Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 123

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Lyall Hanson

E. Foster

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Lyall Hanson

Hon. J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Elliot Eurchuk

A. Weaver

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 18 — Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs

Reports) Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 23 — Local Government Statutes (Residential

Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 25 — Real Estate Development Marketing

Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. C. James

Bill 26 — Child, Family and Community Service

Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Vancouver International Trade Forum and trade with

China

T. Wat

Mountainaire Avian Rescue Society

R. Leonard

B.C. Common Ground Alliance and Safe Digging

Month

P. Milobar

Little Mountain Neighbourhood House

M. Elmore

SHARE Family and Community Services Society in

Tri-Cities area

J. Isaacs

Westshore AIDS Vancouver Island Health

Centre

M. Dean

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Sullivan

Hon. D. Eby

Environmental assessment process and professional

reliance model

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Referendum on electoral reform

J. Martin

Hon. D. Eby

T. Shypitka

M. Morris

C. Oakes

R. Coleman

M. Lee

Hon. J. Horgan

Petitions

D. Ashton

Ministerial Statements

Violent incident in Toronto

Hon. J. Horgan

A. Wilkinson

A. Weaver

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Establishment of Agriculture, Fish and Food

Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Hon. L. Popham

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Agriculture discussion paper prepared for the Select Standing

Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food

Motions Without Notice

Membership and powers of Agriculture, Fish and Food

Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. M. Mungall

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

D. Barnett

Hon. M. Mungall

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family

Development (continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

M. Bernier: I am proud to introduce my first granddaughter and B.C.’s newest

citizen, born this morning: Lillian Ava Stenersen, a healthy 7 pounds 3

ounces. Please join me in congratulating mom and dad, Devlyn and Chris, and

in welcoming baby Lillian to the world.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m honoured today to introduce Kúkpi7 Wayne Christian of the Splatsin

First Nation and tribal chief of the Shuswap Nation Tribal

Council.

Chief Christian is a tireless and passionate advocate for the

recognition of Indigenous title and rights and the strength of Indigenous

nations. I had the pleasure to be in Invermere this weekend with him and the

Secwepemc people for their spring gathering and water ceremony, along with

the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. It was an incredibly emotional and

quite passionate, moving ceremony that I truly had the honour of being

at.

I’d like everyone to join me, with great respect, in recognizing a

pre-eminent leader in our Indigenous communities, Kúkpi7

Christian.

Tributes

LYALL HANSON

E. Foster: I rise today to speak of a gentleman who sat in this House from

1986 to 1996, Mr. Lyall Hanson. He was the Minister of Labour from ’86

to ’89 and the Minister of Municipal Affairs from ’89 to ’91. Lyall

passed away yesterday after a long illness. I was talking to some of his

family members last night.

Lyall was the mayor of Vernon before he was an MLA, a tireless

supporter of our community at that time and, certainly, after he retired

from provincial politics. To many of us in those days — younger,

aspiring politicians — he was a great mentor and a source of a lot of

knowledge.

[10:10 a.m.]

I mentioned to the member for Richmond South Centre this morning,

who sat in this House when Lyall was here in the early ’90s, that he had

passed. She remembered him fondly and referred to him as one of the

Socred six-pack. At the end of the Socred era, Lyall was one of the few

Socreds that we managed to get re-elected.

Our condolences to his family and all of his good friends in

Vernon.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: It’s always a wonderful thing when the birth of grandchildren are

announced in this chamber, and it’s timely because every child should grow

up with the right to dig in the dirt.

However, this is Safe Digging Month in British Columbia. B.C. Common

Ground Alliance hosted a breakfast this morning for both sides of the House

as a reminder to all of us of the dangers of digging in that dirt, with all

of the underground infrastructure this province has.

I’m delighted to ask the House to welcome to the chamber this morning

a long list of people from the B.C. Common Ground Alliance: Dave Baspaly,

the executive director; Cheryl Hogg, CFO; M.J. Whitmarsh, well known to many

of us, their consultant; and from the board, Daniel Palmer, Michelle

Petrusevich; Raj Sharma; Kevin Ramsay; my old friend Chris Hyland; Mike

Ippen; Ian Turnbull; Patricia Poulton; Andrew Mark; Lance Ollenberger; Marc

Spencer; Don Schouten; Chris Atchison; Abigail Fulton; Rieghardt van Enter;

and Susanna Pirfeck.

They will be engaged in a presentation ceremony conducted by the

Minister for Public Safety and Solicitor General later this morning. Would

the House please make them all welcome.

Tributes

LYALL HANSON

Hon. J. Horgan: I just rise to join with the member for Vernon-Monashee, on behalf

of the government, to acknowledge the passing of Lyall Hanson, a member

of this place. With he and all members of this House, on our behalf,

hon. Speaker, would you please pass on our condolences to his family and

to the people of Vernon who supported Lyall as a member of this place

and as mayor.

It’s a great loss. Whenever someone who has been in here passes

away, it reminds us all that our time in here is finite and that we need

to do the best we can to make sure we’re doing everything we can to make

B.C. a better place. I know that was Lyall Hanson’s mission when he was

here.

I certainly, on behalf of the government, want to pass on my

condolences to the family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a pleasure of mine to welcome to the Legislature three classes

from an elementary school in my riding. They are somewhere in the building

right now, three classes from Hyland Elementary School.

They are accompanied here by their teachers Michelle Diamond, Sanjeev

Hundal and Erin Potts. I’ve had the pleasure of spending time with these

three classes at different times, and I can tell you that when I went to

their classrooms, these young people had done their homework. They had

excellent questions to ask about what we all do in this amazing place, about

the role of the Legislature and what the Speaker does.

What always amazes me about young people when I visit classrooms…. One

is that I always feel I’m home again when I’m back in a school, but second

is the most thoughtful questions they ask — maybe some that grownups are

reluctant to ask but that the kids are not.

Please help me to welcome our amazing citizens who are doing such a

wonderful job in finding out how this Legislature works.

I. Paton: I believe my guest is maybe still on a ferry getting over here for the

installation of the new Lieutenant-Governor. I speak of Mayor Lois Jackson,

the mayor of Delta. She’s been a good friend to me in my eight years on

Delta city council.

Mayor Jackson first got on to Delta city council in 1972, which was 46

years ago, and she has been the mayor of Delta for 19 consecutive years. She

is retiring this coming fall, so I hope you all see her later this afternoon

over here and congratulate her on 46 years in municipal politics.

Tributes

ELLIOT EURCHUK

A. Weaver: Today I rise, with profound sadness, to convey my deepest

sympathies to the family of Elliot Cleveland Eurchuk, who tragically

passed away on Friday, April 20, from an accidental overdose of opioids

at just 16 years of age.

Elliot and his family are constituents, and Elliot was a grade 11

student at Oak Bay High School. He loved sports, hiking, books and hoped

to study medicine in the future. He was known for his wit, humour and

profound kindness.

[10:15 a.m.]

I cannot imagine the grief his family and friends are

experiencing. His school and our collective community are grieving,

together with his family. His parents, Rachel Staples and Brock Eurchuk

— Brock, a longtime friend of mine who I graduated from high school with

— have bravely spoken out to tell their story and warn other youth and

parents about the danger of prescription opioids.

Every day in British Columbia we are losing youth in our

communities. The B.C. Coroners Service reports that the number of

overdose deaths among ten- to 18-year-olds almost doubled, from 12 in

2016 to 23 in 2017. One life lost is truly heartbreaking, yet the scale

of this emergency could hardly be articulated in a way that respects and

reflects the grief felt around B.C.

To Elliot’s parents and family, please accept my sincere

condolences for your tragic loss. I’m sure I speak on behalf of all my

colleagues in this chamber when I say that our thoughts and prayers are

with you at these difficult times.

Introductions by Members

J. Martin: Soon to join us for QP festivities: 19 grade 11 students from Mount

Cheam Christian School are on their way. Please make them feel

welcome.

M. Dean: I’m very pleased to welcome two special guests today representing AIDS

Vancouver Island community organization. Katrina Jensen is the executive

director, and she has worked with AVI for 19 years. Also joining us is Chad

Dickie, the chair of the board of directors for AVI. He’s also a part-time

student at the University of Victoria School of Public Health and Social

Policy, and he’s been involved with AVI since 2015. Both have offered

countless hours of service to the community. Please would everybody join me

in making them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

(HOUSING NEEDS

REPORTS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes (Housing

Needs Reports) Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 18, the Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs

Reports) Amendment Act, be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Statutes (Housing

Needs Reports) Amendment Act. Local governments are key partners in

supporting the delivery of housing, due in part to their role in the

land use planning, development and building approvals.

The success of our collective efforts to deliver the right kind of

housing in British Columbia will rely, however, on our ability to truly

understand local needs and the type and extent of required housing.

Consequently, it is critical that local land use planning and housing

decisions are based on up-to-date information.

This bill will make housing information collection a regular part

of local government business. In doing so, it will ensure that local

governments have the housing information they require when they are

updating foundational land use plans.

In order to make good decisions about the housing needs of today

and understand what our needs will be tomorrow, we need to have solid,

reliable information. In addition to helping local governments in their

planning, it will help the province put our housing investments where

they are needed most.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment

Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

BILL 23 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL RENTAL

TENURE ZONING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes (Residential

Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 23, the Local Government Statutes (Residential

Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018, be introduced and read a

first time now.

[10:20 a.m.]

I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Statutes

(Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act. Our government, in

both the throne speech and Budget 2018, has committed to build and

retain housing that people can afford. This work will require

partnerships with local governments and the use of new and existing land

use tools. This bill delivers on that commitment.

Municipalities across British Columbia are experiencing low

vacancy rates due to the shortage of rental supply and the high demand

on rental housing due to the increased costs of home ownership. Under

the current planning framework, local governments are not permitted to

zone for residential rental tenure.

Today we are proposing changes to B.C.’s local land use planning

system that will give local governments increased abilities to preserve

and increase the overall supply of rental housing in communities across

British Columbia by using their zoning bylaws to limit the tenure of

rental units to rental in specific areas where they see fit. This is a

bold action that will give local governments a new tool to better enable

the development and protection of the homes that people need in their

communities.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning)

Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

BILL 25 — REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

MARKETING AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Estate Development Marketing

Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Real Estate Development Marketing

Amendment Act, 2018. This bill will require developers to collect and

report comprehensive information about strata lot contract assignments,

otherwise known as presale assignments, to the property transfer tax

administrator. Developers will be required to include new terms in their

contracts to inform purchasers of the new reporting

requirements.

Currently there’s no comprehensive information on strata lot

contract assignments, or presales, that is collected or available. The

assignment information will be used by the Canada Revenue Agency and the

ministry’s revenue division to address federal and provincial tax

avoidance. Other technical amendments in this bill will also strengthen

the superintendent’s enforcement tools.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 26 — CHILD, FAMILY AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child, Family and Community Service

Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 26 be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the amendments to the Child, Family and

Community Service Act. This bill’s amendments address the issue of

Indigenous children being overrepresented as children in care. These

changes reflect comments and concerns that we’ve heard from our

Indigenous partners through various tables, engagements, caucus sessions

and consultations.

The proposals help fulfil Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations

regarding a more collaborative approach to child welfare and improved

information-sharing. Reducing the number of children in care is also a

priority of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to

action.

The proposed amendments will provide more tools for social workers

to share information and involve Indigenous communities in protecting,

supporting and caring for their children. Included is the rights of

Indigenous children to learn about and practise their Indigenous

traditions, customs and languages and live in their

communities.

There will be greater opportunities for social workers and

Indigenous communities to collaborate and be involved early with a

family when there’s a concern. This will help keep children out of care,

find permanency for those children who are in care and provide a way for

connecting Indigenous children to their cultures and

communities.

[10:25 a.m.]

Here today to support the changes to the legislation is Kúkpi7

Wayne Christian of the Splatsin First Nation and Tribal Chief of the

Shuswap Nation Tribal Council. Chief Christian is a tireless and

passionate advocate for recognition of Indigenous title and rights and

the strength of Indigenous nations.

Kúkpi7 Christian believes, and I agree, that our children are our

future and the future is right now. He is here because he knows these

amendments will not only help children and families in his community but

children and families right across the province.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL TRADE FORUM

AND TRADE WITH

CHINA

T. Wat: Recently I was pleased to attend the Vancouver International Trade

Forum 2018 in Richmond, along with the member for Richmond-Steveston and

the member for Vancouver-Langara. The theme this year was “Canada’s

international trade and China’s belt and road initiative,” which is a

development plan introduced by the Chinese government in 2013 to promote

trade and economic cooperation among Eurasian countries.

As a former Minister of International Trade, I took great pride in

signing the MOU on behalf of B.C. with China’s Guangdong province in

2016 to mutually support and participate in this belt and road

initiative and the B.C. Pacific gateway strategy. This memorandum meant

much more than just another agreement between the two provincial

governments. It was a pivotal step in extending the belt and road

initiative to North America, which was not originally

covered.

By signing this cooperation scheme, B.C. has not only strengthened

its relationship with China, our second-largest trading partner, but

also seized new opportunities by joining a framework that unites more

than 68 countries, 4.4 billion people and 40 percent of the world’s GDP.

I’d like to congratulate the organizers of this forum, the North

American Investment Association and the Canada-China lobbyists, general

chamber of commerce.

The North American Investment Association has been authorized, as

the exclusive representative in Canada, to organize a Canada pavilion in

the first-ever Belt and Road International Food Expo, to be held in Hong

Kong in June this year. It will be a fantastic opportunity to showcase

our province’s finest food and drink, including our renowned B.C. wine

and seafood. I wish the expo a great success.

MOUNTAINAIRE AVIAN RESCUE SOCIETY

R. Leonard: Today I would like to make some observations about MARS — not the

planet, rather Mountainaire Avian Rescue Society. Maj Birch founded MARS

decades ago and dedicated her life to conserve and protect native

wildlife in its natural habitat through education and

rehabilitation.

We lost her in 2015, but she left a generous bequest that

supported a new wildlife rescue centre just a few minutes north of

Courtenay. It will be open to the public in August. It’s staffed mostly

by adult and youth volunteers as they continue to carry on with Maj’s

vision.

Mentorship and education are at the core of MARS. There’s an

opportunity for six- to 12-week student placements. During baby bird and

fawn season, they’re busy 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., with those 4 a.m. feedings

in between. They’re involved in rescues and releases, and they

administer treatments and help with building projects like the new

flight cage.

Then there’s the community outreach. Ambassador owls, hawks and

eagles, who are rescued birds themselves, come out to many events with

their ambassador human partners, drawing curious and excited onlookers.

While there’s a captive audience, the human ambassadors talk about the

rescued birds and relay important information about safe and appropriate

human-wildlife contact. And 2016 saw 800 rescues, with a release rate of

33 percent. The rescue numbers are rising due to more human-wildlife

interactions.

[10:30 a.m.]

I’m glad to know we’re investing in revitalizing B.C.’s wildlife

management initiative and hiring more conservation officers. We all have

a role in conservation and protection of the nature which surrounds us.

MARS has played and continues to play an important role in the web of

life.

B.C. COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE

AND SAFE DIGGING

MONTH

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure during April, Safe Digging Month, to

welcome the British Columbia Common Ground Alliance to this place. The

B.C. Common Ground Alliance is a non-profit organization established to

lead the development of consistent practices and coordination of

activities to ensure the highest possible standards of worker safety,

public safety and damage prevention in connection with underground

infrastructure.

Coming from Kamloops, my understanding is that this year Kamloops

had the fewest strikes underground with construction work, which is an

important part we need to highlight during April — that in spite of a

fast-growing economy, we can make sure the work is done properly and

safely for all.

As we see further densification, further services being moved to

underground areas, it’s critical that the workers are protected and that

six simple steps are followed before people decide to dig. We want to

make sure everyone gets home safely from work on the worksite, and we

also want to make sure that neighbourhoods aren’t impacted for any long

term through infrastructure being struck, like fibre optic lines or gas

lines or other similar infrastructure.

The six before-you-dig rules are very simple. Clearly identify and

white-line the excavation area. Call B.C. One Call at 1-800-474-6886 or

use clickbeforeyoudig.com at least three working days before you dig.

Contact all utility, pipeline, property or infrastructure owners who are

not B.C. One Call members. Visually inspect the worksite for signs of

underground site features and other safety concerns. Obtain all

agreements and permits and keep them on site. Lastly, verify the

location and expose underground utilities by hand digging or other

approved non-mechanical excavation means.

This is thoroughly doable, and I hope people take April as Safe

Digging Month quite seriously.

LITTLE MOUNTAIN NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

M. Elmore: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018, the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House

in Vancouver will be celebrating its 40th anniversary. This celebration

takes place during the fifth annual Neighbourhood House Week, which is a

yearly event involving all 14 neighbourhood houses in the Lower

Mainland.

Together, all neighbourhood houses employ more than 1,500

individuals and engage more than 3,000 volunteers in the provision of

community services to youth, seniors and families. More than 100,000

individuals receive services every year.

The Little Mountain Neighbourhood House, located on Main Street in

the heart of Vancouver, is an important part of the neighbourhood houses

movement. It offers services in French, Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic,

Tagalog, Mandarin and Cantonese to residents in the areas of Riley Park,

Mount Pleasant and Cambie.

The Little Mountain Neighbourhood House Society actively

facilitates the development of a healthier, more inclusive community.

With the financial support of all levels of government, community

foundations, local businesses and individual donors, the Little Mountain

Neighbourhood House is at the forefront of service provision in the

areas of immigrant settlement, child care, seniors, youth programming

and many other areas.

I invite all members to join me to celebrate at a dinner on May 2

in Vancouver. You’re welcome to join us. They have a very exciting

initiative. They’re going to be moving into a new building at the Little

Mountain redevelopment project, where they will have a new neighbourhood

house and child care centre.

I’d like to ask all members to join me to wish the Little Mountain

Neighbourhood House a happy 40th anniversary, to express our gratitude

to the staff, board and volunteers for the services they provide to the

Vancouver community and, also, to wish them another successful 40

years.

SHARE FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

SOCIETY IN

TRI-CITIES AREA

J. Isaacs: Whether you are a new resident in Coquitlam or a longtime resident

of the Tri-Cities, individuals and families know who they can turn to

when they need assistance. SHARE is a not-for-profit organization

serving the Tri-Cities community. With 140 employees and language

translation services, SHARE’s programs have expanded through the years,

and today the SHARE family connects, engages and strengthens individuals

and families.

[10:35 a.m.]

Newcomers are welcome and supported through programs such as the

centre provides opportunities to access employment and financial

support.

SHARE’s consulting services offer courses on relationships,

parenting skills, separation or divorce, anger management and anxiety,

trauma, gambling and much more. From early intervention therapy for

children under five to substance use prevention for teenagers, there is

counselling for both individuals and families.

The Better at Home program helps seniors with simple tasks, light

housekeeping and transportation to appointments. There are also

welcoming senior spaces for people aged 75 or older. They organize group

meetings and connection with other community members, and recruit and

train outreach volunteers.

SHARE also operates the food bank and receives donations from

great corporate citizens as well as farmers and individual

donors.

Volunteers and staff work tirelessly all year to make sure that

everyone is being served. It is the commitment of volunteers that allows

SHARE to continue to expand and grow programs and services.

This year SHARE’s Imagine gala was another great success. The

generosity of many sponsors and individual donations contributed to this

year’s record success of over $120,000. This is money that will be well

spent helping Tri-Cities families who are in need of

assistance.

Congratulations, SHARE, on your many years of service in our

community, connecting, engaging and strengthening individuals and

families.

WESTSHORE AIDS VANCOUVER ISLAND

HEALTH

CENTRE

M. Dean: The Westshore AIDS Vancouver Island health centre has been open in

my community since November 2017. It is a thriving and busy clinic, with

patients coming in for opiate agonist therapy and other family practice

care. This extra care is very important, especially as many of the

patients do not have their own family doctor.

A big part of the focus at the centre is educational training

sessions. Overdose prevention tips and naloxone kits are provided by

staff to patients and family members. Referrals are also made for

counselling and treatment.

Because they want to maintain an accessible, low-barrier service,

the centre does not charge patients a monthly fee, but some other

clinics do.

We’re so grateful to have this centre right in our community. It’s

making such a difference in the lives of patients and their families. As

one mom said: “It’s been an absolute godsend to our family. Without it,

I don’t know where my son would be.”

AIDS Vancouver Island is looking to expand its care and treatment

in West Shore and offer more education and support groups. Their vision

sees a comprehensive community health clinic in the near future while

they work towards a world free of HIV and hepatitis C. Until that is

reached, they continue to support those most at risk who are

marginalized by stigma and discrimination as well as disease.

The Westshore AIDS Vancouver Island health centre is just one

example of the ways that our communities are stepping up to respond to

the current overdose crisis.

Thank you to the enormously dedicated team at AIDS Vancouver

Island for the important work that is done today and every

day.

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

A. Wilkinson: Last Thursday we had quite a show put on by the Attorney General

as he demonstrated that he was unwilling or unable to answer the most

basic questions about the proportional representation referendum that is

apparently happening someday this fall.

The supposedly neutral arbiter of the process has demonstrated in

the past, through his statements and behaviour, that he is in fact

deeply biased in favour of a positive outcome for that vote. He has

completely failed to avoid the perception of bias. In any judicial

system, he’d be voluntarily recusing himself from the role. However, the

Attorney General carries on and maintains the facade that he can be

neutral.

Will the Premier keep his promise made during the election that he

will establish a truly independent and non-partisan oversight process

for the referendum?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question, but I have

to say I reject the premise. I have full confidence in the Attorney

General to discharge his responsibilities to this place and to the

people of British Columbia.

We will be having a referenda in the fall to address the question

of electoral change. That’s something that we campaigned on. That’s

something the people on the other side of the House put into a throne

speech that didn’t make it past first-day debate. But nonetheless, they

seemed enthusiastic about it then. I don’t know why they’re not

now.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: This is diagnostic of the problem. The Premier takes an arrogant,

dismissive approach to this issue, which is going to be fundamental to

how this institution is governed and how our province is

governed.

Interjections.

A. Wilkinson: The members opposite mock the need for an objective process.

Listen to them sneering at the prospect of an open process.

What we have is a record. In 2005 and in 2009, British Columbians

were asked questions that were formulated by an independent body that

took more than a year to develop those questions in cooperation with the

academic community, with Elections B.C. The entire process was clear and

transparent.

Instead, today we have a referendum with no date. We have a

question apparently to be decided by cabinet. We don’t know if there

will be one or more questions. There’s no prospect of a debate in this

House on what the questions might be. There’s no set date for the

referendum. There’s no clarity whatsoever about any funding for

organizations, both acting in favour and opposed to the referendum. We

are told nothing. The people of British Columbia are kept in the dark,

and this is supposedly five months away. And we have arrogant and

dismissive answers from the Premier.

To the Premier, how can he justify this charade in comparison to

the 2005 and 2009 open, transparent and public engagement

processes?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have had a record response to this question in terms of

feedback from the public to the government and to this Legislature about

where the people of British Columbia want us to go with respect to this

question.

Electoral reform was a key pillar in our election campaign, as

well as for the Third Party. Again, as I say, it was embraced most

recently by those on the other side of the House last June.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that we’re doing our

level best to ensure that we have everything in order in a timely matter

so that the public will have an opportunity to have their say on whether

they want to keep the first-past-the-post system or they want to have a

different approach in British Columbia.

We’re committed to that, and I would hope that the members on the

other side would join us in that regard.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier has broken his promise of a simple yes-or-no question.

No debate about that. The Premier has broken his promise for regional

thresholds. No debate about that. The Premier has broken his promise to

set up an all-party committee on proportional representation. No debate

about that. A series of broken promises.

Now the Premier falls back on an on-line contact process, for

which they refuse to disclose the actual material that came in and where

it came from. Was this done by bots from Zimbabwe? We don’t know because

they won’t tell us. This process is entirely secretive, is entirely

hidden, and the Premier smirks with glee as he says: “I’m getting away

with it.” This is an insult to the people of British

Columbia.

Will this Premier finally acknowledge that this cynical exercise

is nothing more than an effort to mollify the Greens to keep his fragile

coalition together?

Hon. J. Horgan: Cynical exercises are being practised by those on the other side

of the House who forget their record of 16 years of indifference to

public participation, their indifference to engaging with the public to

get a true understanding of where the people of British Columbia want to

go. We’re engaging in that process now.

To suggest I’ve broken a promise on a question that we don’t yet

know is a little bit of a reach by the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

I understand that asking questions from that side of the House is

new to those members and that they’re going to get better at it over

time. But I think they should have some patience, allow us to fulfil the

commitments we made to the people of B.C. It will be known in the

fullness of time. I have full confidence in the Attorney General to do

that in an impartial and just way.

[10:45 a.m.]

S. Sullivan: Victoria and Saanich have recently met with provincial officials

to discuss the creation of a citizens’ assembly on amalgamation. This is

a process the municipalities of Duncan and North Cowichan followed and

have just concluded.

No citizens’ assembly is being contemplated for electoral reform.

The citizens’ assembly is an excellent way of dealing with contentious

issues. There needs to be a credible process. In many of the most

advanced democracies in the world, this process would be

illegal.

Can the Attorney General explain why there is no legitimate

process and no citizens’ assembly on something as fundamental as

electoral reform?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his submission. The way that this is

structured is that we went out to British Columbians and said: “What is

the process that we should be using for the referendum?” And then, at

the end of it, there’s a vote where every British Columbian who is

eligible to vote gets to vote on which voting system we use to send

members to this place.

I’m not sure which aspect of that would be illegal in other

countries. I’m sure the member knows. As far as designing a process that

is based on the feedback of 88,547 people who spent an average of about

16 minutes completing a detailed questionnaire about how we should run

this process…. I don’t know why it would be illegal, and I’m glad it’s

not here.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.

S. Sullivan: Well, 2 percent of the population of our province…. Now, Duncan

and North Cowichan were congratulated on their citizens’ assembly by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister also is quoted: “An

important focus will be to ensure that the electorate has access to the

information they need to make an informed decision when

voting.”

But on electoral reform, we have no answers as to when the vote

will occur, what the ballot question will be or even what the rules are.

In most advanced democracies, there are rules and there are processes in

order to bring about a referendum.

To the Attorney General, when is he going to answer these basic

questions?

Hon. D. Eby: The largest public engagement in B.C.’s history meant that we

received almost 90,000 submissions in multiple languages from British

Columbians. Staff are going through those recommendations, that feedback

from the public, and preparing a report based on it — recommendations

based on that feedback. Thirty organizations provided detailed

submissions as well, from the pro-rep side, from the

pro-first-past-the-post side.

Staff are incorporating those all into a report, which will be

made public, as will the recommendations, which will go to cabinet.

Cabinet will then use those recommendations to create the regulations

for the rules for the referendum.

There will absolutely be rules, Member. I can assure you of that.

Not only that, there will be a process based on the feedback of tens of

thousands of British Columbians.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

AND PROFESSIONAL

RELIANCE MODEL

S. Furstenau: Communities across this province are facing increasing challenges

due to an approach to resource development that focuses on harvesting

our resources and exporting them raw instead of adding value and

building long-term economic opportunities for the people of B.C. This

approach goes hand in hand with the environmental assessment and

decision-making processes that rely on professional reliance. Projects

are treated as one-offs in the application process, with little or no

recognition of cumulative impacts.

This translates to economic impacts. Tourist operators lose

business when viewscapes are destroyed. Sports fisheries face losses

when salmon habitats are impacted by logging. And local governments

shoulder the costs of water turbidity and the need for expensive

filtration systems for drinking water.

My question is for the Minister of Environment. It is not a

company’s responsibility to look at cumulative impacts or

ecosystem-based management; it is the government’s. Will this government

make these foundational principles in how they reform the environmental

assessment and professional reliance models?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I know the member and

members of her community know firsthand what happens when government

destroys its capacity to monitor environmental impacts, to monitor

public health impacts and to protect the public interest. They know

firsthand what happens when government abdicates its responsibility for

oversight. I have to say that it didn’t take the previous government

their full 16 years in office to accomplish that. They did it in a few

short years and perfected it over the remaining time in

office.

We are reviewing the professional reliance model. I expect a

report this spring. I expect further public discussion before we enact

changes. We’ve consulted extensively. We’re consulting with professional

associations that have brought forward excellent ideas. We are also

reviewing, in a robust way, the entire environmental assessment

process.

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

S. Furstenau: Communities do not benefit from short-term economic

decision-making. It merely sets them up for a boom-and-bust cycle. A

huge piece of this puzzle is the community’s role in

decision-making.

The current assessment model mutes the voices of communities and

elevates the voices of proponents. There is ample evidence of this in

the dozens of written submissions to the professional reliance review.

From Spallumcheen to Haida Gwaii and Fort St. James to Youbou,

communities across B.C. want more say in what happens to the land, air,

water and resources they depend on for their local economies and their

well-being.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. I know he is

waiting for Mark Haddock’s report to make specific recommendations, but

I’m looking for a commitment from him today that any action this

government takes will focus on lifting up the voices of the communities

across this province that currently feel shut out of decision-making

processes that affect them the most. Will the minister make this

commitment?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again to the member for the question. There is a common

thread through our review of the professional reliance model. It’s a

common thread that extends through our review of the environmental

assessment process. We want to hear from communities, because in order

to have a prosperous economy and good economic development in British

Columbia, we need to have public trust. To have public trust, we need to

ensure that we consult with Indigenous people around the province and

that voices from impacted communities are heard.

They’re heard throughout the process. That’s built into the

process. The considerations of communities, the considerations of the

environment, the considerations of Indigenous people — their knowledge,

their culture, their rights and title — are all built into the process.

If we do that right, we will have a system in British Columbia in which

industry can see a clear pathway to success — success that has community

support instead of community opposition and a community that feels shut

out of the process.

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

J. Martin: Last week in this House I asked the Attorney General to reveal the

role his political staff had in the drafting of the skewed electoral

reform questionnaire. We never received an answer. He stated that the

information had already been made available. But we all know that is not

accurate, as multiple freedom-of-information requests have been

withheld, stalled or came back with no information

whatsoever.

The Attorney General has had some time to think about the

question, so I put it to him again. Will he table in this House all

input his political staff had in the drafting of the survey?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two pieces to this question. One is, obviously, the

member’s failure to draft FOI requests that provide returns. It’s not my

responsibility. I don’t know what he said. But what I can tell him is

that all FOI requests that come to my office are filled with integrity,

which is something new for the government. That’s something that we’re

doing on this side of the House. We are not triple-deleting,

okay?

I regret very much the member’s suggestion of a lack of integrity

in FOI request-filling in my office, which I take very personally, and I

do not like.

[10:55 a.m.]

The second piece of it is the questionnaire — that political staff

or I, as a politician, had some influence in the questionnaire. The

answer is yes. Yes, I have political accountability for the

questionnaire that went out, obviously. It went out under my office’s

name. I approved all the questions. I approved the questionnaire. I have

the support of staff in that. I am proud of that.

The questionnaire stands for itself. I understand that people who

are pro first-past-the-post are opposed to the questionnaire. I

understand that people who are pro-PR are opposed to the questionnaire.

The questionnaire strikes a balance between the two sides. I’m proud of

it. The member might not like it, but I will stand here and take

political responsibility for that questionnaire.

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

J. Martin: I understand that the Attorney General finds it somewhat amusing,

having his thumb on the scale of this very important process. But it’s

very serious, and in this House, we have a right to have some very

serious questions answered.

By now, the Attorney General has seen the memo written by a

bureaucrat within his ministry. It states: “Our minister’s office has

also had input.” Yet despite that evidence, he continues to dodge the

question and refuses to acknowledge what role his political staff played

in shaping this question.

To the Attorney General, we know his political staff had direct

input into the drafting of the skewed survey. Will he table all relevant

information and tell the public exactly what their input was?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure what more I can say. We approached experts to assist

us in drafting this. I take full political responsibility for the

questionnaire. My staff definitely assisted — I assisted — in the

drafting of the questionnaire, in which we tried to strike a balance

between the two sides in this referendum.

I understand that the first-past-the-post people aren’t happy with

the questionnaire. I have correspondence from pro-PR people who are not

supportive of the questionnaire. I stand here to tell the member and

this House that I believe the questionnaire struck the right balance.

The member disagrees with that. I understand that. But definitely, this

politician stands up and says that yes, I have responsibility for the

content of that questionnaire.

T. Shypitka: Well, we now know that the Attorney General’s political staff

helped shape the skewed survey. But last fall the Attorney General said

nothing about political staff inserting themselves into the design of

the survey. Instead, he implied that four academic experts guided and

signed off on the questionnaire.

To the Attorney General, what role did his political staff have in

vetting the academics’ advice?

Hon. D. Eby: I relied on my political staff. I myself reviewed the

questionnaire that was put forward and that was posted publicly on the

website. It had 188,000 site visits, and 88,547 people completed the

questionnaire.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East on a supplemental.

T. Shypitka: According to one of the academics: “I provided some feedback on

the survey you constructed. But that’s about it.” It is clear that it

was the Attorney General’s office guiding the process.

Again to the Attorney General, can he explain why it appears his

political staff had a more significant role in the construction of the

skewed survey than the academic experts?

Hon. D. Eby: The minister is right. My office did guide the questionnaire. That

was the responsibility given to my office by the Premier.

I’ll point out to the member that some of the experts, for

example, provided contradictory recommendations, so decisions have to be

made in politics. One of the decisions that my office made, and that I

stand here accountable for, was to release the survey in the form it was

released to the public for completion.

I believe the survey struck the right balance. I’ll take political

accountability for that. I rely on my staff for assistance in the work

that I do every day, and I’m very proud of them in the work they

do.

M. Morris: The Attorney General has told the public to simply trust him, that

he will produce a report on the consultation feedback that he’s

received. But there’s no one who views the Attorney General as

non-partisan or neutral.

In the interests of transparency, will the Attorney General

publicly release all of the raw data received through the public

engagement?

Hon. D. Eby: We have 88,547 completed questionnaires, as well as metadata, IP

addresses and so on.

[11:00 a.m.]

I’m glad to work with the member and anyone else on the other side

to make sure they have access to the information they need within the

limits of information release under law in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Mackenzie on a supplemental.

M. Morris: I’ve worked with that legislation probably as much as the Attorney

has over the years. If he eliminates the personal data off that, he can

release the information that they’ve provided with no problem at all and

follow through with the requests that have come through that.

The Attorney General has information from public engagement in

front of him, on his desk. He quoted from it extensively last week. We

know his political staff are actively involved in the process, and today

he continues to withhold the information while it’s being manipulated.

There is no excuse for withholding information from independent

scrutiny.

Will he make all of the raw data available today?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is going to have to accept yes for an answer. The only

caveat I put on it is that the release has to be in accordance with B.C.

law. The member agrees with that, so I think we’re good.

C. Oakes: Last fall the NDP said that even if the voter turnout was as low

as 10 percent, the outcome would still be valid. But when asked last

week, the Attorney General said that “there will be a record voter

turnout for this referendum.”

To the Attorney General, if he is so confident of record turnout,

why is he so afraid of setting a threshold?

Hon. D. Eby: I do appreciate the member reading the quote. As I recall, I say

“based on this record public engagement.” British Columbians are

incredibly engaged, and based on that, I would expect a record turnout.

If this is any indication of the level of interest, which is very high,

I’m very hopeful.

Now, the member, I understand, wants a different set of rules for

this referendum than are in the act. The rules are in the act. The rules

were voted on in this minority parliament, and those rules are set for

the referendum.

Mr. Speaker: Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: The Attorney General has repeatedly refused to say it will take

more than 10 percent of the voters to change something so fundamental as

how British Columbians elect their representatives. Even changes as

insignificant as internal NDP party politics require two-thirds

majority. I repeat: two-thirds majority.

To the Attorney General, will he set a threshold requirement, or

is he too afraid to do so?

Hon. D. Eby: All of the decisions that have been taken — certainly by my

office, to date — have been around making sure that as many British

Columbians know about this as possible and that participation is as high

as possible.

For example, we chose a mail-in ballot process because it had

higher turnout. We want British Columbians to be engaged in this. We

want them to vote on how we send members to this place. We want there to

be a high turnout, and I hope that the member assists us in that, in

getting the word out in her constituency.

R. Coleman: The Premier has made and broken major promises on proportional

representation. There will be no all-party committee. There will be no

simple yes-or-no ballot question and no reasonable threshold

requirements.

To the Attorney General, what justifies these broken

promises?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, thank you, Member. I know I have been criticized for

pointing out the record of the previous administration on referenda. But

the member who just asked that question was around the table when the

decision was made to vote on whether or not First Nations people had

rights in this province by mail-in ballot — with some of the most

offensive questions, double negatives.

I do understand that we cannot hold ourselves to the standard of

the previous government on referenda. It’s not sufficient. We will do

better, and we will do British Columbians proud with a referendum that

people can have confidence in, with a question or questions that they

can have confidence in. And there will be a report they can look at and

understand how we got to those recommendations based on the feedback

they provided to us in record numbers.

[11:05 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley East on a supplemental.

R. Coleman: The Premier used to support the concept of a higher turnout

threshold for something as important as changing the ways we elect

Members of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia, on behalf of

British Columbians.

According to the member for Cowichan Valley, the Green Party still

does support those thresholds. On November 29, she said: “We saw a 50

percent turnout in the Vancouver referendum on transit. We would like to

see something at least comparable to that.” So we know it wasn’t the

Green Party.

Why did the Premier break his word on threshold

requirements?

Hon. D. Eby: I think all of us would like to see a higher turnout than the

previous government’s efforts in referenda. I think we all want as high

a turnout as possible.

M. Lee: I think that all members of this House will agree that what we’re

asking for is for this government to hold itself accountable to the

promises it made. We’re talking about a referendum that is going to

fundamentally change, potentially, the electoral system of this

province.

The Premier has made promises. He’s made promises that there will

be a simple yes-or-no ballot question. He promised that British

Columbians would have a regional approval threshold to ensure that there

was a broad consensus for a fundamental change of this nature. But with

this Premier, it’s say one thing and do another.

Can the Attorney General explain how British Columbians will have

confidence in this referendum when the Premier’s promises have been

broken on something as fundamental as changing our electoral

system?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question.

The idea of a referendum is quite straightforward. Each eligible

British Columbian able to vote will be able to vote on how we send

members to this place. That is how they will have confidence in this.

They will be the ones voting. They will be the ones deciding about which

system we use. Whether we keep the current first-past-the-post system or

we move to a proportional representation system, they will be the ones

who choose that. That is how British Columbians will have confidence,

and that is why we are engaging in this process.

To inform the rules around the process and the structure of it, we

engaged with British Columbians directly and had the largest

participation in the history of the province in public

engagement.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: British Columbians need a fair and open process. The Premier

talked about ensuring that this referendum is being conducted in a

timely manner. Time is running out for British Columbians. They need to

know what question is going to be asked. They need to have the

opportunity to inform themselves about the form of proportional

representation that is going to be presented in this

referendum.

Changing our electoral system should not be an issue of partisan

politics. You laugh, but it isn’t. How we determine who we elect and how

we elect members of this House is something that should be done by a

neutral arbiter, something that has been done in the past involving the

public beyond just this 2 percent survey, a biased survey. This process

clearly cannot withstand the scrutiny within this House.

Interjections.

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

M. Lee: It is nothing more than a shameless attempt by the NDP and the

Green Party to achieve the result that they want.

To the Attorney General, I ask again, what justifies the complete

lack of answers to basic questions and the fundamental disregard for the

past promises given to British Columbians about this

referendum?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve listened intently for the past 30-odd minutes to questions

from the other side of the House about the effrontery of asking the

people of British Columbia to vote on how they elect people to this

place. How outrageous of us to campaign on that commitment. How

outrageous of us to join with the Green Party, who also campaigned on

that commitment, to make sure that we get proportional representation in

this House. That’s what we campaigned on; that’s what we’re going to

deliver.

But the member for Vancouver-Langara just last fall said the

following.

[11:10 a.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Perhaps the member for Langley East will want to hear this. This

is what the member said just last fall. “It’s only going to be used to

get what we have today. We have a situation where they have to get along

with each other, and that’s not good government.”

I can’t believe that those words could be uttered by a member of

this Legislature, but the notion of working together in the interests of

British Columbia is anathema to the people on that side of the House. I

get that. We agree to disagree. You don’t want to engage with people; we

do. We’re going to ask them what they think. They’re going to have an

opportunity to vote, and if they vote to change the electoral system,

we’ll get better government as a result.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Ashton: I have a petition given to me by the regional district chair, Karla

Kozakevich. The majority of Naramata residents who live on the higher

elevations of that wonderful community are asking government for any and all

help available to address the spring flooding and water drainage

issues.

Ministerial Statements

VIOLENT INCIDENT IN TORONTO

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Hon. Speaker and members of this place, we heard in the prayer

this morning from the member for Nanaimo. We were reminded of the

tragedy that took place in Toronto yesterday, where innocent citizens

walking on a sunny day, going about their business, were run down by an

assailant who has now been apprehended by the good work of first

responders in the city of Toronto.

We on this side of the House and, I know, all members grieve for

the families who have had ten lives taken from them and for the 15

injured from the senseless violence brought upon the good people of

Toronto for reasons not yet known. It’s the notion that citizens cannot

enjoy the pursuit of peace, order and good government, that particularly

Canadian way to look at things. This sort of activity that we often hear

about in other jurisdictions has come home to us here in

Canada.

I know that all members will join with me and, certainly, in the

moments ahead, speak of their own personal feelings around this issue.

For me, to have had the Humboldt Broncos incident visited upon the

people of Canada, and now this…. I think it speaks to our ability to

rise above tragedy and to hold fast as Canadians to those quintessential

Canadian values of tolerance for each other, respect for the dignity of

individuals and, of course, the sanctity of life.

Again, I speak on behalf of the government of British Columbia,

and I know others in this House will speak to the people of Toronto. To

the families, particularly, who were affected, our deepest, deepest

condolences. And to the first responders and the victims and the

witnesses that experienced one of the most tragic days we could ever

possibly imagine, our hearts and our thoughts are with you at this

time.

A. Wilkinson: In Canada, we are sadly accustomed to seeing tragic events unfold

in other countries, but it rarely comes home to us here. A massive motor

vehicle accident in Saskatchewan occurred very recently and shocked us

all because of the innocent lives lost, the tragedy of the moment. But

that was by no means intentional. What we saw yesterday was the

intentional act of an individual who just went out and sought to destroy

lives.

For all of us in this chamber and the many British Columbians with

relatives and friends in Toronto, we are not accustomed to turning our

eyes to the television and thinking: “Where are they?”

All of us have to recognize that this kind of thing does come to

Canada. We cannot be naive. We have to commit ourselves, in this chamber

and throughout our society, to working together across this country to

reinforce the fundamental principle of Canada, which is peace, order and

good government, because we all depend on it every single

day.

A. Weaver: On behalf of my colleagues, I, too, would like to join the Premier

in extending our sincere condolences to the families of those who

tragically lost their lives in the motor vehicle attack in Toronto. We

understand that this is a very difficult time for them. We understand

that Toronto is hurting, and all of Canada is grieving.

[11:15 a.m.]

Let us hope that as we move forward and learn from what has

happened here, we get to the source of these issues. We understand that

people with mental illness or other issues need the treatment that they

do. Let’s hope that we can prevent future such occurrences from

occurring.

Our sincere condolences to the people in Toronto and the families

of the victims.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

ESTABLISHMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, FISH AND FOOD

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to amend the list of select standing

committees set out in standing order 68(1). The full text of this motion

has been provided to the two House Leaders.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That Standing Order 68(1) be amended by adding the text shown as

underlined:

At the commencement of each Session a Committee of Selection shall

be appointed without notice, whose duty it shall be to prepare and

report, with all convenient speed, lists of Members to compose the

following Select Standing Committees of the House:

1. Aboriginal

Affairs;

2. Education;

3. Finance and Government

Services;

4. Health;

5. Public Accounts;

6. Parliamentary

Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills;

7. Crown

Corporations;

8. Legislative Initiatives;

9. Children and

Youth;

10. Agriculture, Fish and Food]

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for allowing me to address this motion. Going back as

far as 1901, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was an

important part of this place. The committee made important contributions

to agriculture in this province for many decades.

In the 1970s, for example, the committee issued more than 20

reports. The committee ran until dissolution of parliament for the 2001

general election. However, when parliament was recalled after the

election and the usual standing committees were recreated, Agriculture

was absent. Since that time, many members in this House persistently

called for the return of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I

think I personally called for it at least eight times.

I am very pleased that at long last, agriculture has once again

officially regained its voice in the B.C. Legislature. I want to thank

the legislators from all three parties for taking on this important

responsibility, because we will all benefit from their work.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. L. Popham: At this time, I would like to table in this House a one-page

discussion paper prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture. It has been

prepared to assist the committee in its first responsibility to examine,

inquire into and make recommendations concerning local meat production in

British Columbia. They will work to determine how to increase slaughter

capacity in rural communities while maintaining the meat inspection

program’s credibility through strong animal welfare and food safety

standards.

As the motion states, they will hear directly from farmers, producers,

processors, consumers, restaurateurs and all other individuals and

organizations interested in local meat production.

I know that all members will join me in thanking the members of this

committee as they take on this very important work.

Mr. Speaker: Shall leave be granted for the tabling of the report?

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP AND POWERS OF

AGRICULTURE, FISH AND FOOD

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to activate the Select Standing

Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food. The full text of this motion

has been provided to both House leaders.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[Further to the motion establishing a Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture, Fish and Food to examine matters concerning agriculture,

fish and food in British Columbia, that the Committee shall initially

examine, inquire into and make recommendations concerning local meat

production in British Columbia, based on the discussion paper released

by the Minister of Agriculture on April 24, 2018.

The Committee shall seek to consider the views of farmers,

producers, processors, consumers, restauranteurs and all other

individuals and organizations interested in local, small-scale meat

production.

In undertaking its inquiry, the Committee shall consider matters

related to areas of provincial responsibility with respect to meat

production regulations.

The Committee shall have all the powers previously conferred upon

the other Select Standing Committees and shall also be

empowered:

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

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

Committee;

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

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

c) to conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate; and

d) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient;

and shall report as soon as possible to the House, but no later than

October 1, 2018, or following any adjournment, or at the next following

Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with

the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and

upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present

all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Select Standing Committee is to be composed of the

following Members: Ronna-Rae Leonard (Convener), Nicholas Simons, Rachna

Singh, Doug Routley, Jackie Tegart, Donna Barnett, Mike Morris, Ian

Paton and Adam Olsen.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 15, Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act. In Committee A, I

call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and

Families.

[11:20 a.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — ENERGY, MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. M. Mungall: I move now that Bill 15 be read a second time.

I’m pleased to present the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Statutes Amendment Act, 2018. Bill 15, which is this very bill, amends

provisions in the Oil and Gas Activities Act and the Petroleum and

Natural Gas Act.

First I’ll say a few words about what we’re doing to amend the Oil

and Gas Activities Act. What people in the House may or may not know is

that the downturn in the oil and gas sector over the last few years has

resulted in several challenges for many companies. They are seeing

higher debt loads and more difficulty to meet their overall

expenditures. As a result, they’re having to declare bankruptcy, which

has obviously led to an increase in insolvencies in that particular

sector. How that impacts us is something that we’re trying to deal with

here today in Bill 15.

Specifically, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission has seen a

significant rise in the number of orphaned wells since 2016. Maybe I’ll

just take a moment to explain what orphaned wells are.

This might be a new term for other members in the House as well as

for people in the public who are not as familiar with how things occur

on a day-to-day basis in the oil and gas sector.

As we drill for natural gas, which heats most of our homes in this

province, those wells would be termed orphaned when a company, the

parent company of that well, becomes insolvent and no longer exists —

hence, the term “orphaned well.” Very Oliver Twist kind of

language, but that’s the best way I can find to describe it so that

people understand exactly what we’re dealing with here. A well is no

longer active, but it still exists, and the company which was

responsible for dealing with it no longer exists, however. Therefore, we

as a government have a responsibility to deal with that well.

Historically, how we have dealt with these orphaned wells is

through a funding model called the orphan site reclamation fund. This is

a fund that companies pay into through a tax that is defined in the Oil

and Gas Activities Act. This tax is levied onto companies. Money goes

into that fund, and we use that fund to reclaim these orphan sites. But

because there’s been an increase, due to this downturn in the sector, of

orphan sites, we are finding that that fund is not able to keep pace

with the cost of reclamation of the increase in orphaned

funds.

That’s why we are here today, essentially — so that we can make

sure that we have a sustainable way of dealing with orphaned wells going

into the future, not only in terms of reclaiming them but how we prevent

them.

[11:25 a.m.]

To do that, the proposed amendments that we have here for the Oil

and Gas Activities Act do two main things. One is improve that funding

model for the orphan site reclamation fund. The second one is to

introduce tools to reduce the number of future orphan sites and the

liability associated with them.

I’ll be talking about, in that second part, inactive sites or

dormant sites. But first, I’d like to talk about how we’re going to

improve the funding model for the orphan site reclamation

fund.

These amendments will improve the funding model by replacing that

tax, which I mentioned just a few minutes ago, with a levy. These are

very legalistic terms. People might wonder: “What’s the difference? It’s

money going into a government fund. Isn’t that all just

taxation?”

But not quite. Taxation is something that is defined within

legislation. It has a particular formula. It can only be changed by

legislation, and it’s not necessarily, in this particular situation,

responsive to this sudden downturn and then this sudden increase of

orphan wells.

We’re proposing that a levy be imposed by regulation of the

commission board — that is, the board of the Oil and Gas Commission —

with, of course, government oversight. The rate of the proposed levy can

be more easily adjusted as a result, if we do this through regulation,

than the existing tax. And it provides a more flexible avenue to secure

funds when and as they are required.

Proposed amendments will also provide flexibility to add funds

from other sources, if that’s required, such as other money paid to the

commission by industry for the purposes of restoration.

At this moment, I just want to say that I think it’s really

important, too, for government to ensure that we’re finding a strong

balance between industry paying for its own activities — and the need to

reclaim those activities once they’ve concluded — and also the public

interest being met here.

We feel that the levy is one of the ways that we’re going to be

achieving that very important balance, and being able to do that through

regulation over time to make sure that we’re continuously able to

respond to the circumstances of the day. This particular mechanism

allows us to do that.

The second thing these proposed amendments are meant to do will be

to introduce powers for the Oil and Gas Commission — the OGC, for those

who enjoy acronyms — to make regulations requiring the restoration of

dormant or inactive oil and gas sites. I’m going to use the term

“dormant” going forward. But for those who are in the industry who might

be more familiar with “inactive sites,” we’re using those two terms

interchangeably.

A dormant site is a site whose parent company still exists. They

are not insolvent, but the site has not been active. It is dormant for

all intents and purposes, so it’s not producing anything, and it

actually needs to be reclaimed. Restoration work on dormant sites will

reduce the liability associated with these sites, so the sooner we can

restore them, the sooner we can reclaim them, the sooner we’re reducing

liability for the public interest as well as for industry.

We’d also be limiting the chance that restoration will need to be

funded by the orphan site reclamation fund, which I already spoke about

— and the need to make sure that that fund is sustainable. But

ultimately, we’d like to see restoration done before we even have to

access that site. That’s that preventative component to this legislation

that I was talking about and how we deal with our overall orphan well

situation in B.C.

This proposed framework will provide flexibility, obviously, for

the Oil and Gas Commission to ensure that site cleanup requirements are

manageable for permit holders and meeting the test of the public

interest. Amendments also introduce other tools to reduce the number of

future orphan sites and the liability associated with them.

These amendments will allow the Oil and Gas Commission to review

permit applications and cancel or suspend permits if parties associated

with the permit or applicant have a history of non-compliance. That’s an

important piece. If we know somebody has a continuous history, time and

time and time again, of not cleaning up after themselves and leaving all

of industry on the hook for their orphan site, maybe they shouldn’t be

doing business in British Columbia.

[11:30 a.m.]

We want to make sure that we are preventing that from happening

and that those who are responsible operators are the ones who are,

indeed, providing 50 percent of us with the natural gas that heats our

homes.

It will also allow the commission to reinstate and transfer

permits to a new owner to facilitate continued activity or completion of

restoration work. Again, a company becomes insolvent, but there’s

another company that’s interested in taking over that well. This will

allow the Oil and Gas Commission to do just that and also provide them

with the responsibility of restoring that particular site.

Amendments are also proposed to enhance the powers of the

commission to respond to emergencies and manage heritage resources. For

example, an emergency takes place. Right now the Oil and Gas Commission

is not able to directly move into that emergency site and block off

roads and do whatever is necessary to maintain public safety. We want to

make sure that we’re giving them the power to do that. After all, the

most important thing at the end of the day in all of this is ensuring

that the public is safe in an emergency situation, and we want to make

sure that government is providing our Crown agencies with all the tools

possible to do that.

We also want to make sure that we are maintaining our heritage

sites in British Columbia. The Oil and Gas Commission has a role, but

not yet within legislation. We want to make that very formal.

Finally, on the Oil and Gas Activities Act, the amendments will

allow the OGC to have greater tools around debt collection as

well.

I mentioned that Bill 15 also amends the Petroleum and Natural Gas

Act. I’ll speak to those amendments. What they will do, essentially, is

ensure provisions enacted in 2014 regarding tenure extensions and rental

relief can be implemented. These will provide relief to tenure holders

who are prevented from accessing their tenure due to circumstances

beyond their control.

For example, a tenure holder will be looking to start some

exploration or drilling work on their tenure, but a large-scale

construction project might be taking place. There might be negotiations

with First Nations or a local government that are causing delays. We

want to make sure that they are not left on the hook for the costs

associated with those delays if it’s no fault of their own. What we want

to do is make sure that the tenure holders don’t lose their tenure, for

example, so that their opportunities still exist into the future when

they become available.

The proposed amendments will also replace the requirement to

advertise tenure dispositions in the B.C. Gazette . I know

everybody here reads, daily, all advertisements that occur in the

B.C. Gazette — maybe just one or two left who do. Almost

everybody in British Columbia now goes to the Internet, goes on line to

government websites for their information.

While government and the OGC has long been putting this type of

information on websites, the official means has still been the B.C.

Gazette . We are now moving that over, in 2018, to be the

Internet. Government is keeping up, just barely, with how everybody else

is doing business.

That concludes my remarks. I look forward to hearing the debate on

this bill. I will say, though, I’m very proud that we’re putting forward

this bill, because we do have a situation where we need to find the

appropriate balance between the public interest and industry so that we

continue to see economic development in the northeast, around our

natural gas sector — not just because it’s a good economic sector that

provides good family-supporting jobs, but to this day, natural gas is

what’s heating 50 percent of British Columbian homes. I certainly don’t

want to be the person responsible for turning the heat off in the middle

of winter.

We need to make sure that we’re doing what we can to maintain that

industry and make sure that the public interest is met. With that, I

will take my seat and listen to the rest of the debate.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate, first of all, the minister bringing this bill

forward. When she says she’s looking forward to the debate, I think

it’ll be more of just some commentary rather than debate.

This is, actually, an important bill — any time we’re modernizing

an act that we have. When you look at the orphan site reclamation fund

itself…. I mean, that was introduced by the past government, in 2006,

for a lot of the same issues that the minister just addressed

today.

We want to make sure that when we have companies operating in

British Columbia, the due diligence is taking place. We want to ensure

the safeguards are in place, as well, to protect not only the province,

but, I would argue, more importantly, to protect the landowners and the

people affected with this industry.

When you look around at the drilling activity that we have right

now, as the minister highlighted, it is pretty well exclusively in the

Peace region, in my part of the province. So I agree with the premise of

the bill, not only as the critic for this issue, but also as the local

MLA for the area.

I’ll have some questions for the minister when we get to committee

stage on this bill, just to try to address some of the, maybe I’d say,

concerns of some of the areas.

One of them that we’ll be asking about, which really raises a

concern for me, is when we start taking more out of the act and putting

it into policy regulation. That gives the opportunity for cabinet and

the minister to actually work directly to change regulation behind the

scenes, rather than in a public and open, debatable format like we have

here in the House, which obviously also has the scrutiny that can come

forward from, not only the opposition, but the public, prior to a

regulation being put into place.

I will also acknowledge, I guess, the commentary the minister made

that welcomed the OGC to the World Wide Web. Moving away from the

Gazette and doing more on the Internet — obviously, that is

important. I know we say that somewhat tongue in cheek. There’s a lot of

information the OGC has already out there. I work very closely with

them, as do citizens in my riding, on this specific issue.

We look at the fact that we want to continue promoting this

operation in British Columbia, that we want to look at continued

drilling activity, continued pipeline activity to make sure that we

have, as the minister said, the resource. So when we want to heat our

water, we have the gas there. When we want to heat our homes,

specifically — for six months a year, it’s been, this winter, up in my

part of the world — this resource is important. It’s part of our

economy, it’s part of society, and we need to ensure that we do

everything we can to promote, not hinder, the activity.

But this bill, I think, is important — parts of this — as well,

because every company that I talk with, every company that’s doing

business in British Columbia, wants to do what’s appropriate as well —

looking out for the environment, looking out for the people in the area

and the landowners that have to deal with this activity on their

land.

More importantly, we want to ensure that, in a perfect world, I

guess, we would never actually need to have the orphan site reclamation

fund. Although we’re going to be putting money in there, companies

should be doing their due diligence. Companies should be doing the

proper reclamation of sites. And they know that.

This fund is appropriate in case there are circumstances where

that doesn’t take place, but in the forefront, the purpose should be for

companies to do that work at all times. Government expects it. I would

say the companies themselves expect it. But more importantly, again, the

public and the citizens expect, when the work is finished, that proper

reclamation takes place.

[11:40 a.m.]

Again, when that happens, we actually would look at the situation,

the proper reclamation where the landowners — the farmers, specifically

— in the area can then utilize that land going forward, once a

reclamation is finished.

I know there probably won’t be a lot of discussions specifically

to this bill. It’s something we are going to support — and have

questions, though, as I said, for the minister during committee

stage.

Again, I just want to thank the minister for bringing this

forward.

S. Furstenau: The Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act,

2018 improves the management and restoration of orphan wells in B.C. —

not to be confused with Orson Welles, who sounds a lot like this — in

order to better protect our province’s environment.

Orphan wells are sites that have been identified by the Oil and

Gas Commission as sites of energy, mining and petroleum activity wherein

the company responsible for the activity is insolvent or unresponsive to

contact by the commission. Similarly, dormant sites are sites of

activity that are no longer in use. In both these cases, the unused

sites can create pollution leaks into the surrounding natural

environment, and this pollution, in turn, impacts the inhabitants and

communities nearby.

To ensure that companies that create orphan or dormant sites are

held accountable for their activities, this act provides better

enforcement mechanisms to the commission. These enforcement mechanisms

include replacing our current tax base funding structure of B.C.’s

orphan site reclamation fund with a structure based on funding gleaned

from levies against non-compliant companies.

To make sure that these companies pay these levies, the

commissioner may issue and file with the court a certificate to enforce

payment. In this way, there will be increased accountability towards

management of orphan and dormant sites, and in turn, increased

accountability towards our environment.

This act also makes other notable changes. It gives the commission

authority to limit permit requests if parties associated with the party

applying for a permit have a history of non-compliance. It provides the

commission authority to protect public safety in the event of an

emergency, and it increases the capacity of the commission to manage

heritage resources. All of these are important steps of environmental

and community stewardship.

It is essential that we take steps to ensure that companies are as

concerned about protecting our natural environment as we are, and this

act does take steps towards that.

The reason the act has been created, as has been stated by the

minister, is to address the downturn in oil and gas prices, which has

intensified the Oil and Gas Commission’s need for enforcement tools for

orphan and dormant site management. We would like to maintain that

regardless of the state of the economy, environmental management is

paramount to the health and safety of our province.

I have a number of concerns, both broad and specific, that I’d

like to canvass as well, starting with some specifics from Bill 15. In

section 43.1, on dormant wells, it is not entirely clear how the new

category of dormant wells will relate to the existing category of

inactive wells. Dormant wells are to be defined by regulation, but how

will proponents’ obligations and rights with respect to dormant wells

differ from those with respect to inactive wells? What must a proponent

do to resume activity at a dormant well? What security, for example,

must a proponent post with respect to a dormant well to resume

activity?

section 43.4, “Liability reduction plan,” there is no obvious

reason why a proponent should be able to negotiate reduced shutdown

obligations with respect to any wells, because it doesn’t seem to

promote restoration. It’s not clear how reduced shutdown obligations

might relate to the proponent’s liability.

Section 47, “Orphan site restoration levy,” does not seem to

change or enhance the requirements for well restoration. We would like

to see better standards or objectives for that restoration.

Section 47(2) doesn’t specify how the overall amount to be raised

by the levy will be determined and whether this is at the discretion of

the Oil and Gas Commission board. The act doesn’t provide guidance or

mandatory considerations, no minimum annual levy. Without some kind of

transparent audit of current conditions, practices and standards, it

would be very difficult to know whether this amount would be adequate.

We do see that this determination of the levy isn’t left to proponents,

so that’s on the bright side. But there does seem to be some degree of

informal negotiation that would be likely.

[11:45 a.m.]

The amendment doesn’t mandate how the commission will estimate the

cost of compliance for every permit held by every permit holder, so

there is no guidance or mandatory considerations, no minimum costs tied

to industry average restoration cost. However, again, we’re seeing that

it’s not left entirely to proponents.

I look forward to working through these questions and other

specific concerns at the committee stage.

A few of the general omissions and broader concerns are: no

requirement for proponents to develop, fund or implement comprehensive

and detailed restoration plans across their portfolios. So if you have a

permit holder with multiple permits, the portfolio, comprehensive

restoration plan, isn’t there. So we’d like to look at that in committee

as well. And no immediate or adequate penalty for failure to restore a

site. For example, automatically suspending other permits held by a

proponent that fails to adequately restore one site, and they have a

permit elsewhere.

The new measures would prohibit affiliated individuals from

obtaining new permits. Finally, no required role for First Nations in

defining restoration standards, establishing orphan site restoration

levy or conducting restoration.

I do have some broader concerns with the Oil and Gas Commission

generally. There is an inherent conflict happening when a regulatory

agency is tasked with not only monitoring and enforcing compliance in a

sector’s development but also promoting and supporting its economic

growth. Yet this is the case with the Oil and Gas Commission. It has led

to some staggering issues in our province.

Under the Oil and Gas Commission’s watch, for example, several

dozen illegal dams have been built by oil and gas operations. These

unauthorized dams violate several provincial regulations, including

companies applying for water licences after the dams have already been

built, failing to submit engineering plans for structures that store

huge amounts of water, failing to ensure proper safety measures are in

place or seismic evaluations completed and failing to adequately consult

First Nations.

I have seen reports linking fracking to groundwater contamination

and numerous reports of old wells continuing to leak methane. This is a

pattern of a regulatory body failing to enforce regulations that are

vital to the health and well-being of B.C.’s citizens and environment as

well as the public’s trust in this entire sector.

Just as the National Energy Board has suffered when it comes to

perceptions of transparency, accountability, confidence, safety and

security, so too has the Oil and Gas Commission. A panel of experts

appointed by the federal government to review the National Energy Board

recommended a series of reforms, including separating its mandate into

two distinct agencies.

I think the same should be done with B.C.’s Oil and Gas

Commission. As this government brings in reforms to environmental

assessment and professional reliance, they should also be looking to

reform the Oil and Gas Commission so that this body is not

simultaneously promoting and regulating the activities of industry in

our province.

This bill, which provides for mechanisms to deal with one problem,

should be seen as only a first step towards greater reforms of the

regulation of this industry, reforms that will ensure that the citizens

of B.C. benefit from the resources that we all collectively own and do

not incur the costs that should rightly fall to industry.

Just a note on the use of gas in B.C., I noted the minister has

said that the gas goes to heat most of our homes in the province. In

2016 we saw 56.3 percent of B.C.’s gas go to Alberta, used primarily for

oil sands activities there, with 10.7 percent of the gas remaining in

B.C., and 33 percent of our natural gas exports went to the U.S. So it’s

very important to recognize that a lot of our gas is actually going to

the province to the east of us and being used for tar sands activity

there. It’s also important to note that between 2007 and 2016, gas

production in this province increased by 72 percent, and we saw a

significant decrease over that time in revenues to the provincial

government.

I look forward to discussing this bill more in

committee.

D. Barnett: I rise today to take my place in the debate on Bill 15, Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2018.

[11:50 a.m.]

If passed, this bill will replace the existing tax structure with

a levy to be paid into B.C.’s orphan site reclamation fund. This is a

result of incredible work done by past governments to ensure that these

regimes are predictable and followed. It is important we continue this

work here in British Columbia. It is important we work to ensure our

environmental regulations are some of the strongest in the world. I am

very proud of the fact that here in British Columbia, we have some of

the strictest environmental regulations. The orphan site reclamation

fund is an example of that work.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Established in 2006, this has been an industry-funded initiative

that ensures taxpayers are not liable for the associated costs of

reclamation. The fund is used to decommission wells and restore land,

including public, private and government lands. This has helped build

social licence to ensure that we have a plan in place should the owner

of a well become insolvent or they are unable to be found by the Oil and

Gas Commission.

This partnership is important, because it provides that certainty

which creates and protects jobs. As global citizens, we all have a great

responsibility to ensure that British Columbia is left better than we

found it. We owe this to our children, grandchildren and the generations

that follow. It is a responsibility that I know we all take very

seriously in this chamber.

These types of partnerships are important. It is incumbent on us

to ensure they continue into the future. Governments of any stripe must

operate in good faith and place regulations in place that give the

public confidence, while ensuring they protect our beautiful province.

Proponents must also operate in good faith and follow these regulations

and good relations that are required to operate in British

Columbia.

I am proud to have stood in this House and voted many times for

legislation that is some of the strictest in the world but also ensures

that companies have the certainty they need to create jobs and invest.

One bill that springs to mind is the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting

and Control Act, which introduced the provincial benchmark of 0.16

tonnes of carbon dioxide for each tonne of LNG produced, which ensured

that B.C. will have the cleanest LNG industry in the world. This is an

example of us looking forward to ensure that we are leaders here in

British Columbia.

We do not want to be amongst the cleanest. We have an objective to

be the cleanest.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’ll make a couple of closing remarks before I move our going to

committee. I wish that this was the time when school kids were up in the

gallery, watching how all sides of the House are talking about how

important this piece of legislation is and how much agreement we have

just communicated and our overall enthusiasm to get to committee stage,

all of us, and get right into the nitty-gritty of this bill so we can

make sure that we’re dotting all our i’s and crossing all our t’s —

making sure that the devil is not living in the details of this

bill.

I very much look forward to doing that with members. At this time,

then, I’ll move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 15, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment

Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the House, at its rising, stand adjourned until 4 p.m. this

afternoon.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 4 p.m. this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:29 a.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,792,612,000

(continued) .

L. Throness: I do want to apologize to both ministers if a mixup today was my

fault, on which minister should be appearing. I do want to continue with

some questions for Child Care. We have a couple of minutes here before

the lunch break, so I would like to clarify some numbers from yesterday

that the minister shared with us. I just want to make sure I have things

straight.

[11:30 a.m.]

There are 2,850 providers who might be eligible for fee

reductions. And 70 percent of those providers are market-based — that’s

about 2,000 providers — and 850 would be non-profit providers. So 1,109

providers have been now approved for fee reductions, as of yesterday.

That’s 39 percent of all eligible providers that have been approved —

which, I would point out, is much fewer than half of all providers,

which is not a policy success.

I just want to clarify further one more thing. Yesterday I asked

about how many of the 1,109 providers are non-profit, because it could

be that all 850 not-for-profit providers have applied and been approved

for fee reductions and only a few hundred market-based providers may

have been approved.

It would be helpful if the minister could tell us this morning how

many market-based providers and how many non-profit providers have been

approved to deliver the fee reductions.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: To clarify, in terms of providers, it is true that there’s a

larger number of providers than the non-profit providers that are

currently receiving the CCOF, the child care operating fund. But if

you’re looking at the spaces, it’s about half and half of the non-profit

child cares that have the number of spaces and the private providers

that have spaces that are receiving government operating

funds.

Also, it’s important to remember that when we talk about

market-based providers, that includes small, family providers; in-home,

multi-age providers; medium-sized and large private providers. It’s

quite a diverse sector. There are different ways of operating a centre,

so it also includes many, many family providers that are small

operations and in-home, multi-age providers.

In terms of the member opposite’s question about eligibility of

the current fee reduction program and what percentage, either the

private or the public providers that are currently approved…. Staff are

still working hard processing applications in the approval process.

That’s where we’re concentrating staff time at this moment.

As soon as we get that number…. We will definitely get that number

for you. We’ll do a breakdown of how many private providers and

non-profit providers are opted in to the program and how many are

approved. As soon as we get that number finalized, we’ll be more than

happy to share it with the member opposite. Applications are still

coming in, and there are more contracts that are going to be returned in

the coming weeks as well.

To clarify, because I think there seems to be a misinterpretation

of all the numbers…. Just to clarify the current numbers that we have

again, in terms of how many are opted in and what the number of…. It is

complicated. There are organizations. There are facilities. The member

did reference that.

In terms of organizations that are eligible under this program,

it’s 2,850. In terms of the organizations that are applying to opt in to

this fee reduction initiative, it’s 1,570. But if you look at

facilities, which is really an important thing that we need to look at

because the facilities also are connected to the number of spaces, it is

important to remember how many families and children are going to

benefit from this plan. It’s 3,300 facilities that are currently

eligible under this program. An amount, then…. There are over 2,000. So

2,027 facilities are applying to opt in to this program, which represent

33,000 spaces.

We have already approved the last update. We’ve approved 22,000 of

those spaces, and staff are continuing to work hard every single day to

process the remaining applications that have applied to opt in. Those

22,000 spaces that have already been approved — which means 22,000

children are receiving the benefit — include private; non-profit; small

family, in-home, multi-age providers. It’s a very diverse sector. Many,

many different providers are applying to opt in to this

program.

L. Throness: I will remind the minister regularly about those numbers. I’m very

interested in seeing how many market-based versus non-profit are opting

in to the government’s plan, because it means that fewer parents will be

able to receive the fee reductions if they do not opt in. But I wanted

to talk — just for a moment, I think, before we break for lunch — about

my larger concern. I’ve been talking a lot about market-based

providers.

The way we run public policy in this country — the way goods and

services are distributed when it even comes to necessities of life, like

food and clothing — is mainly a market-based system that is well

regulated by the government, with options for people who need or want

otherwise, like government help with food or clothing or subsidized

child care.

This is the most efficient and effective model of public policy,

and this is the child care model we have right now. If the government

wants to create something different — wants to create a public-only

system, similar to our health care system — we will suffer the problems

of a public-only system. For example, just as we spend $20 billion on

our health care system today, we have a shortage of its most basic item,

doctors.

[11:40 a.m.]

We could have a very expensive child care system with a shortage

of the most basic element, that being child care spaces, and I don’t

want that. Will the government commit itself to creating the most

efficient, lowest-cost system that will also deliver enough spaces for

British Columbians?

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to thank the member opposite for his last question of

this morning and also reaffirm our vision of how we need to work

together with this very diverse sector of child care

providers.

[11:45 a.m.]

We need to continue to engage with all providers, regardless of if

they’re large, medium or small; family, in-home, multi-age; profit or

non-profit. The sector is so diverse. Every single day that is exactly

what we do. We’re engaging with providers. I’m personally joining phone

conferences, responding to questions, even answering providers’

questions on Facebook. There are many, many things we’re doing every

single day. Our staff, at the ministry level, they’re also on the

phones. They’re communicating with providers, because we do have to work

together, hand in hand, to build a better system. There is a lot of work

that we are doing.

Just to reaffirm, I know the member, over the past few days, has

asked a lot of questions about private providers. I know the member

really cares about what’s going to happen to private providers. I can

assure you, and that is the message…. I can assure the member opposite —

and I’ve been emphasizing this during the past few days — that we want

to work with everybody. We want families to have choices. I agree with

what the member opposite has said, that families need the

options.

For too many years, families have been struggling with not having

the option to find affordable child care services. The cost of child

care has gone up really significantly during the past ten years — a 35

percent increase to most child care centres and services. That has

become a huge burden to families, and that is why we have two

initiatives. We do have a very comprehensive plan.

The two initiatives include the first fee reduction initiative,

which we have spent a lot of time discussing, and then the second one

will come later this year, which is the new child care benefit. We’re

using those two different ways to see how things will go when it comes

to addressing child care affordability. We’re learning along the way.

We’re adjusting along the way, and we’re going to look back in three

years and see the how the two initiatives are going to work and how we

can, through working with providers and professionals in the sector,

build a better system for B.C. in the coming years.

We are also working hard…. I’m glad that the member opposite

mentioned the creation of spaces. That is definitely very important. For

years, even if you can afford child care services, families have been

struggling to find the spaces that work for their needs. We have

committed to accelerate a creation of child care spaces in the coming

three years by increasing it up to 22,000 spaces. It’s a very ambitious

target. That is why, again, we need to work with everybody. We need to

work with market-based providers, non-profit providers. We need to work

with municipalities, First Nations communities, Indigenous partners and

local community groups to make sure we can find creative ways to create

more spaces.

I know, again, the member focuses a lot on private providers. That

includes small family providers who are the backbone of the child care

system in many B.C. communities. That’s why, for the first time ever, we

have opened up the minor capital grant to help to support those family

providers to maintain their current services, to help them with their

operations.

We are also working closely with local child care resource

referral centres, which do a lot of work to support local providers, the

registered licence-not-required providers when it comes to quality and

operational support. We’re working with them, and we’re also looking at

how we can work with child care resource referral centres to enhance the

services that they’re doing in many B.C. communities.

Last but definitely not least, one of our top priorities,

currently, is to make sure we have a strategy to support the workforce,

to support early childhood educators. We can create spaces, we can make

child care more affordable, but at the end of the day, it is those

hard-working passionate early childhood educators who are serving our

children every single day.

That is why our government has set aside $136 million to look at

how we can support the sector through quality early learning, education,

support for education, training and also fair compensation. I know many

educators have been asking for fair compensation for years and years.

That is something we’re working hard on. Staff are working hard every

single day.

We are also working with the sector, including ECE B.C., to find

the possible strategies. I’m hoping to be able to provide some updates

in the coming weeks and months in terms of the strategy, because that is

an important piece of our comprehensive plan. Without supporting early

childhood educators, our plan will not be successful, so that is a

priority for us.

If you look at our comprehensive plan, I think there’s an

important message that we’ve been discussing during the past three days.

That is, we need to make sure that whatever we’re doing…. The government

is making significant investment. We’re using taxpayer dollars to invest

in this very important need for families, to make sure families have the

options for their child care and early learning needs. It helps them

with their affordability. It helps families with expenses. It’s good for

our kids. It’s also good for our economy.

Through doing all this work, we need accountability. We need to

make sure there’s transparency in the work that we’re doing, and that

we’re accountable to the taxpayers, to parents, through working with

professionals in the sector.

I really thank the member for your last question to reaffirm our

vision. I look forward to working with all members in this House to work

together to build a better system for B.C. families.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada