bill, were both my teacher and counsellor in high school. It’s

always nice to come from a rural community where there’s so much incredible

support.

Would the House please make Lynda very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Mark Edwardson, who’s in the gallery today.

He’s a student at Mount Douglas Secondary School. He has been advocating for

seeing 16-year-olds vote in the upcoming referendum next year. I’m delighted

to see a student who is so engaged and informed on politics in our province

and in our country. I would like the House to make him feel

welcome.

T. Redies: Today in the House, we have two groups of grade 6 students visiting

from École Laronde, a school in my riding that is very well known for its

French immersion program. I’d just like the House to join me in welcoming

the students and the teachers and their parents to the House

today.

J. Johal: I want to introduce Sunil Suvarna to the House today. Sunil was a

volunteer on my election campaign, and like many volunteers, they’re out

knocking on doors through the rain and snow and sunshine occasionally. I ask

members to please welcome Sunil to the House.

[10:10 a.m.]

Ministerial Statements

JOHN DAVIDSON

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise today to make a ministerial statement. I know notice has

been given to my colleagues in the official opposition and the Third

Party.

Yesterday was one of those days that every police officer and

government official in this province dreads, when you hear that a police

officer is killed in the line of duty, an officer whose oath was to

serve and protect those in his or her community and who died in pursuit

of that mission.

Today we mourn the loss of one of our own, Const. John Davidson,

an officer who served his community with distinction for over ten years.

John Davidson worked as a police officer for 24 years. He began his law

enforcement career in the U.K., working for the Northumbria police from

1993 to 2005. In March 2005, he was hired by the Abbotsford police

department. He worked on patrol, youth squad and traffic sections.

Recently he completed the Tour de Valley Cops for Cancer ride. John was

a dedicated police officer who devoted so much of his time to connecting

with the community and helping kids.

Today our hearts go out to the officer’s family and his colleagues

in the Abbotsford police department, police officers across this

province and across this country, our colleagues in this House who are

themselves former peace officers and, of course, every person whose life

has been touched by this loss.

Those whom we’ve lost in the line of duty sacrificed their lives

for a purpose much greater than themselves. They embody what it means to

be a hero. We owe a debt of gratitude to every officer that is brave

enough to wear the badge.

On behalf of the province of British Columbia, we sincerely thank

all of our women and men of law enforcement for their unwavering

commitment to our safety and protection. As British Columbians, we are

filled with grief at this tragic loss and give gratitude to those who

put their lives on the line for all of us. Our thoughts today are with

the family, the friends and the colleagues of Constable Davidson at this

very difficult time.

R. Coleman: Yesterday, November 6, the community of Abbotsford lost Const.

John Davidson in the line of duty. There’s a family that needs our

prayers. There’s a police force that needs our support and the community

of Abbotsford that needs our love.

Being a police officer is a special calling. A person unselfishly

gives of themselves to protect our community. When one is lost, we all

hurt and care. Words cannot explain how we feel today or how I feel

today…. Sorry. Last night I sat in quiet reflection. Emotions flowed

through me as I remembered others that have been lost, and I was

saddened that another was gone.

Wherever you are today, if you see a police officer, thank them.

The entire police community is hurting today. The Abbotsford police

force is a remarkable team who are in shock, who are at work doing the

work in their community to protect the community today. They’re hurting,

but they’re out there caring for the city that they love and

secure.

The family of the fallen officer needs our support and prayers.

Their loved one went to work yesterday and planned to come home. He did

not. This is such a tragedy. Our prayers are with them in their time of

grief, loss and pain.

Words cannot heal, explain or communicate how British Columbians

feel today or what they would like to tell the family of the fallen and

the members of the police community. Just know that we care. We support

you, we love you, and you’re in our prayers.

[10:15 a.m.]

A. Weaver: I rise to join the Government House Leader and the Leader of the

Official Opposition in expressing our most sincere condolences to the

loved ones of Const. John Davidson, the police officer who tragically

lost his life yesterday. We stand with the community of Abbotsford while

they mourn his terrible loss.

Police officers put their lives on the line every day to keep our

communities safe. We must never forget the risks our police officers and

first responders face, nor the sacrifices they are called on to make in

the line of duty. Police officers are the heroes of our communities.

They work tirelessly every day to respond to multiple crises and

emergencies that, many times, each constitute the worst days of a

citizen’s life. We can honour them by ensuring that they have the

support they need to do their vital work in keeping us safe.

As we remember the bravery, honour and dedication of our first

responders, we remember what makes this country great — our generosity,

strong sense of community and willingness to look out for one another.

Let us all strive to do all we can to support our communities so that

they can be safe for our families and for all citizens of this

province.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d also like to inform the House at this time that they’re

invited to attend the lowering of the flag to half-mast, which will take

place at 12 noon.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS

I. Paton: Today is Agriculture Day in British Columbia. In 1978, the late

American radio broadcaster Paul Harvey delivered a moving speech to the

Future Farmers of America. He said:

“On the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise, and he

said: ‘I need a caretaker. I need someone willing to get up before dawn,

milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper, and

then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school

board.’ So God made a farmer.

“‘And somebody to seed, weed, feed, breed, rake and disc, plow and

plant, and tie the fleece and strain the milk and replenish the

self-feeders and finish a hard week’s work with a five-mile drive to

church.’ So God made a farmer.”

The speech goes on to list the never-ending duties faced

by the never-resting farmer.

Farmers every day wear many hats in this province. They need to be

many things. They need to be mechanics, veterinarians, engineers,

environmentalists, salesmen, bookkeepers and architects. Under the wing

of my dad and my grandfather, I learned the trade, and I became a

third-generation dairy farmer. Our family was just one contributor to

B.C.’s diverse agriculture industry, which includes so many products,

such as dairy, beef, tree fruits, berries, vineyards, greenhouses,

vegetables, eggs, poultry and seafood.

Farmers, ranchers and processors across our province use

creativity every day to solve problems, improve efficiency and

contribute to our economy. Last year in B.C. we celebrated $14 billion

in agriculture revenues and $3.8 billion in agriculture exports. They

are supported by the B.C. Agricultural Council, who are here today,

whose vision is to grow B.C. into the most dynamic and robust

agriculture province in Canada. On this B.C. Ag Day, I’d say they’re

doing a wonderful job.

So let’s thank them and the hard-working men and women who get up

early and rarely stop to rest, all in the name of providing high-quality

products to households in B.C. and beyond.

SALISH SEA EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS

EXERCISE

J. Rice: Mayday, mayday, mayday — words we hope to never hear out on the

waters of the B.C. coast. A ferry on fire, mass casualties, fatalities,

environmental spills and impacts to waterways. Other than a real-life

event, an exercise practising what to do in this scenario offers the

highest degree of realism to test our preparedness

capabilities.

Exercise Salish Sea provided exactly this test opportunity.

Conducted two weeks ago, this full-scale exercise, which included the

Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Coast Guard, B.C. Ferries, emergency

management B.C. and other ministries, provided an opportunity to test

our operational readiness to respond to a major maritime

disaster.

There were nearly 500 participants at this two-day exercise,

including volunteer role players and First Nations from coastal

communities. EMBC worked extensively with the Canadian Coast Guard,

establishing new lines of communication and coordination. B.C. emergency

health services used this as one of its most comprehensive mass casualty

exercises in recent years. The Vancouver Island Health Authority was

able to exercise a number of code-orange training events.

[10:20 a.m.]

A big shout-out to the staff at EMBC for their major role in this

event and for the major tasks that they manage. I also want to recognize

the 200 people who took

part in the mass casualty portion of the

exercise, where they surged all three hospitals on lower Vancouver

Island with patients from the disaster. I want to thank Salt Spring

Island fire-rescue, Salt Spring Island Search and Rescue, Salt Spring

Island Emergency Social Services and the 57 volunteers who acted as

evacuees. Numerous others should also be recognized.

Feedback from post–Exercise Salish Sea has been very positive,

leaving a legacy of enhanced preparedness for communities in the event

of a real major maritime emergency. Thank you for your commitment in

making us better prepared and for making a better B.C.

FRANCHISE BUSINESSES

C. Oakes: The small business sector in British Columbia forms the backbone

of our provincial economy. Ninety percent of businesses in British

Columbia are small businesses and employ over one million people in our

province.

Franchises play a large role in British Columbia. Many of us shop

regularly at one without thinking about the fact that they are locally

owned and locally operated. While many people think of franchising as

limited to fast-food businesses that operate using the franchise

business model, it can be found in all sectors and industries —

automotive, travel, senior care, education and health and fitness, just

to name a few.

