British Columbia Hansard — Monday, November 16, 2015 (40th Parliament, 4th Session) (20151116pm-Hansard-v31n5) (20151116pm Hansard v31n5)

20151116pm-Hansard-v31n5

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Monday, November 16, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 31, Number 5

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ........................................................................................... Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................ Hon.

Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................................... Hon. Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ............................................................................................................................................................... Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...................................................................................................................................................

Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees ................................................................................................................................. Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston Vacant .....................................................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Vacant ...................................................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr.

Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...................................................................

Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon.

Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ....................................................................Vacant Coquitlam-Maillardville...........................................................

Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm. Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon.

Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ...........................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ...............................................................................

Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast .................................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands ....................................................

Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................ Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon.

Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon. Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon.

Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr.

Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ......................................................................Vacant Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 33; Independent 2; Vacant 2

CONTENTS Monday, November 16, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Ministerial Statements .......................................................................................................................................................... 10155 Terrorist attacks in Paris Hon. M. de Jong J.

Horgan Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 10155 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ....................................................................................................................................... 10157 Louis Riel and history of Métis M. Dalton Restorative justice L. Krog Diabetes awareness P . Pimm Manufacturing and high technology businesses on Saanich Peninsula G. Holman Facts and beliefs in society G. Hogg Lower Mainland Christmas Bureau S.

Simpson Oral Questions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10159 Permit for soil dumping in Shawnigan Lake watershed J. Horgan Hon. M. Polak B. Routley Wrongful-conviction court case L. Krog Hon. S. Anton Human Rights Tribunal ruling on conduct of College of Veterinarians H. Bains Hon. N. Letnick S. Hammell Closing of Canfi sco salmon canning operations in Prince Rupert J. Rice Hon. N.

Letnick Tabling Documents ............................................................................................................................................................... 10164 Information and Privacy Commissioner and Representative for Children and Y outh, joint special report, Cyberbullying: Empowering Children and Youth to be Safe Online and Responsible Digital Citizens Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 15-04, lobbyist: Leslie Hrushowy, October 2, 2015 Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 15-09, lobbyist: Dan Jepsen, October 2, 2015 Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 15-08, lobbyist: Gordon Hunter, October 6, 2015 Standing Order 35 ................................................................................................................................................................. 10164 Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance — soil dumping in Shawnigan Lake watershed A.

Weaver Hon. M. de Jong Tabling Documents ............................................................................................................................................................... 10165 Hon. N. Letnick, correspondence regarding expectations for the College of Veterinarians of B.C. Motions Without Notice ....................................................................................................................................................... 10165 Referral of Local Government Act revision to Parliamentary Reform Committee Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 10165 Bill 41 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015 (continued) A. Dix R. Fleming A. Weaver Hon. S. Anton Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 10174 Bill 42 — Electoral Districts Act Hon. S. Anton G.

Holman Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 10176 Bill 42 — Electoral Districts Act Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 10176 Bill 40 — Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 B. Ralston Hon. R. Coleman D. Donaldson D. Eby V . Huntington S.

Chandra Herbert Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 10192 Bill 40 — Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

MONDAY , NOVEMBER 16, 2015 Th e House met at 1:35 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Ministerial Statements TERRORIST ATTACKS IN PARIS Hon. M. de Jong: “Paris outragé! Paris brisé! Paris martyrisé! Mais Paris libéré!” Il y a 70 ans que Général de Gaulle a dit ces mots mémorables. It was over 70 years ago when de Gaulle said this. In those days, Parisians wept with joy as the scourge of fear and tyranny was swept away from their lives. Today, however, a veil of sadness has descended over Paris and across all of France.

From the magnifi cent heights of the Sacré Cœur Basilica, the tears of a city descend the gentle slopes of Montmartre and mix with the timeless currents of the Seine. Th e weathered stones of Père Lachaise bleed for the innocent, whose only sin was to stand in the path of evil. Th e scale of the criminal acts that have been perpetrat- ed against the people of Paris really does defy description. Th e monsters and their sponsoring accomplices will be brought to justice. We know that. Th ose who are driven by hatred and would impose their will through violence and fear will ultimately fail. Th ey always do.

But today, as the people of Paris gather — Place de la Bastille, la Republique, Place Vendome — to console, to understand and to mourn, we want them to know, like all Canadians do, that they do not stand alone. Vous êtes dans nos coeurs. Nous sommes ensemble dans l’ esprit. Y ou are in our hearts and in our prayers. No terrorist, no criminal can douse the torch of freedom that burns bright in the City of Light. Paris outraged. Paris martyred. Mais, toujours, Paris libéré. Vive les Parisiens. Vive Paris. Vive la France. J.

Horgan: I join with the Government House Leader and all members of this House in acknowledging the tra- gedy that occurred in Paris over the weekend. It seems like the Charlie Hebdo event was just yester- day. Y et we, I think, have become desensitized, to a great extent, to the human tragedies of terror and war and op- pression around the globe — not just in Europe, not just in the Middle East, not just in Africa but yet in every corner of the globe.

I believe that that desensitization to violence is some- thing that we need to be grasping each and every day — a reminder to ourselves and to our constituents that ter- ror, war, hunger, starvation and oppression exist in every corner of the globe. It exists here in Canada. But the hu- man spirit is indomitable, and hope, love and compas- sion will win out. I was thinking, as I was preparing my remarks today, of Jack Layton and his last letter to Canadians.

I think, per- haps, that last letter could have been to all of the world — that hope, love and compassion should win out and will win out at the end of the day. Th e people of Paris are grieving. Th e people of the world are grieving. Y et here we are, at work today, defi - ant in the face of those who would have us change our lives to suit their needs.

Th e fact, again, that all of us are here today, doing our jobs — representing constituents in every corner of British Columbia — as other legisla- tors are doing, as other people are doing, whatever their walk of life, whatever their vocation…. [1340] We will not be bowed by terror. We will not be bowed by oppression. We will work as a Legislature and as a so- ciety every day to make the world a better place. Th at’s why we all came here. It’s a grim reminder, but a good reminder, that we should continue every single day to work together to solve the problems of our time rather than ignore them.

Introductions by Members D. McRae: I would like to introduce two individuals today. We have Jeremy Dunn, who is the executive direc- tor with the B.C. Salmon Farmers. He’s joined by Vincent Erenst, who is a member of Salmon Farmers but also rep- resents the company Marine Harvest. Th is industry feeds millions of people around the globe and provides jobs across coastal rural British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome. J. Horgan: I have a number of introductions today. I’ d like to start by introducing Chief Dwight Dorey and his assistant and advocate for First Nations issues, Jerry Peltier.

Both Chief Dorey and Jerry Peltier are here today to talk to members of the Legislature about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, of which Chief Dorey is the na- tional chief. Th is is his fourth term as national chief. He is a Mi’kmaq from Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia. Jerry Peltier is the Grand Chief of Kanehsatà:ke. In my offi ce today, as you can well imagine, I have a lacrosse stick hanging up in the corner. We hit it off right away, talking about lacrosse as Canada’s summer national sport, as the House knows full well now, and also a game that originated with indigenous people here in Canada.

It was great to speak about more issues than just lacrosse, but that was a good icebreaker. I’ d also like to introduce one constituent and one friend of the House. Lynn Klein is here, as always, and joining him is Lisette Robinson, a constituent of mine attending question period I think for the fi rst time, here in the Legislative Assembly. 10155

British Columbia Debates10156 Monday, November 16, 2015 Lisette has a long career working and volunteering in the medical fi eld. She’s been a UN peacekeeper with the Canadian Armed Forces in Yugoslavia. She was an army reserve medical assistant and then a paramedic with the B.C. Ambulance Service here in B.C. Th en she be- came the regional training coordinator with the Justice Institute. She lives in my constituency with her three daugh- ters. She is a proud Langford resident and certainly one who is going to enjoy the proceedings very much today. Would the House please make Lisette very, very welcome.

Also joining us are two youngsters. Ravi Parmar is the now-21-year-old school board trustee from school dis- trict 62. He was elected on his 20th birthday in 2014. He’s here joining us today to observe the proceedings and see if the board of education is as civilized as the Legislative Assembly. Also joining him is Brent Th om, who has recently be- come active within the B.C. NDP in my constituency. Brent was born and raised in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He joined the Royal Canadian Navy to see the world but was injured on deployment.

He’s currently a business stu- dent at Camosun College here in Victoria as part of the Veterans Aff airs rehabilitation program. Both of these young men are outstanding examples of commitment and passion about public life. Would the House make both of them very, very welcome. Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It brings me great pleasure to introduce three constituents from Parksville-Qualicum who are visiting here today.

First of all, Paula Peterson and her husband, Jerry, are not only constituents but great, dear friends of mine who are very actively involved in the community in multiple ways — most importantly, always opening their hearts and their home to everybody and making them feel welcome. Joining them I’ d also like to introduce Anne Duggan, who is at her fi rst question period here today. Under Anne’s leadership as CEO and senior advocate for Elder Life, she was able use her great care and compassion for many years to assure the highest quality in home care supports and in home care for seniors in our community.

She is now retired and calling Victoria home. Would the House make them all feel very welcome today. D. Plecas: Today in the gallery, we have one of Abbotsford’s most welcome and liked group of people, and that is the board of directors for Tabor Village. It’s a seniors home in Abbotsford that, along with 400 of their staff , provides a home for 300 seniors. Th is year is their 55th anniversary.

In the gallery, we have, specifi cally, the chair of the board, Hildegard Bandsmer; building manager, Al Gerbrandt; board members Bill Dyck, Pat Janzen, Len Neufeld, Joy Rees and Carole Wiebe; and the executive director, Dan Levitt. Would the House, please, make them feel welcome. [1345] B. Routley: Today I would like to welcome, fi rst, Sonya Furstenau, from Shawnigan. She’s the CVRD director. I see a couple of other Shawinigan constituents in the crowd. I would like to welcome them as well. We have Georgia Collins with us today.

Georgia is the federal NDP constituency chair and was just successful in electing Alistair McGregor as our federal representa- tive. Congratulations for that, Georgia. Also, I had a wonderful lunch today with Dara Quast. who is an Island girl. She moved to the Cowichan Valley 25 years ago. She volunteers in our offi ce and does some website work on the computer. A special guest today I enjoyed a tour and a nice lunch with and talked about wineries and specialty vinegar production is Marilyn Venturi. Marilyn was born in Australia. She immigrated to Canada back in 1970.

She obtained her bachelor’s degree in microbiology at UBC and then worked at UBC in the provincial health labora- tory. Y ears later she completed her teacher training. Her interest in French led her to the University of Montreal, where she met her current husband — I guess, her only husband. I should be careful with that. She has enjoyed opportunities for research in her fi eld related to wine and vinegar production, the fi rst being an extensive and successful National Research Council pro- ject.

Her family’s wine-making philosophy is to allow the quality of the grapes to be refl ected in the purity of their wines and their specialty vinegars. With that, would the House please join me in welcom- ing all these fi ne guests. S. Robinson: I would like to join with the member for Abbotsford South in welcoming the board members from Tabor Village. I would like to extend a particular warm welcome to Dan Levitt, who is their executive director. Y ou see, I go way back with Dan Levitt. I knew him as Danny when I was the counselor and he was the camp- er.

It makes me very proud to see him in such a fabulous leadership position today. Would the members please join me in welcoming him here. Hon. J. Rustad: Louis Riel was a leader of the Métis people, a Canadian politician and a founder, of course, of the province of Manitoba. Today is Louis Riel Day and marks the 130th anniversary of his death. It was a great pleasure today to spend some time this morning with representatives of the Métis Nation British Columbia as well as with the member for Maple Ridge– Mission on the legislative grounds as we raised the Métis infi nity fl ag in recognition of Louis Riel Day.

I’ d like to take a moment here to recognize some mem-

British Columbia DebatesMonday, November 16, 2015 10157 bers that are in the Legislature here today in the gallery, several members of Métis Nation B.C. who have joined us: the president of the Métis Nation, Bruce Dumont, and his wife, Joanne; the vice-president, Annette Maurice; and the minister of Métis women, Clara Morin-Dal Col. Would the House please make these distinguished in- dividuals welcome. M. Dalton: It was a real special day this morning, at the crack of dawn, raising the infi nity fl ag, the Métis fl ag. I can see it fl uttering away from my window right now .

Well, not right now, but when I’m in the offi ce. I do want to ask the members to make welcome some diff erent Métis leaders, including Barbara Hulme, who is a Métis Nation B.C. veteran; Lissa Smith, the region- al director for Vancouver Island and Powell River; Rob Humpherville, regional B.C. Métis assembly of natural resources and Captain of the Hunt; and Dale Drown, who is from Mission and the chief executive offi cer. Please make them all welcome. [1350] G. Kyllo: In addition, other delegation members from the Métis Nation.

We have from Métis Nation of Greater Victoria the president, Victoria Pruden, joining us today; the Métis Nation B.C. Victoria community youth repre- sentative, Mr. Brian Cathers; and the North Island Métis Association president, Michael Dumont. Would the House make them feel very welcome. Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I’ d ask you to join with me today in welcoming Christine Eidt to the gal- lery. Christine Eidt and I met more than four decades ago when we were heralding the B.C. Y outh Parliament as the successor to the Older Boys Parliament in British Columbia. It was a long time ago.

She’s joined by her friend Linda Gauthier, visiting from Victoria. Christine is visiting from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Would the House please make her very welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25B) LOUIS RIEL AND HISTORY OF METIS M. Dalton: I rise in the traditional territory of the Lekwungen people to acknowledge that today, November 16, represents a true landmark in Métis history. On this day in 1885, 130 years ago to be exact, Métis leader Louis Riel was convicted of high treason following a Métis up- rising and executed by hanging.

Intelligent, well educated and a compelling speaker, Riel was elected to the Parliament of Canada on three separate occasions. However, due to politics and the tur- moil of his time, he was never able to take his seat. His life combined the heights of success and the depths of defeat. Widely regarded as the father of Manitoba, Riel was a fi erce champion of democracy and human rights for Métis people and other westerners. Partially due to his leadership, Manitoba became a province in 1870. People in what are now Saskatchewan and Alberta won the right to vote in 1886 and provincial status in 1905.

In various areas of Canada, his life has been commem- orated by statues, schools, buildings and streets. He has been memorialized in an opera, stamps, documentar- ies, biographies, articles, songs and pop culture. Many of the demands in the bill of rights that he championed for the Métis and for westerners in 1885 came to pass aft er his execution. Th e bill of rights emphasized bilin- gualism, protection of the lands of longtime residents and democracy. Today the Métis are offi cially recognized in

section 35 of the Constitution Act of Canada as one of the ab- original peoples of Canada. Th ere are some 70,000 self- identifying Métis in British Columbia, of which I am one. I am pleased that the president of the Métis Nation, Bruce Dumont, and many other Métis leaders are here today. Th e province and Métis Nation B.C. continue to work on strengthening our relationship, improving col- laboration and increasing the quality of life of the Métis people. Th ese objectives are outlined in the Métis Nation relationship accord signed in 2006 and remaining in place today. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE L.

Krog: November 15 to 22 is Restorative Justice Week, not just here in British Columbia but around the world. Th e theme for this inspiring time is “Inspiring in- novation. ” Restorative justice is a philosophy and approach that views crime and confl ict as harm done to people and relationships. It is non-adversarial, a non-retributive approach to justice that emphasizes healing in victims, accountability of off enders and the involvement of cit- izens in creating healthier, safer communities. Th e goal is to reach meaningful, satisfying and fair outcomes through inclusion, open communication and truth.

Essentially, restorative justice is about the criminal meeting their victim and coming to resolution, with the assistance of communities all across this province. Indeed, since 1998 — I emphasize again, for the mem- bers opposite, since 1998 — the Ministry of Justice has supported the delivery of community-based restorative justice approaches through the community accountabil- ity program. Today there are currently 53 restorative justice pro- grams across the province, all striving, with minimal dollars, to deliver an excellent program that prevents crime, that helps communities.

Indeed, the member for Abbotsford South, in a wonderful Blue Ribbon Panel for

British Columbia Debates10158 Monday, November 16, 2015 Crime Reduction report, emphasized the value of restor- ative justice programs. Indeed, as the Attorney General herself has recog- nized, supportive of the program, this is something that has been around for a long time but is very much in its infancy. It has the opportunity and the ability to ensure that criminals don’t get started down the long road to further criminal behaviour. [1355] Th e recommendation from the Blue Ribbon Panel and, indeed, Mr.

Cowper’s report, A Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century, all again emphasized the value and importance of restorative justice. Making better use of it in a provincewide plan for diversion, including restora- tive justice along with education, quality assurance and control, performance measures, reporting and education — everyone’s clear: it’s a good thing; let’s do more of it. DIABETES AW ARENESS P . Pimm: Th is is Diabetes Awareness Month. Th is dis- ease does not care who it attacks. In 2014, I became dia- betic and ended up in the hospital with a sky-high blood sugar count.

My kidneys and pancreas completely shut down, and it took several days to get back to a livable level. Some of the risk factors to watch for are having a par- ent or brother or sister with diabetes; being a member of a higher-than-normal risk group, such as aboriginal, Hispanic, South Asian, Asian or African descent; having been diagnosed with prediabetes; or being overweight, especially if that weight’s mostly carried around your stomach. Diabetes is a serious condition that currently af- fects more than 387 million people worldwide — more than ten million Canadians, as well as 442,000 British Columbians.

Th e cost of diabetes in Canada is approxi- mately $14 billion and rising every year. The cost in British Columbia is approximately $1.6 billion, expected to be $2.1 billion by 2025. Th e Canadian Diabetes Association is leading the fi ght against diabetes by helping those aff ected to live healthy lives, preventing the onset and consequences of diabetes, and discovering a cure. Diabetes can be monitored and controlled with proper diet, regular testing and proper insulin tablets or injections. A great example of this: just last night, I tested myself. I was at 11.

I went for a short run — and trust me, I’m no runner — but when I got back, I retested, and I was back down to 8.2. We are currently helping over 400,000 British Columbians living with diabetes to take ownership of their health by providing supports and services, such as extended coverage of insulin pumps to patients 25 and under, developing provincial standards for schools, and increasing screening rates signifi cantly so that now about 85 percent of adults in B.C. over the age of 45 have been screened. Maintaining health and wellness can in many cases prevent and manage prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

People across Canada can take the CANRISK two- minute test at www.take2minutes.ca. I encourage every- one to go on that website and have the test. MANUFACTURING AND HIGH TECHNOLOGY BUSINESSES ON SAANICH PENINSULA G. Holman: I spoken before in this House about the idyllic rural landscapes and pristine marine environment of Saanich North and the Islands. It may surprise some that the Saanich Peninsula also provides a signifi cant pro- portion of the industrial land base in the capital regional district and is home to one of the most vibrant manufac- turing and high-tech business areas in British Columbia.

Of the 120 manufacturing businesses on southern Vancouver Island, over half are located on the Saanich Peninsula, with a combined annual revenue of $1 billion. Th e majority of these manufacturers export an average of 80 percent of their products. Th e west Sidney industrial area alone accounts for over three-quarters of a billion in annual revenues, $110 million in annual payroll and over 2,500 employees — including well-known employ- ers such as Scott Plastics, Seastar Chemicals, Ramsey Machine Works, AXYS Technologies and, of course, Viking Air.

What can government do to attract and improve the viability of such businesses? Investments in workforce training and international marketing are of course im- portant. Promoting industry linkages between these fi rms — in other words, the development of industry clusters — can also help. Other policies may not be as ob- vious, like aff ordable workforce housing and improving public transit, which not only support and benefi t these businesses but also benefi t the public at large.

Th e good news is that the rural landscapes and pristine marine environment of Saanich North and the Islands is one of the reasons why entrepreneurs and their workers choose to locate there in the fi rst place. Th e manufactur- ing and value-added sector on the Saanich Peninsula is another clear example of how environmental protection in this digital age and in a fi ercely competitive global economy can be a key factor in attracting capital invest- ment and skilled workers. FACTS AND BELIEFS IN SOCIETY G. Hogg: Now for something completely diff erent.

I was recently approached by a constituent who asked me how I could possibly be so stupid as to have supported a particular piece of legislation. [1400] Well, I’ve been looking for an answer to that question. It does seems that there are times when people just don’t agree with me. I get challenged and criticized. I know that

British Columbia DebatesMonday, November 16, 2015 10159 those criticisms are sometimes unfounded and some- times unfair, but perhaps sometimes I am, as my con- stituent suggested, stupid. A Canadian researcher and Y ale professor named Philip Tetlock may have found an answer. He asked what it is about politics that can make people seem so dumb. His research answered the question by the fi nding that politicians, and the populace generally, are susceptible to occasional bouts of ideologically induced insanity and that defections from those ideological beliefs are a rarity.

Two other researchers have also tried to answer this very important question. Th eir research discovered two important insights into how our minds work. However, to my knowledge, no one in this Legislature was a subject to any of their studies. Th ey concluded, fi rstly, that we can oft en be blind to the obvious, and secondly, that we are oft en blind to our own blindness. It seems that we don’t see the obvious and that we can’t see that we don’t see it. I think the researchers are saying that when we don’t see the obvious but have it pointed out to us, we may see it and still deny its existence.

Th ey are suggesting that we may be stuck in a kind of cognitive illusion of denial. Th ey are similarly suggesting — in a mirror image of the familiar optical illusion of an oasis in the desert, where the parched wanderer craves water and sees it, but it’s not there — that politicos crave answers and can’t see them, but they are there. Th is research seems to be of questionable value. It tells us that some people fi nd it impossible, due to their cul- tural or group belief systems, to be open to other options. But knowing that doesn’t seem to be of much value.

As for that constituent who asked me how I could pos- sibly be so stupid, I answered him by saying: “For me, it was really very easy. I just had to be myself. ” Th at seemed quite acceptable to him. LOWER MAINLAND CHRISTMAS BUREAU S. Simpson: As we start to think about the Christmas season and gift s for family and friends, let us think about an organization that has had similar things on their mind for the last 85 years. Th e Lower Mainland Christmas Bureau is celebrating 85 years of working to ensure that Christmas is a little better for thousands around the Lower Mainland.

Th is year the bureau will deliver over 100,000 toys and items to local bureaus and community groups and will help over 1,000 Vancouver families directly with food vouchers, clothes and toys to ensure they have a merry Christmas. And every summer since 1947 they have sent kids to camp who otherwise would not be able to aff ord to go. Established in 1930, this organization has only two full-time staff and gets the rest done with volunteers — a remarkable accomplishment. It is an organization with an impressive group of sponsors from the corporate and labour community.

A great example of community support is the motor- cycle toy run that this year added $20,000 and 2,100 new toys to the bureau’s coff ers. While many deserve credit for these accomplishments, I want to note one person in particular — Chris Bayliss, the executive director of the organization. He truly does it all. He raises money, manages volunteers, drives the truck, sorts the toys and sweeps the fl oor. Chris demonstrates every day a com- mitment to making people’s lives better, and we can all learn from that. Th ank you, Chris. We oft en speak in this place of reducing poverty.

While the Christmas bureau may not do that, they do reduce the stigma of poverty. When kids return to school aft er Christmas and talk about their new toys, the students helped by the bureau will be part of that conversation too. When kids come back aft er summer and talk about their camp experience, poor kids helped by the bureau to go to camp can talk about their experience too. We all wish the Lower Mainland Christmas Bureau was unnecessary, but we know that will not be the case anytime soon.

Until we beat poverty and inequality, let’s thank and support the Lower Mainland Christmas Bureau on 85 years of making the season a happier one for many and wish them much support and success in their future. Oral Questions PERMIT FOR SOIL DUMPING IN SHAWNIGAN LAKE W ATERSHED J.

Horgan: Last August the B.C. government gave a permit to South Island Aggregates, a 50-year permit, to receive over 100,000 tonnes annually of toxic, contamin- ated soils just above the drinking water supply for 12,000 British Columbians. [1405] Th roughout the debate around this issue, through ju- dicial review, through appeals to the appeal board, the government has steadfastly maintained that they were protecting the interests of the people of Shawnigan Lake, that they were protecting the water within Shawnigan Lake and that there was nothing to worry about.

Sadly, the worst fears of the residents of Shawnigan Lake were realized on Friday when the Ministry of Health, through the Island Health Authority, issued a “do not use” water advisory for those living and taking water on the south end of Shawnigan Lake. My question is to the Minister of Environment. Aft er years of being approached by residents, whether they be elected representatives, regular citizens or former Liberal candidates, the response has always been: “Do not worry. We’re here to protect you. ” Until it rains. As you well know, we live in a rainforest.

Th e fi rst rain in the 50-year permit led to a no-use advisory for the people in the region.

British Columbia Debates10160 Monday, November 16, 2015 Can the minister now do the right thing, stop the movement of contaminated soils into the Shawnigan watershed and do it today? Hon. M. Polak: First, let me correct the member. Th e answer has not been “don’t worry. ” Th e answer has been that a permit of this nature is issued by government sci- entists who operate independent of political interference. Th at has been the answer. Th ose same people, dedicated staff , work to ensure that there is compliance and en- forcement on all sites where there are permits for facili- ties like this.

In the case of what has occurred in that area, I can tell the members that ministry staff were there, were con- ducting samples. Th ose samples have been taken to a laboratory. I am told that half of that sampling and test- ing is complete, and no public health threats have been identifi ed in that testing. We expect the majority of the rest of it to be provided to us this aft ernoon. In the meantime, I can tell the member that from the investigations of those staff , it appears that the contam- inants that were witnessed are actually surface runoff of sediment.

Madame Speaker: Th e Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental. J. Horgan: Well, yes. I mean, water is a basic necessity of life. Everybody understands that. Interjection. J. Horgan: Sorry, Bill, didn’t hear you there. Madame Speaker: Th rough the Chair, Members. J. Horgan: Contaminated soils in a watershed less than 100 kilometres from this building. Th ousands of people affected. Thousands of people concerned, re- peating those concerns almost daily to the Minister of Environment and to the Minister of Mines. What do they get for their eff orts?

Th ey got an advisory on Friday say- ing “do not use. ” Th at advisory was updated on Saturday to say the fol- lowing. “Island Health is advising not to use or draw water from the area of the lake for residential or com- mercial use, including bathing, personal hygiene, drink- ing, food preparation” — and on it goes. Th at’s hardly the way for residents to live for the next 50 years. Now, I well appreciate the Minister of Mines doesn’t care what goes on at minesites, but the people above Shawnigan Lake are absolutely convinced that this prac- tice must stop. Th e CVRD is in court.

Th e Shawnigan Ratepayers Association is in court. Th e right thing for the government to do, while these issues are before the courts, is to suspend the 20 to 30 trucks a day that are bringing contaminants to an empty minesite and aff ect- ing the lives of thousands of citizens. Surely to goodness it’s time for the minister to put people fi rst, stop the trucks and let these people get on with regular lives, like all British Columbians expect from their government. Hon. M.

Polak: I can assure the member that staff from the Ministry of Health and staff from the Ministry of Environment have taken these issues very seriously. Th ey have conducted additional testing. Th ey have been on site with respect to concerns about this particular in- cident with runoff . Th ey will continue to be vigilant. With permits that are dealing with very serious sub- stances, it is important at all times to be cautious. It is also important not to sow panic where we should not. [1410] In that regard, I will quote from the medical health offi cer… Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. M.

Polak: …who issued the order, Dr. Murray Fyfe, on CFAX, responding to some of the very ill-ad- vised comments that have been out in the media. Th is is what Dr. Fyfe says. “First of all, we don’t know that anything actually made it into the water, and we are go- ing to follow up with the Ministry of Environment as we get results back to determine whether anything hap- pened at all. ” Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair will hear the answer and the question. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. J. Horgan: I guess the water in Quilchena is okay, but the water in Shawnigan Lake is not.

I don’t know how the minister can say we are sowing fear when we’re reading from an Island Health Authority water advisory. Th at’s not sowing fear. One minute the minister says: “Trust us. ” Th e next minute, another hand of the government says: “Don’t drink the water. ” If that’s not cause for concern, I am at a loss to know what is. For two years, the people of Shawnigan Lake have been appealing to this government for some reason. Y ou just have to go to the site and stand at the edge of where they’re collecting contaminants and look down at the lake.

It doesn’t take a physics degree to fi gure out that that’s not going to work for 50 years. Now, I appreciate that the member from Vancouver, from the tony side of Vancouver, doesn’t care a whit about

British Columbia DebatesMonday, November 16, 2015 10161 the people of Vancouver Island, but the people on this Island deserve the same level of respect as every other British Columbian. Will the minister do the right thing today and say to South Island Aggregates that we’re pulling the permit until we are absolutely convinced that we can protect the people of Shawnigan Lake? Hon. M. Polak: It is important in all of these cases to deal with the facts. Let me outline some of them. Firstly, permits of this nature are issued based on the decisions of independent scientists, free from interfer- ence from politicians.

Compliance and enforcement recommendations are made in the same way. Politicians do not direct those scientists to make their recommen- dations. Th ey conduct sampling. Th ey assess whether or not… Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. M. Polak: …a permit is being complied with. But the members would be interested to know this as well. In terms of the area for which there is an advisory, there are no licensed permitted drinking water systems drawing water from that area. Th e nearest groundwater source is two to three kilometres away.

In fact, as I mentioned before, with half of the sam- pling results in, there is no evidence of a public health threat identifi ed in those samples. In fact, the evidence points to contaminants as a result of runoff of sediment, not of contaminated materials. We will have more infor- mation this aft ernoon. B. Routley: The groundwater control design at Shawnigan Lake contaminated soil dump has clearly failed. A mystery creek has now showed up right under the contaminated soil dump, and my constituents have been told not to drink the water. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

I will hear the question. Please proceed. B. Routley: Th ere is another storm on the way, the second of many that will hit the coast this winter, and resi- dents now live in fear of their own drinking water supply being totally compromised. Th eir trust has been broken. [1415] At an absolute minimum, will the Minister of Environment commit today to shut down the contam- inated soil dump while these design fl aws are fully and properly investigated? Hon. M. Polak: Th e member references the facility be- ing in failure. I can tell the House that there is absolutely no evidence of a breach — none. In fact, when….

Interjections. Madame Speaker: Minister, please proceed. Hon. M. Polak: It is always diffi cult to deal with per- mits in the Ministry of Environment that handle ma- terials that are not welcome in our backyards. But it is necessary to ensure that we do have safe places to deal with contaminated materials so as to ensure that they are not dumped illegally and in unsafe places. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order. Hon. M. Polak: So permits of this nature are issued not by politicians. Th ey are issued by those who have the scientifi c expertise in order to make those decisions.

Compliance and enforcement recommendations are also made by independent scientists who do not get directed by the Minister of Environment. If the mem- bers wish to substitute their political judgment for the scientifi c judgment of those with expertise, maybe they should make that claim. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental. B. Routley: With non-answers to these questions, I’m surprised that this government could even manage a two- door outhouse. Madame Speaker: Member. B. Routley: When you look at… Madame Speaker: Member. B.

Routley: …what’s going on here, they certainly can’t be managing a contaminated soil dump. Between the Shawnigan Residents Association and the Cowichan Valley regional district, my constituents have now paid more than $1 million in legal fees in an attempt to protect their own drinking water. Th ey fi nd themselves in the bizarre position of using their hard-earned money to hire lawyers to fi ght for the right that this government ought to be safeguarding for them, and that’s the right to clean drinking water.

The minister is well aware that she and the Environmental Appeal Board have been lied to, and she has done nothing.

British Columbia Debates10162 Monday, November 16, 2015 Madame Speaker: Member, please pose your question. B. Routley: Why does this government continue to abandon our communities and force them to fi ght for a resource that she is duty-bound to protect? Hon. M. Polak: The members of the staff of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment dedicate their entire careers to working to ensure that public health is kept safe, that the environment is kept safe. These people have the expertise, but they also feel the heavy obligation to ensure that those careers matter, to make sure that they are doing their

part in uphold- ing their obligations for British Columbians across this province. Th ey do that each and every day. Th ey do that independent of political interference. Th at is the way it should be. Now, I have advised the House with respect to the test- ing that is ongoing. I have advised the House that at this stage, the half or so samples that we have received back, in terms of results, show no public health threat. We have additional samples coming back. As with any circumstance, if there is a threat to pub- lic health found, we act. If there are non-compliances in terms of a permit, we act.

We will do so in this case. I will simply fi nish with the quote again from the med- ical health offi cer, which says: “ As we get results back, we will determine whether anything happened at all. ” [1420] WRONGFUL-CONVICTION COURT CASE L. Krog: A very simple and important question to the Minister of Justice. Today the city of Vancouver fi nally stopped trying to retry Ivan Henry, wrongfully convicted 35 years ago. Th e city of Vancouver settled. Will she do the same today? Hon. S. Anton: When a matter is for this chamber, it’s for this chamber. When a matter is before the courts, it is in the courts.

Madame Speaker: Th e member for Nanaimo on a supplemental. L. Krog: The reason that this matter is before the courts is because this government refuses consistently to do justice to Ivan Henry. And to top it off , I’m informed that now that the city of Vancouver has done the right thing and withdrawn from the case, the provincial gov- ernment is considering hiring an amicus curiae to raise the arguments the city of Vancouver wouldn’t — further insult to injury to Mr. Henry. Hon. Speaker, 35 years ago, he was wrongfully con- victed. Th e courts have determined that.

Th e Attorney General has some fundamental duties. She has the duty to protect the honour of the Crown by ensuring the jus- tice system carries out the requirements of due process and to restore this honour, and thus the public’s faith in the justice system, when the fundamental rules of a hear- ing aren’t met. It is absolutely clear to the people of British Columbia, to Mr. Henry and to the city of Vancouver that what is going on in B.C. Supreme Court is wrong. I ask her sim- ply today: will she do the right thing? Will she settle this case and give Mr. Henry the justice he so richly deserves? Hon. S.

Anton: Th e member opposite raises a num- ber of interesting issues, all of which are before the court. Th at is the proper realm for them to be, and we will leave them there. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL RULING ON CONDUCT OF COLLEGE OF VETERINARIANS H. Bains: Aft er weeks of dithering, the minister fi nally, two weeks ago, accepted that he had the statutory author- ity to make sure that the human rights code is followed and that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s decision is implemented by the College of Veterinarians of B.C.

He said: “We have the Veterinarians Act that comes under my ministry, and therefore, there are many opportun- ities to deal with the situation aft er Th ursday if the col- lege does not meet the test I have set for them. ” Th e next day the college informed the minister that it would not be meeting the test to follow the tribunal’s ruling. My question to the minister is this. Why is the min- ister not utilizing many opportunities he says he’s af- forded under the act to ensure that the college follows the Human Rights Tribunal’s ruling? Hon. N. Letnick: Th ank you for the question.

As I’ve said in this House before, there is no place for racism or prejudice anywhere in British Columbia, including all the associations and colleges that work within this province. I expect all associations — and, in particular, I expect the College of Veterinarians — to live by the human rights code and to ensure that all their agents and employees live by the human rights code as well. I think it’s also important to reinforce the message that the Human Rights Tribunal decision was based on the ac- tions of the association some ten years ago.

None of the members on the board of the current college were on the association board at the time. I’ve been working, through my deputy minister, with the president of the college — working out some possible solutions. We have come to the point where we’ve issued them a letter, which I’ll be happy to table in the House aft er question period today. As to what is contained in the letter, it’s the high bar to which I am holding the col- lege accountable. [1425]

British Columbia DebatesMonday, November 16, 2015 10163 Madame Speaker: Th e member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental. H. Bains: Th e minister talked about the letter that he sent — what he said two weeks ago — and that he would do something. Let’s talk about the letter that he has written. He said: “My expectations are as follows. Th e college and all organizations in the province are ex- pected to adhere and to comply with the human rights code. Th e college, its members and its agents must not engage in discriminatory conduct prohibited by the hu- man rights code. ” Wow. What a noble idea.

Th at law has been in place for decades. He didn’t have to remind them. He had to take action to make sure the law is followed. Even the an- swer today…. No wonder those same victims are going through the same discrimination that was found to be discriminatory — those actions of the college. As a matter of fact, as we speak now, the college that he tried to absolve of any wrongdoing is defending them- selves from the same type of complaints, from the same members — the college that he has appointed four mem- bers of.

No wonder the college continues to fi ght against the victims of discrimination and retaliate against them. He has failed to take any action as a result of this. Why the college is engaged in these tactics is because they know — and they knew — that this government and this minister would do nothing. And they were right. My question, again to the minister, is: why did he fail to take real action, as he promised in this House and outside, to ensure that the human rights ruling is implemented? Hon. N. Letnick: Th e member is obviously wrong.

Even the member for Vancouver–Point Grey said in the media last week that the college has every right to take a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal to judicial review. If the member opposite is saying that the government should block every time that an organization wishes to go by its constitutional rights, he should stand up in the House right now and say so. Indeed, we have taken action on this side of the House. We’ve engaged…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. N. Letnick: We expect the college to pass an anti-discrimination law — cultural sensitivity language embedded in its college policies.

We expect the college to also follow through on its promise to hire a former Supreme Court of Canada justice to review best practices. We have asked the college, also in the letter, not only to look at what happens here in B.C. but to look across the country to fi nd out what is the best practice and make sure that not only are they held to that high standard but, also, all their agents and employees. S. Hammell: Th e minister says he has told the College of Veterinarians to regain the confi dence of its members and the public. What has the college done?

Th ey’ve hired a lawyer to fi x their discriminatory discipline process- es. Th e problem is the college got it wrong. Th e lawyer they’ve hired to fi x the discrimination is from the same fi rm they’re using in court to argue that their process isn’t discriminatory. Does the minister see how this perceived confl ict of interest makes it harder for the people in this human rights case to reconcile and move forward and for the college to regain public confi dence? [1430] Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I would like to say that we on this side of the House totally respect the Human Rights Tribunal in their decision.

We expect the college to in- stitute practices that are the best in the country. We have given them 60 days to report back on their progress, and I intend to follow up with the question from the mem- ber opposite. Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental. S. Hammell: Th is is about the college and how the decision looks to the veterinarians and the public. Th e college is using the same fi rm to fi x their discriminatory bylaws as they’re using to argue in court that the bylaws are fi ne and there is no discrimination. To the minister: there is a perceived confl ict of inter- est.

As a cabinet minister, he knows that well. Will he act to address this serious issue? Hon. N. Letnick: I fi nd the assertion that the Minister of Agriculture should be telling the college which lawyers to hire very troubling. Where does the line end? Interjection. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Surrey-Newton will come to order. Please continue. Hon. N. Letnick: It is clear that the college must com- ply with human rights across this organization. Th ey have taken steps to do that. I won’t take the time in the House to outline all those steps. People in the House know the steps.

We are going to hold them to those steps. We have raised the bar on their steps as well. We have told them they must come back with a plan within 60 days to ensure that not only are they complying with the human rights code throughout all their organization but that it also will apply to all their agents and employees. We’ve also off ered to them the use of a mediator paid for by the government, should they wish to avail themselves of that. Th e list goes on and on.

British Columbia Debates10164 Monday, November 16, 2015 Overall, I just want to say that the government is well aware of the issue. Th e government is making sure that the human rights code is respected by the college, and we will be there over the next couple of months to watch the college to make sure they comply with all the aspects of the letter, which I will table aft er question period today. CLOSING OF CANFISCO SALMON CANNING OPERATIONS IN PRINCE RUPERT J. Rice: Last week we learned that Canfi sco is shut- ting down its salmon-canning operations in its Prince Rupert plant.

Th is will result in 600 direct jobs vanish- ing from Prince Rupert. Th e loss of indirect jobs is more than double that. Th ese jobs, salmon jobs, are a crucial part of our identity and culture as a community. My question is to the Agriculture Minister. Why has your government been silent in the face of this crisis in my community? Hon. N. Letnick: As far as I understand right now, the company is in current review of how many jobs will actually be lost. Every job that’s lost in this province, of course, aff ects not only the family that is impacted by the companies as well.

I understand that the issue of canned salmon is…. In this particular case, it’s because the market for canned salmon has come down. Hopefully, the company can fi nd other purposes, other uses, for their employees. I fi nd it galling that the members opposite would ac- tually be complaining to us on this side of the House about economic policy. If it wasn’t for this side of the House saying yes to things like Site C, yes to LNG, yes to the expansion of agriculture, yes to the expansion of aquaculture, where would we be in this province?

I can tell you I’ d rather have the problems on this side of the House than have them, on the other side of the House, in control of our economy. J. Rice: Th e jobs at Canfi sco are jobs that already exist, jobs that are already supporting real families. Tomorrow’s theoretical jobs will do nothing to pay today’s bills. [1435] Local families depend on these jobs. First Nations people up and down the Skeena River and along the north coast come to Prince Rupert to work these jobs. We know that north coast salmon is still going to be canned. It’s just not going to be canned in British Columbia.

Jobs are being shipped overseas. What is this government going to do today for families that need jobs now, and will this government take action to ensure B.C. salmon creates B.C. jobs? Hon. N. Letnick: It’s really important that the mem- bers opposite understand that we are concerned for every job in British Columbia. Th at is why we have a jobs plan. We have to diversify our economy, and we’ve done that on this side of the House. We’ve had record increases in the amount of GDP im- pacted by agriculture and aquaculture. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Hon. N. Letnick: So $12.3 billion, a record year.

It’s a 5.9 percent increase over the year before, which is also a record increase from the year before that. Increases in tourism, stronger technology — the list goes on and on. On this side of the House, we are here to be job cre- ators. On that side of the House, they say no to everything. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Madame Speaker: Hon.

Members, I have the honour to present a joint report of the Offi ce of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Representative for Children and Y outh entitled Cyberbullying: Empowering Children and Youth to Be Safe Online and Responsible Digital Citizens; and Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists reports Investigation Report 15-04 , lobbyist: Leslie Hrushowy; Investigation Report 15-09 , lobbyist: Dan Jepsen; and Investigation Report 15-08, lobbyist: Gordon Hunter. Standing Order 35 REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE — SOIL DUMPING IN SHAWNIGAN LAKE W ATERSHED A.

Weaver: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. As advised in Standing Order 35, I gave the Chair notice, and I have provided a written statement of the matter proposed to the Clerk. By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to dis- cuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, an emergency debate concerning the recent failure of the con- taminated soil site stormwater containment and clarifi ca- tion system at the South Island Aggregates–Cobble Hill Holdings’ South Island Resource Management operations.

Th ere were, in the past few days, at least two docu- mented breaches of water bypassing the system into the Shawnigan potable water stream network. On November 13, Island Health issued a no-water use advisory “advis- ing residents not to use water taken out of the lake from the south end of Lake Shawnigan, south of Butler Avenue and Verlon Road, due to suspected overfl ow of water from South Island Aggregates’ site. ” This means that

British Columbia DebatesMonday, November 16, 2015 10165 residents were being advised “not to use or draw water from the area of the lake for residential or commercial use, including bathing, personal hygiene, drinking and food preparation. ” Th is morning I visited the area today to witness many scores of residents of Shawnigan Lake standing along the roadside desperately seeking government action. Despite the fact that members opposite think this is a joke, I walked around the facility this morning, and there is water running off that facility today in violation of the permits that they have been granted.

Y et we have the side opposite thinking this is somehow a big joke. Last week a steady stream of trucks brought in high- sulfur soils, further contaminated with hydrocarbons from the metallurgical coal activities that occurred at Pacifi c Coast Terminals in Port Moody. Five thousand people draw their drinking water from this lake, and 12,000 people live within the region. Th ere are several court cases before that we will ob- viously not have time but could explore in debate, and local residents have documented many cases of non- compliance.

And as of this morning, the Island Health water advisory remains in place. As it should be clear , the need for this debate is ur- gent. Trucks are not delivering sediments today but will start again tomorrow. British Columbians are facing very real health impacts from a decision this government has made, and there has not been and will not be an oppor- tunity for this issue to be debated appropriately other than within the scope of Standing Order 35. Hon. M. de Jong: Th anks to the member for the sub- mission. I think, by my recollection, we had an earlier ap- plication this session under Standing Order 35.

I think that at that time, I made mention of the very particular and specifi c test that the rules of the House require be applied. [1440] It occurred to me aft er I made those comments that I made them without actually having the benefi t of reading the material that the member has fi led with the House. I believe that one of the options available to you, Madame Speaker, is to defer debate, briefl y. I probably should have done this earlier but would do so now and at least read the material that the member has fi led with the House and then provide a more fulsome response on behalf of the government shortly.

Madame Speaker: I thank both members for their submissions. Tabling Documents Hon. N. Letnick: I would like to table a letter I wrote to Mr. Shaw, the president of the College of Veterinarians of B.C., on November 12, with my expectations for the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia. Leave granted. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. I would ask the members to please come to order. Motions Without Notice REFERRAL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT REVISION TO PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move that: [The revision of the Local Government Act [RSBC 1996]

Chapter 323 be presented to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for examination and recommendation pursuant to the Statute Revision Act [RSBC 1996]

Chapter 440. In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills by the Legislative Assembly, the Committee is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess aft er prorogation until the next follow- ing Session and during any sitting of the House;

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

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.] I believe the hon. Opposition House Leader has re- ceived a copy of the motion — and other members as well. By leave, I would move that motion. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: Continued second reading debate on Bill 41. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2015 (continued) A. Dix: We’re continuing debate on Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Th e Speaker will recall that this bill amends a number of acts, includ-

British Columbia Debates10166 Monday, November 16, 2015 ing issues related to universities and colleges, which my colleague from Burnaby has discussed at length. It also deals with issues around youth agreements, which my colleague from Stikine will be addressing, which are sig- nifi cant issues. Indeed, it’s signifi cant issues for people in my constituency who live under those agreements, which in my view, anyway, provide insuffi cient resources to young people in care. Th e purpose of the legislation is to extend eligibility.

But there are, I think, some signifi cant issues around the youth agreement program and the need to provide more resources to young people for whom the province is, in fact, the guardian — to allow them the resources they need to succeed under those programs. I’m going to be focused, in my remarks today, on those sections of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that deal with the B.C. Utilities Commission.

In particu- lar, what this piece of legislation seeks to do is to amend…. [1445] Th ey argue, consistent with a report that was done into the BCUC, to make a series of minor amendments — in fact, to put in place six of the 35 recommendations. I note that the most signifi cant of those recommendations are not being implemented here and, in fact, are being sig- nifi cantly undermined, as we speak, by the government. Nonetheless, those amendments include the creation of a position of a chief operating offi cer. Th at is created by statute here to direct the staff of the commission.

Th is is a change in the structure of the commission. Th ere’s streamlining of some processes for exemption. Given the use of exemption power by the government, it’s in- teresting that this is the one they would proceed with most quickly. Finally, and this one is not lacking in irony, the gov- ernment is giving the commission more discretion on whether to be guided by the Clean Energy Act’s energy objectives. Why is that the case? Because the govern- ment, in legislation, has provided the commission, which it constantly criticizes, with contradictory objectives.

So what they’re saying to the commission is: “Y ou’re able more easily to ignore our ridiculous previous legisla- tive eff orts in your eff orts to do your job on behalf of the people of British Columbia. ” I think it’s signifi cant to put this in the context that these changes and these reports…. Th is is, of course, not the fi rst report. It’s, in fact, the third report that has utterly, even though they’re government reports, rejected the government’s approach to energy policy and, in par- ticular, the BCUC. Th is was rejected, ironically, by B.C.

Hydro’s core review in 2011, implemented aft er a disas- trous period that has led to the very signifi cant rate in- creases that Liberal political decisions have caused at B.C. Hydro today. Equally, the industrial electricity core review task force, in 2013, did precisely the same thing, emphasizing the important role of the B.C. Utilities Commission. Th at report was again completely contradicted by the gov- ernment’s actions and activity in the subsequent per- iod. Of course, this report itself, which says very clearly and unequivocally that the independence of the Utilities Commission….

Let me quote from the report. “Th e existence of an in- dependent expert commission is more important than ever today. By regulating monopolies, the BCUC pro- vides an essential public service. ” Y et in spite of these government commission reports, the government has continued, over the years, to exempt major projects and exempt major public policy positions — essentially, not follow the law — with disastrous consequences for rate- payers and the people of B.C. Who can forget the $1 billion smart meter initiative, justifi ed by its positive impact in reducing the number of grow ops?

All of the performance indicators that the gov- ernment promised have not gone ahead. In fact, they’ve been deleted, it would appear, from the B.C. Hydro web- site. Th e reason we were going to do this is now no longer in existence. Th ey did it anyway. Th ey spent $1 billion. Th e exemptions they provided to the Clean Energy Act, exemptions for government decisions under the Clean Energy Act — which are dealt with, again, in detail, in this BCUC report….

Now we know, because of the mis- calculation and the political decisions of the government, we lost $1.4 billion — it’s hard to imagine you could do that — on power projects over the three years, in which this year is one, last year and next year. It’s $1.4 billion, not according to me, but according to B.C. Hydro’s own documents — $1.4 billion. Th ey exempted themselves. Th ey said they didn’t have to justify their expenditures and their public policy de- cisions before the BCUC, and now ratepayers are paying a $1 billion price tag. It’s hard to imagine that: a $1 bil- lion price tag.

Th at is how much that particular activity cost taxpayers. Th ere was a decision to exempt the northwest trans- mission line and a decision to exempt other objectives of the Clean Energy Act, including review of demand and future demand, which used to be a regular occurrence at B.C. Hydro. What they would do is they’ d make de- mand forecasts every year on which decisions would be made. Th ey stopped making them. When? Aft er the 2013 IRP . Why? Because they knew those new demand fore- casts — because we can see it in the actuals, in the actual amount of energy consumed — were wrong.

Th ey want- ed to make the Site C decision, so they decided to hide that evidence from the public in advance of the decision. [1450] Th at would not have happened, could not have hap- pened…. It is the very purpose of the B.C. Utilities Commission to ensure that that does not happen. Y et the government, as a matter of policy, has routinely made billion-dollar mistakes and exempted itself from regu- latory approval.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, November 16, 2015 10167 Y ou would think, having made mistake aft er mistake aft er mistake aft er mistake, having refused and not com- plied with good management practices, having been wrong on demand, having been wrong on Power Smart, having been wrong on its estimates…. Th ey failed to pro- vide them. It’s extraordinary. What you do when the evidence goes against you, if you’re this government, is you don’t ask for the evidence. Th is is the way you get around it.

Y ou have a 2013 IRP based on 2012 numbers, and you don’t update them be- cause the updating would make your decision around Site C look worse. Rather than saying, “Th ese are the facts here, on which were based the decision, ” you hide the facts. Y ou delete the facts. Y ou delete them again, and then you delete them again. Th at would make for delete, delete and delete. Now, what they did…. Well, this is what they did. What they did, at the end of 2014, is to make a decision not based on the facts, because they had intentionally hidden the facts.

It’s not based on rigorous analysis, be- cause they didn’t do that. Th ey knew — and their own documents show this; look at the fi rst quarterly report of B.C. Hydro this year — that the demand for power goes down. We’ll review that in greater detail in a moment. Y et they did not…. They chose to proceed nonetheless.

They chose to proceed nonetheless, not because they knew they were right — in fact, they knew they were wrong about those questions — but because they want, presumably, to use billions — indeed, tens of billions — of dollars of public expenditure as a political wedge in the present, regardless of its impact on rates and the economy in the future. It is reckless activity. It is, frankly, the subject of this legis- lation, which is a government that says one thing about the BCUC, does another and leaves the ratepayer to pay the price. Now, when this report came out, the Minister of Energy said that he’ d changed.

He was a changed man. He had a new approach to the BCUC that he was going to take — not the old approach, where they made disastrous mistakes because they didn’t review things at the BCUC. He was a changed man. He was going to change. He was going to implement the decisions of the report, and then he was going to move forward. What did he say?

He said: “We will work with the BCUC to implement the recom- mendations and strengthen the commission. ” He goes on to say: “I think we need to fi nd a way to give the Utilities Commission more capacity, more resources, so that they can deal with not just smaller issues, but the big issues. ” What is the fi rst thing they did aft er that? I think it’s interesting. I know that my colleague from Oak Bay will be interested in this. What is the fi rst thing they did aft er- wards? In August of 2015, they decided to engage in a process to exempt two major transmission projects from the BCUC.

Y ou say one thing; you do another. Was there any justifi cation for it? Does anybody, any major group dealing with energy policy, think this is a good idea? Just so you don’t think it’s the union or a consumer group or seniors groups or public interest groups that think this is the wrong thing to do, what did…? We’re referring, in particular, to the Peace region elec- tricity supply project, PRES, which used to be called DCAT 2. Th ey changed the name, which is, I guess, what they call innovation over there. Th en there’s the North Montney power supply project.

Th ese are two very sig- nifi cant projects, very costly projects, potentially — very costly projects, potentially, for ratepayers. Th ey may be the right projects, but they are not going to be reviewed. Because it’s interesting to see, what did the Association of Major Power Customers of B.C., AMPC, say? Th ey’re not an affi liated organization of the NDP , to my know- ledge, although I may be wrong.

What did they say? “Exempting the two projects above from BCUC review and oversight appears to be a step back from these clear commitments” — referring to the minister’s comments — “a step that should only be taken for the clearest of rea- sons. In this case, no such reasons have been articulated. ” [1455] Th ey asked for information. And they said, “ AMPC has not received any such information, ” and so they “oppose the request by B.C. Hydro and ATCO for exemptions from the normal Utilities Commission Act require- ments. ” Th at’s what the industrialists say. Th e public in- terest groups say the same thing.

So did COPE 378 and other interveners. What did they do? Th e fi rst thing they did…. Th e min- ister has already said that his decision is essentially made. He’s proceeding. He’s exempting these projects — a pri- vate monopoly in British Columbia that will be totally unregulated and wants to exempt itself from any regula- tion, and B.C. Hydro. Th is isn’t just any project, by the way — the DCAT 2 project. It’s interesting. Th is is a project that’s very contro- versial — so controversial, that when its predecessor pro- ject…. It’s over budget; that goes without saying.

Th at’s what the minister would call ipso facto — that it’s over budget and years past schedule, that project. But when they tried to get that project — and they did get that pro- ject — through the BCUC, the controversial project was DCAT 2, now called PRES. Remember: change the name. Th is is Liberal innovation. What did they say? Th ey said: “Don’t ask us about DCAT 2. Y ou will have every opportunity in the future before the BCUC to discuss that project. We know it’s a problem, and you’ll have an opportunity to engage then. ” What did they do? It’s bait and switch.

Th ey go for- ward a couple of years later, and they are planning to exempt that project from BCUC approval. Th ere is ab- solutely no justifi cation for doing so. It is a project that’s expensive. It’s a project that involves, I would argue, a signifi cant public subsidy in both cases. Even though the ATCO project, which is the fi rst project, is a private

British Columbia Debates10168 Monday, November 16, 2015 project, B.C. Hydro has responsibility and makes guar- antees both around price — meaning that the existing ratepayers are going to provide a subsidy on price — and on costs outside of the agreement, none of this subject to BCUC approval. In short, what the government did…. Th ey had a pro- ject. It was diffi cult. It was controversial. Many people think it doesn’t make sense. Th ey came and said: “Don’t worry.

Th is is going to go before the BCUC. ” Not a dec- ade ago, not in the 1980s, not in the 1950s, but a couple of years ago, they said: “Y ou’re going to have an oppor- tunity to look at this at the BCUC. ” Now that we need that opportunity to come and look at it at the BCUC — a few months aft er the minister made specifi c commitments on the BCUC, when he received this report, when he said he was going to follow through on a report that says the BCUC is to be respected — what did they do in their fi rst opportunity? Well, no such thing. In fact, they did the opposite.

Th ey did the opposite of what they said they were going to do. Th is is a signifi cant problem. Y ou have a report. Y ou have a piece of legislation. Th e government commits to a bunch of things. Th en, when it matters, when it’s sig- nifi cant, when the government wants to do something, they immediately, again — having failed on smart me- ters, having failed on the clean energy plan in terms of its short-term costs, having failed on measuring demand and having failed on the process on Site C, which their own numbers say is going to lose signifi cant resources…. Here’s what another group….

I know that the mem- ber for Columbia River–Revelstoke is concerned that the business community may have a diff erent view. Well, let me read an editorial from Business in Vancouver that talks about these very issues of demand that are central to this exemption I’ve been talking about and central to the way the BCUC should function.

Here’s what they said in a recent editorial: “Hydro’s predicted 40 percent increase in electricity demand in the province over the next 20 years, a key justifi cation for Site C, needs recalculating, especially in the wake of Paper Excellence’s re- cent shutdown of paper production at Howe Sound Pulp and Paper.

Newsprint mills are major domestic industrial customers for Hydro, and the global pulp and paper industry’s rapidly changing business fundamentals foreshadow more hard times ahead. “Prior to its permanent closure in 2010, Catalyst Paper’s Elk Falls mill near Campbell River was one of Hydro’s biggest customers. Numbers in Hydro’s fi scal report show stagnant electricity de- mand from large industrial customers in the province over the past decade. ” [1500] Th e past decade — stagnant demand.

But in that past decade, this government has been in offi ce and appar- ently engaging in its economic agenda. “Sales in that category have slipped by 15 percent, to 14.02 terawatt hours in fi scal 2015 from 16.4 terawat hours in fi scal 2006” — down aft er ten years of suppos- ed Liberal economic development. What they also show is that electricity exports, of course, south of the border dropped dramatically in 2015. Th is is again from Hydro’s own documents.

In fact, what Hydro’s documents are saying is that the government is signifi cantly behind its own estimates, not for 2024 or for 2028 or for 2035 — everyone would understand that’s hard — but the estimates they made in 2012 for 2015. One-quarter of the net power to be pro- duced by Site C off in their estimates in two years, and they refuse — refuse, refused — to have their plans re- viewed independently. W e know why . W e know why they failed to do it on northwest transmission. People paid the price. We know why they failed to do it on smart meters. People paid the price.

We know why they failed to do it on their IRP . People paid the price. And now we see it again on two more projects. A government that every time they’ve been asked about the BCUC, says: “Our position is to respect the BCUC. ” But every occasion they’ve had, they’ve under- mined ratepayers interests and the BCUC — every possible opportunity, including since the most recent promise. It took them, unbelievably…. The minister made a promise in March, and he broke it by August. He broke it fundamentally by August. It took him very lit- tle…. Th ere was April, and there was May, and there was June.

Th ere was July and then August. He broke his promise by August. Again, it’s because there’s going to be a private subsidy paid for by every single small business and individual in British Columbia. And the government won’t justify these massive expendi- tures in terms of their value. Th ey won’t do what they’ve said they would do repeatedly. With respect to this legislation, we have again a gov- ernment that says one thing and does another. Th e con- sequences, when you lose money in the billions, for ratepayers are the investments not made, the jobs not created.

Th e costs increase for all businesses, which dra- matically costs jobs. When you make decisions such as the decision on Site C, when you know the evidence is diff erent from the basis on which you made the deci- sion…. No one would justify that on a business basis. Th at isn’t even beginning to discuss the other issues with respect to Site C. In other words, how can the government continue to act this way? And yet they do. Th ey continue to act this way, and they continue to expect ratepayers to pay the price.

Th eir hope — as it was, I guess, when they ex- empted themselves in 2009, in 2010, in 2011: “Well, let’s get through the electoral cycle. ” In the case of this cur- rent project, “Let’s get through two more electoral cycles, ” before people have to pay the price for what is nothing more or less than incompetence in the management of energy policy. Th ere has to be a way. Th ere has to be a better direction. Th e BCUC review shows some of the direction — if only the government hadn’t already broken its word before we

British Columbia DebatesMonday, November 16, 2015 10169 even get a chance to pass these minor amendments in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. R. Fleming: I want to speak to one

section of this mis- cellaneous bill this aft ernoon, and that is to do with the College and Institute Act amendments and the University Act amendments to deal with the collection of student so- ciety fees at the public post-secondary institutions across British Columbia. We have heard cogent arguments, comments about the other three sections of this bill relating to the Justice, Energy and Mines and MCFD ministries. I will confi ne my remarks, I think, really just to the fi rst major

section of this bill dealing with those acts that govern Advanced Education. [1505] I have to say that my interest in making my remarks is, in part, to see whether the stated intent of government in fact bears to be true when regulations are later being made to bring into full force these changes — as well as the changes to the Societies Act that passed through this chamber in the spring sitting of the Legislature, for which we are still awaiting orders-in-council to bring regula- tions into place.

Th e stated reasons for bringing in the changes here, and in the Societies Act prior to it, are to recognize the uniqueness and the distinction of student societies — fi rst, within the Societies Act changes to recognize that student union organizations, in many cases, are large and sophisticated organizations. Th ey are governed by their own highly developed democratic internal bylaws. Th ey, in turn, have all types of reporting obligations to their members, including fi nancial reporting where there are business enterprises involved, where there are services for which specifi c fees are collected.

Th at is, I think, positive recognition under the Societies Act that they’re a little bit diff erent than some of the small, membership-driven organizations that exist in all of our communities that are represented by the members here of the Legislative Assembly. Th ese are large, distinct or- ganizations that occupy a very diff erent place in British Columbia.

Indeed, under this miscellaneous act this aft ernoon, the stated reason from government for pursuing amend- ments to the College and Institute Act and the University Act is, again, to recognize the uniqueness of these insti- tutions, to give them additional security and to protect them from various ambiguities within the law that could in fact undermine the stability of student union organ- izations. Th ose motivations are all positive.

However, the minis- ter has asked for trust, both from the stakeholder groups that come under his ministry, of which student unions are the one in question here today, and also in asking the opposition members here for trust. For some of us, given the past actions of this government on a whole range of fronts, including around funding commitments and broken promises to the university and college sector, it’s not about trust. It’s about a leap of faith that is being asked of us here this aft ernoon.

I sincerely hope that there is nothing to the concerns, which I will share this aft ernoon, from organizations like the University of Victoria Students Society, who have written to the minister and copied me on their corres- pondence. I sincerely hope that there is nothing in this bill that will later arise to undermine the stability of those organizations. I can tell you that student societies are not only a permanent feature in the life of any campus in British Columbia; they are a positive feature in our commun- ities.

I think of the University of Victoria Students Society or the Camosun student society, for that matter, and the role they play both in advocating for students as well as providing concrete programs and benefi ts for the well- being of their members. Indeed, those functions are not only highly developed and evolved over many, many dec- ades; they have become indispensable in our commun- ity and, in a city like Victoria, absolutely critical for the large numbers of residents here who are in fact full-time or part-time students at these institutions.

Looking at the University of Victoria again, we’re talk- ing about, I think, a $12 million or $15 million annual operation here. It’s certainly one of the largest employ- ers in the region of its type.

It can also be seen distinctly as one of the largest cooperative business enterprises in the region, which has annual accountability through its general meetings and through elections to the boards of directors that other enterprises simply do not face — so already a very well-governed part of our economy and part of the fabric of British Columbia around advanced education. [1510] I agree that it’s important to eliminate legal ambigu- ities that may threaten the role and the stability of student unions in the future. Nevertheless, there are a number of questions that do arise out of this.

I know that the critic for Advanced Education, my colleague from Burnaby– Deer Lake, will have questions very specifi cally at com- mittee stage, when we get there. Here at second reading, I want to put my fi nger on some of the things that have arisen from the consultation, so to speak, that the min- ister has engaged in with student societies. I know that the minister has said, in a conference call for which there is a transcript available, that…. He has made a very, very clear commitment that this is not about a government who…. Let’s face it.

Its actions and its view and its agenda for advanced education don’t get a very positive reception on most campuses around British Columbia. I can’t think of any where the student body has a lot of good to say about the B.C. Liberals and their ad- ministration and the fact that we have, for example, the highest interest rates of any student loan program in the

British Columbia Debates10170 Monday, November 16, 2015 country or the least generous student grant programs of any province in Canada. Th ose are all well-known facts. Th ose are things that this government has rolled back in the last 15 years. It’s understandable why student societies would want to have a very clear understanding of just exactly what the min- ister has in mind.

He has said very clearly — and I have a transcript here — that he’s not looking at, even though the legis- lation says and is creating diff erent categories of what kinds of student fees are collected, making a distinction, for example, between capital and program fees. He has said very clearly that his government is not interested in shutting down, for example, freedom of the press, where newspaper society fees or radio society fees for licensed FM broadcasting stations are, indeed, collected on those campuses. So very, very good.

I’m glad that the impulse to shut down independent media on our campuses is not in the sights of this government. He has very clearly said, and made this commitment, that, for example, mandatory transit passes at those cam- puses around British Columbia that have them — which are mandatory on everybody, regardless of whether you use transit service or not — are not being subjected to some kind of a latter review by this government or that they will be undermined.

Th e minister has said some comments around some benefi t programs that are provided by student unions that, again, raise some fl ags and maybe call into ques- tion the trust that he is asking for from the student as- sociations that have been involved in his consultations so far. Specifi cally, I’m thinking of extended health and dental programs. Now, again, an extended health and dental program on a campus is voted upon, approved by a majority. It can be voted out, again, by a majority of those members on a campus.

Many campuses do have extended health and dental programs, and they are negotiated with a var- iety of providers — Pacifi c Blue Cross and those kinds of organizations — based on having a set pool of benefi t participants. Th at’s how you negotiate them. Y ou cannot sign an agreement to provide extended medical benefi ts or a dental program for university or college students with no idea how many students will, in fact, participate in that plan. It won’t work. Th ose programs will fall apart.

When the minister raised that example as something that may be separated out later in regulation or that may be given latitude by Liberal-appointed boards of govern- ors at these institutions to be collected or not collected, that raises concerns. It raises concerns not only in under- mining those programs but that, in fact, we have hit the thin edge of the wedge. Now, I hope this isn’t true, because those programs are governed well right now by the people that potentially benefi t from them.

Th ey determine, as they should, in- dependently of government or the institution, whether they wish to have collective benefi t programs like that in place, and it should remain that way. [1515] I think that if the government is really looking here to make distinctions between diff erent types of fees that are collected, then in fact, we’re not preserving the long-held, long-fought-for independence of student organizations to not be sat upon by their institutions, to not be some kind of glorifi ed class presidency that’s appointed by the chancellor or the president of a university or a college — but that they be genuinely independent organizations.

What would the minister be doing raising the suggestion that perhaps some of those fees, in fact, can be second- guessed by appointees that are loyal to his government and appointed by his government? Th at’s a concern that I have and that, clearly, a num- ber of student organizations in British Columbia have. Th ey are interested — student societies — in having the law be made more clear about how to handle situations where members who do not wish to be members of their student organizations have a process to withdraw their membership, much as we do in, for example, labour or- ganizations.

Th e law of the land since 1946, to my understanding, has been that where there are union certifi cations granted in a workplace, where an employer and a union repre- senting employees reach an agreement, there is boiler- plate language around the issue of membership fees. Th is is what was the cause of so much industrial turmoil in the decades that preceded and has created both union and employer stability in the postwar period. I think that’s where the idea, obviously, originated from in Canada around student societies.

In fact, if you look at the law that exists in Quebec, it very clearly ref- erences student societies as having recognition that is legally equivalent to trade unions and employee unions under the labour relations code in that province. Now, we don’t have that in British Columbia, but we do have something that most provinces do not have. Th at is explicit recognition of the independence and the fee- collecting responsibilities — the obligations of boards of governors at our college and university institutions. So it’s a form of, if you wish, the Rand formula that exists in the employer realm.

Nobody is looking to upset that relationship that has evolved in British Columbia, as I understand it, and the minister has clearly said this, I think, on the record on more than one occasion. Y et there could be a slight Trojan Horse eff ect here, where the minister has also said he’s comfortable with discerning which fees should be collected and which fees perhaps ought not to be. Th at’s something diff erent than the legal problem that the government said it is interested in correcting.

Th e legal problem is around how you accommodate people who wish to remove themselves from mandatory mem- bership in a society that they, for whatever reasons —

British Columbia DebatesMonday, November 16, 2015 10171 religious, political, philosophical — may object to being made to hold membership in. Th e legislation has been clear that you can do that. Y ou can withdraw your membership in a student union organization, as you can in a trade union organization. But — and this is important — the legal precedent has been long established that you must continue to pay fees. Y ou must pay the fees, although the membership can be surrendered.

As I understand it, nobody is trying to change that part of the legal jurisprudence in Canada for which there have been all kinds of Charter cases argued. However, student societies don’t have a sophisticated or a distinct act that recognizes them here in the province of British Columbia.

Th ey, in a sense, cling to a number of clauses that very ex- plicitly do spell out their rights to exist and their freedom from interference from the administration under the University Act and under the College and Institute Act. [1520] Th e worry here is that the minister, in seeking to elim- inate a confl ict with the Societies Act, is, in fact, weak- ening the position of student union organizations as it exists now.

I have made remarks this aft ernoon about where I think the minister has provided the right kinds of assur- ances, but I also have raised some of the concerns that student unions have brought directly to his attention, and mine as well, so that I could put them on the record. I think that the principles around compulsory versus voluntary membership are ones that should be very clear in law. Th ere’s no disagreement, I think, between both sides of the House on that, as the minister has expressed so far in this debate.

Th e diff erence is around whether the language in Bill 41, this miscellaneous bill, is suffi cient to recognize that distinction or whether it, in fact, increases the ambigu- ity and the ability for administrative interference — and perhaps a legal challenge to the membership opt-out provisions that currently exist and can be availed of by people who don’t wish to be members of the society but who, because they attend one of these public institutions, are still required to pay those fees. I don’t think that I need to say it at great length.

I’ve used the issue of health and dental benefi t programs — if those were to be undermined by these changes. It’s an example the minister used. I don’t think that I have to go too far down the road, though, to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact the minister and the draft ers of Bill 41 have not got the language right, then we could be in for a period of instability at our institutions. Most student unions carry debt for building improve- ments, for providing capital facilities for the enjoyment of their members and to enhance student life on campuses. Th ose debts are usually held with private banks.

Th ey rely upon the mandatory, regular, stable collection of fees to get those loans and mortgages. If we are opening up a situation where the legislation is, in fact, not becoming less ambiguous about the fee- paying obligations of non-members of these societies but becoming more ambiguous, then we could be put- ting student union organizations into fi nancial uncer- tainty as well. I think the biggest concern, obviously, too, though, is around opening up potential for political interference. Let me conclude on this point.

If we are going to trust the minister and his government to create later, aft er pas- sage of this bill into law, diff erent categories of fees, there obviously is a concern that somebody somewhere in his party, or perhaps deeply lodged in the ministry, may have some idea about types of fees that they object to. Th ey may have an impulse to not trust the members of the society to decide democratically, through their vari- ous referendums and through the bylaws that they are able to craft and through the control which they exert over their own aff airs. Th ey may wish to impose a dif- ferent view.

Th ey may wish to, for example, say, “Y ou know what? Student unions have no business having an opinion on international aff airs or holding membership in a provin- cial or national organization. Maybe they have no busi- ness in, for example, holding opinions on topical issues that are in the public realm, that are under public dis- cussion” — you know, like maybe the right-to-die move- ment that’s happening, which has been visited upon by the Supreme Court recently and has to be decided upon by lawmakers like ourselves and those in Ottawa.

Maybe this government doesn’t like the fact that many campuses fund campus clubs who hold diff erent political or philosophical views than their own. Th at is a temptation I surely hope that nobody in that government…. Although they have passed resolutions at their own political convention some years ago, I would note, surely nobody is going to act upon that impulse and seek to betray a trust that the minister has given, on his own word and maybe a handshake, to student organiza- tions throughout B.C.

My remarks this aft ernoon are simply to put a circle around that, to remind this House that while some stu- dent organizations are comfortable with the language, others are not. [1525] It’s to remind those — through Hansard — in debate that it was the minister who gave his word that this was not about opening up opportunities for interference. Th is was not about moving away from the independence that governs and must govern student societies’ aff airs in the province of British Columbia.

Th is was not about upset- ting the balance of power and obligations and respon- sibilities that the administration has with those student organizations. It’s about removing ambiguity in law. He says it’s only about that. I’m concerned that it could be about other things. I’m willing — and, in fact, would

British Columbia Debates10172 Monday, November 16, 2015 be delighted — to be proved wrong in several years’ time. But based on the track record of this government…. We’ve been so disappointed when we’ve been asked for leaps of faith on legislation in other instances that I have to raise those cautions here this aft ernoon. Th at’s what I thank you for, Mr. Speaker — to be able to do at this stage of debate today. A. Weaver: I rise to speak to Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015.

It’s another one of the miscellaneous statutes acts, this one with amend- ments in four diff erent areas — the fi rst, of course, be- ing Advanced Education amendments that my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake discussed recently.

Part 2 is Children and Family Development amendments;

part 3, Energy and Mines amendments, specifi cally with respect to BCUC; and

part 4, Justice amendments. This bill actually covers a rather large number of bills within these four categories: the Child, Family and Community Service Act; the College and Institute Act; the University Act; the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act; and the Utilities Commission Act. Th e amendments clarify a few defi nitions and gen- erally expand regulatory and exemption powers for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or, in the case of the Utilities Commission Act, the minister assigned in the place of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Th is amendment bill seems to follow a pattern of a rather large number of these bills we’ve seen this year where the legislation is made somewhat increasingly vague and left up, oft en, to the discretion of the appointed minis- ter or regulator. With respect to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the amendments are said to enable the expansion of the agree

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20151116pm-Hansard-v31n5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20151116pm Hansard v31n5
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5e6475600daf51b777c4da72bf39a5bbcb952f84

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).