Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 109

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

Andy Thomas

Hon. J. Horgan

D. Ashton

A. Olsen

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Public Service Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Nancy Greene Raine

T. Stone

Andy Thomas

M. Dean

Umoja Operation Compassion Society

M. Hunt

Sockeye salmon poem

A. Olsen

Trans Tipping Point project and support for LGBTQ youth

J. Thornthwaite

Autism spectrum disorder awareness

R. Singh

Oral Questions

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and trucking industry

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

Natural gas royalties

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and impact on fuel supply and prices

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain pipeline and impact on businesses

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Trans Mountain pipeline and transport of oil by rail

L. Throness

Hon. J. Horgan

M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Documents referenced during debate on estimates for the Ministry of Environment and

Climate Change Strategy

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development

(continued)

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

T. Shypitka

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

E. Ross: I have an unexpected acquaintance sitting in the gallery today. It

comes from my previous experience as chief councillor of Haisla Nation, and

it goes back to what I really thought reconciliation meant: meeting in the

middle of two or more parties.

Mr. Ron Poole was an administrator for the Terrace council in his day,

and he got recruited to the Kitimat council to try and resolve the

relationship between my band and theirs in Kitimat. He did a great job. We

had some really interesting conversations over those years, but at the end

of the day, he actually brought our groups together. Will the House please

make welcome Mr. Ron Poole.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to welcome today 20 students and three

teachers from two high schools. The first high school — a high school in my

riding, Lambrick Park high school — is the alma mater of my daughter and

just down the road from where we live. They’re a host school for Immaculata

High School in Ottawa. This whole event was coordinated in Victoria by my

six- or seven-year hockey buddy, Tom Turnbull, who is a teacher at Lambrick

Park. Would the House please make them all feel very welcome here

today.

B. D’Eith: I’d like to welcome to the House a couple of gentlemen from one of the

fastest-growing communities in British Columbia and, as I like to say, the

start of the West Coast Express: Randy Hawes, former MLA and mayor of

Mission, and Ron Poole, chief administration officer. Welcome to the House.

We’d like to make them all feel welcome.

S. Gibson: I, too, would like to welcome…. Thanks to the member across for the

reminder. It’s good to have Randy Hawes, who served here for three terms and

is reprising his role as mayor. It’s a pleasure to welcome Randy here. He

also served as a member of cabinet and was caucus Whip. Would this House

please give former MLA Randy Hawes a warm legislative welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: At the risk of piling on, because I know that we try to restrict the

number of introductions one individual gets, I can’t help but acknowledge

the presence in the gallery of Randy Hawes.

I’m hopeful that he understands the rules of the public gallery. Any

heckling that he may have considered during question period should be kept

to an absolute minimum.

Thank you very much. Good to see you.

R. Kahlon: I’d like to join my colleague, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, to

welcome Lambrick Park. I’m a graduate of Lambrick Park, a Lambrick Park

Lion. It’s nice to see my fellow Lions up in the audience today. I look

forward to seeing them after question period today. Please make them welcome

again.

N. Letnick: In the House today we have Dr. Sean Spina, pharmacy clinical

coordinator for Island Health. He’s here to talk with me about things that

really impact health care. Would the House please make him feel very

welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

R. Singh: They are not here yet, but soon we will be joined by 28 grades 5 and 6

students from Creekside Elementary. They will be joined by their teacher,

Mr. Peter Erceg. It was such an honour to visit these students a few weeks

ago. I was so amazed by their interest in politics. Would the House please

make them feel very welcome.

A. Olsen: All this love being heaped on Lambrick Park…. I thought I should note

that Mr. Scott Gordon and 38 grade 11 students from my alma mater, Stelly’s

Secondary, home of the Stingers, are in the House today. Could everybody

please make them feel welcome.

R. Chouhan: To those members who may not already know her, it is my pleasure to

introduce Jennifer Arril. Jennifer is temporarily taking on duties as

Committee Clerk in Committee of Supply for the upcoming weeks. She’s worked

in the Parliamentary Committees Office at the Legislative Assembly for the

past several years. Would the House please join me in welcoming Jennifer to

her new role.

T. Shypitka: We all make sacrifices being in the House. Today that is so for me. I

just want to do a quick shout-out to my son Adam, who is ten years old

today. I’m proud of the little guy. He’s a hockey player. He’s fun, and he’s

funny. I would just like to recognize that and have the House welcome and

celebrate his tenth birthday today.

Tributes

ANDY THOMAS

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise today on a sad note, on the traditional territories of the

Lekwungen-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, to

acknowledge and pay tribute to the passing of Chief Andrew Thomas, who,

sadly, passed away on Saturday in his home community.

Chief Andy, as he was known, led the Esquimalt Nation for 47

years. He did so with integrity and dignity and respect for all peoples

in the region.

Andy was looked to as a leader. I know many in this House had

interactions with him. I know the member for Richmond South Centre, in

her former capacity, met with Andy several times as he constantly gave

of himself to come to the Legislature to participate in the activities

of this place on behalf of the Esquimalt people. He did so, always, with

profound respect and understanding of the traditions here but

passionately defending the traditions of his people.

Andy leaves behind a wife, Mary Anne, and a family who are deeply

grieving at this time, and an entire community that has lost a respected

leader and will be grieving for some time.

In honour of Chief Thomas, the flag, which is currently at

half-mast to pay honour to the 15 who lost their lives in the Humboldt

Broncos tragedy, will continue to fly at half-mast until the conclusion

of Chief Andy’s memorial service on Thursday at 9 a.m. in the big house

in Esquimalt territory.

It is a deep loss for the people of the south Island and a deep

loss for the Indigenous communities right across British

Columbia.

Chief Andy will be remembered as a giant in Esquimalt and a giant

for reconciliation. It’s in his memory that I and all of us in this

House should continue to do everything we can to lean forward into our

reconciliation efforts in the interests of all British

Columbians.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the Premier for his remarks, and I would

like to join in paying respect to a great leader with him.

For almost five decades, Chief Thomas led the Esquimalt Nation.

When he first became Chief in 1971, the Prime Minister was Pierre Elliot

Trudeau and the leader of this province was W.A.C. Bennett. For all

those changes that he saw, he was always a constant — a respected voice

and a devoted advocate for his people, their culture and their

rights.

He also took the long view. He liked to point out that the treaty

signed by his ancestor Sisunuq and James Douglas was just six

generations ago.

Seenupin, as his name was, leaves an incredible legacy for the

Esquimalt First Nations to follow, and especially the youth. Our

thoughts are with the family and the community during this very

difficult time.

A. Olsen: I also would like to raise my hands and thank the Premier and the

government for acknowledging Seenupin. Seenupin is a relative of mine.

He was my dad’s cousin. His mother and my dad’s mother, my grandmother

Laura, ZIȻOT, were first cousins, so

we referred to him as Uncle Andy.

Andy was a tremendous leader, as has already been pointed out and

acknowledged. He would always be noted for his traditional ball cap. It

usually had a big eagle, right front and centre.

[10:15 a.m.]

Seenupin was a tremendous cultural leader in our communities here

in the Saanich Lekwungen territories, very well respected. He was a very

astute political leader as well and, as has been pointed out, bridged

modern days and modern ways with a very strong and solid traditional

understanding, which he brought to his conversations and his debates and

his leadership.

The last time I saw Seenupin was at my Uncle Jim’s prayer service.

The time before that was at my Uncle Eric’s prayer service, both within

the last couple of months. One of the things that Seenupin told me, and

was weighing heavily on him, was the number of elders that we have lost

in this territory and in this region over the past few months. There’s

been a tremendous amount of loss within the First Nations communities,

and Chief Andy Thomas was wearing that.

So my thoughts are to my Aunt Mary Anne, my cousins and, as well,

all of the Thomas family, all of the Esquimalt family and all of the

family that we have here in Lekwungen and WSÁNEĆ territories.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — PUBLIC SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT,

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 13, Public Service Amendment Act, 2018, be

introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the amendments to the Public Service Act.

This bill amends the Public Service Act to implement the government’s

response to recommendation 27 of the Ombudsperson’s Misfire

report from April of 2017. That recommendation called for the Office of

the Merit Commissioner to assume a new responsibility for the review of

just-cause dismissals in the public service.

The proposed amendments to the Public Service Act assign that

function to the Merit Commissioner, as recommended, with responsibility

to provide oversight, conduct independent reviews, identify any systemic

issues and publicly report out those aggregate results.

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 13, Public 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)

NANCY GREENE RAINE

T. Stone: Today I’m proud to acknowledge a remarkable British Columbian,

Nancy Greene Raine. Anyone who has met her knows that Nancy is a female

powerhouse who has put B.C. and Canada on the map in alpine skiing.

Nicknamed Tiger because of her go-for-it attitude and aggressive style

of skiing, she was named Canada’s female athlete of the 20th century,

after competing in three Olympic Games, winning 17 Canadian titles, 13

World Cup victories and three U.S. ski championships.

And 2018 is a big year for Nancy. It marks the 50th anniversary of

her Olympic gold- and silver-medal wins at the 1968 Winter Games in

Grenoble. Nancy also hits a birthday milestone in May, turning 75. And

what better early birthday gift than to be highlighted in the new,

recently released Canada Post stamp series that features women in winter

sports?

Nancy is also a community builder and counts as one of her

proudest contributions having served as Thompson Rivers University

chancellor up in Kamloops. She has thus been awarded the Order of Canada

and the Order of British Columbia.

She’s an advocate for skiing, both for tourism and as healthy

recreation. She and Al Raine, her husband of 49 years, were instrumental

in the early expansion of B.C.’s ski tourism industry, both in Whistler

Blackcomb and up at Sun Peaks, where she currently holds the title of

director of skiing.

She faithfully skis with any member of the public who wants to

join her on most weekends and holidays. All you have to do is meet her

at 1 p.m. sharp at the top of the Sunburst chairlift.

Nancy Green Raine will be retiring from the Canadian Senate this

year after nine active years of serving British Columbians. As a

senator, she has shared her passion for the promotion of health and

fitness. In 2014, her bill to establish a national health and fitness

day across Canada was unanimously passed in both the Senate and the

House of Commons.

[10:20 a.m.]

I would like to ask the House today to please join me in wishing

Nancy Green Raine an early happy birthday and also in celebrating her

many contributions to British Columbians.

ANDY THOMAS

M. Dean: Our community lost a great leader when Esquimalt Nation Chief

Andrew Thomas, whose traditional name was Seenupin, died unexpectedly

over this past weekend. For 47 years, he was Hereditary Chief through

his great-great-great-grandfather, Sisunuq. He was known as Chief Andy,

a humble man who worked every day for the well-being of his people and a

champion of Indigenous rights.

He helped to develop the Assembly of First Nations, was on the

executive of the First Nations of South Island Tribal Council and was

honoured with the Chancellor’s Community Recognition Award from Royal

Roads University.

His legacy lives among us now and into the future each time we see

the signs in the Lekwungen language and Salish artworks that extend

across this region, and when we recognize the traditional territory upon

which we do our work here.

As a statement from Esquimalt Nation highlighted, he was a devoted

husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, friend, partner, teacher

and colleague, and he embraced these responsibilities with pride and

honour. He was always surrounded by his children, grandchildren and

great-grandchildren. His charisma and humour drew people to his house,

and his door was always open.

His passing has deeply affected his family, his community and the

entire Salish peoples, as well as those who had the honour to know him.

He will be deeply missed.

I was honoured to get to know and work with Chief Andy and deeply

appreciated his honesty and his wisdom. My deepest condolences go to all

those who knew and loved this great man. Especially, I send my sincere

thoughts to his wife, Mary Anne, and his family at this time of

grief.

UMOJA OPERATION COMPASSION SOCIETY

M. Hunt: Moving to a new province or even to a new city is an arduous and

often frustrating endeavour. Boxing up your life, saying goodbye to your

loved ones and your support network and stepping into the unknown — it’s

stressful, to say the least.

Imagine how much more daunting it must be to move across the world

for a new start, a better life, for safety for your children. The Umoja

Operation Compassion Society of British Columbia is a non-profit society

that has been serving new immigrants and refugee families in Surrey for

nearly two decades.

As Surrey continues to be B.C.’s largest recipient of refugees and

immigrants, the work of Umoja remains vital to our community. In fact,

48 percent of the newcomers to B.C. come to Surrey. In order for these

families to feel at home in Surrey, Umoja helps them to overcome

obstacles such as poverty, learning a new language, unemployment,

culture shock, isolation and feelings of hopelessness.

Umoja empowers new families through a variety of culturally

sensitive programs, including adult literacy, life skills and children’s

after-school programming. They assist families in assessing resources

and learning about local community events, schools, social services and

housing.

Perhaps more importantly though, the newcomers they serve find

solidarity and community with others who can best identify and empathize

with their journey to B.C. Umoja means “unity” in Swahili, and as its

name suggests, this organization promotes unity and compassion, respect

and dignity amongst minority immigrants and refugees. Traits such as

these are invaluable in fostering successful, vibrant communities, and

Umoja proves just how far kindness and compassion can go.

SOCKEYE SALMON POEM

A. Olsen:

Oh splendorous sockeye!

How can I replace

your red flesh offerings,

your salty silver scales?

How can I dance

to your memory?

The memory I hold in my cells,

the memory I hold in my skin,

the memory I hold in my wildness,

the part of me that is not human,

the part of me that is fish.

Oh splendorous sockeye!

I sit at the table

of a bountiful ocean,

knowing the fasting has begun,

knowing that you are more than food.

A family within a family,

that humankind cannot replenish.

[10:25 a.m.]

Sorry sockeye.

Sorry tree. Sorry mountain. Sorry meadow.

Wolf, frog. Sorry bear, otter. Sorry eagle.

Sorry forest floor. Sorry canopy.

Sorry fungi, sapling, fern.

Sorry moss. Sorry lichen.

Sorry stream, lake, ocean.

Sorry kelp. Sorry seal. Sorry orca.

Sorry air, wind, sky, clouds.

Sorry stars. Sorry moon.

Sorry parents. Sorry grandparents.

Sorry children.

TRANS TIPPING POINT PROJECT

AND SUPPORT FOR LGBTQ

YOUTH

J. Thornthwaite: Yesterday I met with the folks from the Transgender Tipping Point

project, a UVic initiative organized by Dr. Lindsay Herriot and Kate

Fry. This book-writing project brings together 25 transgender and

non-binary youth from every corner of British Columbia and from across

Canada. Besides publishing their own book about what it’s like to grow

up as transgendered today, they’ve also been working with MLAs from all

three parties to enact policy and legislation that’s by trans youth, for

trans youth.

Mental health and addictions affects all levels of society. It

knows no boundaries for socioeconomic status, education, race, religion,

sexual orientation or sex. We, as a society, need to work harder in

trying to prevent what we can for those people who may be at risk, and

that often starts in the schools with vulnerable or marginalized youth,

including LGBTQ and trans youth. Plus, support for transitioning youth

is often unstable and unevenly distributed. Check out Trans Care B.C.

for more information.

Recent university studies have determined that school policies

that support LGBTQ youth also support their non-LGBTQ peers. A 2014

study by Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc determined that gay-straight alliances

reduce the likelihood of suicide by heterosexual boys by 50 percent. In

schools that had anti-homophobic policies integrated over three years,

the consideration of suicide among heterosexual boys was reduced by 27

percent.

Most recently, in February of this year, Out in Schools, a

provincewide program that empowers students and educators to create

inclusive school environments, announced that their programs not only

reduce bullying for LGBTQ youth but also for non-LGBTQ students in the

entire school. Out in Schools has reached more than 100,000 youth across

B.C. since its inception and continues to fight homophobia and

transphobia across the province.

I’m proud of our B.C. Liberal government supporting the LGBTQ

community and realize that we have to increase acceptance and tolerance

for all youth, no matter their sexual orientation, race, sex or

religion.

AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER AWARENESS

R. Singh: April is Autism Awareness Month in British Columbia, and today I

rise to bring awareness to autism spectrum disorder, or ASD. I see that

many of the members of the House are wearing an autism ribbon pin in

honour of those affected by this condition.

The ribbon symbolizes awareness of autism spectrum disorder, and

the interconnection of colourful jigsaw puzzle pieces represents the

complexity of ASD, the different shapes and colours represent the

diversity of people who are living with ASD, their families and the

broader community. The colours in the ribbon are bright and basic and

symbolize hope and inspiration for research, treatment and

support.

ASD is often diagnosed in children between the ages of two and

three and refers to a wide range of conditions that are characterized by

challenges with social skills, repetitive behaviours, speech and

non-verbal communication. Oftentimes children with ASD exhibit unique

strengths and differences.

As awareness of ASD increases, the number of children diagnosed

with ASD also continues to increase. In February 2007, one in every 209

children in B.C. received autism funding. In February of this year, that

number has risen to one in every 51 children, resulting in increased

demand and pressure for our autism programs.

[10:30 a.m.]

Although autism spectrum disorder is usually associated with

children, it is a lifelong condition. While many of those with ASD are

able to reach a point where they no longer need to rely on a parent or a

caregiver, just as many require support throughout their entire

lives.

I hope the members of this House will stand with me in support of

all those whose lives are touched by this condition.

Oral Questions

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN

PIPELINE

A. Wilkinson: Yesterday we heard from the Premier, in tones that can only be

described as dismissive, of this emerging fiasco that is now dominating

the headlines across the country.

He has created this problem. If he had a look at the media

overnight, he’d realize that we’re seeing quotes like the one from

Global News : “It’s a volcanic reaction. I’ve never seen a

more negative reaction.” Yet we find his members mocking this

concern.

Our province is facing a trade war with Alberta. The federal

cabinet is meeting today in an emergency meeting to contemplate what

actions to take to bring British Columbia back to the table, and we have

an arrogant Premier who is completely dismissive of these

concerns.

The question arises: what is this Premier going to do? What is his

plan to resolve this emerging war with Alberta and an ongoing dispute

the investment community?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I do think, though, it’s

important that the House understand the context we find ourselves in.

That is that when we formed government, we joined with an existing court

case questioning the validity of the National Energy Board process — one

that had been started before we were sworn in and one that we’re proud

to have joined.

The second opportunity for us to intervene in this process was the

result of our desire to communicate with British Columbians, to consult

with them on what tools we should use to protect our land, our water and

to defend our coast, at the end of the day, against the possibility of a

diluted bitumen spill that would have had an adverse consequence — a

significantly adverse consequence — on our economy and on our

environment.

When we began that consultation process, there was a volcanic

response from the government of Alberta. I spoke with the Prime

Minister, I spoke with the Minister of Justice, and we determined that

the best course of action, at that time, would be to refer the matter —

a jurisdictional question — to a higher court. We’re in the process of

doing that.

I will remind the member that, at the time, the government of

Alberta suspended its illegal trade war and said this was the right way

to go.

So what’s changed? Well, a boardroom in Texas issued a press

release, and the Leader of the Opposition has jumped on board to defend

the rights of shareholders in a multinational company rather than defend

the rights of British Columbians.

I’m going to stand on the side of British Columbians, if that’s

all right with the member on the other side.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s quite apparent that the Premier did not read the

newspapers or listen to the radio and TV in the last 24 hours. Perhaps

we can quote from a local paper, the Times Colonist . The

headline: “Kinder Surprise Sets the Stage for Showdown. B.C.-Alberta

Truce Is Over, and Worst-case Scenarios Are Where the Smart Money

Is.”

The Premier now purports to hide behind litigation. Well, the

federal government has been crystal clear on their position on this —

that the case being put forward by this Premier has no merit whatsoever

under the Constitution of Canada. The Premier hides behind the idea that

Texas shareholders are driving the agenda. Well, he didn’t read the

newspaper, because 77 percent of the shareholders are in

Canada.

So this Premier is picking a fight with our most important trading

partner, Alberta; getting into a disciplinary action coming from Ottawa

later this afternoon after a federal cabinet meeting; has completely

dismissed the investment community across this country; and has

destroyed British Columbia’s reputation as an investment

destination.

Now we find a Premier who jumps up, smiles, has his backbenchers

laugh at us. When is the Premier going to take this matter seriously?

The newspapers are taking it very seriously, and he is not.

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I just want to correct the member on the other side. I do take

this matter very seriously. All British Columbians take it very

seriously.

We campaigned to ensure that we were going to defend our coast,

and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’ve been doing that for the past

nine months. We’re doing that through the courts.

We are asserting that we have jurisdiction on areas of environment

with respect to our air, water and lands. I’m surprised that someone — a

former Attorney General — would suggest that rather than test that

assumption, we should just take the word of a headline writer. I’m not

going to do that. I’m going to assert the rights of British Columbians

every day.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure to stand in this House and take legal advice from

our Premier after I’ve been practising law for 25 years.

Apparently, this Premier has decided that the federal ministry of

Justice simply has no competence in the field. He’s decided to cook up a

lawsuit to try and drag this out, to make a totally unnecessary dispute

viable in the eyes of the public, yet the newspapers aren’t buying it.

We’ve seen this again in the Times Colonist

yesterday.

Interjections.

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

A. Wilkinson: Federal cabinet holds emergency meeting. Government promises

legal, regulatory, financial options.

This Premier stands totally isolated in Canada on this file. He

purports to wrap himself in the flag of the people of British Columbia,

but he has failed to recognize that no one else thinks he has the

jurisdiction to do what he’s trying to do. And that is clear from the

government of Alberta, from the government of Saskatchewan, from the

The Premier smiles smugly, thinking he is going to wrap himself in

British Columbia’s virtues and somehow prevail. He’s backed himself into

a bad corner, and it’s time to eat humble pie.

When will this Premier come to his senses, get on the plane, go to

Ottawa and try to resolve this crisis?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just remind the member that practice does make perfect, and

25 years might not be quite enough to get to the final point on that.

And when it comes to humility, I will not take lessons from the member

on the other side.

However, I do believe this is an important opportunity for the

House to understand and all British Columbians to understand where we

are and how we got here. Again, I’ll repeat for the member, and I’ll do

it in a way that I’m certain he will understand: there was legal action

underway when we were sworn in. We joined that case. There is a question

of jurisdiction, and questions should be answered not in headlines, not

in letters to the editor, but in court, which is exactly what we propose

to do.

Lastly, wrapping myself in the flag of British Columbia is exactly

what the Premier of British Columbia is supposed to do, and I’m

surprised the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand

that.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND TRUCKING INDUSTRY

T. Stone: I’m certain that most British Columbians would feel that it is not

the Premier’s job to provoke a trade war with Alberta and to provoke a

trade war that could result in very serious consequences for the people

of British Columbia.

Now, the Alberta government has been very, very clear about their

intentions to impose serious economic consequences on British Columbia.

One demand being made in Alberta at the moment is imposing comprehensive

inspections on 100 percent of B.C.’s commercial vehicles entering or

exiting Alberta.

Now, I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation this question.

Has the minister considered what impact this action would have on B.C.’s

trucking industry?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question.

Again, the trade war that he spoke of was a one-sided battle. We

had the province to our east say they were no longer going to accept

wine shipments from British Columbia. Our response was to say: “That’s

illegal, and you shouldn’t do that.”

[10:40 a.m.]

Now they’ve withdrawn that position. They may well have others,

but I don’t think it’s useful to speculate on the actions of other

people. Instead, we should focus on the actions of this Legislature and

the actions of the people of British Columbia. What we’ve been doing

since we were sworn in is to work as hard as we can to make life better

for British Columbians. That’s what we campaigned on, and that’s what

we’re doing.

Now, I appreciate that the members on the other side feel more

comfortable opposing the government, but it wasn’t that long ago that

the leader of the government, Christy Clark, said the following: “Aside

from the politics of trying to force something on a province to which

they haven’t consented, British Columbia has the power to grant or

withhold about 60 permits.” That was the position of those people on

that side not that long ago.

We have not been thwarting due process. We have been issuing

permits as they’ve been requested. All we have done is said that we

would assert our rights and our jurisdiction to protect British

Columbia’s economy and its environment. That’s what the people of this

province expect us to do, not to kowtow to another province or read

headlines and dictate policies based on the whims of the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: This isn’t idle speculation on the part of the official

opposition. These are actual actions that are being considered in the

province of Alberta. We would hope that the Minister of Transportation

would be actively engaged in this file.

Now, I’ll ask the Minister of Transportation again. The demand

being made in Alberta is to enact inspections for compliance with

Alberta traffic laws on each and every B.C. commercial vehicle whenever

a truck crosses the border. To the Minister of Transportation, does she

know what the consequences would be for B.C.’s trucking industry should

Alberta move forward with this action?

Hon. J. Horgan: It is interesting that after just one question, we’re on to

speculation of what might be. I think it would be more appropriate if we

talked about the realities facing British Columbians today — that is,

how do we make life more affordable? How do we ensure that the services

they need — in many cases denied by those on the other side for many,

many years — are put in place?

That’s the role and function of government. It’s not to read

headlines. It’s not to speculate on what might happen. It’s to focus on

the realities that people are facing every day. The vast majority of

British Columbians believe that our coast deserves defence, and it’s

appropriate and responsible for the government of British Columbia to

stand up to those who have a different point of view — which, it turns

out, is not just the government of Alberta, but it’s also the official

opposition.

NATURAL GAS ROYALTIES

S. Furstenau: For a time in B.C., we received huge annual royalty revenues from

our natural gas sector that helped pay for essential public services,

but those days are gone. Even worse, B.C. has been essentially giving

away gas worth billions without a fair return to the public treasury. As

Marc Lee writes, royalty regimes are “supposed to capture a fair share

of the economic rent” for the extraction of resources that are owned by

the public. “This is particularly important for non-renewable resources

like gas,” because once they’re extracted, they’re gone

forever.

While B.C. gas production has continued to increase, the royalty

revenues in this province have plummeted from $2 billion in 2005 to $139

million in 2015. We are giving away more gas for less money while

barrelling past our climate commitments.

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

specific steps has the minister done to remedy this staggering economic

and generational sellout?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question. However, the information

she is presenting is not quite accurate. I’ve offered to provide the

Green caucus, several times, with a briefing on this particular issue.

That offer still stands, and I’m very happy to take the time whenever

they’re available to get the information.

[10:45 a.m.]

What we’re talking about is the deep-well royalty program. I just

want to remind the member that last year we received $145 million in

royalties. What’s important to this program, which provides credits, is

that not all credits are actually realized. While credits might be

banked, they might not actually be claimed. There’s a variety of reasons

that determine that.

One of the important things to note in all of this is that minimum

royalty payments are required. They ensure that a company always

contributes to the province, no matter how many credits they may

have.

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

S. Furstenau: I’d like to point out that I talked about the revenues that we

have received as a province. As our gas production has increased, our

revenues have plummeted from $2 billion in 2005 to $139 million in 2015,

with more gas being exported from our province. I’m deeply concerned

that the minister doesn’t find this as troubling as we do.

The deep-well royalty program was designed to enable the

provincial government to share the cost of innovation for drilling in

B.C.’s deep-gas basins. It has since transformed into a massive subsidy

to incentivize horizontal drilling, including shallow wells and

hydraulic fracturing. We already know that B.C. earns very little from

its natural gas royalties. Worse still, there is more than $3.2 billion

in unclaimed credits that can be applied against future

royalties.

The minister doesn’t seem too concerned that we have a $3.2

billion fracking debt. However, I think that should be a concern for

every citizen in B.C.

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

minister terminate the deep-well royalty program and focus on supporting

innovation in the B.C. economy that will lead our province towards a

low-carbon economy?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member would likely know that we have commenced a hydraulic

fracturing review scientific panel that is looking at the practice of

hydraulic fracturing, specifically to look at those innovations that she

mentioned.

However, when it comes to the deep-well royalty credit program,

again, her characterization is not quite accurate. I’m more than happy

to ensure that they get a full briefing so they understand how those

credits accumulate and then how they actually are applied on a

day-to-day basis within our province to ensure that not only is our

natural gas sector competitive globally but that we’re also ensuring

that British Columbians receive the return on their investment and on

their natural resources.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES

P. Milobar: The government of Alberta is in the process of passing legislation

that would allow it to cut off fuel supplies and impose serious economic

consequences on British Columbia. Clearly, working British Columbians

will be hurt as a result of these actions.

Has the Environment Minister considered what impact this action

would have on fuel supplies and prices in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m not aware of the legislation the member is talking about. I

was in contact with my deputy minister this morning. There is no

legislation. I don’t know what he’s speaking of, but it is an

opportunity for me to remind members on the other side what former

Premier Christy Clark said about these sorts of issues: “The thing is,

if British Columbia doesn’t give its consent to this, there is no way

the federal government or anyone else in the country is going to be able

to force it through.”

Now, that was the former Premier. I don’t know what happened on

the road from here to there, but it seems that those on that side of the

House have lost sight of the important role of people in this

Legislature, and that is to defend British Columbia and to promote the

interests of the people of this great province.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: I’d point out that the quote the Premier keeps referencing was

before the project was actually finally approved by both the federal

government and the provincial government.

Now we have an approved project, and we have a trade war that is

brewing — and without a plan to extract British Columbia from this

NDP-created crisis. It is working British Columbians that will pay the

price. Rather than being dismissive, perhaps the minister ought to be

worried about the serious implications of these actions.

[10:50 a.m.]

Again to the minister, does he know the potential impact of the

pending Alberta legislation?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, now it’s pending legislation. We’ll await that legislation.

But I am absolutely convinced that when it is tabled, it will be

illegal. We have rules in Canada. We have the rule of law in Canada, and

I don’t understand the problem these people have with this side of the

House saying: “Let’s go to court to resolve these issues.” That’s what

we’ve been doing since we were sworn in, that’s what we started in

February, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.

I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest for those on that side of

the House to create crisis when we are in court trying to determine what

our jurisdiction is. What problem they have with that is a mystery to

me, and I’m fairly confident it’s a mystery to the people of B.C. as

well.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

AND IMPACT ON BUSINESSES

S. Bond: Well, the Premier can stand in this House, and he can dismiss, he

can deflect, he can claim to be on the side of British Columbians, but

maybe the question to the Premier is: which British Columbians?

Yesterday the Premier simply dismissed the concerns of the very people

who create jobs and grow the economy in our province. The last time I

checked, they were British Columbians too. The Vancouver Board of Trade,

the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Business Council — the list goes

on.

Let’s try the Minister of Jobs. What does the Minister of Jobs

have to say to thousands of British Columbian job creators who are

concerned about the reckless actions of his government?

Hon. J. Horgan: Firstly, I’m not dismissing, and I’m not deflecting. I’m defending

the interests and the jurisdiction of British Columbia. For the past

nine months, I have been meeting with leaders in industry. We have been

having very positive interactions about how we can grow a bigger

economy, a better economy, one that includes all British Columbians.

That’s the goal and role and function of the province of British

Columbia.

I have to remind members that we were working through the courts

until this past weekend, when a boardroom in Texas issued a press

release which then became the lifeline for the Leader of the Opposition

to try and find some relevance in the debates that are going on in

British Columbia. The facts remain as they are. We are in court seeking

a jurisdictional dispute resolution process, as any reasonable and

responsible government should do. This hyperbolic notion that somehow

crisis was created by this side of the House has no basis in

fact.

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

S. Bond: Let’s be clear. The question that I asked in the House has little

to do with a boardroom in Texas. It has everything to do with thousands

of job creators who are voicing their concerns. It’s not just the people

on this side of the House. Thousands of job creators in this province

are asking this Premier to clean up his mess. When they’re worried,

we’re worried, and the Premier should be worried too.

The Vancouver Board of Trade has a very specific ask. They ask

this government, not the boardroom in Texas, to immediately end their

tactics to block the project. They are British Columbians too. What does

the Premier have to say to the Vancouver Board of Trade and other

job-creating organizations in this province, or is he simply going to

continue to be dismissive and disrespectful?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the passion of the member on the other side, but

again, I think we have to look at the situation we find ourselves in. We

entered an existing legal action that was undertaken prior to our

arrival. We have also sought jurisdictional resolution to a dispute

between parties — the province of British Columbia and the province of

Alberta.

If I am clear on this, the thousands of job creators the member

talks about oftentimes resort to court action to resolve disputes.

That’s appropriate, and that’s as it should be. Why is it, then, if it’s

okay for individuals or corporations to enter into a courtroom to

resolve disputes, that it’s not okay for the province of British

Columbia to use the courts in an appropriate and respectful manner to

determine what our jurisdiction is so that we can do our job — that is,

to defend the interests of British Columbians?

[10:55 a.m.]

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

TRANSPORT OF OIL BY

RAIL

L. Throness: I live in Chilliwack, which is bisected by the main CN Rail line.

Twenty-eight trains, many of them carrying oil, barrel through our city

every day and night at speeds of up to 80 kilometres an hour. On the

other hand, the Trans Mountain pipeline also goes through our community.

It’s silent; it’s safe. There hasn’t been an incident in 60

years.

Can the Minister of Transportation tell the House why she prefers

oil transported by rail instead of by pipeline?

Hon. J. Horgan: Those trains were travelling past the member’s home when that side

of the House was in power. The regulations that we were proposing to

consult British Columbians about were not just about pipelines. It was

about the transportation of that very product — whether it’s by rail,

whether it’s by pipeline or whether it’s by carrier pigeon. Again, I

think that’s appropriate for the government of British Columbia to

examine what tools we have to protect the very community that the member

represents.

Mr. Speaker: Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: In May of 1984, 27 train cars derailed in the centre of

Chilliwack. They spilled their contents of copper ore and wood chips. I

remember that event because I was there in the aftermath. It was a

chilling sight to see a giant train engine half-buried in the dirt, and

I can only imagine what might have happened if the train had been

transporting oil. Since then, there have been other

derailments.

My question, I guess, is to the Premier, because he’s muzzling all

of his ministers. Why does he think that oil by rail line is safer than

oil by pipeline?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I refer the member to the conditions that we were going to

consult British Columbians on. One of those was: do we have an

appropriate response to the spill of diluted bitumen, whether it be by

rail, whether it be by pipeline or whether it be by any other

means?

Again, these are appropriate and responsible actions by a

government that wants to protect the very interests that the member

stands up and discusses. I’m not responsible for 1984; I’m responsible

for 2018. Rather than resort to hyperbolic language and thumping and

ultimatums and threats, I’m going to the courts, as any responsible

human being would do, and I’m trying to seek resolution on who has the

jurisdiction to protect his constituents, everyone else’s constituents

and, most importantly, all British Columbians.

M. de Jong: Here’s what we do know. Energy production in Alberta is going up.

The pipelines that carry that energy to market are at capacity. The NDP

government is doing everything — and, the Premier has confirmed again

yesterday, will do everything — within their power to delay and

ultimately frustrate and prevent the expansion of that pipeline

capacity. As a result, shipments of crude by rail are increasing

dramatically.

The National Energy Board says that

whereas 7,000 barrels a day

were transported in Canada in 2012, that is up now to over 150,000

barrels a day. The Energy Agency in Paris predicts that by 2019, 600,000

barrels a day will be transported by rail in the absence of additional

pipeline capacity. The state of Washington confirms, in detailed

reports, that the amount of bitumen and crude travelling to refineries

in Washington through British Columbia by rail is also increasing

dramatically.

If the Premier is answering all the questions, he can answer this

one too. What steps is his government taking to protect British

Columbians from an increase in rail transportation of crude that

virtually every study you read confirms is riskier? What steps is his

government taking to protect the people in McBride, in Kamloops, in

Cache Creek, in Lytton, in Hope, in Chilliwack, in Abbotsford and

Langley from the kind of disaster that we have seen happen in Canada

before and that his government is making more likely to occur in British

Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, please retract your comment.

A. Weaver: I retract.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the passion of the member on the other side,

but I think we need to look at the facts.

[11:00 a.m.]

In January, we proposed a consultation with British Columbians to

address those very issues. It wasn’t just about the Kinder Morgan

pipeline. It was about the transportation of diluted bitumen through

British Columbia. A careful reading…. I’m confident that the Environment

Minister will provide the exact language during the estimates debate

later today, if they didn’t get a chance to read it.

The appropriate thing for the government of British Columbia to

do, faced with the potential catastrophic outcomes that the member on

the other side is talking about, is to prepare for that. And what’s the

best way to prepare for that? To speak to British Columbians about what

tools we need to protect their interests. That’s what we’re doing, hon.

Speaker.

I am perplexed. I’m absolutely perplexed at the vociferous

opposition from the other side to standing up and defending the people

of British Columbia. I don’t get that. There were 16 years on that side

of the House to do something about this. I’m surprised the member from

Chilliwack and the member from Abbotsford didn’t stand up in caucus and

say to the former Premier, who had some interesting things to say about

how you stop things…. What was right then, and what’s wrong now? I don’t

understand that. It looks like a double standard, by my

reckoning.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

M. de Jong: I table for the House the documents, including the studies referenced

a moment ago in question period, referred and referenced during debates of

the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and in Committee A, I call continued

debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000

(continued) .

Hon. D. Donaldson: I have a few updates for the member in relation to some of the

questions that have arisen in the estimates so far. The member was

asking about attendance at a Wosk Centre engagement session that’s

happening this week, April 10 to 12.

As of March 30, we have confirmed attendance from a number of

organizations, including environmental organizations, hunters, trappers,

guides and the wildlife sheep society, from tourism and recreation

groups, from agriculture groups, from habitat conservation and land

trusts, from energy and mining representatives, from the forestry

sector.

What I’ll do is make sure that we table this so that the member

can have access to all those who are confirmed attending the Wosk Centre

sessions.

[11:10 a.m.]

I have a couple other updates from questions that arose last

month, in March. One was in relation to an inquiry from the member from

the Cariboo. I just want to clarify staff numbers working in regional

economic development. The actual staff numbers for 2017-18 within my

ministry are 21 regional economic development officers and 11 rural

policy staff. Originally, I said 19 and nine, so it’s a good-news story.

They’re up somewhat.

With regard to the member’s specific question on travel for the

advisory council…. In the past, any travel or other operating needs for

the direct support of the rural advisory council were paid out of the

$25 million rural dividend budget.

Finally, one other update from back in March. I provided the

member an update on the B.C. Timber Sales revenues and expenses for

’17-18. Those estimates have now been updated. The revised 2018-19 B.C.

Timber Sales revenues are $345.88 million. Expenses are $196.723

million, making an overall net revenue of $149.157 million for ’18-19

when it comes to B.C. Timber Sales.

J. Rustad: I think if we maybe try hard, we could probably even stretch this

into a third month if we wanted to. Having said that, thank you to the

minister for the information.

Just one quick question with regard to the information at the Wosk

Centre. One of the other questions I had asked yesterday — this is with

reference to the stakeholder engagement for caribou recovery, species at

risk, wildlife and habitat management gathering that’s going on — will

there be a public report that comes from the discussions at the Wosk

Centre that started today and go for the next two days?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, there’ll be a public report. That report and the work being

done will also inform the next engagement. Just to make sure the member

knows, and to put on record for people who are interested, it’s not

going to be the only opportunity for engagement around the provincial

caribou strategy.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for taking questions here today.

Wildlife. Obviously, the minister knows it’s a big issue in my

area. As the minister also knows and as we just spoke of, there’s a

meeting today, tomorrow and Thursday in Vancouver about stakeholder

engagement for caribou recovery, species at risk, wildlife and habitat.

As the minister also knows, I have been working quite hard over the last

couple of years bringing together all stakeholders from my region to

come up with a blueprint towards a management model that finds a true

balance between the environment and the economy.

I dare say that the user groups in my area — the guide-outfitters,

the trappers, the hunters, industries such as Canfor, Teck Coal and

other mining companies, as well as recreational users, berry pickers,

ATVers, hikers, campers, etc. — are more engaged and have more to bring

to the table than most jurisdictions in British Columbia.

I may be biased, but this is my number one priority in my region.

It brings me the most emails and phone calls that I get. The stewardship

within these groups is absolutely invaluable. Volunteers within the

hunting community, ranching community — all of the groups I have

mentioned — have a lot of common goals. I have collected those goals and

have packaged them into a preliminary management plan, and I’ve actually

presented that to the minister and his staff yesterday. I can get you

more copies if you’re interested.

[11:15 a.m.]

I guess my first question here is: can the minister confirm that

this human resource that I just spoke of is invaluable to developing a

proper wildlife management plan in the province of British

Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Absolutely, I’m interested in this human resource. It’s very good

to hear that the member is finding it is a number one priority of many

of his constituents, because it’s good news that people are interested

in what’s going on in their own backyard and have a feeling of ownership

over the issue of wildlife management.

That’s the kind of thing that I want to recognize in the Kootenays

and in his constituency, Kootenay East, and — not but — it’s something

that I want to hopefully expand out, from the great interest shown by

his constituents, to capture that interest broadly across the

province.

The member mentions guide-outfitters, trappers, hunters, industry.

Those are key players, and recreational users as well. In many parts of

the province, of course, First Nations have a major role to play as

well, and we’re doing that on a government-to-government

basis.

Yes, I want to commend the member for being diligent in coming to

me, around how unique the situation is in his constituency about

bringing different people together and the work he’s done on that. The

interest is there, and we want to capitalize on that. Thank you for the

preliminary management plan. I haven’t had a chance to go over it yet,

but definitely we’ll be having a look at it.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for that acknowledgment. “Capturing the

interest of the constituents,” I think, is what I heard. That is really

encouraging.

British Columbia is probably one of the most diverse provinces in

the country, if not the world, I would dare to say, and the Kootenay

East is really at ground zero. We have the largest number of big-game

wildlife in the province. At one time, we were known as the Serengeti of

North America. We have some of the heaviest industry there, with mines

and forestry being part of the landscape, and we have the most

experienced and engaged stakeholders in the province, I dare

say.

Given this diversity that we have — the minister is well aware of

it — can the minister agree that regional representation is an absolute

must in developing a true wildlife management plan?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, I’m a proponent of regional representation. The people who

live in the closest proximity to the natural resources — in this case,

wildlife — are the ones that hold the greatest local knowledge. It’s

incumbent upon us to tap into that knowledge as a manager of the

resource.

I appreciate the member’s portrayal around the Serengeti.

Oftentimes the constituency that I represent, Stikine, and especially

the Spatsizi Plateau, is characterized as the Serengeti of the North.

That makes me think of the broader picture provincially, which it’s my

responsibility to keep in mind. The regional representation is

important, and as we progress along with our new wildlife management

strategy, we’ll definitely be tapping into that.

[11:20 a.m.]

It’s also important that we have a consistent strategy across the

province. I’ll be speaking at the B.C. Wildlife Federation’s annual

meeting on Friday in Kamloops. They’re interested in that consistent

model as well, over the entire province. But definitely, the regional

knowledge needs to be plugged into the overall plan.

T. Shypitka: I guess the next question…. Would the minister then agree that

regional representation is important and local knowledge and input from

the human resources — the uniqueness of our areas — are all important?

And would the minister then agree that — I’ll take a quote from the

package that went out to the stakeholders this week — when framing the

engagement process with the background and context necessary to start

this meaningful conversation, that regional input would not be an

absolute necessity in this process?

I guess to rephrase the question a little bit…. In the package

that went out, it highlighted the importance of framing the engagement

process. This is the foundation of a process that’ll be going forward.

In my opinion, the foundation is what we build these policies on. Would

the minister not agree that regional representation would not be part of

that foundation?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, the package that the member referred to is specifically

for the Wosk Centre dialogue that’s happening this week.

That’s a beginning. It’s a high-level discussion. Of course, we

know that each region in the province is unique when it comes to

wildlife management. That package was intended as a starting point for a

broad-level discussion. This is not the end of the process. This is just

the start.

In order to frame it for people who are representing mainly

provincial organizations and provincial views, that’s the way that the

package went out. But it’s by no means meant to be exclusive of regional

representation. That’s going to become the next parts of the

process.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister then list what stakeholders will be present at

the meeting today, tomorrow and Thursday in Vancouver?

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Oh, all right.

From my knowledge of the stakeholders that will be there, there’s

provincial representation from groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation,

Wildsight. I believe the Cattlemen’s Association will be there. There’s

a few other provincial representatives that’ll be there to lay down this

framework for policy — this foundation that we’ll need for policy going

forward.

In my opinion, the government has missed the mark a little bit by

limiting the distribution on the consultation schedule. Instead, if the

information was to be broadly disseminated, including which groups and

associations will be in attendance, regional stakeholders would be able

to provide their questions or areas of concern to the respective

representatives.

[11:25 a.m.]

Furthermore, while I applaud the minister for reaching out to

stakeholders, I believe the information about the consultation

schedule

should have been provided directly to MLAs in order to address the

spirit of consultation and allow all of us to promote these

opportunities for input.

Yesterday I hand-delivered a message to the minister and his staff

on whether or not it would be appropriate for me to engage in this

process as an MLA. That is a priority of his, to address these issues

that are number one in my area.

So the question is: will the minister acknowledge this oversight

in the process in bringing ground-up-type information to those regional

representatives that will be at this meeting? And will he commit to

providing the consultation

schedule in the future to MLAs to reach out

to their constituents and their input?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the observations and the questions. Again, I just want

to emphasize that this is not going to be the only opportunity for

engagement, this coming together at the Wosk Centre this

week.

We’ll provide the list, but I want to point out that some of the

organizations that are going to be attending are member driven. I mean,

the B.C. Wildlife Federation is there to represent interests from the

various clubs around the province and in regions. So the expectation is

that those kinds of provincial organizations that are membership and

club driven will be reaching out to their members prior to this meeting

and will be disseminating information back to their members. But again,

there are going to be multiple opportunities for this kind of engagement

to happen.

As far as the consultation schedule…. Yes, definitely, there will

be, as I said, plenty more opportunities to get into more detail at the

regional level in a phased approach. We’ll be able to provide that

schedule to the public and the MLAs as well in those regions so that

they can make decisions about disseminating that information, which

would be very helpful, as well as attending if they wish.

Just this first meeting at the Wosk Centre…. I think that the

member would appreciate that to try to make it manageable — it’s a

provincewide discussion — we have groups that represent individual

clubs, for instance, throughout the province attending on their

behalf.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister.

[11:30 a.m.]

What I am trying to highlight here is the frustration that I get

from my constituents and stakeholders in my area. I’m glad there’s

representation from the heads of different organizations. The problem

and the frustration that I feel and the input I’m getting from my

stakeholders is that they just don’t know. They have no idea this is

going on. They feel a little frustrated, and they’re out of the

loop.

I talked to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin. I talked to many,

all, of my MLAs on my side of the floor here, and none of them have

engaged in this process at all. This is the frustration that we’re

feeling. We’re out of the loop. We’re in the dark.

My question before was: would that not be an oversight on the

ministry’s involvement in this — in the spirit of consultation, just

providing a little heads-up? “Hey, this is what we’re doing.” Reach out

to the MLA. I, in turn, can go to my representatives, my stakeholders,

and say: “Hey, feed your organization some questions or concerns and

provide the information they need on this framework that’s being

processed right now.”

Of course, there’s got to be a little due diligence on the side of

the organizations themselves. But the ministry, I think, is ultimately

responsible for providing clarity and transparency and being upfront

with people, quite honestly.

I’ll leave it at that. Like I said, it’s a little concerning for

me, and it’s concerning for my constituents, so I hope that the minister

will maybe rethink the process a little bit more in providing that

transparency and clarity to local stakeholders.

I’ll throw you a curveball here. Just one last question. In

talking about ways we manage wildlife, a contentious one is a feeding

program for ungulates. Does the minister have any thoughts on, or will

he consider, a feeding program for ungulates — a tool in the toolbox, so

to speak, for wildlife management?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll answer the question and then make a comment around the

lead-up to the question.

We’re not opposed to the feeding program for ungulates. We’re

willing to work with clubs in areas of the province that are considering

doing that kind of activity. The kinds of cautions we have are around

disease risk of bringing a concentration of ungulates together to feed.

The feed attracts that. There are some potential health risks. If the

intent is to address starving animals and the quality of feed is high,

like alfalfa, it can cause some health risks to animals that are in

starvation mode.

Those are the kinds of topics we discuss with the clubs. There are

other interests at play, and we discuss those concerns with clubs as

well. Sometimes ranchers aren’t necessarily that interested in the

feeding of ungulates if those same ungulates end up consuming crops that

ranchers are interested in.

We’re not opposed but take a cautious approach to the ungulate

feeding programs that organizations are interested in enacting in their

areas.

[11:35 a.m.]

I just want to make a comment on the statements made previously. I

just want to say that the intent of the meetings that have been

referenced in previous questions and the intent of the whole wildlife

strategy is to be transparent. It’s not a matter of trying to hide a

meeting at one of the biggest meeting centres in Vancouver, or anything

like that.

I do hear what the member is saying about frustrations and

feelings of being left out of a decision-making process, and I

acknowledge that that’s a role for an official opposition MLA to play —

to bring those kinds of thoughts forward. He did, rightfully, point out

that there is some responsibility….

I can’t be responsible for, for instance, the B.C. Cattlemen’s

Association. They’re going to be at the Wosk Centre meeting, and it’s up

to them to ensure that they’ve made their members aware of what the

meeting is about and that they interact and communicate with their

members. So, yes, there’s a role to play for the groups that are

representing their members in getting that information out and being

transparent as well.

In the future, as I said, the consultation

schedule will be

available publicly, and we’ll make sure that the MLAs know any

consultation that’s going on in their regions as well.

T. Shypitka: Just one last follow-up to that, in regard to ranchers not wanting

to be part of a feeding program. I might want to argue that point a

little bit, somewhat. I’ve talked to many ranchers in my community

livestock association — some of your staff know them quite well — who

said they’d love to be part of a feeding program if it gets the

ungulates away from the valley floor and maybe into other areas where

they’re more removed from farms so they don’t eat their crops. I would

maybe ask the minister to check into that one a little bit

more.

I guess the last question is on models. Has the minister examined

any other models regarding feeding programs? There are many of them

throughout the world. Our closest neighbours in the United States have

feeding programs. They’ve been doing them for years. Europe has many

feeding programs and has been doing them for a long, long time and has

very healthy, sustainable populations because of it, I believe, amongst

other things. I guess the question to the minister is: has he examined,

or what does he know about, other jurisdictions and feeding

programs?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question. I really enjoy talking about wildlife

management. We’re so blessed in this province with the populations that

we do have, and it’s really incumbent upon us, both opposition and

government, to ensure that we have those populations into the future. Of

course, when the member asked about if we consider other models…. We

certainly do. We look at other jurisdictions, and we’re willing to

learn. We do research on them. We always analyze if what’s going on

elsewhere is applicable and appropriate for the B.C. context.

I would say that overall, our job is to ensure that habitat is

there for natural forage — I mean, we don’t want to get into the

situation, widespread, of having to provide feed programs for wild

animals, ungulates especially — ensuring the habitat is there so that

they can have enough natural forage to prevent starvation.

Again, that goes back to local conditions. The response has to be

based on local conditions. In some areas the local conditions, not only

of the animals but also of the people involved, are conducive and

supportive of feeding programs.

I would say, as we look provincially, even though other

jurisdictions have models around feeding programs, something that we are

keeping a very close eye on — and, fortunately, do not have in this

province so far — is the chronic wasting disease that impacts many of

the ungulates. That, unfortunately, is a disease that can be transferred

through feed. So we have to be very wary of that when we’re considering

feeding programs.

M. Bernier: My first tongue-in-cheek comment to the minister is: it’s a good

thing you’re holding these consultations in Vancouver, because they

definitely need a lot of wildlife management down there. Over the last

150 years, I don’t see too many moose or wildlife in Vancouver

anymore.

With that in mind, we did have a meeting with the minister’s staff

a week and a half ago, up in the Peace region. Of course, the South

Peace caribou are a huge concern for many. To one of the comments the

minister just made…. As we’re going through these consultations, can he

confirm, then, first of all, that no, I guess, rash decisions, or

decisions within the ministry around wildlife management, will be made

until consultation takes place? If that’s the case, what’s his timeline

before considering any recommendations that might come

forward?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to assure the member that whatever we do around

decision-making, it’s not rash, and it won’t be rash, as he typified

decision-making potential.

[11:45 a.m.]

As far as these consultations and decision-making go, I think

there are two different fronts here. I know that the member wasn’t

necessarily mixing up the two, but I just want to make sure it’s clear

on the record that, as minister and as the ministry, we’re going to be

making operational decisions on a regular basis. When it comes to

updating hunting regulations, that happens every two years. Those are

operational decisions based on information and data that’s been

collected and engaged with stakeholders and First Nations.

What we’re talking about here is the overall wildlife improvement

and habitat conservation mandate that I have in my mandate letter from

the Premier. What we’re talking about is a first phase that’s started.

We’re going to be talking with provincial organizations. We’re going to

be talking with regional organizations, stakeholders and First Nations

over the next year.

That information will then inform the second year of the phased

approach and the $3 million budget that’s allotted for the second year.

So that’s the, I guess, decision-making path that’s going to lead to an

overall improved wildlife management strategy. It has nothing to do with

the operational decisions on a day-to-day basis that are regularly

made.

M. Bernier: Not to be too confrontational, but I would argue with the minister

that when his ministry or his government makes a decision to ban the

grizzly bear hunt with no scientific data to do that, that is a rash

decision. That’s something that’s negatively affecting people in my

region. So one of my questions, then, on that would be: is there a

commitment from the minister, as he makes wildlife management decisions,

that he’ll actually be basing those decisions on accurate scientific

data?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I answered this question yesterday, so I’ll repeat it.

Science-based decisions are the foundation. Also included in that, as I

said yesterday, is traditional ecological knowledge. I would hope that

all members recognize the worth and value of that as we incorporate

traditional ecological knowledge into our science-based knowledge. There

will always be, because we are elected as politicians, social values

that are involved in the decision-making as well.

M. Bernier: As the minister, maybe through his mandate, reviews those exact

things he just said, maybe he’ll continue to look at zone 7B in my

region and realize that the decision to ban grizzly bear hunting was the

wrong one to do.

If we’re going to be talking about wildlife management in general,

maybe I’ll go to this. Obviously, the South Peace caribou are something

that the ministry has been talking about for quite a while, even in the

past government. There was a lot of work being done around the caribou

recovery plan. Millions of dollars were being put in not only by

government but by local mining companies, etc.

Can the minister tell me, especially around the Tumbler Ridge and

Moberly area, where we a have caribou recovery plan trying to take

place, how he sees that money and further money being spent — what that

would be around caribou recovery and what that plan would be in the

South Peace?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an area of high interest to me. There’s lots going on, so

that’s why…. I apologize that it took a little bit of time to get the

answer for you, but there’s so much activity going on. It’s very

interesting what’s been undertaken.

The question was about how some of the money is being spent when

it comes to the South Peace caribou herds. In order to achieve

conservation and improve numbers in the herd, we’re engaged in a

maternal penning program, as the member probably understands, to

decrease predation. We’re involved in predator management.

We are pursuing habitat protection opportunities and also

restoration of habitat. We’re in discussions with the Habitat

Conservation Trust to look at restoration work and what kind of

opportunities present themselves there, and using that as a means to

also engage with industry and environmental organizations to undertake

restoration work.

We’ve also been working with First Nations and the federal

government on the conservation agreement — the

section 11 agreement —

and continuing the inventory work analyzing the inventory data and the

collaring program.

M. Bernier: I’ll ask one last question as I see we’re getting close to lunch,

and the minister can either get me the answer afterwards or what have

you. I just want to get a few things quickly on the record before

lunch.

Obviously, you have to look at all the activity that’s happening

in the area — all the industrial activity, considerations around when

tenures are being let out for forestry. One of the ones that we have to

consider is the fact that most of the wildlife that I see being

devastated in our area is actually on the main roads and highways and

industrial activity. Something needs to be done about that.

I want to quickly bring up the Wolverine Forest Service Road. The

minister might not have time to answer this, but he’s received letters

from the district of Tumbler Ridge which is quite concerned about the

conflicting — they’ve shared with me — kind of message.

Originally, there was a meeting saying that the Wolverine Forest

Service Road was going to be shut down due to the fact that it was

leading to the back country and to help with the caribou recovery in

that area, but the last letter that they received from the ministry says

that they’re actually shutting down the forest service road because it’s

a lower priority for allocation for funding. So it’s a mixed message

that they’re receiving.

I just want the minister to remember that we have the only second

global geopark in North America. A UNESCO geopark is in the Tumbler

Ridge area. It’s very important that the back country is open, in fact,

to keep their UNESCO licence, if you want to call it a licence. It’s

because of the exploratory opportunities for the back country for

snowmobiles, ATVs, etc.

The minister, I think, really needs to consider that around the

tourism. When I spoke to the Minister of Tourism — and, again, hopefully

she’s doing well and returns here soon — she said to bring that up again

with you. It is a huge tourism issue, but obviously, the Forests

Ministry plays a big role in that.

If the minister can please reconsider and look into that decision

to help the district of Tumbler Ridge, UNESCO geopark and the tourism

sector around what they consider some funding to keep that road

open.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Member, and yes, I’ll commit to having a look at that

issue and bringing some clarification. I know how important a geopark

is. I’ve met with Tumbler Ridge. It’s an amazing success story, and we

want to make sure that we see that continuing in the future.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND

CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $133,949,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, Members. Welcome to Committee of Supply,

Section

A, ministry estimates for the Ministry of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy. We are, of course, thankful to be on the

traditional territories of the Lekwungen-speaking

peoples.

P. Milobar: I’ll pick back up. Yesterday we ended with starting to talk about

the coastline and the movements around the Salish Sea and Washington

state.

[11:10 a.m.]

I just want to make sure I understood the minister’s answer

yesterday correctly. In spite of recent statements by the governor of

Washington around concerns around movement of Canadian products coming

out of Canadian ports and a potential impact to Washington state and the

Salish Sea, there has been no formal discussions between the minister

and representatives of Washington state about how to tackle the fact

that Washington state has, in fact, an incredibly large volume of tanker

traffic coming in and out of the Salish Sea.

So it was not meant to be a joint effort on how to reduce tanker

traffic movements in the Salish Sea by both parties — Washington state

and the province of British Columbia. It was simply the governor stating

that he wished to see less tanker movement from Canadian ports of

Canadian products?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is correct. First of all, there have been no

discussions that directly involve me, but as I said yesterday,

senior-level staff in my ministry have had ongoing discussions for a

long time with officials in the state of Washington with respect to

preventing, responding and recovering in the event of a

spill.

[11:15 a.m.]

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if the minister could refresh my and the public’s

recollection of the timeline of these proposed discussions around spill

response, shoreline protections of shipments of goods if there happens

to be a spill, with the newly released intentions paper.

Hon. G. Heyman: I hope I understood the member’s question correctly, to have to do

with the timelines of consultation. The intentions paper was released

February 28. Engagement began in mid-March, with five First Nation

regional workshops that are being led by the First Nations Fisheries

Council. There have been a number of stakeholder working groups. The

majority of those will wrap up by the end of May.

There will still be some ongoing consultation. There is, of

course, opportunity for the public and other interested parties to

submit material. We are looking at new regulations in early

P. Milobar: That’s the kind of, I guess, public side, almost more layperson

side, of the input equation. If I understand the intention of issuing

the intentions paper, it was around, also, predominantly having a lack

of confidence in previous research done about how to respond to a

diluted bitumen spill and how it would react in the waters. So is the

intention that all that research on diluted bitumen will be done in the

same time frame?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the member is conflating two issues a little bit.

Hopefully, it’ll be more clear with my answer. The intentions paper that

is out currently addresses the transportation and handling of

hydrocarbons, although the intent is clearly that these regulations

could apply, in the future, to different hazardous

substances.

The four that are out deal with four areas. One of them is

response time. The second area is geographic response plans so the

response time and methodology of response and cleanup take into account

the unique features of the geography as well as the distance that

response personnel would have to travel to get there.

Loss of public and First Nations use, as well as the marine

application of regulations within areas that include our jurisdiction.

The scientific advisory panel is established to inform point 5, which is

currently the subject of reference to the court before we proceed on

that.

P. Milobar: I’m a little confused, then. The government is going through a

review process, a public input process, a stakeholder engagement

process, to develop and make sure and further enhance spill response for

hydrocarbons on our shorelines, on our riverways, as I’ve heard the

minister say in the media.

How does the minister propose there’s going to be a comprehensive

change to what’s currently in place if the minister has expressed doubt

about the research of how diluted bitumen reacts in water to develop

appropriate spill response times if there’s no faith in the current body

of research, in terms of how long they would actually have to respond to

a spill of something like diluted bitumen in a watercourse?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s important, because these substances are currently being

transported, that we follow through on the aspects of spill control and

prevention that were legislated now, I think, almost three years ago and

which required regulations to put them into effect. It’s necessary to

work on the basis of the best knowledge that we currently

have.

It’s not me who’s casting doubt on whether we have adequate

knowledge on the behavior of heavy oil in water. It’s the National

Academy of Sciences study. It’s the Royal Society of Canada study that

identified seven very significant areas of gaps in knowledge. It’s the

federal government, which has committed $45 million to do new scientific

research to determine the behaviour of heavy oil, as well as appropriate

measures for both response and recovery. There’s universal agreement

that we don’t have enough knowledge.

The other thing that we will have the ability to do through new

regulation is update and require updating of response and recovery

plans, geographic response plans and even response times, if necessary,

based on new knowledge as it comes in. We’ll be able to do that on an

ongoing and regular basis.

P. Milobar: Perhaps we can have a wager on what will be finished first,

estimates or the research on diluted bitumen. I guess the reason I’m

asking these questions of the minister is, if there’s not the intention

to have any substantial new research in play during this

review….

[11:25 a.m.]

The minister has acknowledged that we already have all of these

goods in reasonably large volumes being shipped through our

watercourses, either by tanker truck, tanker car or tanker ship, all on

watercourses, all running next to rivers. I’m wondering what new,

substantive to protect our shorelines, as the minister and government

keep saying they are trying to enhance…. Is the expectation that the

ministry staff had not already collated and worked on around spill

responses in British Columbia? What new information is expected in this

short window of consultation and stakeholder engagement if we’re not

waiting on and there’s no new scientific research to change what is

currently in place?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m a bit puzzled by the member’s question. It’s obvious that we

have to do something. We’re doing the best we can on the basis of the

information we have.

It’s completely appropriate for us to introduce regulations that

improve the requirements for response time, in the event of a spill,

that take the extra step of ensuring that those plans are geographically

appropriate and not simply designed for one area — which may not be

appropriate for another area where the distances to travel are further —

unless we create requirements to set up response bases in different

locations where weather conditions vary. All of that’s appropriate. Some

of it is known. Some of it’s based on experience.

We also think loss of use by the public and First Nations is a

serious issue, which we hope to address. Much of that was brought about

as a result of the still-not-completely-resolved impacts of the

Nathan E. Stewart diesel spill.

These are important matters, as is determining how best to

regulate impacts on the shoreline and the marine environment that is

within — and has been established by a Supreme Court decision to be

within — B.C.’s jurisdiction. So those are all important things to

do.

As we get new information, it’ll be appropriate to require that

response plans — the actual written response plans — and perhaps even

response times are updated as necessary. But to do nothing in the

interim just seems to make no sense.

With respect to the scientific advisory panel, we’ve been

consulting on a regular basis with officials from Environment and

Climate Change Canada. We’re listening to their input and what kinds of

terms of reference of review of existing science and new science that

they’re commissioning is useful to them. They think it’s useful to all

of us, so we’re proceeding with that as well.

P. Milobar: I’m not suggesting for a moment that nothing be done awaiting

scientific consensus around any particular topic, because I don’t think

you’ll ever find full-on scientific consensus on any topic anywhere in

the world. That’s the nature of science.

What I am wondering, though, is…. There was a great deal of work

done with the staff, with consultants, with other stakeholders and

engagement done on phase 1. I’m wondering what new substantive

scientific-based information the minister is expecting out of this

latest consultation that the government could not already be actioning

or developing regulation around.

[11:30 a.m.]

In other words, why the delay in going through yet another round

of reaffirming the information that the ministry…? I’m assuming, and I

stand to be corrected…. They’re very competent, professional staff, so

I’m assuming they have volumes and volumes of actionable and things that

could be done in a phase 2 and a phase 3 of spill response and dangerous

goods transportation modelling.

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the member is perhaps not entirely clear on what phase 1

was about. Phase 1 established who is liable and accountable in the

event of a spill. And phase 2 addresses response time, geographic

response plans, extensive compensation for loss of use by the public and

First Nations as well as the marine application, as I have previously

said.

They’re actually dealing with very different matters. Phase 2 is

not an upgrading of phase 1. Phase 2 is addressing different matters. Of

course, in future, as there’s new information and science on a

continuous basis, we will update regulations, as is the practice with

lots of regulations in lots of ministries.

P. Milobar: I’m aware they’re different. My assumption, and perhaps I was

wrong, was that there would have still been a significant amount of back

work done in the development of phase 1, as it’s pretty hard to collect

information in a silo of just a specific, defined topic area, as you’re

developing first, second, third, even jurisdictional issues.

The reason I’m asking this is because the government has been

repeatedly talking about protecting shorelines and coastlines and

matters of jurisdiction. I have no problem that we’re trying to enhance

and create better spill response times and stricter spill response

rules. What is being undertaken in the interim? Or I guess I’ll rephrase

this. What would be the minister’s intention if we’re looking at

jurisdictional issues in terms of…?

If the bulk of these issues turn out to be federal jurisdiction or

should be funded by the federal government, in terms of enhancements or

things of that nature, is it the intention of the province to step in

and fill that void in the interim, while agreements with the federal

government are worked out? Or is it simply a case of holding up a

document to show the federal government what they should be doing, but

we don’t actually see any shoreline protection at the same

time?

[11:35 a.m.]

[Interruption.]

The Chair: Members are reminded to turn off their electronic devices

unless they know how to use them.

Hon. G. Heyman: The four proposed regulatory areas that are out for public

discussion as part of the intentions paper are all clearly within

provincial jurisdiction. That has not been disputed by the federal

government or the government of Alberta. With respect to the cost or

liability of the work that would be entailed by these regulations,

that’s actually the responsibility of the shipper and the carrier, not

either level of government.

P. Milobar: Again, I’m not disputing that we would have the jurisdiction,

especially on inland waterways and of those nature — just to be clear

for the minister. I wanted to make sure that the intention was still to

have something actually tangible and deliverable in place versus

theoretical.

To wrap this area up, the intention would be, then — from your

first answer around that — by May or the 2019 timeline to have all of

this done, all those regulations in place. Shippers and people

responsible for cleanup — if there’s a spill, if there’s an accident,

regardless of transportation mode — would be responsible essentially

from, I’m assuming, the spring legislative session forward.

Is it the intention of the minister that timelines for all of the

consultation, the development of regulation and the implementation of

regulation should all be locked down by spring of 2019?

Hon. G. Heyman: Yes, that’s correct, subject to a reasonable phase-in period once

the regulations are enacted and giving people a chance to get ready to

act on them.

P. Milobar: Thanks for that answer. I want to jump back briefly. I know we’re

coming up to the lunch hour, so let me just fit these last couple of

questions in and probably close this little

section off too.

In terms of yesterday, we had a lot of questions for the minister

around the reference wording and when the reference would be

prepared.

I note that the Attorney General just walked in, so maybe this is

good timing.

I notice that at the beginning of March, before counsel was hired,

the Attorney General had mentioned it would take about another week or

so to bring on counsel, which it did. But then the Attorney General felt

confident in his comments that it would take about a month to have

something prepared in terms of which court would be actioned as well as

what the reference would entail.

Yesterday the minister seemed to indicate by the end of spring.

We’re not quite 100 percent sure what that means. It could be June 20. I

guess it would be technically the end of spring. Yet today, in a media

scrum, the minister indicated very, very shortly, within…. I can’t

remember the exact timeline he used, but certainly less than a

month.

I’m wondering. We seem to have a pretty wide range from the two

ministers responsible for getting this developed and brought forward. Is

there a new timeline after estimates last night, with discussions that

the minister has had either with the Attorney General or the lawyers

involved? Has he got more confidence that it’s less than a month now

versus by the end of the spring?

The Chair: Members are reminded that the practice of this House is not to

comment on the absence or presence of members.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Certainly, there has been some period of time since earlier

statements by either the Attorney General or myself.

The actual interview to which the member refers…. The question

that was asked of me was something like: “When do you think you will be

able to let us know when the reference will be ready?” My answer to that

question was: “Very, very soon.” The supplementary question was: “Does

that mean a month, months?” I laughed and said: “Very, very soon is

certainly less than a month.” Or words to that effect.

P. Milobar: I mean, this isn’t Hansard , so I’m not…. The recollection

the minister has is very close to how it’s transcribed for myself as

well. It’s always noisy now with the scrums.

I don’t take issue with that. I guess I’m just asking for

certainty. Is “certainly less than a month” now the new timeline that

this will be made public and the public will know what is happening with

this, or is it still the end of spring, which could take us all the way

to June 20?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’ll just reiterate what I said in the media scrum and what I said

here: the former.

P. Milobar: Okay. Thank you for that. It’s good to know that we can expect

something. I guess I’ll ask for one last clarification on this. Talking

end of the month and dealing with government, in the back of my mind….

When you sometimes talk to various levels of government, they tell you:

“It’s working days.” A month of working days could be a long time versus

a month on a calendar.

I think I know what the minister’s intention is, by what he is

saying, by month. I take him at his word, that he’s talking about a

calendar. But I guess, for further clarification…. Our session in the

Legislature…. This run-through we have — what? — a couple more weeks

left now, a break, a couple more weeks, a break and then finish up by

the end of May. So the minister is committing that this will be into the

public realm while we are still sitting in the Legislature.

Hon. G. Heyman: Yes, that is my intention.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.

Hon. G. Heyman: I would have just said it, but I was worried I might actually end

estimates. I wouldn’t want to do that.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:43 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