Franchising is an attractive and powerful way for Canadians to

achieve success as small business owners through the proven business

concept and support provided by the franchisor. Franchisees are able to

be in business for themselves but with the support and assistance of the

franchisor.

In 2015, the B.C. Liberal government introduced the first-ever

legislation aimed at making investment in British Columbia easier. It

was also designed to protect British Columbians who are buying into

franchised businesses. In February of this year, the new rules came into

force and are consistent with other provinces. Offering uniform

legislation provides a higher degree of certainty and protection to both

franchisors and franchisees. By cutting red tape and bringing our

regulation in line with other provinces, we are continuing to encourage

investment in franchises and driving economic growth in British

Columbia.

Today is Franchise Day in British Columbia, and many franchise

owners will be visiting with their MLAs here at the Legislature. These

are people who give back to our communities in so many ways, and they

deserve to be recognized for the incredible impact they have every day

in our province.

BUSINESS AWARD RECIPIENTS

BURNABY

A. Kang: It brings me so much pride to recognize the innovation and the

community spirit of Burnaby businesses and organizations and to

congratulate the winners of this year’s Burnaby Board of Trade Business

Excellence Awards, 2017. The annual awards recognize organizations and

individuals across nine categories.

This year the Burnaby Community Spirit award recognized Lougheed

Town Centre, which creates a sense of community with family-friendly

activities throughout the year. Burnaby Board of Trade’s Business

Excellence Awards this year also recognized Binnie, a civil engineering

consulting firm, for its healthy workplace. We’re also proud that

Burnaby businesses are environmental stewards. Interfor, one of the

world’s largest lumber producers, received the Environmental

Sustainability award for upholding the highest standards in sustainable

woodlands and mill management.

Other award recipients include LMI Technologies, which received

the Business Innovation award for providing accuracy measurements and

data processing at unparalleled speed and accuracy; Fortius Sport and

Health, which received the Entrepreneurial Spirit award for turning its

2013 vision into a world-class health facility; Burnaby Neighbourhood

House, which received the Not-For-Profit Organization of the Year award

for providing a wide range of programs and services that serve to build

community. The Businesses of the Year this year are Cockney Kings Fish

and Chips and Traction on Demand, North America’s largest sales force

consulting and application development partner.

The Business Person of the Year is Peter Legge, from Canada Wide

Media, which continues to be an independent voice of positive change.

This year the Burnaby Board of Trade also inducted Milani Plumbing,

Drainage and Heating into the Burnaby Business Hall of Fame.

Congratulations to all the recipients this year. We at the B.C.

Legislature are very proud of you.

[10:25 a.m.]

COAST SALISH WELCOME POLE PROJECT

AT NORTH VANCOUVER

SCHOOL DISTRICT

J. Thornthwaite: Last month I had the opportunity to visit the Gordon Smith

Gallery, where, along with my legislative colleagues from the North

Shore, I was invited to learn about and participate in the practice of

carving a traditional Coast Salish welcoming pole.

Presented by the Squamish Nation in partnership with the

Tsleil-Waututh Nation, the welcoming pole is being carved from a

300-year-old cedar log that was sourced from the Elaho Valley. Once

complete, this magnificent pole will stand outside of North Vancouver

school district 44.

The carving of the pole is being led by North Vancouver artist

Darren Yelton, who began his carving career under the watchful eye of

his father at age 13. Now a renowned First Nations artist, Darren’s

carving work is inspired by the stories and the myths of the west coast

Salish community, and his refined contemporary style has made his work

much sought-after by international collectors.

Under carver Darren’s expert guidance and watchful eye, we learned

about the complete process involved in carving a welcome pole, from how

an appropriately suited tree is selected to the meanings of the carvings

that will soon adorn the pole. With the chainsaw work now almost

complete, we were invited to take a hands-on attempt at carving the log

using a traditional wood chisel all by ourselves.

Once complete, the welcome pole will greet all who visit the

school district’s education service centre, located in Lonsdale, and

will mark the entrance to Chílhiṅup , which means “high ground”

— the name gifted to the school district by Squamish Nation elders in

I was profoundly impressed by this collaborative act of

reconciliation, and I congratulate all of the partners and participants

behind this project as well as the Coast Salish people, upon whose

traditional territory the North Vancouver school district

resides.

AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS

B. D’Eith: I rise today to recognize a very important industry and very

important community in our province. Today our government is celebrating

B.C. Agriculture Day, highlighting the jobs and economic benefits that

the agriculture and seafood sector bring to our communities.

As well, it’s an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the daily

tangible benefits that B.C. farmers and ranchers provide for us. Every

morning when we put milk in our coffee — or I guess in my case, soy milk

— we’re reminded of the efforts of B.C. farmers. When we slice up an

award-winning apple for our children, we’re reminded of the efforts of

B.C. farmers. When we purchase a bouquet of flowers for a friend or a

loved one, we’re reminded of the efforts of B.C. farmers. Reminder to

buy wife flowers.

Following this year’s terrible wildfire season that saw so many

people in our province’s interior, including farmers and ranchers,

displaced and drastically affected, we’re once again reminded of the

efforts of our B.C. farmers.

We’re joined in today’s celebration of B.C. Agriculture Day by

members of the B.C. Agriculture Council. The BCAC is the only

provincewide general farm organization representing farmers and ranchers

in British Columbia. They proudly serve nearly 30 commodity

associations, many of them here in the chamber and the Legislature

today. Welcome.

Here’s to B.C. Agriculture Day, a day to recognize how important

our agriculture community is to us here in British Columbia. I wish to

thank them for their continued contributions to communities throughout

British Columbia.

Speaker’s Statement

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

AND ROLE OF

SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we begin question period, I have a statement to

make. I will generally read this statement to ensure the exactness of

what I need to say.

Yesterday during question period, the member for

Richmond-Queensborough was called to order after directing the question

to the “minister of consultation paralysis.” Similar to an incident on

October 25, the member was asked to rephrase his question in order to

address the minister by their proper title.

At the conclusion of yesterday’s question period, the official

opposition House Leader raised a point of order to note that members had

in the past been guided by clear rules and conventions concerning

disrespectful or offensive language. The official opposition House

Leader claimed that the words used were not unparliamentary. He also

noted that the Chair’s intervention requiring the withdrawal of language

was inappropriate and suggested standards at play that members were

unaware of and that were not in any way predictable.

[10:30 a.m.]

In speaking to the point of order, the Government House Leader

noted that the language in debate should be guided by good temperance

and not by impugning motives. The Government House Leader added that in

asking a question, it was customary to address a minister of the Crown

by their proper title.

The Third Party House Leader also briefly spoke to the point of

order and noted that elected officials had a duty to show leadership and

to demonstrate that a government can be held accountable without

name-calling.

First, let me be clear. Unparliamentary language may be brought to

the attention of the House by either the Speaker or on any point of

order by any member. Points of order are not permitted during question

period, and the Official Opposition House Leader followed the correct

procedure to raise the matter immediately following that

proceeding.

Standing Order 40(2) states: “No Member shall use offensive words

against any Member of this House.” As Speaker, it is my responsibility

under Standing Order 9 to maintain order in the chamber and to uphold

standing orders, including Standing Order 40. When assessing the use of

offensive, disrespectful or unparliamentary language, a Speaker must

consider not only the words spoken but the context in which they are

used and the resulting effect potentially creating disorder during the

proceedings.

Numerous rulings and parliamentary authorities affirm that

unparliamentary language is not defined in an exhaustive or finite

manner. A Speaker must exercise discretion and consider the context in

which language is used in debate when deciding when to intervene. See

Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice , 24th edition, page 445,

and Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms , sixth edition,

page 143.

Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fourth

edition, page 99, further states that “the codification of

unparliamentary language is impractical, as the Speaker must consider

the context in which the words were spoken, including whether or not the

remarks created disorder in the House.” Therefore, the particular

circumstances of language are not necessarily readily predictable and

must always be considered in the context of order in the House and the

dignity of proceedings.

During question period members address questions to specific

ministers of the Crown. A question should be directed to the minister

officially responsible for the subject matter. See Parliamentary

Practice in British Columbia , fourth edition, page 135. The

appropriate way to refer to a minister is by their proper title or

portfolio, and references to a private member are their constituency

name. That has been the long-standing practice in this House and one I

intend to follow.

In reviewing the events surrounding the point of order, I conclude

that unofficial and, at times, mocking or derogatory titles when

directing a question to a minister of the Crown are indeed disrespectful

to the minister and reflect poorly on this institution.

Circumstances related to this point of order also raised serious

concerns that must be addressed regarding the authority of the Chair.

First and foremost, it is the duty of the Speaker to preside over

debates in this House and to intervene as necessary to maintain order

and decorum, especially in instances where words used in debate are

likely to disrupt proceedings or cause disorder, such as during question

period. As such, I want to keep any interventions during this important

proceeding to a minimum.

[10:35 a.m.]

However, it is always in order for the Speaker or Chair to

intervene when required. The Chair’s intervention during yesterday’s

question period was called into question. Challenges to the authority of

the Speaker are unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the

future.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

HARVESTING OF TIMBER IN

AREAS IMPACTED BY

WILDFIRES

D. Barnett: The Forests Minister was asked a question last week about fibre

supply in the Interior. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a very useful

response.

His words haven’t translated into any action, and action is

desperately needed — massive wildfires, the softwood lumber dispute,

pine beetle and now a fire at the Lakeview mill. People in my riding are

scared that they won’t have jobs to go to. The minister is saying

they’re on it, but nothing is showing for it on the ground.

To the Minister of Forests, what concrete actions has he taken to

address the fire-damaged fibre issue in the Cariboo and the

Fraser-Nicola regions? When will he get on with issuing permits for

licensees so that people can have some certainty?

Hon. D. Donaldson: First, I’d like to address a part of the question from the member

and extend everybody’s heartfelt sympathies with those workers who have

been displaced by the fire in Tolko’s Lakeview mill in Williams Lake.

It’s unbelievable how much resilience the people of Williams Lake are

having to exhibit after the fires this season and now a fire in one of

their major sawmills in that community.

We’re working with the community. I’ve been in touch with the

mayor, I’ve been in touch with the MLA, I’ve been in touch with the

steelworkers, and I’ve been in touch with the company to see how we can

help with that situation as it unfolds. There’s not a full scenario of

the information and the damage at this point, but we’re on top of it.

We’re going to make sure that resources are there for the community and

for the workers.

As far as the flow of logs from the fire-damaged region to mills

in the Interior, logs from fireguards that were put in to help with the

control of the fires and from private lands and woodlots have already

been flowing to mills. Cutting permits have been expedited. The draft

mule deer winter range exemptions have been circulated amongst First

Nations and communities and industry in order to expedite the harvesting

in those areas. Existing licences have been used for salvage operations.

And fair stumpage rates have been established with the companies to

expedite log flow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on a supplementary.

D. Barnett: This is news to me. As of yesterday, my information from my

community was not that. You can say he’s working on it, but these words

ring hollow without actions, and we have seen none.

Mills need fibre to stay running. People in my communities and

throughout the Interior rely on these mills to feed their

families.

Now, I’m sure the minister has talked to the chief forester and

officials in his ministry and asked for analysis of just how much his

dithering is costing. It is not giving us security. It is not making our

communities feel safe and strong. Without permits as fast as we can get

them…. And I know they have not been issued.

Can this minister tell this House exactly what is the value of

timber lost because of his refusal to issue cutting permits and the

damage that is being done to my communities?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I just listed a number of actions to the member. Perhaps she

didn’t hear.

Fireguards that were put in to control the fires. Wood from those

areas have been flowing to mills already. Cutting permits have been

expedited. We’ve provided funding for recovery managers to communities

in Williams Lake, in Quesnel, in 100 Mile House, in the Cariboo Regional

District and to the Ashcroft Indian Band.

[10:40 a.m.]

We’re on top of it. The chief forester is doing an analysis as we

speak, and we’re working with the communities from the ground up to

provide solutions so that workers are protected and so that the fibre

flows and is useful before it degrades in the forest.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on a second

supplemental.

D. Barnett: Minister, how many permits have been signed? How many permits have

been issued? When? And what is the value of those permits?

Hon. D. Donaldson: What people need now in the Cariboo is positive leadership so that

they’re not facing the negativity that this member always exhibits in

this Legislature.

Tourism. We’ve invested $1.6 million in tourism for fire-affected

areas, including $500,000, from Destination B.C., in the

Interior.

We’re working within existing licences to get salvage logs to the

mills. The mills are running right now, and we’re in close touch to make

sure that that fibre supply continues to be ensured so that jobs into

the future are protected.

J. Rustad: I’d like to just point out that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin

can provide more — has provided more — leadership in her riding in the

Cariboo than anybody from that side of the House has

themselves.

The member stands up and has asked a very legitimate question.

Forty-five million cubic metres of wood have been damaged this year by

the wildfires, and we know that this wood has a shelf life.

I understand from what the minister says that the wood that has

been removed — due to whether it’s fencing or fire guards or other

things — is flowing to the mill. But when I asked the minister this

question during estimates, the minister’s response was that they’re

working through a process with the permitting and that no new permits

would be issued, actually, this winter. They were trying to issue those

permits for the fall and winter of 2018-2019 season.

The question I have is straightforward, to the minister. We’ve

heard a lot of words from this minister with regards to the needs for

action. A simple question is: how many permits have been issued to allow

harvesting of timber this winter from this year’s fire

season?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I understand that the member for Nechako Lakes might not

understand process because he was only Forests Minister for two weeks.

But the process we have here is that…. First of all, a fair stumpage

system has to be worked out. We want to make sure that the stumpage that

is applied to the wood from the fires….

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Donaldson: The stumpage is a fair stumpage, and that’s what the ministry

staff have done. They’ve worked out those rates so that the logs can

continue flowing to the mills and that existing licences are being used

to ensure salvage logs get to the mills, and the mills are running. I’ve

talked to Canfor. I’ve talked to Tolko. The mills are running, and we’re

going to make sure that they get the logs that they need.

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

J. Rustad: Well, I take that answer from the minister to mean that zero

permits have been issued for this year’s harvesting season. It’s

unfortunate when you look at the shelf life of this wood and you’ve got

an area in the Cariboo that has been impacted by pine beetle and now has

been impacted by the wildfires. The loss of that fibre is going to have

a significant impact for operations in the Cariboo.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is right in saying that people

are worried. People are worried about their jobs. People are worried

about their future.

[10:45 a.m.]

Also, it’s important that we get out there and start reforesting

these areas that have been impacted. First Nations as well as the people

in the area and the mills want to be able to get on with reforestation.

But of course, before you do that, you need to remove the timber. If you

can’t remove that timber this fall and this winter, obviously, that

means it’s a delay in getting to reforestation for that area as

well.

With the winter logging season fast approaching and knowing it has

a shelf life, will the minister commit to helping these fire-impacted

communities? He says that he wants to fast-track and he’s moving forward

to expedite these permits. Will he commit to getting permits out the

door this winter instead of hiding behind excuses about stumpage

rates?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m not sure what this member or the previous member doesn’t

understand about the answer. Wood is flowing to the mills. Wood that was

damaged from the extensive fires we had throughout this season is

flowing to the mills. We’ve got stumpage set now. We’ve got exemptions

for mule deer winter range being reviewed, and we have salvage logs

under the existing licences being provided to mills.

This member talks about the future. Well, under that government,

30,000 direct jobs were lost in forestry over the 16 years.

OIL AND GAS COMMISSION AND

OVERSIGHT OF INDUSTRY

ACTIVITIES

S. Furstenau: Today’s theme does seem to be about permits. However, my question

is about activities that have been done without permits.

Yesterday, in response to my colleague’s question asking the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources if she thought that

the Oil and Gas Commission adequately monitored oil and gas activities

in B.C., she said: “There’s no doubt about it.” Well, forgive us, but we

have a few doubts — serious doubts, actually — about an agency that has

a history of failing to properly regulate industry.

These 51 dams that were built in B.C. without proper inspection,

regulation or permitting are just the most recent example of this larger

problem. The minister seems concerned about the unauthorized dams but

unwilling to challenge the system that allowed them to proliferate in

the first place.

To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I was

concerned that her response yesterday was dismissive of the larger

systemic issue we are seeing. The B.C. Liberals made a point of ignoring

these issues when they were in office. Does the minister stand by her

comments that there is no issue with the way the Oil and Gas Commission

is regulating this sector?

Hon. M. Mungall: The Oil and Gas Commission has a long-standing history in this

province as an independent, regulatory body. The members of the Green

caucus made some accusations that it has a responsibility to promote the

sector. I pointed out, if you look at the act, that it absolutely does

not. It is purely a regulatory function.

I also let the members know yesterday, as well as writing in a

letter that they received that I sent to them on October 24, that it

was, in fact, the Oil and Gas Commission as well as the Ministry of

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development that

are actually working jointly to address this issue as soon as it came to

their attention.

Like I said, it was the Oil and Gas Commission that identified

those 51 sites. They are working across ministries to ensure that the

situation with those 51 dam sites is indeed dealt with so that nobody is

experiencing any environmental harm as a result.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I’m interested that the response from the minister again does not

directly address the issue that we are seeing: a regulatory body that

isn’t doing its job to regulate. These 51 dams are a symptom.

I’d like to read one quote. “This vast and dispersed network of

water-impoundment structures” — these dams — “is likely to have

extensive effects on everything from aquifers to ecologically unique and

sensitive muskeg systems to water levels in fish-bearing streams and

rivers to beaver ponds and wetlands and to fish, animal and plant

communities of importance to numerous First Nations.”

[10:50 a.m.]

The question, again to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, is: does she recognize that this is a symptom of a regulatory

body that has not been fulfilling its mandate and its duty to ensure

regulation of this industry?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions that the Oil and

Gas Commission has actually been proactive on this issue. Therefore,

that shows that they have been doing their regulatory duty as mandated

under the act.

CHILD CARE PLAN AND FUNDING

L. Throness: One of the main planks in the NDP platform was $10-a-day daycare.

People voted for it. They had the gall to expect that it would actually

be delivered. But the budget update came and went, and there wasn’t one

penny more for child care. In fact, the new government adopted the B.C.

Liberal budget for child care in its entirety.

Buried deep in the NDP platform, there was a very specific promise

on $10-a-day care. They promised to spend $175 million more on child

care in the last half of this fiscal year, before March 31. At the very

first opportunity, they shattered that promise, along with so many

others. Why did the government break its direct and specific promise to

spend $175 million more on child care in this fiscal year?

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to thank the opposition member for asking this very

important question about child care in B.C. We know how hard it has been

for parents in B.C. to find affordable, quality and accessible child

care for far too many years. The previous B.C. Liberal government failed

to address the child care crisis in B.C. for 16 years.

There are so many parents, child care providers, front-line

workers and early childhood educators that I’ve been having meaningful

conversations with during the past few months. They have shared with me

their frustration that the previous government had not done anything

meaningful to address B.C. families’ needs.

That is why I’m so proud to be part of this government that has

made a strong commitment to invest in child care. We have already been

working…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: …on an implementation plan that will make sure that we bring

affordable, quality, accessible and safe child care to B.C.

families.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: It’s a bit disappointing. After 16 years on this side of the

House, I would have expected a shred of idealism on the other side. They

had lots of money, but after a few months, it’s only bluster and broken

promises.

Interjections.

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

L. Throness: The government did not promise $10-a-day daycare immediately, but

they did promise the first installment, the first step, of $175 million

right now, in this year. But without apology, without explanation, they

broke faith, not with the people on this side of the House but with

their own voters.

My question to the minister. I’ve compared the NDP platform with

the estimates, and something is missing; $175 million is missing.

Where’s the money? Parents want to know. Where’s the money?

Hon. K. Chen: I think this is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, if I may ask you to sit for a moment, please.

Minister.

Hon. K. Chen: I think it is a bit rich to hear the opposition member talking

about investing in child care in B.C. when they had 16 years and failed

to do anything meaningful. When I have been having conversations with

child care providers, local parents…

Interjections.

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

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: …and ECE workers, they are thrilled to see that we finally have a

government that is willing to have a meaningful conversation, to talk

about implementation of a universal child care plan that will work for

all B.C. families.

We are already working on the details of the implementation, and

in the coming weeks and months, we’re going to make sure that we put

together a plan that will work for B.C. families. It will be ready for

the February budget.

Members from the community are very excited to be working

together. Actually, just next week we’re going to have an in-person

consultation on how we can work together on child care plans in B.C. We

are going to make it happen as a reality for B.C. families because,

under the previous government, families have been waiting for too long

for the services that they deserve.

FUNDING FOR SERVICES TO

CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES

J. Isaacs: During the recent election campaign, the government made strong

promises, stirring promises, about children and families. They would

implement the Ed John report, give more supports for Aboriginal

children, more for delegated Aboriginal agencies, more for mental health

and a promise of $175 million as the first step towards $10-a-day

daycare. Yet in this first budget, the government didn’t have a single

penny more for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

How does the Minister of Children and Family Development account

for not just one but an entire new series of broken NDP promises — and

most of them to Indigenous people?

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to thank the member for this question. She wasn’t here,

so I’d just like to provide a little history. Under the previous

government, the first time the previous government had an opportunity to

present a budget in this House, they cut the Ministry of Children and

Family by 23 percent. They gutted it. I remember it well because I

worked in the sector. I remember talking to parents. I remember meeting

with people who weren’t getting services.

Yes, we have work to do. The reason we have work to do is because

the members on the opposite side did not do the work, did not engage in

the work. We are working with Grand Chief Ed John, with his

recommendations, because they need to be implemented.

There is a shameful record in this province. Sixty

percent…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: …of the children in care are Indigenous. That is absolutely

shameful. That is the legacy of the people on that side of the House,

and we are working to change it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a

supplemental.

CHILD CARE PLAN AND FUNDING

J. Isaacs: Even the NDP’s most passionate supporters are disappointed in this

government.

Sharon Gregson of the Coalition of Child Care Advocates was

shocked that the budget update in September failed to address one of the

biggest platform commitments. “People are asking me if it’s really going

to happen,” Gregson said. “People thought they were voting for a

$10-a-day plan.”

To the minister, the NDP did not keep their promise to spend $175

million….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could hear the question, please.

Member, if you could repeat the question, please.

J. Isaacs: The NDP did not keep their promise to spend $175 million in the

September budget. Why should the people of B.C. believe that they will

keep their promise in the future?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s interesting that the member should raise Sharon Gregson. We

just met with her this weekend, and she was a passionate supporter of

what this government is doing.

Sharon Gregson, as well as numerous advocates for child care in

this province, recognizes that we are going to be implementing one of

the most significant social policies that this province has seen in

many, many years. Sharon, as well as all the other advocates and

parents, knows that in order for us to implement a child care system, a

system that is accessible, affordable….

It’s a quality system that is safe so that we don’t have

situations like the parents of Baby Mac, who had to sit and suffer

through that tragedy because they couldn’t access quality, affordable,

accessible child care. They were in a private facility that had no

licensing, and they had no idea. That cannot happen again, and we are

working to ensure that that will not happen again in this province. We

will deliver a safe, affordable, accessible child care system that this

province has not had for 16 years.

POTENTIAL CHANGE TO FAMILY DAY

AND IMPACT ON TOURISM

INDUSTRY

S. Thomson: A few weeks ago the Premier sent up a trial balloon on officially

changing Family Day, a move that isn’t surprising, given his record of

acting first and then doing research later. This is what he said: “I’m

leaning towards lining up with other provinces across the country.” Then

his office put out a statement that said they’re looking to see how

quickly they can make this happen.

These comments have sent the tourism industry scrambling to figure

out what this means for them. Michael Ballingall, the vice-president of

Big White Ski Resort, says: “This is not something the tourism industry

will be supportive of…. Fewer British Columbians will be able to travel

to tourism destinations.”

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, the

minister responsible for the tourism sector. What was the rationale

behind announcing this policy on the radio, and has the minister

actually analyzed the implications of what such a change would have on

the sector that she is responsible for?

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for my first question in the House. But you

know what I didn’t hear in that question? A discussion about families

and what’s best for them.

Family Day is meant to bring families together from all across

this country. When we have children who don’t get to see their parents

on Family Day because their parents’ industry doesn’t align with the

rest of the country and they’re forced to work, we have children and

parents that lose out on quality family time, which was the original

intent of the holiday.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

S. Thomson: It’s very clear, listening to the answers and to the comments

yesterday from the members on the discussion on this issue, that no one

was really aware of the Premier’s recent radio announcement. Not only

were the backbenchers unaware of the Premier’s policy, but even the

minister responsible for tourism, an industry that will be hardest hit

with this policy, was out of the loop. Mr. Ballingall went on to point

out that the minister spent an entire day with the industry and “didn’t

say a word about this all day.”

To the minister, who has been silent on the issue up until now,

what is her position on changing Family Day? Thousands of tourism

operators, over 19,000 businesses in British Columbia, are waiting for

an explanation, and 125,000 employees in that sector want an

explanation. Has the minister actually analyzed the impacts of this

change on the sector that she is responsible for?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I must say that I’m very proud to be part of a government that’s

going to put families first and make sure that families are the top

priority. When you keep people at the centre of government

decision-making and consider the needs of all families across this

province, it becomes clear how important it is to ensure that families

can take advantage of spending a day together.

If your family owns or works in a business that has customers or

ships products or does business with any other jurisdiction outside of

B.C., there’s an unnecessary burden put on your family, and you don’t

get to spend quality time with them. I’m a mother, and I know how

important it is to spend time with my daughter.

Every weekend I spend time in my community, and I hear time and

time again the challenges families face in spending quality time

together in this current situation. I would like to say that I am proud

to be part of a government that puts families and children

first.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Furstenau: I have a petition to present to the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may have quiet.

S. Furstenau: Thank you.

I have a petition to present from Mark Edwardson of Mount Douglas

Secondary School, who has brought forward a list of names of people who

would like the upcoming referendum on proportional representation to be open

to 16-year-olds to vote in, as it is their future electoral landscape that

is being decided. He has made a very excellent case for how engaged and

informed high school students are today.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the

Office of the Ombudsperson, 2016-2017.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In Committee A, I call the estimates

for the Ministry of Attorney General.

[11:10 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $95,006,000

(continued).

P. Milobar: I apologize. I believe this may have been covered off yesterday. I

was in other estimates at the time. I just wanted to clarify that there

was an increase to the ministerial staffing budget, I believe the

minister referenced yesterday, of around $40,000. I just want to make

sure I understood, reading through the transcripts from yesterday — that

I saw that correctly.

Hon. M. Mungall: Actually, this was not asked yesterday at all. It might have been

in different estimates. We covered a lot of other topics, some not so

much in order, others very much in order.

This question though, to answer it…. The member is correct that

$40,000 was added to the ministry office budget to cover off five staff

that have been allocated to my ministry as well as all other

ministries.

P. Milobar: Thank you for the answer. I’m wondering if the minister currently

has or is planning in the next short while to be locating a ministerial

assistant within the minister’s constituency office.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Ministerial assistants are located here in Victoria.

S. Bond: I’d like to spend a couple of minutes talking about a project that

is incredibly important when we’re talking about clean energy in British

Columbia. I’m wondering if the minister can give me a sense of her

understanding and the status of the project that’s being suggested by

Borealis GeoPower.

Hon. M. Mungall: To the member, I know that she is very interested in this project.

It’s in her region. I’ve been fully briefed on it by staff.

We’re very supportive of this project. I think it poses some

pretty interesting opportunities. So far, to date, in terms of

geothermal production, which is what Borealis is, there hasn’t been any

exploration that has proved up to be viable, but Borealis is doing that

exploration. They’re confident that they can actually prove a viable

geothermal source, so we’re very supportive of them doing that

work.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister for her response. I appreciate

that.

Certainly, in my riding, and particularly in Valemount and other

parts of the region, the opportunity to diversify the economy is

absolutely essential. One of the things that’s critical to that is a

secure supply of power, because it’s very hard to attract industry and

others if you can’t guarantee them a stable source of power. And there

has been ongoing…. I admit, over my 16 years as the MLA for this area,

that secure and stable power has been a significant issue.

So looking to diversify the economy, looking to create jobs....

Not a big number, but in our riding, even one new job matters. This

project being proposed by Borealis GeoPower is a geothermal project. I

have, certainly, over the course of a number of ministers, talked about

the importance of looking at the portfolio, including alternative energy

sources like geothermal.

The concern I have is that there continues to be a need for a

permit expansion on the Canoe Reach geothermal project. I know that the

proponents have been here. I have actually met with the leader of the

Green Party about this project. And apparently, the permit is sitting

somewhere waiting for approval.

Can the minister, perhaps, explain to us if and when that permit

for expansion may be approved?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said earlier in my response, our ministry is supportive of

the project. We see a lot of potential. We’re excited about the

opportunity for geothermal to potentially be proved up in this province.

To date, it has yet to be done. We’re glad that Borealis is looking to

do the work.

The ministry is actively engaged with them and is working with

them throughout that permitting process. As the minister will know,

there are statutory decision-makers involved in those stages. So my

understanding at this point is that their applications are under

consideration, and they are actively working with the ministry, and the

ministry is actively working with them.

S. Bond: I appreciate that answer. I just don’t feel overly encouraged by

it.

[11:20 a.m.]

I appreciate the support for the potential of the project. I think

it is essential, as we’re having a major discussion in our province

about clean energy, particularly in a region of the province that really

needs to be able to diversify their economy.

I want to walk through some of the…. I’m the first to admit that

this permit was provided to the previous government — us, basically — so

this is not a short-term issue. In fact, the initial feedback about this

application was provided in February of 2017. That was nine months after

the original request from the Ministry of Energy, Mines — where it was

stated that the ministry had completed the pre-tenure referral process.

However, they were waiting, at that time, for the development of

regulations. That wasn’t completed. The writ period came, the election

came, and the new cabinet wasn’t formed until July 18.

This company, which is working very hard to…. It is one of the

projects where I’ve seen significant support in my region, where people

have stepped up and said: “This is something that we would like to see

happen.” The delay has continued. The last information that certainly

the company received was that the permit request was “with cabinet

operations and the minister.”

It sounds to me like the permit is ready to be signed. I’m

wondering if the minister can at least agree today that the ministry

will look at where the permit request is and when it will be

signed.

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate that Borealis and the member for the region would

like to see this moving forward in a timely manner. I heard her comment

about the length of time it already took under her government, that

there was a nine-month time frame. If she’s wondering if, in the last

four months, we’re moving at a more speedy pace, I can say

yes.

A. Weaver: I’d like to follow up on the questioning from the member for

Prince George–Valemount on this issue of Borealis. I, too, have met —

with the member for Prince George–Valemount — several times with the

proponents of this project. My understanding is identical to the former

minister’s understanding, in that the permit is actually in the OIC

process, waiting for signature.

My question would basically repeat, initially, the question made

by the member: will the minister commit to actually looking, in terms of

what’s in the queue in the OIC approval process, to determine whether or

not she can expedite the signing of this permit? It is — I believe, as

the member does — in her jurisdiction, not in the jurisdiction of a

statutory decision–maker.

Hon. M. Mungall: I should let the member know that, due to the oath that I signed,

I’m not at liberty to discuss cabinet agendas.

A. Weaver: I accept that as an answer. I do bring it to notice, though, as

the member opposite did, that the answer we did receive was one that, I

would argue, is not the relevant answer, because permitting is not

before a statutory decision–maker. It is before cabinet as we speak, in

my understanding.

I’m coming to a question, then. This particular project, this

Borealis project, is at the end of a transmission line in a community,

Valemount, that’s subject to brownouts already, at the same time as

there’s an approval process for the development of a major ski resort,

Glacier Destinations.

This is a community where the Simpcw Nation wants this to happen.

Valemount wants this to happen. The company wants to develop. The holdup

is primarily, almost exclusively, in the minister’s office. Will the

minister commit to actually looking at this project so that we don’t

lose yet another investment — not of taxpayer money but investor money —

in a community that’s dying to get this forward?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m glad that we have members from both of the opposition parties

— the official opposition and the Green Party, as well — who are

supportive of this project. As I mentioned to the member for Prince

George–Valemount, government is very supportive of this project. We have

to do our due diligence. That’s government’s job, as a regulatory body.

I believe members of the Green Party were just asking questions in

question period to that effect — that government has a job to do in

terms of a regulatory function. We are doing that.

The Borealis project, as I’m very happy to see members from all

sides of the House agree, is a positive project and a good opportunity

for British Columbia if they are able to prove up any exploration that

they’re able to do of the geothermal resource. As I mentioned, there has

been past exploration of geothermal resources in B.C. that have not been

able to prove up a sufficient resource to generate electricity. We’re

hoping that that may change with Borealis.

That being said, as I’ve said to members already, I cannot discuss

cabinet agendas, but the due diligence around this project has been

done. Our ministry, our government, is very supportive of it, and we

look forward to continue working with them into the future.

A. Weaver: I’m surprised the minister would suggest that exploration has been

done in geothermal that has not proven up a resource when B.C. Hydro has

done precisely no exploration on geothermal and companies associated

with the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association have done exploration to

say that we have an enormous potential. In fact, we are the only

jurisdiction in the Pacific Rim that does not have a geothermal capacity

— not because we don’t have it but because there has been no will to

develop it.

I come back to the issue of Valemount. Valemount is at the end of

a transmission line that leaves Valemount to brownouts all the time in

the winter. B.C. Hydro has to upgrade that transmission line, and

there’s a massive capital cost involved in doing that. B.C. Hydro

produces power, is the sole purchaser of power and also is responsible

for the development of transmission of power.

My question to the minister is: how does she ensure that the

transmission component of B.C. Hydro actually talks with the part of

B.C. Hydro that purchases power so they recognize that the cost benefit

of developing transmission line power is there, to avoid the unnecessary

expense of capital to upgrade transmission lines? If you upgrade the

power at the end point, you don’t need to bring up the transmission line

to give more power to the end point. Will she commit to ensure that B.C.

Hydro starts to talk between the different branches so that the actual

full capital cost of moving forward is recognized when this is

done?

Hon. M. Mungall: I just want to address something that the member said, before I

get to the actual answer to the question. The member said that B.C.

Hydro had never done any exploration of geothermal. That is actually not

the case. Let me take this opportunity to make sure he is aware of what

happened in the 1980s.

B.C. Hydro actually explored a site at Mount Meager as part of the

federal geothermal program that existed in the 1970s and 1980s. They

drilled dozens of holes to understand the temperature at that location.

They drilled three production wells to attempt to find commercial

resource. Unfortunately, they had no commercial success.

[11:30 a.m.]

They spent about $25 million doing this activity, and the result

was that there was just not enough steam or water to move into full

electrical production. I wanted to make sure that the member was aware

that actually that work has been done by B.C. Hydro. I should also

mention that further work has been attempted since then in that site,

yet with the same result.

In terms of the transmission that the member asked about, everyone

is in agreement. Whether it’s B.C. Hydro or whether it’s the ministry,

we all agree that there are definite benefits and reliability to the

transmission site should Borealis be successful and be able to prove up

this resource.

Again, I feel like there’s a little bit of a characterization from

members opposite that somehow this government isn’t supportive of the

Borealis project when, in fact, we actually are. I’m very pleased to see

that that support is shared by all parties in the House.

A. Weaver: I’m sorry. My last question. I just to want to comment on the

statement about Mount Meager.

Mount Meager was done in the 1980s — one location. There has been

an entire report published by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association

in 2014 outlining the myriad places in British Columbia where geothermal

capacity exists. To suggest that one study by B.C. Hydro in the 1980s

represents a feasibility analysis in British Columbia is misleading.

B.C. Hydro has not taken the proactive steps to explore geothermal

capacity in British Columbia.

I reiterate. We are the only jurisdiction in the Pacific Rim that

has no geothermal capacity — none — and it’s because B.C. Hydro builds

dams. That’s what they do. In fact, they’re not actually tasked in their

mandate to build geothermal. So why would we expect them to explore

it?

I would suggest…. I do appreciate that the minister is supportive

of this, but I think it’s important that the minister not dismiss the

fact that B.C. Hydro has not explored British Columbia for geothermal

capacity. It’s not me saying that. It’s the National Energy Board review

of the Site C project that’s said that. It’s the Canadian Geothermal

Energy Association report in 2014 that’s said that. It’s submissions to

the BCUC process now that said it. So I would suggest the minister

recognize that B.C. Hydro has not done exploration of geothermal in B.C.

Experts across British Columbia and across North America have said

exactly that as well.

S. Bond: Apparently, the minister didn’t feel there was a question there,

so I’ll provide another one.

It’s like we have a raging agreement going on in this Legislature.

It’s not about divulging cabinet secrets about the agenda; it’s about

asking for a reasonable explanation to these proponents about when they

can expect the permit for expansion to be signed.

It’s a simple question. Can the minister or her staff provide us

with some sense…? You know, this proponent and this community…. I

appreciate the comments made by the leader of the Green Party. This

matters a lot. This has taken enormous consultation. It is a community

that is in agreement with this. The minister has said she supports the

project. When can we expect to see the signed permit?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I’ve said before, we appreciate the value of this project to

the region. We appreciate the opportunity it has to provide for British

Columbia, for Prince George–Valemount in particular. That being

said….

[11:35 a.m.]

I appreciate that the member opposite would like a conclusive

answer today. She knows the process of estimates. If I was able to

provide that, I would have. I’m not able to provide that for her today,

but I will commit that we are working on it in a timely fashion. It’s

unfortunate that her government was not able to approve it in such a

way. We, however, will be doing that.

S. Bond: I just want to quote from a note that said: “We have heard back

from a staff member in the ministry on October 13, who said the permit

request was with cabinet operations and the minister.” I hardly think

that that is timely. We’re well into November now. It’s just a matter of

actually sorting out who is going to advocate for that permit to be

signed to get the matter completed.

My final question relates to B.C. Hydro. I understand that in a

conversation with the BCUC, they are suggesting that B.C. Hydro partner

with industry to develop geothermal projects. I’m not sure if the

minister is aware of that. If she is, can she also tell me whether or

not she has had a conversation with the minister who is responsible for

Columbia Power Corp and the Columbia Basin Trust to talk about whether

or not the Columbia Power Corp could be included in a discussion about a

partnership of that nature?

Hon. M. Mungall: First off, I just want to state for the record that B.C. Hydro is

interested in geothermal and proved-up sources and working with

companies like Borealis, should they be successful.

The member’s question was whether I’ve spoken with the Minister of

Children and Families, who is also responsible for the Columbia Power

Corporation. My understanding is it’s probably coming from a letter she

would have received from Borealis. Borealis was looking for funding, is

my understanding, from Columbia Basin Trust and perhaps maybe a

partnership, is my guess, with the Columbia Power Corporation in terms

of moving forward and seeking some financial support. That is not within

my ministry.

To her question of if I’ve had an opportunity to meet with the

minister responsible for CBT and CPC, I have not yet to date.

S. Bond: Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask these

questions.

As we’ve heard in this House today, Valemount has either the most

power outages in the entire B.C. Hydro grid system or is at least one of

the communities that has the most.

There is an opportunity with a geothermal project in the Robson

Valley to actually do some very significant things, which actually has

important trickle-down effects. Growing the economy — hard to do if you

can’t say there is a secure and stable power source. Certainly, as we’ve

reviewed this file and met with Borealis in the community and numerous

times here in Victoria, what’s standing between getting to drill on the

land and move toward operations is an outstanding geothermal

permit.

I would simply urge the minister to advocate on behalf of this —

getting the permit signed and getting on with what is an essential

opportunity to look at alternative sources of energy in a part of the

province that needs them significantly.

[11:40 a.m.]

M. Bernier: I want to go back to a question that came from my colleague from

Kamloops–North Thompson. I believe the minister probably would have

understood the tone of what the question was. We asked about political

staff. Are there any political staff paid for out of the ministry,

within the minister’s ministry, that are actually located in her

constituency?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

C. Oakes: Placer plays a significant role in our communities. I know, for

the minister, the placer sector is a significant industry in your region

as well. This past summer the placer sector has been significantly

impacted by the wildfires.

I have two specific questions. Perhaps maybe just to put a little

bit more context…. Many people don’t really understand the placer sector

and the impact it has in our rural communities. We currently have 150

active placer licences in Cariboo North, but there are as many as 400 to

500 mechanical operators and equally as many hand operators in our

region.

Last year the Cariboo Mining Association did an economic impact

study, and the industry, in six months alone, injected over $122 million

into our local economy. It’s a significant small business, mom-and-pop

operators. They purchase vehicles in our communities. They support our

industrial suppliers — very, very significant employers in our community

as well.

My first question is around safety. One of the most troubling

aspects of the wildfire season is to recognize that we had so many

people out on the land base that we knew were operational but didn’t

always know where they were.

As the fires flared up, as roads were being cut off, as

communities were being cut off and as individuals were being cut off, I

spent a significant amount of my time as an MLA working closely with the

Cariboo Mining Association trying to identify where placer operators may

be and steps that we could take to make sure they were informed, that we

were communicating with them, often in areas…. Well, not often. The

majority of our areas are without cell service and Internet. So it was

an incredibly difficult season as far as keeping this important sector

safe.

There are opportunities to work closely with the Ministry of

Energy and Mines, as well as Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, to

ensure that safety is taken in place — and specifically, filling out the

FS 1404 forms.

Will the minister commit to working closely to make sure that

safety of the placer sector is foremost in your ministry’s mind and in

looking at steps in a way, moving forward, that we can ensure

that?

Hon. M. Mungall: I understood the question to be: is this a priority for the

ministry? Absolutely. Safety of our citizens absolutely is always, first

and foremost, the number one concern. Yesterday I had the opportunity to

talk about our province’s safety record when it came to major mines. Our

mining sector, particularly around major mines, actually has the best

safety record for heavy industry in the province.

[11:45 a.m.]

You rightly point out that this was quite the year with the

unprecedented fire season, and we have a lot to learn from that. The

ministry is presently actively engaging with placer mining associations,

as there are several, on this very issue, in terms of what are the

lessons learned, so that we can improve our safety practices for the

future.

C. Oakes: I appreciate that commitment towards safety for this important

small business sector.

I have received numerous letters in my office from the placer

sector. One of the challenges that we had…. Again, we have identified….

In 2016, an economic development study was done by the sector. In six

months, the industry, again, injected $122,183,630 into our local

regional economy, so a very significant impact.

The challenge that the industry faced this past summer was that

all of industry, really, in the province was shut down. We certainly

understand that all of the permitting staff moved from the office of

permitting in order to support the wildfire sector. We certainly

understand that.

Now we’re left in a situation where permits didn’t get released

this past summer. So when you look at the economic impact of an entire

industry shut down…. It’s seasonal, of course. The placer sector can

only operate when there’s no snow on the ground. So you have $122

million that is now a gap out of our regional economy. And our placer

sector — there’s twofold.

First, is there any ability through contingencies to help support

the sector, even if it’s on permitting fees, lost permitting fees? And

part of permits required for the placer sector requires a certain amount

of work done annually as part of their contract with the tenure with the

Crown. They’re required to do certain steps. Many of them, of course,

were not able to do that this past year because they weren’t even able

to get access onto their tenures.

Is there funding in contingencies to help support the placer

sector that lost an entire season, and what would that amount

be?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think we have a little bit of a good-news story here for the

minister. The chief gold commissioner has already created a process to

waive the fees in lieu of doing the work for placer miners. They’re just

in the process of going through the applications to waive those fees,

recognizing that this wildfire season was unprecedented.

We want to make sure that people who were not able to do work for

no fault of their own are not having to pay fees in lieu of not being

able to do that work.

C. Oakes: Thank you very much to your team for that. I know it’ll be good

news for our placer sector.

[11:50 a.m.]

One final question. Really, it comes as far as how placer is

classified, the classification within the forest, lands and natural

resource legislation. One of the key points that the placer sector

identified is that they have, with other industries, been deemed a

high-risk danger activity, and of course, placer is a different

industry. It certainly is more of a low-risk industrial activity the way

that mechanical hand operators and hand operators operate.

Would you consider working closely with the FLNRO office to look

at how the placer industry is currently classified within the

legislation?

Hon. M. Mungall: The staff who would be responsible for this classification are in

a different ministry, so I’m not able to respond in terms of the broader

details. I would imagine that a reclassification would probably impact

insurance. The miners would see less if we did do a reclassification.

But those are the type of the broader issues that we would be looking at

in terms of changing any type of classification.

Most importantly, we want to make sure that people are safe and if

there is any type of activity that requires higher insurance or so on,

that that is being applied for. That’s the primary concern.

But what I can do is essentially take that on notice and get back

to the member opposite with further detail at a later time.

I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $427,236,000.

Hon. D. Eby: I will keep my opening remarks brief. I just want to welcome staff

who are here with me today: Richard Fyfe, Deputy Attorney General; Peter

Juk, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, B.C. prosecution service; and

David Hoadley, acting executive financial officer and acting ADM,

corporate management services branch.

There are other staff who will be joining us over the course of

the debates. I’ll introduce them as they join us. It’s certainly been an

honour to serve, so far, as Attorney General. We have a very diverse

mandate to administer justice and provide legal advice to

government.

In addition, this ministry now has responsibility for gaming

policy and enforcement, and liquor control and licensing, as well as the

B.C. Lottery Corporation, ICBC and the Liquor Distribution

Branch.

[11:15 a.m.]

I want to take a moment to thank all the staff working in the

Ministry of Attorney General operations and court services all across

the province, each and every day, and thank them for their work and

commitment on behalf of all British Columbians.

I look forward to members’ questions.

A. Wilkinson: We’ll just start off, I think, by working through dollar numbers

in the budget and then get to the mandate letter and then get to more

general questions, and issues specific following that. Once that is

wrapped up, we’ll move on to gaming, ICBC and liquor.

To start with, we see that there has been an increment in the

budget in the blue book from $415.881 million to $427.236 million.

Perhaps I could have an understanding of that increment, which is in the

range of 2 percent. Is that a change in mandate, or is that simply the

economic stability mandate increment in compensation?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll just run through what makes up the difference between those

two numbers that the member listed for 2017-18. There is zero impact on

the budget from the economic stability mandate. The impact came from

$2.64 million for the Surrey courthouse and Crown expansion; $400,000

for the Surrey justice access centre; $1.8 million for the superior

judiciary structural pressure that we face; $1.41 million, sheriff

staffing; $1.26 million, sheriffs at the Okanagan Correctional Centre;

half a million dollars for the guns and gangs strategy; $450,000 for the

economic stability dividend.

There’s actually a negative item which impacted the budget. There

was a change in the employee benefit chargeback rate. It went from 24.8

percent to 24.34 percent, which had a $1.4 million positive impact on

the budget. The subtotal of those items is $7.06 million.

We also had the July reorganization, bringing gaming policy and

enforcement branch and liquor control and licensing branch into the

ministry, which was $19.15 million. We had February staff transfers to

Public Safety and Solicitor General. That was a positive budget increase

of $420,000. Then we had the February tribunal transfers. This is the

transfer of tribunals that are the responsibility of the ministry, which

was a $10.12 million impact on the budget. The total of those items all

together is $35.91 million, which is the year-over-year

change.

A. Wilkinson: Thank you. We may be speaking at cross-purposes. I notice in the

fiscal plan on page 19, there’s a change from $577 million down to $534

million, which is presumably the $43 million referred to by the minister

just now. There’s an increase of $12 million in the blue book totals,

from $415.88 million to $427.236 million. Perhaps we can have some

understanding of why those two numbers differ. One is a decrease and one

is an increase.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member initially asked about the difference between the

$427.240 million number, which is the September update to the estimates,

2017-18, and the $415.880 million number, which was part of the restated

estimates in 2016-17. I’m going to clarify my answer here, because I’m

afraid that I led the member astray here. The difference between those

two numbers is around $13.98 million.

I’m just going to get a little more clarification, Member, before

I fill in any further here.

The member is asking about the operations budget, and the numbers

that I’m giving are broader than that. They’re across the entire

ministry. So the difference between the two numbers is actually closer

to $11 million.

The easiest way to explain that number is to look ministrywide.

The difference between the two budgets is $13.98 million. There’s the

$7.06 million that I went through in some detail in my previous answer.

In addition, there’s $3.06 million related to salary increases for Crown

and legal counsel, and there’s $3.86 million — the member was right in

his initial question — in relation to the economic stability mandate

salary increases for eligible unionized employee groups.

When you add those three numbers together, it’s $13.98 million,

which is not the $11 million number. In order to get the $11 million

number, you have to strip out the judicial piece from that, as well as

some other, smaller numbers. The easiest way to get to that is to look

at the entire ministry, rather than just the operations side, because

there are other numbers built in there.

A. Wilkinson: So just for clarity, a good component of the incremental $11½

million in the blue book ministry operations budget is actually economic

stability mandate, with no real change in functions of the ministry. Is

that correct?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: A good chunk was certainly the economic stability mandate, which

was $3.86 million, but there were changes — for example, staffing at

Surrey courthouse and a Crown expansion there; expansion of sheriffs at

the Okanagan Correctional Centre. And sheriff staffing overall was $1.4

million. So there were some changes there as well.

A. Wilkinson: So to summarize, apart from the changes that have been mentioned —

a couple of courthouses and the compensation increment under the

economic stability mandate — there’s been effectively no increase in the

ministry budget for the coming fiscal year. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Aside from the Surrey courthouse expansion, Surrey justice access

centre, judiciary structural pressure issues, sheriff staffing, Okanagan

Correctional Centre, guns and gangs strategy, the member is correct. The

remainder is related to economic stability mandate salary

increases.

A. Wilkinson: To come back to my original question, we see in the three-year

fiscal plan that the ministry budget is stated differently, as declining

by $43 million from $577 million to $534 million and then in increments

by $6 million or less than, roughly, 1 percent to the next fiscal year.

And then it goes up by 0.2 percent in fiscal ’19-20.

Perhaps we could have a bit of a reconciliation of the $100

million difference and how that arises in the fiscal plan as against the

ministry operations in the blue book. I’m more than happy to lend my

copy of the fiscal plan to the other side if they’d find it

helpful.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for sharing the page so that we’re all,

literally, on the same page. It’s my understanding that the change in

this is largely due to the fact that in 2016-17, settlements under the

Crown Proceeding Act exceeded budget by $47 million. The budgeted amount

was $24 million, so adding the two numbers together, you get about $72

million. The reason for the difference between the actuals and the

budgeted amount is the expectation that the Crown Proceeding Act

settlements will be closer to budget this time.

[11:30 a.m.]

A. Wilkinson: So just to clarify that, the actual, of course, includes the

unexpected Crown Proceeding Act compensation. I presume that comes out

of contingencies.

Hon. D. Eby: I understand it came out of statutory appropriations, which is

different than contingencies.

A. Wilkinson: I’m just going to briefly take you to page 40 of the three-year

fiscal plan. It just notes the only capital expenditure projects greater

than $50 million continue to be the Abbotsford courthouse, for which $2

million has been projected to the end of June 2017, and there’s an

ongoing cost. I just look to the minister to confirm the Abbotsford

courthouse will continue to be funded through this fiscal

plan.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m certainly glad to advise the people of Abbotsford and the

member that we remain committed to this project, and we will be building

the new courthouse facility there for that community, which is certainly

needed.

A. Wilkinson: To confirm, there are no other capital projects in the three-year

fiscal plan exceeding $50 million at all within the ministry,

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct, not in our current budget.

A. Wilkinson: If we turn to the mandate letter now. I’ll take you to page 2 of

that. I couldn’t find any reference in it to balancing the budget within

the ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Just going by memory here, I don’t recall it being in there. But

certainly one of those things that goes without saying is that the

Premier expects us to work within the budget envelope we’re given, and

we are still subject to pre-existing accountability rules for ministers

around salary clawbacks and so on. We’re certainly expected to work

within the means that are set out for us in the budgetary

process.

A. Wilkinson: If we go to the bottom of page 2 of the mandate letter, it refers

to six bulleted provisions. I’ll just refer to them in brief: to reform

campaign financing laws; introduce legislation to hold a provincewide

referendum on proportional representation; introduce legislation to

reform lobbying in B.C.; re-establish the Human Rights Commission;

increase the number of court sheriffs, expand the use of duty counsel

and increase staffing for the court services branch; and finally, to

improve and support legal aid, including First Nations legal

services.

It carries on with two more points on the next page: to work with

First Nations to set targets and take action to reduce the numbers of

Aboriginal people involved in the justice system and incarcerated; and

conduct a comprehensive operating review of ICBC.

From the conversation we’ve had to point, I don’t hear anything to

provide for budget for these items, except perhaps the number of court

sheriffs. Can the minister just confirm there’s no budget whatsoever for

any of these items in the ministry operations document in the blue book

or in the fiscal plan?

Hon. D. Eby: There are some really important items that have been assigned to

me in my role as Attorney General by the Premier.

[11:35 a.m.]

The member observes correctly that there is money allocated for

the increase in sheriff staffing, which is quite a desperate situation.

We’re currently flying sheriffs around the province and requiring huge

levels of overtime in order to ensure that our courts stay open. The

member is correct to note that we have allocated money in the budget in

relation to sheriff staffing to deal with that.

A number of the additional pieces that the member identifies are

in the process of implementation. For example, we introduced legislation

on a provincewide referendum on proportional representation. That bill

is before the House. He is correct: there is no money in the budget for

a bill that has not yet passed through the Legislature. In addition,

we’re in a consultation process, so the actual cost of that will depend

on the feedback of British Columbians.

We have made a commitment to re-establish the Human Rights

Commission. The parliamentary secretary responsible for the Human Rights

Commission is travelling across the province to hear from the people

about the shape and structure of that organization.

So the member is correct. There is no budget item. We don’t

actually know what that organization is going to look like yet until we

finish our consultation with British Columbians. I expect a report in

December from the parliamentary secretary and rolling out of additional

announcements in the new year related to the structure of the

reinvigorated commission.

The member is correct on a very pressing item, which is legal aid

and First Nations legal services. To that end, the mandate letter also

instructs me to implement the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

people and the recommendations around the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission. The core of both those documents is: nothing about those

communities without them, that First Nations need to be consulted at

every step on matters that affect them.

That’s why we committed and signed an MOU with the First Nations

justice council and committed to work with them to identify their

priorities and ensure they were in the February budget in a consultative

process with them to make sure we weren’t working at odds with their

priorities. That also speaks to our work with those communities around

taking action to reduce the number of Indigenous people in the prison

system.

Finally, the member will know — and we’ll get into this during the

ICBC

section — that we’ve already initiated the comprehensive operating

review of ICBC. Additional policy work is underway right now. Any impact

on the budget would be in the February budget for ICBC, in respect of

that requirement of the mandate letter.

A. Wilkinson: Having noted that, through your fiscal plan, the budget through to

the end of March 31 of next year is $534 million and goes up to $541

million in the subsequent fiscal year, for a total of $6 million, and a

0.2 percent increase in the following fiscal year, from what the member

has just said, it would seem to confirm that apart from increasing the

number of court sheriffs and increasing the staff in the court services

branch, there is no money whatsoever for the items in the mandate

letter. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. Those projections do not include work that

will be undertaken on certain mandate letter commitments. It’s our

commitment to First Nations communities, to British Columbians, to do

consultation with them first and to design projects and fund them based

on those consultations. That is the approach that our government is

taking on this.

I understand the impatience of the member. A lot of British

Columbians are impatient around reforms to the justice system, ensuring

that there are adequate resources to keep courthouses running well,

around legal aid, around First Nations over-representation in the

justice system and family law. Disputes that are resolved in a timely

manner — it’s not in the mandate letter, but it’s a critically important

piece.

[11:40 a.m.]

The member should look forward to our February budget, which will

include funding for many of these priorities, based on the consultation

and feedback we receive from British Columbians.

A. Wilkinson: Having confirmed that there’s no budget whatsoever for anything in

the mandate letter other than the sheriff services increases and the

court services branch increases in staffing…. The mandate letter states

that the Premier expects you to “make substantive progress on the

following priorities,” but I take it there’s no budgetary space to

implement any of those perceived or planned changes in this fiscal

year.

That, of course, takes us back to the three-year fiscal plan

which, by definition, must be wrong in the future years, in that there’s

no money provided. So if it can’t be done this fiscal because there’s no

money, as the minister just stated, and there’s no money in the future,

is there any plan whatsoever to implement these things in the mandate

letter, given that there’s been no fiscal room allocated to your

ministry whatsoever for these things?

Hon. D. Eby: I do appreciate the member’s enthusiasm around the reforms that we

have set out and committed to. I will just set the record straight in

terms of the approach that we’re taking here and the work that’s already

been done and that is being done on these initiatives.

We have introduced legislation to hold a provincewide referendum.

It’s in front of the House. This is a very significant initiative. Key

to that legislation is a consultation process that will be rolling out

over the next couple of weeks asking British Columbians how to structure

that — what the question should be, whether proponent groups should be

funded, whether in favour of the existing first-past-the-post system or

in favour of reform, electoral finance rules around that

referendum.

That’s all part of the consultation process that we are rolling

out. So to say no work has been done on that because it’s not allocated

in this budget is, I would say, not an accurate reflection.

Similarly, with the Human Rights Commission, the parliamentary

secretary has been all over the province speaking with various groups,

First Nations, consulting to ensure that when we do allocate resources

to the commission, it’s to set up a commission that is responsive to the

needs of actual British Columbians and their concerns around

discrimination. So again, to say that no work is being done simply

because we haven’t set out money even before doing the consultation

about something that we might be told by British Columbians should look

very different than our preconceived notions is, again,

mistaken.

Similarly, to suggest that we are not addressing the issue of

over-representation of First Nations in the justice system or the lack

of services available to British Columbians to resolve their family law

disputes and so on because we haven’t allocated money in the budget and,

instead, are taking our time to work with First Nations communities and

leaders to identify where their priorities are and to ensure that that

money is spent wisely — again, mistaken.

I do appreciate that the member wants us to get going. We are

going. We’re working full out with these communities to ensure that the

work is done properly. ICBC is similar, and so is gaming.

We’re getting a handle on the issues that have been left from 16

years of neglect by the previous administration. It takes a little bit

of time. We will do so, but we will not blindly spend money trying to

solve this problem. We’ll allocate it carefully and responsibly, based

on our consultations with leaders and communities that have been

affected by the neglect of the system.

A. Wilkinson: Perhaps you can just confirm, then, that the two items on this

list that would appear to require a significant incremental budget —

that is, re-establishing the Human Rights Commission and improving and

supporting legal aid, including First Nations legal services, and

expanding poverty law services — have been provided with no budget space

whatsoever for the next three years, and none is anticipated at this

point.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member, and I appreciate his enthusiasm about the

Human Rights Commission. We’re consulting with British Columbians. Their

feedback on what that should look like will inform the budgeting process

for re-establishing that organization after it was cut in 2002. Their

feedback will go into the budgeting process. That feedback is not done.

That consultation process is not closed.

I expect to be rolling out announcements in 2018, and the member

should expect to see, in the February budget, allocation related to

that. He is absolutely correct: it is not in this budget.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada